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.


  • Fausticus

    Hear hear. The CP can’t use all their religionist verbiage and still claim to be as libertarian as the Libertarians…that’s just speaking with a forked tongue. If you’re for the separation of church and state, then leave the church stuff out of your platform.

  • Fluidly Unsure

    Mr Peroutka,

    I hope you didn’t think I was claiming you would establish a “theocracy”. I never used the word. However, what their web-site claims to want to implement sounds similar to what many, if not most, think of as a “theocracy”.

    If the CP wishes to dispel people’s thoughts along those lines then they may want to take down the statements such as “Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations”.

    Then there is Baldwin’s statements. His references to a redeemer reeks of the religious arrogance of a revealed religion- something I find offensive and threatening to say the least. His call to commit to Almighty God sounds like the verbage used by monotheistic religions that all must bow down to their vision of God and nothing else. Those words are not damning in and of themselves and only show a potential for a government lead by religion. But when you combine Baldwin’s words with the CP’s statements, the potential becomes a solid threat.

    Bottom line, if there is a misunderstanding about the CP’s position then it is their own fault. They are providing everybody with enough ammo to shoot anything the party says.

    Where you fall in all of this, I don’t know. Your emphasis on a creator could be deistic enough to be acceptable. While I haven’t done enough research on your position, I am sure of the CP’s and Baldwin’s self-proclaimed positions and find them to be unacceptable.

  • Randy

    The claim that the Constitution Party (CP) supports the implementation of a theocracy, is absolutely false. CP leaders addressed this bogus charge four years ago:

    “I’m not talking about a theocracy. Recognition of the doctrine of the existence of the Creator God and His role in the bequeathing of inalienable rights to the people has no inherent connection to the notion of theocracy as some charge. Freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and the avoidance of a congressionally declared State Religion of America are all a part of the package of what I believe, and what the American Constitution teaches, foundationally. The charge that either I or the Constitution Party stand on the premises of governmentally induced notions of theocracy is absolutely false—a complete canard.”

    –Michael Peroutka
    Constitution Party 2004 Presidential Nominee

  • longshotlouie
  • Fluidly Unsure

    I would also like to respond to an article referred to; “the great conservative hoax” by Lew Rockwell.

    To imply conservatives believe in preemptive warfare is misleading. Both our military actions in Iraq and in Afghanistan started as self-defense. They morphed into something else later on, but it started as a self-defensive measure because of the actions of 9-11, Sadam’s past support of terrorists, and Sadam’s refusal to pay attention to the treaties he signed.

    With the exception of the 4th of July, the only time I know of that conservatives are “wrapped up in celebrating the nation-state” was when we were reacting to warfare against us. Sometimes humans need a little cheer-leading.

    We do not condemn civil liberties any more than liberals who want to take away our right to smoke, eat, or drink what we want. Conservatives do not casting aspersions on religious liberty,

    Ok; many conservatives herald the jail, the electric chair, and brute force as the answer to all of society’s problems. Those ideals must be fought. But not all conservatives believe so and the actions of the conservatives that don’t do not lead to actions of those that do as Mr Rockwell claims.

    Yes I hate (fear is a better word) the left because it proclaims the state as the answer to all evils. That is why I call them “statists”.

    If some conservatives love the past more than liberty, then they are not alone. Look at the “progressive” movement that wants to avoid all change (except in political propaganda) and shield us from the effects of our freedom. At least they have a holistic hatred towards change that includes animals, the climate, and minerals.

    I still say an attachment to nationalism only happens on July 4th, and the dislike some have towards self-determination is dwarfed by other positions on the political spectrum.

    When he says they “thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy”, is he talking about the Constitution Party?

    At least Rockwell didn’t condemn conservatives because they are heartless and don’t care about the welfare of others. That is the only part of the article that makes sense to me.

  • Fluidly Unsure

    Informative but misleading. It skims over the threatening ideas I read at both Baldwin’s web site and Constitution party’s site. Just because they call themselves constitutionalists doesn’t mean they support what I read when I read the constitution.

    Baldwin and his party are both nightmares waiting to happen. They seem to want to return to the system of government common before John Locke and Thomas Jefferson. While I don’t think I’ve read them actually saying this, but what I have read implies that they believe the government is not an institution of the people that can be altered by the people when the people find it necessary. They seem to think that government is an institution of God and to disagree with it is to disagree with God. If Baldwin has any chance in this vote, I hope I am wrong.

  • Eber

    An informative article about Chuck Baldwin is the following:

  • Fluidly Unsure

    I’ve been thinking about the statement that “The Constitution Party does not represent nearly as big a threat to our religious freedom as a McCain/Palin administration.”

    For the reasons enumerated above, I do find the constitution party to be a major threat. And I don’t see McCain or Palin to be anymore than holding different “values” than I do. The only place I can see that being a problem is stem-cell research.

    But to use a person’s religion as a pivoting factor in and of itself is a major threat. Yes, politicians will make decisions based on the value system they hold as true, just as you and I would. But as long as the government isn’t forcing their version of worship on others then it shouldn’t matter.

  • Edward


    If you want to punish Barr or Baldwin, then don’t send him any donations…that’s what I did after Barr angered Ron Paul by not showing up at his 3rd party press conference…I didn’t send him a penny after that…but I still voted for Barr in order to help the 2012 LP nominee get ballot access.

    Let’s suppose that Ron Paul has a change of heart and decides to be the 2012 LP nominee…do you want him to have automatic ballot access or do you want him fighting the courts, the 2 party system and wasting his campaign cash to get on the 2012 ballots? And if Ron Paul strongly endorses the 2012 LP nominee, do you want that nominee fighting the courts too?

    If you reply please talk about 2012.

  • Lance Heard

    Edward, ins’t not voting for barr and Baldwin punishing the nominees for the positions they took against Ron Paul and others like him who were trying to do more thatn just promote a Libertarian agenda?

  • Edward

    To Eric and those writing-in Ron Paul’s name,

    The third party candidates may not have a chance, but the 2012 liberty candidates need your 2008 vote. Not voting for Barr or Baldwin is equivalent to punishing the 2012 Libertarian or Constitution Party nominees who need your 2008 vote plus thousands of others to get automatic ballot access for the 2012 election. I don’t think that it is fair that if I don’t vote for Barr or Baldwin, the 2012 LP or CP nominee will have to fight the courts and 2-party system to get on the 2012 ballots.

    I voted on Monday….and I wrote-in Ron Paul on the ballot…but not for President…I wrote him in for Florida State Representative District 106…I had to choose between voting for someone named Richard L. Steinberg or doing a write-in.

    So now I can say I have voted for RP

    My vote for President went towards helping the 2012 LP nominee get ballot access.

  • Lance Heard

    After reading this I have decided to write in vote for Ron Paul. I also want to say that all of the posts I read only confused the issue for me, they did not help in any way. I can only assume that the posts were to state personal opinions. I wanted those of you who posted to have that feedback.

  • Fausticus

    I greatly admire Ron Paul’s eloquence in the defense of economic freedom in the US…but I feel very frustrated that he would endorse a church-and-state candidate seemingly just to spite Bob Barr. It seems very irresponsible and divisive. After all, the group with momentum, the third largest political party in the nation, is the Libertarian Party. Why not rally behind its nominee? Barr is the best proponent of libertarian ideals of all the candidates running for President, so it would make sense to make your choice based on that, not on the fact that Ron Paul put a one line endorsement of the other guy in the last sentence of a letter.

    Look, we all know that none of these people have a chance at getting elected – Barr, Paul, or the ‘Constitution’ party. So doesn’t it make sense to try and consolidate our votes behind the one most likely to garner the most votes anyway?

  • Eric Martin

    None of these third-party candidates have a chance, so let’s vote for the best; take a stand. Vote for Ron Paul by writing him in.

  • Fluidly Unsure

    Heavy heart because we have to vote the least of 2 evils? With the except that my heart is about 10 years younger, we are on the same track.

  • JD4x4

    Well, here I am on the deadline day in my state for a write-in candidate to register as such (for it to be actually counted and not discarded).

    My heart is the heaviest it has ever been in my 57 years on the planet because Dr. Paul is not on my sample ballot. Ironically this situation is somewhat at odds with what I think Dr. Paul believes.

    I must now vote the lesser evil. But on what level of “evil”? The candidate that I agree with THE MOST is not an ‘official’ option so my vote will TRULY be thrown away this election year!

    So, I’ll hope against hope that on election day Dr. Paul’s name will magically & electronically appear as a write-in ‘choice’ when I actually cast my ballot. I’ll have to make my decision only then.

  • millanza

    Sorry, not buying it. I’ll still write-in Ron Paul. It’s only one vote, but it’s my vote.

  • heckYes

    I voted Chuck Baldwin! He may not win, but he definitely is the best choice up there. Everyone should always vote their conscience

  • Klint

    I don’t see how Ron Paul can support Chuck. Read Chuck’s trade policy ideas

    “A tariff on foreign imports, based on the difference between the foreign item’s cost of production abroad and the cost of production of a similar item produced in the United States, would be a Constitutional step toward a fair trade policy that would protect American jobs”

    I know Ron Paul is a big follower of Austrian Economics. This line of economics and Chuck’s policies are fundamentally opposed. Has Chuck ever heard of comparative advantage? Do nations trade or do individuals? Is a tariff on imports a restriction on individual liberty? Does Chuck really think we should put a tariff on bananas large enough so that we can grow them in the US where you would need a greenhouse to do so?

    Other than having a poor understanding of basic economics the Constitution party is mainly on board with individual liberty.

  • Fluidly Unsure

    Thank you Edward.

    After rereading the comments, your statement “If we all based our votes on the actual party, none of us would have tried to vote for Ron Paul in the first place because of what the Republican party stands for today. I think we should vote for the PERSON not necessarily the party itself.” gave me some hope and another path to look for so I did some research.

    Unfortunately, what I found was contradictory to itself and I’ll have to ponder it.

    In one paragraph, he emphasizes a natural law and man’s Creator. His inclusion of Redeemer worries me though.

    “Our Constitution (along with the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence) was formed, framed, and founded upon the eternal principles contained in Natural Law, which proceeds forth from man’s Creator and Redeemer. No people in human history have ever been so blessed as the people of the United States to inherit such a legacy. Such a heritage serves only to heighten our own responsibility, as “unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.”
    Paragraph 5

    The very next paragraph can be taken different ways.
    “On this Constitution Day of 2008, may this generation of Americans live up to its responsibility to valiantly bequeath to our posterity the same legacy of freedom that was so bravely and miraculously bequeathed to us. For the sake of freedom, for the love of our children, and for the safety and security of our republic, may each of us determine for ourselves–and commit to Almighty God–to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    He may be invoking a Deistic interpretation of God, but considering the party he is coming from I doubt it. The statements can be used by any of the monotheistic religions of the middle east but completely excludes everything else.

    He also does not say what should be done to someone who ignores their “responsibilities” and does not “commit to the almighty God”. That is a red flag to me.

    So far, Chuck Baldwin looks to me like he is against the freedom to express religious beliefs without repercussions. I say this as someone who is not against God– my days as an Atheist ended years ago along with my partying days. I say this as someone who is not against the constitution, just this particular interpretation of it.

    So far, I haven’t seen anything that changes my opinion. However, this does make me wonder if Sarah Palin is as big a threat. More research is necessary.