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.
- Ron Paul and Rand Paul: Why Going Third Party is Not an Option Show: Glenn Beck Show Channel: Fox News Date: 11/06/2009 Host: Judge Andrew Napolitano Judge...
- Ron Paul on the Tea Party Movement, CPAC 2010, Ron Paul 2012 Date: 1/8/2010 Show: Anderson Cooper 360 Channel: CNN Transcript Anderson Cooper: Palin has reportedly...
- Ron Paul Shall Rise Again Yesterday on Meet the Press they reviewed the declining prospects for the Republican Party. And...
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Revolution Was …..
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32cxf_yuri-bezmenov
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
An informative article about Chuck Baldwin is the following:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance151.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry, not buying it. I’ll still write-in Ron Paul. It’s only one vote, but it’s my vote.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I voted Chuck Baldwin! He may not win, but he definitely is the best choice up there. Everyone should always vote their conscience
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m agnostic by the way, i only mentioned god because i felt it was moving to do so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
how do we take our country back from the ego and greed of the politicians and financial sectors. This includes democrats and republicans.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Bob Barr is a phony, and he is right at home with the juveniles in the Libertarian party.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0