265 responses to “Ron Paul Endorses Chuck Baldwin for President”

  1. Edward

    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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Lyndon Olson

    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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. David

    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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Jenna

    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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Seth

    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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Seth

    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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. Matthew

    I’m agnostic by the way, i only mentioned god because i felt it was moving to do so.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. JE

    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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. Matthew

    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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Lyndon Olson

    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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. rita giampa

    how do we take our country back from the ego and greed of the politicians and financial sectors. This includes democrats and republicans.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. rita giampa

    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?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. John L

    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!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. Roy Baker

    Bob Barr is a phony, and he is right at home with the juveniles in the Libertarian party.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. steve

    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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. A Concerned Constitutional Christian

    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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. steve

    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!!!!!!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. Daniel H

    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!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. Daniel H

    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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. Fluidly Unsure

    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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. Noah T

    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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. Edward

    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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. Noah T

    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”.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. William B.

    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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. A Concerned Constitutional Christian

    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

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. Stephan Zimmermann

    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.?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. Pete

    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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. Kenyatte Hay

    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

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. Michael

    Dear A Concerned Constitutional Christian,

    So you would pass laws against everything you consider a sin?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. nancy storer

    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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. 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 “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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. steve

    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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. 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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. 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.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. Thank You, Dr. Ron Paul | Ron Paul .com

    [...] 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.) [...]

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply