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.


  • Fluidly Unsure

    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.

  • Dan

    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.

  • Seth

    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!!

  • Mrsdonut

    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.

  • steve

    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.

  • Richard Philips

    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

  • Brennan

    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

  • 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!

  • MountainDoc

    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.


  • J.Oftedahl

    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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.