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.

[Dan Evans]

or I can be a Libertarian within the Republican Party going for effective change.

I'm sure that's the way the "Contract with America" Republicans thought. How long did that last? The party swallowed them whole.

When your funding and support depends on getting with the program, you tend to rationalize going along to get along.

[N3WBI3]

Maybe they feel that way because the law of the land only gave the govt the right to collect revenue through tariffs until a questionable income tax passage..

[N3WBI3]

I have a similar feeling about libertarians, when they come out pro-life theyll get my vote..

[N3WBI3]

All that would be doing is drawing conservative votes to allow the Democrats a chance to win over a Republican.

Its not so much that conservative votes re drwan awya its that milk-toast RINO's push them away..

[N3WBI3]

Blah blah blah, bottom line is a vote for the Constitutional Party past city council would be in effect a vote to help elect Democrats.

So its ok the repubs treat conservatives like the dems treat African Americans right?

[hedgetrimmer]

So then you admit that we need free trade

How do the words "we don't need to produce everything" translate into "we need free trade"? The words "free trade" weren't even used in the response.

[N3WBI3]

Ditto..

[Dan Evans]

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.

There is a lot of open space between "closing the borders" and free trade with countries who are our enemies. We are rapidly approaching a situation where every machine screw used in the US will be manufactured in China. Consider the "massive economic disruption" we will suffer if we have to go to war with China.

For our own safety, we need to work on being more self-sufficient.

[antisocial]

"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."

The whole point is that what they are calling "free trade"
ie CAFTA, NAFTA etc. have nothing to do with free trade. They (NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA) are TREATIES that give UN agencies
the authority to regulate trade within the various nations involved. That is a pact with the devil as far as I am concerned.

[Republic of Reagan]

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.

I would agree that if you and I were to sit down and write out our ideal government from scratch that we would probably be on the same page. But you find it more important to first worry about the "drug" aspect, the biggest downfall of the Libertarian Party (and other fringe parties) and I prefer to worry about the socialist problem.

[Republic of Reagan]

I'm sure that's the way the "Contract with America" Republicans thought. How long did that last? The party swallowed them whole. When your funding and support depends on getting with the program, you tend to rationalize going along to get along.

Unfortunately that is the reality of the political landscape. There may be a lot of bad Republicans, but there are a lot of good ones too. And no good democrats. Are all, or even a majority, of Democrats going to be the right wing constructionist constitutionlaists we want. No, but that is certain realities that have to be dealt with rationally.