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.
Processing your request, Please wait....
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear A Concerned Constitutional Christian,
So you would pass laws against everything you consider a sin?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] 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.) [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Chuck Baldwin has my vote!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
correction…I’ve been listening to Chuck Baldwin at http://revolutionbroadcasting.com/
sorry and thanks!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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 !!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A sea change as citizens see their savings disappear.
nader paul kucinich gravel
Open the damn debates!
mckinney ventura
perot charts
RATM
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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 -
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Party Loyalty is what keeps people voting for Repubs and Dems.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is a good choice for me as the Constitution Party wants to deport all illegals
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0