Re: RE: [ronpaul-458] Fw: Ron Paul Supporter Investigates Baldwin & Barr

Frankly, regarding Barr and Root one central issue is trust...  I don't agree on a few positions that Chuck Baldwin takes... He's a bit too much of a border hawk, protecticve tariffs, etc... but I agree with him on a fair amount and I think he is sincere - even when he is wrong.

 

This ticket just ooooozes slimeyness....  I'm not just talking indeology here...

 

I do believe in conversion... but Barr just 2 months ago endorced our South American drug eradication program.... I believe Justin Raimondo took him to task over this....  He's also a serial adulterer... & Who the F is this Wayne Allyn Root....  Some bookmaker....

 

I have problems w/ some or Ruwarts positions but she seems to me an eminantly decent human being and she has paid her dues for over two decades.... She is grounded in libertarian ideollogy - probably more so than me - who is basically a Constitutionalist....

 

She was smeared over this...  but surrogates for the Barr and Root campaigns...

 

Let's point out a few things..... (1) The term "Child" is very vague? Are we talking a pre - pubescent? Or a 15 or 16 year old? Is the "partner" only a year or two older...

 

How many 17 year old guys with 15 year old girlfriends could get locked up and unjustly tagged with a "child sexual predator" label?

 

Also, it is only very recently historically that "adult" meant someone in their 20's.... In the early 1900's it was common for a guy 17 to marry a girl 15 and expect to go out and work 40 or 50 hours a week...  I think the guiding principal has to be one of common sense....

 

Here's a question.....

 

Do you really see Barr (or Root - HA!) going back into the trenches and educating people about what libertarianism means? They are merely exploiting the party for their own ego... I doubt if either (especially Root) have ever read Rothbard... or Mises.... or Hayek....

 

Chuck Baldwin actually worked very hard to get RP to run on the CP line...and didn't really want the CP line for himself (although I'm sure he is flattered)...I'm also glad he kept that blowhard Alan Keyes from getting the nomination - what a nightmare.

 

Has Barr ever gone back and apolagized for those people he put behind bars on possession beefs?

 

My fear is that the LP might break 1 million votes based upon McCain being a piece of shit and Barr has name recognition...and if so the "wrong kind of people" [the Boortz people] will enter the party.

 

http://angelakeaton.com/  (see her comment b/4 the vote)

 

SC

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----
From: Jay Edgar <[address removed]>
Date: Thursday, June 5, 2008 5:37 pm
Subject: RE: [ronpaul-458] Fw: Ron Paul Supporter Investigates Baldwin & Barr
To: [address removed]

> Steve,
>
> I'm just stating what happened. I voted for and supported
> Ruwart. I did not vote for Barr. Ruwart's comments on age of
> consent were the reasons she lost. Sorry you didn't like the
> term "Dirty Laundry", but thats how everyone else saw it. The
> delegates all had labtop pc's tuned to a Washington Post story
> with her statement of:
>
> "Children
> who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that
> decision as well, even if it's distasteful to us personally. Some
> children will make poor choices just as some adults do in
> smoking and
> drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid
> for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents
> to use
> children against their will."
>
> I had a hard time explaining why I would still support her over
> Barr to other delegates. Explaining why I would support Barr
> over Baldwin is much easier.
> Jay
> From: [address removed]
> Subject: Re: RE: [ronpaul-458] Fw: Ron Paul Supporter
> Investigates Baldwin & Barr
> To: [address removed]
> Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 16:47:27 -0400
>
> Ruwart's dirty laundry is what did her in. Dirty Laundry?
>
> A quote taken from a book written 15 years ago regarding age of
> consent laws?
>
> Ruwart, as far as I can tell, is a clean living woman who has
> been a principled libertarian and Libertarian speaker and writer
> for 20 (or 30) years....
>
> As far as a conversion goes....WAR was on Bob Grant 6 weeks ago
> saying Ron Paul is weak on the "Global War on Terror." WAR is
> very popular w/ the Fox News Network....I heard him flat out say
> (on his first interview w/ Angela Keaton about 5 mo ago) he
> would cut out most foreign aid - except to our "special friends"
> like Israel...
>
> Where does this dirty bastard have any right at all to steal
> money generated from the fruit of my labor and send it overseas
> so his vile Likudnic ilk can persecute Palestinians?
>
> You put garbage like this up to represent the Pro - Liberty Party.
>
> How the hell can Bob Barr vote Pro Life when his own wife
> aborted their child... BTW, he wasn't some kid who knocked up
> his girlfriend in HS....This wasn't a grave fetal deformaty
> "hard" case...or high risk pregnancy....It was just done because
> it was convenient for him - in the wallet and he had moved on to
> another woman - though not divorced his current wife was
> pregnant.
>
> I think the LEW ROCKWELL paleocons and the RADICAL LIBERTARIANS
> (Angela Keaton, Anthony Gregory) need to team up now and do
> whatever is necessary to exterminate this vermin who have taken
> over the LP.
>
> As John Belushi said in Animal House... Well Who's with me?!
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jay Edgar
> Date: Thursday, June 5, 2008 4:06 pm
> Subject: RE: [ronpaul-458] Fw: Ron Paul Supporter Investigates
> Baldwin & Barr
> To: [address removed]
>
> > I was a delegate. There was no one named Baldwin running for
> > nomination?
> > Do you mean Root? I saw his speech, he wasn't running around.
> > His speech was telling everyone that he wasn't going anywhere.
> > There was nothing pitiful about it.
> >
> > There was no arm twisting. After the fifth round of voting
> when
> > Root was out, his supporters could only vote for Barr or Mary
> > Ruwart. Ruwart's dirty laundry is what did her in. She lost by
> a
> > large margin.
> >
> > I do agree with the divide. Many can't see past Barr's past record.
> >
> > Jay
> > > From: [address removed]
> > > To: [address removed]
> > > Subject: Re: [ronpaul-458] Fw: Ron Paul Supporter
> > Investigates Baldwin & Barr
> > > Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 15:33:57 -0400
> > >
> > > Thanks for posting this. It confirms most of my conclusions
> > except I
> > > didn't like the way the nomination and 'taking over' of the
> LP
> > went. It
> > > was inside political arm twisting, plain and simple. I
> watched
> > the whole
> > > LP Convention on C-Span.
> > >
> > > Those who didn't see it, the final 'elimination' vote that
> > removed
> > > Baldwin from the final two (Ruart and Barr) was quite a
> > spectacle.
> > > Baldwin, within his rights, threw his support to Barr and
> when
> > he did he
> > > ran around (caught on C-Span cameras) yelling for everyone
> to
> > remember
> > > it would be his (Baldwin's) turn next time. It was rather
> > pitiful, in my
> > > view.
> > >
> > > There was quite a deep divide within the delegates. So much
> > so, I'm
> > > wondering if the LP will ever be the same, both for unity
> and
> > principal.>
> > > I have written a couple of pointed emails to DownsizeDC.org
> > where Steve
> > > Dasbach is a founder. Steve was campaigning for Barr at the
> > LPC. I asked
> > > if Dasbach would continue his association with DownsizeDC
> and
> > received
> > > no response. Why I took this action is I am a pledged
> monthly
> > donor
> > > there and am not sure I will continue to be one.
> > >
> > > For those who don't know. Steve Dasbach was once the LP
> Exec.
> > Dir. and
> > > Campaign Manager for Harry Brown among other things. I don't
> > know his
> > > motivations for his Barr association and support nor agenda,
> > if any, for
> > > sabotaging (my term) the LP and its Convention (my opinion).
> > >
> > > FYI: I was an ex-LPF ExCom member and ex-LPF delegate over a
> 6
> > year
> > > period. The LPC is where I met and got to know Ron Paul. So,
> I
> > feel a
> > > little 'vested' interest in the LP and who they run for election.
> > >
> > > Also, I don't like distorting/compromising LP principles any
> > more than
> > > doing the same with our US Constitution. I'm concerned about
> > such a
> > > shift that will destroy the LP which, next to us
> > r3VOLutionaries, is the
> > > largest ongoing organization that has the common goals of
> > liberty, peace
> > > and prosperity.
> > >
> > > .......Ron
> > >
> > > Calvin H. Wortman wrote:
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Lowell T Patterson
> > > > To: Lowell T Patterson
> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 8:42 AM
> > > > Subject: Ron Paul Supporter Investigates Baldwin & Barr
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Wednesday, June 4, 2008
> > > >
> > > > Dear CPers, RPers, and Patriot Friends,
> > > >
> > > > This post was found on www.ronpaulforums.com. There is
> > lots of debate among Paul supporters about who to support in
> > November.
> > > >
> > > > The arguments for Baldwin is that he was a supporter of
> > Paul from the beginning and has been the most consistent in
> his
> > positions.
> > > >
> > > > The arguments for Barr are that he has better name
> > recognition and more ballot access. It is really eye-opening.
> > Read on................
> > > >
> > > > forwarded from Tammy Houle
> > > > State Chair of CP Minnesota
> > > >
> > > > ***************************************
> > > > You seem to be under the impression that
> > everyone came to the equation with some inherent bias for
> > Baldwin and against Barr.
> > > >
> > > > That may be true of some, but it is not true of me.
> > > >
> > > > I figured I would just write-in Ron Paul and then
> > continue with the long-term tasks in the GOP (which for the
> most
> > part is what I will be doing).
> > > >
> > > > But as people have been pushing one or the other as THE
> > WAY of "continuing" the influence of the movement at large, I
> > decided to do some digging on both of the men (and some
> > additional digging on the Constitution party, as I was less
> > familiar with them than I was with the history of the LP); and
> > see if there was any value to supporting either (or possibly
> > even both) men; or neither.
> > > >
> > > > So I was NOT even seeking to make a choice, and could
> > have just as easily discarded (or supported) both of these men
> > and their parties.
> > > >
> > > > Investigating Chuck Baldwin
> > > >
> > > > My initial mindset was actually to be quite leary of
> > Baldwin. if anything, being a Quaker purist (but sans the
> hat!)
> > after a long spiritual journey (and being "burned" by many
> > corrupt and unethical clergymen), I have an inherent "built-in
> > bias" against all salaried preacher/pastors. I view them
> mainly
> > as a parasitic form of life-pulling together congregations of
> > people, pushing them to donate (and worse "tithe") to THEM
> > rather than to God and charity, and then using the funds to
> > build their own little personal "tax-free" castles and
> empires.
> > well you get the picture.
> > > >
> > > > But as I checked into Baldwin, I did NOT find what I was
> > fairly certain that I would see. I found that he was indeed a
> > man who "started" a local congregation and built a big
> building
> > (that pretty much goes without saying)-but what I did NOT find
> > was a man who was using that as a means of personal "empire
> > building." The dude is NOT some "political empire" wannabe
> like
> > Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson. Nor is he a
> > "monument/monstrosity builder" like Oral Roberts, Robert
> > Schuller, or Bill Hybels. And he is not a "commercial empire"
> > builder in the Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, or Jim & Tammy Bakker
> > mode (yes, he publishes a few small books and probably makes a
> > modest amount from them-but more in the mode of the way Ron
> Paul
> > writes and publishes books, to provide resources for people to
> > read and research, NOT simply to make money. Indeed, much of
> his
> > writing is freely available online).
> > > >
> > > > Instead, I found a man who seems MUCH like Ron Paul-a
> > man of pretty SOLID character. Who worked his way through
> > schooling years (Bible as well as BS and MS degrees) did a lot
> > of charity work in jails (following after his father-and BTW,
> > other than for Chuck Colson, jail ministry is NOT a way to
> fame
> > or fortune). Married relatively young, but with his wife,
> built
> > a sound family life (married for 35 years. to the SAME woman,
> > remind you of someone?), father of 3 grown children (who all
> > have similar good character. no "Huckabee wackos" here), and
> > with several grandchildren as well.
> > > >
> > > > In addition, Mr. Baldwin-like Ron Paul-seems to strive
> > to LIVE according to the principles he PREACHES (What a
> > concept!) And while he IS a member of the "Christian Right" he
> > is NOT a pandering brown-noser, and is very willing to stand
> > firmly on what he believes to be true, even if he must stand
> > alone in the midst of a hurricane, to wit the following
> > statement regarding said "Christian Right" and George W. Bush
> > (who he did NOT vote for in EITHER 2000 or 2004!):
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, it has been the Christian Right's blind
> > support for President Bush in particular and the Republican
> > Party in general that has precipitated a glaring and perhaps
> > fatal defect: the Christian Right cannot, or will not,
> honestly
> > face the real danger confronting these United States. The
> reason
> > for this blindness is due, in part, to political partisanship
> or
> > personal aggrandizement. Regardless, the Christian Right is
> > currently devoid of genuine sagacity. On the whole, they fail
> to
> > understand the issues that are critical to our nation's-and
> > their own-survival. (cf
> > http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin417.htm)
> > > >
> > > > In short, I found nothing to indicate that he was all
> > that AMBITIOUS on a personal basis-nor did I find ANY
> indication
> > that he would desire to "impose" his religious beliefs on
> other
> > via some "theocratic" form of government-indeed the opposite,
> he
> > knows that intertwining government and religion is a path to
> > religious PERSECUTION, and his involvement in politics is from
> a
> > CITIZENSHIP basis rather than as some "religious calling"
> (i.e.
> > the false apocalyptic BS that GWBush claims).
> > > >
> > > > Ok, so much for Chuck Baldwin. but what about Bob Barr?
> > > >
> > > > Investigating Bob Barr
> > > >
> > > > I actually did NOT come with a mind "set" in any way for
> > or against Barr-I suppose there might have been a slight bias
> > for him based on Ron Paul's occasional statements. And of
> course
> > he was a politician of some note to the media circus (though I
> > did not really recall anything of WHY he was "known").
> > > >
> > > > And as per normal I went digging. starting with his
> > early life and career. Much of this was somewhat difficult to
> > find (much less verify), as it seems a lot of "vandalism" as
> > well as a significant amount of "scrubbing" and "whitewash"
> has
> > occurred with his various "bios" online. (Which at a minimum
> > indicates he is a controversial character).
> > > >
> > > > Childhood was spent as a military "brat" (by which I
> > simply mean that like McCain he moved from base to base),
> became
> > a California college frat boy, had a political "epiphany" and
> > became a "Young Democrat" (?). Graduated BA in 1970, but
> > apparently after significant conflicts and problems,
> rebellious
> > enough that his parents cut off his college funds (never a
> good
> > sign. he claims this was because his "political involvement"
> > with the Dem. Party did not sit well with GOP parents, but
> there
> > is evidence that other problems were the primary cause-what
> > parent disowns their child over politics? Drugs, drinking,
> > arrests, etc. yes. But politics? Hmmm, odd). Apparently some
> > time during his college years he got married and shortly
> > thereafter separated from his first wife (literally NO data on
> > this beyond divorce date).
> > > >
> > > > He then moved to Washington D.C. and took a job with the
> > CIA, who then apparently paid his salary while he pursued MA
> and
> > law degrees (!) from the Beltway GW University. Met and began
> > dating the woman (also on CIA payroll) who, immediately
> > following his divorce, became his SECOND wife while going to
> > school and collecting that CIA paycheck. Purportedly left the
> > CIA almost immediately after finishing law school (?!?) and
> > moved to Georgia where he had the second of his political
> > "epiphanies" and joined the Republican Party. with the
> apparent
> > goal of securing either election or appointment to a public
> > salaried office (his private practice apparently NOT doing
> very
> > well-poorly enough, in fact that they had no health insurance
> > when his wife became pregnant again in 1983). There are
> > differing he-said, she-said accounts about what happened, but
> > his wife aborted the pregnancy (valid mainly because of the
> > discrepancies of the accounts versus his later positions and
> > claims).
> > > >
> > > > While running for Congress (unsuccessfully) his wife was
> > undergoing chemotherapy for Breast Cancer-again more he-said,
> > she-said, but regardless he certainly did NOT stop campaigning
> > for her health (he apparently expressed a politically
> ambitious
> > desire to become both President AND ultimately a Supreme Court
> > Justice-both far more important to him than his family
> > commitments). Shortly thereafter, he left his second wife (and
> > their two small PRE-SCHOOL children) for another woman (later
> > his THIRD wife). Several years later, his second wife would
> need
> > to file suit to attempt to cover (relatively minor) medical
> > expenses for his two children; notable as a matter of
> character
> > in his apparent ambivalence (at least) to his parental
> > responsibities.
> > > >
> > > > His initial attempt at achieving elected office being
> > unsuccessful, he did manage to squeak an appointment as a
> > federal US Attorney, a position he only managed to hold onto
> for
> > four years. Once again, we run into another he-said, he-said
> > series of accusations-this time of neglect of his duties and
> > abuse of office (though nothing was prosecuted, not unusual
> for
> > US Attorneys they seldom shoot their own, not good for PR you
> > know.) But notable among the many "accusers" were the comments
> > from various judges, especially regarding Mr. Barr's
> > "innovation" of being the FIRST US Attorney to send out Press
> > Releases (something unprecedented in 200 plus years).
> > > >
> > > > A second attempt at elected office-this time seeking the
> > higer position of US Senator-was again unsuccessful (though
> the
> > vote was apparently close). With his third attempt in 1994 he
> > finally got his foot on the political ladder, being elected
> > Congressman of Georgia's 7th District in 1994.
> > > >
> > > > Once in office, Mr. Barr seems to have concentrated on
> > taking "popular" positions that would place him prominently in
> > the public's eye, and therefore aid his ambition-including
> > expanding and increasing the size and scope of the "Drug War";
> > by attacking the social sphere with his "Defense of Marriage
> > Act" (ironic from a twice-divorced, 3 time married man who
> > rather obviously and hypocritically placed little value in
> > marriage per se); and placing himself directly in the public's
> > eye by leading the impeachment of then President Bill Clinton.
> > > >
> > > > Seen in the light of his grandiose ambitions of becoming
> > BOTH President AND a US Supreme Court Justice (something only
> > achieved by William Howard Taft)-Mr. Barr's choosing
> > "controversial" issues, legislation, various political
> > "epiphanies" (which parallel changes in political winds) and
> his
> > recent stands against various Bush administration policies-all
> > take on a slightly different light. These are all the marks of
> > someone who wants to "climb the ladder" and who is becoming
> > increasingly desperate to gain noteriety to that end.
> > > >
> > > > So additionally, his THIRD political "ephiphany"-and his
> > lateral transfer to the "Libertarian Party"-are also
> apparently
> > in that same vein. There is little evidence that Mr. Barr has
> > ever actually been "moved" by some empathy for the plight of
> > individuals; nor that any of his political positions have been
> > driven by a solid character-based philosophy.
> > > >
> > > > There is even more. but to me that is MORE than I need
> > to know regarding this man.
> > > >
> > > > He most emphatically is NOT similar to Ron Paul in any
> > way shape or form. While he may currently (and temporarily)
> > profess certain similar political viewpoints, it is rather
> clear
> > that these are held onto in the same way that a Remora
> attaches
> > itself to a whale.
> > > >
> > > > Likewise, understanding Mr. Barr's past (essentially
> > failed) political career, go a long way to explaining why he
> > would be willing to work as a "tool" of Richard Viguerie and
> > Russ Verney in their attempt to takeover and makeover the
> > Libertarian Party (or rather his attempt to use both RV's as
> HIS
> > "vehicles" in that regard). Big fish stand out in little ponds-
> > and if nothing else, Mr. Barr like to STAND OUT, so doubtless
> > this was an attractive aspect to (what is obviously otherwise
> a
> > desperate political career move in) once more changing parties
> > and "colors".
> > > >
> > > > Given his past, it is unlikely that this will be Mr.
> > Barr's last "epiphany" or his last change of parties and
> colors.
> > And much like his lack of concern for his children's welfare-
> > doubtless he will be unconcerned about the Libertarian party
> if
> > it ceases to be of use or interest to him.
> > > >
> > > > All in all, a disgusting human being. One I would not
> > want to associate with even as a neighbor or coworker, much
> less
> > the leader and "banner bearer" of a movement or candidate for
> > high office.
> > > >
> > > > Conclusion.
> > > >
> > > > Well, the conclusion is fairly obvious isn't it.
> > > >
> > > > To those who say "but it is not about the MAN, it is
> > about the message"
> > > >
> > > > REALLY?
> > > >
> > > > What attracted YOU to the "message" and convinced you of
> > it's solidity? Was it not in significant part the STELLAR
> > CHARACTER of the MAN in Dr. Ron Paul?
> > > >
> > > > It is BOTH the "Man AND the Message"-and the character
> > and sincerity of the message-WILL be judged by the character
> of
> > the man (or men) bearing it.
> > > >
> > > > We have had more than enough frauds and ambitious
> > political career office-seekers. The message must NOT be lost
> in
> > the reprobate character of another such parasite.
> > > >
> > > > The message must NOT be compromised-neither in the
> > character OF the message, nor the character of the one's
> bearing
> > it. THAT is the whole point of the movement-to END the
> > machinations, manipulations of government-to hold elected AND
> > appointed officials to a HIGHER STANDARD -to make them be
> > ACCOUNTABLE and RESPONSIBLE. And in order to achieve that, we
> > need to NOT select or support men who are merely ambitious and
> > flattering-we need to select and support men who are of a
> > CHARACTER that is inherently ACCOUNTABLE and RESPONSIBLE.
> > > >
> > > > Governments, even a government under the Constitution,
> > is still a government of men-it will be as corrupt and
> > ambitious, OR as humble and noble, as the men who are in it.
> > > >
> > > > So. going forward, it is BALDWIN, and most definitely,
> > positively not Barr!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Constitution Party of Missouri . .
> > [address removed]
> > > > ~ Home ~ About ~ Platform ~ Campaigns ~ Events ~
> > Resource Center ~ News ~ Contact Us ~ Contribute ~ Volunteer ~
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > To unsubscribe from this list visit this link
> > > >
> > > > To update your preferences visit this link
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > f445c6c20d6fe0b921383c29b9180b40
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > -------------------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > > Checked by AVG.
> > > > Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.0.0/1484 - Release
> > Date: 6/4/2008 4:40 PM
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Democracy:
> > > 2 Wolves (House & Senate) and a Sheep voting on what
> > > to have for dinner.
> > >
> > > Republic:
> > > Wolves (House, Senate & Executive) taking out a loan
> > > for dinner.
> > >
> > > Independents:
> > > Sheep hunting for dinner.
> > >
> > > Patriots:
> > > Sheep guarding against Wolves.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent
> to
> > everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
> > > http://ronpaul.meetup.com/458
> > > This message was sent by Ron Cadby ([address removed])
> from
> > The Monmouth County, NJ Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Group.
> > > To learn more about Ron Cadby, visit his/her member profile:
> > http://ronpaul.meetup.com/458/members/5991257/> To unsubscribe
> > or to update your mailing list settings, click here:
> > http://www.meetup.com/account/?tab=comm>
> > > Meetup Support: [address removed]
> > > 632 Broadway New York NY 10012 USA
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to
> everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
>
> This message was sent by steve clare ([address removed]) from
> The Monmouth County, NJ Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Group.
>
> To learn more about steve clare, visit his/her member profile
>
> To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here
>
>
>
> Meetup Support: [address removed]
>
> 632 Broadway New York NY 10012 USA
>
>
>