CHUCK BALDWIN WINS CONSTITUTION PARTY NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENT
Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief ( http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com )
World Affairs Brief, May 2, 2008
I was delighted to hear that Pastor Chuck Baldwin won the Constitution Party nomination for president over the very talented Alan Keyes. Alan Keyes is a good man. He ran against Barak Obama for the Senate race in Illinois, but his being part of the black minority didn't help him garner any endorsements from the establishment. He was TOO conservative and the media hates black conservatives. Keyes is a dynamic speaker with few peers, but (in my opinion) sometimes plays to the audience too much with catchy phrases designed mostly to drum up applause and trigger religious fervor-at the expense of more substantive discussions. These kinds of speeches play well to the conservative-Christian choir and provide political excitement, but ultimately narrows the candidates appeal by turning away those who aren't interested in organized religion or who are suspicious of a flamboyant preacher-type style.
In the brief of April 18th, I brought up the problem of the traditional political approach of the Constitutional Party being too narrowly focused on its core supporters--all ardent evangelical Christians. If the party is going to grow it needs to more closely emulate Ron Paul's approach by championing liberty for all without excessive religious rhetoric in speeches--which makes non religious conservatives uncomfortable about using the role of government to enforce religious values (where there is no violation of fundamental rights to life, liberty, property and family covenants).
Those who know my political writings know that I do support an elected officials' right to make reference to and appeal to God (even in prayer) as part of his service to the nation, but he should do so judiciously and sincerely since pushing God openly is a favored political ploy of the most ungodly politicians. Bill Clinton, for example, would use the name of God (in vain, of course) just to impress naive Christians. Then there is George Bush Jr., wily enough to verbally support being "Born Again" while maintaining his furtive allegiance to with the satanic power cult/club Skull and Bones.
I'll take an honest, straight-talking statesman like Ron Paul, who follows conscience in his daily walk with Christ, than one of the many charismatic televangelist preachers like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, John Hagee, Billy Graham and others who compromise with the world in order to gained access to high level establishment leaders. The personal prestige that gained by such associations is illusory. The establishment despises religious leaders who seek their approval and fail to see they are being played the fool.
Chuck Baldwin is different than most other religious leaders: He pastors his flock with the whole truth, not just the part they want to hear. Baldwin has built up the Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola Florida by preaching a lot of tough truths, including the proper principles of law and government and ably defending them against all challengers. He has not shrunk from attacking even the acts of conspiring men in high office, including presidents, congressmen and judges.
Baldwin's influence in not, however, limited to his church. He has long maintained an outreach to the world at www.chuckbaldwinlive.com, giving his unique brand of leadership and commentary to anyone on the web who will hear. I've long been a recipient of his email missives and can only recall one minor area of disagreement.
This is not mere begrudging acknowledgment. Baldwin is enjoyable to read. He always gets right to the point. You come away feeling satisfied when he comments on any subject. I've also had the privilege of hearing him speak. He is well spoken and his ideas are substantive. His demeanor is always interesting but never flamboyant. As with Ron Paul, you immediately sense this is a totally honest man, someone you can trust. I've never heard him trying to weasel around sensitive issues like politicians do in a question and answer session.
I don't think Baldwin comes to this task seeking personal glory. He has no burning personal ambitions like Mitt Romney that will cause him to compromise in order to gain favor with benefit-corrupted voters. For Baldwin it will be a very great personal sacrifice, done out of a passion for liberty and no small "fire of discontent" over what is happening to our country. Here are excerpts from Baldwins first statement on the important issues.
On War: "If I were President, I would begin the process of safely extracting our troops from Iraq. In the first place, our troops are no longer fighting a war, they are an occupation force, which occupies a sovereign country. And this is being done without a Declaration of War. In the second place, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was absolutely unnecessary. Instead of sacrificing more than 4,000 American lives and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens (not to mention some 2-3 trillion dollars), President Bush should have supported Ron Paul's bill, H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. This is the constitutional way to deal with rogue terrorist organizations.
Illegal Immigration: Furthermore, it is absolutely ludicrous to say we are fighting a war on terror half way around the world when we refuse to secure our borders and ports. If I were President, I would immediately seal our borders. I would also see to it that employers in America who knowingly hire illegal aliens are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In plain language: any employer who consciously hires illegal aliens would go to jail. They would not pass Go; they would not collect $200; they would go straight to jail. By sealing the borders and by cutting off the money supply to illegal aliens, the problem of illegal immigration would dry up. As it is, we have no idea how many potential terrorists--not to mention violent gang members such as MS-13--have snuck (and are sneaking) through our borders. And speaking of illegal immigration, as President, I would enforce our visa rules. This means anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law is immediately deported. There would be no "path to citizenship" given to any illegal alien. That means no amnesty. Not in any shape, manner, or form. I would not allow tax dollars to be used to pay for illegal aliens' education, social services, or medical care. As President, I would end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. There would be no "anchor babies" during my administration.
Abortion: If I were President, I would use the bully pulpit of the White House to encourage Congress to pass Congressman Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act. In short, this bill would do two things: First, it would declare that unborn babies are persons under the law. Second, under the authority of Article. III. Section. 2. of the U.S. Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court. In essence, this bill would immediately overturn Roe v. Wade and end legalized abortion... And if Congress refused to pass Dr. Paul's bill, I would use the constitutional power of the Presidency to deny funds to protect abortion clinics. Either way, legalized abortion ends when I take office.
Foreign Policy: On the subject of foreign policy, as President, I would end foreign aid. I would also end the current infatuation with nation-building, empire-building, and interventionism. America is not the world's policeman. Neither are our military personnel the personal militia of the United Nations. Remember that President Bush told the U.N. in 2003 that the reason we invaded Iraq was for the purpose of securing the "peace and credibility of the United Nations." (I lie not; that is what he said.) ... as President, I would withhold funds from the support of the United Nations. In other words, I would get the U.S. out of the U.N. Beyond that, when I move into the White House, the U.N.'s rent is up! They move out of New York City post haste. By the same token, there is absolutely no reason for us to be in NATO. We should not be antagonizing Russia by attempting to expand NATO... It is time that we recognize the very serious threat that China poses to the peace and security of the United States. Our trade practices serve only to allow corporate America to continue to invest in what will surely become an albatross around the neck of our well-being. We must discontinue the practice of allowing China to export its cheap products to the U.S. with no protection for America's jobs and manufacturing, not to mention the lack of protection for our safety. This must stop, and it will stop when I become President. "Free trade" will no longer mean a free ride for Red China.
National Sovereignty: as President, I would take the preservation of our nation's sovereignty and independence extremely seriously. This means that the burgeoning North American Union is dead on arrival the day I am sworn in as President. Gone, too, is the NAFTA superhighway. And for that matter, I would lead the United States out of NAFTA and CAFTA altogether. And any prospect for the FTAA would be dead as well.
Gun Rights: As President, I would be the best friend that gun owners (and lawful gun dealers), homeschoolers, and veterans ever had in the White House. These are three of the most persecuted, harassed, or overlooked groups of people in the country. But not if I were President.
Veterans and MIAs: There is no reason why our veterans should wait for weeks and months to receive the medical care they need. It is disgraceful that we would ask our brave men and women of the U.S. armed forces to fight our country's battles and then leave them to pretty much fend for themselves when it comes to receiving adequate health care. I would make taking care of our veterans an extremely high priority. If I were President, I would also do everything in my power to locate and retrieve any and all MIAs. I personally believe that there are hundreds of our servicemen who are yet being held against their will in various parts of the world. I would make finding them and bringing them home of utmost priority.
Corporate subsidies and federal departments: On the home front, if I were President, I would end corporate welfare. I would also work to disband the Department of Energy (along with the Department of Education and many other federal departments).
Energy: There is absolutely no reason for us to be dependent upon OPEC. There is enough gas and oil under the soil of Alaska (not to mention the Dakotas and the Gulf of Mexico) to meet the energy needs of the United States for the next 150-200 years. There is also no reason that gas should cost more than $1.50 a gallon (which is about what it was before Bush became President).We must begin drilling for the domestic oil that we know exists; we must build more refineries and nuclear power plants. There is no reason why the United States cannot be mostly energy independent. It is time we started putting the people and interests of the United States ahead of the CEOs and interests of international corporations.
Taxes and Sound Money: Lastly, if I were President, I would work feverishly to overturn the Sixteenth Amendment, which would repeal the Income Tax. And, no, I would not promote a national sales tax. That would be disastrous! Can you imagine what a 30% sales tax would do to the cost of EVERYTHING? Plus, give politicians a national sales tax to increase and just imagine what kind of percent that would grow into! I would also work to repeal the 'death tax,' inheritance taxes, and property taxes. The American people are already paying somewhere between 30% and 40% of their income to Uncle Sam. It must stop. We are bankrupting our country with this incessant and burdensome tax system. In addition, I would work to expunge the Federal Reserve and to restore the American economy to sound money.
"I enthusiastically supported Ron Paul during the Republican Primary season. I plan to continue to trumpet his call for limited government, non-interventionism abroad, constitutional government, and freedom into the general election as a Third Party candidate. I do not expect the national media to pay us much heed; they seldom do. I do not expect to receive large donations from corporate America. I do expect criticism and ridicule. That is nothing new. However, I also anticipate tens of thousands of freedom-loving people from all religious persuasions and walks of life to rally to our cause. Why? Because thousands of principled people will not be bullied into voting for the 'evil of two lessers' being shoved down our throats by the two major parties. Because this campaign is not about Chuck Baldwin. It is not about a political party. It is about freedom. It is about constitutional government. It is about restoring America to the founding principles bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers. If you believe in those principles, join us!"
Ron Paul was right about this movement being larger than him. But we still need a champion at the head that is capable of inspiring confidence and expanding the movement. As Ron Paul goes back to Congress to continue the fight there, I believe Chuck Baldwin is the person to continue the fight during this election cycle and beyond. Remember, it isn't winning this one election that is crucial. We're building a movement, a remnant of principled believers that will be willing to stand as a wall against this ultimate battle against evil. That last stand will be more than a political maneuver. Chuck Baldwin has the full range of understanding and capabilities to move this movement forward and deserves your support. I would encourage all of you to begin the process of becoming acquainted with Baldwin so that you can inform you friends and neighbors. You can donate to Baldwin's non-political causes here http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php His official presidential campaign website (coming soon) will be http://www.baldwin2008.com In the meantime, people can write personal checks for campaign contributions to: Baldwin 2008, P.O. Box 131, Palmyra, New Jersey 08065
In contrast to the honesty and independence of a Baldwin campaign, a small story emerged from Judicial Watch that John McCain has accepted illegal foreign support and foreign financial contributions to his campaign--from the Rothchilds no less. "At issue is a fundraising luncheon held in March at London's Spencer House, during McCain's swing through the United Kingdom. An invitation to the event lists Lord Rothschild and Nathaniel Rothschild as hosts, and indicates the event was made possible with their 'kind permission'... US political campaigns are forbidden from accepting contributions from foreign nationals." Don't expect him to be prosecuted for it.
Where can I find one of those little moving avatars with the guy laying on his back laughing so hard he can't breathe?
Seriously...I'm crying I'm laughing so hard...and that's a bad thing to do with my contacts in.
By the way...did this hurt Ron Paul's feelings at all?
~WnyresidentBut your being a dick
......run4it & bigpoppapuff:
Exactly what is so funny?
The fact that Baldwin doesn't meet mainstream alphabet news scripted agenda?
or
His concepts for making America better?
qu1nn
Well, I couldn't get past the effuse praise of Alan Keyes.Originally Posted by qu1nn
Was Obama white at the time?[Keyes'] ran against Barak Obama for the Senate race in Illinois, but his being part of the black minority didn't help him garner any endorsements from the establishment.
The rest of it is revisionist drivel conflating Christianist beliefs with recorded history and calling it Conservatism.
One beautiful thing about having a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations is that every disaster is measured in terms of economic loss. It's sort of like getting your arm sheared off in a car accident and thinking, "Damn, now it'll take longer to fold the laundry" as blood spurts from your arteries. - The Rude Pundit
raoul.
Funny how you will invalidate the entire article based on the a ridiculously small, insignificant section of the article.
May I ask what are your top 3 political 'issues' (with regards to the upcoming presidential election) as well as the candidate you are planning to support?
Also, could you please be as kind as to point out the revisionist history in the article for me.
qu1nn
Praising someone like Alan Keyes, is not insignificant. Go look at the mans legacy of intolerance and downright insanity.
1. End of illegal, pointless and knowingly unwinnable wars
2. Restoration of the Constutional guarantees like Habeus Corpus and protections against unwarranted search and seizure.
3. Someone who is not a Republican nor calls him/her-self a Conservative.
Most likely I will vote for Obama. He wasn't my first, second or third choice. But given the other candidates
Well the revisionism was more a reference to Chuck Baldwin and his historical view of America.
There's also this:
Please explain how removing a Constitutionally guaranteed check on the power of government is anything even remotely approaching a Conservative or Constitutionalist mindset. Never mind that the whole movement is almost purely religious in nature. How about we move abortion from the juridiction of politics all together and put in the hands of doctors? Dr. Paul (as a politician, which he should be viewed as in this perspective) and Chuck Bladwin have no business telling anyone what they can or cannot do to or with their bodies. Hell, it's part of the dogma associated with Conservatives and Constitutionalists.Abortion: If I were President, I would use the bully pulpit of the White House to encourage Congress to pass Congressman Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act. In short, this bill would do two things: First, it would declare that unborn babies are persons under the law. Second, under the authority of Article. III. Section. 2. of the U.S. Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court. In essence, this bill would immediately overturn Roe v. Wade and end legalized abortion... And if Congress refused to pass Dr. Paul's bill, I would use the constitutional power of the Presidency to deny funds to protect abortion clinics. Either way, legalized abortion ends when I take office.
Besides, what a great concept. Make abortion illegal and I hope you have a good excuse for all the health complications that will arise out of illegal abortions. Making it illegal will not make it go away. It didn't work in the past, there is nothing to support the argument that it will work today. All you do is create an unregulated and dangerous black market for abortions. I hope it's not your daughter/girlfriend/sister/wife who, for whatever reason, has to resort to that black market to end a pregnancy.
One beautiful thing about having a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations is that every disaster is measured in terms of economic loss. It's sort of like getting your arm sheared off in a car accident and thinking, "Damn, now it'll take longer to fold the laundry" as blood spurts from your arteries. - The Rude Pundit
Here ya go run
THREE PEAS IN A POD
By Chuck Baldwin
May 16, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
I realize that is extremely difficult for some people to think outside the box. The vast majority of people are prone to be followers, to "go with the flow," to follow the path of least resistance. This appears to be the nature of human nature.
Therefore, I think I understand the reasoning of many who are so reluctant to step outside the two major parties and vote for a third party candidate. I seem to recall that I, too, was just as hesitant (though not for nearly as long as some people) as they are.
We have all heard it before: He doesn't stand a chance; it's a wasted vote; we must work within the party to make it better, etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
Now, I will be the first to admit that the deck is stacked against an independent candidate succeeding at any political level. The two dominant parties do not like competition. And they have made it EXTREMELY DIFFICULT for third parties to have a fighting chance to prevail. My brief experience in third parties convinces me that the old state parties of Eastern Europe had nothing on America's two major parties, when it comes to dominating and controlling elections.
The media, too, is a co-opted and controlled environment. They refuse to cover minor parties and then attempt to justify their manipulation by saying something along the lines of, "We won't let you participate until you reach 'X' percentage points." But, of course, their refusal to give an independent candidate any time to present his or her views directly contributes to the lack of percentage points.
I believe that any candidate who has obtained ballot access in enough states to theoretically obtain sufficient electoral votes to win the election (an arduous and expensive process all by itself) should automatically be included in any and all debates and should be given an equal opportunity to present his or her views to the public. Anything less than this is deliberate manipulation of the election. And that is exactly what the two major parties and their collaborators in the mainstream media are doing.
That aside, one would think that sooner or later the American people would wake up to what is happening right in front of their eyes. One would think that they would realize that no matter which party wins the White House or wins control of Congress, most things stay pretty much the same.
All this talk of "conservatism" or "liberalism" is--for the most part--nothing more than campaign rhetoric. It means absolutely nothing. No matter which party wins, the federal government continues to get bigger and more intrusive. American manufacturing jobs and industries continue to be outsourced overseas. Our military personnel continue to be used as the personal militia for the United Nations. Our borders remain open to illegal immigration. The creation of a North American Union marches forward. Construction for the NAFTA superhighway continues unabated. The tactics of the IRS get more and more egregious. Americans continue to work harder and longer for less return, while politicians and CEOs of multinational corporations get richer and more powerful.
It just does not matter one whit which major party "wins." The American people, freedom, limited government, and the U.S. Constitution lose! One would think that at some point the American people would say "That's enough" and stop drinking the Kool-Aid from these two major parties. And if there was ever a year when the time appears right for such a revolution, one would think this would be the year.
Look at the three leading candidates: they are three peas in a pod. There is no substantive difference between them. Neither Obama, Clinton, nor McCain have any desire to stop illegal immigration. On this issue, there is no difference between McCain and the Democrats. None. John McCain even voted to grant Social Security benefits to illegal aliens. He joined with Senator Ted Kennedy to provide amnesty to illegal aliens.
Take the war in Iraq. The only candidate among the top three who even hints at bringing our troops home is Obama. And if anyone believes that he is serious about it, I have a bridge I would like to sell you. Neither of the two major parties has any interest in bringing our troops home. No matter which party wins the White House, our troops will continue to be used for U.N. missions all over the world. We will continue to stick our nose wherever it does not belong. We will continue our utopian plans of nation-building, empire-building and international meddling.
No matter which of the two major parties captures the White House, the C.F.R. will dominate the President's cabinet appointees. Good grief! John McCain, himself, is a member of the C.F.R. Even in the area of federal judges, John McCain was one of the original "Gang of 14" Republicans who joined liberal Democrats in opposing the selection of strict constructionist judges to the federal bench. Anyone who believes that McCain will appoint someone such as Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia is living in a fantasy world.
Regarding the Second Amendment, Gun Owners of America rates John McCain with an F-. It doesn't get any worse than that, folks. On gun issues, John McCain is not the "lesser of two evils." Not in any manner, shape, or form.
Just recently, McCain committed himself to supporting the U.N.-sponsored global warming treaty. As with so many of McCain's policies, this one is right out of the Democratic playbook.
Regarding the loss of America's sovereignty and the merger of the U.S. into a regional or hemispheric government entity, noted columnist Cliff Kincaid writes, "McCain's strange rhetoric about 'North, Central, and South American life' reflects a view that nation-states are disappearing and being replaced by regional alliances and institutions. He referred to 'the powerful collective voice of the European Union,' as if the U.S. response would have to be submersion of our voice in a larger hemispheric entity. But McCain seems to be calling for something beyond even a North American Union (NAU) of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. He talked about 'creating the new international institutions necessary to advance the peace and freedoms we cherish,' as if they would be built on top of the EU and the NAU.
"Earlier, McCain had declared, 'With globalization, our hemisphere has grown closer, more integrated, and more interdependent. Latin America today is increasingly vital to the fortunes of the United States. Americans north and south share a common geography and a common destiny.' But why should trade with America's neighbors necessarily lead to a 'common destiny?' This implies a political merger of the U.S. with other countries."
Does that sound like John McCain is the "lesser of two evils" to you? Have you heard Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama talk like this? Again, in regard to the loss of America's sovereignty and independence, there is no "lesser of two evils" between the major parties.
Can conservatives, Christians, and constitutionalists really go to the polls this November and vote for someone such as John McCain? Do they really not see what John McCain would do to this country? Do they really believe that Clinton or Obama would be any worse? If they do, they are living in a fantasy world.
Take the issue of abortion. John McCain has made a career out of opposing pro-life candidates and causes. Just recently, Jill Stanek wrote a revealing column regarding the duplicity of John McCain's position on the life issue.
McCain has steadfastly opposed the Republican Party's pro-life plank. He has even stated his opposition to overturning Roe v. Wade. He said, "But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support the repeal of Roe v. Wade . . . ."
How long will conservatives, Christians, and lovers of liberty continue to blindly follow these two parties? Can they not see that our constitutional republic and our liberty is hanging by a thread? Do they not realize that Democrats and Republicans alike are willful participants in the destruction of our way of life?
Ladies and gentlemen, please wake up! Get your heads out of the sand! Our country is imploding and we keep electing and re-electing the same scoundrels who are culpable. The media provides them cover. Many of our pastors and Christian leaders provide them cover as well. But it is the people of this country--you and me--who have the power to actually do something about it.
How about this year--just this once--let's think for ourselves? Let's vote our principles. Let's forget what the pundits and experts say. Let's quit allowing the radio and TV talking heads to tell us who to vote for. And let's not be afraid to vote outside the two major parties. No, check that. Let's make a commitment to vote outside the two major parties.
The two major parties have had 150 years to improve our country, to make our country a better place in which to live. What have they done with all this power and opportunity? They have brought us to the edge of destruction.
I believe it was Albert Einstein who said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Americans have been electing Republicans and Democrats over and over again, and we have been getting the same result. Let's try something different this year. What do you say?
I wont vote for Bush or obama.
I feel sorry for the person who had to type out the OP's original article, because it was so all for nothing and all.
"You show what you are willing to fight for when you fight friends." - Hillary Rodham Clinton
Don't worry Goody, we all already know that you're a HillRod lover! Come on...we KNOW that blowup doll in your closet has her picture taped over its face.
~WnyresidentBut your being a dick
And I commend you for that wise choice.
However, I hope that your son/daughter/someone close to you marries a Mexican immigrant, and you are forced to deal with them in your family.
"You show what you are willing to fight for when you fight friends." - Hillary Rodham Clinton
The ultimate curse on Charlie The Bigot!!! ROTFLMAO.
Your right to buy a military weapon without hindrance, delay or training cannot trump Daniel Barden’s right to see his eighth birthday. -- Jim Himes
I Am An American!
July 18, 2008, By Chuck Baldwin
This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c200...chive_20080718. html
Free republics are not known to have long life expectancies. At the ripe old age of two hundred and thirty-two, America is definitely showing her age. She is long past her prime, and some are predicting her demise. No, some are PLANNING her demise.
Thomas Jefferson and the other founders of this once-great country believed there was a controlling cabal that was crafting America's servitude. With the assistance of Heaven, they decided to fight those forces. Pastors fought with fiery sermons from the pulpit; newsmen fought with the power of the pen; statesmen fought in the halls of Congress; and merchants fought with the sacrifice of their material gain. Together, they lifted Lady Liberty to her feet and defeated the powers of darkness.
It took the global elite a long time to recover, but they have reemerged with a vengeance. They are now on the precipice of accomplishing what their great granddaddies failed to do: bring the "Liberty or Death" colonists under their power and control.
Sadly, we no longer have the will to resist servitude. Our pulpits are too busy preaching a prosperity gospel; newsmen are in bed with the forces they once disdained; statesmen have been replaced with opportunistic, self-serving politicians; and merchants know no god but money. Hence, it is left to a small--and I mean very small--remnant to sound the clarion call for freedom and independence. Unfortunately, few seem to be listening to their cries.
2010 seems to be a banner year for these designers of despotism. That is the target year for the implementation of the North American Community, which will commercially unite the United States with Canada and Mexico. The global elite suffered a minor setback when the U.S. Senate failed to pass the Bush/McCain/Kennedy/Graham amnesty-for-illegal-aliens bill. But if you think that John Mccain is going to let that bill lie on the floor of defeat, you don't understand these people. Should McCain become President, He will do everything he can to implement some kind of amnesty law. Barack Obama will do the same. The reason? It is essential to the designers of despotism that our borders be eliminated.
Yes, I am saying it: George W. Bush, John McCain, and Barack Obama are part of the global elite that seeks America's entrance into an international New World Order. In fact, neither Presidential candidate from the two major parties will offer any resistance to this obstinate and oppressive oligarchy.
Perhaps one day the American people will wake up and realize that they are being led as sheep to the slaughter. I'm just not sure that it will be soon enough, however. 2010 is just around the corner.
There seems to be only one obstacle standing in the way of the globalists: America's citizens are the most heavily armed people in the world. That fact must surely stick in the throats of the globalists like a chicken bone.
Thank God that America's founders put the Second Amendment in the Constitution. Without America's deep-rooted commitment to the right of the people to keep and bear arms, we would have been sold into slavery decades ago.
Without the intellectual understanding of the principles of freedom and the moral resolve to maintain those principles, however, guns, by themselves, will only protect us for so long. In the end, our strength and protection come from God, and not too many people these days seem to be interested in His opinion.
Lady Liberty is walking very gingerly these days, and the path she treads is laden with traps and quicksand. The globalists have their handpicked puppets positioned to take up where The Three Amigos (George Bush I, Bill Clinton, and George Bush II) have left off. The pieces of the puzzle are almost all in place. 2010 just might be the year that Lady Liberty lowers her torch, folds her arms, and falls fast asleep.
For what it is worth, however, I pledge no loyalty to this emerging New World Order. Neither will I let Lady Liberty die without a fight. I will say it again: the battle today is not between conservatives and liberals or Republicans and Democrats. It is a battle between Americans and globalists.
And, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am an American!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote