Constitution Party Supports Border Integrity and the Minuteman Project

Constitution Party of Ohio ^

[TERMINATTOR]

The following resolution was passed by the delegates to the Constitution Party National Committee meeting held in Salt Lake City, Utah on April 28-30.

WHEREAS, the Constitution Party supports a return to sound immigration policy for the benefit of our nation, and all reasonable efforts to assist our already overburdened US Border Patrol are eagerly welcomed, we applaud the efforts of the leaders and workers within the "Minuteman Project" for their work in helping to secure the southern border of the United States.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that we express our appreciation of and support for their diligence in working with the local and state authorities, and the US Border Patrol, that are endeavoring to restore integrity to our Nation's southern border.

[janetgreen]

Maybe the Constitution Party needs my support. The checks will be the same except for what I write in the "To" line.

BTTT

[Rushgrrl]

unfortunately, I've seen a lot of that same sentiment here, also. I must say that I refuse to back a candidate that will not choose what the MAJORITY of this country wants. I want someone who listens to the majority of the people, who don't pander to special interests and frankly, I voted for Bush twice and I think he was the right man for the job, I just think he's made some mistakes in order to not "alienate" voters. Pooh on that and the politicizing of our rights. I vote for who stands for the same values I do, for who considers the values this country was founded on to be as important today as they were the day of inception.

[A CA Guy]

Well, I have heard it said that success is preparation meeting opportunity.
The Republicans all seem more off guard rather than prepared.
I want them to do well, but something needs to be fixed so they act more like leaders.

[Republic of Reagan]

"same qualities as strong and actual Conservative Republicans" Since when has the Republican party become a place for "strong and actual" conservatives? What have you been smokin' newbie? If there are some 50 Million registered Republicans, I might guess that one or two might be Conservatives. But that's just me, have fun in your wet-dream non-reality based CP utopia. Love, "Newbie"

[Republic of Reagan]

While I love Ann to death, she is flat out wrong with this quote. This argument is the same one people use for seat-belt laws. "If someone hurts themselves, we are all responsible." That reasoning leads to the complete societal control of every aspect of individual life so as not to harm society. The problem with "liv[ing] in a country that will not allow people to live with their own stupid decisions" is a problem of socialism, not stupid decisions. You correct the problem by removing the socialistic tendencies of the country, not by removing people's right to make stupid decisions. No offense, but that's what she was saying. She was saying that the argument doesn't work because the people who "pay" for their actions are not the people harming themselves, in that in reality (which we are speaking of here), the taxpayers pay for other peoples screwups. She might agree in a "perfect world" one in which people do not have to pay for other people being idiots, that those people can do whatever harm they wanted to themselves.

[calex59]

Very interesting

[Republic of Reagan]

In other words, you want the U.S. to have the economic outlook of the USSR in the early 80's. That's one of the reasons I am becoming disillusioned with the Republican party. We are slouching toward this kind of system and they don't appear to be inclined to do anything to stop it.

Perspective is the most important thing. While I hold extremist views, I also have a realistic view of the political landscape. I can run around like a crazed Libertarian thinking I can actually convince 50 million people to go with a platform that favors eliminating the welfare state, taxation, every major Federal Department, and on and on, or I can be a Libertarian within the Republican Party going for effective change. A Constituionalist dressed as a Republican in the House or Senate is better than a Constitutionalist or Libertarian dressed as such sitting at a rally that no one cares about.

[Netizen]

"The quintessential Libertarian argument for drug legalization is that people should be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies even if it ruins their lives. But that's not true. Back on earth, we live in a country that will not allow people to live with their own stupid decisions. Ann has to pay for their stupid decisions." - Ann Coulter

Excellent! I know people that don't work but suck off the government tit that are alcoholics. The government should not be buying their booze and cigarettes. Make them work if they are able bodied and want to purchase these things.

[Republic of Reagan]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1418154/posts This might explain it for you.

Ok, the article is in favor of free trade, just as I am. So you lack what one generally refers to as a point. Since I was responding to someone who was "anti-free trade" it hardly makes sense to make me see the light by showing me an article that agrees with me. If your problem is with free trade agreements, and not free trade, then that is a totally diffirent animal, one of which wasn't under discussion here.

[Netizen]

Hopefully, there will be more than one such candidate on the ballot.

Wasn't the last time, nor the time before that. At some point we may need to vote for the ONE that we get.

[Republic of Reagan]

Free trade is a push for One World Government, one currency, and a minimum standard of living for the 99.9% of the world population that haven't set themselves up to rule in perpetuity. Fair trade is another subject which is the one that should be on the table and isn't since it promotes prosperity to those that are smart, energetic, thinking, and have a good work ethic.

Where did you come up with such definitions of Free and Fair trade? Dummies Guide to Global Politics?

[Republic of Reagan]

The problem isn't that they make up about 1% of the population. The problem is that between the two of them, they make up about 5% of the population, and unfortunately, that's enough to torpedo a close election.

Generally the third parties offset themselves.

[Netizen]

2) Cause massive Economic Disruption in the U.S. most likely leading to the collapse of the country into a depression as it is unable to sustain it's current system based on the resources currently within the United States being incapable of fulfilling the needs of Americans?

It might help economically as it could very well bring back manufacturing jobs to the US. Any given state can only use so many fast food restaurants!

[Republic of Reagan]

2) Cause massive Economic Disruption in the U.S. most likely leading to the collapse of the country into a depression as it is unable to sustain it's current system based on the resources currently within the United States being incapable of fulfilling the needs of Americans?
It might help economically as it could very well bring back manufacturing jobs to the US. Any given state can only use so many fast food restaurants!

It takes but a basic understanding of Economics to know that America does not have the resources alone and within itself to be self-sustaining. Quite simply, we cannot produce everything within our own borders that we need. Unless reverting back to 1860 is on your mind. Other countries have resources that we need, but that we do not have a supply of. Thus, we have to trade that which we need with them for whatever goods it is they need. It is as simple as that. You can't simply close the borders to trade and expect the U.S. to be able to independently provide for 300 million people without outside trade.

[Netizen]

We don't need to produce EVERYTHING. but it would be nice if returned to producing some things and stopped exporting jobs that we could use here in the states.

[tnlibertarian]

While she diagnoses the problem correctly, she still wants to use the situation, which she disagrees with, to control people's lives instead of trying to sever the ties of group responsibility. Two wrongs don't make a right. What's wrong with fixing one of them? It may even lead to people recognizing they shouldn't be responsible for other people's dumb decisions and help end our socialist groupthink.

[Republic of Reagan]

We don't need to produce EVERYTHING. but it would be nice if returned to producing some things and stopped exporting jobs that we could use here in the states.

So then you admit that we need free trade. In general, those items which we export, and yes, even "jobs", are essentially offset by those things that we import, and those imports likewise create jobs. So, while certain types of jobs are "exported" our imports create different jobs here. Realize we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world. It is hard to explain how this is so if we keep sending "millions and millions" of jobs oversees. You can't have it both ways. Either you need to have the free exchange of goods and services, without the disruption of trade barriers and protectionism (the latter is what you are proposing), or you need to get out of the free trade system altogether, build an economic wall around the country, and hope we don't fully collpase into nothingness within 1-2 years.

[BibChr]

Really?

I wonder what the Podunk Times, or the Jerkwater Gazette think?

Dan

[Republic of Reagan]

"While she diagnoses the problem correctly, she still wants to use the situation, which she disagrees with, to control people's lives instead of trying to sever the ties of group responsibility. Two wrongs don't make a right. What's wrong with fixing one of them? It may even lead to people recognizing they shouldn't be responsible for other people's dumb decisions and help end our socialist groupthink.

Because if we do what you say, "fix" one of the problems (ie ending drug laws) then you exponentially increase the effect of the other problem. It is silly to assume that marijuana-rleated illnesses and problems will decrease upon the legalization of such. It's logical to assume that the problems occurring from them will increase substantially, and as it stands today, people like me, you, Ann, and the average taxpayer are stuck with their stupid mistakes. What first needs to be fixed is the part where we don't have to pay for other people's stupid decisions, instead of what you propose which is to allow more people to make more stupid decisions that the taxpayer has to pay for.

[tnlibertarian]

What first needs to be fixed is the part where we don't have to pay for other people's stupid decisions, instead of what you propose which is to allow more people to make more stupid decisions that the taxpayer has to pay for.

I agree that your way would be better, but do you really see that happening? Instead, I see more and more governmental control over every aspect of our life, from drugs, to seatbelt laws, to smoking, to fast food, using this same excuse. If I believe in freedom, then I must believe in a person's right to make dumb decisions, even if those decisions affect me. And I mean affect me, not because of the actions themselves, but due to the whole collective resposnibility social structure. I can't fight to change the socialist aspect of government programs while using those same programs to control someone.

I really think we fairly much agree on this, and we are really differing on semantics.