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.

»crosslinked«



style="display:inline-block;width:728px;height:90px"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-3666212842414688"
data-ad-slot="9478233584">

264 Comments:

  1. Pingback: The Tea Party’s religious roots exposed | Sarah Posner

  2. Pingback: The Tea Party’s religious roots exposed | Sarah Posner

  3. Pingback: The Tea Party’s religious roots exposed | Sarah Posner | News Team

  4. Pingback: On the CPAC Straw Poll and Ron Paul - mrnewman’s Diary - RedState

  5. Pingback: The Daily Planet » Blog Archive » I am ONE MORE!

  6. Pingback: Third Party Presidential Debate | Ron Paul .com

  7. In the end I wrote in Ron Paul for president. I couldn’t vote for a third party with a clear conscience and I knew that would be an exercise in futility. Even though I knew that my vote would not count I had the hope that possibly someone was counting votes out there and would know how many registered Republicans voted for Ron Paul.

    Oh, and on the topic of celebrity endorsement, I think a Ron Paul and Ben Stein ticket would be unstoppable… http://benstein.com

    Be sure to click on my pic and visit my site. Go to the “News” page for my Ron Paul collage!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Thank you Ron Paul for standing up for what America should be. My prayers are with you and will always support you.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. Eric, I wonder if some of the 2012 strategy is short sighted. For example, history has shown that the strength of the 3rd party is based upon the candidate. Without any cohesiveness or agreement amongst the coalition that would represent supporters of the 3rd party, access in 2012 will be wasted as the Democratic and Republican machines attack the the 3d party and weaken its ability to attract mainstream members of their respective parties. These two issues point to my main concern which is; we need to believe in our group as one that can come to agreement and support one candidate more than we need to spend our energy on access in 2012. Can we form a consesus? Can we find the popular candidate now? If not then access seems pointless in 2012.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Nancy makes several excellent points. As the mainstream media all but ignore Baldwin and other alternative candidates even before the election, it’s a safe bet that, after the election, they won’t interview a lot of Baldwin voters as part of an in-depth analysis of what drove them. They’ll draw their own conclusions, if they notice at all. Who knows–if they do get detailed enough to conclude that Baldwin got support from the left and the right, they could attribute it to the voters not knowing which “Baldwin brother” they were voting for.

    As Nancy notes, a clearer way of making your intentions known would be to focus on other options, such as other races in which there are candidates who truly echo Ron Paul’s message, pushing for Dr. Paul to be selected as a Cabinet member or top advisor (just as in the presidential race, there’s value in the campaign, even if he doesn’t get the job), and incessantly pressing elected officials to consider our views on the issues (combined with ongoing outreach to the public on the same points).

    I don’t think this is an either-or proposition, though. There’s still some value to increasing the vote totals for the alternative candidates. Granted, the media might perceive Baldwin voters as Huckabee supporters on steroids, Nader and McKinney supporters as anti-capitalist fanatics, and Bob Barr supporters as ultra-conservatives with an anarchist streak, but it will prompt a certain amount of consideration of what these “protest votes” have in common, which will benefit our efforts in the other areas Nancy suggested. As for voting in other races and not for president, the question of whether or not the media would notice this might be trumped by the comparable shortage of ideal options in the other races as well. If you’re fortunate enough to have a Ron Paul supporter running for a lesser office on your ballot, that’s great, but should we, for example, agree to vote for any member of Congress who voted against the bailout bill, even if ours is someone we totally oppose on some other issues? Tough call…

    In short, though, the best way to avoid sending the wrong message is to put your exact message in your own words, and share it with elected officials, the media, and the public at every opportunity. We owe Nancy a big “thank you” for reminding us that we have other options, and for suggesting some very good ones to us.

    It wouldn’t be practical here to try to referee the ongoing debate between Randy and his critics, but I was curious about one passing remark from Randy that began with “When ‘former’ CIA agent Bob Barr rammed a shiv into Ron Paul’s back…” Considering how elaborately Randy argues for his position on other points, I was surprised to read such a hostile accusation with no evidence or explanation offered for it. Even those of us who make some effort to keep up with what’s happening don’t always get all the news about everything. If someone is going to make that harsh an attack on someone, particularly a candidate who stands against the major party candidates in supporting our positions on major issues, shouldn’t that critic offer some evidence to justify the charge, instead of just assuming that we’re all reading all of the same blogs and agreeing with what they say?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. It is my personal opinion that there’s a serious problem with voting for Baldwin. I believe it will set back all the ground we have made with Dr. Paul, because we won’t be able to control the media interpretation of the votes. Ron Paulers may be voting for Baldwin for economic and individual freedom reasons and the media, having no way of knowing just why Baldwin got votes, can claim that he got them for Christian Right reasons and then if it comes out that it was Dr. Paul encouraging those votes, then a link will be made, rightly or wrongly, that Dr. Paul is about being Christian Right and anti-gay and goodness knows what else, instead of staying focussed on the economy and the sovereignty of America and the Constitution and all else he believes in. I just can’t bring myself to believe that by voting for “someone else” does me any good.

    I feel like I just don’t have a choice for President but luckily for me I have a Congressional choice where I live – a guy that is running for Congress on the Ron Paul platform, inspired by Ron Paul and I believe our efforts should be thrown into voting in Congress Reps and Senators on even the local level (State Congress and Senators) on the Ron Paul platform and making constant emails and phone calls to all of them constantly long after Nov 4th to let them know how we want them to vote. I just feel like no matter what we do on this Presidential election we won’t be heard unless we had a huge turn out of ballots that voted for all the local stuff and left the Presidential part blank. Do they report on that if it were huge? Would there be a report of 5% or 10% of the people who voted but left the presidential part blank?

    I am also pushing both the Obama and McCain camp to select Dr. Paul as Treas Secr for their cabinet and at the very least, an economic advisor. It just seems like something that CAN be done – not the accomplishment of, but the pushing. Let the Obama camp (assuming he wins) get hundreds of thousands of emails and phone calls asking for the appointment of Dr. Paul. And let that hit the news. Why not marches with signs calling for the appointment of Dr. Paul to a cabinet position regardless of who wins? Why can’t that be all over the news and airways? Let whoever the winner is be shamed and targeted by a substantial % of the American people want fiscal conservatism. I vote for pushing for Dr. Paul for a Cabinet position and that will make the news more candidly and flagrantly than voting someone who reflects Dr. Paul on some issues but not others and therefore, all our votes could become misinterpreted. Just a thought. Interestingly for me, I will be overseas for a long time starting right after the election so I’ll get to hear what the international community thinks of all this.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. [Randy]Nobody’s asking you to “commit” to the CP. [/Randy]

    No, the CP isn’t. They only say it shall be required (of him shall be much required). It was Baldwin’s web-site that claimed we must “commit” to “almighty god”. His words, not mine. They also are using a forked tongue when they claim we can determine for ourselves but then tells us what we must determine. (may each of us determine for ourselves–and commit to Almighty God).

    [Randy]You can vote for Chuck Baldwin without having to join the party,[/Randy]

    Right after I vote for Nader even though I don’t want any of the policies he says he wants.

    [randy]Nobody’s asking you to “commit” to the CP.[/randy]

    However, Baldwin’s web-site says you must “commit” to a view of God that I do not hold true. The Cp’s site implies that you must be willing to go back to the “Christian Foundation”.

    [randy]If the Crusades had never occurred, you’d be living under Sharia law right now[/randy]

    Maybe. If the attitude during the Crusades continued and my relatives survived not fitting in (Scottish Irish), then I probably would be killed either by the Roman church or a Calvanistic protestant. I wonder, is OBL simply a reincarnation of John Calvin or Pope Urban?

    [randy]Not surprisingly, both of those virtually worthless parties are secular in nature.[/randy]

    Oh really? That is not the image the press gives of Palin’s or Bush’s religious beliefs.

    [randy]The sadly mistaken notion that secular governments are somehow “superior” when it comes to securing personal liberty, is quite simply laughable.[/randy]

    I know. When did I claim secular governments were “superior”? I don’t remember doing so for 30 years at least.

    [randy]we’re not interested in compromising our beliefs[/randy]

    The reason I was impressed with Ron Paul is that he is willing to work with others. It is ok to disagree with RP, but I’m afraid the CP will take a radically different approach. One that will make these last 8 years seem like paradise.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. [Fausticus]wow, good job…keep it up. You’re doing a better job discrediting yourself than any opponent could.[/Fausticus]

    I haven’t discredited myself at all. In fact, I’ve corrected false representations about the CP made by you and others here. You have yet to successfully refute anything I’ve said.

    If you oppose the CP’s religious beliefs, fine. Don’t vote for Chuck Baldwin. I bear you no malice for that.

    But at least present some in-depth intellectual arguments, rather than making cheap-shots and false representations.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. wow, good job…keep it up. You’re doing a better job discrediting yourself than any opponent could.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. [Fluidly Unsure]The platform statements are more than just reiterating general principles. It (a conglomerate of CP and Baldwin’s web sites) demands that you accept the idea of a redeemer and take the responsibility to commit to it.[/Fluidly Unsure]

    The only people that the CP “requires” to accept their ideas, is those people who wish to join and become officers of the CP.

    Like any other political party, we expect our members to be faithful to our platform.

    Under no circumstances does the CP support forcing any non-members of the party to accept their Christian faith and party platform.

    You can vote for Chuck Baldwin without having to join the party, and quite frankly we don’t care what your personal beliefs are.

    Your grossly mistaken belief that the CP is somehow going to try to force all Americans to become Christians and adhere to the CP platform, is quite naive.

    [Fluidly Unsure]The general principles you quote are not unique to Judeo-Christian beliefs. The CP states that we must go back to the Christian principles, not the general principles you use. Just as I can only commit to the last 5 of the 10 commandments, I cannot commit to the CP with a clear conscious.[/Fluidly Unsure]

    Nobody’s asking you to “commit” to the CP. Voting for Chuck Baldwin is not a “commitment”, any more than my past votes for both individual Republicans and Libertarians is a “commitment” to either of those parties.

    [Fluidly Unsure]BTW, you are not going to win me over by equating my beliefs to Atheistic dictators anymore than I would if I claimed the CP wanted to return to the principles that drove the crusades and ended-up burning many at the stake.[/Fluidly Unsure]

    Nobody’s trying to win you over. You’re flattering yourself if you think either of my previous posts were in any way directed toward you.

    By the way, the primary purpose of the Crusades was to resist the Muslim takeover of Europe. If the Crusades had never occurred, you’d be living under Sharia law right now, if you hadn’t already been killed for being an “infidel”.

    I told the simple, verifiable truth about numerous major secular governments of the 20th Century. If that offends you, I’m not sorry.

    The sadly mistaken notion that secular governments are somehow “superior” when it comes to securing personal liberty, is quite simply laughable.

    Especially in light of the overtly secular and brutal dictatorships of Lenin/Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung, Mussolini, Idi Amin, Ceausescu, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro etc.

    [Fluidly Unsure]The CP, IMHO, would do well to emphasis the positive aspects of Christianity but equate them to Christianity no more than claiming something like “while it was the vehicle used to get there, it is not the only vehicle that will get there”.[/Fluidly Unsure]

    Thanks, but we’re not interested in compromising our beliefs, just to satisfy the whims of those who are opposed to some of those beliefs.

    Compromise was the downfall of the Republican Party, which is now merely a mirror image of the Democratic Party at the leadership level.

    Not surprisingly, both of those virtually worthless parties are secular in nature.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. The platform statements are more than just reiterating general principles. It (a conglomerate of CP and Baldwin’s web sites) demands that you accept the idea of a redeemer and take the responsibility to commit to it.

    The general principles you quote are not unique to Judeo-Christian beliefs. The CP states that we must go back to the Christian principles, not the general principles you use. Just as I can only commit to the last 5 of the 10 commandments, I cannot commit to the CP with a clear conscious.

    BTW, you are not going to win me over by equating my beliefs to Atheistic dictators anymore than I would if I claimed the CP wanted to return to the principles that drove the crusades and ended-up burning many at the stake.

    The CP, IMHO, would do well to emphasis the positive aspects of Christianity but equate them to Christianity no more than claiming something like “while it was the vehicle used to get there, it is not the only vehicle that will get there”.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. [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.”[/Fausticus]

    You’re clearly misrepresenting the Constitution Party (CP). Please show us where any candidate or official of the CP has claimed that the CP is “as libertarian as the Libertarians”.

    The CP stands on its own merits. We’re not Libertarian Party (LP) wannabes.

    Last time I checked, the LP officially supported a policy of “open borders”. In the age of international terrorism/criminal syndicates/drug dealing, Red Chinese encroachment in the Western Hemisphere etc.–“open borders” is a policy of national suicide.

    With its “open borders” policy, the Libertarian Party stands against American sovereignty and liberty. Which is why I don’t stand with the Libertarian Party.

    When “former” CIA agent Bob Barr rammed a shiv in Ron Paul’s back, Ron very wisely endorsed Mr. Chuck Baldwin, a man eminently more principled than Bob Barr.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. [Lyndon Olson]”Likewise, I hope that those who are uncomfortable with the group’s Christian rhetoric will realize that this is not a bunch of Karl Roves and Tom Delays, hypocritically trying to pull one over on us. Please don’t be so jaded by the tyrants and the phonies that you become paranoid about all references to religion; it is possible for someone to have devout beliefs, and even be quite open about them, and still not want to use government to force any of them on you.”[/Lyndon Olson]

    Very well said and quite true, Lyndon. Some people have a knee-jerk fear, bordering on paranoia, of devout Christians in government. However, the secularism these same people advocate doesn’t have a very good track record:

    Soviet Regime of Lenin and Stalin (both militant atheists)–Secular and officially atheist–Approximately 45 million people murdered. Millions more incarcerated in prisons and slave labor camps, tortured etc. Shut down church-operated private schools and destroyed thousands of churches in Russia and occupied countries.

    Nazi Regime of Hitler (who was bitterly anti-Christian)–Secular–Approximately 10 million murdered, and tens of millions more died in the world war the Nazis precipitated. The Nazis shut down all church-operated private schools in Germany, and destroyed thousands of churches in occupied Europe and Russia.

    Fascist Regime of Mussolini (a militant atheist who publicly attacked Christianity)–Secular–Entered into a complete politico-military alliance with the Nazis, and collaborated in many Nazi crimes against humanity, as well as perpetrating many of their own.

    Red Chinese Regime of Chairman Mao (a militant atheist)–Secular– Murdered at least 60 million people, millions more incarcerated in prisons and slave labor camps, tortured etc.

    Regime of Pol Pot (a militant atheist)–Secular–Approximately two million murdered, with many others incarcerated in prisons and slave labor camps, tortured etc.

    Regime of Kim Il-Sung (a militant atheist)–Secular–Approximately two million murdered, with many others incarcerated in prisons and slave labor camps, tortured etc.

    The 20th Century was “The Century of Secularism” in governments around the world, and tens of millions more people were murdered, enslaved, imprisoned and tortured than in any other century in world history.

    The blood of well over a hundred million people is flowing from the hands of the apostles of government secularism.

    Of course, the advocates of secularism will propose a false dichotomy of “It’s got to be either secularism or theocracy”.

    Which is NOT true. Like the America created by our founding fathers, it can be a government based on GENERAL Judeo-Christian principles like “Thou shalt not murder”, “Thou shalt not steal” etc. Which is NOT the same thing as establishing a theocracy and official state religion of Christianity, which the Constitution Party opposes just as strongly as the secularists.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. Maybe a more accurate assessment of this isn’t exactly in line with either side. It’s understandable that some would be skittish about the religious comments from the Constitution Party, or even Chuck Baldwin as an individual, depending on the context. But it’s unlikely that their choice of words is evidence that the party is a group of would-be dictators, trying deviously to use enough religious verbiage to rally the troops, but not enough to admit to everyone else what they’re up to. More likely it’s a product of a group of well-meaning Christians who have a high regard for liberty and integrity but haven’t fully thought through the proper role of government in a free society. But, to be fair to Baldwin and his supporters, they do seem to have thought this through about 100 times more intensively than 99% of Democrats and Republicans.

    I hope that Constitution Party supporters continue to ponder this issue, and engage others in discussions about it. Likewise, I hope that those who are uncomfortable with the group’s Christian rhetoric will realize that this is not a bunch of Karl Roves and Tom Delays, hypocritically trying to pull one over on us. Please don’t be so jaded by the tyrants and the phonies that you become paranoid about all references to religion; it is possible for someone to have devout beliefs, and even be quite open about them, and still not want to use government to force any of them on you. Let’s keep a healthy discussion going; if we’re reasonable about it, everyone benefits.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply