See other Resistance Articles
Title: I Am An American
Source:
News With Views
URL Source: http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin457.htm
Published: Jul 18, 2008
Author: Chuck Baldwin
Post Date: 2008-07-18 05:46:32 by Rotara
Keywords: Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party
Views: 426
Comments: 41
Free republics are not known to have long life expectancies. At the ripe old age of two hundred and thirty-two, America is definitely showing her age. She is long past her prime, and some are predicting her demise. No, some are PLANNING her demise. Thomas Jefferson and the other founders of this once-great country believed there was a controlling cabal that was crafting America's servitude. With the assistance of Heaven, they decided to fight those forces. Pastors fought with fiery sermons from the pulpit; newsmen fought with the power of the pen; statesmen fought in the halls of Congress; and merchants fought with the sacrifice of their material gain. Together, they lifted Lady Liberty to her feet and defeated the powers of darkness. It took the global elite a long time to recover, but they have reemerged with a vengeance. They are now on the precipice of accomplishing what their great granddaddies failed to do: bring the "Liberty or Death" colonists under their power and control. Sadly, we no longer have the will to resist servitude. Our pulpits are too busy preaching a prosperity gospel; newsmen are in bed with the forces they once disdained; statesmen have been replaced with opportunistic, self-serving politicians; and merchants know no god but money. Hence, it is left to a small--and I mean very small--remnant to sound the clarion call for freedom and independence. Unfortunately, few seem to be listening to their cries. 2010 seems to be a banner year for these designers of despotism. That is the target year for the implementation of the North American Community, which will commercially unite the United States with Canada and Mexico. The global elite suffered a minor setback when the U.S. Senate failed to pass the Bush/McCain/Kennedy/Graham amnesty-for-illegal-aliens bill. But if you think that John Mccain is going to let that bill lie on the floor of defeat, you don't understand these people. Should McCain become President, He will do everything he can to implement some kind of amnesty law. Barack Obama will do the same. The reason? It is essential to the designers of despotism that our borders be eliminated. Yes, I am saying it: George W. Bush, John McCain, and Barack Obama are part of the global elite that seeks America's entrance into an international New World Order. In fact, neither Presidential candidate from the two major parties will offer any resistance to this obstinate and oppressive oligarchy. Perhaps one day the American people will wake up and realize that they are being led as sheep to the slaughter. I'm just not sure that it will be soon enough, however. 2010 is just around the corner. There seems to be only one obstacle standing in the way of the globalists: America's citizens are the most heavily armed people in the world. That fact must surely stick in the throats of the globalists like a chicken bone. Thank God that America's founders put the Second Amendment in the Constitution. Without America's deep-rooted commitment to the right of the people to keep and bear arms, we would have been sold into slavery decades ago. Without the intellectual understanding of the principles of freedom and the moral resolve to maintain those principles, however, guns, by themselves, will only protect us for so long. In the end, our strength and protection come from God, and not too many people these days seem to be interested in His opinion. Lady Liberty is walking very gingerly these days, and the path she treads is laden with traps and quicksand. The globalists have their handpicked puppets positioned to take up where The Three Amigos (George Bush I, Bill Clinton, and George Bush II) have left off. The pieces of the puzzle are almost all in place. 2010 just might be the year that Lady Liberty lowers her torch, folds her arms, and falls fast asleep. For what it is worth, however, I pledge no loyalty to this emerging New World Order. Neither will I let Lady Liberty die without a fight. I will say it again: the battle today is not between conservatives and liberals or Republicans and Democrats. It is a battle between Americans and globalists. And, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am an American! *If you enjoyed this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Rotara (#0)
Fuckin right !
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces. De La Boétie
For what it is worth, however, I pledge no loyalty to this emerging New World Order. Neither will I let Lady Liberty die without a fight. I will say it again: the battle today is not between conservatives and liberals or Republicans and Democrats. Chuck Baldwin takes a lot of undeserved hits imo. We keep shooting our own leaders in this small movement. ;-)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
The sheep are fast asleep and will not be bothered.
The pieces of the puzzle are almost all in place. 2010 just might be the year that Lady Liberty lowers her torch, spreads her legs, and gets the zionazi-neo- con screwing of her life.
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces. De La Boétie
2010 is approximately 520 days away?
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
She's been taking it up the crapper for awhile now. It's her outright murder in progress right now.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
We have too many pubs/dems, libs/cons, leftwings/rightwings etc etc and too few Americans.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Or, not enough?! LOL We should put up a clock counting down the 500 days to 2010 with a "Welcome NAU" banner at the top of each thread. ;-)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Baldwin spoke well at the Ron Paul rally in DC over the weekend.
Orator?
I am truly at a loss on who to vote for. I don't trust Bob Barr. He's been a lifelong drug warrior and statist. Now all of a sudden he's Mr. Libertarian? Maybe. Then again, maybe he's a Republican whose been tasked with spliting up the small government vote. Then there's Baldwin. On the surface, I love the guy. He's like a Ron Paul, Jr. But I have a worry. Has anyone ever looked a the platform of the Constitution Party, specifically their stance on the drug war? Here is their offical stance: The Constitution Party 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. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered. At the same time, we will take care to prevent violations of the Constitutional and civil rights of American citizens. Searches without probable cause and seizures without due process must be prohibited, and the presumption of innocence must be preserved. I don't know about anyone else, but to me, this sounds like a "lite version" of the drug war. What more, I cannot find a speech in which the Rev. Baldwin speaks of ending the drug war. I googled Chuch Baldwin and war on drugs and came up with notta. Maybe I missed something. Even in his essay If I Were President he doesn't make mention of it. IMHO, the WOD is the single cause of most governmental abuses in regards to personal liberty and the erosion of the Bill of Rights. Without the precedences set in the name of the WOD, there would be no such thing as the Patriot Act, the Military commissions Act, etc., etc. You cannot and will not have a Constitutional government until the federal government washes their hands of the WOD. Period. The WOD is unwinninable and because it is unwinnable the government has not choice but to continue to up the annie (sp?) in order to fight it. It's the nature of government. Unless the WOD, and now the WOT is stopped, the government will continue to increase their authority and decrease our liberty, a little at a time, until we are all slaves. If the Constitution Party cannot see this, then they are no better than the Republicrats and Democans, regardless of how good the rest of their platform may be. So I have quite the conundrum.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
I have been narrowing my candidates down to about two. Barr or Baldwin. Barr voted for the patriot act. Barr now supports Al Gore and his global warming bullshit. I think I will vote Baldwin instead of Barr.
I agree with many of your sentiments about the WOD. But drugs are destructive to society. Do you think Crack Cocaine should be sole ad CVS? What about Heroine, should it be sold to 18 year olds?
Rotara posted an article which compared the CP and L platforms several weeks ago. I don't remember its title. Rotara, can you find it? It was very good. Personally, I find much of the CP party positions too authoritarian.
annie=ante (as in poker) ;)
It was the WO(some)D. Now, WOD has been replaced by WOT. It will always a WOS (something) that allows the ZOG to go on its merry way destroying American society, liberty and culture.
AIPAC/PNAC/ADL/NAACP/FEDERAL RESERVE/SPLC/JINSA/ACLU/CHRISTIAN ZIONISTS/AEI/FEDERAL MEDIA & HOLLYWOOD: Think about it.
Excellent article.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. any examples?
I would submit that the WOD is MUCH more harmful to the society of a free people than the drugs themselves are. The WOD is nothing more than an excuse used by statists to control the actions of their neighbors. I would also submit that the WOD is an example of why we are in the shape we are in today. Too many people mind other peoples business instead of their own, and the politicians and bureaucrats in government are only too happy to pass new laws to make a new class of criminal. These laws empower them and give them issues to pander/manipulate the voters with. Not to mention the satisfaction of controlling other peoples lives it gives to statists/authoritarians of the Bill O'Reilly ilk. Are you aware that tobacco has been determined to be more addictive than heroin? Yet people quit smoking every day. Hell, I've been tobacco free for more than five years after smoking 2-3 packs a day for almost thirty years. Guess what. I didn't need to be put in prison to do it. All I needed was the free market in the form of the nicotene patch and the will to quit. Not to mention the support of family and friends. There are similiar drugs that do the same job for heroin and other hard drugs. Drugs are quasi-legal in the Netherlands. You can walk into a "coffee shop" and purchase just about anything you want. If you want hard drugs you just walk down to the park where drug dealers openly sell you anything you want. Yet no more than two-three weeks ago a study came out which showed that drug use among the people of the Netherlands was dramatically less than that of the United States. On top of that, if drugs are so dangerous to society, then why is it that the only way we can tell who is and isn't on drugs is to make everyone piss in a cup and test their urine? If things were as bad as you and the other drug warriors claim, then a drug user should stand out like a sore thumb. But they don't. The fact of the matter is that millions of people in the country use illcit drugs and live normal, law-abiding lives. They aren't the "crazed drug fiends" depicted in reefer madness. Are their those types out their? Yep. But the fact that the overwhelming majority of those using drugs do not get into any trouble proves that the trouble makers/law breakers are a small minority. Just like only a small minority of alcohol users/abusers are skid- row drunks who rob and/or beg people for their alcohol. Mankind has lived under the influence of drugs for more than ten thousand years and we've managed to survive. We would survive today as well. The only difference would be that the statists among us would be unable to control the actions of others. Last but not least, drug warriors do not have a legitimate argument. Modern day drug warriors have been imprisoning our sons and daughters, wives and husbands, brothers and sisters, friends and neighbors for more than thirty years and what do they have to show for it? Nothing. Not a damned thing. The WOD has been a abysmal failure in its stated goal of reducing the use of drugs nosy nabobs don't like. The only thing the WOD HAS been successful in is destroying the Bill of Rights and setting the precedent of allowing Bush and the Republicrat/Democan Congress to wipe their asses with the Constitution. The WOD has been extremely successful in growing the size and sciope of the government in our lives.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
;) Damn. That's right. Doh! (in my best Homer Simpson imitation). Thanks. I knew I was spelling it wrong, but I couldn't remember how to spell is. No wonder. I wasn't even saying it right! LOL. I guess that shows you how long it's been since I've done any gambling.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
Yes we do. Instead of gently correcting them or trying to merely point out errors, we seek to trash and destroy. Perhaps a variant on Reagan's 11th Commandment? Don't villify, but correct?
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
Hate to tell you this, but that line you quoted from the Constitution Party (which I've requoted above) is 100% in-line with the US Constitution.
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
There is one thing I'd like to add. As the drug users in this country continue to thumb their noses at the WOD and the government and the statists/authoritarians who champion it, what is the government going to do? They are going to continue encroaching upon the liberties of all. The government is already getting away with busting into the wrong homes and murdering the innocent occupants in the name of the WOD. How much more power are you willing to give them? Right now there are drug warriors on both Friek Repugnant and Liberty Post who are calling not only for the death of drug users, but for the long term imprisonment of the family members and friends of drug users for not turning drug users into the police. That's how amoral drug warriors are. Just think about that. The government estimates that at least twenty million Americans use illicit drugs. These drug warriors would have those twenty million put to death and the families and friends of those twenty million imprisoned. Is that the kind of America you want to live in? I will admit that such drastic measures sound crazy in today's world. However, twenty years ago I would never have believed that something like the Patriot Act or Military Commissions Act would be implemented. Drug warriors are statists and authoritarians who cannot and will not abide people not following their directions. If the drug war continues to fail, and it will, as more and more laws are passed and consequences get more and more dire, the drug warriors on LP and FR will eventually get what they want if for no other reason that the government will have run out of other options to use.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
Hate to tell you this, but that line you quoted from the Constitution Party (which I've requoted above) is 100% in-line with the US Constitution. I have no problem with states and localities regulating drug use. That's the way its supposed to be. What I do have a problem with is the federal government deciding for those states what is and is not an illegal drug. I believe that to be an abuse of the Commerce clause. What if a state decides to make a drug legal but the federal government sys that it's illegal to import that drug into the United States? I don't believe the Constitution was ever meant to be this way. That's no more valid than if the federal government were to say that the states are allowed to sell popcorn but the importation of corn into the country is illegal. Sure the state can grow their own corn, but that's beside the point. IMHO, the statement, "We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered," tells me that the CP wants to continue the WOD. I've already explained in detail why I believe that platform to be a deal killer for me.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
You can make the same arguments about alcohol. With alcohol, you get fetal alcohol syndrome and other birth defects from pregnant mothers who drink, you get drunk drivers causing damage to life and property, you have alcoholics who ruin their own lives and those of their families, the list goes on. So is the solution to these problems to bring back prohibition? Because that's exactly the logic used to outlaw cocaine and other drugs.
If people are satisfied with state and local regulation and taxation of alcohol and tobacco, there's no reason that the same wouldn't work for legalized cocaine, etc. Most importantly, it would put the drug lords and drug gangs out of business just like the mafia's heyday ended when prohibition was repealed. That in itself would be a social benefit that would outweigh the costs of legalizing these drugs. And one more point: I'm not convinced that there would be many more people using cocaine or heroin if they were legal. There isn't going to be a sudden rush of non-users going out and taking these drugs just because they're legalized. Those who are smart enough not to use them will stay away, whether they're legal or not, those dumb enough to partake will do so, legally or illegally.
Its still Constitutional since the Feds are empowered to regulate what comes into the country and what is kept out. States are not permitted to regulate international commerce per the Constitution. So, to recap - while its not 100% acceptable to a true Libertarian, it is Constitutional and thus acceptable to we strict constitutionalists (who are also quite Libertarian). Solution: Amend the Constitution if it is unacceptable.
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
The Federal Govt' certainly has the authority regulate what can enter the country. What they don't have the authority to do is to pass Federal Laws against the transport of drugs across state lines, or Federal Laws about the use or possession of narcotics. I wouldn't want the power to regulate international commerce to be taken from the Federal Government, as it would spell the end to any and all trade protections to sustain our industry. So making a Constitutional amendment on this issue just to facilitate drug flow would be extremely short-sighted because of the wider economic issues involved.
Re-read the Commerce Clause. Yes they do. Article I, Section 8 says: They can regulate what goes across State Lines.
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
Baldwin gets it. ;-)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Yes we do. Instead of gently correcting them or trying to merely point out errors, we seek to trash and destroy. Perhaps a variant on Reagan's 11th Commandment? Don't villify, but correct? I don't even know that more than half of America's liberty lovers even know the question, let alone the answer. ;-)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Damn, what a response. Whatever I thought I might add, you already did. Put that in an essay. The illegality of drugs allows the cartels to park their profits on Wall Street and has allowed the CIA to make money off the shelf, so to speak, while employing thousands in the efforts against domestic dealers and users, not to mention the direct financial gain from the medieval asset forfeiture laws, while allowing for incredible intrusions and decimation of liberty. Sweet all around, wouldn't you say.
Just because they have the power to do it does not mean they have to do it. The fact that they voluntarily choose to do it tells me that they are talking out of both sides of their mouth. Sure, they'll let the states legalize all the drugs they want. The CP will just use the Commerce Clause to restrict the inflow of those drugs and or the materials to make the drugs. And, considering they are willing to do that, there is nothing stopping them from using the post New Deal interpretation of the CC and state that even products made/grown within a State by private individuals can be regulated because of the potential of interstate commerce. So walla. The drug war continues unabated and innocent people continue to be murdered. Solution: Amend the Constitution if it is unacceptable. Or vote for a party that will allow the states to implement the laws as their people see fit instead of using the Constitution as a backdoor way to implement federal social engineering. This makes the CP no better than the Republicrats or Democans on this issue. Looks like I'll be voting Libertarian again.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
Such a long, long, long, long time before the dawn.
{{{applause}}}
Well, that's a hazard of living in a free country. By 'free' I mean free to choose its own rules, rulers, and laws, not that the people live in absolute freedom. The New Deal interpretation was that it "affected" interstate commerce so your home garden could be regulated because if you had one, you would not be purchasing tomatoes from California or peaches from Georgia or apples from Washington and so on. Thus, you get oddball legislation and if you read it, it says "The Congress finds that [insert item here] affects Interstate Commerce..." Like Gang Graffiti on a shipping container. Hey, it 'affects' Interstate Commerce, right? We can make Gangs illegal!
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
He's fairly good.
IMHO, the WOD is the single cause of most governmental abuses in regards to personal liberty and the erosion of the Bill of Rights. Without the precedences set in the name of the WOD, there would be no such thing as the Patriot Act, the Military commissions Act, etc., etc. You cannot and will not have a Constitutional government until the federal government washes their hands of the WOD. Period. The WOD is unwinninable and because it is unwinnable the government has not choice but to continue to up the annie (sp?) in order to fight it. It's the nature of government. Unless the WOD, and now the WOT is stopped, the government will continue to increase their authority and decrease our liberty, a little at a time, until we are all slaves. If the Constitution Party cannot see this, then they are no better than the Republicrats and Democans, regardless of how good the rest of their platform may be. So I have quite the conundrum. you bring up some very good points. But, seeing as this 'alternative party vote' is nothing but an ideological protest vote anyway, and they don't count the votes anyway, and it's a silly circus theatre in the first place, why should any of us give a sh!t about any of it? ;-/ (just askin'.)
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." Personally, I find much of the CP party positions too authoritarian. found it: LP vs CP (Libertarian Party blog) freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=82300
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist."It is a battle between Americans and globalists. And, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am an American!
#2. To: noone222 (#1)
Lady Liberty is walking very gingerly these days, and the path she treads is laden with traps and quicksand. The globalists have their handpicked puppets positioned to take up where The Three Amigos (George Bush I, Bill Clinton, and George Bush II) have left off. The pieces of the puzzle are almost all in place. 2010 just might be the year that Lady Liberty lowers her torch, folds her arms, and falls fast asleep.
#3. To: Rotara (#0)
Perhaps one day the American people will wake up and realize that they are being led as sheep to the slaughter. I'm just not sure that it will be soon enough, however. 2010 is just around the corner.
#4. To: Rotara (#2)
The pieces of the puzzle are almost all in place. 2010 just might be the year that Lady Liberty lowers her torch, folds her arms, and falls fast asleep.
#5. To: Cynicom (#3)
(Edited)
#6. To: noone222 (#4)
Lady Liberty is walking very gingerly these days
#7. To: Rotara (#5)
#8. To: Orginal_Intent, TwentyTwelve, wudidiz, buckeye, Christine, JethroTull, MUDDOG, HOUNDDAWG, lodwick, Artisan, RickyJ, farmfriend, Hayek Fan, Zoroastor, James Deffenbach, Pinguinite (#0)
American bump
#9. To: Cynicom, Christine (#7)
We have too many pubs/dems, libs/cons, leftwings/rightwings etc etc and too few Americans.
#10. To: Rotara (#0)
Baldwin bump
#11. To: Rotara, christine (#0)
#12. To: buckeye (#11)
Baldwin spoke well at the Ron Paul rally in DC over the weekend.
#13. To: Rotara (#0)
#14. To: Rotara (#6)
#15. To: Hayek Fan (#13)
#16. To: Hayek Fan, Rotara (#13)
#17. To: Hayek Fan (#13)
#18. To: Hayek Fan (#13)
IMHO, the WOD is the single cause of most governmental abuses in regards to personal liberty and the erosion of the Bill of Rights.
#19. To: Rotara (#0)
For what it is worth, however, I pledge no loyalty to this emerging New World Order. Neither will I let Lady Liberty die without a fight. I will say it again: the battle today is not between conservatives and liberals or Republicans and Democrats. It is a battle between Americans and globalists. And, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am an American!
Lord Acton
#20. To: christine (#16)
I find much of the CP party positions too authoritarian
#21. To: Old Friend (#15)
(Edited)
But drugs are destructive to society. Do you think Crack Cocaine should be sole ad CVS? What about Heroine, should it be sold to 18 year olds?
#22. To: christine (#17)
annie=ante (as in poker)
#23. To: Rotara (#2)
We keep shooting our own leaders in this small movement.
#24. To: Hayek Fan (#13)
The Constitution Party 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. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.
#25. To: Old Friend (#21)
#26. To: mirage (#24)
(Edited)
The Constitution Party 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. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.
#27. To: Old Friend (#15)
I agree with many of your sentiments about the WOD. But drugs are destructive to society. Do you think Crack Cocaine should be sole ad CVS? What about Heroine, should it be sold to 18 year olds?
#28. To: Hayek Fan, Old Friend (#26)
I have no problem with states and localities regulating drug use. That's the way its supposed to be.
#29. To: Hayek Fan (#26)
IMHO, the statement, "We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered," tells me that the CP wants to continue the WOD. I've already explained in detail why I believe that platform to be a deal killer for me.
#30. To: mirage (#29)
#31. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#30)
What they don't have the authority to do is to pass Federal Laws against the transport of drugs across state lines
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
#32. To: James Deffenbach (#19)
Excellent article.
#33. To: mirage (#23)
We keep shooting our own leaders in this small movement.
#34. To: Hayek Fan (#21)
#35. To: mirage (#29)
(Edited)
So, to recap - while its not 100% acceptable to a true Libertarian, it is Constitutional and thus acceptable to we strict constitutionalists (who are also quite Libertarian).
#36. To: Rotara (#0)
I've already said too much.
#37. To: Hayek Fan (#21)
#38. To: Hayek Fan (#35)
#39. To: Cynicom (#12)
Orator?
#40. To: Hayek Fan, christine (#13)
I don't know about anyone else, but to me, this sounds like a "lite version" of the drug war. What more, I cannot find a speech in which the Rev. Baldwin speaks of ending the drug war. I googled Chuch Baldwin and war on drugs and came up with notta. Maybe I missed something. Even in his essay If I Were President he doesn't make mention of it.
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#41. To: christine, Hayek Fan, Rotara, james deffenbach, buckeye, original_intent, artisan (#16)
Rotara posted an article which compared the CP and L platforms several weeks ago. I don't remember its title. Rotara, can you find it? It was very good.
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest