I'm supporting Ron Paul, but there's a lot I like about Tom Tancredo. He's been out front on the illegal immigration issue, and I respect him for that.
It is a sad commentary on the American electorate that, given all the anger and frustration showed by the American people in stopping the McCain/Kennedy shamnesty bill, the most pro-border security and anti-illegal immigration voices in the entire Presidential field- Paul, Tancredo, and Hunter- have lousy poll numbers. It's pathetic that so many voters rely on the mainstream media, pundits, Hollywood, PACs, and other nefarious entities tell them who to vote for- they are mind-numbed sheep being led to slaughter by elitist wolves.
__________________________________________________________
Presidential candidate blasts “rogue” border mayors
Ryan Holeywell
October 11, 2007 - 9:38AM
McALLEN — Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo labeled some border mayors as “rogue” for refusing to cooperate with the federal government’s efforts to construct the proposed border fence in some parts of Texas.
Tancredo, a congressman from Colorado, also suggested in a news release earlier this week that the fence could be built north of U.S. border cities that don’t go along with it.
Tancredo’s comments came after The Associated Press reported earlier this month that some U.S. border leaders had denied some access to federal workers doing preliminary work on the fence.
“I’m glad he said it, because all it means is he wrote his own obituary,” McAllen Mayor Richard Cortez said. “Nobody like him can possibly be elected to a leadership position in this country.”
Brownsville Mayor Pat Ahumada said Tancredo’s comments were “not constructive” and added those who vehemently support the fence — such as Tancredo — are “being driven by fear or racism.”
“He has no clue how we live, how (the fence) will affect us and how close it is,” Ahumada said.
Tancredo, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, was polling at 1 percent in an NBC/Wall Street Journal conducted in late September. His campaign has raised $4,825 from two donors in the Rio Grande Valley, according to the Federal Election Committee.
Lately, he’s gained attention for his vocal support of the fence, as well as his vehement position on the need to reduce both legal and illegal immigration.
Tancredo told The Monitor his suggestion of building the wall north of some cities was “just for effect,” but he is serious about his support for the fence itself.
While Rio Grande Valley residents and elected officials alike may oppose the fence, Tancredo said, it “is a national security issue and we all have to pay the price and make some sacrifice.”
While Ahumada said he supports a so-called virtual fence created by dredging and expanding the Rio Grande, Tancredo said a physical barrier is the best option to stop “the invasion that is occurring,” referring to the influx of undocumented immigrants to the country.
He also said the fence sends a symbolic message to Mexico.
“It says clearly, ‘Here’s where one country ends and another one begins,’” Tancredo said. “Short of sending someone an atlas, this is the next best thing.”
Cortez said a fence could impede the billions of dollars of trade that comes through the country’s borders. But Tancredo said a fence would not affect legitimate business.
Ahumada said he invites Tancredo to visit the border and see for himself how it would affect the community. Tancredo said he’s visited the border many times and was in Texas last year, but he hopes to visit the state soon.
From: The Monitor
Showing posts with label NAFTA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NAFTA. Show all posts
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Are you a Murdering Rapist in the Country Illegally?
Never fear, George Bush and the Neocons at the White House have got your back. In fact, they'll argue on your behalf before the US Supreme Court!
Apparently, this White House has somewhat of a soft spot for rapists and murderers. Dog Chapman goes to Mexico to apprehend a fugitive rapist and murderer who had fled American justice- and for his troubles, the Justice Department threw the Bounty Hunter in jail and sought to extradite him to Mexico. Now the same Bush Administration will stand before the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court and argue that the convictions of 51 rapists and murderers on Death Row (all of whom are illegal aliens) should be overturned, and those 51 subhumans should be sent back to Mexico to stand trial.
The Neocons are following the marching orders of the World Court on this one. It's interesting to see how they pick and choose which World Court mandates they choose to follow. If it deals with torture, it's ignored; if it deals with illegals, they'll take it all the way to the Supreme Court to enforce it.
Fact is, we should have nothing to do with the World Court. No foreign court must hold sway over our sovereignty, and international "law" cannot trump the US Constitution. Apparently, the GOP and Democrats don't think the same way- but the Constitution Party does.
From the Constitution Party Platform:
The United States is properly a free and sovereign republic which should strive to live in peace with all nations, without interfering in their internal affairs, and without permitting their interference in ours. We are, therefore, unalterably opposed to entangling alliances - via treaties, or any other form of commitment - which compromise our national sovereignty, or commit us to intervention in foreign wars.
To this end, we shall:
steadfastly oppose American participation in any form of world government organization, including any world court under United Nations auspices;
call upon the President, and Congress, to terminate United States membership in the United Nations, and its subsidiary organizations, and terminate U.S. participation in all so-called U.N. peace keeping operations;
bar the United Nations, and its subsidiaries, from further operation, including raising of funds, on United States territory; and
propose that the Constitution be obeyed to prohibit the United States government from entering any treaty, or other agreement, which makes any commitment of American military forces or tax money, compromises the sovereignty of the United States, or accomplishes a purpose properly the subject of domestic law. In this connection we specifically denounce the agreement establishing the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and any other such trade agreements, either bi-lateral or regional in nature. All treaties must be subordinate to the Constitution, since the Constitution is the only instrument which empowers and limits the federal government.
American troops must serve only under American commanders, not those of the United Nations or foreign countries.
It's not just the World Court- it's the entire web of globalist organizations and trade deals that we must get away from- the UN, NAFTA, CAFTA, the North American Union, Law of the Sea Treaty, GATT, WTO, etc., etc., etc. They are all threats to American soveriegnty and enemies of the Constitution.
Ron Paul has said "We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America." I wholeheartedly agree with him, and so would the Founding Fathers. How about you?
___________________________________________
From WorldNetDaily:
THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
Bush backs Mexico, rapist-murderer
International court seeks to block death penalty in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 8, 2007
11:28 a.m. Eastern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case Wednesday in which the Bush administration will seek to overturn the death penalty of a convicted rapist-murderer at the behest of the International Court of Justice.
Jose Medellin confessed in 1993 to participating in the rape and murder of two Houston teenagers. Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena were sodomized and strangled with their shoe laces. Medellin bragged about keeping one girl's Mickey Mouse watch as a souvenir of the crime.
Medellin and four others were convicted of capital murder and sent to Texas' death row. A juvenile court sentenced Medellin's younger brother, who was 14 at the time, to 40 years in prison.
The intervention in the case by the Bush administration comes after the International Court of Justice found Medellin was not informed of his right to contact the Mexican Consulate for legal assistance.
That, according to the Hague, was a violation of a 1963 treaty known as the Vienna Convention.
"We find ourselves in an unusual position," Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz told the Houston Chronicle. "Texas is not regularly litigating against the United States. But sadly enough, the United States will appear alongside Medellin at the argument."
Medellin v. Texas will be argued Wednesday and could determine the fate of Medellin and 50 other Mexican killers on death rows in the United States, including more than a dozen in Texas. All of them say they were not told of their right to contact Mexico for legal help.
The court is expected to produce a ruling clarifying which powers reside with the president, Congress and courts, which powers belong to the federal government versus the states, and what the relationship is between international and domestic law.
The Bush administration became involved in the Medellin case in 2003 when Mexico sued the U.S. over the consular issue in the International Court of Justice at the Hague. The so-called "World Court" is the United Nations' top court for resolving international disputes.
The court ruled in Mexico's favor in late 2004 and ordered the U.S. to reconsider the Mexican inmates' murder convictions and death sentences. In February 2005, Bush announced that while he disagreed with the World Court's decision, the U.S. would comply. He ordered courts in Texas and elsewhere to review the cases.
A few days later, however, the president withdrew the U.S. from the part of the Vienna Convention that gives the World Court final say in international disputes.
The Supreme Court, which had agreed to hear Medellin's case, dismissed it later in 2005 to allow the case to play out in Texas. Last November, the all-Republican Texas Court of Criminal Appeals balked at the president's order, saying Bush had overstepped his authority.
The Texas court said the judicial branch, not the White House, should decide how to resolve the Mexican cases. It also said Medellin wasn't entitled to a new hearing because he failed to complain at his original trial about any violation of his consular rights and had therefore waived them.
Medellin appealed again to the U.S. Supreme Court, which announced last May it would hear his case. His lawyer, Donald Donovan of New York, will argue this week that Bush was correct when he took action to comply with the World Court's decision.
The Bush administration, now siding with Medellin and Mexico, will try to help Donovan's team convince the justices that the Texas court is undermining the president's efforts to conduct foreign policy.
Cruz, who will argue the case for Texas, called Bush's unprecedented attempt to issue orders to the judicial branch – and the state courts in particular – "breathtaking."
"It is emphatically not the province of the president to say what the law is," he told the Houston Chronicle. "If this president's assertion of authority is upheld in this case, it opens the door for enormous mischief from presidents of either party. What might these presidents be inclined to do if they had the power to flick state laws off the books?"
Meanwhile, Randy and Sandra Ertman, the parents of one of Medellin's victims, also have weighed in. In a court brief filed on their behalf by the California-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, the Ertmans argue that their 14-year-old daughter's rights, and the rights of other victims, will be given short shrift if the justices further delay the "already long-overdue execution of this well-deserved sentence."
"This case has produced much lofty discussion about international law and the separation of powers. We must not forget, though, that this case is about a real crime against real people," they wrote. "Enough is enough."
Apparently, this White House has somewhat of a soft spot for rapists and murderers. Dog Chapman goes to Mexico to apprehend a fugitive rapist and murderer who had fled American justice- and for his troubles, the Justice Department threw the Bounty Hunter in jail and sought to extradite him to Mexico. Now the same Bush Administration will stand before the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court and argue that the convictions of 51 rapists and murderers on Death Row (all of whom are illegal aliens) should be overturned, and those 51 subhumans should be sent back to Mexico to stand trial.
The Neocons are following the marching orders of the World Court on this one. It's interesting to see how they pick and choose which World Court mandates they choose to follow. If it deals with torture, it's ignored; if it deals with illegals, they'll take it all the way to the Supreme Court to enforce it.
Fact is, we should have nothing to do with the World Court. No foreign court must hold sway over our sovereignty, and international "law" cannot trump the US Constitution. Apparently, the GOP and Democrats don't think the same way- but the Constitution Party does.
From the Constitution Party Platform:
The United States is properly a free and sovereign republic which should strive to live in peace with all nations, without interfering in their internal affairs, and without permitting their interference in ours. We are, therefore, unalterably opposed to entangling alliances - via treaties, or any other form of commitment - which compromise our national sovereignty, or commit us to intervention in foreign wars.
To this end, we shall:
steadfastly oppose American participation in any form of world government organization, including any world court under United Nations auspices;
call upon the President, and Congress, to terminate United States membership in the United Nations, and its subsidiary organizations, and terminate U.S. participation in all so-called U.N. peace keeping operations;
bar the United Nations, and its subsidiaries, from further operation, including raising of funds, on United States territory; and
propose that the Constitution be obeyed to prohibit the United States government from entering any treaty, or other agreement, which makes any commitment of American military forces or tax money, compromises the sovereignty of the United States, or accomplishes a purpose properly the subject of domestic law. In this connection we specifically denounce the agreement establishing the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and any other such trade agreements, either bi-lateral or regional in nature. All treaties must be subordinate to the Constitution, since the Constitution is the only instrument which empowers and limits the federal government.
American troops must serve only under American commanders, not those of the United Nations or foreign countries.
It's not just the World Court- it's the entire web of globalist organizations and trade deals that we must get away from- the UN, NAFTA, CAFTA, the North American Union, Law of the Sea Treaty, GATT, WTO, etc., etc., etc. They are all threats to American soveriegnty and enemies of the Constitution.
Ron Paul has said "We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America." I wholeheartedly agree with him, and so would the Founding Fathers. How about you?
___________________________________________
From WorldNetDaily:
THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
Bush backs Mexico, rapist-murderer
International court seeks to block death penalty in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 8, 2007
11:28 a.m. Eastern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case Wednesday in which the Bush administration will seek to overturn the death penalty of a convicted rapist-murderer at the behest of the International Court of Justice.
Jose Medellin confessed in 1993 to participating in the rape and murder of two Houston teenagers. Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena were sodomized and strangled with their shoe laces. Medellin bragged about keeping one girl's Mickey Mouse watch as a souvenir of the crime.
Medellin and four others were convicted of capital murder and sent to Texas' death row. A juvenile court sentenced Medellin's younger brother, who was 14 at the time, to 40 years in prison.
The intervention in the case by the Bush administration comes after the International Court of Justice found Medellin was not informed of his right to contact the Mexican Consulate for legal assistance.
That, according to the Hague, was a violation of a 1963 treaty known as the Vienna Convention.
"We find ourselves in an unusual position," Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz told the Houston Chronicle. "Texas is not regularly litigating against the United States. But sadly enough, the United States will appear alongside Medellin at the argument."
Medellin v. Texas will be argued Wednesday and could determine the fate of Medellin and 50 other Mexican killers on death rows in the United States, including more than a dozen in Texas. All of them say they were not told of their right to contact Mexico for legal help.
The court is expected to produce a ruling clarifying which powers reside with the president, Congress and courts, which powers belong to the federal government versus the states, and what the relationship is between international and domestic law.
The Bush administration became involved in the Medellin case in 2003 when Mexico sued the U.S. over the consular issue in the International Court of Justice at the Hague. The so-called "World Court" is the United Nations' top court for resolving international disputes.
The court ruled in Mexico's favor in late 2004 and ordered the U.S. to reconsider the Mexican inmates' murder convictions and death sentences. In February 2005, Bush announced that while he disagreed with the World Court's decision, the U.S. would comply. He ordered courts in Texas and elsewhere to review the cases.
A few days later, however, the president withdrew the U.S. from the part of the Vienna Convention that gives the World Court final say in international disputes.
The Supreme Court, which had agreed to hear Medellin's case, dismissed it later in 2005 to allow the case to play out in Texas. Last November, the all-Republican Texas Court of Criminal Appeals balked at the president's order, saying Bush had overstepped his authority.
The Texas court said the judicial branch, not the White House, should decide how to resolve the Mexican cases. It also said Medellin wasn't entitled to a new hearing because he failed to complain at his original trial about any violation of his consular rights and had therefore waived them.
Medellin appealed again to the U.S. Supreme Court, which announced last May it would hear his case. His lawyer, Donald Donovan of New York, will argue this week that Bush was correct when he took action to comply with the World Court's decision.
The Bush administration, now siding with Medellin and Mexico, will try to help Donovan's team convince the justices that the Texas court is undermining the president's efforts to conduct foreign policy.
Cruz, who will argue the case for Texas, called Bush's unprecedented attempt to issue orders to the judicial branch – and the state courts in particular – "breathtaking."
"It is emphatically not the province of the president to say what the law is," he told the Houston Chronicle. "If this president's assertion of authority is upheld in this case, it opens the door for enormous mischief from presidents of either party. What might these presidents be inclined to do if they had the power to flick state laws off the books?"
Meanwhile, Randy and Sandra Ertman, the parents of one of Medellin's victims, also have weighed in. In a court brief filed on their behalf by the California-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, the Ertmans argue that their 14-year-old daughter's rights, and the rights of other victims, will be given short shrift if the justices further delay the "already long-overdue execution of this well-deserved sentence."
"This case has produced much lofty discussion about international law and the separation of powers. We must not forget, though, that this case is about a real crime against real people," they wrote. "Enough is enough."
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Veteran Enforces Federal Flag Law
4 USC Section 7(c) states:
"No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy. No person shall display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or international flag equal, above, or in a position of superior prominence or honor to, or in place of, the flag of the United States at any place within the United States or any Territory or possession thereof:"
Please note the fact that the establishment mentioned in the story below was in violation of Federal law. It's not like it's some obscure clause, either- I learned this when I was still in elementary school, and that was about 35 years ago.
My hat's off to this patriot for taking action.
______________________________________
From WorldNetDaily:
THE RED, WHITE AND BLUE
Vet cuts down Mexican flag flying above U.S. banner
Took action after hearing of illegal display by Hispanic bar owner in Reno
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 3, 2007
2:44 p.m. Eastern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Mexican flag flies above U.S. banner at Reno business in footage from local KRNV-TV
After hearing a Reno bar was flying a Mexican flag above a U.S. flag, an angered U.S. Army veteran took matters into his own hands, drove to the site and cut down the banners in front of a stunned group of Hispanic patrons.
Reno television station KRNV, which was there to document Jim Broussard's act of defiance, noted the U.S. code prohibits raising the flag of any other nations above Old Glory.
Broussard pulled up in his truck to the Cantina El Jaripeo near downtown Reno yesterday, cut the rope that anchored the flags and pulled them down from a makeshift flagpole.
He left the Mexican flag on the ground and, with the U.S. flag in hand, turned to the KRNV cameraman:
"I'm Jim Broussard," he said, "and I took this flag down in honor of my country with … a knife from the United States Army. I'm a veteran, I'm not going to see this done to my country. If they want to fight us, then they need to be men, and they need to come and fight us. But I want somebody to fight me for this flag. They're not going to get it back."
The KRNV footage shows a Hispanic man, possibly the bar owner, picking up the Mexican flag after Broussard briskly walks past him down the street to his truck.
Later, Broussard, told nationally syndicated talk-radio host Mike Gallagher he took action after hearing on a local talk station that the flags had been flying all day.
"I was immediately infuriated and felt a duty to do something about it," Broussard said. "I feel there's a lot of this turning-our-heads-on-things in concern with the Hispanic community and the things they do. They seem impervious to our laws in a lot of situations."
Broussard, pointing out the bar was committing a federal offense, said local authorities weren't sure what to do about it.
He affirmed Gallagher's comment that many Americans are afraid to speak out on the problem of illegal immigration and lack of assimilation because they are afraid of being called bigots.
Broussard said he had no idea a TV camera would be there until he arrived on the scene.
About a dozen Hispanic men came pouring out of the building when he showed up, according to Broussard.
The men said, Broussard recounted, "What do you think you're doing?"
"I said, well, watch me."
Broussard said he talked to local police after the incident, and they have not taken any action. But Hispanic leaders, he said, "are trying to coerce the bar owner to file charges against me."
The veteran affirmed to Gallagher there are many Hispanics who are equally upset about illegal immigration and the resistance to assimilation.
"We have many cultures who've come here, and they've learned our language, and they respect our culture, because they know America is a great country, and they simply want to be a part of it," he said.
KRNV said it sent a cameraman to the scene after a viewer called to say "a business near downtown Reno was flying a Mexican flag above an American flag ... which is, in fact, illegal."
"No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy. No person shall display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or international flag equal, above, or in a position of superior prominence or honor to, or in place of, the flag of the United States at any place within the United States or any Territory or possession thereof:"
Please note the fact that the establishment mentioned in the story below was in violation of Federal law. It's not like it's some obscure clause, either- I learned this when I was still in elementary school, and that was about 35 years ago.
My hat's off to this patriot for taking action.
______________________________________
From WorldNetDaily:
THE RED, WHITE AND BLUE
Vet cuts down Mexican flag flying above U.S. banner
Took action after hearing of illegal display by Hispanic bar owner in Reno
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 3, 2007
2:44 p.m. Eastern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Mexican flag flies above U.S. banner at Reno business in footage from local KRNV-TV
After hearing a Reno bar was flying a Mexican flag above a U.S. flag, an angered U.S. Army veteran took matters into his own hands, drove to the site and cut down the banners in front of a stunned group of Hispanic patrons.
Reno television station KRNV, which was there to document Jim Broussard's act of defiance, noted the U.S. code prohibits raising the flag of any other nations above Old Glory.
Broussard pulled up in his truck to the Cantina El Jaripeo near downtown Reno yesterday, cut the rope that anchored the flags and pulled them down from a makeshift flagpole.
He left the Mexican flag on the ground and, with the U.S. flag in hand, turned to the KRNV cameraman:
"I'm Jim Broussard," he said, "and I took this flag down in honor of my country with … a knife from the United States Army. I'm a veteran, I'm not going to see this done to my country. If they want to fight us, then they need to be men, and they need to come and fight us. But I want somebody to fight me for this flag. They're not going to get it back."
The KRNV footage shows a Hispanic man, possibly the bar owner, picking up the Mexican flag after Broussard briskly walks past him down the street to his truck.
Later, Broussard, told nationally syndicated talk-radio host Mike Gallagher he took action after hearing on a local talk station that the flags had been flying all day.
"I was immediately infuriated and felt a duty to do something about it," Broussard said. "I feel there's a lot of this turning-our-heads-on-things in concern with the Hispanic community and the things they do. They seem impervious to our laws in a lot of situations."
Broussard, pointing out the bar was committing a federal offense, said local authorities weren't sure what to do about it.
He affirmed Gallagher's comment that many Americans are afraid to speak out on the problem of illegal immigration and lack of assimilation because they are afraid of being called bigots.
Broussard said he had no idea a TV camera would be there until he arrived on the scene.
About a dozen Hispanic men came pouring out of the building when he showed up, according to Broussard.
The men said, Broussard recounted, "What do you think you're doing?"
"I said, well, watch me."
Broussard said he talked to local police after the incident, and they have not taken any action. But Hispanic leaders, he said, "are trying to coerce the bar owner to file charges against me."
The veteran affirmed to Gallagher there are many Hispanics who are equally upset about illegal immigration and the resistance to assimilation.
"We have many cultures who've come here, and they've learned our language, and they respect our culture, because they know America is a great country, and they simply want to be a part of it," he said.
KRNV said it sent a cameraman to the scene after a viewer called to say "a business near downtown Reno was flying a Mexican flag above an American flag ... which is, in fact, illegal."
Monday, October 1, 2007
Not Our Fathers' America
Pastor Baldwin is spot on with this commentary. A must-read for anyone who loves America and is sickened at Her present condition.
________________________________________________________
Not Our Fathers' America
by Chuck Baldwin
June 8, 2007
Every country goes through changes. However, stable countries are able to maintain their basic culture, identity, language, and heritage throughout the various gradations of societal evolution. Hence, through major wars, minor conflicts, turmoil, depression, and dissension, America, for the most part, has been able to maintain the fundamental underpinnings that made our country unique. But, Ladies and Gentlemen, those underpinnings are very quickly disappearing.
In a very real sense, this is not our fathers' America. And by that, I am not referring to our modern conveniences, our advanced technologies, or our avant-garde styles of dress and forms of entertainment. I am talking about the principles and values that cut to the very core of who and what we are as a nation. We are fast losing the substance of what it means to be American.
For the most part, our fathers' America was a nation that had a firm faith in God and was not ashamed to publicly acknowledge Him. This faith in God was not something worn on the sleeve to parade around every two years during a political campaign; it was something genuine, something that guided practical day-by-day decisions and choices.
Can one imagine people in past generations saying that, while they had a "deep and personal" faith, this faith had no place or bearing in the practical decisions they would make. What lunacy! Yet, this is exactly what we hear so many of today's politicians and businessmen routinely say.
In fact, one common saying for this generation of Christian businessmen is, "He doesn't let his Christianity get in the way of his business." And for what appears to be a majority of today's commercial leaders, this is not just a maxim; it is a fact.
Secondly, our fathers' America enjoyed a strong commitment to the principles of freedom and independence. Through major wars, threats, and terrorist attacks, they never surrendered the principle that our Creator had granted us liberty.
Oh, there were times when our commitment to liberty was seriously challenged. However, the resolve of our forebears regarding the principle of freedom was stronger than any foe, whether it was found across the ocean or across the street. But, this is not our fathers' America.
Today, many, if not most, Americans seem eager to surrender practically any freedom upon the promise of protection and security. We no longer cherish the idea of liberty. Liberty seems to be no more valuable than a poker chip to be gambled away if the pot is sweetened with the promise that the government will take care of us.
For example, political leaders in both parties are allowed to chip away at our Second Amendment freedoms to the point that it is only a matter of time (and maybe a very short time) before the right to keep and bear arms will be forfeited, as has already been done in places such as England, Canada, and Australia (and in many states in the U.S.). This attack on the right to keep and bear arms will certainly intensify if any of the current presidential frontrunners is elected next year.
If Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney is elected President next year, Americans will have the fight of their life on hand to preserve the little freedom to keep and bear arms that currently exists. (Romney's recent attempt to present himself as pro-gun is mere pretense. Remember that, as Governor of Massachusetts, he supported the Brady gun-control ban. And as recently as 2002, Romney publicly reiterated his support for strict gun control.)
Why? Because the elites who control our media, Congress, the White House, and commercial boardrooms are in the process of constructing their New World Order, and a disarmed citizenry is absolutely essential to this end. Make no mistake about it: they want our guns, and they want them badly!
Already, big-game hunting is fast becoming a sport that is not only politically incorrect, it is a sport that only the rich can afford. Through hundreds of laws that restrict land usage and the type of game that can be legally taken, the average, middle-class worker can hardly find a place to hunt, and when he does find it, he can barely afford the price. Plus, the rules regulating his hunt are so restrictive that he becomes a lawbreaker practically every time he walks into the woods.
In addition, many wildlife officers resemble Gestapo troops more than they do peace officers. Nowhere are there more similarities between the old fascist and socialist regimes than can be found in many of our federal and state fish and wildlife officers. (And before you write me a nasty note of rebuttal, I am very much aware of the very fine and honorable wildlife officers out there. I know several such men personally. However, I stand by my assessment that federal and state wildlife officers are more and more being trained in Gestapo-like tactics.)
Can you remember the words of Franklin Roosevelt immediately following the attack on Pearl Harbor? As you listen to his words, remember that FDR was the poster child for the Twentieth Century Big Government liberal. In spite of this, Roosevelt said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
However, this is not our fathers', even our liberal fathers', America.
Today, even so-called conservative politicians constantly instill nothing but fear in the hearts and psyche of the American people. Ditto for the media, and even the Weather Channel! The American people are constantly beaten down with the spirit of fear. Fear of terrorism. Fear of hurricanes. Fear of wildfires. Fear of tornadoes. Fear of disease. Fear of guns.
With no ill will intended toward any of the victims of the recent Virginia Tech shootings, why did not any of the students and teachers charge the shooter? As few as a half-dozen men could have stopped that rampage. Yes, two or three of them might have been killed in the process, but there is no chance that the shooter would have stopped them all. (Of course, the university itself bears the brunt of blame for this carnage for not allowing its faculty and qualified adult students to carry handguns for personal protection on campus.)
However, our entire culture is inundated with fear. The only thing we think about is survival. Running away. Staying safe. The concept of standing up and risking personal safety in order to resist the threat of bodily harm never seems to enter our minds. If there is no one around to protect or take care of us, we seem to be absolutely helpless. (I'm not referring to our military forces, obviously. On the whole, their courage under fire is nothing short of magnificent!) Our fathers' motto "We have nothing to fear but fear itself", has been changed to "We have nothing but fear itself."
Therefore, we enthusiastically embrace the chains of servitude via the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Administration, complete with hundreds of restrictions and attacks upon our privacy and liberty because we are scared to death and, in a panicked state, are willing to accept the phony promises of protection from the hand of an overbearing and ever-increasingly oppressive Nanny State.
Finally, consider the fact that our current leaders cannot even seem to understand the importance of being a nation of one language and culture.
In our fathers' America, immigrants were expected to enter the country legally. They were expected to learn the English language. They were expected to assimilate into America's public life and culture. They were expected to learn and appreciate our history and heritage. They were expected to be productive in their newfound country. They came to America, not expecting a handout, but only wanting an opportunity. And, for the most part, they were willing to live by our laws for the benefit of having that opportunity.
However, this is not our fathers' America. Today, multiculturalism demands that we tolerate lawbreakers (a.k.a. "undocumented workers"). More than that, it demands that we facilitate and bankroll them. And when we resist the attempts of our leaders to force lawlessness upon us, we are accused of being unpatriotic and un-American.
Of course, there is an agenda at work here, folks. Today's leaders do not share the principles and ideals of our fathers. They envision a new America. An America without national borders. An America that exists for the benefit of the elites and super-rich. An America that holds no loyalty to constitutional government or the Bill of Rights. An America that has no distinctively Christian culture. An America that is merged into a North American Community. An America that has forgotten Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson. An America that never heard of the Declaration of Independence. An America that uses its military to enforce the demands of international business interests. An America where the State controls everything we do, say, and even think. And, believe me, this new America is already here and quickly squeezing out the America our fathers fought to preserve.
The question is, what will people who believe in our fathers' America do? Our pilgrim fathers fled the New World Order in Europe and founded this great nation. Our patriot fathers fought a war of revolution against the New World Order on our soil and won our nation's freedom and independence. So, what will we do?
It seems quite certain that the time will soon come when we will be forced to make the same kind of decisions our fathers were forced to make. But, what exactly will those decisions be?
One thing is sure: this is no longer our fathers' America, and people who long for such a place are facing another crossroads in history.
© Chuck Baldwin
________________________________________________________
Not Our Fathers' America
by Chuck Baldwin
June 8, 2007
Every country goes through changes. However, stable countries are able to maintain their basic culture, identity, language, and heritage throughout the various gradations of societal evolution. Hence, through major wars, minor conflicts, turmoil, depression, and dissension, America, for the most part, has been able to maintain the fundamental underpinnings that made our country unique. But, Ladies and Gentlemen, those underpinnings are very quickly disappearing.
In a very real sense, this is not our fathers' America. And by that, I am not referring to our modern conveniences, our advanced technologies, or our avant-garde styles of dress and forms of entertainment. I am talking about the principles and values that cut to the very core of who and what we are as a nation. We are fast losing the substance of what it means to be American.
For the most part, our fathers' America was a nation that had a firm faith in God and was not ashamed to publicly acknowledge Him. This faith in God was not something worn on the sleeve to parade around every two years during a political campaign; it was something genuine, something that guided practical day-by-day decisions and choices.
Can one imagine people in past generations saying that, while they had a "deep and personal" faith, this faith had no place or bearing in the practical decisions they would make. What lunacy! Yet, this is exactly what we hear so many of today's politicians and businessmen routinely say.
In fact, one common saying for this generation of Christian businessmen is, "He doesn't let his Christianity get in the way of his business." And for what appears to be a majority of today's commercial leaders, this is not just a maxim; it is a fact.
Secondly, our fathers' America enjoyed a strong commitment to the principles of freedom and independence. Through major wars, threats, and terrorist attacks, they never surrendered the principle that our Creator had granted us liberty.
Oh, there were times when our commitment to liberty was seriously challenged. However, the resolve of our forebears regarding the principle of freedom was stronger than any foe, whether it was found across the ocean or across the street. But, this is not our fathers' America.
Today, many, if not most, Americans seem eager to surrender practically any freedom upon the promise of protection and security. We no longer cherish the idea of liberty. Liberty seems to be no more valuable than a poker chip to be gambled away if the pot is sweetened with the promise that the government will take care of us.
For example, political leaders in both parties are allowed to chip away at our Second Amendment freedoms to the point that it is only a matter of time (and maybe a very short time) before the right to keep and bear arms will be forfeited, as has already been done in places such as England, Canada, and Australia (and in many states in the U.S.). This attack on the right to keep and bear arms will certainly intensify if any of the current presidential frontrunners is elected next year.
If Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney is elected President next year, Americans will have the fight of their life on hand to preserve the little freedom to keep and bear arms that currently exists. (Romney's recent attempt to present himself as pro-gun is mere pretense. Remember that, as Governor of Massachusetts, he supported the Brady gun-control ban. And as recently as 2002, Romney publicly reiterated his support for strict gun control.)
Why? Because the elites who control our media, Congress, the White House, and commercial boardrooms are in the process of constructing their New World Order, and a disarmed citizenry is absolutely essential to this end. Make no mistake about it: they want our guns, and they want them badly!
Already, big-game hunting is fast becoming a sport that is not only politically incorrect, it is a sport that only the rich can afford. Through hundreds of laws that restrict land usage and the type of game that can be legally taken, the average, middle-class worker can hardly find a place to hunt, and when he does find it, he can barely afford the price. Plus, the rules regulating his hunt are so restrictive that he becomes a lawbreaker practically every time he walks into the woods.
In addition, many wildlife officers resemble Gestapo troops more than they do peace officers. Nowhere are there more similarities between the old fascist and socialist regimes than can be found in many of our federal and state fish and wildlife officers. (And before you write me a nasty note of rebuttal, I am very much aware of the very fine and honorable wildlife officers out there. I know several such men personally. However, I stand by my assessment that federal and state wildlife officers are more and more being trained in Gestapo-like tactics.)
Can you remember the words of Franklin Roosevelt immediately following the attack on Pearl Harbor? As you listen to his words, remember that FDR was the poster child for the Twentieth Century Big Government liberal. In spite of this, Roosevelt said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
However, this is not our fathers', even our liberal fathers', America.
Today, even so-called conservative politicians constantly instill nothing but fear in the hearts and psyche of the American people. Ditto for the media, and even the Weather Channel! The American people are constantly beaten down with the spirit of fear. Fear of terrorism. Fear of hurricanes. Fear of wildfires. Fear of tornadoes. Fear of disease. Fear of guns.
With no ill will intended toward any of the victims of the recent Virginia Tech shootings, why did not any of the students and teachers charge the shooter? As few as a half-dozen men could have stopped that rampage. Yes, two or three of them might have been killed in the process, but there is no chance that the shooter would have stopped them all. (Of course, the university itself bears the brunt of blame for this carnage for not allowing its faculty and qualified adult students to carry handguns for personal protection on campus.)
However, our entire culture is inundated with fear. The only thing we think about is survival. Running away. Staying safe. The concept of standing up and risking personal safety in order to resist the threat of bodily harm never seems to enter our minds. If there is no one around to protect or take care of us, we seem to be absolutely helpless. (I'm not referring to our military forces, obviously. On the whole, their courage under fire is nothing short of magnificent!) Our fathers' motto "We have nothing to fear but fear itself", has been changed to "We have nothing but fear itself."
Therefore, we enthusiastically embrace the chains of servitude via the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Administration, complete with hundreds of restrictions and attacks upon our privacy and liberty because we are scared to death and, in a panicked state, are willing to accept the phony promises of protection from the hand of an overbearing and ever-increasingly oppressive Nanny State.
Finally, consider the fact that our current leaders cannot even seem to understand the importance of being a nation of one language and culture.
In our fathers' America, immigrants were expected to enter the country legally. They were expected to learn the English language. They were expected to assimilate into America's public life and culture. They were expected to learn and appreciate our history and heritage. They were expected to be productive in their newfound country. They came to America, not expecting a handout, but only wanting an opportunity. And, for the most part, they were willing to live by our laws for the benefit of having that opportunity.
However, this is not our fathers' America. Today, multiculturalism demands that we tolerate lawbreakers (a.k.a. "undocumented workers"). More than that, it demands that we facilitate and bankroll them. And when we resist the attempts of our leaders to force lawlessness upon us, we are accused of being unpatriotic and un-American.
Of course, there is an agenda at work here, folks. Today's leaders do not share the principles and ideals of our fathers. They envision a new America. An America without national borders. An America that exists for the benefit of the elites and super-rich. An America that holds no loyalty to constitutional government or the Bill of Rights. An America that has no distinctively Christian culture. An America that is merged into a North American Community. An America that has forgotten Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson. An America that never heard of the Declaration of Independence. An America that uses its military to enforce the demands of international business interests. An America where the State controls everything we do, say, and even think. And, believe me, this new America is already here and quickly squeezing out the America our fathers fought to preserve.
The question is, what will people who believe in our fathers' America do? Our pilgrim fathers fled the New World Order in Europe and founded this great nation. Our patriot fathers fought a war of revolution against the New World Order on our soil and won our nation's freedom and independence. So, what will we do?
It seems quite certain that the time will soon come when we will be forced to make the same kind of decisions our fathers were forced to make. But, what exactly will those decisions be?
One thing is sure: this is no longer our fathers' America, and people who long for such a place are facing another crossroads in history.
© Chuck Baldwin
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Contact Your Congressman
Tell them to support H. Con. Res. 40, "Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada."
This legislation "Urges: (1) the United States not to engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System; (2) the United States not to allow the Security and Prosperity Partnership to implement regulations that would create a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and (3) the President to oppose these acts or any other proposals that threaten U.S. sovereignty."
Three GOP Presidential candidates are listed as sponsors/cosponsors- Ron Paul (Sponsor), Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo (Cosponsors).
The full text of the Bill (including the quoted portions above) can be read at
GovTracks.com.
This is an important step in beating back yet another attempt by the Neocon/Progressive cabal to strip America of her sovereignty.
This legislation "Urges: (1) the United States not to engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System; (2) the United States not to allow the Security and Prosperity Partnership to implement regulations that would create a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and (3) the President to oppose these acts or any other proposals that threaten U.S. sovereignty."
Three GOP Presidential candidates are listed as sponsors/cosponsors- Ron Paul (Sponsor), Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo (Cosponsors).
The full text of the Bill (including the quoted portions above) can be read at
GovTracks.com.
This is an important step in beating back yet another attempt by the Neocon/Progressive cabal to strip America of her sovereignty.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Ron Paul- the Right Man at the Right Time for America
If you're currently a registered Republican and are concerned at all about the disastrous direction in which the Neocons in the GOP are leading this Country- and you should be- your concerns certainly won't be addressed by any of the so-called "top tier" GOP candidates:
- Giuliani- Pro-Gun, Pro-Abortion on Demand, Pro- Amnesty;
- Thompson- A Neocon through and through;
- McCain- Architect of the Shamnesty Bill which would have rewarded illegal aliens for invading America;
- Romney- a waffler in the mold of another Massachusetts liberal, John Kerry.
None of these four are a friend to traditional conservatives- Giuliani is an unabashed social progressive- and so was Romney until he decided to run for President. No one really knows where Thompson is coming from (we only certain that he "is not a churchgoer"), and McCain wanted to open the flood gates and allow tens of millions more across the border from Mexico.
No, none of these men are true friends of conservatism or, more importantly, the Constitution. If you truly believe in the principles you purport to, you need to take a look at a man who truly believes as you do- you need to take a serious look at Ron Paul.
See if you agree with the following statements:
"The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty."
"You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property."
"We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters."
"No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws."
"We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches."
"We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future — and yours."
Well, do you agree with those positions? Then you agree with Ron Paul. For Congressman Paul, constitutional, conservative and traditional values aren't something he merely plays lip service to- like you and I, he truly believes those things. With the corrupt behavior of so-called "values" candidates, isn't it past time that we elect a candidate who honestly believes the same way we do?
Do yourself a favor, and take the time to go to Ron Paul 2008 and look over his bio and positions on the issues that are facing America. Don't vote for a candidate you can't stomach just because you think he can beat the Democrat or that he's the lesser of the multitudinous evils- vote your principles, and get behind the Right man at the Right time for America- Congressman Ron Paul.
If you've read my previous posts, you'll know the Party affiliation shown on my Voter Registration card reads "CPF" (Constitution Party of Florida). In supporting Congressman Paul's efforts to secure the GOP nomination, I am of the same mind as the National Constitution Party concerning his candidacy:
The Constitution Party presidential candidate will be selected at its convention in the spring of 2008. We can’t say for sure what will be decided by the convention delegates, but as the party who puts principle above party loyalty, it seems that in the unlikely event that Doctor No is able to capture the Republican nomination, we would stand behind him 100%.
The dilemma we have is that we cannot sit around and wait to see what the Republicans are going to do but must build the ark that true Constitutionalists can find refuge on when it dawns on them that the Republican and Democrat parties will let them drown. To that end we must work to secure ballot access in all 50 states NOW and find a candidate who can carry our principles into a presidential campaign which will more than likely find a left-of-center candidate carrying the Republican mantle.
If the Grand Old Party does choose to return to its conservative ideals by supporting Congressman Paul, then there will be ample opportunity to throw our support behind him should our delegates so decide. If he does not win the GOP nomination we will have done much of the work to gain the ballot lines necessary to field a candidate who shares our values and who will govern constitutionally. That candidate could be Ron Paul should he decide to continue his race by seeking the Constitution Party nomination.
At this critical juncture in our history it is with firm hope we work toward the election of a true statesman who will seek to maintain the Founder’s vision in adherence to our great Constitution.
I Changed Parties
It's been a long time coming- I switched my party affiliation to the Constitution Party. The Republicans simply don't represent me, and God knows the Democrats certainly don't. Both parties are globalists, kissing up to multinational conglomerates and selling the American soul for campaign contributions. Though they may loudly proclaim otherwise, they do not share my values, or the values on which this Country was founded. Their only concerns are power and money- either getting it, keeping it, or keeping the other from it.
The Constitution Party reflects my vision of what America once was, and can be again- a Constitutional Republic which emphasizes both individual rights AND individual responsibilities. In upcoming posts, I'll be sharing that vision and the issues which are hindering that vision from being manifest, along with relating the pertinent principles from the Constitution Party Platform. If you don't want to wait that long, you can go to the official Constitution Party Platform page and check it out for yourself.
I switched parties based on principle- maybe you should think about doing the same.
The Constitution Party reflects my vision of what America once was, and can be again- a Constitutional Republic which emphasizes both individual rights AND individual responsibilities. In upcoming posts, I'll be sharing that vision and the issues which are hindering that vision from being manifest, along with relating the pertinent principles from the Constitution Party Platform. If you don't want to wait that long, you can go to the official Constitution Party Platform page and check it out for yourself.
I switched parties based on principle- maybe you should think about doing the same.
It's Midnight in America- Do You Know Where Your Country Is?
Howdy, ya'll, and welcome to Midnight in America.
It took me a while to decide on a name for the blog. I wanted something catchy- something that would at least make you go "hmmmm," piquing your curiosity enough to at least surf over and scope things out. If you're reading this, it must have worked.
So why did I decide on "Midnight in America?" Two reasons- one negative, one positive.
First, the negative. "Midnight" is usually associated with bad things. It's "the witching hour," when the dark forces gather to summon and worship the forces of evil. In America, these forces are gathering, whether it's in the form of Neocons, Progressives, Globalists, Elitists, radical Islamists, or international business cabals. For Americans like me who view events and activities from a "traditional" perspective, things in America don't look so good right now. The Neocons are decimating the Constitution, involving us in wars we have no business fighting, and spending money like they were Democrats. Progressives are trying to push us to accept their godless agenda of gay marriage, unfettered abortion, and political correctness. Globalists and big business want to send our jobs overseas and allow our porous border with Mexico to remain open to illegals for cheap labor. The mainstream media is cozy with the political parties, controlled by big business and other interests (which may not be in our best interest), and is far more concerned with getting us to think a particular way about a story than with reporting it accurately. I could go on and on about NAFTA, CAFTA, the invading hordes of illegal immigrants, Hollywood leftists, political correctness on college campuses, racism is rap music, abuse of power, "hate" crimes, and a host of other ills and evils (which I will do in other postings), but I think I've said enough to get the point across- things aren't so good on our home front.
It's Midnight in America for a lot of us- but there is cause for hope. "Midnight" may be portrayed in most books and movies as a negative and evil thing, but there is one Book in which "midnight" is a good thing- the Bible. It may be the "witching hour" in popular culture, but in the Scripture it is the "hour of deliverance" for God's people. It was at midnight the firstborn of Egypt was killed, leading Pharaoh to free the sons and daughter of Abraham; it was at midnight Paul and Silas were freed from prison at Philippi; and at midnight, "there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him."
So there you have it- the thought process in arriving at the name I eventually chose. It conveys the vast darkness of evil and immorality which surrounds us, but also gives us hope for turning things around. In future postings, I'll share with you news and perspectives (some original, some from other writers) you won't get from the mainstream media, as well as thoughts on how to turn the Country back to where She should be. Hopefully you will be challenged to action in the process, and we can make America a great and godly Country once again.
That's all for now. God bless you, and God bless America.
It took me a while to decide on a name for the blog. I wanted something catchy- something that would at least make you go "hmmmm," piquing your curiosity enough to at least surf over and scope things out. If you're reading this, it must have worked.
So why did I decide on "Midnight in America?" Two reasons- one negative, one positive.
First, the negative. "Midnight" is usually associated with bad things. It's "the witching hour," when the dark forces gather to summon and worship the forces of evil. In America, these forces are gathering, whether it's in the form of Neocons, Progressives, Globalists, Elitists, radical Islamists, or international business cabals. For Americans like me who view events and activities from a "traditional" perspective, things in America don't look so good right now. The Neocons are decimating the Constitution, involving us in wars we have no business fighting, and spending money like they were Democrats. Progressives are trying to push us to accept their godless agenda of gay marriage, unfettered abortion, and political correctness. Globalists and big business want to send our jobs overseas and allow our porous border with Mexico to remain open to illegals for cheap labor. The mainstream media is cozy with the political parties, controlled by big business and other interests (which may not be in our best interest), and is far more concerned with getting us to think a particular way about a story than with reporting it accurately. I could go on and on about NAFTA, CAFTA, the invading hordes of illegal immigrants, Hollywood leftists, political correctness on college campuses, racism is rap music, abuse of power, "hate" crimes, and a host of other ills and evils (which I will do in other postings), but I think I've said enough to get the point across- things aren't so good on our home front.
It's Midnight in America for a lot of us- but there is cause for hope. "Midnight" may be portrayed in most books and movies as a negative and evil thing, but there is one Book in which "midnight" is a good thing- the Bible. It may be the "witching hour" in popular culture, but in the Scripture it is the "hour of deliverance" for God's people. It was at midnight the firstborn of Egypt was killed, leading Pharaoh to free the sons and daughter of Abraham; it was at midnight Paul and Silas were freed from prison at Philippi; and at midnight, "there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him."
So there you have it- the thought process in arriving at the name I eventually chose. It conveys the vast darkness of evil and immorality which surrounds us, but also gives us hope for turning things around. In future postings, I'll share with you news and perspectives (some original, some from other writers) you won't get from the mainstream media, as well as thoughts on how to turn the Country back to where She should be. Hopefully you will be challenged to action in the process, and we can make America a great and godly Country once again.
That's all for now. God bless you, and God bless America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
