Baldwin has been saying some positive things about Trump, so this comes as a bit of a surprise. I respect Baldwin, so I’ll pass this on. I think the mistake he makes is in prioritizing the police state issues ahead of the immigration issue. This is from his Facebook page:
Faithful readers of this post know that I have previously provided objective commentary–complete with pluses and minuses–on most of the Republican presidential candidates. They also know that I have spoken quite positively about Donald Trump. But heretofore I have endorsed no one. Until now.
First, I believe the biggest threats to liberty we face have NOTHING to do with Islamic terrorism. We have far more to fear from those miscreants in Washington, D.C., and from the international bankers at the Federal Reserve than any radical Muslim. Hence, all of the fearmongering about Muslim jihad and Sharia Law in America only plays into the hands of the globalists who are orchestrating all of this madness.
Second, I am absolutely convinced that the greatest threats to our liberty are, 1) The neocon wars of aggression around the world–especially in the Middle East, 2) A burgeoning Police State here in the United States.
I have now had plenty of time to examine the candidates regarding his or her commitment to defeating these two great threats to our liberty; and there is only ONE Republican candidate that sees these threats and would use the power of the Oval Office to defeat them–or at least curtail them:
That candidate is RAND PAUL.
I know that Rand is NOT his dad. I am not nearly as excited about Rand as I was Ron. And there are several issues with which I disagree with Rand.
But I firmly believe Rand gets the whole neocon war issue and would put a stop to it if he were President. In this regard, Rand might be the ONLY major party presidential candidate who could potentially avert WWIII. I further believe Rand gets the Zionist issue and would not be a patsy for the Israeli lobby.
I also believe Rand truly sees the growing Police State in this country and would rein in these out-of-control federal Departments of Justice and Homeland Security.
NONE of the other candidates would do anything significant to change America’s foreign policy or to rein in the growing Police State in our country.
Accordingly, as I pan the two major party presidential candidates, there is only one choice in 2016: RAND PAUL.
This is the the comment I posted:
The biggest threat to liberty we face is the country turning irreversibly Blue in a couple of decades if current immigration trends continue. Immigration is the only issue that matters because all the other issue rise and fall on the country not turning Blue.
Conservative Heritage Times 
Chuck Baldwin’s endorsement of Rand seems pretty unenthusiastic and based more on hopes than reality. And I certainly don’t agree with him that Rand “gets” the Zionist issue. He is as ready to roll over for the Israeli lobby as any other candidate as is shown by his anti-Iranian and anti-Palestinian stances. But if Baldwin is unrealistically optimistic about Rand Paul, Red is still under the illusion that the worst that can happen is permanent Democratic rule caused by immigration – as if the Republicans were any better or any different. Back in 1968, George Wallace coined (pun semi-intended) the phrase that there was “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the two major parties. Nothing has changed since except that the dime is worth a lot less.
LikeLike
What about Bernie Sanders? He is no neocon. Baldwin forgot Sanders.
Trump is aiming to win the primary, so there’s a limit to what positions he can take. Rand has no chance at winning.
However, Trump is clearly not a Likudnik. Trump has spoken up about the trillions lost, for no gain, in recent foreign involvements. And Trump is willing to work with Putin. Awesome. Ideally Trump would call for bringing troops and bases home, but what electorate is going to support that?
Trump is weak on police state matters, but how could he win the primary if not taking an Orwellian stance? If Americans wanted privacy, they wouldn’t buy so many interconnected gadgets, all with microphones and cameras. At least Trump isn’t coming for our guns.
Edited 2hrs after posting.
LikeLike
There may not be much difference between the parties in effect, but there is in rhetoric. The Republicans just don’t do what they say they are going to do. The rhetoric is important to the degree that it indicates what people think they are voting for.
I think Rand may “get” the Israel influence issue. He came up in his dad’s milieu. He has just pandered on the issue.
LikeLike
OK, this started out being about Chuck Baldwin and Rand Paul and is now about Trump. Isn’t everything about Trump these days? Yes, rhetoric is important because it indicates what lies the people are believing. But the people deserve what they get for their willful naiveté. If the people want an Orwellian police state, as Weaver thinks and as might be true, then they fully deserve it if that’s what Trump brings about. And as far as gun control goes, he’s been all around that issue just as he has been with immigration, abortion, war and everything else. His only consistency is on the subject of Trump. They used to call Daniel Webster “the godlike Daniel”. In Trump’s mind, he is the godlike Donald. Sorry, but I don’t buy political rhetoric, even if (especially if) it’s lies I want to hear. The neediness of Trump supporters like Red and Weaver is just appalling. If the godlike Donald gets elected for a first term and builds a record I can support, I’ll vote for his re-election. But it bothers me not in the least to sit this one out, do a write-in, or vote third party. I’ve done all of those in the past – some more than once.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kirt,
I simply believe Trump is the best chance at a good candidate. I also like Sanders. Sanders just doesn’t seem electable anymore.
I, ah, voted for Romney (against Obama) in the previous election, btw. I didn’t shill for Romney though. And I voted third party before that.
This election appears different. Even if Trump cannot win, he has at least had a conservative influence on Americans. He has been willing to rebel, and he’s been willing to speak strongly on trade and immigration. And Trump has brought criticism of foreign policy.
I don’t keep up with everything Trump though. I just read bits…
I dislike the police state. I just don’t see how Trump could make inroads there. It’s like the old conservative argument against free speech, that people were already free to say anything they should say. We’ll just have to wait for an opportunity to attack the police state.
LikeLike
Trump has always been consistent on trade.
LikeLike