Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin to hold press conference

Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin announces on his website that Ron Paul has invited him to join in a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

The press conference will be held from 10:30 am to 11:30 am on Wednesday, September 10.

According to the announcement, the two candidates will outline the positions voters should look for when choosing a presidential candidate.

50 Responses to “Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin to hold press conference”

  1. Roscoe Says:

    I will be very disappointed in Ron Paul if he endorses Baldwin.

  2. Larry Breazeale,Msgt.(ret.)USAF Says:

    Who is to say, WHAT this press conference is all about?! We will just have to wait and see, won’t we! I hope Dr. Ron Paul in fact endorses Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution party! But, I will believe it when I see it.

    Since I have been involved with the American Independent Party (California)and the CONSTITUTION party for many years, I get used to dissapointments down the road. I have learned not to get your hopes up too high. I, like many in our ranks, we just continue to do our DUTY, as we see fit, and leave the results up to GOD.

    YES, we would certainly welcome ANY ENDORSEMENTS, most importantly from a great patriot like RON PAUL.

    THIS PRESS CONFERENCE may not be what it appears to be. It may just be a consolated effort to recommend jointly on something different.
    WHO knows! Anyways, I will pray real hard in the meantime that IT IS an endorsement! We all will be waiting in very baited breath.

    -Larry Breazeale, Msgt. (ret.) USAF
    NATIONAL VETERANS COALITION…www.nvets.org

  3. Adam Says:

    I think that’s fair, after all Bob Barr did get to stop by the rally, and Baldwin couldn’t make it because of the hurricane. Ron said he wouldn’t endorse either one, let’s hope the good doctors keeps his word

  4. Joe Says:

    Chuck Baldwin is a defender of the Constitution, and an American who does not believe in one-world globalist government.

    Now that Ron Paul has officially been shut out by the GOP, Chuck Baldwin is the candidate who most closely represents me. It is nice to have choices such as Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr.

  5. Carl Says:

    This is kind of miss leading, this is not a Paul/Baldwin press conference as Mr baldwin infers on his website. It is a joint press conference and according to Bob Barrs events page he will be at this press conference. the only difference is he does not infer that it is a Ron Paul invitation as to imply some sort of endorcement. Bob Barr has repeatedly stated he respect Ron Pauls position not to endorse and therefore does not throw Dr. Pauls name around. Mr. Baldwin however has thrown Dr. Pauls name around alot in the hopes that some will take it as an endorsement. personally I have nothing against Baldwin, but he cant even get on the ballot in enough states to win the electoral college. a concerted effort between Paul Supporters, Baldwin Supporters, and Barr supporters behind one candidate could make a huge difference. lets all get behind Barr, he is the only one who can have a shot at it now!

  6. Donna Says:

    If I were a betting person, I would bet that Ron Paul will NOT endorse Chuck or Bob.

    I also think Dr. Paul and his organizers really missed the boat at their rally in MN.

    Why didn’t he introduce all the constitutionalists running for Congress? Why didn’t he want his followers to support these men/women of courage? Dr. Paul didn’t have to endorse any of them since many are from “other” parties. If Dr. Paul believes in the 1st Amendment so much, why didn’t he have the backbone to do this? Does his Party politics outweigh his constitutional principles? What was the “Campaign for Liberty” Action Plan? Is Dr. Paul really just all out for reforming the Republican Party and winning at any cost?

    I don’t get it? Sombody, please tell me that I’m all wrong and that a neon light was flashing on stage the whole time giving us the clear message what it was all about.

  7. Eric Larson Says:

    I also don’t think there is any endorsement coming. Ron Paul - at least at this time with his organization - seems committed to changing the GOP. Whether this is a sound plan or not remains to be seen. However, endorsing someone from outside the GOP while starting a fledgling political movement to change the GOP would be political suicide. It would torpedo any chance of making an impact before it even began.

  8. Donna Says:

    Eric is correct.

    The Ron Paul followers are much like the puritans, who chose to stay in the Church of England to reform it from within.

    The CP is much like the pilgrims who said, “heck with this stuff - we’re takin’ a hike and startin’ all over to make a better world for us and our kin”.

    The latter takes a lot more guts and conviction…..not to mention lots of prayers from God. Building a 3rd party is not for the faint of heart.

  9. Travis Maddox Says:

    Donna is right I was there as a Congressional candidate. As far as I know there were 3 Republican candidates and 3 Constitutional candidates there, I didn’t see and Libertarian candidates there. All Dr. Paul would have had to done is bring us on stage tell our names and that we are running for congress to help him restore the Constitution. He didn’t have to say where we are running of with what party. If he had encouraged the people to support us it could have pushed some of us over the top.

  10. NewFederalist Says:

    Carl- While I don’t disagree with your viewpoint, Chuck Baldwin WILL appear on the ballot in enough states to have a theoretical chance at an Electoral College victory.

  11. dddienst Says:

    It does not matter if Doctor Paul endorse anyone as the people who support him are the type of people that make up there own minds based on fact history and research and not because he points his finger. We are not mindless voting sheep with deep pockets. That is the type of followers that other candidates have. McCain could have selected a ham sandwich for VP and the republicans at the convention would have been in support of it.

  12. John Lowell Says:

    My, this announcement certainly has the Barr crowd edgy. Couldn’t happen to a nicer group of censors.

  13. Tannim Says:

    I expect a double endorsement…it makes the most sense, to simply have Dr. Paul suggest the voters pick whom they prefer of the two.

  14. Roscoe Says:

    Way back in June, the Campaign for Liberty announced that it would be a non-partisan effort. I take that to mean that CFL would publicize and support pro-liberty candidates of any party. If it turns out that it will only be used to support GOP candidates, then a lot of RP’s supporters are going to walk away.

  15. sterling Says:

    and none of you feel that this could be about trying to get them in the debates

  16. Brad in TX Says:

    To Donna and Travis,

    Dr. Paul does have his Liberty PAC website which collects money for liberty minded candidates. I don’t know what the requirements are to be included, but you can find it at :

    http://www.libertypac.net/index.html

    I would imagine that it would have been hard for the R4R attendees to remember all of the candidate names and maybe a website is a better orginizational tool.

    My 2 cents

  17. Impeach Bush Says:

    If Ron Paul endorses Baldwin, the bumper sticker is coming off of my car.

  18. John Lowell Says:

    Impeach Bush,

    “If Ron Paul endorses Baldwin, the bumper sticker is coming off of my car”

    Which one? :-)

  19. Marc Says:

    It is not an endorsement.
    (from someone who knows)

  20. Stefan Says:

    “My, this announcement certainly has the Barr crowd edgy. Couldn’t happen to a nicer group of censors.”
    Are you aware that Barr will also attend the meeting? Guess who is edgy now!
    It comes as quite a surprise that you comment on a thread dealing with Paul, since you described him in worse words than Barr. So much for consistency!

  21. Stefan Says:

    Travis: the fact that you did not see any LP candidate, does this mean there was no LP candidate present? or did you had the ability to screen through all 12 000 -15000, with knowledge of the faces of all the LP candidates? In short: you simply cannot make such a conclusion that just because you did not see a LP candidate, there was none of them present.
    Also: the CFL is about the constitutional wing of the Republican party, not any other third party,, although they were involved, like Howard Phillips and Jesse Ventura (McManus probably also CP?). Do you really want to say that for Paul introducing the candidates like you to the crowd would make the difference between you winning or losing your race? Why don’t you work for your own local endorsements, people that know you? Endorsements are not the A-Z of politics. Before you can endorse someone you really have to know someone. Dr. Paul endorsed a LP in TX as well as a C in OR, where there is no GOP candidate. He cannot endorse a third party candidate vs a GOP incumbant and does not even endorse a GOP challenger vs a GOP incumbant. Apart from legal and partypolitical issues, put yourself in his situation: you say endorse a third party candidate vs an incumbent form your own party and the incumbent wins barely with a reduced majority Do you think the incumbent would be happy at Dr. Paul? DO you think he would be inclined to go along with legislation etc?

  22. NewFederalist Says:

    On the Ron Paul Forum this story is evolving as Paul inviting Baldwin, Barr, Nader and McKinney to join him at the National Press Club. Does NOT sound like an endorsement to me.

  23. John Lowell Says:

    Stefan,

    I don’t know why you’d be surprized that I’d post on a thread that concerned Paul or what that might have to do with consistency, Stef guy. To judge from your response, I rather think that I’ve successfully managed to stick a pin into the dupa of that coterie of Barr synchophants that so typically find it obligatory to do apologetics for him. From all appearances, Barr would certainly seem to need apologists, that’s clear But it stings to think that Paul just might endorse Baldwin, doesn’t it, Stefan? It not only stings, it would seem to bring you close to experiencing incontinence. For at least twenty-four hours stay away from bran muffins and prune juice. It’ll only make the problem worse.

  24. Sivarticus Says:

    I know for a fact both Barr and Baldwin will be appearing at this press conference. Not sure about Nader and McKinney (yuck, I hope she won’t). Look at the events calendar for Barr and Baldwin and you’ll see they both have the same thing scheduled for Sept. 10th.

  25. Supertruth Says:

    Bravo to RP The Campaign for Liberty has turned out to be a fantastic PR machine. Whatever RP does next week, it’s real value is the effective publicity gear that continue to turn.

  26. Andy Craig Says:

    If Ron Paul endorses Chuck Baldwin, it will confirm what so many accused him of- that his support of the Constitution and strict federalism is just a veil for his support of state-level tyranny. Because that’s sure as hell what the so-called “Constitution” Party believes (though I, as someone who support(s? ed?) Paul, don’t think that’s what he believes. If anything, given his longtime close association with the Rothbardian wing of the libertarian movement, I think he’s a more of a radical libertarian at heart than he lets on)

    The CP is a party of exclusion, bigotry, and conspiracy kookery. It is explicitly associated with a certain religion, and wishes to see laws passed and enforced based on that religion. They seek government power not to secure freedom for everyone to pursue their own goals but rather as a tool to mold society in their own image.

    There is a broad libertarian sentiment that lays dormant among the American public. Given an issues quiz, 10-25% of people come up as “libertarian”- favoring smaller government in both the “economic” and “personal” or “social” spheres. But you will never tap into that if the vanguard of your movement is troofers and theocrats. Because people are (rightly and predictably) repulsed by that.

  27. ignatz Says:

    Dr. Paul was close to tears with the resounding welcome he received at the rally. Maybe that alone could cause that .000001 chance to happen and Baldwin will officially relenquish his nomination for president to Ron Paul. What a nice dream.

  28. Ron Says:

    McKinney was invited to this. (I know this for a fact).

    Note the date - day before the 9/11 anniversary.

    She’s bringing a signed glossy photo for Sivarticus, who’s secret love for Cynthia has been noticed by the campaign. (I’m making this up).

  29. Charlie's Angel Says:

    It’s easy to think that the CP is a theocratic party if you are unfamiliar with or reject the philosophy of our Founding Fathers. But in reality, the CP on a federal level is in line with the Constitution—you know the Supreme Law of the Land.

    Bob Barr talks a great deal about small government and civil liberties but the major difference between him and Chuck Baldwin is that Barr does not recognize that the Constitution is the authority which defines the role of the executive and hence his limitations as president.

    Sadly, he would just be promoting big government at a slower pace than the Republican Party. It’s just sad that the LP compromised principle to ostensibly have a candidate that would bring in more votes.

    Since Barr does not speak the truth about the real battle in our country—globalism, he would most likely put the same establishment elites into his cabinet as McCain or Obama. And while LP members would think they won a victory, it would simply be a deception designed to squelch any real opposition to the globalist agenda.

  30. Stefan Says:

    John: you called Paul a much worse name than Barr, a certain yiddish word. No response to this.
    Paul has said countless time he will not endorse any candidate and he will stick with that. He will neither endorse Barr nor Baldwin, but facilitate a vote for third parties against the two party “establishment”, if you like, which is a very wise thing to do. He had good words of praise to Ralph Nader as well. Let us take your (false) assumption that he would endorse Baldwin. Why would he then have encouraged Barr to run for the LP nomination, describe him as friend, had a rally at DC with him over Iran-war issue and root for him? It just does not make any sense that he would endorse one over the other.

  31. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” The CP is a party of exclusion, bigotry, and conspiracy kookery. It is explicitly associated with a certain religion, and wishes to see laws passed and enforced based on that religion. They seek government power not to secure freedom for everyone to pursue their own goals but rather as a tool to mold society in their own image.”

    Response : As a English translation of the ravings noted above Andy is upset with the CP because it is ” bigoted ” against his desire, and that of his ” friends,” to have sex with his/their dog(s) in the street. The CP is associated with Christianity; the religion upon which our nation was founded and the following of which has produced our prosperity and freedom. Christianity has molded society in its image by being the foundation of our legal system via laws, passed and enforced based on that religion, protecting all citizens such as those against murder which are founded on the Christian principle of ” Thou shalt not kill.” Countless other laws based on Christian principles have been passed which protect the Andys of the world from people who would do harm to them but also and especially ( to the everlasting complaint of Andy ) protect all of the other citizens ( especially the children ) from being the victims of Andy and his ” friends.” Christianity has molded society in its image and is ” exclusionary ” of murderers and all other sinners ( unless they repent ). The CP seeks to secure freedom for everyone except Andy and his fellow ” dog lovers.” Andy and his ” friends ” despise Christianity because it is the greatest impediment to their own legal system which would celebrate and endorse ” intergenerational sex;” formerly ( in more moral and sane days ) known as child molestation. So, yes. In Andys case the CP works against his ” freedom to pursue his own goals.” ” Goals ” that he will not openly state but that I will. The CP does seek to mold society in their own image; a image where the children of the nation are protected from the ” Andys ” of the nation. Hence you can understand Andys total frustration.

    Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman of the American Independent Party of California

  32. Andy Craig Says:

    It’s easy to think that the CP is a theocratic party if you are unfamiliar with or reject the philosophy of our Founding Fathers. But in reality, the CP on a federal level is in line with the Constitution—you know the Supreme Law of the Land

    A lot of the Founding Fathers also thought slavery was just peachy.

    They got a lot of things right. The Constitution, including federalism, is a masterpiece of political thought and should absolutely be followed by the government.

    None of that is a defense of the state-level tyranny the CP advocates. At best, it’s a defense of its legality under the Federal Constitution (nevermind state constitutions, which the CP is remarkably less concerned with given their obsession state self-governance.)

    As a English translation of the ravings noted above Andy is upset with the CP because it is ” bigoted ” against his desire, and that of his ” friends,” to have sex with his/their dog(s) in the street

    Isn’t there something in that damn book you’re so obsessed with about not lying? If not, y’all might want to consider adding a “no making shit up” clause. Wouldn’t be the first time the Bible had been “corrected”.

    Though thanks for nicely demonstrating the authoritarian mindset of the CP- the idea of people being free to do with they want so freaks you out that you have to use absurd hyperbole to argue against it.

    The CP is associated with Christianity; the religion upon which our nation was founded and the following of which has produced our prosperity and freedom

    Our nation absolutely was founded as a Christian nation. It still is a predominantly Christian nation.

    But that has absolutely nothing to do with our secular government. For a group supposedly so devoted to the Founding Fathers and their ideology, you’d think you would understand the difference between “nation” or “society” and “government”. If not, I suggest go reading Common Sense.

    Oh, wait, no. You can’t do that. Thomas Paine rejected orthodox Biblical Christianity. Along with Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and many other Founding Fathers. Obviously they were just tools of Satan.

    Christianity has molded society in its image by being the foundation of our legal system via laws, passed and enforced based on that religion, protecting all citizens such as those against murder which are founded on the Christian principle of ” Thou shalt not kill.”

    Right, because ‘don’t commit murder’ is an idea totally unique to Christianity that no non-Christian has ever thought of or supported.

    And isn’t that in the Old Testament, any way? You know, right next to God laying down the law on mold in your home and such fundamental legal principles as not eating shellfish and not interacting with women on their period? Not to mention your loving god repeatedly killing thousands of innocent people.

    Countless other laws based on Christian principles have been passed which protect the Andys of the world from people who would do harm to them but also and especially ( to the everlasting complaint of Andy ) protect all of the other citizens ( especially the children ) from being the victims of Andy and his ” friends.”

    You think my personal life (which you know absolutely nothing about) is distasteful and a bad example for children. Got it. Guess what? I think the same think about your superstitious nonsense. The difference is I don’t think I have the right to kill you because of it.

    And 1 for “think of the children“, as if kids had such delicate psyches that they’d suffer a mental breakdown and devolve into public dogfucking because they were exposed to different opinions about religion.

    *Christianity has molded society in its image and is ” exclusionary ” of murderers and all other sinners ( unless they repent ).*

    The problem there being “sinners” isn’t “people who hurt others” but rather “people whose choices we don’t approve of”, a distinction you are clearly totally incapable of grasping.

    The CP seeks to secure freedom for everyone except Andy and his fellow ” dog lovers.” Andy and his ” friends ” despise Christianity because it is the greatest impediment to their own legal system which would celebrate and endorse ” intergenerational sex;” formerly ( in more moral and sane days ) known as child molestation. So, yes. In Andys case the CP works against his ” freedom to pursue his own goals.” ” Goals ” that he will not openly state but that I will. The CP does seek to mold society in their own image; a image where the children of the nation are protected from the ” Andys ” of the nation. Hence you can understand Andys total frustration.

    Again, absurd hyperbole and blatant “bearing false witness against your neighbor” just underlines how childish and simplistic your political thought really is. Because if it wasn’t, you could come up with a better argument against “people should be free to pursue their own goals” (also known as the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness) than “You’re a dog fucker and baby rapist!”

    Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman of the American Independent Party of California

    Thank you for making my point.

  33. Andy Craig Says:

    Eh, I don’t know a dash caused strikethrough.

    Oh well. Obviously it’s just part of the Illuminati CFR NWO Bilderberg Freemason conspiracy to form a North American Union. Those bastards!

  34. Bill (Of Rights) Says:

    This entire board of comments is proof positive that there will be no revolution and no change. The duopoly will persist and thrive, for no one can unite behind ideas, it always turns into a football team pissing match.

  35. Andy Craig Says:

    Bill-

    I agree wholeheartedly about the need for a broad coalition.

    Some people, though, namely bigots conspiracy theorists, do a lot more to drive people away than they do to bring them in. Even if their ideology wasn’t fundamentally at odds with a free society, they can’t be allowed to be the public face of the movement if you want to get anything done. It’s the same thing with the troofers in the LP.

  36. John Lowell Says:

    Stefan,

    “John: you called Paul a much worse name than Barr, a certain yiddish word. No response to this.”

    Wonderful, Stefan, you picked up on the Yiddish! I find Yiddish particularly expressive, it reaches through to a depth at times equalled only by Italian hand gestures. The term was “schmeggegie”, meaning buffoon. I might also have used “schlemeil” which has a similar although not quite the same meaning. Paul earned this description when he wussed out on doing an independent candidacy earlier in the year. He abandoned dedicated followers so as to insure his re-election as a Republican, about the most self-serving thing he might have done. There’s another, more precise Yiddish name for someone like Paul and its “farbrecher”. Look it up.

  37. William Says:

    I’m a Christian myself, but I have to say I saw more points I agreed with in Andy’s post than Don’s.

    Is it likely that MOST of the founders were Christian? I think so, but at least at the time the Declaration of Independence was written, Jefferson (the chief writer, was he not?) was most likely a Deist. As was, Andy points out, Benjamin Franklin.

    I think Don needs to read Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

    All my life I’ve heard my fellow Christians go on and on about how this is a “Christian” nation and I’ve heard Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and the like go on and on about how we have to be good and vote Republican, blah blah blah. But seriously, the best environment for Christianity to flourish, at least in my opinion, would be one of Liberty. You can’t force someone to be a Christian, nor can you insist that non-Christians live up to your Christian standard. It is alien to them, just like someone asking me to follow Islamic teaching to the letter. I can’t—it’s alien to me. Are there laws that we can argue have their roots in Christianity? Certainly. Jesus was known as “The Prince of Peace,” (yet so many of the Religious Right must think his name is really “Trumpeter of War” with their blind support of unconstitutional Military occupations.)

    I try to live my own life according to what I believe to be God’s standards (but I fail a lot!), but I CANNOT force someone else to do that, NOR SHOULD I. I believe it was St. Thomas Aquinas who said “The law cannot make a man virtuous.”

  38. John Lowell Says:

    William,

    “I try to live my own life according to what I believe to be God’s standards (but I fail a lot!), but I CANNOT force someone else to do that, NOR SHOULD I.”

    Aw, come on, William, go ahead, force yourself on someone. Shove your way of life down someone’s throat. You’re going to be accused of doing that anyway so why not be guilty of it for once. Grab some amoral, sociopathic libertarian - or some homosexual - by the lapels and make him eat a Bible page-by-page. And when you’re done ask him if it tasted good. If he says, no, make him eat another one until he catches on. I see no point whatsoever in allowing those that see themselves as oppressed by the mere existence of Christian beliefs not to have some concrete reality to their fears. :-)

  39. Jimbob Says:
    1. NewFederalist Says:
      September 5th, 2008 at 4:10 pm

    On the Ron Paul Forum this story is evolving as Paul inviting Baldwin, Barr, Nader and McKinney to join him at the National Press Club. Does NOT sound like an endorsement to me.—-
    A Third Party Coalition perhaps…

  40. wendyworn Says:

    So, Don Grundmann of the American Independent Party. Does that mean that Alan Keyes will also be there? The reason I ask, is maybe Ron Paul has the BRILLIANT idea about really bringing all the third party candidates together to form ONE third party. Sure they may bicker about the assorted issues (left and right) BUT, if they were united against a common enemy, such as the global elitist that are running the show now? Well, then we may actually get somewhere in this country after all.

  41. Howard Miles Says:

    I am disappointed in the selection of Wayne Allyn Root as Barr’s VP.

    Barr should have prevented Root from being his VP.

  42. Clark Says:

    ...it seems many of the wack-job cheerleaders for the con. party are anything but true ‘christians’..

    ...it appears some of the earliest historical records of ‘christianity’
    (back when ‘christianity’ was OBVIOUSLY much more ‘pure’ than it is now) show that it was peopled by martyrs…some/many of whom meekly went to their deaths for their beliefs..

    ...but some of you con. party freaks appear the type of snarling, finger-pointing, fucks who would’ve cheered for the lions over the saints!.. (no, not the detroit lions or new orleans saints!)

    ...heck, brother lowell would have me beaten and abused for merely eating meat…as did, apparently, his hero jesus (the original ‘community organizer’)...

    ...and do put away all this hate directed at your fellows here!!...maybe learn a little about your stinking money system, you monetary ignoramusses, and save your hate for today’s fucking ‘moneychanger$’..who surely own your asses..and your stinking republicrat government..they surely deserve your hate! ;o)

    ..have a good day!..

  43. Clark Says:

    AND NOW…BACK BY POPULAR DEMAND..ANOTHER CLASSIC ‘CLARK’S MONEY TIDBITS FOR REPUBLICRAT NEWBIE$’:

    http://www.monetary.org/hughdowns.htm

    ‘Odder than Oz’
    by Hugh Downs

    What do you suppose Alan Greenspan, Judy Garland, and the American Civil war have in common? Give up? They are all connected to turn-of-the-century U.S. monetary policy, of course! Not so obvious? Let me explain.

    Just before the American Civil War broke out, Americans used dollar bills that had been issued by banks. The government didn’t make any money, except coins. When the war began, the government (like all governments at war,) needed a great deal of money fast. President Lincoln decided to print it just like banks did. These early government notes were called “greenbacks” and, as you might expect, printing all those greenbacks led to rampant inflation.

    Eventually, about 15 years after the war was over, people who held Federal notes, the greenbacks, could redeem them for gold coin. Few people bothered to make this trade because the war was long over, gold reserves were healthy, and people had faith in the government. Money was once again backed by real gold, but this created a new problem. The government could not print any more money that was not backed by gold, and that constricted the money supply.

    People who already had money, that is rich people, didn’t want any more money added to the supply because an inflated money supply, devalues savings. Inflation is always bad for people with money because their money becomes less valuable. But people without money, especially poor farmers, were clamoring for the government to print more. Inflation always helps the poor because debts can be repaid in cheaper dollars and money becomes more available for loans, investments, for everything. By 1874 a new political party called the Greenback Party demanded that the government mint unlimited amounts of coin, print more paper money and give $50 to every U.S. citizen. Poor farmers were demanding an inflationary monetary policy.

    The Greenback Party dissolved in about 10 years, but a new party emerged and took up the inflationary baton. They were known as the Populist Party and legions of Midwestern and Southern farmers joined. The Populists eventually supported the Democrats because both parties were part of the Free Silver Movement. Remember the problem with the gold standard: the government couldn’t print any more without discovering more gold to back it up. The Free Silver Movement wanted the government to add silver as yet another standard, in addition to gold. Having two standards would allow the government to inflate the money supply and provide relief to farmers. The price of crops had plummeted but debts still had to be paid in gold backed currency.

    On July 8, 1896, during the Democratic national convention, a young 36 year old congressman named william Jennings Bryan gave a brilliant rhetorical flourish to the crowd’s sentiments. Bryan exclaimed: “You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind on a cross of gold.” The ecstatic crowd elected William Jennings Bryan as their presidential candidate.

    The “cross of gold,” of course, referred to the single standard; the rigid link between gold and money. The gold standard, favored by Eastern bankers and financiers, was also known as the “hard money policy.” Bryan and his friends championed bi-metallism instead. With two standards, the government could create and back more money - a policy known as “easy money.” Farmers were burdened by bank mortgages on their farms. They were forced to borrow gold backed notes. But the price of gold continued to go up, while the price for crops continued to go down. If U.S. monetary policy eased the money supply, farmers might have a chance to survive.

    William Jennings Bryan lost the 1896 election to William McKinley. He lost again to McKinley in 1900 and then, in 1908, Bryan lost yet another presidential election to William Howard Taft. But the dream of a looser money supply, and hatred of Eastern bankers lingered on. The Democratic and Progressive Parties, and others, adopted some of the economic principles forged in the Greenback and Populist Parties. Most interesting, though, is that the spirit of the Free Silver Movement and its resentment for Eastern bankers found its way into one of America’s most original fairy tales: the Wonderful Wizard of Oz.

    In 1900, Frank Baum, the author of the Wizard of Oz, was a staunch supporter of the Free Silver Movement and, like many Americans at the time, he distrusted the East coast banking establishment. And now we learn a fascinating story told to us by anthropologist Jack Weatherford. Weatherford tells us, in his new book THE HISTORY OF MONEY, that Baum’s tale of Oz is a thinly disguised parable of turn-of-the-century monetary policy. The Wizard of Oz is the wizard of the gold ounce, the abbreviation of ounce is, of course, oz.

    Dorothy, the lead character made famous in the screen version by Judy Garland, represented the average rural American. Dorothy, says Weatherford, was probably modeled on the populist orator Leslie Kelsey who was known as “the Kansas Tornado.” Dorothy, and Toto, are flung by the tornado to the East where they discover the Yellow Brick Road - meaning a gold road. The road leads to Oz “where the wicked witches and wizards of banking operate.”

    The Scarecrow is the American farmer. The Tin Woodman is the American factory worker, and the Cowardly Lion is William Jennings Bryan. Weatherford says: “The party’s march on Oz is a re-creation of the 1894 march of Coxey’s Army, a group of unemployed men led by … Jacob S. Coxey to demand (a) public issue of 500 million greenbacks…for (the) common people.” The Wizard himself represented Marcus Hanna who controlled both the Republican Party and the McKinley administration. The Munchkins “were the simpleminded people of the East who did not understand how the wizard … pulled the levers … that controlled the money, the economy, and the government.”

    The simpleminded residents of Oz were required to wear green tinted glasses fastened by gold buckles. Off to the West, the Wicked Witch of the West had enslaved the yellow Winkies, which Weatherford explains, “is a reference to the imperialist aims of the Republican administration, which had captured the Phillipines from Spain and refused to grant them independence.”

    At the end of the story the Wizard and the Witches are exposed as crude fakes. This dramatic revelation makes everything better. The scarecrow, who represents the farmer, discovers that he is really intelligent and not stupid. The Cowardly Lion, who is really William Jennings Bryan, finds courage. And the Tin Woodman, actually the American factory worker, “received a new source of strength in a bimetallic tool - a golden axe with a blade of silver.”

    In the original edition of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, Dorothy returns to Kansas by clicking the heels of her silver slippers together. The moviemakers decided that red looked better on screen than silver and that’s the way most of us remember the tale. As you can see, and thanks to Jack Weatherford for pointing it out, most of us have completely forgotten the secret story behind the Wizard of Oz.

    Today, the Federal Reserve Bank determines America’s monetary policy, but the Fed wasn’t created until 1913. The modern equivelent of the Wizard of Oz - or Marcus Hanna - is, of course, the ever-charming Alan Greenspan. So now you know. The Civil War, Judy Garland and Alan Greenspan, really are connected.

  44. Porter Rockwell Says:

    Ron Paul has invited everyone and his/her Mother to this so called Press Conference.

    This charade won’t generate 1 KB in news coverage.

  45. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” wendyworn Says:

    September 6th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
    So, Don Grundmann of the American Independent Party. Does that mean that Alan Keyes will also be there? The reason I ask, is maybe Ron Paul has the BRILLIANT idea about really bringing all the third party candidates together to form ONE third party. Sure they may bicker about the assorted issues (left and right) BUT, if they were united against a common enemy, such as the global elitist that are running the show now? Well, then we may actually get somewhere in this country after all.”

    Response : Wendy - The Alan Keyes that would show up anywhere these days is NOT the Alan Keyes that may have been before or that you may imagine him to be. Unfortunately Keyes is involved in a very corrupt action and with some very corrupt people against the AIP of California. In past times he may have been a moral authority that people could look to but those times are completely gone as he is now a empty suit hiding behind his former image. The reality of Alan Keyes is that he has, as the leader of his corrupt subordinates who act as surrogates and with his permission and endorsement, performed, and continues to do so to this day, extremely corrupt actions inclusive of filing false documents with the California Secretary of State office to deceive that office in the performance of its functions. Keyes has benefitted materially for his and their corrupt actions. It is a sad end for someone who could have helped the nation but chose instead to betray it while hiding behind a now fake image of who he is and what he represents. His current corruption will be exposed and stopped followed by his unfortunate ignominious fade into history. He is not who he claims to be and any imagined benefits from acting in concert with him will be short lived until his inevitable betrayal of any and all working with him surfaces. When we ” unite against a common enemy ” we will unfortunately get nowhere and less than that when we have a traitor acting within our midst.

  46. nader paul kucinich gravel Says:

    Fannie & Freddie has forced the issue.

    nader paul kucinich gravel
    mckinney ventura
    perot charts
    rage

    Got honesty?

  47. Paige Says:

    Barr will be at the Press Conference, too.

    http://www.bobbarr2008.com/events/

  48. Bicentennial Baby Says:

    Seriously, do you think putting a third party candidate in the whitehouse is a bigger longshot than reforming the republican party? 100% of the constitution party candidates are true constitutionalists. The republicans have 1 that I am aware of. Good luck with the reformation. Ron Paul’s candidacy is over, so as soon as my Chuck Baldwin bumber sticker arrives in the mail, it will take the place of the Ron Paul bumper sticker on my car.

  49. Adhaz Says:

    Dear Donna:

    I believe the Rally for the Republic was not allowed to introduce all the constitutionalists running for Congress because of IRS rules. The Campaign for Liberty is a 501©(4).

  50. Ricardo Says:

    The only true conservative candidate out there is Chuck Baldwin and Ron Paul knows this. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if Ron Paul endorses Chuck Baldwin tomorrow. His platform and the Constitution Party’s platform are almost virtually identical:

    http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

    Chuck Baldwin is a true Conservative whereas John McCain is nothing more than a CFR sponsored Necon running against a CFR sponsored Democrat in Obama. One thing you know out front is Chuck Baldwin nor Ron Paul are members of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations).

Leave a Reply