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.


  • A Concerned Constitutional Christian

    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 “;” his statement of faith is reproduced here:
    P.P.S. I’d be happy to debate anyone on any of these subjects.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • steve

    That guy..what the difference 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 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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • That guy

    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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Richard Gambrill

    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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Pingback: Thank You, Dr. Ron Paul | Ron Paul .com()

  • Cassandra Bachrach

    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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Richard Gambrill

    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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Daniel Hauge

    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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Mike C

    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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • g hutch

    I would rather vote for someone I want then
    waste it on someone I DON’T want and just get more if the same….


    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Richard Gambrill

    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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Darren

    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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Bob Munro

    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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Lojiko

    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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • William B.

    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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Richard Gambrill

    From the CP Website:

    “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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • ted

    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 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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • John Mauldin

    Chuck Baldwin has my vote!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Helge Skjeveland

    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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Rich

    correction…I’ve been listening to Chuck Baldwin at
    sorry and thanks!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0