Why did Ron Paul endorse Chuck Baldwin?
I felt this article brought up a lot of the thoughts I have had since I heard about the endorsement.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article4975.html
Topic: Ron Paul
Why did Ron Paul endorse Chuck Baldwin?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The principles of the Constitution Party do not jibe with Paul's Campaign for Liberty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by David K. Williams, Jr.
(Libertarian)
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Ron Paul has done more for the cause of limited government and personal liberty than any politician since Barry Goldwater.
That's why his presidential endorsement of Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin is puzzling.
He announced his endorsement via his Campaign for Liberty site.
Before making the announcement, he discussed his "Unity Press Conference," which was attended by Baldwin, Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney but not Bob Barr:
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.
Of course, the Barr campaign has a different version of events. Bob Barr campaign manager Russ Verney, in an email to supporters, said:
After rumors were spread in advance of the news conference that Bob Barr was dropping from the race - just to hype the event - I became even more hesitant to attend. Those tactics were unacceptable and when asked about it, Ron Paul's staff simply smiled and said it would attract the press.
When I was provided a copy of Ron Paul's prepared remarks just hours before the start of the planned news conference it became clear to me that the message Ron Paul intended to deliver was essentially to scatter the votes for the liberty agenda to the four winds.
His remarks not only encouraged anyone listening to support any one of four candidates, he also applauded 'non-voters'. To me encouraging people not to vote is not principled leadership for the Liberty agenda.
Apparently there was a lack of communication between the two camps and some hurt feelings. But this is politics. There is no place for hurt feelings.
In his endorsement of Baldwin, Paul wrote:
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.
Given the context of the entire announcement, it appears that the "shortcomings of any one person" is a thinly veiled jab at Barr. No problem. This is politics.
Paul continued:
The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for "remaining neutral" in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November.
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.
That is the general background leading up to Paul's endorsement.
Most people outside the insulated world of third party politics probably have a question: "Who is Chuck Baldwin?"
Let's look at the Constitution Party website for some answers.
Among other things, the CP wants to end American involvement in overseas wars, limit the federal government's powers to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and return power to those states by reviving the dormant Tenth Amendment.
So far, so good.
But let's look at some of those "other things," as well.
The CP website asks visitors to "Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations."
Biblical foundations? At best, that claim is historically questionable. Throughout its website, the CP picks quotes from John Adams and others that indicate a belief that Christianity is an important part of American government.
Of course, the CP ignores quotes from Thomas Jefferson and others that indicate a different belief.
For an organization that purports to support a stringent reading of the Constitution, it fails to address why the words "Jesus Christ," "Christianity," "bible," or even "church" fail to appear in the document.
The CP has to look outside the document to support its position, which is exactly what liberal judicial activists do to support their arguments for expansion of federal power.
The entire CP platform is online.
It begins: "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."
The CP therefore has no place for those that do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.
Ironically, this would keep Thomas Jefferson out of the CP. Jefferson denied that Christ was divine, and put together a little something called "The Jefferson Bible" to support that belief.
It is hard to imagine how a political party that rejects Jews, Muslims, atheists, Wiccans, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics and Thomas Jefferson can be said to support either freedom or liberty.
In that regard, the CP platform sets forth its specific positions very clearly:
The CP is against homosexual rights.
The CP is against abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.
The CP supports the war on drugs.
The CP favors government regulation of the internet and the media in general because both contain sexually provocative images.
The CP is anti-free market in that it favors government restriction on the private use of personal money on gambling and prostitution.
The CP is anti-free trade.
The CP supports government's power to kill criminals.
The CP would not allow women in combat.
The CP believes that education "cannot be separated from religious faith."
The CP would eliminate all immigration into the country "except in extreme hardship cases or in other individual special circumstances."
The CP would keep out immigrants based on whether or not the government found them a moral burden on the country or not.
The CP supports "all the legislation which would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."
There can be no doubt Ron Paul believes in individual liberty, freedom and limited government. But it is hard to see how Chuck Baldwin and the CP advance these beliefs.
It appears that Paul has taken a perceived slight from Bob Barr personally, and in a fit of pique, endorsed a religious zealot, intolerant of non-Christians and a believer in government authority to implement a Christian theocracy.
And that's too bad
The LP
needs to get a grip on the FACT that the LP is a small sub-set of the RP Revolution, and not vice-versa.
They're not the policy-makers for anybody but LP members.
.
They nominated Barr/Root.
So much for their intellectual capacities and idealogical credibility.
Once they get their own house in order, then maybe somebody will listen to them. They've got a helluva lot of work to do, before they can question anybody else's party or positions.
Somebody call the Whaaaaam-bulance for these cry-babies!
Chuck Baldwin gets my vote!
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
There would be no theocracy under a Baldwin presidency
And that comes straight from the man himself.
Learn to read.
In Massachusetts the deadline for submitting Write-in Requests
or petitions was Sept 5th; I had planned on writing in Ron Paul's name. Then I started thinking last week, if I write in Ron Paul and it is not recognized and discarded then it would be the same as if I just stayed home and not voted at all.
I also found out then that Chuck Baldwin is the Independent Candidate on the Massachusetts ballot and remembered that out of all the other 3rd party candidates Chuck Baldwin the only one that supported Ron Paul when Ron Paul's campaign was just getting started.
I would agree that Chuck Baldwin is not Ron Paul, but out of the bunch he is as close as it gets. Also, perhaps this is blessing, if we silently wage our support for Chuck and we all vote for him in November, perhaps this will give us the edge we need before the Republicrats have chance to organize against us again.
I would like to see a sign made that says something like Ron for Chuck or Ron Paul Supports Chuck Baldwin how about you? I trust Ron's judgment ...Chuck Baldwin 08.
It is not about the party, it is about the candidate, the party is just the vehicle.
Just a thought.....
FREEDOM FORCE: http://forums.libertylove.org/?q=node/139
SURVIVAL RESOURCE: http://forums.libertylove.org/?q=node/158
ART: http://forums.libertylove.org/?q=node/360
MUSIC: http://forums.libertylove.org/?q=node/880
The platform of the CP does
The platform of the CP does not sound much like the constitution of a free people. Against gay marriage and civil unions, Jesus Christ being the one and only saviour? It's really sad, I liked Chuck Baldwin till I looked into what he and the CP stand for on these issues. Freedom and liberty for everyone is the only way. The Constitution doesn't say "We the (non-homosexual, Jesus loving) People." Chuck is not Ron, some similarities, but Ron Paul always said to stop racism, stop categorizing groups, because we are all Americans.(obviously not his words) and even though he wasn't for Gay Marriage, he said it was a state issue. I know the presidents opinions don't make laws but he does represent the people and I am tired of being represented by close-minded, self-centered, totally out of touch with modern society, Close your eyes, lock the doors, there's a gay athiest, type of people! It is completely idiotic that in this century I even am writing about this, with all the issues in the United States, but for some reason this is a major topic here in our country.
Oh yeah,
Why did Ron Paul endorse Chuck Baldwin? I don't know, we all choose for our own reasons, maybe he'll explain his reasons, maybe we should follow his lead, weve trusted him this far. I definately need some clarification on these issues before I choose this platform representing me.
For now, Guess I'm back to writing in Ron Paul!
We cured Ron Paul of his skepticism
I wish we could have convinced him we'd of been there in large numbers on a 3rd Party ticket!!
I think Paul understood the corrupt nature of the Libertarian Party (not referring to libertarianism - just the Party has been infiltrated by Neoconservatives like Bob Barr).
Imagine the numbers Ron Paul would have gotten had he went 3rd Party on January 1, 2008!!!!
Octobox
Wisdom is the anticipation of consequences!
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
I'm sorry but I feel this post misrepresents the CP platform
I think this post oversimplifies and misconstrues what the CP platform actually says. I am not a member of the Constitution Party, all I did was go the website (here: http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php) and try to compare what it the post says with what is stated in the platform. I found the post to be highly subjective, somewhat biased and a little inflammatory at times.
The post states: "It begins: "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." The CP therefore has no place for those that do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior."
*
I propose that this does not mean the CP has no place for those that do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. Christ is the saviour of all mankind period, makes no difference whether they believe in him or not.
*
The post states: "It is hard to imagine how a political party that rejects Jews, Muslims, atheists, Wiccans, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics and Thomas Jefferson can be said to support either freedom or liberty."
*
I could not find any specific statement that would indicate that the CP rejects Jews, Muslims, etc.. Unless that was to be inferred from the poster's misinterpretation of the Savior comment at the beginning.
*
The post states: "The CP is against homosexual rights."
*
CP states: "we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions." and "We affirm the value of the father and the mother in the home, and we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples". I interpret this to mean that Homosexuals have all the rights of an individual they just do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else nor do they have the right to deprive a child of a mother and a father. That's all."
*
The post states: "The CP is against abortion, even in cases of rape and incest."
*
Yes, it states: "As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father."
*
The post states: "The CP supports the war on drugs."
*
The Constitution Party states that it "will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources."
*
The post states: "The CP favors government regulation of the internet and the media in general because both contain sexually provocative images.
*
I could not find a reference to the "media" in general and a search for the word provocative turns up nothing but CP does propose: "We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy."
*
The post states: "The CP is anti-free market in that it favors government restriction on the private use of personal money on gambling and prostitution."
*
CP states "We are opposed to GOVERNMENT (does not say personal) sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states."
*
The post states: "The CP is anti-free trade."
*
CP states: "America was founded on the economic principles of the "free enterprise" system. An individual was free to operate his business under the law without government intervention and regulation. This economic system is being replaced by public (government) - private partnerships. This system is called fascism. The Constitution Party is opposed to public-private partnerships and is for a return to the true "free enterprise" system that once made our nation great and economically prosperous."
*
The post states: "The CP supports government's power to kill criminals."
*
What the platform states is this: "We favor the right of states and localities to execute criminals convicted of capital crimes"
*
The post states: "The CP would not allow women in combat."
*
True, but the key word is combat, don't misconstrue that to mean women would not be allowed in the military.
*
The post states: "The CP believes that education "cannot be separated from religious faith.""
*
Yes and the CP platform states "We support the unimpeded right of parents to provide for the education of their children in the manner they deem best, including home, private OR religious. We oppose all legislation from any level of government that would interfere with or restrict that liberty."
*
The post states: "The CP would eliminate all immigration into the country "except in extreme hardship cases or in other individual special circumstances.""
*
What it says is this: "We favor a moratorium on immigration to these United States, except in extreme hardship cases or in other individual special circumstances, until the availability of all federal subsidies and assistance be discontinued, and proper security procedures have been instituted to protect against terrorist infiltration."
*
The post states: "The CP would keep out immigrants based on whether or not the government found them a moral burden on the country or not."
*
CP statement says: "The Constitution Party demands that the federal government restore immigration policies based on the practice that potential immigrants will be disqualified from admission to the U.S. if, on the grounds of health, criminality, morals, or financial dependence, they would impose an improper burden on these United States, any state, or any citizen of these United States." In deference to the poster I am not sure exactly sure what the inclusion of "morals" means.
*
The post states: "The CP supports "all the legislation which would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.""
*
That is exactly what the CP platform states, however I fail to see the problem in removing Federal jurisdiction over matters pertaining to the God period. What is wrong with this statement?
*
The post states: "It appears that Paul has taken a perceived slight from Bob Barr personally, and in a fit of pique, endorsed a religious zealot, intolerant of non-Christians and a believer in government authority to implement a Christian theocracy."
*
The post accuses Ron Paul who stood resolutely on principle, firm against the entire Republican party by refusing to endorse McCain of then turning around and endorsing Chuck Baldwin because the Libertarian Party hurt his pride. Doesn't sound like Ron Paul to me. And the CP platform certainly does not try to increase government's authority over our lives but to remove and reduce it. And that's good and exactly what Ron Paul stands for.
I think Baldwin could get half a million votes this year
Vote totals for Constitution Party presidential candidates so far:
1992 - Howard Phillips and Albion Knight, Jr: 43,369 Votes or 0.04% (21 states' ballots) 7th place
1996 - Howard Phillips and Herb Titus: 184,820 Votes or 0.2% (39 states ballots) 6th place
2000 - Howard Phillips and Curtis Frazier: 98,022 Votes, or 0.1% (41 ballots, but Buchanan was running as a Reform Party candidate, thus drawing away many who would have voted for the CP ticket) 6th place
2004 - Michael Peroutka and Chuck Baldwin: 143,630 Votes or 0.12% (36 states' ballots) 5th place
For sake of comparison, here are the vote totals for other major third party candidates:
1992:
Ross Perot, Independent, 19,743,821 votes, or 18.9%
Andre V. Marrou, Libertarian, 290,087 votes, or 0.3%
James “Bo” Gritz, Populist 106,152, or 0.1%
Lenora Fulani, New Alliance Party, 73,622 or 0.07%
1996:
Ross Perot, Reform, 8,085,402 votes or 8.4%
Ralph Nader, Green, 685,297 votes or 0.7%
Harry Browne, Libertarian, 485,798 votes or 0.5%
Howard Phillips, U.S. Taxpayers, 184,820 votes or 0.2%
John Hagelin, Natural Law, 113,670 votes or 0.1%
2000:
Ralph Nader Green 2,882,955 2.7%
Pat Buchanan Reform 448,895 0.4%
Harry Browne Libertarian 384,431 0.4%
Howard Phillips Constitution 98,020 0.1%
John Hagelin Natural Law/Reform 83,714 0.1%
2004:
Ralph Nader Independent 465,650 0.38%
Michael Badnarik Libertarian 397,265 0.32%
Michael Peroutka Constitution 143,630 0.12%
David Cobb Green 119,859 0.10%
Leonard Peltier Peace and Freedom 27,607 0.02%
Walt Brown Socialist 10,837 0.01%
Róger Calero Socialist Workers 10,800 0.01%
- -
Get your own "Nothing Changes 1-20-09 / Vote Third Party" sticker, designed by AlaskaRon, today!
http://www.cafepress.com/thirdparty08
- -
Get your own "Nothing Changes 1-20-09 / Vote Third Party" sticker, designed by AlaskaRon, today!
http://www.cafepress.com/thirdparty08
RP2012!
This endorsement seems like a contradiction.
He stated,"I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate." Two weeks ago, he told us to vote for one of the four 3rd party candidates. Why would he hold that press conference if he, in the end, wanted people to vote for CB? He also stated,"I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better." From this, I'm assuming RP is not telling us to vote for CB. His support for CB is his personal decision. He wants us to pick from one of the third party candidates whose political agenda we support. Hopefully he will address this issue soon, so everyone understands what he was meaning by his support for CB.
You missed the point
He was asking the 60% of Americans who don't vote to consider voting for a third party candidate.
He did not tell his supporters to vote for one of those four.
- -
Get your own "Nothing Changes 1-20-09 / Vote Third Party" sticker, designed by AlaskaRon, today!
http://www.cafepress.com/thirdparty08
RP2012!
Why did Ron Paul endorse Chuck Baldwin?
Because Barr dissed him, Nader is a pansy and Everyone know that Chuck (nerd heard) on CBS is cool...:)
Don't get your panties in a wad.
The 3rd party candidate is not going to win the presidency. This is a protest vote and nothing more. Now, IF Ron Paul was running 3rd party that might be different...... There really are more important things to address right now. Check out the CFL website. They have some grass roots projects to help stop this bailout.
"Always remember to say your prayers".
~Your perception becomes your reality~
He's being consistent.
This press conference at the National Press Club was all about slapping the major parties around for failing the American people. They need a very embarrassing showing at the polls in order to reveal, both to them and to the American people, how badly the "two-party" system has served us.
Now the LP needs some slapping around, because its neocon wing has put forth its dream ticket this year, abandoning libertarianism in principle and paying lip service to it only where convenient. Therefore, the LP needs a very dramatic failure in this election to quickly set it back on its proper course for liberty.
The Constitution Party hasn't really been a player yet. Chuck Baldwin has shown many admirable personal qualities that, in my view, outstrip any deficiencies in the CP platform (which isn't at risk of being implemented any time soon). So endorsing Chuck instead of Barr is right in line with Ron Paul's reform agenda.
The general principle, only now re-emerging after years of disuse, is that politicians respond better to pain than to pleasure. It's time to super-size the pain for both the majors and the LP, so they'll do what it takes to make it stop -- even if it means defending liberty.
so what if he has strong beliefs...
...he's not trying to force you to believe them. have you even read what principles HE stands for and not just a CP platform statement??? try this: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/63680 . how about returning the courtesy to him that you are asking for...the right to believe whatever you want.
spare us all the 'bigot' talk. it's boring and lame!
'Would you be free men or slaves?'
Restore the Republic.
'Would you be free men or slaves?'
Restore the Republic.
Group think strikes again!
Maybe all those (LP) Representatives & Senators already in office can help out Chuck when he opens up a can on the Dems & Repubs to get something useful passed in Congress. Your making molehills out of mouse turds. Do you want an individual of integrity in office or not?
some of you guys need to learn how to read...
First of all, restoring the law to its biblical foundations is only a return of traditional juris-prudence. Remember that video of Judge napolitano who talked about how the Bush administration had "turned 600 years of anglo-american juris-prudence on its head"? I think that's the point of that statement in the party platform.
But what is wrong with thanking Jesus Christ? Yes, I am a Christian and realize a slight bias, but for heaven's sake, the GOP platform states support for the War, patriot Act, NAFTA, WTO, govt. intervention in education, global warming, and a whole slew of other things. Yet we joined it to support a liberty loving candidate.
Look at Chuck Baldwin the man-not at the party. I admit, as an Anglo-Catholic a party run by lots of Baptists (no offense to the baptists) is sometimes a little over the top. And I disagree with Chuck personally on immigration.
But he is light years beyond the rest of the candidates. And, hello, Ron Paul supports him!!!
RP supports CB because
Ron Paul support Chuck Baldwin believes that we should live under the rule of law and that law is the constitution.
Ron Paul supports Chuck Baldwin because he would dismantle the overseas empire that threatens our security financially and physically.
Ron Paul supports Chuck Baldwin because he believes in the sovereignty of the United States in place of world government.
Ron Paul supports Chuck Baldwin because he believes that we must live within our means, including the federal government.
I am not baptized or initiated under any particular religion and have no fear of any “Zealot” if in fact we live under the rule of law as outlined by our constitution.
Ron Paul supports Chuck Baldwin otherwise too many Ron Paul’s new supporters that have recently connected with the message of Liberty, the true, message of liberty not Corp Media BS, will be deceived by the CIA Asset named B. Barr.
B Barr showed his colors not recently but constantly over the years and he is no friend of Liberty.
Where was B Barr when Ron Paul was still in the primaries?
rn
Liberty = Responsibility
Liberty = Responsibility
What absolute rubbish. Barr
What absolute rubbish. Barr is an asshole, and so are most of his vocal supporters. Baldwin, by contrast, is fair-minded, generous, kind in demeanor, and he has principles.
...And Ron Paul doesn't do things in a "fit of pique".
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Because bob barr is a
http://www.1-costaricalink.com/costa_rica_fauna/wildlife_ima...
and is going to kill the Libertarian party.
--------------------------------
"the only thing that keeps the banking system from failing is general ignorance about how the banking system works."
----------------------------
CB is not on my state ballot, only Barr and Nader, but I
could not vote for the Constitution Party anyway. At this time, and for the foreseeable future, no third party candidates has a chance of winning. If Barr or Baldwin actually had a chance of winning, I would pick Baldwin over Barr. But since they have no chance of winning, I have to support the party whose platform I most agree with and that is the Libertarian Party. The U.S. populace, the media, and the Republicats will not see a vote for CB as a vote for CB, they will see it as a vote for the CP platform, and the same is true for Bob Barr and the LP. Just to be clear, I do not not support Bob Barr in anyway, and think he was a bad choice for the LP.
An Evangelical Minister who openly discusses
his friendship with Jerry Falwell would more likely support the CP platform than not. He can tell me time and time again he will allow me to live how I want. However, he is at least partly running because he believes that America has gotten away from its Christian foundation, which was never there to begin with.
The notion that because I oppose Chuck Baldwin, I must support Bob Barr is ridiculous. Bob Barr is a neo-con parading as a libertarian. As of now I support no one in the race.
Partisan rambling
I have to admit I could only make it through part of this weak article obviously written by a disheartened Barr supporter. I couldn't get past where the author seemed shocked that Ron Paul would actually support people's decision not to vote. This whole movement of trying to get everyone to vote (ie. motor voter laws, MTV rock the vote, etc.) is simply a ploy to get the masses who are generally un-informed and easily controlled out to the polls. It's as fundamental a deception as calling our country a Democracy. I can't take any political author seriously that is so obviously misguided.
Chuck Baldwin understands the Constitution
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
Because RP is a man of principles!!!!!
And Chuck Baldwin is the most principled man in the race. He is closest to RP's views, there's no doubt about that. Set your religious bigotry aside. Chuck Baldwin, like Ron Paul, welcomes everyone from all religions or no religion. Judging him just because he is a Pastor is bigotry. Come on, Nader? Cindy Shananagans? These people are nowhere close to RP and his views. And RP is not going to endorse someone just because he thinks they are going to do better in the general election!! Come on, it's NOT A HORSE RACE! That letter from Chuck Baldwin was very telling, he has character. I am happy to support him now.
You can't judge Baldwin by
You can't judge Baldwin by the CP party platform that was drawn up by a room full of fundamentalists at whatever-year's CP convention any more than you can judge any other candidate by their party's platform.
Imagine if people had judged Ron Paul based on the GOP platform.
Good Point
and another thing. One man, CB as president, would not have the power to make us worship his God.
But he should have the power to immediately abolish all practices and organizations that are blatantly unconstitutional. If the Constitution needs updating or changes then it should be done through the proper channels.
Good point. SUPPORT OUR
Good point.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
good line
"Imagine if people had judged Ron Paul based on the GOP platform."
Sadly...
a lot of folks did.
What Mt1034 said
Ditto. Especially the last line.