“Quite frankly, I am not expecting the troops, regardless of whether Obama wins, to be home in 16 months. That is just pure political talk.” – Ron Paul from the above appearance
World Affairs Brief, October 31, 2008. Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World.
Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief
MY ELECTION ADVICE
It is time for Americans to stop voting for the “lesser of two evils,” and make a firm commitment always to vote only for principled candidates who will defend our liberty without compromise. If you are a conservative and think that we will suffer more damage under Obama than McCain, think again. Both parties are going to foist a national health insurance plan on the nation. Both will continue intervening around the world. Neither will fight against the evils of fiat money and insider trading and speculation that has brought our nation to economic destruction. Both will favor more bailouts of all varieties that will create a complete dependency upon government controls. At least with a Democrat in office the conservatives will fight against them. With a Republican in office, unthinking conservatives accept what they are told and believe that it is somehow a virtue.
I, along with Ron Paul, am endorsing Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party for President. Baldwin is principled, articulate, and capable of rising to be the next great leader of the conservative movement in America. He’s a great religious leader but will not compromise with the PTB in order to gain political favors for Christianity as do the other mainline evangelical leaders. He is also very sensitive to the fact that there are others in this nation with different religious beliefs. Baldwin allows for religious diversity and does not believe in limiting our constitutional freedoms on one religion only. Voting for a third party is not a waste of your vote. It sends a strong message to the establishment that we are not going to be fooled or persuaded any longer into voting for evil in the illusory fear of “wasting our vote.”
It is hard to stop opportunists from running for office when courts allow them to legislate benefits for others. That’s why term limits don’t work for us. It’s far easier for socialists to replaced their kind of representative than for us to find principled constitutionalists to run in a system that doesn’t have limits on lawmaking power.
Ultimately, our only long-term solution is to rebuild a network of influential conservatives and libertarians who can recognize the difference between good and bad laws (new founding fathers, if you will) so that we can build a movement to once again bind Congress and state legislatures down with the chains of a tighter set of laws–with proper limits on lawmaking powers and the use of majority rule. My Law and Government section on my personal website http://www.joelskousen.com/Philosophy/philosophy.html is a first start in this area.
I’ve tried to take the principles of the constitution and restructure them in tight legal language so our fundamental rights cannot be legislated or interpreted away. Another effort focusing on eliminating bad law directly has been started by subscriber David Shields. I encourage you to go to his website www.fixbadlaws.com and click on the “Featured Article” link; read it and then sign on to help disseminate this to others. It’s a good beginning. If there are any other legal minds out there willing to help me begin the process of preparing a new legal structure for the Ideal State, let me know by return email.
Third Party Debate from the City Club of Cleveland
Ralph Nader, Independent Party, fmr. Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), Libertarian Party, and Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party, met in a debate hosted by the City Club of Cleveland. 1 hr. 3 min.
C-Span is also hosting this video in Real format, but only from their home page, currently.
Third Party Presidential Debate with candidates Ralph Nader and The Constitution Party’s Chuck Baldwin
From: Wall Street Journal, Opinion
In a radio interview in 2001, then-Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama noted — somewhat ruefully — that the same Supreme Court that ordered political and educational equality in the 1960s and 1970s did not bring about economic equality as well. Although Mr. Obama said he could come up with arguments for the constitutionality of such action, the plain meaning of the Constitution quite obviously prohibits it.
Mr. Obama is hardly alone in his expansive view of legitimate government. During the past month, Sen. John McCain (who, like Sen. Obama, voted in favor of the $700 billion bank bailout) has been advocating that $300 billion be spent to pay the monthly mortgage payments of those in danger of foreclosure. The federal government is legally powerless to do that, as well.
When Franklin Delano Roosevelt first proposed legislation that authorized the secretary of agriculture to engage in Soviet-style central planning — a program so rigid that it regulated how much wheat a homeowner could grow for his own family’s consumption — he rejected arguments of unconstitutionality. He proclaimed that the Constitution was “quaint” and written in the “horse and buggy era,” and predicted the public and the courts would agree with him.
Remember that FDR had taken — and either Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain will soon take — the oath to uphold that old-fashioned document, the one from which all presidential powers come.
Unfortunately, these presidential attitudes about the Constitution are par for the course. Beginning with John Adams, and proceeding to Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush, Congress has enacted and the president has signed laws that criminalized political speech, suspended habeas corpus, compelled support for war, forbade freedom of contract, allowed the government to spy on Americans without a search warrant, and used taxpayer dollars to shore up failing private banks.
From: Prison Planet
According to reports out of top Chinese mainstream news outlets, the RAND Corporation recently presented a shocking proposal to the Pentagon in which it lobbied for a war to be started with a major foreign power in an attempt to stimulate the American economy and prevent a recession.
A fierce debate has now ensued in China about who that foreign power may be, with China itself as well as Russia and even Japan suspected to be the targets of aggression.
The reports cite French media news sources as having uncovered the proposal, in which RAND suggested that the $700 billion dollars that has been earmarked to bailout Wall Street and failing banks instead be used to finance a new war which would in turn re-invigorate the flagging stock markets.
The RAND Corporation is a notoriously powerful NGO with deep ties to the U.S. military-industrial complex as well as interlocking connections with the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations.
Current directors of RAND include Frank Charles Carlucci III, former Defense Secretary and Deputy Director of the CIA, Ronald L. Olson, Council on Foreign Relations luminary and former Secretary of Labor, and Carl Bildt, top Bilderberg member and former Swedish Prime Minister. …
China’s biggest media outlet, Sohu.com, speculated that the target of the new war would probably be China or Russia, but that it could also be Iran or another middle eastern country. Japan was also mentioned as a potential target for the reason that Japan holds the most U.S. debt. …
The reported RAND proposal dovetails with recent comments made by Joe Biden, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright and others, concerning the “guarantee” that Barack Obama will face a major “international crisis” soon after taking office.