He has also discovered how to grab onto his toes. :D
he was singing up a storm today while I was out of the room and thankfully seems to be getting less camera shy:
and for the politics...
Some of you may have been aware of us supporting Dr. Ron Paul during primaries. We are left without a popular candidate that we feel we can pledge our loyalty to like many Americans and we now proudly display an ADAMA '08 window decal. :)
Still, we're keeping our eye on things and came across this article today. Thought I'd share:
"This post was found on http://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!"
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment