No products in the cart.


Libertarians’ Pick for VP Is a Globalist Liberal


What was the Libertarian Party thinking? Bill Weld for VP? Definitely not a Constitutionalist. – Shorty Dawkins, Associate Editor

This article comes from

by Steve Byas

In 1776, William Floyd signed the Declaration of Independence, marking America’s secession from the British Empire. Yet his descendant William Weld (shown), now the vice-presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party (on a ticket led by former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson), was once part of a plan that would greatly diminish America’s national sovereignty, if not eventually abolish it completely.

In what a 2004 WorldNetDaily article called a plan to virtually eliminate the national borders of North America, the scheme envisioned a continent-wide, customs-free zone with a common approach to trade, energy, immigration, law enforcement, and security. The model for this effort to integrate the United States with Canada and Mexico was the European Union (EU). Under this plan, for example, illegal immigration among these three nations would end, because all such movement of people would be legal.

The 2004 panel, the Independent Task Force on North America — a project of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), of which Weld is a long-time member — was co-chaired by former Liberal Party Deputy Prime Minister John Manley of Canada; Pedro Aspe, a former Mexican finance minister; and former Massachusetts Governor William Weld.

Other panel members included Canadian Finance Minister Michael Wilson and Nelson Cunningham, the latter an associate of the (Henry) Kissinger-McLarty consulting firm.

WorldNetDaily labeled the plan “NAFTA on steroids.”

As one would suspect, the Libertarian Party has long claimed to be the party of liberty; however, its selection of William Weld to run for vice president should certainly throw that idea into question.

Weld supports continued U.S. membership in the United Nations. Noteworthy is that Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson dodged that very question (should the United States withdraw from the UN?) during the presidential debate. The Liberty Conservative website noted that Weld was a “vocal proponent of the Iraq War,” and signed a letter in support of the PATRIOT Act in 2005.

Weld even backed Democrat Barack Obama for president in 2008, although he supported fellow Republican Mitt Romney in 2012. In the Republican primaries this year, Weld backed Ohio Governor John Kasich. Matt Welch, editor of the libertarian magazine Reason, expressed amazement, calling Kasich’s foreign policy views an “interventionist nightmare.”

Read more here.


Shorty Dawkins



  1. I was going to vote Libertarian until they did this. Now, I guess I’ll just stay home.

  2. Doesn’t seem to share many of the Libertarian philosophies I do. It’s my understanding he’s pro-“gun control. ” Second Amendment?

  3. Forget the “Parties”, none of them have anything of substance to offer. Business as usual with gloss on the surface and degenerate individuals wanting a piece of the pie….We have to lead ourselves out of the quagmire ’cause no politician affiliated to ANY PARTY will do it for you.

  4. So what should be done, gentlemen? How should you vote?

    Let me ask you this: How many of you would like to make your vote actually mean something; to vote for a principle; that is, to vote for a presidential candidate that will govern according to the United States Constitution and has promised to do so, not according to some empty campaign pledge simply trotted out in an election year, but one made in good faith by a man of character who means it and will not be influenced to the contrary by special interest groups?

    Who could that be?
    He was nominated at the convention in Salt Lake City on 16 April as the candidate of the Constitution Party. His name is Darrel Castle, a practicing Christian and a retired Marine (see him at http://www.castlereport).

    Obviously, the benefits of voting for him will be these: It will encourage him and other like-minded people to continue their constitutional stand. It will demonstrate to the political opposition a growing grassroots commitment to a constitutional government. It also will alert the increasing number of frustrated citizens to a positive alternative party.

  5. liberal (adj.) Look up liberal at
    mid-14c., “generous,” also, late 14c., “selfless; noble, nobly born; abundant,” and, early 15c., in a bad sense “extravagant, unrestrained,” from Old French liberal “befitting free men, noble, generous, willing, zealous” (12c.), from Latin liberalis “noble, gracious, munificent, generous,” literally “of freedom, pertaining to or befitting a free man,” from liber “free, unrestricted, unimpeded; unbridled, unchecked, licentious,” from PIE *leudh-ero-, probably originally “belonging to the people” (though the precise semantic development is obscure; compare frank (adj.)), and a suffixed form of the base *leudh- “people” (cognates: Old Church Slavonic ljudu, Lithuanian liaudis, Old English leod, German Leute “nation, people;” Old High German liut “person, people”).

    With the meaning “free from restraint in speech or action,” liberal was used 16c.-17c. as a term of reproach. It revived in a positive sense in the Enlightenment, with a meaning “free from prejudice, tolerant,” which emerged 1776-88.

    When you change the definition of something, you have killed it!!

    The Bill of Rights was a landmark piece of liberal legislation.

    The Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England laid the foundations for the development of the modern liberal state by constitutionally limiting the power of the monarch, affirming parliamentary supremacy, passing the Bill of Rights and establishing the principle of ‘consent of the governed’. The 1776 Declaration of Independence of the United States of America founded the nascent republic on liberal principles without the encumbrance of hereditary aristocracy; the declaration stated that “all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” echoing John Locke’s phrase “life, liberty, and property”.

    The 1776 Declaration of Independence of the United States of America founded the nascent republic on liberal principles without the encumbrance of hereditary aristocracy; the declaration stated that “all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” echoing John Locke’s phrase “life, liberty, and property”

    The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation,? wrote Washington. ?All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens.?
    George Washington in a letter to Touro Synagogue (1790)

    “Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”
    George Washington – letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792

    The Supreme Court of the United States, 1866: “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.”

    United States Supreme Court, Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 May Term 1796: “…, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent.”

    Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Fishing, hunting, traveling by any means, arms, building ones home, etc)

    Miller v. U.S., 230 F. 2d. 486, 490; 42: “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one, because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”

    Thomas Paine: “Government ought to be as much open to improvement as anything which appertains to man, instead of which it has been monopolized from age to age, by the most ignorant and vicious of the human race. Need we any other proof of their wretched management, than the excess of debts and taxes with which every nation groans, and the quarrels into which they have precipitated the world?”

    Thomas Jefferson: “The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.”

    “I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.”
    ~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799

    “Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.”
    ~Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, 1791

    “No religious doctrine shall be established by law.”
    ~Founding Father Elbridge Gerry, Annals of Congress 1:729-731

    “The legislature of the United States shall pass no law on the subject of religion.”
    ~Founding Father Charles Pinckney, Constitutional Convention, 1787

    Thomas Jefferson: “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “[A] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.”

Comments are closed.