Ron Paul Endorses Chuck Baldwin

In early June, Ron Paul had this to say about Bob Barr:

[Barr’s voting record] doesn’t mean he can’t represent these [libertarian] values, and he’s saying the things that he should be saying, he’s joined the Libertarian Party, he presents these views, and he talks our language, so I do really believe that he can have a very positive effect in this campaign, and let the people know that limited government is a very, very important message

Writing today about Bob Barr missing Ron Paul’s Sep. 10 press conference, a posting on Paul’s blog said:

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. [...]

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 then 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’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.

The endorsement appeared to be without any reservations.  As noted last week, Chuck Baldwin’s message includes:
  • “restoring American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations”;
  • opposing “any legal recognition of homosexual unions” or “legalized adoption of children by homosexuals”;
  • carrying out “the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born”;
  • “upholding the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs”;
  • “upholding our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity”;
  • requiring that tariffs on “foreign imports” will not ”be less than the difference between the foreign item’s cost of production and the cost of production of a similar item produced in these United States”;
  • “a moratorium on immigration”;
  • “the return of a U.S. military presence at the Isthmus of Panama”;
  • no “foreign entity” should be allowed to own any U.S. assets, including real estate, stocks, bonds, or Treasury notes.

72 Responses to “Ron Paul Endorses Chuck Baldwin”

  1. Dr.Gonzo Says:

    You should probably get the story correct. The story was posted on the C4L website and was not posted by Paul. It was posted by some random blogger. You did a great job of skewing what actually happened though.

    And if this is true, Paul is acting like a child scorned. Once Barr stood up and said his real feelings he got pouty and decided to endorse a theocrat. Basically proving he is just another political celebrity. Thanks for the start Paul, but your C4L is over. Nobody besides Constitutionalists like this endorsement.

  2. Brian Holtz Says:

    I called it “a posting on Paul’s blog”. If the blog called “Ron Paul’s Campaign For Liberty” is giving out Paul’s endorsement without Paul’s approval, that’s news that TPW would like to cover.

  3. Dr.Gonzo Says:

    The writing of the blog doesn’t even sound like Paul. If true, it is completely out of the ordinary for him. If true, I’m glad he finally had the balls to stand up and vote for someone.

  4. Jesus Says:

    Dr. Gonzo,

    Get the facts straight. It was NOT posted by some “random blogger”, it wa posted by close Ron Paul staffer and the man married to Dr. Paul’s granddaughter, Jesse Benton.

    Whether the story is true or not is not up for debate by reasonable people.

  5. David D.... Says:

    If I may I’d like to ask a question with regards to theocracy. Is not Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Pat Robertson and Governor Mike Huckabee just to name an assorted few preachers, aka “theocrats”?

    If so were was the to do over there runs for the White House? Did anybody who was anybody call the above on this or any other website for that matter? If they are preachers and could run for President, all be it not successfully but run none the less they did, why then can not Preacher Baldwin do likewise?

    So much cap and trade is put in the idea of theocracy, theocracy, hide the Constitution, hide the Constitution the Jesus freaks are comin’! Respectfully this is for crap! You don’t wanna vote for the man and his running mate (Darrell Castle) then don’t vote for him, but don’t ruin it for the rest of us with conspiracy theories and half baked notions….

  6. Dr.Gonzo Says:

    David D,

    I suggest reading the CP platform for a good idea of what theocracy is.

    And someone isn’t a theocrat because they are religious. They are a theocrat when they want to establish a government based on their biblical beliefs.

  7. Brandon Magoon Says:

    I find it very hard to believe that Ron Paul would endorse some one he won’t be voting for. Ron Paul lives in Texas, Baldwin isn’t on the ballot in Texas and Ron Paul doesn’t think casting a write in makes much sense.

  8. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” And someone isn’t a theocrat because they are religious. They are a theocrat when they want to establish a government based on their biblical beliefs.”

    Response : The english translation for this blithering is that the writer despises Christianity and wants to replace it with his own religion of secular humanism. He is as much and more of a ” theocrat ” as anyone he complains about since he simply wants all government to be based on his religion instead of Christianity; i.e.; to establish a government based on his anti-Bible/Christian beliefs.

  9. Sivarticus Says:


    Chuck Baldwin is an officially registered write-in candidate in Texas. And Ron Paul thinks casting a write in for Ron Paul doesn’t make much sense because he isn’t an official write-in candidate in any state, and supports voting for one of the existing third party candidates.

  10. Stefan Says:

    Barr’s snubgate was the big mistake and especially the reactions of Mike Ferguson and Russ Verney. Barr could have contacted Paul and discussed his different strategy and motivations, but has apparently not done so. Barr has NOT showed any leadership and received the resultant blowback now. Paul’s support now for Baldwin does not mean he supports everything with the CP platform. As he states clearly, he is still a member of the LP and the LP platform is probably the closest to his. He was not going to criticize some aspects of the CP platform and it is well known that Paul often remains positive and also that Baldwin’s personal positions are closer to Paul that that of the CP.

  11. Bill Wood Says:

    Well what the heck, a posting that Dr. Paul endorses Chuck Baldwin, but Dr. Paul doesn’t mention the endorsement in his interviews that take place after the blog posting. Also people are reporting that they have called Ron Pauls office and the people answering the phones know nothing about this. I understand people like Dr. Paul have ghost writers, people writing stories using his name, but, was this another story that Dr. Paul was totally unaware of?

  12. Jay Matthews Says:

    “Nobody besides Constitutionalists like this endorsement.”

    How is a “constitutionalist” any different than a “libertarian” when it comes to matters of the constitution? There isn’t any. Both want gov’t restricted to its constitutional limits.

  13. Clark Says:

    ...i was recently listening to a numbskull con. party cheerleader who favors using some awful ‘big government’ to punish ‘abortionists,’ to punish ‘drug users,’ to punish ‘pornographers,’ homosexuals, etc..

    ...this ‘christian’ con. party numbskull also supports an ‘aggressive’ policy of ‘working with israel (which is reputed to have some hundreds of nukes and some 10 million people) to keep iran (which has ?no nukes and some 70 million people) from getting even one nuke…’ !!

    ...when listening to some of these ‘christian’ con. party numbskulls i can’t help thinking that it was ‘jesus the forgiver, the compassionate, the peacemaker, etc..

    ...certainly NOT ‘jesus the drug warrior,’ ‘jesus the jailer,’ ‘jesus the worldwide arms proliferator,’ ‘jesus the fucking war hag’...

    ...but, then again, some bob barr ‘christian’ ‘libertarians’ can be awful numb fucks too! ;o)

    ...have a nice day…and always keep in mind…the republicrat fuck-head with the microphone yacking about ‘the illion-dollar financial cri$i$’ doesn’t have an honest clue as to the origin, nature, etc. of even one ‘dollar’... ;o)

    ...ooga booga…

  14. Mark Says:

    A real libertarian wants government restricted WELL BEYOND the current Constitutional limitations, but that would be a very good start.

  15. Paul K. Says:

    Sorry, but I think Ron is now showing his true colors. At the end of the day, what’s left of the “Revolution” is driven by whackos. JBS types, troofers and CP theocrats. I certainly got my $50 worth watching Ron confound and expose the Neocons in the Republican debates (taking out Rudy alone was victory in my mind).

    His campaign however was a joke. He brought in *$35 million* and the best he could do was 10% when it mattered. No direction, no plan, no organization - just wild gesticulations denouncing the Fed and advocating the Gold standard. Newslettergate, which I ascribed to Lew and the ghost of Rothbard was mishandled and destroyed whatever momentum and credibility he had earned. I have since heard from what I consider a reliable source that the newsletters did reflect Ron’s views. I shut my mouth at the time, but if so, I cannot support him. This got worse as he went.

    As for his grass root meetup groups they had so many scary people - CP nuts, troofers etc. (at least in my area) I was afraid to bring anyone “normal”. I enjoy a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy but these people were over the top. The onlycampaign/organizational activity they could think of was standing highway intersections and waving signs. There was always a subtext of violence.

    Read the unofficial Ron Paul site. “Chemical trails” and FEMA camps are hot topics. And those are the moderates. I had no idea there were so many “out there” types out there - and all attaching themselves to the “movement”.

    Endorsing Baldwin is certainly Ron’s perogative. I think in doing so Ron was returning to his JBS roots rather than having anything to do with Barr. He wouldn’t have endorsed Mary Ruwart either. But by endorsing CP theocrats, Ron has shown himself as basically not a serious person. If he were, he would have accepted the LP (or CP) nomination in May and been on the general election ballot in November. I am concerned that the CP will use his endorsement as a recruiting magnet to draw the fringe types to their banner and consequently grow in strength. They are welcome to them (they can have the nuts in the LP too). But we live in interesting times. The neocon Republicans disgust me, but even they are better than a theocracy.

  16. Sean Scallon Says:

    “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 then one political party. ”

    Indeed, I wish more Americans felt this way, especially those around here.

  17. Liberated Woman Says:

    Paul K. ~ I was thinking the same thing.

  18. Odin Says:

    I´ll vote for Barr anyhow, but Ron Paul should have run himself instead all this meandering. With the disaster that the economy is in, and will be with the Republican party instituting a market socialism (the Democrats want us to be Europe and the Republicans want us to be China) he would have had a great opportunity.

  19. Makes No Sense Says:

    Dr. Paul got up a few weeks ago and stated that folks should vote third party this election. It makes no sense at all that he pick just one third party then. The way I see it, the plan is to get enough folks to vote “off-party” this election, then build a coalition for a viable Independent candidate in 2010. Not sure if Ventura is that guy, but it can be someone who can rise above this “party” garbage and work towards common goals of everyday americans without the constraints of a label (read: albatross) around someone’s neck.

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

    Hey guys & gals! It looks pretty legit to me! It makes REAL good sense to me as well. All I have to say is…....ABOUT TIME DR.PAUL ! But, THANK YOU SOOOOOOOOOOO VERY MUCH SIR !
    Lead, Follow or Get out of the way. Get off your fat duffs and support and vote for CHUCK BALDWIN! It is all about the preserving our constitution and republic. A blind man could figure it out.

    -Larry Breazeale, Msgt.(ret.) USAF

  21. Liberated Woman Says:

    Ron Paul did not want a cult of personality. Now people are so “relieved” to have direction and “know” how to vote in November. We complain about “sheeple” and now we are them.

    No candidate is perfect, but the party platforms will endure after the candidates have spilt their blood, sweat, and tears.

    People, please read the platforms of each party as they represent the objectives of the party leadership, not just one front person. Then vote for the platform.


    Reference from LP website:

  22. Arizona Indie Says:

    Well, Congressman Barrf, you wanted Ron Paul to make an endorsement in this race.

    Hopefully you’re happy now (I know that I am since he didn’t endorse Barrf).

  23. Galileo Says:

    Barr has been anal retentive about the 9/11 Commission, so he deserves to lose this endorsement.

    What’s next from Barr? Secondhand smoke is more dangerous than smoking? Global warming will kill us all in 30 years.

    The government has corrupted science.

  24. Craig M. Says:

    If the endorsement is not real, then the administrator of that site is in real trouble. Also, by now they would have pulled it since word-of-mouth advertising would have reached the ears of the web admin by this time. I just went back to the CFL site to make sure that it was still there…and it is. Apparently Dr. Paul was to be on CNBC at 2:00 eastern time this afternoon. If he has heard about it and needs to distance himself, he can then or in post-appearance interviews. I believe the endorsement is true based on the case I explained.

  25. NewFederalist Says:

    I am still a bit confused by all this. Has anybody asked Ron Paul directly if this endorsement is true?

  26. MPM Says:

    Wow Clark actually made an intelligent statement for once. Congratulations

    I don’t see how anyone intelligent enough to support third parties could support Baldwin after this:

    “upholding our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity”;

    requiring that tariffs on “foreign imports” will not ”be less than the difference between the foreign item’s cost of production and the cost of production of a similar item produced in these United States”;

    “a moratorium on immigration”;

    “the return of a U.S. military presence at the Isthmus of Panama”;

    no “foreign entity” should be allowed to own any U.S. assets, including real estate, stocks, bonds, or Treasury notes.”

    not remotely libertarian.

  27. Joe Says:

    It seems to me that Barr miscalculated a bit. It sounds like he wanted Ron’s endorsement and put some pressure on him for it. Ron resented the pressure and went with Baldwin. These things happen. Too bad for Barr, but it was probably worth the risk IMO, because it didn’t look like he was going to get the endorsement without the pressure anyway.

  28. Jonathan Says:

    Here is an article published today in the Sun Sentinel the most popular newspaper in Florida,0,4882086.story

    By the Way, the good news is we are on Massachussetts ballot and I have to thank George Phillies because without his help in this it would not have happened.

  29. Red Phillips Says:

    Theocracy … blah, blah, blah … theocracy … blah, blah, blah, ... theocracy.

    Y’all wouldn’t know a theocracy if it bit you on the rear. Everything that is not militant secularism is not a theocracy. Don is right. Every system is based on some overriding worldview. Militant secularism is a worldview. Christianity is a worldview. Y’all seem to forget that everyone is not a libertarian or a liberal secularist. Some are conservatives. That means they want to conserve things. Go figure. One thing that an American conservative should want to conserve is the historic Christian character of this country. If they don’t, I’m not sure how they could call themselves conservative. To despise our heritage is radical, not conservative. Y’all would have made good little French Revolutionaries. Well good luck ushering in your secular utopia. Let’s see how well godlessness tames the baser instincts of man. You might not like what you get.

    Clark, I pretty much with you on Jesus and the War, and I don’t believe in Federal drug laws because they are not constitutional. But the Bible is very clear about avoiding intoxication. So Jesus would have been just fine and dandy with people intoxicating themselves? How do you figure? You really should avoid Christian theology. You aren’t very good at it. The only Jesus you are happy with is some libertarian ideologue Jesus, not the sin condemning Savior of the World.

  30. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” Global warming will kill us all in 30 years.”

    Response : Man-made global warming does not exist. The arguments in support of it are not scientific in any sense of the word. It is a total political lie designed to frighten the sheep into following the Plantation Masters of the nation. The sky is not falling. Global warming will NOT kill us in 30, 300, or 3,000 years.

    Don Grundmann, Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California

  31. Mike Says:

    The RP Revolution is dead if this is true…

  32. Red Phillips Says:

    “The RP Revolution is dead if this is true…”

    Why, because the secularist obsessive God haters won’t stand for it?

  33. Winston Smith Says:


    Your claim that people hate God because they want this country to remain secular is false. You are simply spreading propaganda and talking points. Nothing more really.

    Read your own partys platform for an idea of theocracy. Banning things you find morally disgusting? Yeah thats the way to support Liberty. Nice police state the CP advocates.

  34. disinter Says:

    “Why, because the secularist obsessive God haters won’t stand for it?”

    First off, it’s impossible to hate something that doesn’t exist….

    second, he’s right the RP revolution is dead… the person who wrote the preamble and platform of the Constitution Party in all his glory at “2:19” in this youtube video

    Constitution Party members are Racists, Bigots, and antisemites, as well as believers in invisible men in the sky.

    Have fun with that

  35. Old Whig Says:

    If the CP was really for theocracy why have a seperate party? They’d all be good neocon Republicans like Pat Robertson and have a better chance of getting their way.


  36. Winston Smith Says:

    Old Whig,

    Because the Republican Party doesn’t care about the Constitution. The CP is just old conservatism with theocracy mixed in.

  37. Chad Says:

    If you judge a man by his party and his party’s platform, who is Ron Paul?

  38. Jonathan Says:

    This country is great because we don’t have the Constitution Party in power. Mixing religion and politics to that extreme is dangerous. Just look at the middle east.

  39. Red Phillips Says:

    “Your claim that people hate God because they want this country to remain secular is false.”

    Winston Smith, the Bible clearly states that you are either for God or you are against Him. If you do not wish to characterize that as hate, fine. Although there are some who post here where the word certainly fits. What it is is a desire on the part of the created to be free of the authority of the Creator. This is nothing new. It has been going on since the Garden of Eden. It is called the sin nature. Recall what Satan said to Eve in the Garden, “Hath God said?” Well indeed God hath said. She just didn’t like it.

    “Banning things you find morally disgusting? Yeah that’s the way to support Liberty.”

    Who said liberty (really you mean license) is the highest good? Civilized societies have been banning practices they find morally objectionable since there has been civilization and still do. (Incest is nearly universally condemned, for example.) In fact, banning certain things is one mark of civilization. The idea that a society would not want to enforce certain norms is very new on the historical scene. So ideological libertarianism is the historical anomoly.

    “First off, it’s impossible to hate something that doesn’t exist….”

    disinter, the Bible also says “the fool has said in his heart there is no God.” That there is a Creator is self evident. No amount of foot stomping denials on your part will change that.

    “Constitution Party members are Racists, Bigots, and antisemites, as well as believers in invisible men in the sky.”

    Whatever. That kind of mindless rant marks you as unserious.

  40. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” Constitution Party members are Racists, Bigots, and antisemites, as well as believers in invisible men in the sky.”

    Response : As usual the nitwit/dumbshit writer of the above repeats the foaming-at-the-mouth ranting of the God-haters with absolutely no documentation to back up one shread or second of what he/it vomits out. Example - The CP stands against the racist eugenics of Planned Parenthood and its deliberate genocidal attack against the black community ( see ) more than any other party either currently or in the entire history of the nation. So where, dumbshit, is the ” racism ” or ” bigotry ” in that? Is it ” antisemite ” to defend the non-white citizens of the nation from the genocidal attack of Planned Parenthood? I will bet $100 right now that YOU personally support Planned Parenthood and hence automatically support their racism and genocidal attack against all non-white citizens. And then you, as the complete liar that you are, say that the CP is racist and bigoted. Just one example of countless available of how sick and twisted you are.

    Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party of California

  41. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” Banning things you find morally disgusting? Yeah thats the way to support Liberty. Nice police state the CP advocates.”

    Response : So the CP stands against perverts having sex with their dogs in the street and ” Winston Smith ” protests that his ” liberty ” is lost. According to ” Winston ” he only has ” liberty ” when he can do anything at anytime for any reason and with anyone. You will find that same definition of ” liberty ” at the NAMBLA website where they claim that the homosexual movement can NEVER be free until children are ” free.” English translation - they can be molested at any time by anyone and for any reason. Of course to Winston the protection of children and any other actions of a rational culture will be a ” police state.” Well ” Winston ” you are right. The CP DOES stand in the way of YOUR ” liberty.” Of course we support REAL liberty which was the foundation of our becoming the greatest nation in the history of the world. So for the rest of the nation ( the normal people ) our support and love of REAL liberty is totally in line with their ( rational and normal people ) values and understanding of the term. For YOU - well you will just continue to be frustrated along with your buddies at NAMBLA.

    Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party of California

  42. Dan Says:

    I was a member of the Lp but dropped my membership primarily because of the elitism and Christian-phobia of the libertine wing of the party. There is not as much room in the LP for those who are both paleo-conservative and paleo-libertarian as there used to be, and this is too bad. If the two groups could of found a way to work together on the things they do agree on they could be a force to reckon with. While I’m not comfortable with everything in the CP platform [i.e. suporting a fed. marriage amendment], I think Baldwin is the best guy out there.

  43. Jonathan Says:

    Dan I’m new to the LP but I do not find their members nor the Party nor the web site witha christian phobia. The Libertarian Party is exactly the opposite:
    live and let live.
    Socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
    We don’t care what your religious belief is as long as you believe in the basic principles of the Party which in a nut shell is less government and more freedoms.
    The constittution Party with a Pastor as their nominee is very similar excvept they inject religion as core and if you want to talk phobias they got it . If you arenot Christian then the Constitution Party is not for you. Kind of like the old country clubs in America used to be that excluded jews and negroes.

  44. DIAMOND DAVE Says:

    who cares really if Ron Paul endorsed Baldwin.
    If an endorsement from 1 person can change your vote that’s pretty sad.
    More so if that endorsement comes from a Republican

  45. disinter Says:

    Many of you may not know this, but Bob Barr lost his congressional seat due to an organized LP effort to defeat himself and other “drug warriors” in office. Since that time, Barr has allegedly reformed and sought the nomination of the very Party which managed to unseat him. Barr’s current communications director, Shane Corey was driven out of the Libertarian Party leadership for advocating larger government intrusions into our lives and a perpetuation of the war against terrorism. He also was accused of orchestrating a smear-campaign against Mary Ruwart, a candidate competing against Barr for the LP nomination. Smear campaigns are a normal routine in politics lately. However, the fact that this particular smear originated from the LP leadership, calls into question the objectivity of the Party’s power-elite. That Corey eventually ended up working for Barr’s campaign is just more fodder for speculation. It can’t be easily explained.

    Barr, a former CIA agent, voted for the PATRIOT act while in Congress and prosecuted hundreds of citizens who ran afoul of the nation’s drug laws while he was a federal prosecutor. His track record as a leader for the cause of liberty is barren. And to top off a dubious set of career accomplishments, the tactics he has used to gain the LP nomination are suspect.

    Whether or not Barr and his clan’s efforts are intentional, they are destroying the Libertarian Party’s ability to even remotely advance the cause of liberty. Russ Verney and Bob Barr would have you believe that this is the result of “true leadership.”

  46. Red Phillips Says:

    disinter, Barr was gerrymandered out of his seat by spiteful Democrats and changing demographics. I know because I live in Georgia. He ended up having to face a fellow Republican in the primary of a new district that combined areas of two old districts. He ran against John Linder who is still a setting Congressman.

    If Libertarians had something to do with that defeat, I am not aware of it. But he did not lose his seat outright.

  47. John Lowell Says:

    The Paul endorsement of Baldwin has really turned the stool of the resident Barr syncophants and the sociopathological libertines here rather loose. What to do? We must certainly say something to reassure ourselves. Perhaps attack the CP platform, belittle Baldwin’s faith, something, anything. The whole edifice of a Libertarianism understood as kind of arrested adolescence is now under credible threat. The patron saint has aposticised! Maybe if we just keep asserting those mantras we learned when we were blaming Mom, Dad and the Church for our irresponsibilities, yeah that’ll do it. Then we’ll feel better.

  48. GREEN DAD Says:

    all votes are good this election as long as they are not for Obama and McCain. We can disagree which third party candidate to endorse, that’s fine.
    As far as Ron Paul endorsing Baldwin, if it is true , good for Baldwin.
    I’m still voting Bob Barr, an endoresment from a Republican Congressman will not change my mind.

  49. Red Phillips Says:

    “The whole edifice of a Libertarianism understood as kind of arrested adolescence is now under credible threat. The patron saint has apostatized! Maybe if we just keep asserting those mantras we learned when we were blaming Mom, Dad and the Church for our irresponsibilities, yeah that’ll do it. Then we’ll feel better.”

    Amen, John. Very well said.

  50. Ferenc Says:

    All of you drug and homo lover anti Cristian libertarians, you get what you ask for. Next time try to run a true libertarian, not a person like Mr. Barr.

    God Bless you all and The Ron Paul revolution
    for a better future of this once a great Nation
    United States of America

  51. MPM Says:

    Don Grundmann,

    “’ Global warming will kill us all in 30 years.’


    Dude chill I believe that was sarcasm. Also if anyone questioning the existence of global warming actually did some research instead of listening to Fox Radio, you would know it’s a moot point because rising CO2 levels will acidify the oceans independent of any warming effect. This is probably a bigger problem but the media only picks up on the warming aspect of it because it increases circulation/ratings more. (Also if warming were to continue you may see a thermohaline circulation shutdown leading to some cooling to offset it)

    Aside from the Royal Society report from 2005 on this topic, you can find out about it here: (pages 4 and 5)

    And Red Phillips, didn’t I already school you on what the Christian nature of this country really means already (in another news item)? It means our law is based on the Lockean principles of natural rights granted by God, and to pass laws based on interpreted morality and creating victimless crimes is to violate those rights. You may disagree with running a country like that, okay, but just don’t call yourself the Constitution Party when that’s what the Constitution is really based on. The Libertarian Party is the one that’s closest to sticking to those principles of (Locke, Rousseau, others) which were incorporated by our Founding Fathers. Hell, Locke even wrote the first constitution of North Carolina.

  52. Vin Says:

    A Don Grundmann endorsement of Chuck Baldwin and his Constitution Party is enough to convince me that the world does not have to worry about the rise of an American theocracy based on Sharia… er Christian values anytime soon.

  53. Travis Maddox Says:

    Just so everyone knows. Here is Dr. Paul’s endorsement in his own words.
    It’s sad I have to report on this and not the reporters.

  54. Red Phillips Says:

    “And Red Phillips, didn’t I already school you on what the Christian nature of this country really means already (in another news item)?”

    Oh pardon me. I must have forgotten my “schooling” teacher. There is certainly a lot of Lockean idiom in the DoI in particular, but the Founders did avoid pure rationalistic natural rights language by connecting our rights to God. While problematic and arguably unbiblical in its own way, invoking God separated it from the pure rationalistic Enlightenment liberalism that was all the rage in France, for example.

    As I “schooled” someone, paleocons of good faith disagree on to what extent the American “founding” (actually an incorrect formulation) was inherently liberal. But the facts on the ground, as they say, of such things as a highly orthodox (small o) Christian populace, obvious inequality, etc. belie the Lockean rhetoric.

    Hopefully my all wise teacher will pardon a simple humble student like me for objecting.

  55. disinter Says:

    Global warming will kill us all in 30 years.


    Well, that’s it for me and Ron Paul.

    I think one of my vehicles still has a Ron Paul sticker on it. I’ll try to remember to take it off in the morning.

    Anyone got a spare Bob Barr sticker?

  57. Tom Bryant Says:

    I’m glad Barr did not attend Paul’s press conference. He must have got wind that this Baldwin endorsement was coming. I feel sorry for McKinney and Nader - they look like fools now for attending that press conference!

    At least Barr avoided the embarassment of being endorsed by Paul at the press conference and then having it yanked away when Paul made his real endorsement of Baldwin.

    Anyone else find it funny Ron Paul will be voting for someone who is not on the Texas ballot?

  58. Tom Bryant Says:

    Bob Barr did not lose his seat simply due to the LP. He was redistricted out of his office. Yes, the LP did run a few ads attacking him during the primary, but the redistricting cost him much more than the LP.

  59. georgia jawjacker Says:

    IF: “Constitution Party members are Racists, Bigots, and antisemites, as well as believers in invisible men in the sky.”

    THEN: Ron Paul is too!

    And how do I come to that conclusion? I have met RP supporters who ARE “Racists, Bigots, and antisemites, as well as believers in invisible men in the sky.” They didn’t just jump on the ‘anti-war’ flavor of the month political bandwagon last fall either, these people have been RP supporters for 40 years. These very people are ready to whack BHO just because he’s black regardless of his ideological or political affiliations. And man, what a bunch of crazies they are.

    I’m glad Barr didn’t get that fucking kooks endorsement. Maybe it’s time the CP changed it’s name back to the KKK. Praise the lord, and pass the ammunition!

  60. Clark Says:

    MPM SNARKS: “Wow Clark actually made an intelligent statement for once. Congratulations..” (END)

    ...thank-you for your readership, MPM..this is the first time, to my knowledge, you’ve commented on my writing..

    ...but it sounds as though you have some problems with my assertions here at TPW..please consider merely quickly copying and pasting anything of mine you find wrongheaded, etc. so that i might see what fucking republicrap may be rattling around in your head… ;o)

    ...i will quess you have some problems with the many statement$ i make about ‘our’ fucking miserably fraudulent ‘money system’..

    ...i can understand if thi$ is a difficult $ubject for you..believe it or not, even the ma$ter, CLARK, was once a fucking economic ignoramu$..just like you republicrats!...constantly working my cheeseburger hole as to illion$, yet worse than ignorant as to the origin, nature, etc. of even one..

    ...and even the genius ‘christian’ psychoanalyst, lowell,—one of my favorites here—appears a money dummy too! don’t feel bad!..

    A RED PHILLIPSRED HERRING: “So Jesus would have been just fine and dandy with people intoxicating themselves? How do you figure?” (END)

    ...cut it out, red!!.. 3rd party republicrats don’t seem to understand even basic libertarianism 101!..that there are only two ways to get a person to do what you want.. is to PERSUADE them to do it VOLUNTARILY..

    ...the other is to use COERCION/FORCE/THREAT OF FORCE/etc. to get them to submit to your will..

    ...libertarians are STRONG ADVOCATES of the former..

    ...and—as near as i can tell—for one of MANY MANY examples—many of ?you con. party authoritarian republicrats, etc. assorted stoooooops, are just fine with the latter: i.e. STATE GOVERNMENT LEVEL COERCION/FORCE/THREAT OF FORCE/etc. directed at people who merely enjoy growing some of god’s seedbearing plants in their gardens and/or partaking of an occasional whiff of the burned, dried, etc., leaves, etc., thereof..

    ...surely red, i have no right to ‘partoke’ on your property…as you are the king of your castle there..

    ...but on my property, shouldn’t ?you republicrats mind your own fucking business?..and look at the MISERABLE mess ?your goddamned fool big government drug war has created!...

    ...yet it appears ?your con. party is still filled with goddamned prohibitionists, etc., fools!..

    ..but have a good day!..

  61. GREEN DAD Says:

    let’s look at the difference between Parties:

    Constitution Party:

    The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

    This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

    The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

    Libertarian Party:

    As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

    We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

    Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.


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

    All you knucklehead ‘whiners’ out there, that have the ‘willie-nellies’ and the ‘heebie-jeebies’...are a bunch of ‘cry-babies’ that are so hung up on the ‘religion’ factor. Grow up fools! CHUCK BALDWIN is not cramming his religion down my throat,or YOU throat, anymore than the ‘founding fathers’ did, during their time. The ‘founding fathers were BOTH believers and non-believers
    that were banded together, in respect for one another, for the COMMON GOOD. Chuck believes in that same approach! So does the Constitution party. ANYBODY who says different, is either a lier or non-informed.

    RON PAUL (God Bless Him!) did what ANY REASONABLE man, with integrity would do! ANYBODY who can’t see that or can not understand that is blind. WRONG IS WRONG AND RIGHT IS RIGHT. To you few fools out there…get over it! We all have bigger things to worry about!
    It is called the preservation of our republic and constitution.

    The Libertarian party nominated a nominee that is NOT completely supported by the majority of his own party. He is an ‘outsider’, ‘third party rookie’, RECENTLY CAME FROM THE RANKS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT, (CIA), “Patriot Act” supporter, etc., etc., ‘johnny-come-lately’.
    Those of you in the Libertarian party that are NOT happy with BOB BARR, are welcome in the Constitution party….whether you believe in God or not.
    (It is supposed to be a free country remember?) We are NOT the party of so-called ‘religious-zealots’, as some ‘felony stupid’troublemakers want you to believe. Many of us are Christians. Some are not. SO WHAT!
    Get a life guys! Lead, follow or get out of the way.
    The constitution is hanging by a thread. Get off your fat duffs and help preserve it before it is too late. GOD BLESS RON PAUL & CHUCK BALDWIN!

    -Larry Breazeale, Msgt. (ret.) USAF
    Constitution party…

  63. Travis Maddox Says:

    “And even though I am a born again Christian (as is Ron Paul), I would take my responsibility to protect the religious liberty of every American seriously. People have the right to worship God (or not worship God) according to the dictates of their own conscience. Whether one is Baptist, Catholic, Mormon, or agnostic, people have the right to practice their faith as they see fit. I am absolutely dedicated to preserving religious liberty. Religious tyranny is as evil as political or social tyranny. And, as I will be no man’s slave, neither will I be any man’s master.”
    Chuck Baldwin

  64. GREEN DAD Says:

    These freedoms are already in place, Baldwin does not have to fight to preserve them. The Constitution Party says :
    “The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations ” There is nothing to restore here unless you want a more Theocratic society which is exactly what we do not need. So who does the Constitution Party put as a nominee? a Pastor. very interesting

  65. Carl Says:

    Red, there is no Biblical mandate to ban intoxicants. None. There is an admonition by Paul not to be a drunk. There are also admonitions against gluttony—but no call put fat people in jail. Do a word search on wine and you’ll find praises aplenty. Wine was a component of temple sacrifices, so one is not corrupting one’s bodily temple by having a glass of wine. That’s what bacon is for.

    The Biblical case against legal pork is far stronger than the Biblical case against legal marijuana.

    As for porn, prostitution was legal under some circumstances; Solomon’s first action after receiving supernatural levels of wisdom was to adjudicate a dispute between two harlots.

  66. Red Phillips Says:

    Carl, you are over interpreting my point. There is no Biblical mandate that I know of to ban intoxicants as you say. But neither is there a Biblical admonition not to. My point is that what is driving the boat of many here, even some who call themselves Christians, is strict adherence to a totally modern libertarian ideology. Not a thoughtful effort to apply the teachings of the Bible in the context of a particular culture, history, tradition, place, time, etc.

    The Bible simply does not mandate/endorse a libertarian social order. And there is MUCH in the Bible to suggest otherwise. Christians or those with some sympathy for Christianity who try and suggest it does are being (willfully or otherwise) disingenuous. They are trying to make an ancient book fit their modern ideology instead of letting the book form and mold their thinking.

    Christians of good faith can and do differ over what governmental order the Bible suggests, and a good case can be made that it is legitimate to consider the circumstances particular Christians find themselves in. (Whether one is in the extreme minority or extreme majority as a Christian for example.) But the Bible simply does not allow for the defining away of sin. Nor does the Bible endorse the atomistic individualism of libertarianism and modern liberalism. It clearly acknowledges community and a community effect of individual and collective sin. No Christian should tolerate the suggestion that by holding Christian views on sin that they are then automatically guilty of some sort of thought crime.

    I’m sorry, but modern Enlightenment notions of atomistic individualism, “liberty,” etc. are hostile to the Christian worldview. They just are. I really don’t think that Christians who dispute this have much of a leg to stand on. The Church and Christians used to understand this intuitively. Unfortunately today most have drunk so deeply from the well of modernism that they can’t see it.

  67. Red Phillips Says:

    Re. liberalism and Christianity, here is what Thomas Fleming, Mr. Paleoconservative, had to say on the matter in a recent thread. This is in response to much discussion that had gone before so you may have to sift through for the nugets. Also, I’m not Catholic so where he says Catholic and the Church I would replace it with Christianity. But the main points still hold. Christianity and liberalism are incompatible. Christianity and liberty properly understood are not. (Liberalism meaning the big idea of Enlightenment liberalism, not necessarily Hillary/Obama style liberalism, and libertarianism is generally a type of liberalism)

    This is not the place to discuss this, though I would be happy to set up a discussion in a few weeks on the question of liberalism and the Church. A few anticipatory points: ... 3) Liberalism evolved as a subversive movement to undermine all traditional authorities, that of the King, the Church, the aristocracy, and ultimately, of property-owners, husbands, and parents. There are many splendid insights in the liberal emphasis on personal dignity, but its philosophical foundations in Locke et al are quite simply false and false in a way that subverts the Christian understanding of man. At the heart of liberal theory stands the emancipated individual who possesses some magic quality known as rights. This rights-bearing individual is a fantasy who does not now and has never existed.

    The Christian/Catholic view of man acknowledges him as a corporate being whose identity is defined in part by his obligations to parents, friends, nation, etc. Where this became confused, at least in retrospect, is when liberal nation states emerged and began making their own set of false claims on people. At that point it became rather easy to mistake socialism for Catholic morality. But Catholic thought was fixed long before the invention of the modern state, and the best way of understanding it is to invoke what has been called “the well-known principle of subsidiarity. At the very least, this principle tells us that the government of the US should not be doing what the states can do better; that the states should not being doing what cities and counties could do better; that cities and counties should not be doing what neighborhoods and private associations can do better; and that for the most part these lowest communities should not be doing what families can do better. On a practical level, it means that roughly 90% of what the federal and state governments do is a usurpation of authority. On this basis, Rothbard and I shook hands and struck a deal that there was no point in quarreling until we had stripped government of 90% of its power. At that point we could engage in polemics.

    To sum up. The dichotomy between liberty-loving liberals and the Catholic tradition is entirely false. In fact, from an historical sense, liberalism, in destroying every bond between man and man and replacing them with the cash nexus-to paraphrase Marx and Engels-prepared the way for an inevitable socialist revolution. The way back to sanity and strictly limited government is not to attempt to reconstruct the liberal state-which got us into this mess, as so many people at the time said it would-but to recover a deeper and more ancient sense of the human person and society. Liberal economic theory and analysis is not to be despised as a part of this reconstruction, since on a pragmatic level it shows how futile and destructive are the redistributist policies of the socialist state.

  68. Old Whig Says:

    “religious conservatism in the United States does not mean sacrifice of individual interest for group interest, or subservience of the individual to the state or any other ruling collectivity. Rather, religion mitigates the selfishness of unbridled individualism and private animosities, while shoring-up free institutions that engage inspiring hopes as against general despotism which gives rise to indifference.”
    (Alexis de Tocqueville paraphrased by Scott Atron)

    Green Dad, the second paragraph you quoted from the CP platform is a direct quote from Patrick Henry.


  69. Old Whig Says:

    While paleoconservatives and libertarians agree about 90%, they are not the same. The Constitution Party is a paleoconservative party, not a Libertarian Party gone wrong.

    Ron Paul is a paleoconservative, he ran as a Libertarian in ‘88 because that was the best option at that time. He has not changed.

    Paleos and Libs can and should cooperate where they agree.


  70. Maria Says:

    Yes, Vote Pastor Baldwin for President and acknowledge the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator.
    We must restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations like the Constitution Party calls for.

    just kidding, I could never vote for that, but those that do , it’s fine with me, as long as you vote Third Party.

    I will be casting a vote for Ralph Nader or Bob Barr

  71. Clark Says:

    A VERITABLE SCHOOL OF RED’S HERRINGS:”No Christian should tolerate the suggestion that by holding Christian views on sin that they are then automatically guilty of some sort of thought crime… (END)’s not ‘holding christian VIEWS’ or ‘thought crimes,’ etc. that makes one a fuck-head, red!’s ACTION in support of DECIDEDLY UN-CHRISTIAN BIG GOVERNMENT (force, coercion, fraud, etc.) ‘DRUG WARS,’ ETC. GODDAMNED “WARS,” ETC. AD NAUSEAM!!..(please enlighten yourself as to the human misery, incarceration, etc. ad goddamned nauseam, resulting from this fucking ‘drug war’..a ‘drug war’ supported, in my experience, by MANY CP dildoes)

    ...and kudos to baldwin!..he may affiliate with some awful ooga-booga chuckleheads, but his writing appears very decent, thoughtful..

    ...have a nice day!..

  72. MPM Says:

    I don’t see how one can call oneself Christian and support coercion. It’s that simple, quit trippin on your Kool-Aid Red. See you in Guyana.

Leave a Reply