Chuck Baldwin Endorses Rand Paul

Chuck baldwin

Chuck Baldwin posted this to his Facebook page today. Mr. Baldwin was the Presidential nominee for the Constitution Party in 2008, and the nominee for vice-president for that party in 2004.

Faithful readers of this post know that I have previously provided objective commentary–complete with pluses and minuses–on most of the Republican presidential candidates. They also know that I have spoken quite positively about Donald Trump. But heretofore I have endorsed no one.

Until now.

First, I believe the biggest threats to liberty we face have NOTHING to do with Islamic terrorism. We have far more to fear from those miscreants in Washington, D.C., and from the international bankers at the Federal Reserve than any radical Muslim. Hence, all of the fearmongering about Muslim jihad and Sharia Law in America only plays into the hands of the globalists who are orchestrating all of this madness.

Second, I am absolutely convinced that the greatest threats to our liberty are, 1) The neocon wars of aggression around the world–especially in the Middle East, 2) A burgeoning Police State here in the United States.

I have now had plenty of time to examine the candidates regarding his or her commitment to defeating these two great threats to our liberty; and there is only ONE Republican candidate that sees these threats and would use the power of the Oval Office to defeat them–or at least curtail them:

That candidate is RAND PAUL.

I know that Rand is NOT his dad. I am not nearly as excited about Rand as I was Ron. And there are several issues with which I disagree with Rand.

But I firmly believe Rand gets the whole neocon war issue and would put a stop to it if he were President. In this regard, Rand might be the ONLY major party presidential candidate who could potentially avert WWIII. I further believe Rand gets the Zionist issue and would not be a patsy for the Israeli lobby.

I also believe Rand truly sees the growing Police State in this country and would rein in these out-of-control federal Departments of Justice and Homeland Security.

NONE of the other candidates would do anything significant to change America’s foreign policy or to rein in the growing Police State in our country.

Accordingly, as I pan the two major party presidential candidates, there is only one choice in 2016: RAND PAUL.

32 thoughts on “Chuck Baldwin Endorses Rand Paul

  1. NewFederalist

    I would have to agree with Pastor Baldwin. From the sorry lot to choose from in the GOP, Rand is the best of the bunch. I was very pleased to see him make it clear that Rand is NOT Ron Paul. I doubt Rand has any realistic shot but at least Baldwin is consistent.

  2. Robert Capozzi

    cb: I further believe Rand gets the Zionist issue and would not be a patsy for the Israeli lobby.

    me: I’d like to hear more about this. What IS this issue, and what does RP2 get?

  3. Andy Craig

    “I further believe Rand gets the Zionist issue and would not be a patsy for the Israeli lobby.”

    Whatever one thinks of ‘the Zionist issue’, whatever that means, it’s an odd thing to say of the man whose key adviser/contractors was hired fresh off working for Netanyahu’s successful re-election, and who brags about having introduced the “Stand With Israel” act, etc. Rand Paul has gone to great lengths to portray himself as pro-Israel, and to deny any accusation that he isn’t.

  4. Steve Scheetz

    Robert, even if one were blind and lived under a rock, it would be impossible to miss the Israeli Lobby efforts here in the United States.

    The tens of billions being sent to Israel for their defense, (a great deal of this does come back to the military industrial complex in the form of sales, but there is that.) The United States is seen as meddling in the affairs of many countries throughout the world, but the middle east is probably the show case of this. Generally spectacular failure after spectacular failure, many politicians here in the United States attempt to make a name for themselves by attempting to do something about the middle east issues.

    I believe what Chuck is referring to, is the fact that A: this is happening on a regular basis, and B: Rand will most likely not participate in the continuation of foreign policy disasters his predecessors have participated in (should he become elected.)

    I will say that if this is what Chuck believes, he is wrong. I am reasonably certain that if Rand is elected, he will do the exact same thing that previous executives have done because that is what US Presidents do. (reasons? the same reasons, money, and power)

    Is he the best of the GOP field? Sure, but that bar is VERY LOW.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  5. Jed Ziggler

    “Is he the best of the GOP field? Sure, but that bar is VERY LOW.”

    You mean better than the man whose solution to immigration is “build a wall and keep out all the scary brown people?” Better than the man who thinks the Egyptian pyramids were made for grain storage? Better than the huckster whose reaction to discriminatory marriage laws being struck down was “Jesus wept”?

    A very low bar indeed.

  6. Jeremy

    True or false: Bernie Sanders is the most libertarian major-party candidate running, after Paul.

  7. Robert Capozzi

    ac: Rand Paul has gone to great lengths to portray himself as pro-Israel, and to deny any accusation that he isn’t.

    me: Interesting.

    CB’s line looked like code to me to the Bircher/Old Right constituency that RP2 is well aware of what the “Jew Bankers” are up to. It is most unfortunate that this JBS-type of thinking is a big part of the LM’s roots.

    Compensating for that and living down that form of hate (anti-Semitism) is understandable.

  8. Steve Scheetz

    Jeremy,

    When compared to the atrocities committed by the likes of Ze-Dong Mao, Paul Koroma is the most pro life behind Augusto Pinochet.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  9. Bishop James W. Clifton

    So here we have another person who used a third party for selfish reasons–presidential nomination–who has now, in essence, abandoned that Party.

  10. Cody Quirk

    He was also with the CP for a long time before that. He left because he knew the ship was sinking before I did.

  11. Joshua

    So the last two presidential candidates for the CP are backing Republican presidential candidates? Interesting.

  12. Andy Craig

    All three living Constitution Party presidential nominees have returned to the GOP. Peroutka (’04) did so in 2014, and was elected to his county board in Maryland as a Republican. Baldwin (’08) ran for Lt. Gov. of Montana as a Republican in 2012. Goode (’12) is chairing the Trump campaign in his former district. The only other past nominee would be three-timer and party founder Howard Phillips, who is deceased.

    To be fair, the LP’s record on the same measure (keeping past nominees in the party), is not great either.

  13. Robert Capozzi

    Here’s my probably spotty list of the LP. Corrections welcome.

    72 Hospers (and author of the CotOS clause). Endorsed Bush 04, but may have remained L

    76 MacBride. Went back to the Rs and the RLC in the 80s

    80 Clark. I think he stayed L, despite being a low-tax liberal

    84 Bergland. Stayed L, I do believe

    88 Paul. Went back to Rs, re-elected to Congress, ran R 2x for prez

    92 Marrou. Stayed L, I do believe

    96, 00 Browne. Stayed L, I do believe

    04 Badnarik. Endorsed RP1 in 08, but I think stayed L, I do believe

    08 Barr. Returned to Rs, became advisor to former Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier

    12 Johnson. Remains L.

  14. NewFederalist

    I think you make far too much of the way Ed Clark used the term “low tax liberal”. Have you ever asked him what he meant?

  15. Cody Quirk

    “So the last two presidential candidates for the CP are backing Republican presidential candidates? Interesting.”

    Which says a lot about the current state of the CP.

  16. Mark Seidenberg

    Perouka was the best thing the Constitution Party ever had for POTUS. Then they shot themself in the foot by doing the lockout in Cocord, NH.

  17. paulie

    Not so much. Baldwin was less terrible than their other candidates, although not nearly as good as some libertarians think he is/was.

  18. Trent Hill

    92 Marrou. Stayed L, I do believe

    Marrou endorsed Ron Paul, just as an FYI.

    Peroutka was the second best performing candidate the CP ever had. But if one assumes same ballot access for Baldwin and Goode, they’d have him whipped.

  19. paulie

    Marrou endorsed Ron Paul, just as an FYI.

    That wouldn’t necessarily mean he is no longer L, as lots of current big Ls did the same thing.

  20. Trent Hill

    I know. But they noted above which L Prez candidates endorsed R presidential candidates. I wanted Marrou noted as well.

  21. paulie

    Fair enough. I think a lot of LP candidates, current and former, endorsed Ron Paul that do not normally endorse other Republicans.

  22. Andy Craig

    I would draw a distinction between endorsing primary candidates vs. nominees. That’s why I wouldn’t count the Ron-endorsers– he was never the GOP nominee *running against* a Libertarian nominee.

  23. Gene Berkman

    A couple of factual retorts.
    Chuck Baldwin briefly ran for Lt Governor of Montana, but pulled out of the race long before the primary. Both he and the candidate for Governor that he supported backed legalization of medical marijuana.

    Ed Clark was not a “low tax liberal.” I met Ed Clark at the founding convention of the Libertarian Party in 1972, and saw him regularly at Libertarian events in the Los Angeles area in the 1970s.

    The “low tax liberal” phrase came out of an ad that the Clark campaign ran in Reason & Libertarian Review. The ad said “Join the Core of the New Coalition” then it described the new coalition as “libertarians, low-tax liberals, antiwar conservatives” etc. Nobody objected to antiwar conservatives, and of course Dr. Rothbard later jumped on the Pat Buchanan bandwagon in the mistaken belief that Buchanan was an antiwar conservative.

    Dr. Rothbard penned several attacks on the Clark campaign after the fact, and made the “low tax liberal” phrase a centerpiece of his attack. The only real substantian of the charge that Ed Clark ran as a low tax liberal came from the interview with Ed Clark and John Anderson that Ted Koppel did on nightline the night before the election. Koppel asked Clark what his goal was, and Clark said that he wanted to reduce the federal budget to the size it was under President Kennedy. That would be a reduction, but it sounded like an endorsement of Kennedy style liberalism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *