RSSChuck Baldwin (Constitution Party) Infers Our Soldiers are “Lunatics”
J.J. Jackson* | May 16, 2008
Well, you can add another candidate I won’t be voting for in November to my list; Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution party who has all but pulled a John Kerry and insulted our troops by inferring that they are part what he calls the “lunacy” of the Iraq War. By correlation, if the mission is “lunacy” than those that are willingly supporting it and singing up for the job must be “lunatics”.
Baldwin decried “the bi-partisan complicity that has allowed the illegal, immoral, unconstitutional war that has resulted in the slaughter of four thousand American soldiers and untold innocent Iraqis”. Baldwin went on to point out “If elected, I will end the lunacy that sends Americans abroad to guard the borders of Iraq, while leaving our borders wide open, inviting illegals to plunder the wealth and good will of American citizens”. Baldwin’s remarks were interrupted by a number of thunderous standing ovations making it clear his message resonated with the party faithful.
Of course I assumed that the Constitution Party would appoint a candidate with such a position and quite frankly it is actions like this that keep people from voting for their candidates. Instead of being unhinged and adopting liberal talking points, the Constitution Party should step back, take a deep breath, reread the Constitution and come back down to Earth.
To call the Iraq War “unconstitutional” places Baldwin in the same camp as Ron Paul in terms of being “loony” himself since the Constitution clearly states that Congress declares war and there is a resolution on record, for anyone that cares to read it, authorizing the use of force (i.e. war) against Iraq for their (at the time) continued violations of the ceasefire agreement and associations with terrorist organizations.
Baldwin’s “lunacy” puts him squarely in the camp of not being qualified to be Commander in Chief of our military and thus not qualified to be President. Thus the Constitution Party, for all its good ideas, regulates itself to being nothing more than another hopeless also-ran.
Contributor's website: http://www.libertyreborn.com
*Content posted by a user may not be completely written by that user. Content from another source is cited in either block quotes, with quotes or with a link to the original material. Content from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use. Each user is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or it's owner.
40 Responses to “Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party) Infers Our Soldiers are “Lunatics””
Leave a Reply
By posting a comment you agree to abide by the rules of this site.
Loading ...
-
Recommended Reading:
-
Thank you for pointing this out Jeff. As a vet loyal to Corp and to my fellow soldiers I can clearly say that if this is what Mr. Baldwin thinks of our troops, and I think your assessment is spot on, he will also not be getting my vote.
Disgusting Mr. Baldwin. That’s all I have to say.
With ya all the way on this one Jeff.
This just makes me so mad I could scream. We take enough abuse from the Democrats as is. We don’t need another Party piling on.
Chuck Baldwin clearly did not insult our troops. He is criticizing the men and policy that sent them over there. Not the troops.
Try reading it with out your preconceived notions.
Is it not crazy to guard Iraq’s borders all the while leaving ours wide open for terrorists to come across?
So now you are implying that several of our military members (RRG, Sham and Krammer) can’t read. Boy, talk about digging yourself a hole.
What he said was clear. He called the mission “lunacy”. The implication can also be drawn that he believes anyone that willingly signs up for the mission must also be loony.
Stop with the sophomoric attempt. Not gonna work here.
I’m uncertain as to exactly what pisses me off more - Bladwin insulting my boys who have both freely signed up for what he calls “lunacy” or Bison defending him as though we are too stupid to know what he meant.
I’d say I’m equally pissed at both of you.
I can read Mr. Bison. So can those other heroes you just insulted too.
You God Damn little pussy! Don’t you ever FUCKING insult me by telling me I can’t read. I bled for this country and your right to be a stupid fucking arrogant prick!
Don’t you ever insult my intelligence you pathetic little piece of shit!
Tell us all how you really feel Ron.
I agree with you. I don’t now why people like Mr. Baldwin or this Bison jerk keep feeling the need to insult those of us that either have served or have loved ones serving.
I guess it is some some of smug arrogance that they have where they think they are so much smarter than we are. Like Mr. Jackson said, they act like John Kerry who has also insulted our troops by calling them dumb and uneducated.
I’ll tell you want it is Hearts, its the liberaltarians out there who can’t be bothered to actually fight for liberty unless it is their own personal liberty. And even then it is questionable if they will do so.
There is a certain crew of them out there who really think they are libertarians but aren’t and Baldwin obviously falls into this category as does Ron Paul in that seem to have an aversion to helping people with their liberty. Usually they have a mistaken perception of history and misread the founding fathers as believing in isolationism which they clearly did not. Jeff is fond of pointing out that if the founders were true isolationists then they would never have asked France to intervene on our side during the Revolutionary War because that would mean France getting involved in a war they were not attacked in.
But all this is beside to point. They think they are smarter than us and if you take what they say to its logical conclusion or correct their historical misconceptions you are some sort of dullard. That way they can dismiss the truth.
Semper Fi brother Ron.
I can’t add anything else.
This guy Baldwin is a jackass and I’d never want him on patrol with me.
I was a Marine Corps Machine Gunner in the first Gulf War. So don’t lecture me.
What Baldwin actually said was it was “lunacy to send National Guard troops halfway around the world to guard the borders of Iraq and other middle eastern countries while at the same time leaving our own borders wide open.”
There is absolutely no insult to the troops. We are fighting terrorism halfway around the world and we are letting terrorists waltz across a wide open border. Are you saying that is not a insane policy on the part of our elected officials?
Nice tantrum though.
Oh, and nobody answered my question.
I’ll lecture your sorry ass if I damn well want to.
You are an idiot. Let’s see. Me, Sham. Kram., Col Dad, HeartsAway, OOHRAH and PFC Cory who are all vets or family of vets or those on deployment have read exactly what he said and all come to the same conclusion. They only person here in disagreement is you.
Oh, and you haven’t earned the right to be answered. If you were truly a Marine you would understand that. You earn respect. It isn’t given to you. You don’t demand it.
I’m in line to agree with those who have already taken offense to what Mr. Baldwin has said. To me it is absolutely a backhanded slap across the face specifically to those that have signed up since 9/11 and know where they are going.
He will not win many votes by talking like this.
I’ll add that I would not want Bison with me on patrol either. The mission in Iraq does not affect the security of our borders at home. Demanding an answer to the question is childish because the question is wrong.
Thinking you can link the two to score cheap political points is disgusting and even more insulting than your previous remarks.
If I could, I’m going to chime in again here because what someone (and probably others as well) doesn’t seem to get is that people are taking offense to what is obviously political pandering at its finest and pandering that is based on lies and insults from someone that wants to be President directed towards our military on several fronts.
The fact is that there are currently 1.4 Million active duty military personnel in the United States Military. About 200,000 are currently engaged in operations related to the War on Terror including Iraq. That leaves a balance of over 1 Million active duty military personnel to do other things like secure our borders if you support militarizing them.
The fact is that the war is not “illegal” or “unconstitutional”. The standard for a just war was established in Federalist #3 by the founders to include acts of aggression and the violation of treaties - both of which Saddam Hussein partook in. Couple that with Congressional approval which was given and that argument is childish and not worthy of a candidate for political office.
Third is his insinuation that it is the Iraq War and thus our soldiers that are killing innocent Iraqis and that it was not Saddam and now terrorists who actually are. This is akin to Murtha’s comments about how they are “murderers”.
I am in complete agreement with you Cory. Trying to complain that the borders are not secure because of Iraq is an attempt for cheap political points by people (Mr. Baldwin and Bison) who do not know or want to know what is going on and have a beef against how the War on Terror is being fought.
This is similar to the approach taken by Gov. Sebelius after the tornadoes where she went out before the microphones and complained that the recovery efforts were being hampered because of the Iraq War and all the equipment that was far from home. But then when the truth came out we saw that this was not the case and that there were plenty of resources.
It’s the low hanging fruit people like this are after. That is who their talking points are directed at.
Fortunately though, around here there isn’t much low hanging fruit here.
Ya know Bison, John Murtha and John Kerry both also served in the military. It didn’t make them right in what they said either. Just some food for thought for you to chew on.
You insult our intelligence.
So what does everyone think? 1%? Maybe 2% for Baldwin in November? I can’t see him getting much more than that with a platform like this.
- Our troops are killing Iraqis
- Our troops are idiots because they signed up to fight an unconstitutional war
- Our efforts in Iraq prevent us from enforcing immigration law
Certainly doesn’t inspire my support.
Libertarians and conservatives like a lot of what he says, but when it comes to insulting our troops (and he did do that) we have no tolerance.
Just another 3rd party doomed to irrelevance. Nothing to see here.
You cannot tear down the mission and say you support the troops. You cannot imply they are murderers fighting an unjust war and except our support.
I would like to leave a repectful comment here.
First off my Grandad served proudly in the military for nearly 40 years. We both know what baldwin meant. He was talking on illegal immigration and not about the military. He said its is lunacy to send troups around the world to guard the boarders of iraq and leave our own boarders wide open. In other words if we can guard the boarders of Iraq we shoudl have no problem also guarding the boarders of the united states. RonniesRayGun I dont appreciate you cursing my God!! Show a little respect for the creator of the universe!
So much for leaving a “respectful comment” huh?
If you weren’t lying through your teeth you might have been able to get away with that statement. First and foremost you have to understand that Baldwin is against the Iraq War so the fact that he chose to call it “lunacy” was not an accident.
Yes, we do both know what he meant. You just will not admit it. We’ve already been through this. If fighting in Iraq is “lunacy” then every soldier that has signed for service to go and fight in Iraq is, by correlation, supporting “lunacy” and therefore a “lunatic”.
In case you are not aware, I served in the jungles of Vietnam so the fact that your Granddad did also will not spare you from this tongue lashing. And quite frankly I don’t give a damn what you like or do not like. You do not own this site. Mr. Jackson does. So if you do not like the way I speak to people like Mr. Baldwin and yourself who want to make not so thinly veiled insults to our troops tough crap.
And by the way I did not “curse God” you idiot. Cursing God would be saying “Damn God”. I specifically said “God damn” as in an action God would take. God, go back to school and learn the English language because your public school education is showing.
And since you claimed a different God than I (you said specifically “my God”) I can only be left to assume that you worship a different God than the Christian God.
What are you going to do? Fly a plane into my house to punish me?
You tell him Ron.
I’m tired of people making excuses for people that talk like this about our troops.
This is no suprise at all. The Constitution Party is about as Constitutional as the Green party, and Baldwin deserves to be stuck with the conspiracy theorists like Lew Rockwell and Alex Jones.
Yeah yeah. “Baldwin is a nut”, “they are all conspiracy theorists”, “they aren’t conservative” - all the derisions have been heard before. Meanwhile, the country is going to hell in a handbasket from the massive debt we have taken on fighting the “war on terror” and you folks here will have it continue forever even though the chances of being killed by a terror attack are as likely as being struck by lightning.
This war is destroying the economy. But most of you are too busy hiding under the bed from your fear of terrorists to realize it.
Come on Tony, that is WAY too big of a softball you have served up for me not to hit it out of the park.
Tony on July 14th, 2008 1:09 pm
“Yeah yeah. “Baldwin is a nut”, “they are all conspiracy theorists”, “they aren’t conservative””
Well let us look at what conservatives (and libertarians) believe. They believe that ALL mankind has inalienable rights and that those rights are worth fighting for an supporting for ALL mankind.
The Constitution Party’s basic stance is that, and I am going to steal (and paraphrase) one of Jeff’s points he always makes, “We’ve got ours so screw the rest of the world.”
That’s not “conservative”. It is actually closer to anarchy - take what you can get and everyone else take what they can get and the weakest be damned.
Just for Tony’s enlightenment, most of the members here are tentatively supporting Bob Barr it seems based on informal straw polls.
And FYI, your attempt at making anyone that is scared of the very real threat of terrorism as someone that is “hiding under a bed” is childish.
Hey Tony, I fought in a terrorist/insurgent style war. It was called Vietman. You may have heard of it.
The threat terrorists pose is very real because they don’t give a rip who they hurt and do indeed strike from the shadows. But maybe you do not understand that you don’t sit around and not take preventative actions to mitigate a threat if you value your own life.
Tony on July 14th, 2008 1:09 pm:
“Meanwhile, the country is going to hell in a handbasket from the massive debt we have taken on fighting the “war on terror” and you folks here will have it continue forever even though the chances of being killed by a terror attack are as likely as being struck by lightning.”
You know Tony, if you would read this site instead of popping off about things you know little (if anything) about you would see that I, in particular, regularly talk about how this country is going to Hell in a hand basket. But I suppose that you were too eager to let your ignorance show to actually educate yourself first - hmmmm?
As to your last point, we put lightning rods on our homes to help mitigate the threat of lightning strikes. Lightning actually does strike very often. It rarely strikes people however because of the physics of what surrounds them so your analagy is flawed.
There is nothing wrong or untoward about taking precautionary measures. Or, in the case of terrorists, kicking a little ass.
Conservatives are tired and sick of having to choose between “conservatives” like McCain who actually understand when to fight but wont stop spending like drunken sailors and “conservatives” like Mr. Baldwin who talk tough on spending but cower into the fetal position and then lie (i.e. the war is “unconstitutional) in order to avoid a fight that we did not start.
This sort of reporting is for moveon.org and dailykos.
He called our POLICY lunacy. He did not in anyway imply our soldiers were lunatics.
What a disgusting “Conservative” blog this is.
It’s faux/neo-Conservative zombies like the ones who write this libel (you know the “Conservatives” that can make no distinction a Traditional Conservative non-interventionist foreign policy and Code-pinkos) that are driving the Republican Party to its grave.
Chuck Baldwin is the only man a Conservative can vote for in this race. Period.
Wow Ken, that comment sure is lacking of any real substance.
You obviously do not know what you are talking about.
THis site is a bunch of “faux/neo-Conservative zombies”? Have you read it? I have! I’ve been reading it for two years. Never posted. But you have emboldened me to break my silence in defense of people which you slander like a liberal would!
Mr. Jackson, I know, on a daily basis takes on liberals both R and D, has said that he will not vote for McCain because he is too liberal on too many issues, constantly and I do mean constantly calls Social Security to Welfare, Medicaid to Medicare the unconstitutional programs they are, calls for lower taxes, labels Marxists Marxists and does everything a true conservative would.
What? Because he articulates a better possition as to why he is for the war (that it is for the sake of preserving and establishing liberty and unalienable rights) than you can espouse as to why you are against it (uh .. uh …. “neo-cons!”) that makes him a “neo-con”?
Ridiculous!
Slanderous!
Down and out stupid!
In summary, you sir know nothing of which you are speaking. And frnakly it is only this sort of slime I hear from most Baldwin supporters who, like the Paul supporters before them, are so blind they cannot see.
Good Day!
Good to hear ya speak out TQ. I am finding a lot more true conservatives willing to stand up against people like Ken who think, incorrectly of course, that they are the standard bearers of Conservatism. We’ve come to a tipping point where no longer can the true faux Conservatives who believe in isolationism and that any war must be a “neo-con” conspiracy are being rebutted in the open. They are no longer getting away with spreading their lies and slandering our soldiers as baby killers (look at Baldwin’s quote, he breaches that old Marxist talking point) and calling the war falsely “unconstitutional” when it has met every constitutional test.
I think we’ve been through this enough times but it bears repeating for Ken’s feeble mind. If the war is “lunacy” then those that signed up to support the war effort must also be “lunatics”. Note the root word of both. “Lunatics” engage in “lunacy”.
You can spin it any way you want. But it is still a slam on our soldiers. The same sort of slam that did in Ron Paul and caused his supporters to spread lies about how much military support he had.
Thanks LP! Maybe I will make a habit of being more vocal!
Just for Ken’s information here are some of the topics Mr. Jackson has talked about which apparently are now “neo-con” in nature!
Bush deciding to allow Americans to drill on American soil!
California acting as the nanny and mandating “Global Warming” stickers for cars!
Politicians pondering stepping in unconstitutionally on the mortgage meltdown!
NY Cab drives getting hosed because they bought into socialism rather than free markets!
A Post Discussing How Free Markets Are The BEst Solution!
A discussion about how the “middle” has been redefined to mean somewhere on the left between McCain and Obama!
Taking on Scott Rasmussen for trying to convince people that libertarians would actually vote for Obama!
WOrd! Those are just in the last couple days!
“Neo-con” my right butt cheek!
Grow up Ken!
I was going to support Baldwin. Until I heard liberal talking points spewing from his mouth.
Baldwin is the real “Faux Conservative” because he is not willing to stand up for the inalienable rights of ALL MANKIND! Just only his and those he deems should have them. That scares me if he would ever be elected with an attitude like this.
I so want to support Baldwin. But how can I when he says things like this?
He is forcing me to vote for McCain who I hate. I just want these fringe conservative parties to stop talking down to my husband who is serving in Iraq and to stop slamming them because of their ideology which leaves little room for anything but.
Chuck Baldwin I loathe you. My brother just got back from Iraq and if you knew half of what he told me about the good things going on there you would eat those words. I hope your campaign remains what it really is; statistical noise.
Just another Troll redefining “neo-con” to suit their own agenda.
“Neo-cons” have always been former liberals who are new to conservatism BUT that retain their love for Big Government spending while embracing hallmarks of conservatism like the right to keep and bear arms, etc.
To call Jeff a “neo-con” only shows that someone (i.e. Ken) doesn’t know what he is talking about and quite frankly we have no time for trolls.
Tangential, I have never read this site before so thank you for all those links. I must say, if this guy is what they call a “neo-con” these days then D A M N! Count me as a “neo-con” because he is right on!