Ron Paul Endorses Chuck Baldwin for President
In this important message to his supporters, Ron Paul explains the new alliance that is forming among freedom-loving third party supporters, expresses his regret for Bob Barr’s refusal to join the alliance, and endorses Chuck Baldwin for President.
A New Alliance
by Ron Paul
The press conference at the National Press Club had a precise purpose. It was to expose, to as many people as possible, the gross deception of our presidential election process. It is controlled by the powerful elite to make sure that neither candidate of the two major parties will challenge the status quo. There is no real choice between the two major parties and their nominees, only the rhetoric varies. The amazingly long campaign is designed to make sure the real issues are ignored. The quotes I used at the press conference from insider Carroll Quigley and the League of Women voters strongly support this contention.
Calling together candidates from the liberal, conservative, libertarian and progressive constituencies, who are all opposed to this rigged process, was designed to alert the American people to the uselessness of continuing to support a process that a claims that one’s only choice is to choose the lesser of two evils and reject a principle vote that might challenge the status quo as a wasted vote.
In both political education and organization, coalitions are worthwhile and necessary to have an impact. “Talking to the choir” alone achieves little. I have always approached political and economic education with a “missionary” zeal by inviting any group in on issues we agree upon.
This opens the door to legitimate discourse with the hope of winning new converts to the cause of liberty. This strategy led to the press conference with the four candidates agreeing to the four principles we believe are crucial in challenging the political system that has evolved over many years in this country.
This unique press conference, despite the surprising, late complication from the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, hopefully will prove to be historically significant.
This does not mean that I expect to get Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney to become libertarians, nor do they expect me to change my mind on the issues on which we disagree. In the meantime, why can’t we be friends, respectful of each other, and fight the corrupt process from which we suffer, and at the same time champion the four issues that we all agree upon which the two major candidates won’t address?
Many practical benefits can come from this unique alliance. Our cause is liberty — freedom is popular and is the banner that brings people together. Since authoritarianism divides, we always have the edge in an intellectual fight. Once it’s realized that the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity are best achieved with our views, I’m convinced we win by working with others. Those who don’t want to collaborate are insecure with their own beliefs.
In the past two years at the many rallies where I talked and shook hands with literally thousands of people, I frequently asked them what brought them to our campaign. There were many answers: the Constitution, my consistency, views on the Federal Reserve, the war, and civil liberties. The crowds were overwhelmingly made up of young people.
Oftentimes I welcomed the diverse groups that came, mentioning that the crowd was made up of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Liberals and Progressives with each group applauding. Even jokingly, I recognized the “anarchists” and that, too, was met with some applause. In conversations, many admitted to having been Democrats and members of the Green Party and supporters of Ralph Nader, yet they came to agree with us on all the issues once the entire philosophy was understood. That’s progress.
Principled people are not shy in participating with others and will defend their beliefs on their merits. Liberals and progressives are willing to align themselves with us on the key issues of peace, civil liberties, debt and the Federal Reserve. That’s exciting and very encouraging, and it means we are making progress. The big challenge, however, is taking on the establishment, and the process that is so well entrenched. But we can’t beat the entrenched elite without the alliance of all those who have been disenfranchised.
Ironically the most difficult group to recruit has been the evangelicals who supported McCain and his pro-war positions. They have been convinced that they are obligated to initiate preventive war in the Middle East for theological reasons. Fortunately, this is a minority of the Christian community, but our doors remain open to all despite this type of challenge. The point is, new devotees to the freedom philosophy are more likely to come from the left than from those conservatives who have been convinced that God has instructed us to militarize the Middle East.
Although we were on the receiving end of ridicule in the reporting of the press conference, I personally was quite satisfied with the results. True revolutions are not won in a week, a month, or even a year. They take time. But we are making progress, and the momentum remains and is picking up. The Campaign for Liberty is alive and well, and its growth and influence will continue. Obviously the press conference could have been even more successful without the last-minute change of heart by the Libertarian Party candidate by not participating. He stated that his support for the four points remains firm. His real reason for not coming, nor letting me know until forty minutes before the press conference started, is unknown to me. To say the least, I was shocked and disappointed.
Yet in the long run, this last-minute change in plans will prove to be of little importance. I’m convinced that problems like this always seem bigger at the moment, yet things usually work out in the end. Recovering from the mistakes and shortcomings of all that we do in this effort is not difficult if the message is right and our efforts are determined. And I’m convinced they are. That’s what will determine our long-term success, not the shortcomings of any one person.
The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more than one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.
I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better. I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.
In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York. This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats. We need more states to permit this option. This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.
I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.
Print This Post
I am so happy!! When Ron Paul dropped out of the race, I switched to the Constitution Party. I know I made the right choice.
Chuck Baldwin 2008
[Reply]
I find this somewhat disappointing. The Constitution Party in the past has been the party that promoted itself as the true party for the Religious Right. They seem to be about freedom so long as you aren’t gay. I’m not saying that Bob Barr would have been a better choice, but the Libertarian Party overall seems to be more inline with the Ron Paul doctrine. Not sure where I will be casting my vote yet. I kind of feel like I’m being shafted by the 3rd parties as well. I was leaning Bob Barr simply for party loyalty and I thought he would be the Ron Paul pick. I may go with Chuck Baldwin simply because with Dr. Paul’s endorsment, he might bring in enough enough of the popular vote to reach that crucial 5% mark.
Rich
[Reply]
It is a good choice for me as the Constitution Party wants to deport all illegals
[Reply]
Party Loyalty is what keeps people voting for Repubs and Dems.
[Reply]
Chuck who? It’s too late to stop me from writing in Ron Paul.
Yes, I understand that with his wife being in poor health that he may have lost the motivation to sally forth, but I agree with him and his honest approach to speaking to Americans honestly.
If you are reading this Dr. Paul, you will be in my prayers along with my brother who is currently in down town Baghdad, IRAQ. I trust no one else to bring him home but you… and you are being called to greatness.
- WRITE IN RON PAUL -
[Reply]
Its going to take the constitution to stop these crooks from doing anymore damage to our freedoms and country.If we followed the constitution we wouldnt have bases all over the world,wouldnt be in 2 wars,the dollar would be strong,and corrupt crooked banks would not be bailed out by the labor of the citizens and their kids that are not even born yet..I hope we can reverse this assult on America.
[Reply]
A sea change as citizens see their savings disappear.
nader paul kucinich gravel
Open the damn debates!
mckinney ventura
perot charts
RATM
[Reply]
While I am pleased that Dr. Paul has honored my party’s candidate with his support, I’d have liked to seen Bob Barr helping out with this, as it addresses a “bigger picture”. We sorely need to find ourselves in common agreement as freedom loving people, or I fear our efforts may be all for nothing. I think with our parties in unison, we may have, at the very least, the numbers required to get the attention of the Republican/Democrat monopoly.
God Bless the Republic
[Reply]
To: Tim Champion
I do agree with you about getting those numbers to get the attention of the big 2. I am seriously considering moving my support to Chuck Baldwin. I will see if I can hit up some Libertarian forums to grab some more converts.
[Reply]
I was waiting to hear who Ron Paul was going to endorse. I think he made an excellent choice in endorsing Chuck Baldwin who will adhere to the same constitutional principles as Dr. Paul.
Baldwin/Castle ‘08!!!
[Reply]
I will vote for Chuck Baldwin because of Ron Paul’s endorsement. I admire Ron Paul and his judgement. Let’s all put our support with Chuck Baldwin and help make this country as great as it used to be. I am not going to vote for the lesser of two evils anymore!
Richard Phillips Sr.
[Reply]
All third parties MUST work together if we are ever to have a chance of scraping the DemoRat/Repugnantcans stench from the bottoms of our shoes. I am mainly speaking about the Libertarian party getting on board. Bob Barr and the Libertarian party have to shake off their petty, spiteful attitude and join the freedom/liberty alliance. Divided, we will certainly fail. We all need get behind one candidate. I think that Ron Paul was right for endorsing Chuck Baldwin as he is an excellent judge of character. Although I really like Bob Barr, he lost my vote when he spurned the alliance. That proved to me that the Bob Barr candidacy was never about saving the American republic. Mr, Barr, I hope that you will shake off your differences and embrace the things that we all agree on. I know that you are a bigger man. Please see the error of your ways and support the coalition.
[Reply]
Why did Dr. Paul endorse a candidate? Dr. Paul wants the Republicans, Democrats, the Media, and everyone to see the unseen vote. The vote not cast because they do not want to vote for either candidate. Because there is not a box on the ballot to check none of the above, Dr. Paul wants all of us to unite and support the candidate closest to his principles. I pray this will be a signifigant number to make everyone take notice. I am not able to vote for Chuck Baldwin because my corrupt state does not allow write-ins and he will not be listed on the ballot in Oklahoma. Please take Dr. Paul’s advice and do not write in Ron Paul, but show our unity, and vote Chuck Baldwin.
[Reply]
I am in a bind here. I was well convinced that I was writing in Ron Paul in November. So much so that I started a myspace site devoted to it right before I had my daughter (so forgive me for not being able to have updated it as much as I would have liked), and I even encouraged everyone in the delivery room to “Write in Ron Paul” as I was pushing her out. The motives behind my writing Dr. Paul in are, of course, to fight the “lesser of two evils” method that has put such a dark shadow over our election proccess and to vote for the person that I think would really make a change, as the major party candidates only make sly, false claims to bring on. The problem, then, is will I really achieve these motives by writing in a man who has himself endorsed another? I trust Ron Paul to have fully considered his endorsement, so I have a lot to think about now.. The “change” we are looking for in this election has to actually be getting the attention of the two major parties. As you all know, we need to show America that the time has come for us to take back our country and return it to the days of true freedom. I think if we were to all pull together and unite on one candidate, this attention can be attained. If it means that I have to vote for the man Ron Paul endorses rather than writing Ron Paul, I’ll do it. The change needed is much bigger than the man himself, so I say: Let’s Rally!
[Reply]
richard gambrill the religious right your talking about well that may be true however, thats not ron paul. ive heard him speak on this issue and that could be why christians turned away from him.
[Reply]
Good choice as far as I see. I am way into the Constitutional Party since the Libertarian party selected Barr. He’s a flopper. Ron Paul likes Baldwin, and that says a LOT. I have yet to decide if I am voting for Baldwin or Paul however… Those are the only two choices for me though. If you like Barr, read about him before he joined the Libertarian movement, it will change your mind.
[Reply]
Melinda B,
Michael Peroutka was the CP candidate in 2004. His major platform was that the Republicans were not doing enough to fight abortion and gay marriage. There was not much mention from him regarding liberty, and his “grassroots” efforts were people spamming Christian forums boards condemning people telling them they were essentially sinning for not supporting Peroutka. I am a Christian who drank the republican Kool-Aid for too long, and it was tactics such as this by republicans that finally turned me to the LP. I guess I have a sour taste in my mouth when considering the CP because of 2004. Baldwin does seem to have a better handle on the liberty aspect.
Thanks,
Rich
[Reply]
I was leaning toward Chuck Baldwin even before the endorsement of
Dr. Ron Paul. Once again, he is making the right choice. Even
though I would prefer to cast my vote for Dr. Paul, I will vote
for Chuck Baldwin as my second choice and out of respect for Dr.
Paul.
I have voted and supported Libertarians in the past. I am offended
by Barr’s action and will NOT give them any more of my support of
any kind. Is it possible the Libertarians have been infiltrated
and have “lost their way” also????
We need to consolidate and bring more credibility to the Ron
Paul group. Realistically, Ron Paul has done all he can and
has gone over and above to do that. We need to move towards
a more focused goal and to start looking for a leader who is
able to capture the imagination and attention of the media.
The person who picks up the batton should have the 100% support
of Dr. Paul. I would like to see a person emerge who already
has much name recognition — a Ross Perot type would be good.
Even a black Ron Paul would be fine with me. But, to get the
necessary media attention, we need to get some sort of celebrity.
This is unfortunate, but I feel necessary.
Any ideas?
There has to be more “founding father” material out there.
I sort of like Lou Dobbs, even moreso than Jesse Ventura.
There has to be others.
I will be forever grateful to Ron Paul for his dedication
and sacrifice to our country. One day, we should have
a national Ron Paul Day !!!!
[Reply]
I agree with your views, but please have someone proofread your posts.
“It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party.”
Also, I think you’re missing a few commas.
[Reply]
I’ve been listening to Chuck Baldwins beliefs on RestoreTheRepublic.com website a lot and he’s nearly identical to Ron Paul in all areas that I’ve heard. I’m very happy that Ron has also decided to support him as Chuck seems to be the leading candidate by a wide margin in the libertarian party. I’m not sure what the exact differences are between the libertarian and constitution parties though, but I know that Chuck is dead serious about becoming president and doing everything that Ron Paul wants to do as well.
Chuck said that if he does get to be president that that he will make Ron Paul secretary of the treasury and put him in charge of getting rid of the IRS, the so called “Federal Reserve” changing tax laws and everything else to do with money and finances since he knows that Ron is so solid in that area among so many others too. What a great team they would make!!
GREAT Choice Ron Paul!
[Reply]
correction…I’ve been listening to Chuck Baldwin at http://revolutionbroadcasting.com/
sorry and thanks!
[Reply]
We’re facing a tsunami of economic disaster, with its attendant political threats — a power grab of epic proportions. constitutionalists & libertarians of whatever persuasions must set all other ideological differences aside, and unite behind one candidacy (Baldwin/Castle) that can send a strong message against the false choice we again have — if not win outright, and I think that, with proper publicity, it can!
Those of you uneasy about religious rhetoric in some campaigns regarding sexual orientation & etc., can’t you set that aside for this campaign? Quibbling divides, and division merely empowers the status quo. If we’re engulfed by a plutocrat/warmongering amoeba, losing our prosperity and liberties, all the other issues are moot if we go into some horrid authoritarian dystopia. Look what the atheist/pseudo-pagan Nazi statists did to gays! Christians motivated by love and compassion would never do such!
Liberty has to come first, and then we can resolve other issues as civilized persons, in a dispersed-powers, free government — instead of it being imposed by a unitary Federal tyranny of thieves, liars, and murderers. If as many as possible of third-party efforts agree to set aside differences in order to defeat the status-quo, false-choice fraud, we can open the door to a better future with fair dialogue and true libery. The alternative is unthinkable.
I will try posting a copy of this at Bob Barr’s campaign site, in hopes that it might convice him to reconsider.
[Reply]
Chuck Baldwin has my vote!
[Reply]
If you respect Ron Paul and stand up for what he believes in, do NOT write him in on your ballot. Rereread this article, in this revolution we need all votes counted and any vote (McKinney, Nader, Barr or Baldwin) is a vote FOR the rEVOLution! A write in really does not help us! If we take our 60-70% and split it 4 ways and get involved with votepact.org to our mainstream friends, we can turn this process on its ears! I am a Baldwin fan, I am asking you to vote ANY 3rd party member,but not to write in Ron Paul. Lets win this rEVOLution sooner than later!
[Reply]
From the CP Website:
http://www.constitution-party.net/party_platform.php#Preamble
“The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.
This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.”
That is the party of Chuck Baldwin. I just don’t see how a party that seems to be seeking to create a Theocracy is about Liberty. And I am not some anti-church person. I am a pentecostal christian, you know one of those crazy people who speaks in tongues, and I am not comfortable with this. Can somebody please explain how Chuck Baldwin represents liberties when the party seems to go against the first amendment.
The website goes on to say this:
“The Constitution of these United States provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.”
I don’t know. They seem to be all over the place.
[Reply]
I was undecided between Barr and Nader, I just joined the Libertarian Party because I did not agree with the Constitution party of Florida because they put too much of an emphasis on Christianity. I respect all religions, but I do not think it is right for politicians to publicly state their religious views or base their decisions on them. Religion should play NO role in government, but peoples moral views should regardless of religious background. Since Ron Paul has endorsed Chuck Baldwin I will most likely vote for him because I trust his decision. I just don’t agree with any politician stating that they will do something because it is God’s will, it should be the peoples will. As I stated above I support every ones religious beliefs but they should support them at home or community, not in the Government, it should be the peoples views that are supported. I will most likely vote for Baldwin.
[Reply]
The CP is great if your definition of freedom is that you have a right to do whatever you want as long as our interpretation of the Bible says you can.
Sorry, but I like to keep my religion and my politics separate.
[Reply]
I would like Ron Paul to endorse Walter Moore for Mayor of LA. He wants to deport all illegals from LA. His website is at http://WWW.MAYOR4U.COM
[Reply]
I couldn’t be more disappointed, and concur with Richard Gambrill’s posts above. The so-called “Constitution Party” principles lean toward a specific religiosity, something that Libertarians have purposefully avoided. The posters above should be careful to pick solely on one stance (secure our borders, etc), and look at the bigger picture. As for “flopper” comments about Barr (the Libertarian candidate): I’m not familiar with the details of the party’s nominee, but to extent that “flopping” means “changing your opinion in the light of additional information and study”, I’m all for it. :->
Sorry, Ron. It’s time to say adios for me. It’s been a great run. I’m still hopeful for a day when some libertarian principles can take hold.
[Reply]
Thank you Darren,
Bob Barr was a Republican member of the house of representatives who voted for the Patriot Act, was vehimently against medical marijuana. He has publicly apoligized for both of the above and has become an advocate for medical marijuana. The difference between him and say John Kerry, is that John Kerry would give 2 completely different opinions on a subject and different events only days apart, with no explanation. Bob Barr humbled himself to the point of admitting he was wrong and even apoligizing for it. As Libertarian candidate, he wants to make up for those mistakes. Just my 2 cents. I am disappointed in Bob Barr for not showing up to the press conference. Many people in the Libertarian camp are blaming his campaign manager.
[Reply]
I would rather vote for someone I want then
waste it on someone I DON’T want and just get more if the same….
REMEMBER, THE CONSTITUTION WAS NOT WRITTEN TO PROTECT THE GOVERNENT FROM THE PEOPLE. IT WAS WRITTEN TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM THE GOVERNMENT!
LET THAT BE OUR RALLYING CRY….
[Reply]
Hi All,
A different approach…
Bob Barr is not Ron Paul, nor are the other candidates. To vote for anyone in a third party now would be a waste of time and energy. The withholding of a vote will give the other side(s) a vote in its (their) favor because a vote for a third party candidate is really a worthless default vote. It’s like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum because he can’t get his way.
Third Parties never have chance in today’s world. That is the reason that a Grassroots movement, such as Ron Paul’s, has got to “reform the GOP. Otherwise there is no hope. Yes, protest votes may have a ripple effect but that,too, is speculative.
What we need is Ron Paul to unite every one under his umbrella. Why can’t third parties do that? Is it ego? Power hunger? Narcissus complex? Or Naiveness?
None of the people running for third parties have the charisma, experience or depth of Ron Paul. Sorry, but that is an objective statement.
Religion has to be kept out of politics, as a practical matter, but not our belief in God.
So what is the solution? Spend all the time, money and energy into energizing the GOP, at a grass roots level. Take over each and every local branch of the GOP in every county and in every state, regardless where. Spend all the available money, energy and strategy effort in this approach. Enlist both the very young ( High School and College Students, as well as all the Senior citizens (those who remember ‘how it was’, to work in this meaningful effort)…
A new champion “Constitutional oriented” leader has to be found to lead everyone. He must be articulate, charming, determined and principled…and the movement has to start in the West where people still have “rock bottom “values and principles” and then work East like a Tsunami. The effect will be overwhelming ( no pun intended). It can and will work, especially with the ’sorry excuses’ we now have for the word “politicians”. We need people of principle and determination. This “Bailout Scam” should convince anyone of at least that!
Sound ideas move mountains and I feel we have a whole range of them to overcome in front of us. The crises (pl) today are so great that our very Republic is challenged and quivering by the very people who are in control, wanting to bring us down.They have got to be exposed and have got to go. Repeated exposure will do it…
We have to unite under one of the two political main parties and take it over completely. The power elite has done this already so we must get them back! Otherwise, all is for naught ( as the Brits say!).
Ciao for now and God Bless anyone who wants to save our Republic, including Ron Paul, all Third Party candidates and all true “Constitutional lovers” included.
Mike Cinelli
[Reply]
Pathetic. What is Ron Paul thinking. The Constitution Party is a party of crazy Christians that want to rule by “God’s law.” They are way against tons of personal freedoms that any Libertarian should support. For example, they think pornography should be ILLEGAL and is goes AGAINST free speech. The fact that Ron Paul or any libertarian could support this guy is pathetic. I have about 99% much less respect for Ron Paul as of today, and don’t know if I would ever consider voting for him again.
That being said, this guy would quite possibly be way better for the country than McCain or Obama policy wise. But there’s no excuse for endorsing this guy over Bob Barr, assuming he’s a legitimate Libertarian.
[Reply]
To Mike Cinelli:
Your idea would work if there were anybody in the 2 parties that were worth voting for now. Other than Dr. Paul’s Congressional seat, which most of us can not vote for because we don’t live in his Texas district, I don’t know of anyone. A vote for a 3rd party candidate is not a wasted vote. It shows the duopoly that we are not satisfied with what they have to offer. It can affect an election outcome. In 1992, Ross Perot may be the reason that Bill Clinton beat George H W Bush. In 2000, Ralph Nader is probably the reason, besides the Supreme Court, that George W Bush received enough electoral votes to win that election. Having that much of an impact forces the big 2 to listen to what these candidates represent. My personal opinion is that a vote for Baldwin would send a message that we want less freedom and liberty. A vote for Bob Barr shows that we believe in the Libertarian principles and desire freedom and liberty.
[Reply]
Question: Did Dr. Paul endorse Baldwin to spite Barr?
I have read all of the responses above and do appreciate the varied comments. My wish upon a thousand wishes is that Ron Paul were still in the running. Since this wish will not be granted, what to do? Vote for Dr. Paul’s endorsement? Hmm…I’m not convinced yet that Baldwin is the man. The religious basis of the Constitution party turns me off. Write in Ron Paul? No. This will not advance the r3VOLution further. Vote Barr? No. He detached himself at a crucial moment. Vote Nader? Maybe. His stance is certainly viable and close to Dr. Paul’s.
I am STILL grieving the loss of my NUMBER ONE CHOICE: RON PAUL.
[Reply]
[...] Yesterday, September 22, Congressman Ron Paul publicly gave me his endorsement for the office of President of the United States. In his blog at the Campaign for Liberty web site, he said, “I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.” (See the complete statement here.) [...]
To Cassandra:
Nader would like socialized health care. He is not in line with Dr. Paul. It’s a shame what Bob Barr did, but he is still the most compatible candidate with Dr. Paul’s vision.
[Reply]
You people are cute. I love the way you obsess over which zero-chance candidate is going to get your wasted votes. have fun under an Obama muslim dictatorship. Hope your bunkers seal tightly and your food hoard lasts.
[Reply]
That guy..what the difference then..now all our jobs gone to china all our wealth going to middle east.. the constitution have been abused in the last 8 yrs than any time in our history.so tell me what is the difference.The dem/rep are not helping the American ppl,they are selling us out..You need to wake up!There is no better of two evils,,they are just evil plan and simple..We are headed to collapes,mark my words they will sink(you the tax payers money) 800 billion in fiat paper into the mess they made and it will not help..And then what do you think these ppl will do that are losing their power will do..Plan and simple follow the constitution or get the hell out of MY pocket book.The market will bust because its corrupt.Theres a little reality for ya!no matter who wins we lose unless they address the problem,and neither puppet is doing that.
[Reply]
What is wrong with Daniel Hauge and all of these “libertarians”?
The First Amendment does NOT protect pornography, or any other SIN. Liberty is NOT unlimited freedom to do what we want: that was the basis of the FRENCH revolution, NOT the American Revolution. Liberty is the freedom to obey God’s law, and that is all. Have you guys never read the writings of the Founders? Excepting Jefferson and Paine, all were devout Christians. Of those two, Jefferson held many Christian principles, and Paine had far less influence than is usually believed. For thorough coverage of the Calvinism of our Founders, read “Christianity and the Constitution,” by Col. John Eidsmoe. Anyone who thinks that our Founders would have legalized pornography is completely wacko. They are ignoring the evidence. If anyone is interested, I can give them a list of resources to testify to this.
Those who attempt to deny the existence of God’s law are also unsupported by the evidence. If they believe that the Bible is true, then read Matt. 5:17-19. Christ repeatedly referred to the Mosaic Law; this is how he refuted the temptations of Satan in the wilderness. Those who deny the truth of the Bible must believe in evolution, and an evolutionary view of life, including law.
The Constitution Party believes that the God of the Bible gives us rights, whereas the Libertarians will not acknowledge the Father as the source of their rights; therefore, their rights must come from the state, and therefore can be taken away by the state.
In order to get away from obedience to God’s law, men either reject the words of Jesus mentioned above, re-interpret them, or deny the Bible outright. The second option ends up rejecting the Bible as well, since their reading is unsupported by the Greek New Testament, or the rest of Scripture (e.g. 2 Tim. 3:16-17). The first option cannot be endorsed without hypocrisy, which leaves only option c), the rejection of the Bible.
In order to reject the Bible, one must then come up with another reason to live, and another explanation for the existence of life. This gap is purportedly filled by evolution, but evolution is an UNSUPPORTED scientific THEORY. The Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn’t allow for the upward progress required by evolution, instead, it states that the natural direction of energy processes is DOWN, not up. Things will deteriorate, as will be observed with a car left in the weeds (it rusts), and the dust which collects in your house. Evolutionists try to get around this by saying that it can be reversed with energy. This also does not stand up, since, if lightning struck that old car in the weeds, it would not stop the rusting process. Additionally, evolution denies the scientific law that Louis Pasteur proved in the 1800’s: life only comes from life. Therefore, the evolutionary explanation for the origin of life does not stand up. Additionally, even if the “big bang” really did happen, from where came the “hot, dense object” which exploded? Nobody can answer that.
We either must believe that God is eternal, or matter is eternal. Since the possibility for evolution is “a 1 followed by 40,000 zeros” (calculated by Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe); Sir Hoyle further said that evolution is as likely as the possibility that a tornado, sweeping through a junkyard, would produce a Boeing 747!! In other words, evolution is impossible. Therefore, God is real, and His laws are real. I
I’m sorry to disappoint you, Daniel Hague, but the Constitution Party supports God’s law because of the scientific evidence and the beliefs of the Founders. Hopefully, all Ron Paul supporters will unite behind Chuck Baldwin. Like Ron Paul, he is a Constitutional Christian.
– A Concerned Constitutional Christian
P.S. Dr. Paul’s Christianity is testified to on the old “ronpaul2008.com;” his statement of faith is reproduced here:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/229/story_22909_1.html
P.P.S. I’d be happy to debate anyone on any of these subjects.
[Reply]
Dear Ron,
We miss you already. Will check out the Chuck Baldwin option when I hear him on the current financial Constitutional sellout and what he would do instead. Till then I’m fence sitting between Baldwin and McCain. Thanks for all your efforts on our behalf.
[Reply]
Dear A Concerned Constitutional Christian,
So you would pass laws against everything you consider a sin?
[Reply]
Ron says Chuck Baldwin… deal! Printing my bumper sticker tonight without having heard President Baldwin speak once. Ron Has much more then my respect, he is slowly giving me faith back in my country. America is an idea folks not a place, we have lost our way and there are European countries honoring more American principals then us. Now is Ron would just publish a voter guide for all the elections we could get this nation headed away from self destruction.
VP Family and Children Equality Pennsylvania
[Reply]
In response to the “Concerned Constitutional Christian”…
“Liberty is the freedom to obey God’s law and that is all?” I, and I’m sure many other theists and atheists alike, have to disagree. How do you define “God’s law?” Is it simply what Jesus Christ instructs us to do? What about the Gods of other religions? What about those who don’t believe in any God but still live by an upstanding moral code (though on this latter point I will not be surprised if you disagree). Who are you to want to impose the “moral” law of your God onto the rest of America? You are correct that Jefferson was not religious — in fact he was most likely an atheist. But you are mistaken to believe that the rest of the Founding Fathers were devout Christians. Quotes can be derived from the likes of Benjamin Franklin and Adams that seem to indicate agnosticism at the very least. George Washington himself made very clear that America was not to be a country founded on Christianity or any other religion. Read the Ron Paul interview that you yourself posted. He says that America was not founded on Christianity but on Christian tradition/values (hence our freedom to practice any religion we please, or lackthereof). Paul is adamant about not transforming America into a theocracy. Your desire to create a government based on “God’s law” certainly contradicts this.
You are by all means allowed to believe in any religion you want to believe in, but do not for one second entertain the idea of trying to limit my freedom — or anybody else’s — with stifling, intellectually smothering Christian Extremism.
[Reply]
Agree with most of the principles set out in the Libertarian platform this year. Have supported Congressman Ron Paul on his clear statements of facts. However, I cannot support any candidate who does not seen to understand that there is are very good reasons why this country guaranteed religious freedom, but hardly endorsed it as a means of proselytzing the voters!
Almost imposible choice this election – big spenders, religious zealots, so-called “war heroes” who were right at the middle of ( does anyone remember the “Keating Five”) … and a financial crisis again fueled by greed and speculation.?
[Reply]
Michael –
No, I would not pass laws against SIN; God’s laws are against CRIME. The Bible differentiates between sin and crime. The civil government has no authority to legislate against personal and private sin, however, it is given the sword to punish evil. (Rom. 13:1-7) In the Mosaic law, some things are forbidden, but no punishment is given. This is because God alone has the authority to punish sin, which He does now, and will do for all evil at the Great White Throne Judgment. (Rev. 20:11-15) However, in some cases, such as theft, murder, and arson, a punishment is specified. In these cases, the civil government is required to administer judgment.
If you read what the Founders wrote regarding the First Amendment, and read what they read, it is obvious that their intention with the first Amendment was to prevent one Christian denomination from becoming the “national religion.” (The Making of America, W. Cleon Skousen, p. 675-690) None of the freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment is unlimited; freedom of speech does NOT give us the “right” to yell “Fire!” in a movie theater. Similarly, the freedom of the press is not so unlimited that it can print something both immoral and wrong. If you are an atheist, and have no God from whom to receive a STANDARD, then I would expect you to believe in such things. If not, then your God must have a strange standard of right and wrong. But if, as it appears, you are an atheist, I can only implore you to re-examine your acceptance of evolution, for it is certainly more absurd to believe in eternal matter than an Eternal Creator. You yourself, composed of trillions of cells, each made up of proteins, which are made up of 200 amino acids, and it being impossible for even one protein to form itself, are a testimony to the creativity and intelligence of your Creator God.
Pete –
I am well aware that I cannot coerce anyone into Christianity, and my religion has never been spread by force. In America, men are allowed that freedom. For your hypothetical atheist, I would refer him, as I did Michael, to the absolute IMPOSSIBILITY of evolution. Since modern science denies the existence of God, they are forced to accept evolution as true, regardless of the evidence. It is positively not true that “you cannot mix religion and science,” because what you believe about your world affects your views in every area of life. For example, if I believe that a certain bridge over a gorge is unsafe, I will not walk across it. What men believe about their future and their origins will color their every opinion.
In the case of our atheist (let’s call him “Fred”), Fred will examine his world with the presupposition that God does not exist. Therefore, there is no absolute standard of right and wrong; “right” and “wrong” are merely what is socially acceptable.
The atheist who claims to be “moral” has no standard for his morality: today it could be monogamy, but tomorrow it might be polygamy. George Washington warned of the dangers of morality without religion in his farewell address: “And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be sustained without religion… Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle.” (The Annals of America, Alder, quoted in ibid., p. 676)
To say that America was not founded on Christianity would also be to deny the evidence: German historian Ranke has this to say: “Calvin was the virtual founder of America.” (quoted in Christianity and the Constitution, John Eidsmoe, p. 18) Historian Bancroft also acknowledges this, calling Calvin the “father of America” (ibid.) This book, quoting original source material extensively, completely refutes any claims that the Founders were not Christian, with the following exceptions: Jefferson denied the deity of Christ, but held to many opinions identical with the Christians of his day (ibid., p. 215-248). Franklin was a deist in his early years, but later drifted toward orthodoxy (ibid., p. 191-214). Paine, as I said, was outwardly antagonistic toward Christianity, but was far less influential than Washington, Adams, or Witherspoon. Please read this book if you can find it; it is an invaluable resource, and does not assume things which may not be true. Perhaps a third of the book is quotes from source documents.
America was founded upon distinctly Christian principles, and I challenge anyone to produce reliable original source documents which testify otherwise. My definition of liberty is also distinctly Christian, and I am not surprised that you disagree with me.(just so you know, it came from Dr. Joseph C. Morecraft, III) Were I president, I would no attempt to enforce God’s law universally, because I know it wouldn’t work. Our first goal must be the education of the people in Christian principles, or else we will perish as a nation (as we are doing, cf. Ps. 33:12).
The education of the American people is one of the reasons I spent so much time posting my first message. Until the existence of God is admitted, I can but ask the atheists to reconsider the scientific evidence for Creation. For evolution? There is little.
As for the Gods of other religions, I will point, for Islam, (for now) to “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)”. To keep this post from becoming too long, I will not discuss other religions here. Let me just say this, in closing: Unless my fellow believers and I are eradicated from this nation, we will strive with all of our might to prevent any other religion than that of our Puritan and Founding Fathers from gaining any more footholds here. The evidence is overwhelming: we were founded as a Christian nation, and I pray that we will return.
The CCC
[Reply]
You really should learn more about evolution, there is plenty of evidence to show that it is a valid theory. There is no evidence of Jesus. I really don’t like getting involved in religious conversations but I can’t stay quiet about this. Evolution should be taught, it does not rule God out it just rules out the literal interpretation of the creation story of the Bible. God could have set things in motion, there is no way to prove or disprove that. All modern religions have evolved from older religions. There are similarities in Islam, Judaism, Egyptian, and Hinduism, and “pagan” religions.
[Reply]
Let’s face it, Ron Paul is the only person with enough name recognition power to have a chance at president. The ideas right now that are being put forth are being told by Ron Paul, who is the one leading the charge behind “The 4 Pillars”.
[Reply]
Although I wouldn’t like to live in a theocracy, I will cast my vote for Baldwin since I respect Ron Paul and understand why he has endorsed Baldwin. I prefer to put up with the theocracy instead of the Republicans and Democrats. I will not send Baldwin any donations though.
[Reply]
You can make the argument that “if you respect Ron Paul and stand up for what he believes in, do NOT write him in on your ballot.”
The fact is that not everyone is going to adhere to that argument (as much as we wish it would work that way). By not running, he is in many ways dividing people who could be united. By running the choice would be much clearer. After his endorsement though, it would be hard to retract without a backlash.
The argument that we shouldn’t vote 3rd party and rather stimulate the GOP from the grassroots doesn’t work for me either. I would never vote GOP until every last neo-con is out. Ron is just as stimulating for me to make a DFL grassroots movement, but that would take too long.
It would almost seem wiser to till out some new land and grow a new garden than try and weed out an old one.
[Reply]
Ron,
I enjoyed your recent run and wish I was more involved with it. However, I am back in the quagmire that I was before you ran: which is the least of the evils?
I am investigating Barr and Baldwin but am staunchly against Nader or the Green-party since I have suffered enough because of their statist activities.
Your stance to vote any 3rd party candidate reminds me too much of the party-line thinking in the big 2.
If neither Barr or Baldwin measure-up, I will probably vote for McCain/Palin since I have sympathy for anyone who is attacked as they have been. (”Old fools shouldn’t have authority” and “mothers shouldn’t have other commitments”.)
I was excited early this year but am disappointed and deflated now. But I understand your personal quagmire and respect your decision.
I wish you well.
[Reply]
I am a Christian, from the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (aka Mormon). I personally don’t agree with gay marriage, drug use or pornography, but that is my choice. I have free agency to choice and I don’t need the government to tell me this, or anyone else for that matter. One of the greatest gift God gave us was the Gift of Free Agency, liberty to choose. To study the Constitution’s Party policies on a government Theocracy, it scares me. Back in the early 1800’s, our church and founding members were persecuted beyond belief, due to our belief. I guess we were not “Christian” enough, or not even Christian for that matter, in some peoples eyes. It got so bad, that a whole state issued an extermination order on all Mormons. I guess we didn’t believe in Christ the same why the Governor did. I believe in the Bible, but also the Book of Mormon. What if Chuck Baldwin is elected and doesn’t feel the Book of Mormon teaches “true” Christian principles. Will he ban it like pornography? I don’t need Chuck Baldwin or government to help me make it to heaven. I have Jesus Christ, his church, family and community to help me that.
The libertarian party is the only party that I know of that believes in this type of liberty. I am surprised that Ron Paul would endorse something like this. It almost feels that he it is doing it out of spite because Bob Barr didn’t show up to his convention. Whether it was a snub, the right or wrong thing to do, it doesn’t matter. If we want a real chance of true change, we all need to stand behind the party of true liberty, the Libertarian Party.
[Reply]
This was posted earlier by “A Concerned Constitutional Christian”
“Let me just say this, in closing: Unless my fellow believers and I are eradicated from this nation, we will strive with all of our might to prevent any other religion than that of our Puritan and Founding Fathers from gaining any more footholds here.”
Isn’t this what radical Islamic terrorist based their actions on?
Scary!
[Reply]
I wonder is mcbomma is for the 700 billion rip us off bail out.
Who ever votes for this enslavement bill is a worthless piece of….and is another traitor,the media and the puppet number 1 is pushing this down our throat..”It must pass or we will be in a big recession”..black mail?..I dont give a dam,let the corrupt bankers fall all the way to the flames..What ever happens will happen,how many times are we going to let these paper printers destroy our currency!!!!!Its time to have sound money,these crooks have gone to dam far..”fool me once,shame on me,fool me twice uh mm dont get fooled no more” george bush..How can any1 vote for the same
bs media made puppets. We must abolish the fed and break up the monopoly media..WE ARE LOSING OUR DAM COUNTRY,THIS IS A FACT..WE HAVE BEEN SOLD OUT!!!!!!
[Reply]
I do not have unlimited time to respond to every comment, but I will try to give some reasonable arguments. If you truly are interested in these subjects, I hope you will consider them , though I certainly cannot force my opinions upon you. If you aren’t really interested, then I am wasting my time. If I do not get some concrete responses, rather than a lot of unsupported hype, I will stop trying to argue the point.
– William B.
What exactly is your evidence for the validity of evolution?
If you took a bird, a dinosaur, a reptile, and a whale, and tried to figure out their origin, your conclusion would be a product of your worldview. If you don’t believe in God, then you will have to use evolution, or some natural process, to explain their origins. If you believe in God, then you would be able to say that they were created. Of course, there would also be the possibility that God used evolution. In this situation, we must turn to the evidence. The nature of evolution requires order from chaos, and complexity from simplicity. A few observations of the world around you will suffice to show that nature, by itself, does not follow that. Complex things break down and become simpler: left alone, what would a computer do? Would it begin to gain memory, and develop more RAM? Of course not! Order goes to disorder, unless reversed by an intelligent use of energy.
One of the most-often posited “proofs” for evolution is the “distant starlight” question. However, this is not nearly as fool-proof as it sounds. The possible creationist solutions include a faster speed of light, creation of in-transit light, the non-rigidity of time, universal time vs. local time, and more: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove
I do not have space or time to devote to additional discussion, but, as I have said before, your world-view, particularly regarding God, affects your view of the origin of life. Atheists must accept evolution, because they have no God to create life. But the evidence points to Creation, and therefore to God. Remember, man’s views and theories change, but God does not change. (Heb. 13:8)
– Daniel H
In the statement of mine that you quoted in your second post, I think you misunderstood “strive with all of our might.” I will strive to bring America back to Christianity. However, unlike Muslims, I do not strive with physical force. “For though we walk after the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Cor. 10:3-5)
Christians work through the power of the Holy Spirit; we recognize that no-one can be forced to accept Christ. The religion of Islam, on the other hand, is commanded to spread their doctrine by the sword. (”The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam” & “Religion of Peace: Why Christianity is, and Islam isn’t”, both by Robert Spencer; his stuff is supported directly from the Koran -Muslims are commanded to spread Islam by the sword)
In answer, then, Daniel, I am not promoting Christian values in the manner that Muslims promote their religion.
I have no desire to be sucked up in a non-profitable discussion of Mormonism on this blog.
Let me just say that I am not aware whether Chuck Baldwin would ban the Book of Mormon; if I were the president, I would not do so, as it would violate the First Amendment, as well as Articles I & II. The President certainly has no power to make laws of any sort, and Chuck Baldwin understands that as well as Ron Paul does. In my view, and I hope Mr. Baldwin’s, this would be the jurisdiction of the states. The Federal government has no authority to ban any one religion.
Furthermore, comparing the banning of pornography to the banning of Mormonism is comparing apples to oranges. One of these is a religion, the other is not. Where did Baldwin say that he would ban pornography as President? It is perhaps his dream, and if a member of a state Congress, he might vote for a ban. But I want to see actual evidence.
If the only responses I get to my efforts are more name-calling and mud-slinging, I will not bother to continue this discussion.
[Reply]
concerned-dont worry about baldwin,you should worry about china or islam,because they are funding our corruption.Who has the money makes the laws.Its all in the bible in revelations..For those that have eyes to see let them see…but some religons its there way or death..I fear no evil,and i dont fear death.All these things will come to pass,One world govt.no man will sell or buy unless he has the mark..more volacnos,wars and rumors of wars,drought,diesease,false idols..just keep the faith dude,tell who will listen and pray for the ones that dont.I dont want to be here after the holy ghost is vanished from this earth.
The inbred elite are being exsposed,and they are going to push there plan no matter the cost..Just have faith and pray.But the ones that dont believe we still have the goal of liberty,freedom and freewill.Thats what is great about America you can live how you want..but when the govt starts to push its agenda on your life then we have a problem.And we are there today..God bless and peace to all.
[Reply]
Bob Barr is a phony, and he is right at home with the juveniles in the Libertarian party.
[Reply]
I believed in Ron Paul and supported him all along.
Ron Paul promised to remain in the Presidential race until the Republican Convention. Then he dropped out.
He criticized John McCain for being in bed with Liberals, and then invited Nader and McKinney (socialism at its best) to vaguely, almost endorse 4 candidates.
Now he is endorsing Baldwin because he is upset with Barr whom came to the realization that hanging out with liberals is dangerous.
Ron would have captured the vote across the board – True Republicans, Libertarians and Constitutionalist. Even some of my Democrat co-workers thought Dr. Paul was a better choice.
Now, Dr. Paul would rather get my hopes up for “BIG ANNOUNCEMENTS” that are barley worth the air time.
If you really gave a crap about us Dr. Paul you would have sacrificed your cushy congressional seat to become President of these United States and given the power back to the people.
I pray for the Revolution… with or without you!
[Reply]
how do we get rid of the greed and ego of our politicians and financial sectors of wall street, etc.-people leading our country into hell?
[Reply]
how do we take our country back from the ego and greed of the politicians and financial sectors. This includes democrats and republicans.
[Reply]
An observation for “Concerned Constitutional Christian”: In what is generally known as “The Great Commission”, Jesus did NOT say, “Go into the whole world, take over civil governments, and force people to ACT like good Christians, even if they aren’t.” Likewise, the Constitution which you seem to equate with Christianity does not give us the explicit endorsement of Christianity that we get from the Constitution Party. It’s a red herring to suggest that those who disagree with you or with aspects of the Constitution Party must be, to some degree at least, against either Christianity or the Constitution, as this appears to be a hybrid philosophy that doesn’t do full justice to either.
You could make the world’s greatest argument for the existence of God, the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and the absurdity of evolution, but what exactly does that have to do with what Constitutional civil government should or should not do (other than, presumably, not force the teaching of evolution)? I could make an equally impressive argument against eating trans-fats, but injecting that into a discussion of who we should support for President or what kind of laws we should have would be, at best, irrelevant, and, at worst, a tacit implication that such laws should be based on something other than individual rights, when the Constitution we admire speaks eloquently about individual rights, and is impressively silent about most other areas of possible disagreement–even those about which you could cite other writings to suggest that the framers, personally, generally agreed with your positions.
If you want to win every American to Christ, I applaud your desire. Make the best argument you can, anywhere you go–to the laundromat, to the airport, to a political website, or wherever. But American Constitutional government, at best, simply protects your freedom to make your case (thank God for that, to be sure!)–it is not designed, by God OR by the Founding Fathers, to be part and parcel of the case itself. Likewise, please don’t make the mistake of assuming that, if the Bible (particularly the New Testament) says to do A and not to do B, that the Bible means by this that civil government should FORCE everyone to do A and prevent everyone from doing B. It is NOT watering down the Bible to make that distinction–on the contrary, it is being MORE scriptural than those who jump to specious conclusions by giving us a subtly governmentalized version of Christianity. (If you don’t trust government to run health care or the energy business, why let it redefine (much less enforce) Christianity? Please resist the fleshly temptation to think that man’s manipulation can improve upon God’s plan!)
As someone once said, “All oaks are trees, but not all trees are oaks.” Government obviously should have laws against SOME things, and THOSE things are also condemned in the Bible (murder, assault, theft, etc.). But the civil dividing line is LIBERTY. Once you accept the premise that there is any action which is clearly Biblical which nonetheless shouldn’t be mandatory in a free society (tithing? prayer? fasting?), and any action which is clearly unbiblical which nonetheless shouldn’t be prohibited (laziness? gluttony? impure thoughts?), then it should be obvious that liberty should be the legal yardstick, not what the Bible tells us as individuals about our own individual behavior.
I’m happy to see Chuck Baldwin, or other Constitutional Party members, or Mike Huckabee, or ANY Christian, feeling free to openly express his/her faith. Christianity isn’t a part-time hobby that one has to keep in the closet when engaging in political activity. By the same token, when one is uniting in an important civil common cause with others who may not share our faith, it’s absurd to tout one’s faith in such a way as to inform believers and nonbelievers alike that this civil cause essentially belongs to those of a particular spiritual persuasion. That doesn’t further your spiritual OR your civil goals–unless your “goal” is simply to throw a big party and invite only those who already agree with you, and have fun telling one another how wrong everyone else is. That may be as aesthetically pleasurable for some Christians as an abortion rights rally is for some secular liberals, but it doesn’t help the cause of Christianity OR the cause of freedom in the United States.
We have important work to do! Let’s enjoy the process as much as we can, but let’s focus on the most effective and ethical ways to apply our principles, and not let emotionalism get in the way of making the best choices. I wish I could say that applying that principle makes it obvious whom to vote for at this point in the race, but it doesn’t seem to be that simple this time. But if we all argue for liberty as consistently and as eloquently as Ron Paul, and diligently hold our chosen candidate to a comparable level of consistency, we’ll be doing our country–and ourselves–a great favor.
[Reply]
I’m sorry Ron, but you still have my vote, I will not falter in my ideals. Whether you would step up to the plate or not, that is for god to decide. But you are the one I wish to be at the forefront of this nation.
[Reply]
The very fact that religion is being discussed so much here is a bad sign. Now, turning toward a theocracy is the lesser of two evils? If this is what the Constitution Party brings to the table, I don’t want any part of it. Remember separation of church and state?
This discussion is getting very scary.
[Reply]
I’m agnostic by the way, i only mentioned god because i felt it was moving to do so.
[Reply]
I am so grateful to the Ron Paul movement. Although, I am still a Christian. I used to be convinced that the Iraq war was a just cause.
I’m more afraid of unwarranted searches and seizures than terrorists.
[Reply]
All I know is that Ron Paul’s message is meant to unite the people of America for freedom. That includes people of all religions as long as they want to support constitutional rights. And that’s it!! If you want division, just go back to Obama and McCain.
[Reply]
I am very disipointed on Ron Paul. I am used to Dr. Paul being an informed candidate and the champion of our constitution. By supporting the constitution party he has been reduced to just another tagline reader. If you look at the manifesto of the Constitution party it is clear to all that they want to control the country by forcing Christianity into legislation. This is not liberty. This is theocracy! Shame on you Dr. Paul.
[Reply]
Regarding Christianity of politicians: Anyone who tries to deny that our Founding Fathers were not mostly self-avowed Christians has not read history. That did not make the government they formed a theocracy, however. Please stop throwing that word around so lightly, then. The Constitution Party does not represent nearly as big a threat to our religious freedom as a McCain/Palin administration.
Regarding voting 3rd party versus grassroots GOP reform: I and my local Ron Paul meetup group are still working actively to reform the GOP at our level, showing up at meetings and voicing our opinions, getting ourselves elected as PCO’s, and readying C4L candidates to run for higher offices in future elections. It’s a slow process, and we don’t expect to have GOP candidates that are in line with our principles in place in time for this or even the next election. But that doesn’t mean we give up, and it doesn’t mean we have to accept McCain either.
I was planning to write in Ron Paul, but somebody said above that it would not count. Is a write-in vote counted differently, or not at all? I will have to research whether that is true before I decide. If so, I guess it will be between Barr and Baldwin, and I don’t think it matters much which one. Either is a vote against the establishment, by which I hope to help send a message, but in the long run, I still believe the only real hope for change is by reforming the major parties.
The current ruling party has worked for several decades to achieve the control they have, and I believe it will take at least several election cycles for us to undo it, if not decades. We’ve barely begun. Vote your conscience, but don’t let it stop you working for change everywhere you can.
[Reply]
There may be states that follow a different procedure, but generally a write-in vote will be counted only if the candidate or someone representing the candidate files paperwork with state and/or county election officials certifying the candidacy and asking that such votes be counted. I’m not sure if someone could do this on Ron Paul’s behalf without his approval, but it might be worth a try. If anyone does utilize this option, I wouldn’t quit after the first “no” response from someone answering the phone at the Department of Elections; this might be a low-level bureaucrat offering an impromptu guess as if it were gospel (oops–sorry if I offended anyone with a “reference to religion” there!). Either way, it might be advisable to check the law in your home state (this should be available online, probably under “Revised Statutes”).
In 2000, infighting in the Arizona Libertarian Party resulted in a renegade group going to state election officials and somehow persuading them to list their chosen presidential candidate as the national Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate in Arizona, instead of Harry Browne, who was on the ballot as the LP nominee in every other state and the District of Columbia. In an amazing display of either colossal incompetence or philosophical insanity, the national LP declined to take any steps to ensure that write-in votes for Harry Browne would even be counted in Arizona. I cast a write-in vote for Harry Browne anyway, knowing that, at best, this might serve as a thought-provoker for one poll worker, since the only alternatives were to vote for someone not even claiming to be Libertarian or voting for a “LINO” usurper whose only political writings I could find didn’t rise above a bunch of self-indulgent ramblings that didn’t address the issues.
From a philosophical standpoint, fortunately, those of us who want to express our libertarian ideals at the polls have better options this time than I did that year, though it does seem at this point that they’re all a step down from voting for Ron Paul. Especially in light of McCain’s and Obama’s votes on the bailout, it seems advisable to vote for whoever you consider to be the best non-major party candidate whose vote you can confirm will be counted, and be ready to sound off in detail to anyone who will listen about why you made that choice. There will be some merit to raising the cumulative vote total of all candidates who are outside of this bought-off “two-party system” which is foisted on us as if it is etched in stone forever, yet isn’t even mentioned in the Constitution. Let’s do what we can to end the “self-fulfilling prophecy” (Yikes! Another religious metaphor! Forgive me!) that voting for anyone but a major party nominee is an exercise in futility. One vote is one vote, regardless of whether it is cast for a candidate who the pollsters give a “chance” to win or not. Make yours count by casting it for the person who best represents your views.
[Reply]
In Colorado they will only count write ins in the event of a recount. Until then, you can ask till you are blue in the face and it won’t be done.
I truly respect Ron Paul, but I don’t know if I can go through with voting for Chuck Baldwin based on his party’s views. I will have to look further into what Mr. Baldwin has to say and see if he truly follows along those party lines. If we all based our votes on the actual party, none of us would have tried to vote for Ron Paul in the first place because of what the Republican party stands for today. I think we should vote for the PERSON not necessarily the party itself.
[Reply]
I was voting for ron…..but I will change to Chuck. I am 27 years old from MN….and as a young voter in this election…its important that in the next 20 years we can look back and see how a movement began…..all great things have small beginings ( I learned about that when my son was born prematurely and has blossumed into the fighter he is today)….and that is why I want my son to understand how in 2008 there was a movement to VOTE for a movement….so that in 2012…5% turns to 15% and in 2016 it tunrs to 45% ..until finnally in 2020…we can look back and say we all threw the rock.
[Reply]
Thank you Dr. Paul for all the work you’ve done for restoring the constitution, and hence protecting the people with it. I never thought an endorsement would sway my vote one way or another, but after seeing how principled you truly are, I’ll be voting for Baldwin. After listening to his speeches, its clear his zeal for the constition and freedom burns just as deep as Dr. Paul’s.
For those who are worried about a theocracy because Chuck Baldwin is religious should take a hard look at his speech to the JBS 50th year aniversary. He has no plans to publically force people to worship the way he does, or even at all – and he makes that statement. I’m a firm believer that religous liberty (and also the decision to abstain) should extend to everyone, even politicians =).
True faith is going to affect the way a person lives their life or governs, and thats ok so long as they uphold the constitution, don’t overstep the constitution, and allow others to make their own religious decisions. Public displays of faith (or lack there of) by an individual shouldn’t be disdained as impinging on the rights of those of different religions or those who have no religion, but instead should be seen as the purest form of expressing the own right to religious freedom.
Cheers!
[Reply]
Thank God there is someone out there who still believes in what America was meant to be. No one who has ever ran for President has spoke and acted with more conviction and passion than Ron Paul. I wish you were still in this fiasco election Mr. Paul, but whoever you endorse will get my vote. Although, I can’t wait until 2012. The main problem I see is our mass media, or as I call them, the destroyers of individual thought. I don’t have an exact percentage poll on the mater, but I’m willing to bet at least 75% of Americans aren’t even aware they have a third choice in this election. Why? Fox News, Cnn, and every other mind controling, upsurd News station out there. If this was really a democracy, every canidate would have a chance to debate the issues in front of a nation wide audience. Instead we have a corney, media based monopoly between two scripted bafoons. Thats what we get, instead of a man who can speak his mind with passion at a moments notice who is RON PAUL! P.S.-SOCIALISM SUCKS!
[Reply]
It is my humble opinion that Chuck Baldwin is a good man, but we must remember not all great men make great leaders. He does not have the fire that Ron Paul has, and he is too adherent to his religious life for me. To be against abortion is all right, if you have the right reasoning behind it. To be against gay marriage is not right, as every gay couple should be treated as any other normal citizen. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.”
“Chuck also believes that the values of marriage between a man and a woman are very important. Values are something young people need and want. They need to know that the people in charge are willing to adhere to a set of values that put them first and foremost.”
Is that stating that gay married couples have no values?
I myself am not gay, although i respect people’s freedom to live their life the way they want, and not depending on how any certain religion or country states how they should live and what they can and cannot do(except things that hurt others of course, but gay couples don’t hurt anyone else.) Unless, one might argue that they hurt their adopted children. If that is the case, argue about gay couples’ right to adopt and not their right to marry.
My 50 cents.
-Brennan N., age 15
[Reply]
In regards to Mr. Brennan’s post.
Who cares about “Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” anyhow.
We have our own Constitution and I go by that not the united nations!
My 50 cents.
Richard age 61
[Reply]
It doesnt matter who you vote for..They are not going to win.Just as long as you vote for someone other than dem/rep.We are sending a message that we are tired of the same ol bs.We need to make the citizens aware of the scam being played on the American people(or world for that matter)Govt is to big and way out of control.This will take time to get the corruption out of our govt.Just keep telling people whats going on.Stand up and let your voice be heard or slowy become a slave to the powers that be.
[Reply]
Dr. Ron Paul is still getting my vote!
I’m writing him in because I can’t lay my head down at night knowing I voted for someone with whom I do not share the same beliefs with. (McCain or Obama)
I want those Washington insiders and the people who look at the ballot to know that there are people out there that try to fool us in to thinking there are only two choices in this race. I want them to see that Dr.Paul’s message has been heard and that we are not ‘undecided’ in this election. My decision is made- Dr. Paul for President.
[Reply]
I’m still voting for Dr. Paul unless he can be directly underneath the future president. Chuck Baldwin is good but Dr. Paul is the George Washington of this revolution!!
[Reply]
I just looked up where the Constitution Party stands on the “Issues”, listened to the vids, read the wiki, etc…
2nd Amendment rights? Check.
Abolish the Fed? Check.
Repeal the 16th? Check.
Oppose illegal immigration? Check.
Kill NAFTA, GATT, etc? Check.
Stop supporting UN? Check.
Cut foreign aid? Check.
English as our Official Language? Check.
End Social Security? Oh I’m getting happy now…
Election reform? Keep it coming!!!
Ban porn? Silly issue to make a stand on… good luck with that.
Good enough for me: I’m in.
[Reply]
I can’t get past the statement describing the constitutional party. (2nd paragraph in the section “The constitution party”.)
“Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations”
And the 5th principle is rather subjective. We can only guess what their interpretation will be. But combined with the paragraph quoted above, you have a recipe for disaster.
“5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;”
To some of the writers above; whose interpretation of history do you accept? Have you read any letters of the founding fathers? Do you consider an unofficial letter of intent to be more binding than an organizations authoritative bylaws? Have you ever read history of the church during the 16th century? Are you twisting “origin of species” because of today’s neo-fundamentalists like Shermer?
Someone once said (in more explicit terms) that you don’t need to eat a full platter of excrement to know it’s not filet mignon. The plate in front of me is too disgusting for me to look at much less put in my mouth.
I will vote for whoever fits best in my own opinions and I will not blindly vote with one party or against two. Both are blind and ignorant votes.
[Reply]
Thank you Edward.
After rereading the comments, your statement “If we all based our votes on the actual party, none of us would have tried to vote for Ron Paul in the first place because of what the Republican party stands for today. I think we should vote for the PERSON not necessarily the party itself.” gave me some hope and another path to look for so I did some research.
Unfortunately, what I found was contradictory to itself and I’ll have to ponder it.
In one paragraph, he emphasizes a natural law and man’s Creator. His inclusion of Redeemer worries me though.
“Our Constitution (along with the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence) was formed, framed, and founded upon the eternal principles contained in Natural Law, which proceeds forth from man’s Creator and Redeemer. No people in human history have ever been so blessed as the people of the United States to inherit such a legacy. Such a heritage serves only to heighten our own responsibility, as “unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.”
http://www.baldwin08.com/ARTICLE-Baldwin_A_Salute_To_Our_US_Constitution.cfm
Paragraph 5
The very next paragraph can be taken different ways.
“On this Constitution Day of 2008, may this generation of Americans live up to its responsibility to valiantly bequeath to our posterity the same legacy of freedom that was so bravely and miraculously bequeathed to us. For the sake of freedom, for the love of our children, and for the safety and security of our republic, may each of us determine for ourselves–and commit to Almighty God–to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
He may be invoking a Deistic interpretation of God, but considering the party he is coming from I doubt it. The statements can be used by any of the monotheistic religions of the middle east but completely excludes everything else.
He also does not say what should be done to someone who ignores their “responsibilities” and does not “commit to the almighty God”. That is a red flag to me.
So far, Chuck Baldwin looks to me like he is against the freedom to express religious beliefs without repercussions. I say this as someone who is not against God– my days as an Atheist ended years ago along with my partying days. I say this as someone who is not against the constitution, just this particular interpretation of it.
So far, I haven’t seen anything that changes my opinion. However, this does make me wonder if Sarah Palin is as big a threat. More research is necessary.
[Reply]
I don’t see how Ron Paul can support Chuck. Read Chuck’s trade policy ideas
“A tariff on foreign imports, based on the difference between the foreign item’s cost of production abroad and the cost of production of a similar item produced in the United States, would be a Constitutional step toward a fair trade policy that would protect American jobs”
I know Ron Paul is a big follower of Austrian Economics. This line of economics and Chuck’s policies are fundamentally opposed. Has Chuck ever heard of comparative advantage? Do nations trade or do individuals? Is a tariff on imports a restriction on individual liberty? Does Chuck really think we should put a tariff on bananas large enough so that we can grow them in the US where you would need a greenhouse to do so?
Other than having a poor understanding of basic economics the Constitution party is mainly on board with individual liberty.
[Reply]
I voted Chuck Baldwin! He may not win, but he definitely is the best choice up there. Everyone should always vote their conscience
[Reply]
Sorry, not buying it. I’ll still write-in Ron Paul. It’s only one vote, but it’s my vote.
[Reply]
Well, here I am on the deadline day in my state for a write-in candidate to register as such (for it to be actually counted and not discarded).
My heart is the heaviest it has ever been in my 57 years on the planet because Dr. Paul is not on my sample ballot. Ironically this situation is somewhat at odds with what I think Dr. Paul believes.
I must now vote the lesser evil. But on what level of “evil”? The candidate that I agree with THE MOST is not an ‘official’ option so my vote will TRULY be thrown away this election year!
So, I’ll hope against hope that on election day Dr. Paul’s name will magically & electronically appear as a write-in ‘choice’ when I actually cast my ballot. I’ll have to make my decision only then.
[Reply]
Heavy heart because we have to vote the least of 2 evils? With the except that my heart is about 10 years younger, we are on the same track.
[Reply]
None of these third-party candidates have a chance, so let’s vote for the best; take a stand. Vote for Ron Paul by writing him in.
[Reply]
I greatly admire Ron Paul’s eloquence in the defense of economic freedom in the US…but I feel very frustrated that he would endorse a church-and-state candidate seemingly just to spite Bob Barr. It seems very irresponsible and divisive. After all, the group with momentum, the third largest political party in the nation, is the Libertarian Party. Why not rally behind its nominee? Barr is the best proponent of libertarian ideals of all the candidates running for President, so it would make sense to make your choice based on that, not on the fact that Ron Paul put a one line endorsement of the other guy in the last sentence of a letter.
Look, we all know that none of these people have a chance at getting elected – Barr, Paul, or the ‘Constitution’ party. So doesn’t it make sense to try and consolidate our votes behind the one most likely to garner the most votes anyway?
[Reply]
After reading this I have decided to write in vote for Ron Paul. I also want to say that all of the posts I read only confused the issue for me, they did not help in any way. I can only assume that the posts were to state personal opinions. I wanted those of you who posted to have that feedback.
[Reply]
To Eric and those writing-in Ron Paul’s name,
The third party candidates may not have a chance, but the 2012 liberty candidates need your 2008 vote. Not voting for Barr or Baldwin is equivalent to punishing the 2012 Libertarian or Constitution Party nominees who need your 2008 vote plus thousands of others to get automatic ballot access for the 2012 election. I don’t think that it is fair that if I don’t vote for Barr or Baldwin, the 2012 LP or CP nominee will have to fight the courts and 2-party system to get on the 2012 ballots.
I voted on Monday….and I wrote-in Ron Paul on the ballot…but not for President…I wrote him in for Florida State Representative District 106…I had to choose between voting for someone named Richard L. Steinberg or doing a write-in.
So now I can say I have voted for RP
My vote for President went towards helping the 2012 LP nominee get ballot access.
[Reply]
Edward, ins’t not voting for barr and Baldwin punishing the nominees for the positions they took against Ron Paul and others like him who were trying to do more thatn just promote a Libertarian agenda?
[Reply]
Lance,
If you want to punish Barr or Baldwin, then don’t send him any donations…that’s what I did after Barr angered Ron Paul by not showing up at his 3rd party press conference…I didn’t send him a penny after that…but I still voted for Barr in order to help the 2012 LP nominee get ballot access.
Let’s suppose that Ron Paul has a change of heart and decides to be the 2012 LP nominee…do you want him to have automatic ballot access or do you want him fighting the courts, the 2 party system and wasting his campaign cash to get on the 2012 ballots? And if Ron Paul strongly endorses the 2012 LP nominee, do you want that nominee fighting the courts too?
If you reply please talk about 2012.
[Reply]
I’ve been thinking about the statement that “The Constitution Party does not represent nearly as big a threat to our religious freedom as a McCain/Palin administration.”
For the reasons enumerated above, I do find the constitution party to be a major threat. And I don’t see McCain or Palin to be anymore than holding different “values” than I do. The only place I can see that being a problem is stem-cell research.
But to use a person’s religion as a pivoting factor in and of itself is a major threat. Yes, politicians will make decisions based on the value system they hold as true, just as you and I would. But as long as the government isn’t forcing their version of worship on others then it shouldn’t matter.
[Reply]
An informative article about Chuck Baldwin is the following:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance151.html
[Reply]
Informative but misleading. It skims over the threatening ideas I read at both Baldwin’s web site and Constitution party’s site. Just because they call themselves constitutionalists doesn’t mean they support what I read when I read the constitution.
Baldwin and his party are both nightmares waiting to happen. They seem to want to return to the system of government common before John Locke and Thomas Jefferson. While I don’t think I’ve read them actually saying this, but what I have read implies that they believe the government is not an institution of the people that can be altered by the people when the people find it necessary. They seem to think that government is an institution of God and to disagree with it is to disagree with God. If Baldwin has any chance in this vote, I hope I am wrong.
[Reply]
I would also like to respond to an article referred to; “the great conservative hoax” by Lew Rockwell.
To imply conservatives believe in preemptive warfare is misleading. Both our military actions in Iraq and in Afghanistan started as self-defense. They morphed into something else later on, but it started as a self-defensive measure because of the actions of 9-11, Sadam’s past support of terrorists, and Sadam’s refusal to pay attention to the treaties he signed.
With the exception of the 4th of July, the only time I know of that conservatives are “wrapped up in celebrating the nation-state” was when we were reacting to warfare against us. Sometimes humans need a little cheer-leading.
We do not condemn civil liberties any more than liberals who want to take away our right to smoke, eat, or drink what we want. Conservatives do not casting aspersions on religious liberty,
Ok; many conservatives herald the jail, the electric chair, and brute force as the answer to all of society’s problems. Those ideals must be fought. But not all conservatives believe so and the actions of the conservatives that don’t do not lead to actions of those that do as Mr Rockwell claims.
Yes I hate (fear is a better word) the left because it proclaims the state as the answer to all evils. That is why I call them “statists”.
If some conservatives love the past more than liberty, then they are not alone. Look at the “progressive” movement that wants to avoid all change (except in political propaganda) and shield us from the effects of our freedom. At least they have a holistic hatred towards change that includes animals, the climate, and minerals.
I still say an attachment to nationalism only happens on July 4th, and the dislike some have towards self-determination is dwarfed by other positions on the political spectrum.
When he says they “thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy”, is he talking about the Constitution Party?
At least Rockwell didn’t condemn conservatives because they are heartless and don’t care about the welfare of others. That is the only part of the article that makes sense to me.
[Reply]
The Revolution Was …..
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32cxf_yuri-bezmenov
[Reply]
The claim that the Constitution Party (CP) supports the implementation of a theocracy, is absolutely false. CP leaders addressed this bogus charge four years ago:
“I’m not talking about a theocracy. Recognition of the doctrine of the existence of the Creator God and His role in the bequeathing of inalienable rights to the people has no inherent connection to the notion of theocracy as some charge. Freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and the avoidance of a congressionally declared State Religion of America are all a part of the package of what I believe, and what the American Constitution teaches, foundationally. The charge that either I or the Constitution Party stand on the premises of governmentally induced notions of theocracy is absolutely false—a complete canard.”
–Michael Peroutka
Constitution Party 2004 Presidential Nominee
[Reply]
Mr Peroutka,
I hope you didn’t think I was claiming you would establish a “theocracy”. I never used the word. However, what their web-site claims to want to implement sounds similar to what many, if not most, think of as a “theocracy”.
If the CP wishes to dispel people’s thoughts along those lines then they may want to take down the statements such as “Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations”.
Then there is Baldwin’s statements. His references to a redeemer reeks of the religious arrogance of a revealed religion- something I find offensive and threatening to say the least. His call to commit to Almighty God sounds like the verbage used by monotheistic religions that all must bow down to their vision of God and nothing else. Those words are not damning in and of themselves and only show a potential for a government lead by religion. But when you combine Baldwin’s words with the CP’s statements, the potential becomes a solid threat.
Bottom line, if there is a misunderstanding about the CP’s position then it is their own fault. They are providing everybody with enough ammo to shoot anything the party says.
Where you fall in all of this, I don’t know. Your emphasis on a creator could be deistic enough to be acceptable. While I haven’t done enough research on your position, I am sure of the CP’s and Baldwin’s self-proclaimed positions and find them to be unacceptable.
[Reply]
Hear hear. The CP can’t use all their religionist verbiage and still claim to be as libertarian as the Libertarians…that’s just speaking with a forked tongue. If you’re for the separation of church and state, then leave the church stuff out of your platform.
[Reply]
Maybe a more accurate assessment of this isn’t exactly in line with either side. It’s understandable that some would be skittish about the religious comments from the Constitution Party, or even Chuck Baldwin as an individual, depending on the context. But it’s unlikely that their choice of words is evidence that the party is a group of would-be dictators, trying deviously to use enough religious verbiage to rally the troops, but not enough to admit to everyone else what they’re up to. More likely it’s a product of a group of well-meaning Christians who have a high regard for liberty and integrity but haven’t fully thought through the proper role of government in a free society. But, to be fair to Baldwin and his supporters, they do seem to have thought this through about 100 times more intensively than 99% of Democrats and Republicans.
I hope that Constitution Party supporters continue to ponder this issue, and engage others in discussions about it. Likewise, I hope that those who are uncomfortable with the group’s Christian rhetoric will realize that this is not a bunch of Karl Roves and Tom Delays, hypocritically trying to pull one over on us. Please don’t be so jaded by the tyrants and the phonies that you become paranoid about all references to religion; it is possible for someone to have devout beliefs, and even be quite open about them, and still not want to use government to force any of them on you. Let’s keep a healthy discussion going; if we’re reasonable about it, everyone benefits.
[Reply]
[Lyndon Olson]“Likewise, I hope that those who are uncomfortable with the group’s Christian rhetoric will realize that this is not a bunch of Karl Roves and Tom Delays, hypocritically trying to pull one over on us. Please don’t be so jaded by the tyrants and the phonies that you become paranoid about all references to religion; it is possible for someone to have devout beliefs, and even be quite open about them, and still not want to use government to force any of them on you.”[/Lyndon Olson]
Very well said and quite true, Lyndon. Some people have a knee-jerk fear, bordering on paranoia, of devout Christians in government. However, the secularism these same people advocate doesn’t have a very good track record:
Soviet Regime of Lenin and Stalin (both militant atheists)–Secular and officially atheist–Approximately 45 million people murdered. Millions more incarcerated in prisons and slave labor camps, tortured etc. Shut down church-operated private schools and destroyed thousands of churches in Russia and occupied countries.
Nazi Regime of Hitler (who was bitterly anti-Christian)–Secular–Approximately 10 million murdered, and tens of millions more died in the world war the Nazis precipitated. The Nazis shut down all church-operated private schools in Germany, and destroyed thousands of churches in occupied Europe and Russia.
Fascist Regime of Mussolini (a militant atheist who publicly attacked Christianity)–Secular–Entered into a complete politico-military alliance with the Nazis, and collaborated in many Nazi crimes against humanity, as well as perpetrating many of their own.
Red Chinese Regime of Chairman Mao (a militant atheist)–Secular– Murdered at least 60 million people, millions more incarcerated in prisons and slave labor camps, tortured etc.
Regime of Pol Pot (a militant atheist)–Secular–Approximately two million murdered, with many others incarcerated in prisons and slave labor camps, tortured etc.
Regime of Kim Il-Sung (a militant atheist)–Secular–Approximately two million murdered, with many others incarcerated in prisons and slave labor camps, tortured etc.
The 20th Century was “The Century of Secularism” in governments around the world, and tens of millions more people were murdered, enslaved, imprisoned and tortured than in any other century in world history.
The blood of well over a hundred million people is flowing from the hands of the apostles of government secularism.
Of course, the advocates of secularism will propose a false dichotomy of “It’s got to be either secularism or theocracy”.
Which is NOT true. Like the America created by our founding fathers, it can be a government based on GENERAL Judeo-Christian principles like “Thou shalt not murder”, “Thou shalt not steal” etc. Which is NOT the same thing as establishing a theocracy and official state religion of Christianity, which the Constitution Party opposes just as strongly as the secularists.
[Reply]
[Fausticus]“Hear hear. The CP can’t use all their religionist verbiage and still claim to be as libertarian as the Libertarians…that’s just speaking with a forked tongue. If you’re for the separation of church and state, then leave the church stuff out of your platform.”[/Fausticus]
You’re clearly misrepresenting the Constitution Party (CP). Please show us where any candidate or official of the CP has claimed that the CP is “as libertarian as the Libertarians”.
The CP stands on its own merits. We’re not Libertarian Party (LP) wannabes.
Last time I checked, the LP officially supported a policy of “open borders”. In the age of international terrorism/criminal syndicates/drug dealing, Red Chinese encroachment in the Western Hemisphere etc.–”open borders” is a policy of national suicide.
With its “open borders” policy, the Libertarian Party stands against American sovereignty and liberty. Which is why I don’t stand with the Libertarian Party.
When “former” CIA agent Bob Barr rammed a shiv in Ron Paul’s back, Ron very wisely endorsed Mr. Chuck Baldwin, a man eminently more principled than Bob Barr.
[Reply]
The platform statements are more than just reiterating general principles. It (a conglomerate of CP and Baldwin’s web sites) demands that you accept the idea of a redeemer and take the responsibility to commit to it.
The general principles you quote are not unique to Judeo-Christian beliefs. The CP states that we must go back to the Christian principles, not the general principles you use. Just as I can only commit to the last 5 of the 10 commandments, I cannot commit to the CP with a clear conscious.
BTW, you are not going to win me over by equating my beliefs to Atheistic dictators anymore than I would if I claimed the CP wanted to return to the principles that drove the crusades and ended-up burning many at the stake.
The CP, IMHO, would do well to emphasis the positive aspects of Christianity but equate them to Christianity no more than claiming something like “while it was the vehicle used to get there, it is not the only vehicle that will get there”.
[Reply]
[Fluidly Unsure]The platform statements are more than just reiterating general principles. It (a conglomerate of CP and Baldwin’s web sites) demands that you accept the idea of a redeemer and take the responsibility to commit to it.[/Fluidly Unsure]
The only people that the CP “requires” to accept their ideas, is those people who wish to join and become officers of the CP.
Like any other political party, we expect our members to be faithful to our platform.
Under no circumstances does the CP support forcing any non-members of the party to accept their Christian faith and party platform.
You can vote for Chuck Baldwin without having to join the party, and quite frankly we don’t care what your personal beliefs are.
Your grossly mistaken belief that the CP is somehow going to try to force all Americans to become Christians and adhere to the CP platform, is quite naive.
[Fluidly Unsure]The general principles you quote are not unique to Judeo-Christian beliefs. The CP states that we must go back to the Christian principles, not the general principles you use. Just as I can only commit to the last 5 of the 10 commandments, I cannot commit to the CP with a clear conscious.[/Fluidly Unsure]
Nobody’s asking you to “commit” to the CP. Voting for Chuck Baldwin is not a “commitment”, any more than my past votes for both individual Republicans and Libertarians is a “commitment” to either of those parties.
[Fluidly Unsure]BTW, you are not going to win me over by equating my beliefs to Atheistic dictators anymore than I would if I claimed the CP wanted to return to the principles that drove the crusades and ended-up burning many at the stake.[/Fluidly Unsure]
Nobody’s trying to win you over. You’re flattering yourself if you think either of my previous posts were in any way directed toward you.
By the way, the primary purpose of the Crusades was to resist the Muslim takeover of Europe. If the Crusades had never occurred, you’d be living under Sharia law right now, if you hadn’t already been killed for being an “infidel”.
I told the simple, verifiable truth about numerous major secular governments of the 20th Century. If that offends you, I’m not sorry.
The sadly mistaken notion that secular governments are somehow “superior” when it comes to securing personal liberty, is quite simply laughable.
Especially in light of the overtly secular and brutal dictatorships of Lenin/Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung, Mussolini, Idi Amin, Ceausescu, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro etc.
[Fluidly Unsure]The CP, IMHO, would do well to emphasis the positive aspects of Christianity but equate them to Christianity no more than claiming something like “while it was the vehicle used to get there, it is not the only vehicle that will get there”.[/Fluidly Unsure]
Thanks, but we’re not interested in compromising our beliefs, just to satisfy the whims of those who are opposed to some of those beliefs.
Compromise was the downfall of the Republican Party, which is now merely a mirror image of the Democratic Party at the leadership level.
Not surprisingly, both of those virtually worthless parties are secular in nature.
[Reply]
wow, good job…keep it up. You’re doing a better job discrediting yourself than any opponent could.
[Reply]
[Fausticus]wow, good job…keep it up. You’re doing a better job discrediting yourself than any opponent could.[/Fausticus]
I haven’t discredited myself at all. In fact, I’ve corrected false representations about the CP made by you and others here. You have yet to successfully refute anything I’ve said.
If you oppose the CP’s religious beliefs, fine. Don’t vote for Chuck Baldwin. I bear you no malice for that.
But at least present some in-depth intellectual arguments, rather than making cheap-shots and false representations.
[Reply]
[Randy]Nobody’s asking you to “commit” to the CP. [/Randy]
No, the CP isn’t. They only say it shall be required (of him shall be much required). It was Baldwin’s web-site that claimed we must “commit” to “almighty god”. His words, not mine. They also are using a forked tongue when they claim we can determine for ourselves but then tells us what we must determine. (may each of us determine for ourselves–and commit to Almighty God).
[Randy]You can vote for Chuck Baldwin without having to join the party,[/Randy]
Right after I vote for Nader even though I don’t want any of the policies he says he wants.
[randy]Nobody’s asking you to “commit” to the CP.[/randy]
However, Baldwin’s web-site says you must “commit” to a view of God that I do not hold true. The Cp’s site implies that you must be willing to go back to the “Christian Foundation”.
[randy]If the Crusades had never occurred, you’d be living under Sharia law right now[/randy]
Maybe. If the attitude during the Crusades continued and my relatives survived not fitting in (Scottish Irish), then I probably would be killed either by the Roman church or a Calvanistic protestant. I wonder, is OBL simply a reincarnation of John Calvin or Pope Urban?
[randy]Not surprisingly, both of those virtually worthless parties are secular in nature.[/randy]
Oh really? That is not the image the press gives of Palin’s or Bush’s religious beliefs.
[randy]The sadly mistaken notion that secular governments are somehow “superior” when it comes to securing personal liberty, is quite simply laughable.[/randy]
I know. When did I claim secular governments were “superior”? I don’t remember doing so for 30 years at least.
[randy]we’re not interested in compromising our beliefs[/randy]
The reason I was impressed with Ron Paul is that he is willing to work with others. It is ok to disagree with RP, but I’m afraid the CP will take a radically different approach. One that will make these last 8 years seem like paradise.
[Reply]
It is my personal opinion that there’s a serious problem with voting for Baldwin. I believe it will set back all the ground we have made with Dr. Paul, because we won’t be able to control the media interpretation of the votes. Ron Paulers may be voting for Baldwin for economic and individual freedom reasons and the media, having no way of knowing just why Baldwin got votes, can claim that he got them for Christian Right reasons and then if it comes out that it was Dr. Paul encouraging those votes, then a link will be made, rightly or wrongly, that Dr. Paul is about being Christian Right and anti-gay and goodness knows what else, instead of staying focussed on the economy and the sovereignty of America and the Constitution and all else he believes in. I just can’t bring myself to believe that by voting for “someone else” does me any good.
I feel like I just don’t have a choice for President but luckily for me I have a Congressional choice where I live – a guy that is running for Congress on the Ron Paul platform, inspired by Ron Paul and I believe our efforts should be thrown into voting in Congress Reps and Senators on even the local level (State Congress and Senators) on the Ron Paul platform and making constant emails and phone calls to all of them constantly long after Nov 4th to let them know how we want them to vote. I just feel like no matter what we do on this Presidential election we won’t be heard unless we had a huge turn out of ballots that voted for all the local stuff and left the Presidential part blank. Do they report on that if it were huge? Would there be a report of 5% or 10% of the people who voted but left the presidential part blank?
I am also pushing both the Obama and McCain camp to select Dr. Paul as Treas Secr for their cabinet and at the very least, an economic advisor. It just seems like something that CAN be done – not the accomplishment of, but the pushing. Let the Obama camp (assuming he wins) get hundreds of thousands of emails and phone calls asking for the appointment of Dr. Paul. And let that hit the news. Why not marches with signs calling for the appointment of Dr. Paul to a cabinet position regardless of who wins? Why can’t that be all over the news and airways? Let whoever the winner is be shamed and targeted by a substantial % of the American people want fiscal conservatism. I vote for pushing for Dr. Paul for a Cabinet position and that will make the news more candidly and flagrantly than voting someone who reflects Dr. Paul on some issues but not others and therefore, all our votes could become misinterpreted. Just a thought. Interestingly for me, I will be overseas for a long time starting right after the election so I’ll get to hear what the international community thinks of all this.
[Reply]
Nancy makes several excellent points. As the mainstream media all but ignore Baldwin and other alternative candidates even before the election, it’s a safe bet that, after the election, they won’t interview a lot of Baldwin voters as part of an in-depth analysis of what drove them. They’ll draw their own conclusions, if they notice at all. Who knows–if they do get detailed enough to conclude that Baldwin got support from the left and the right, they could attribute it to the voters not knowing which “Baldwin brother” they were voting for.
As Nancy notes, a clearer way of making your intentions known would be to focus on other options, such as other races in which there are candidates who truly echo Ron Paul’s message, pushing for Dr. Paul to be selected as a Cabinet member or top advisor (just as in the presidential race, there’s value in the campaign, even if he doesn’t get the job), and incessantly pressing elected officials to consider our views on the issues (combined with ongoing outreach to the public on the same points).
I don’t think this is an either-or proposition, though. There’s still some value to increasing the vote totals for the alternative candidates. Granted, the media might perceive Baldwin voters as Huckabee supporters on steroids, Nader and McKinney supporters as anti-capitalist fanatics, and Bob Barr supporters as ultra-conservatives with an anarchist streak, but it will prompt a certain amount of consideration of what these “protest votes” have in common, which will benefit our efforts in the other areas Nancy suggested. As for voting in other races and not for president, the question of whether or not the media would notice this might be trumped by the comparable shortage of ideal options in the other races as well. If you’re fortunate enough to have a Ron Paul supporter running for a lesser office on your ballot, that’s great, but should we, for example, agree to vote for any member of Congress who voted against the bailout bill, even if ours is someone we totally oppose on some other issues? Tough call…
In short, though, the best way to avoid sending the wrong message is to put your exact message in your own words, and share it with elected officials, the media, and the public at every opportunity. We owe Nancy a big “thank you” for reminding us that we have other options, and for suggesting some very good ones to us.
It wouldn’t be practical here to try to referee the ongoing debate between Randy and his critics, but I was curious about one passing remark from Randy that began with “When ‘former’ CIA agent Bob Barr rammed a shiv into Ron Paul’s back…” Considering how elaborately Randy argues for his position on other points, I was surprised to read such a hostile accusation with no evidence or explanation offered for it. Even those of us who make some effort to keep up with what’s happening don’t always get all the news about everything. If someone is going to make that harsh an attack on someone, particularly a candidate who stands against the major party candidates in supporting our positions on major issues, shouldn’t that critic offer some evidence to justify the charge, instead of just assuming that we’re all reading all of the same blogs and agreeing with what they say?
[Reply]
Eric, I wonder if some of the 2012 strategy is short sighted. For example, history has shown that the strength of the 3rd party is based upon the candidate. Without any cohesiveness or agreement amongst the coalition that would represent supporters of the 3rd party, access in 2012 will be wasted as the Democratic and Republican machines attack the the 3d party and weaken its ability to attract mainstream members of their respective parties. These two issues point to my main concern which is; we need to believe in our group as one that can come to agreement and support one candidate more than we need to spend our energy on access in 2012. Can we form a consesus? Can we find the popular candidate now? If not then access seems pointless in 2012.
[Reply]
Thank you Ron Paul for standing up for what America should be. My prayers are with you and will always support you.
[Reply]
GREAT RON PAUL VIDEO! MUST WATCH
http://framingtheworld.com/videos/ronpaulbooksigninghome.html
[Reply]
In the end I wrote in Ron Paul for president. I couldn’t vote for a third party with a clear conscience and I knew that would be an exercise in futility. Even though I knew that my vote would not count I had the hope that possibly someone was counting votes out there and would know how many registered Republicans voted for Ron Paul.
Oh, and on the topic of celebrity endorsement, I think a Ron Paul and Ben Stein ticket would be unstoppable… http://benstein.com
Be sure to click on my pic and visit my site. Go to the “News” page for my Ron Paul collage!
[Reply]
[...] Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin on September 23. [...]