Chuck Baldwin's Speech Delivered Before the State of Ohio Reform Party Annual Convention
Ashland, Ohio, Sat. May 8, 2004
[This is an edited version taken from the speaker's notes; it was not
transcribed from the verbal delivery.]
Part One: Honor God
Thank you for allowing me to address you today. As you know,
presumptive Constitution Party Presidential candidate Michael
Peroutka publicly invited me last Sunday, May 2, to be his Vice
Presidential running mate, and I was honored and privileged to
accept his invitation. Michael's campaign theme is, "Honor God,
Defend the Family, Restore the Republic." I would like to expound
on these principles with you today.
From its inception, America sought to honor God. From the
writing of the Mayflower Compact, written in 1620, to the
countless public buildings and monuments constructed all across
these United States [including the Liberty Bell on which is
inscribed "Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the
Inhabitants thereof" which is taken from Lev. 25:10,] clear and
copious evidence shouts a repeated chorus of praise to God!
It is more than a coincidence that virtually every State constitution
preamble, and many State mottos [including the Ohio State Motto
which says, "With God, all things are possible"] give eloquent
testimony to our nation's desire to honor God.
As I'm sure most of you know, our country was founded on three
great documents: the Declaration of Independence, the U.S.
Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. What many people don't know
is that the principles and pattern for each of these documents are
contained in the Holy Scriptures.
For example, Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration, "[Men] are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Jefferson also said that these rights are "self evident," and that they
constitute "the Laws of Nature."
Having listened and learned from the great reformers and
preachers of their day, along with reading the loquacious writings
of men such as Calvin and Blackstone, Jefferson and his fellow
patriots certainly understood the connection between Scriptural
truth and civil obligation. He knew that the latter was predicated
upon the former.
Therefore, it is no accident or happenstance that Jefferson's phrase
"the law of nature," otherwise called "Natural Law," was first a
Biblical teaching. One only need read Romans 2:14-16 to see and
understand this "unalienable" truth.
Furthermore, the truth that God is the Creator of life is seen in
Genesis 2:7. That God, not government, gives liberty is clearly
expressed in Galatians 5:1. Even Jefferson's reference to "the Pursuit
of Happiness" was found first in Ecclesiastes 3:13. However, not
only is the Declaration of Independence predicated upon Biblical
truth, so is the Bill of Rights.
For example, the First Amendment recognizes the God-given
[natural] right of freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. And
since governments are instituted "to secure these Rights," the Fist
Amendment was written for the express purpose of protecting the
rights of Christians [and others] to freely preach, speak, and
However, since 1962, our federal government has chosen to
repeatedly usurp our God-given rights, especially those
enumerated in the First Amendment. Without due process,
meaning, without the vote of single American citizen or
representative, our federal government has denied [and continues
to deny] America's children the fundamental right to pray or read
the Scriptures in public schools.
Furthermore, a federal judge, along with a supporting cast
including the President of the United States, the Governor of
Alabama, and the Attorney General of Alabama, just recently
denied Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore his
natural right to display a monument to the Ten Commandments in
the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery.
Again, all of this was done without "the consent of the governed"
[Declaration,] but by judicial fiat.
By the way, I was honored to be in attendance at the public
announcement in Prattville, Alabama, when Chief Justice Moore,
Ambassador Alan Keyes, Howard Phillips, Phyllis Schlafly, along
with Rep. Robert Aderholt [AL,] Sen. Richard Shelby [AL,] and
Sen. Sam Brownback [KS] in which it was revealed that The
Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 was being introduced in both
chambers of Congress. In my opinion, this is the most important
piece of legislation of the last fifty years. In a nutshell, it would
bring the federal judiciary under the restraints and limitations of
Congress in matters pertaining to the First Amendment as
prescribed by Article 3, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution.
I can assure this audience that a Michael Peroutka presidency
would enthusiastically and emphatically support and promote The
Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 and would not rest in this
regard until it was passed into law!
By the way, it did not help Chief Justice Moore one bit that there
was a Republican in the White House, a Republican governor in
Alabama, or a Republican attorney general in Alabama. The
silence of both major parties to the unlawful ouster of Chief Justice
Moore should make it obvious to everyone that neither the
Republican nor Democratic parties has any attention of truly
honoring God or following the Constitution. Again, I can assure
you that Michael Peroutka and the Constitution Party seek to do
more than give lip service to honoring God!
It might even surprise some people to realize that the Second
Amendment is Biblically-based. In Luke 11:21, the Lord Jesus
said, "When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are
in peace." He also told His disciples in Luke 22:35,36 that if they
did not own a sword to sell what they had and go buy one! I don't
know about you, but I'll take the Word of God over the word of
Chuck Schumer any day!
As we read through the rest of the Bill of Rights, we should be
struck with how each of them is taken in principle from the
Scriptures. For example, the Fourth Amendment is found in
Deuteronomy 24:10,11. The Eighth Amendment is seen in
Deuteronomy 15:2,3. Furthermore, our Constitutional form of
government, complete with three separate but equal branches, is
found in Isaiah. 33:22.
I often hear people say that the U.S. Constitution is a totally
secular document, that it gives no recognition to God or to the
Christian faith. Such statements are egregiously in error.
Apparently, these people have never read Article Seven of the U.S.
Constitution which reads, "Done in Convention by the Unanimous
Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in
the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty-
seven and of the Independence of the United States of America, the
Did you hear that? It says, "in the year of our Lord." Yes, Friends,
the writers and framers of the U.S. Constitution referred to Jesus
Christ as "our Lord." They certainly were not referring to
Mohammed or Confucius, that is for sure!
Beyond that, Article 1, Section 7, Paragraph, 2, exempts Sundays
from legal work days. Did you get that? It was Sunday, the
Christian day of worship, that was set aside from legal work days.
It was not Friday, the Muslim worship day, or Saturday, the Jewish
worship. It was Sunday, the Christian worship day that was given
preferential consideration in the U.S. Constitution. Don't tell me
that the Constitution does not recognize God or Christianity! It
Our first president and "Father Of Our Country" George Washington
said on October 3, 1789, "It is the duty of all nations to
acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His Will, to
be grateful to His benefits, and to humbly implore His protection
and favor." A Michael Peroutka presidency will seek to do just that!
Honoring God not only includes reining in an out of control federal
judiciary, it also involves bringing abortion-on-demand to an end!
G.W. Bush talks pro-life, but since he took the oath of office, more
than four million unborn babies have been legally murdered in
these United States. President Bush has not saved one unborn child
from the abortionist's scalpel, the Partial Birth Abortion Act
"How can a president end abortion?" you ask. Simple. He can
appoint only U.S. attorneys and an attorney general that will refuse
to enforce Roe v Wade. That would immediately send a message to
the States that if they choose to close the abortuaries within their
jurisdictions, the federal government won't interfere.
If pro-abortion people within the various states want to enact
abortion rights, let them do so according to our federal system of
government and convince both congressional chambers in their
states and their respective governors to pass and sign such
proposals into law. I dare say that not even in the most liberal
states of our Union could this be accomplished.
This is why radical feminists circumvented the legislative bodies
of government and appealed to the federal judiciary. However, a
Constitutional executive branch of government could put a stop to
this tyranny almost overnight. You see, that's the difference
between someone who talks pro-life and someone who really is
The decision of a sitting president to refuse to enforce a federal
court ruling is not without precedent. Thomas Jefferson did that
very thing when he refused to enforce the Alien and Sedition Act.
President Andrew Jackson acted in a similar manner as did
President Abraham Lincoln.
The point is, there are many examples of sitting presidents who
exercised their power as a co-equal branch of Constitutional
government and refused to comply with a Supreme Court decision.
You see, the Supreme Court is not the supreme law of the land; the
Constitution is. And the Constitution is what it says not what
federal judges wish it said!
Part Two: Defend The Family
It is a historical fact that those nations who normalized,
legitimized, and legalized aberrant sexual behavior, such as
homosexuality, met with certain doom! One can like that fact or
not, but it doesn't change history one iota. Any country that seeks
to make sodomy part of its mainstream culture has a death wish.
A high standard for public servants has always been essential to
maintaining the trust and confidence of the citizenry. Our second
President, John Adams, said, "Liberty cannot be preserved without
a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, an
indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most
dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the character and
conduct of their rulers."
Before selecting military and even civilian personnel for many
classified or secured jobs, our country will conduct extensive
background investigations into the moral character of potential
candidates. The same is true for many positions in the business
world and in law enforcement. Even head coaches of high school
and college sports teams are expected to maintain unblemished
Is America now prepared to lower the standard for the most sacred
and most fundamental institution of all, holy matrimony, in order
to accommodate moral deviants? Are we now willing to put the
public stamp of approval upon depraved and abhorrent lifestyles?
It appears that many people in both major parties are willing to do
Homosexuality, by very definition, is an act of fornication. If
homosexuality is granted legal, legitimate social status, we will
have repudiated two thousand years of Western Civilization and
will no longer be capable of maintaining normalcy for sexual
mores within our society.
Furthermore, the fundamental essence of the homosexual lifestyle
demands that homosexuals must recruit, because they cannot
reproduce. Therefore, to normalize sodomy threatens, not only our
country's moral integrity, but also its very existence!
Again, one needs to only look at history to realize the absurdity of
any nation turning its back on traditional, monogamous,
heterosexual marriage as the bedrock foundation of its society.
Virtually every great nation and empire of antiquity that attempted
to normalize and legalize sodomite behavior experienced a certain
and sudden demise. There are no exceptions! Unfortunately,
America's slippery slope toward Sodom and Gomorrah is already
in progress and, unfortunately, it is being facilitated by both major
parties in Washington, D.C.
Both John Kerry and G.W. Bush try to create the impression that
they offer the American people a distinctly different vision from
each other. However, the reality is, in many issues, including the
one we are now discussing, there is virtually no difference. Both
Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush oppose same-sex marriage but support
"civil unions" for same-sex couples.
Yet, for all practical, legal purposes, there is no difference between
marriage and civil unions. Kerry and Bush are merely playing
word games with the American people. They want to appease both
the homosexual lobby and mainstream, moral America. Once
again, they are talking out of both sides of their mouths.
The only area of disagreement between Bush and Kerry on the
homosexual issue is a proposed Constitutional amendment
defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Bush favors
such an amendment; Kerry does not.
Let me here emphatically say that the marriage amendment is NOT
the answer to this problem! It is absolutely the wrong thing to do!
For one thing, the federal government has no authority to define
marriage. It has already been defined---by God! To allow the
federal government to begin defining marriage can only lead to
more and increased problems.
Once again, federal courts are pushing the envelope in this country.
It is the courts that are attempting to redefine the traditional
definition of marriage. There has not been, and probably will not
soon (if ever) be a State that by due process (the ballot box or vote
of the legislature) has successfully redefined marriage as being
between same-sex persons.
Beyond that, Congress has already passed the Defense of Marriage
Act (DOMA) that prohibits same-sex marriage. And it became law
when President Bill Clinton signed it. Now all Congress needs to
do is tell the federal courts to keep their grubby hands off it, which
they have they power to do under Article 3, Section 2, of the U.S.
Passing a marriage amendment would actually make a bad
problem worse. By passing a federal amendment, it would almost
certainly guarantee that the federal courts would be able to
interpret it any way they chose. Seeing the way federal courts are
misinterpreting just about every constitutional amendment already
written, why would anyone believe that a new one is going to fare
I can almost guarantee this audience that if a marriage amendment
was to pass, some federal court would rule that polygamy, or even
incest, is "constitutional," and then another whole can of worms
would be opened. A constitutional amendment invites additional
judicial encroachment upon the institution of marriage and subjects
it to any and all governmental abuse.
Instead of promoting a constitutional amendment, President Bush
should uphold his oath of office under Article 4, Section 4, that
says, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in the
Union a Republican form of Government."
That means, the President has the authority to insist that any and
all matters not specifically prescribed to the federal government by
the Constitution are reserved to the States and to the people (see
the Tenth Amendment). If individual states want to attempt to
legalize homosexual marriage, let them try it lawfully: through
their elected representatives and governors.
I would dare say that not even the State of Massachusetts or the
State of California could pass a same-sex marriage law. And even
if they did, DOMA actually prohibits other states from recognizing
any such state law.
Defending the family also involves getting the federal government
out of areas in which it has no business, such as education. It is not
the federal government's responsibility to educate our children. It
is the job of parents to educate their children.
Our public education system is a mess! Mainly, this is due to the
vast, overreaching intrusion into education by the federal
government. And instead of reducing the federal government's role
(and cost) in education, President Bush and the Republican Party
passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which is the largest and most
invasive education bill in the history of the republic!
In 1994, Republicans were swept into the majority of both houses
of Congress on the promise of eliminating at least five federal
departments, including the Department of Education. Ten years
later, not only have they not eliminated the Department of
Education, they have increased its authority and cost by record
levels! As a result, the federal government is more involved, more
intrusive, more costly, and more problematic to the area of
education than it was when Democrats were in control. How can
Christians, conservatives, and constitutionalists continue to support
such a party?
Part Three: Restore The Constitution
Recently, I wrote a column entitled, "You Know Things Are In
Bad Shape When Jay Leno Makes More Sense Than Either Kerry
Or Bush." I was referring to something comedian Jay Leno said in
his opening monologue on The Tonight Show. He said, "They
keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq. Why don't we
just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys.
It's worked for over 200 years, and, [heck], we're not using it
anymore." You know something? Leno is absolutely right!
Neither President Bush nor John Kerry has any intention of
obeying the U.S. Constitution. Neither major party has any fidelity
to the Constitution. Therefore, it really doesn't matter which of the
two major parties are in power, the Constitution continues to be
ignored or even expunged.
For example, both Republican and Democratic presidents have
demonstrated a propensity to send our troops to war without a
Declaration of War from Congress. The Constitution is very clear:
only Congress is authorized to declare war. Only Congress is
authorized to lead America into war.
Our president is not a monarch; he is not a dictator. His
responsibilities are clearly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. He
has no authority to wage war without a formal Declaration of War
Therefore, because Congress refused to declare war against Iraq,
this war is unconstitutional and illegal under our laws. In plain
terms, the war against Iraq is G.W. Bush's war; it is not America's
war! Unfortunately, it is American military personnel particularly
and the American people generally who will pay the price for Mr.
Bush's war. This is a monstrous tragedy.
As a result of the recklessness of both President Bush and
members of Congress, the war in Iraq has quickly turned into a
giant nightmare! This is a quagmire that we will not be able to
extricate ourselves from anytime soon, if ever. If anything, this
unconstitutional, unwarranted, and unwise invasion of Iraq will
escalate into a conflict of global proportions. It could very easily
become Bush's Waterloo and America's second Viet Nam.
Americans would be well advised to heed the words of John
Quincy Adams who, in 1821, said, "America goes not abroad in
search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the
freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and
vindicator only of her own. She well knows that by once enlisting
under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of
foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power
of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual
avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors of patriotism
and usurp the standards of freedom." Amen!
Beyond that, through policies and laws such as The Patriot Act,
President Bush is promoting legislation that destroys freedom here
in the states even as he sends troops abroad under the rubric of
freedom. His words say he wants to give the Iraqi people freedom,
but his actions say he wants to expunge the freedoms of the
American people. In fact, more freedoms have been lost under
G.W. Bush in less than four years, than were lost under Bill
Clinton in eight!
The Patriot Act is emphatically unconstitutional! It virtually
eviscerates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Bill of Rights.
It grants egregiously unconstitutional powers to federal police
agencies (which are themselves largely unconstitutional in nature)
and sets the wheels in motion to turn the United States of America
into a socialist-style police state.
Consider also President Bush's announced desire to grant millions
of illegal aliens, mostly from Mexico, amnesty. Could anything be
more unconstitutional than that?
Article 4, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution states, "The United
States shall protect each State against invasion." But, ladies and
gentlemen, that is exactly what is happening. The southern borders
states are being invaded, and President Bush wants to grant legal
status to the invaders! It's insane!
This was illustrated just recently when our U.S. soccer team
played in Zapopan, Mexico. As "The Star-Spangled Banner" was
played, thousands of Mexicans shouted, "Osama! Osama!
Osama!" I wonder how many of those Mexicans shouting
support for bin Laden will be living freely and legally in the
United States in just a few months as a result of Bush's "Guest
Worker" program? The truth is, Bush's amnesty proposal should
be regarded as treasonous!
Another area that seriously violates the Constitution is "free
trade." First of all, there is no such thing as free trade. Trade, by
its very definition, requires the exchange of commerce.
Therefore, in any trade exchange, there are purchasers and
sellers. Someone pays the bill in each and every trade deal. The
only thing free in these modern "free trade" agreements is the
free ride that the internationalists receive from our federal
government, which is being paid by American workers with
lower wages and the loss of American jobs. NAFTA, GATT, the
WTO, and now President Bush's proposed Free Trade Area of
the Americas (FTAA) are not only blatantly unconstitutional,
they are downright harmful to the security and interests of the
Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution plainly gives Congress
the responsibility to "regulate commerce with foreign nations."
That Congress has willingly ceded this responsibility and that the
President has wrongfully assumed this responsibility means that
both Congress and the President have violated their oaths of
office to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.
With the collusion of President Bill Clinton and Senate Majority
Leader Bob Dole, NAFTA was passed (during the middle of the
night, by the way). Now, President G.W. Bush wants to extend
NAFTA with his push for FTAA. The result of FTAA would
mean that instead of American jobs and industries moving to
Mexico, they could move to even cheaper and more backward
countries such as Bolivia and Peru. And let's not overlook China.
America's trade deficit with China is staggering! According to a
recent Washington Times report, "The trade deficit jumped 17
percent to a record $489 billion last year, propelled by an
explosion in trade with China.
"America's $124 billion deficit with China is now twice its trade
gap with Japan, three times its deficit with Mexico, and
substantially above its $100 billion deficit with all of Western
"Free trade" has all but expunged America's manufacturing
industries. Our textile plants have mostly vanished. The same is
true for our electronics industry and even our steel industry. The
vast majority of America's giant corporations are now importing
goods from overseas. The cost of this insanity in terms of
American jobs, wages, and strain on American families is
Most American families are working two, three, or even more
jobs just to try and make ends meet. Combining meager wages
with an ever increasing tax burden means that most American
families are barely able to keep their heads above water, while
many others are languishing in obscene debt.
While average America fights to tread water, the CEOs, CFOs,
and other high level executives of the multinational corporations
are raking in monstrous profits. Multinational corporations
accomplish this by hiring slave or cheap labor from these third
world and socialist countries and then import their goods back to
America practically duty-free. All the while, these same
countries require the U.S. to pay huge duties for our exports.
So-called "free trade" is not only unconstitutional, it is perverse!
It makes America more and more dependent upon foreign
nations, which makes us more and more vulnerable to those who
seek to harm us.
Ladies and gentlemen, please let me read the sage advice of
George Washington as written in his Farewell Address on
September 17, 1796. "As avenues to foreign influence, in
innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming, to
the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many
opportunities do they afford, to tamper with domestic factions, to
practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to
influence or awe the Public Councils! Such an attachment of a
small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the
former to be the satellite of the latter.
"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you
to believe me, fellow-citizens), the jealousy of a free people
ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience
prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of
Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be
impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to
be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality
for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause
those whom the actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve
to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real
patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to
become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the
applause and confidence of the people to surrender their
"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations is,
in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little
political connection as possible. So far as we have already
formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good
faith. Here let us stop."
Now, let me conclude with a few remarks regarding political
parties in general. It seems that many people, including Christian
people, have forgotten that parties are supposed to serve the best
interests of the nation, not the other way around.
It seems that the only time people become exercised over the
abuse or misuse of power by a Chief Executive of member of
Congress is when the person is a member of the party opposite.
When someone within our own party is guilty of
unconstitutional, unlawful, or even immoral conduct, we look the
other way. When the guilty party is a member of the other party,
however, we become filled with righteous indignation and holy
It really does appear that many Americans are so extremely
partisan in their party allegiance that the definition of patriotism
depends upon who is in office. When my party is in office,
patriotism means defending them no matter what, but when the
other party is in office, it means attacking them no matter what.
What utter foolishness!
President Theodore Roosevelt spoke cogently to this topic when
he said, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the
President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or
wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally
treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should
be spoken about him or anyone else. But it is even more
important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than
about any one else."
George Washington, too, warned us against an over-infatuation
with political parties. In his Farewell Address he said, "Without
looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless
ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual
mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the
interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
"It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the
Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill
founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one
part against another, foments, occasionally, riot and insurrection.
It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find
a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels
of party passions. Thus, the policy and the will of one country
are subjected to the policy and will of another.
"There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful
checks upon the administration of Government, and serve to
keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This, within certain limits, is
probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchial cast,
Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the
spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in
Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged.
From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be
enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being
constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of
public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be
quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting
into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."
It is time that the American people got back to the wisdom of
George Washington and Theodore Roosevelt. It is time that the
American people got back to truth, got back to right and wrong,
got back to the Constitution. It is time we started looking out for
what is best for the United States, not what is best for a particular
political party. In short, it's time we started being Americans
Perhaps Thomas Jefferson summarized it best when he said, "In
questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in
man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the
Constitution." That is exactly what Michael Peroutka and the
Constitution Party are all about.
Thank you very much.
© Chuck Baldwin
These commentaries are published Tuesdays and Fridays and may not be reprinted
or republished without permission. Editors or publishers interested in
running these editorials, or Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an
interview may contact email@example.com.
To learn more about my radio talk show please visit my web site at www.chuckbaldwinlive.com.
When responding, please include your name, city and state.
Chuck Baldwin's Bio
|When honest people who hold strong opinions come together, it is natural that they state their opinions, and that those opinions occasionally clash. The articles that you see on this website represent the opinion of the writers, and are not the official opinion of this party. To see the official party position on any question, the reader is referred to the Party Platform.|
Permission to reprint/republish granted, as long as you include the name of our site, the author,and our URL. www.cptexas.org. All CP Texas reports, and all editorials are property of The Constitution Party of Texas © 2002 (unless otherwise noted).
Previous Articles by Chuck Baldwin