Thread: Chuck Baldwin last hope

I want the neo cons gone. wiped out. I don't particularly want federal laws on immigration, that is just more BIG GOVERNMENT and that is the main problem we have now. I want the immigration issue left to the states and to the people...like the constitution demands. The Constitution is our document, it's our insurance policy to protect we the people. If you think it is ok for the federal government to regulate immigration..which is a state and people issue, then you can expect the federal government to overstep their authority on OTHER issues ..such as health care, abortion (which should be left to the states), and marriage...just about anything. The door for the federal government MUST BE SHUT on issues that are not listed in the enumerated powers and the constitution itself...or we will lose more and more of our liberty.

Originally Posted by CitizenJustice

"The only way for the Republican Party to get back on track is to let it crash. The neo cons must be purged from the GOP ."

You may not like the republican party as it now stands, (who does?), but unfortunately, members of congress will be elected the same day as the president. So there is no option of seeing who wins the presidency before we see what happens with congress.

There are quite a few republicans who are working darn hard against the IA's. Cannon is out, Barletta will be in, and other candidates have a great chance of winning, ALL against IA's.

The fringe candidates for president, Baldwin and Barr don't stand a snowball's chance in Hades, and everyone nows it.

And you talk about how rotten the republican party is, but WHO VOTED DOWN THE COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION PACKAGE IN JUNE 07? WHO VOTED DOWN THE DREAM ACT? In fact, there have been a LOT of attempts to get IA legislation through.........and WHO STOPPED IT? The ROTTEN REPUBLICANS you are belly-aching about. Sure, we stayed on top of them with emails, faxes, and phone calls. But that is going to be required for probably, the next 8 years, until the LAWS ARE FINALLY ENFORCED and we are getting rid of IA's by ATTRITION.

YOU WILL SINK THIS COUNTRY COMPLETELY BY HANDING THE PRESIDENCY TO HUSSEIN.

By the way, check this out. Hussein is NOT the first BLACK candidate, he is the first ARAB candidate. He actually has very little black in him. And his Arab relatives are vicious!!!! And this is what you want to turn the U.S. over to?

GOD HELP US.

No disrespect to you, but this is the SAME RHETORIC, the SAME FEAR MONGERING that has plagued voters for years. You say "IF you do NOT vote this way, THEN THIS WILL HAPPEN!!!"

Well, we have McCain - a HUGELY SPECIAL INTEREST HACK who FOR SURE wants NO borders -- ( he even said borders are a hinderence because they impost tarrifs) hmmm, and he was speaking about the southern border. He also has JUAN HERNANDEZ on his staff. He has NO issue and NO understanding of economics for he thinks being in Iraq for a 100 years is okay (even if its for building vatican sized bases) <-- at who's expense?
Another special interests agenda for the socialistic troskies who hijacked the republican party. Just more big government.

Anyways - You aren't gonna scare "us" into voting away from our conscious by using "Hussein" <-- associating him with terrorism (obama). C'mon now? that is dishonest. I do not like obama, I don't care for him BUT if McCain is such a lamebrain that better candidates syphon his votes, well - that is on McCain's head. MAYBE if we all make enough waves about voting third party, McCain will get his head out of his ass and all of his special interests ass'es he migth turn around on some issues.

But as it stands, by voting for McCain because ur afriad of another equally bad person - well then, why vote in the first place?

*********************

Also, I hear you and MW talk about "Who voted down the amnesty??" !!!! WE DID!!! THe REpublicans didn't - they were going along with that Amnesty bologne. It took hundreds of thousands of americans calling and calling and calling -- for them to take it off the table. And that was just a reprieve.

Sure, there are some wonderful republicans in office (sessions, tancredo, Dr. Paul, Hunter etc..), BUT THERE ARE MOSTLY "tow the 'new' neocon party" line republicans who have been bought/sold ten times over and will vote for Amnesty. the ONLY reason they didn't a year or so ago is because they are worried about elections.

WE THE PEOPLE put the hammer down, NOT the shill politicians who were supporting it in the first place. Shit, MOST think the NAU is a lie and the superhiway is a fraud -- YET 13 states have ratified legislation to prevent it..

NO --- LETS VOTE OUR CONSCIOUS!

FOR ONCE.

Emanon wrote:

Also, I hear you and MW talk about "Who voted down the amnesty??" !!!! WE DID!!! THe REpublicans didn't - they were going along with that Amnesty bologne. It took hundreds of thousands of americans calling and calling and calling -- for them to take it off the table. And that was just a reprieve.

It's very naive to think we did it on our own. Without our many allies (mostly Republican) in the U.S. Congress, we would have seen amnesty signed into law last year. Furthermore, the majority of Republicans were not "going along with that amnesty bologne" as you say. Heck, many of them were fighting it just like we were. A few favored amnesty, a few more would have been willing to compromise, but the vast majority were never going to go for an amnesty in any shape, form, or fashion. Wether you want to believe it or not, we do have friends in the U.S. Congress that are against amnesty - just like we are. Moreover, the vast majority of them are Republican. Painting the entire Republican party with the same brush is a mistake that could cost us dearly.

By the way, if it was us alone that stopped the amnesty, how come we couldn't get more Democrats to listen to us?

Jazzloverinc wrote:

I want the immigration issue left to the states

As I've said before, immigration is a national problem and it requires a national solution! Forgive me for saying this (nothing personal), but what you're proposing is ridiculous. Can you imagine giving California a free hand at dealing with immigration as they saw fit? What about states like New Mexico, Massachusetts, etc.?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to establish a "uniform Rule of Naturalization." From this has developed the "plenary power doctrine," which holds that Congress has complete authority over immigration matters. The Supreme Court has said that "over no conceivable subject" is federal power greater than it is over immigration. As a consequence, as the Court has said elsewhere, "In the exercise of its broad power over naturalization and immigration, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens."

This is as it should be, since control over immigration is fundamental to national sovereignty. If "We the People of the United States" have ordained and established the Constitution, then we by definition retain the power to determine who is, and is not, a member of the American people. Thus, the decision to admit or exclude foreign citizens is a matter solely in the hands of the elected representatives of the people, and any one from abroad who is admitted to travel or live among us does so as a guest, remaining here at our pleasure, until such time as we agree to permit him to become a member of our people. In effect, foreign citizens, even if they are here illegally, enjoy the human rights endowed to them by God, but they remain here at our discretion and the specifics of their due process rights are determined by Congress.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/msktestimony1001.html

Originally Posted by jazzloversinc

Buchanan and Ron Paul speak truth to power..that is why i love them..and that is why they are hated.

I wanted Buchanan to win when he ran. He would have been a great president!

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by CitizenJustice

I just love all the people who are going to vote for people who can't win, but will siphon votes.......handing the presidency to HUSSEIN.

Is it wrong to vote for someone who embodies our highest ideals?

There are enough of us willing to be proud of our vote..no matter the result. Baldwin sounds good to me and make Tancredo in charge of homeland security. Now imagine illegals exiting at the news..they know Tom will start enforcing day one.

Originally Posted by jazzloversinc

Bear...I am reading Pat Buchanan's book "Where the Right went Wrong" right now. Excellent! I have read other articles about the neo cons...Pat Buchanan's is the best so far. I am looking forward to reading his new book..."Churchill, Hitler and the Un Necessary War".

Oh, Hell yeah....I finished it a couple of weeks ago. Its something like 450 pages, but it was so good I finished it in 4 days. It will change the way you look at WWII forever -- especially blood-thirsty, war-monger Winston Churchill. I started a thread about it, where I gave it an extensive review. I can dig that up if you like.

Also check out Death of the West and State of Emergency. I have read them both, and they detail the dire situation the US and Europe are in today, and how we got there. It will blow you away. Day of Reckoning is also good (yes I have actually read FOUR of Mr. Buchanan's books). I think you would like how he breaks down the war in Iraq and neocon empire building. Pat would have made an excellent president.

Bear..it seems like we have found common ground. lol. I would love to read your review of that book! I plan on reading all of Pat Buchanan's books. I really love the guy...what I do not understand is how you can like Pat Buchanan and not like Ron Paul. Sometimes it seems that Ron Paul is quoting straight from Buchanan's books. Buchanan has a page on his blog full of Ron Paul news...but no other presidential candidate is on his blog.

Now I have to address MW lol. MW..as you can see, the federal government has overstepped their authority AGAIN by creating a "doctirne" that gives them all powers over immigration. It does not say that in the constitution ...therefore it MUST be left to the states and to the people. We get in real trouble with all these "doctirnes" "acts" and "bills" that grant power to the Federal government. They are absolutely WRONG and it is up to the people to tell them to throw out that doctirine and If I was the governer of a state..I would tell the fed to stick it where the sun don't shine lol. I would take it all the way to the supreme court. Maybe Arizona will..because unless they DO take it all the way to the Supreme Court...( like that man in DC did on the gun issue) the lower courts will continue to legislate from the bench. There really needs to be a rulinging from the Supreme Court on what the Constitution says about immigration. I am going to look and see what the Founders said about it.

Thomas Jefferson on Immigration:

31. Immigration Policy

The first consideration in immigration is the welfare of the receiving nation. In a new government based on principles unfamiliar to the rest of the world and resting on the sentiments of the people themselves, the influx of a large number of new immigrants unaccustomed to the government of a free society could be detrimental to that society. Immigration, therefore, must be approached carefully and cautiously.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"I hold the right of expatriation to be inherent in every man by the laws of nature, and incapable of being rightfully taken from him even by the united will of every other person in the nation. If the laws have provided no particular mode by which the right of expatriation may be exercised, the individual may do it by any effectual and unequivocal act or declaration." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1806. FE 8:458
"Expatriation [is] a natural right, and acted on as such by all nations in all ages." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:12

"Our ancestors... possessed a right, which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them, of going in quest of new habitations, and of there establishing new societies, under such laws and regulations as, to them, shall seem most likely to promote public happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:185, Papers 1:121


The Obligation to Provide Asylum
"Shall we refuse the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? The Constitution, indeed, has wisely provided that for admission to certain offices of important trust a residence shall be required sufficient to develop character and design. But might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every one manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life and fortunes permanently with us?" --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:338

"It [has] been the wise policy of these states to extend the protection of their laws to all those who should settle among them of whatever nation or religion they might be and to admit them to a participation of the benefits of civil and religious freedom, and... the benevolence of this practice as well as its salutary effects [has] rendered it worthy of being continued in future times." --Thomas Jefferson: Proclamation, 1781. Papers 4:505

"America is now, I think, the only country of tranquility and should be the asylum of all those who wish to avoid the scenes which have crushed our friends in [other lands]." --Thomas Jefferson to Mrs. Church, 1793. FE 6:289

"[We wish] but to consecrate a sanctuary for those whom the misrule of Europe may compel to seek happiness in other climes. This refuge, once known, will produce reaction on the happiness even of those who remain there by warning their task-masters that when the evils of Egyptian oppression become heavier than those of the abandonment of country, another Canaan is open where their subjects will be received as brothers and secured against like oppressions by a participation in the right of self-government." --Thomas Jefferson to George Flower, 1817. ME 15:141


Rights of Immigrants
"Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258


Too Rapid Growth by Immigration
"[Is] rapid population [growth] by as great importations of foreigners as possible... founded in good policy?... They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their number, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass... If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.VIII, 1782. ME 2:118

"I mean not that these doubts should be extended to the importation of useful artificers. The policy of that measure depends on very different considerations. Spare no expense in obtaining them. They will after a while go to the plough and the hoe; but in the meantime, they will teach us something we do not know." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.VIII, 1782. ME 2:121

"A first question is, whether it is desirable for us to receive at present the dissolute and demoralized handicraftsmen of the old cities of Europe? A second and more difficult one is, when even good handicraftsmen arrive here, is it better for them to set up their trade, or go to the culture of the earth? Whether their labor in their trade is worth more than their labor on the soil, increased by the creative energies of the earth?" --Thomas Jefferson to J. Lithgow, 1805. ME 11:56

"Although as to other foreigners it is thought better to discourage their settling together in large masses, wherein, as in our German settlements, they preserve for a long time their own languages, habits, and principles of government, and that they should distribute themselves sparsely among the natives for quicker amalgamation, yet English emigrants are without this inconvenience. They differ from us little but in their principles of government, and most of those (merchants excepted) who come here, are sufficiently disposed to adopt ours." --Thomas Jefferson to George Flower, 1817. ME 15:140


ME, FE = Memorial Edition, Ford Edition. See Sources

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quo ... ff1280.htm

Originally Posted by jazzloversinc

I would love to read your review of that book!

Here it is:

http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-700593-.html#700593

Feel free to bump it (everyone). This is one controversial subject, but Pat deals with it masterfully. Please add your commentary when you start reading it.