A New Alliance - By Dr. Ron Paul

"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." -- Ron Paul


What Really Happened on 9/11?
Only One Presidential Candidate Asks...

Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin is the only candidate from a FEC- recognized party to challenge the official story of the tragedy of 9-11.
Representing the largest and fastest-growing third party based on voter registration (Ballot Access news), Baldwin joins the growing list of military, scientific and other well-credentialed experts who agree,'the government's account of what happened that day simply does not pass the smell test'.

Baldwin, poised to attract voters who will not cast their votes for either 'Big Box' party candidate in November said, 'All across America voters are telling me, ''I am afraid of Obama and I don't trust McCain'.

Baldwin added, 'More and more people want answers . They want to know about government corruption, our loss of liberties and yes, what really happened on September 11th. The heartache this country endured won't be cured, but it will give us answers to some basic questions about why our security, intelligence and civil defense measures failed and why so many aspects of the government's version have been shown to be lies'.


A New Alliance - By Dr. Ron Paul


The press conference at the National Press Club had a precise purpose. It was to expose, to as many people as possible, the gross deception of our presidential election process. It is controlled by the powerful elite to make sure that neither candidate of the two major parties will challenge the status quo. There is no real choice between the two major parties and their nominees, only the rhetoric varies. The amazingly long campaign is designed to make sure the real issues are ignored. The quotes I used at the press conference from insider Carroll Quigley and the League of Women voters strongly support this contention.

Calling together candidates from the liberal, conservative, libertarian and progressive constituencies, who are all opposed to this rigged process, was designed to alert the American people to the uselessness of continuing to support a process that a claims that one’s only choice is to choose the lesser of two evils and reject a principle vote that might challenge the status quo as a wasted vote.

In both political education and organization, coalitions are worthwhile and necessary to have an impact. “Talking to the choir” alone achieves little. I have always approached political and economic education with a “missionary” zeal by inviting any group in on issues we agree upon.

This opens the door to legitimate discourse with the hope of winning new converts to the cause of liberty. This strategy led to the press conference with the four candidates agreeing to the four principles we believe are crucial in challenging the political system that has evolved over many years in this country.

This unique press conference, despite the surprising, late complication from the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, hopefully will prove to be historically significant.

This does not mean that I expect to get Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney to become libertarians, nor do they expect me to change my mind on the issues on which we disagree. In the meantime, why can’t we be friends, respectful of each other, and fight the corrupt process from which we suffer, and at the same time champion the four issues that we all agree upon which the two major candidates won’t address?

Many practical benefits can come from this unique alliance. Our cause is liberty —freedom is popular and is the banner that brings people together. Since authoritarianism divides, we always have the edge in an intellectual fight. Once it’s realized that the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity are best achieved with our views, I’m convinced we win by working with others. Those who don’t want to collaborate are insecure with their own beliefs.

In the past two years at the many rallies where I talked and shook hands with literally thousands of people, I frequently asked them what brought them to our campaign. There were many answers: the Constitution, my consistency, views on the Federal Reserve, the war, and civil liberties. The crowds were overwhelmingly made up of young people.

Oftentimes I welcomed the diverse groups that came, mentioning that the crowd was made up of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Liberals and Progressives with each group applauding. Even jokingly, I recognized the “anarchists” and that, too, was met with some applause. In conversations, many admitted to having been Democrats and members of the Green Party and supporters of Ralph Nader, yet they came to agree with us on all the issues once the entire philosophy was understood. That’s progress.

Principled people are not shy in participating with others and will defend their beliefs on their merits. Liberals and progressives are willing to align themselves with us on the key issues of peace, civil liberties, debt and the Federal Reserve. That’s exciting and very encouraging, and it means we are making progress. The big challenge, however, is taking on the establishment, and the process that is so well entrenched. But we can’t beat the entrenched elite without the alliance of all those who have been disenfranchised.

Ironically the most difficult group to recruit has been the evangelicals who supported McCain and his pro-war positions. They have been convinced that they are obligated to initiate preventive war in the Middle East for theological reasons. Fortunately, this is a minority of the Christian community, but our doors remain open to all despite this type of challenge. The point is, new devotees to the freedom philosophy are more likely to come from the left than from those conservatives who have been convinced that God has instructed us to militarize the Middle East.

Although we were on the receiving end of ridicule in the reporting of the press conference, I personally was quite satisfied with the results. True revolutions are not won in a week, a month, or even a year. They take time. But we are making progress, and the momentum remains and is picking up. The Campaign for Liberty is alive and well, and its growth and influence will continue. Obviously the press conference could have been even more successful without the last-minute change of heart by the Libertarian Party candidate by not participating. He stated that his support for the four points remains firm. His real reason for not coming, nor letting me know until forty minutes before the press conference started, is unknown to me. To say the least, I was shocked and disappointed.

Yet in the long run, this last-minute change in plans will prove to be of little importance. I’m convinced that problems like this always seem bigger at the moment, yet things usually work out in the end. Recovering from the mistakes and shortcomings of all that we do in this effort is not difficult if the message is right and our efforts are determined. And I’m convinced they are. That’s what will determine our long-term success, not the shortcomings of any one person.

The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more 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 have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.

In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York. This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats. We need more states to permit this option. This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.

I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.

Ron Paul....

You're a good man !

Comment copied from

More stuff to expose about Ron Paul . . .

Comment copied from http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4344.

Cynthia McKinney has done far more for the 9/11 truth movement than any other candidate. And she doesn't just throw out a non-commital "we need another investigation" like the other nader and baldwin. She is very clear about what she means and she does not hold back. She's been working and writing with Michael C. Ruppert for years while even most in the 9/11 truth community ignored him. No candidate comes anywhere close to her.

Chuck Baldwin is bad news. He wrote an article called Martin Luther King is No Hero (http://www.greaterthings.com/Conspiracy/RewritingHistory/martin_luther_k...), exposing just one of his many scary/silly beliefs. The Constitution Party is bad news too. Very big on censorship it seems.

We need to get the entire 9/11 Truth movement behind Cynthia McKinney. It should have happened years ago.

No Vicky, he did not.

Did you even read Baldwin's article to chich you erroneously refer? The title "Martin Luther King is No Hero" was given by greaterthings.com to a reprint of an article by Chuck Baldwin called "The President's Strange Heroes" ( http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2002/cbarchive_20020125.html ) where he, as a pastor, was critical of George Bush (a bonified, card-carrying Christian so says he) and his choices of men to praise. What did Baldwin say about King (or Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton for that matter) that you find to be "scare/silly" beliefs or even untrue?

"The Constitution Party is bad news too. Very big on censorship it seems."

The Constitution Party is "very big on censorship It seems"? It seems? Censorship of what? Censorship how? You provide absolutely nothing in support of you obscenely naked assertion. Where is your evidence? More tripe like Yahoo Answers?

Where did I get the impression that you were a researcher? For some reason now unbeknownst to me, had I known that you had any opinion at all of Baldwin, I would have expected much better from you. Where did I ever get that idea?

We need political candidates who want 9/11 Truth. It is likely that Chuck Baldwin would be found attractive to voters who would never in a million years support the socialist platform of the Green Party just to vote for Cynthia McKinney. Neither of them have a snowball's chance in Hades of winning this election. But, the more voices we have of those who are willing to publicly state that the OTC is nothing more than a pack of lies, the better. Ron paul was attacked by the Truth movement for refusing to go that far. Now he supports a candidate who goes farther.

Why is it that wisdom has received negative comments for simply calling Ron Paul a good man. Ron Paul is a very good man for rejecting Bob Barr's attempt to force to support this bizarre ex-C.I.A. spook's candidacy. The only thing Barr is good for is his suit in Texas to remove McInsane and O-changeO-Rama of the ballot for failing to meet the filing deadline set by state law and the fraud perpetrated by the Texas AG for certifying them. In the event you are unaware, we are being set up for another 2000-like fiasco with a potential tie between these two criminals in electoral votes. Those 34 electoral votes being taken out of the mix for the two major parties will eliminate the possibility of yet another political freak circus we don't need.

"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Dir. Bldg. & Fire Research Lab. (NIST)
"We are [still] unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse." (NIST)

>>Did you even read

>>Did you even read Baldwin's article to chich you erroneously refer?

Yes, here's one of many ridiculous things it says:

"It is also true that the F.B.I. has a dossier on King that is a mile long. King's coziness with communists and Marxists is undeniable. Martin Luther King, Jr. brought havoc and unrest to America as few men have ever done. One look at the plight of black families today reveals that his legacy is one of destruction not healing."

"Feminism is a tool of the enemy to emasculate America's husbands and fathers, destabilize America's homes, and produce selfish, undisciplined children. Multiculturalism is a tool of the enemy to expunge America's Christian heritage. And globalsim is a tool of the enemy to erase America's borders and surrender America's national sovereignty. As Christians, we must oppose all three."

Pretty hardcore stuff here.

That's right, it wasn't the FBI that brought havoc, it was Dr. King . . .

right . . .