Ron Paul Endorses Chuck Baldwin for President

In this important message to his supporters, Ron Paul explains the new alliance that is forming among freedom-loving third party supporters, expresses his regret for Bob Barr’s refusal to join the alliance, and endorses Chuck Baldwin for President.

A New Alliance

by Ron Paul

The press conference at the National Press Club had a precise purpose. It was to expose, to as many people as possible, the gross deception of our presidential election process. It is controlled by the powerful elite to make sure that neither candidate of the two major parties will challenge the status quo. There is no real choice between the two major parties and their nominees, only the rhetoric varies. The amazingly long campaign is designed to make sure the real issues are ignored. The quotes I used at the press conference from insider Carroll Quigley and the League of Women voters strongly support this contention.

Calling together candidates from the liberal, conservative, libertarian and progressive constituencies, who are all opposed to this rigged process, was designed to alert the American people to the uselessness of continuing to support a process that a claims that one’s only choice is to choose the lesser of two evils and reject a principle vote that might challenge the status quo as a wasted vote.

In both political education and organization, coalitions are worthwhile and necessary to have an impact. “Talking to the choir” alone achieves little. I have always approached political and economic education with a “missionary” zeal by inviting any group in on issues we agree upon.

This opens the door to legitimate discourse with the hope of winning new converts to the cause of liberty. This strategy led to the press conference with the four candidates agreeing to the four principles we believe are crucial in challenging the political system that has evolved over many years in this country.

This unique press conference, despite the surprising, late complication from the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, hopefully will prove to be historically significant.

This does not mean that I expect to get Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney to become libertarians, nor do they expect me to change my mind on the issues on which we disagree. In the meantime, why can’t we be friends, respectful of each other, and fight the corrupt process from which we suffer, and at the same time champion the four issues that we all agree upon which the two major candidates won’t address?

Many practical benefits can come from this unique alliance. Our cause is liberty — freedom is popular and is the banner that brings people together. Since authoritarianism divides, we always have the edge in an intellectual fight. Once it’s realized that the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity are best achieved with our views, I’m convinced we win by working with others. Those who don’t want to collaborate are insecure with their own beliefs.

In the past two years at the many rallies where I talked and shook hands with literally thousands of people, I frequently asked them what brought them to our campaign. There were many answers: the Constitution, my consistency, views on the Federal Reserve, the war, and civil liberties. The crowds were overwhelmingly made up of young people.

Oftentimes I welcomed the diverse groups that came, mentioning that the crowd was made up of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Liberals and Progressives with each group applauding. Even jokingly, I recognized the “anarchists” and that, too, was met with some applause. In conversations, many admitted to having been Democrats and members of the Green Party and supporters of Ralph Nader, yet they came to agree with us on all the issues once the entire philosophy was understood. That’s progress.

Principled people are not shy in participating with others and will defend their beliefs on their merits. Liberals and progressives are willing to align themselves with us on the key issues of peace, civil liberties, debt and the Federal Reserve. That’s exciting and very encouraging, and it means we are making progress. The big challenge, however, is taking on the establishment, and the process that is so well entrenched. But we can’t beat the entrenched elite without the alliance of all those who have been disenfranchised.

Ironically the most difficult group to recruit has been the evangelicals who supported McCain and his pro-war positions. They have been convinced that they are obligated to initiate preventive war in the Middle East for theological reasons. Fortunately, this is a minority of the Christian community, but our doors remain open to all despite this type of challenge. The point is, new devotees to the freedom philosophy are more likely to come from the left than from those conservatives who have been convinced that God has instructed us to militarize the Middle East.

Although we were on the receiving end of ridicule in the reporting of the press conference, I personally was quite satisfied with the results. True revolutions are not won in a week, a month, or even a year. They take time. But we are making progress, and the momentum remains and is picking up. The Campaign for Liberty is alive and well, and its growth and influence will continue. Obviously the press conference could have been even more successful without the last-minute change of heart by the Libertarian Party candidate by not participating. He stated that his support for the four points remains firm. His real reason for not coming, nor letting me know until forty minutes before the press conference started, is unknown to me. To say the least, I was shocked and disappointed.

Yet in the long run, this last-minute change in plans will prove to be of little importance. I’m convinced that problems like this always seem bigger at the moment, yet things usually work out in the end. Recovering from the mistakes and shortcomings of all that we do in this effort is not difficult if the message is right and our efforts are determined. And I’m convinced they are. That’s what will determine our long-term success, not the shortcomings of any one person.

The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more than one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.

I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better. I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.

In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York. This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats. We need more states to permit this option. This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.

I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.


  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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!

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

  • 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 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.

  • 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:
    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.

  • 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” 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!!!!!!

  • 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?


  • 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.

  • Fluidly Unsure


    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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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”.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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.?

  • 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.

  • 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

  • Michael

    Dear A Concerned Constitutional Christian,

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

  • 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.