http://www.constitutionparty.com RSS feeds for Constitution Party 60 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/112/THE-CONSTITUTION-PARTYS-POSITION-ON-THE-SECOND-AMENDMENT.aspx#Comments 4 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=112 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=112&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/112/THE-CONSTITUTION-PARTYS-POSITION-ON-THE-SECOND-AMENDMENT.aspx In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson recognized that people are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. He emphasized that the “unalienable rights” of man come from God, not from government, and cannot legally be taken by government. The founders of America chose to enshrine the right to keep and bear arms as the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” (U.S. Constitution – 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights) President Obama has decided not to accept the view of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and Franklin, but instead to follow the example of tyrants such as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mao - all of whom disarmed their people to make tyranny easier to enforce. Disarmament is apparently one of the building blocks President Obama intends to use in building his new Orwellian, total surveillance police state. Despite his and Vice President Biden’s rhetoric, they must understand that disarmament will not “keep millions of people out of harm’s way” nor will it save “thousands of lives.” Vice President Biden has been quoted as saying the president is considering executive action after his inauguration on January 21. Such an executive order is not permitted under the Constitution and it would place the president clearly outside the law. That is apparently a place in which the president seems quite comfortable as he legislates by executive order, appoints his czars to run his administration’s agenda without Senate confirmation, and conducts wars while insisting that even consulting Congress - let alone getting approval - is not required. He chooses the example of history’s tyrants instead of the founding fathers. Why would he do that unless disarmament is part of his long-term strategy to fundamentally change America, and he needs a helpless, disarmed public to accomplish his goals? The Constitution and Bill of Rights are under constant attack; and what is left of them requires constant vigilance to defend. Virtually every right listed in the original Bill of Rights is either dead or seriously threatened. We are not being threatened with quartering soldiers in our private homes as far as I know; but given enough time I wouldn’t be surprised to see it happen, despite the Third Amendment’ prohibition. Perhaps President Obama sees economic calamity coming to the nation as a result of his economic policies, and he wants us disarmed to make martial law easier to enforce. We can use history as a guide; but ultimately we can only guess at his motives. The Constitution Party stands opposed to his efforts to disarm the American people, whatever the president’s motives may be. The Constitution Party opposes what the government usually refers to as "gun control" - and that is gun or ammunition confiscation, gun or ammunition registration and the restriction of semi-automatic firearms with high-capacity magazines. We in the Constitution Party understand that armed people are free while disarmed people are slaves. If you are opposed to these things as we are, consider standing with us. Go to www.constitutionparty.com to find out how you can help us defend America. Darrell L. Castle Constitution Party Webmaster Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:35:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:112 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/111/THE-FISCAL-CLIFFA-CONSTITUTION-PARTY-RESPONSE.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=111 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=111&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/111/THE-FISCAL-CLIFFA-CONSTITUTION-PARTY-RESPONSE.aspx The negotiations between the President and Republicans in Congress over what has come to be called “the fiscal cliff” appear to be more about political posturing, political ideology, and the effort to hold political power than about preventing a deeper recession in the country. The president wants more spending, more debt, more stimulus, higher taxes, and permanent removal of the debt ceiling limit. The republicans are willing to concede most of these things if the tax increase can be disguised as “closing deduction loopholes.” These actions are all counterproductive and will result in the very things they intend to prevent. Increased taxes, whether by the President’s method of increases on the top 2 or 3 percent who pay taxes, or by the Republicans’ stealth method of closing deduction loopholes such as the mortgage interest deduction, will have a detrimental effect on the economy. Increased taxes will cost jobs, slow growth, and lower GDP. Slower growth and lower GDP mean fewer people working and paying taxes and that means bigger deficits and higher debt. Neither the President nor the Republicans seem willing to address the real problem which is huge deficits year after year leading to higher and higher debt. The deficit will not be closed or lowered by increasing stimulus spending while raising taxes in an effort to cover the cost. In the long run that tactic will have the opposite of the desired effect. What then is the Constitution Party’s response? The answer is set out quite clearly in our 2012 Platform. The plank entitled “Taxes” expresses strong opposition to the income tax, therefore the Constitution Party is opposed to any tax increase. The plank entitled “Cost of Big Government” expresses strong opposition to debt and spending above revenue, therefore the Constitution Party is opposed to deficit spending and the continued accumulation of debt. In summary, the Bush tax cuts should be extended with no new stimulus spending allowed. Taxes should actually be lowered while at the same time reducing spending across the board. Jobs could come home to America which would help lift people out of poverty and return them to the middle class. The tax base would then increase thus helping to close the deficit. This could be started by changing the corporate tax structure to favor domestically located companies. Staying on shore would save companies taxes and the cost of shipping to the American market. Finally, hundreds of billions of dollars per year, at least, could be saved by stopping all unnecessary wars and unnecessary foreign military involvement. This should be done in conjunction with lower taxes and reduced across the board spending. Come home, mind your own business, and rebuild America and the American economy, that’s the Constitution Party way.   Darrell L. Castle Webmaster Fri, 14 Dec 2012 19:13:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:111 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/110/ICHABOD-THE-REAL-MESSAGE-OF-THE-2012-ELECTIONS.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=110 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=110&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/110/ICHABOD-THE-REAL-MESSAGE-OF-THE-2012-ELECTIONS.aspx  By Robert W. Peck Chairman – Constitution Party of Washington bobpeck.wordpress.com For a month now, the Christian-conservative-religious right has been reeling from the outcome of the 2012 elections like a boxer staggering under the effect of a near knockout blow. While some are vowing to return to the ring with renewed fervor, others are in a funk, despairing the outcome of the election. The odd fact of the matter is that despite the emotional trauma suffered by conservatives, the 2012 elections didn't really change anything. We have the same President, the same party still controls the U.S. House of Representatives and the same party is in control in the Senate, even party control of state governorships only changed by one state. So if nothing has changed, why the despair? I believe the real story of the 2012 elections is not the outcome registered at the ballot box on November 6, but rather the evidencing of the real state of the Christian-conservative-religious right. Perhaps the despair being expressed is the result of a subconscious realization as to the spiritual condition of the religious right – a condition that is causing the spirit of some to cry out "Ichabod" (no glory) sensing that "The glory is departed" from the political institutions and movements in which the Christian-conservative-religious right has for so long trusted (1 Samuel 4:21-22). I have been politically active as a Christian and a Constitutionist for about two decades now. I've served in leadership capacities, headed up events and activities, assisted in campaigns and served as chairman of a political party. I've crossed paths with most of those in my community who would be labeled "conservative" and am personally acquainted with nearly all of the seriously Christian and Constitutional political activists in the region. Though not everyone in those circles has supported all of my political activities (primarily due to my activism being of a mostly third party and independent nature), yet nearly all have agreed as to the basic values and indicated that we're all part of the same team working toward the same goal of honoring God, restoring Constitutional governance, preserving liberty and upholding the philosophical ideals of America's founders. Though there have always been some differences of strategy within our ranks, I've always had the sense of being surrounded by compatriots who were marching toward the same general goal. However, sometime in July of this year, I found myself with a sense that something had changed. It was as though I was still running the same race, but most of the people that I thought I was running the race with had disappeared – like they had taken a different turn in the road and I was now running the course alone. I could have thought that it was just my imagination, the result of battle fatigue, or a mild case of discouragement, had it not been for my state's August primary election. That election revealed the actual state of the Christian-conservative-religious right and documented its departure from the values that it had so long espoused. In that election, conservatives rejected nearly every God honoring, Constitution upholding, liberty loving candidate on the ballot in preference of secularist, humanist, socialist and even pro-sodomite candidates. Now being primarily engaged in third party and independent politics, I'm accustomed to having my candidates rejected by a populace that is, in my opinion, illogically locked in to a two party paradigm. However, in this case it was overtly God honoring, Constitution upholding, liberty loving Republican candidates who were rejected right down the line. Remember, this was not the general election where we just have a "D" verses an "R" and people trying to choose the better of the two, or where we can blame "liberals" for the outcome. This was the primary election where the Christian-conservative-religious right (which typically associates with the Republican Party) chooses the candidates that best reflect their own values and who they want to be represented by in the general election. This year's primary election was quite notable in that it featured a number of unusually and overtly God honoring, Constitution upholding, liberty loving candidates. We had a Christian pastor who ran an aggressive campaign for Governor as a Republican who openly acknowledged God and espoused the values of traditional conservatism and the religious right. There was actually a second "liberty" pastor running as an independent. Both were rejected by the Christian-conservative-religious right receiving just 3.2% and 0.7% of the vote respectively. Instead, conservative voters overwhelmingly chose to be represented by a man who I judge to be a secularist, humanist, and a practitioner of "socialism lite" whose campaign came out in opposition to the Boy Scouts prohibition on homosexuals and who, as the sitting State Attorney General, was leading a suit against a family owned drug store for refusing to sell an abortion pill. We had a very well qualified Attorney General candidate who has been a leader in defending marriage against the assault of the homosexual lobby, was strongly Constitutional in his views and has even traveled the state speaking at events hosted by a Christian ministry. But again, the Christian-conservative-religious right chose, by a margin of 4-1, the other Republican candidate – a man who, while serving on the King County Council, voted in support of homosexual marriage and whose voting record while on the council was in 99% agreement with the Democrat candidate for Attorney General who also served on that council. Similar results were experienced for a Constitutionist running for Secretary of State under the Constitution Party banner and a Christian reformer seeking the Superintendent of Education post (non-partisan). The only strongly Christian, Constitutional, advocate for liberty running for one of the ten statewide offices who was sent on to the general election by conservative voters, was in a race where he was the only Republican candidate. In other words, conservatives who were committed to voting "R" had no choice but to vote for him in the primary, though he did lose in the general election. Lest you think this is just a phenomenon of Washington state's famous liberalism now manifesting even among Republican voters, here where I live, in famously conservative eastern Washington, the Christian-conservative-religious right rejected a well-respected Christian Constitutionist Republican candidate for the U.S. House – a man known for his teaching of Biblical and Constitutional principles of government and for his radio commentaries on the same. Instead, conservatives chose to be represented by the incumbent establishment puppet who has only a 63% Constitutional voting record and who voted for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that authorized the indefinite detention of American citizens. In one legislative district here in eastern Washington, there was no Democrat in the race, only two Republicans. The incumbent, who commonly votes with the Democrats in the legislature, co-sponsored our state's now infamous gay marriage bill while the challenger, known for her presentations of the Institute on the Constitution course, was solidly pro Biblical marriage. The result? The Constitutional Republican challenger received little support from conservatives and apparently none from the Republican Party, being outspent 10-1, as one of the more conservative areas of the state opted for the pro-sodomite liberal Republican incumbent. And it's not just happening here in Washington, as the Presidential race bore out. After enduring years of campaigning and many months of primary elections, the Christian-conservative-religious right chose to give just 0.2% of the popular vote and 1 Republican Convention delegate to the openly Christian and traditional religious right message of U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (MN). Conservatives gave 10% of the popular vote and 154 delegates to the pro liberty and Constitutionally-limited government message of Congressman Ron Paul (TX). But though confronted with strongly God honoring and Constitution upholding candidates, the Christian-conservative-religious right which identifies with the Republican Party and serves as its base of support, chose to give 52% of the popular vote and 1,489 delegates to Mitt Romney, a Wall Street insider and establishment front man who presided over making Massachusetts the first state to adopt homosexual marriage; a man with a "D-" rating on Second Amendment gun rights and a flip-flopping stand on abortion; a man, who as best as I can tell, did not represent one tenet of traditional conservatism. The big story of the 2012 elections is not the defeat of the conservative right by the liberal left, but the departure of the Christian-conservative-religious right from the values that it once espoused and which it sadly still thinks that it represents. Remember, we're not talking here about liberals beating conservatives in the general election. We're talking about who the Christian-conservative-religious right chose for itself in the primary election. One might argue that the primary election results were the work of the Republican Party leadership which in every case backed the more liberal, neo-con, establishment candidate, contending that "this is the candidate that can beat the Democrat in the general election." Of course in nearly every case those candidates lost in the general election and Christian-conservative-religious right voters compromised their values in vain. However, most voters are not that politically plugged in and I doubt that the majority even knew which candidates the Republican Party leadership were promoting. So how do I explain this wholesale departure from Biblical values, Constitutional principles and the traditional tenets of conservatism by the very people, movements and organizations that claim to be the guardians of those values? It's not logical and I contend that it's not even natural. There is a supernatural factor involved when an entire segment of society that espouses a clear and identifiable ideology, in mass turns and runs in the opposite direction of their professed values. When I saw the primary election results, it struck me that it was really a form of just judgment. Not a judgment of vengeance, but of what is just – spiritual justice. If you're not committed to loving truth above all, then you'll end up believing a lie. If you're not devoted to righteousness at all costs, then you'll end up falling for unrighteousness. And if you're not "trusting in the Lord with all your might," then you'll begin to trust in other things – things like political power and the clout of man-made political parties and institutions. And once you learn to trust in political power to save you, you'll do whatever you're told you have to do to get your hands on it. This departure from the traditional Christian worldview, Biblical values, Constitutional principles and the governing philosophies of our nation's founders did not happen overnight. This is part of a process that has been at work for a generation or more. In Part 2 of this message, we will look at the process whereby this departure has taken place. If you agree with the content of this article, please forward, post and publish far and wide. If you don't, who will? © Robert W. Peck Bob Peck is a Christian, Constitutionist and political activist who serves as the chairman of the Constitution Party of Washington and is a member of the Constitution Party National Committee. Bob lives in Spokane Valley, Washington where he is a landlord-handyman. If, like Bob, you find yourself feeling betrayed by a two party duopoly that no longer represents your values, then check out the Constitution Party at www.constitutionparty.com or call 1-800-2VETOIRS and ask for a free information packet. Webmaster Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:25:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:110 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/109/NOW-IS-THE-TIME.aspx#Comments 1 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=109 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=109&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/109/NOW-IS-THE-TIME.aspx   by Don Shrader, Chairman Constitution Party of Ohio       In 1867, a typing teacher by the name of Charles E. Weller created the following sentence for aspiring typists to practice for his typing test: Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party.  Later, the sentence was changed to “come to the aid of their country” because that phrase exactly fills out a 70-space line if one puts a period at the end.    Now truly is the time for all good men and women to come to come to the aid of their country by coming to the aid of the Party.  Specifically, I am talking about the Constitution Party.   The big political push of “Anybody but Obama” is now over and the “Anybody” side decidedly lost the race.  One can try to blame the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, and other such “third” Parties for giving the election to Obama and the Democrats.  But I would submit that the Green Party, the Justice Party, and other similar Parties took as many votes from Obama as the more conservative Parties might have from Romney.  In the end, none of the “third” parties made a significant difference.  What did make a significant difference was that as John Tate, the President of Campaign for Liberty noted, “on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, 12 million fewer Americans showed up at the polls than voted in 2008.”  That, folks, is a significant number!  I submit to you that most of those were put off by the choices of the two major Parties, particularly “conservatives” who were fed up with the Republican choice and candidate selection process, including the unprecedented change of procedures at the Republican National Convention to prevent the intended intervention of the Ron Paul delegation.  Many of the political pundits, who in my view did not have the wherewithal (i.e. guts) to state such before the election, are now bemoaning these facts and their associated surmises. Go back and check out my editorials published before the election and you will see I was putting forth these observations and conclusions back then although few listened, and I received more criticism than concurrence.   Now is the time, in my view, for a viable third Party.  It is time for the Constitution Party at both state and national levels to step up and become that third Party.  Certainly, we have our work cut out for us, and we need good men and women at all levels “to come to the aid of the party” to build it into a credible Party that will attract many of those12 million disaffected voters along with many, many other disaffected voters that did vote Republican in order to vote against Obama as opposed for Mitt Romney. It is time for the Constitution Party to make the tough choices that will establish a long-term credible, viable Party and then ascertain how to make it known to those who truly want a change.  I submit that there is a huge number, if not a majority, of people that agree with the primary tenets of the Constitution Party to return our nation to the rule of law in accord with the U. S. Constitution.  But, we as a Party, at both the state and national levels, need to deal with reality of mapping out a strategy for success.   It is interesting that Herman Cain is now calling for the possible formation of a third party although he notes there are a number of drawbacks including the unfairness of third parties gaining ballot access.  As the kids say, “Well, duh!”  Overall, I imagine Cain wants to create a third party in his own image rather than join the Constitution Party that already aligns with many of his stated values and principles.  Of course the Republican shills like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levine continue the mantra, “A third party is not an option; it will never be viable.”  Well, I submit to you Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Hannity, et. al. that Mr. Cain is correct, now is the time for a third party as possibly the only viable opposition to the un-American (in my view) and unconstitutional intentions and actions of Mr. Obama and his liberal cronies.  The only bone I have to pick with Mr. Cain is who that third party should be; I submit to you that it should be the Constitution Party as the Party most aligned with the precepts and principles given to us by our founding fathers in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.    For those of you who still believe you are going to be able to reform the Republican Party, I give you the latest from the current highest ranking member of the Republican Party, my own Congressman (for whom I did not vote this time even though he was running unopposed) and present (and presumably next) Speaker of the House, John Boehner.  As Matt Hoskins, Executive Director of the Senate Conservatives Fund, noted in a recent email:   Fellow Conservatives: In the past two days since the election, House Speaker John Boehner -- the highest ranking Republican in the nation -- has suggested that his party will abandon its opposition to tax increases, amnesty, and even Obamacare.  I'm not making this up. Despite winning another Republican majority in the House, Boehner thinks President Obama has a mandate to enact policies that destroy jobs, ignore the rule of law, and take over our health care decisions. Obama is the first President in modern history to win re-election with fewer states than he won the first time, yet Boehner is waving the white flag on our core principles. On tax increases, Boehner said, “For purposes of forging a bipartisan agreement that begins to solve the problem, we’re willing to accept new revenue, under the right conditions.” On amnesty for illegal immigration, Boehner said, "A comprehensive approach is long overdue, and I'm confident that the president, myself, others can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for all."  On the effort to repeal Obamacare, Boehner said, "Well, I think the election changes that. It's pretty clear that the president was reelected, Obamacare is the law of the land."   Mr. Hoskins goes on to note:    “This isn't leadership.”  Again I say, “Well, Duh!”  He then continues: The only way for Republicans to improve their party's image is to boldly stand for the principles of freedom that made this country great. Abandoning these principles and capitulating to liberal policies is not a strategy for success. The Republican Party has tried this approach many times and it doesn't work.  The Senate Conservatives Fund is committed to raising up bold, conservative leaders who have the courage to fight for the principles that will truly restore America. You've probably heard the claptrap from the Republican establishment who are singling out a couple conservative candidates who lost their races. But, in their very next breath they brag about the party's bench, which is lined with strong conservatives like Rubio, Paul, Lee, and Cruz -- leaders you helped elect over their objections. (Mr. Hoskins, have you ever heard of the Constitution Party and the principles for which it stands? I know, a third party is not viable; will never work!)   I submit to you that overall the Republican leadership sees no reason for a change of direction with respect to the Party, and in particular towards a more constitutionally conservative direction.  They lost a few races and won a few, so my surmise is that think they are fine.  Their turn will come in 2016, and in the meantime they will bemoan the fact that there is nothing they can do to change things or stop Obama and the Senate (as evidenced by Boehner’s comments above) but they need our money now in order to begin preparing to capture the Senate in 2014 and the White House in 2016.    It is interesting to note how many of the political pundits are now saying that there would have been little difference in the direction of the country even if Romney was elected.  Where were they before the election?  If you read the editorials I wrote sometime prior to the election, including one entitled “My Answer to Anybody but Obama,” you will see that is what I was saying then.  But, at the time, all I generally received was a lot of criticism for not joining the “Anybody but Obama” crowd.  The pundits are now noting how liberal Romney truly is and how little difference there was between him and Obama and of course further noting that is why such a significant number of people did not turn out to vote for Romney.   I believe now is the time for a third party and I believe that party needs to be the Constitution Party.  Are there things that need to change and be improved in order for us to be viable?  Absolutely!  Do we need to compromise our principles in order to be viable?  Absolutely NOT!  Do I believe that now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country and to the Party, the Constitution Party?  Absolutely!  Thus, I invite all of you who truly want to see our country return to rule of law, limited government, and self-reliance, as prescribed by the principles originally set forth by our founding fathers in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence to come join us and help the Constitution Party become a vibrant force for good and a beacon of light emanating throughout our nation and our nation’s governments.  Now is the time!  Webmaster Sat, 01 Dec 2012 00:25:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:109 http://www.constitutionparty.com/Default.aspx?tabid=130&articleType=ArticleView&articleId=108#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=108 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=108&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/Default.aspx?tabid=130&articleType=ArticleView&articleId=108 Virgil Goode is the only candidate for President in 2012 with a proven track record of support for the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. He served from 1997-2009 in the United States House of Representatives. While in the House, Goode always scored an “A” rating with the NRA, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and other pro-second amendment groups. During part of his tenure in the US Congress, Goode served as Co-Chair of the Second Amendment Caucus. He was among the first to offer legislation to repeal the gun ban in the District of Columbia. Fortunately, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the individual to own and possess firearms in D.C. Prior to going to Congress, Virgil Goode served for 23 years in the Virginia State Senate. During those 23 years, Goode consistently received top ratings from the NRA, the GOA and other second Amendment supporters. He was the father of the Virginia Concealed Law, which stopped judicial discretion from barring women in certain localities from having a concealed weapon. With the help of the NRA, the GOA and others, Goode was able to get the measure passed by the House, the Senate and signed by the Governor although many thought such legislation would never pass in Virginia. Virgil Goode has a 35-year legislative record of consistently supporting the Second Amendment and the rights of gun owners, unlike Romney and Obama, who were given D- and F ratings, respectively, by the Gun Owners of America. In fact, it may surprise some that Mitt Romney has been labeled the “the Gun Control Candidate” by The New Yorker Magazine. In its July 24, 2012 issue, The New Yorker noted that Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign, the pro-gun-control group named for former White House press secretary Jim Brady said that, ”In their time in office, I would say with a pretty strong degree of certainty that Romney did more [for gun control than Obama].” In 2004, as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney signed a ban on assault weapons. “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” he said at the time. Romney also signed a law that raised the state’s gun-licensing fee to a hundred dollars, from twenty-five. Virgil Goode is, himself, a gun owner. When it comes to supporting gun rights and standing with his fellow gun owners to defend the Second Amendment, Virgil Goode is the real deal. As President, Virgil Goode, unlike those of past administrations, will only appoint an Attorney General who is solidly pro-Second Amendment and supportive of gun owner’s constitutional rights to keep, possess, sell and exchange firearms. Virgil Goode doesn’t just “talk the talk” at election time, he has consistently “walked the walk” on behalf of gunowners and for the Second Amendment freedoms of all Americans. Romney, Obama and others may suddenly claim that they support gun rights, but it is important to look at the record, and the record clearly reveals that Virgil Goode is, by far, the best friend gun owners have on the Presidential ballot in 2012. It’s really a matter of who you can trust, isn’t it? Only one candidate shares your values. Only one candidate shares your views on the rights of gun owners. Only one candidate can be trusted to stand up for the Second Amendment after he is elected. Only one candidate for President deserves your vote on November 6 . . . VIRGIL GOODE! Webmaster Fri, 02 Nov 2012 06:55:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:108 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/107/Romney-misunderstands-2nd-Amendment.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=107 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=107&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/107/Romney-misunderstands-2nd-Amendment.aspx Exclusive: James N. Clymer, Constitution Party VP candidate, rebuts debate answer   By James N. Clymer It would be difficult to identify a principle more fundamental to America as a constitutional republic than the proposition that our rights come from God and it is the duty of government to protect them. As to the rights recognized and protected by the Second Amendment, virtually no one voting in November would believe that President Obama shares this view. And, at the second 2012 presidential debate, Mitt Romney revealed that he, too, believes neither aspect of this foundational principle. When the debate topic turned to his defense of gun rights, Gov. Romney tried to talk around the issue. Candy Crowley brought him up short, asking, “I know that you signed an assault weapons ban when you were in Massachusetts. … Why have you changed your mind?” Well, the debate transcript suggests that she may have been assuming facts not in evidence – not about signing the ban, but about changing his mind. Indeed, moderator Crowley was absolutely right about what happened in Massachusetts. At the time, the governor’s office put out a press release claiming that the “permanent assault weapons ban” eliminated “deadly assault weapons [which] have no place in Massachusetts.” In fact, once on “Meet the Press,” Gov. Romney confirmed that as president he would have signed the federal assault weapons ban that had just expired if it had come to his desk. Has Romney changed his mind? At the debate, he made the general statement “I’m not in favor of new pieces of legislation on guns and taking guns away or making certain guns illegal.” Can we take that answer to the bank? Hardly! Romney’s statements at the debate needed to be questioned and challenged, but the primary role of the Commission on Presidential Debates is to keep candidates other than Republicans and Democrats off the stage, and it does a great job at that. It ensured that my Constitution Party running mate in the presidential race, former Rep. Virgil Goode, was unable to present to the American People a conservative, constitutional perspective on any topic. Fortunately, Virgil Goode and the other candidates for president will be debating on Tuesday, Oct. 23, and the event will be broadcast live on Ora TV. But at the nationally broadcast debates, both Republicans and Democrats are free to sell out the Constitution with abandon and without challenge. Let me take this opportunity on behalf of our ticket to pose to the governor a question or two – questions we know with certainty will be ignored and never be answered. At the debate, the governor explained his support for the Massachusetts assault weapon ban as follows: “The pro-gun folks and the anti-gun folks came together and put together … an assault weapon ban … because it provided opportunities for both that both wanted [such as hunting opportunities and] that’s what we need more of.” Mitt, I ask you, if we are truly endowed by our Creator with rights such as life and liberty, and the framers understood that life and liberty require the right to keep and bear arms, can those rights really be compromised away by the consensus of a gaggle of lobbyists? And if governments are instituted among men “to secure these rights,” was it really your job as governor to mediate between those who want to repeal some or all of the Constitution’s protections and those who want to keep them intact? What are we to take away about Romney from his performance in the second debate? Well, we now know that Mitt doesn’t know a great deal about either firearms or the Second Amendment. First, it is not illegal to own “automatic” weapons in the United States – it just has been made extremely difficult and expensive to do so. Second, “assault weapons” function about the same as all other semi-automatic weapons, just like the ones we take to the field to hunt. They are not a class of weapons – more a pejorative term for those rifles Sen. Dianne Feinstein thinks looks scary. Third, the key to understanding the Second Amendment is not hunting. I have been an avid deer hunter since my youth, but hunting and target shooting are just some of the things that you can do with firearms; not the constitutional core of the right. The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It says nothing about hunting. But it does identify the Amendment’s objective – “a free State” and the Amendment’s means to achieve a free state: a self-regulated, citizen’s Militia capable of resisting a tyrannical government. With that in mind, the Second Amendment either protects the right of the people “to keep and bear” modern semi-automatic rifles or it doesn’t. It is a matter of discerning intent of the framers of the Second Amendment. The right protects modern military weapons of the sort that members of the Militia would take to the Village Green to Muster. That does not mean Revolution-era weapons, but modern military weapons. And just so there is no confusion, I happen to believe it extends to fully-automatic weapons of the sort issued to the military. Constitutional rights are not frozen in time. The First Amendment right to distribute pamphlets now covers the right to use modern methods of communication. Similarly, the Fourth Amendment right to be secure in your letters now includes the right to be secure in your email. It most definitely is not a matter of reaching a consensus between two groups of lobbyists as to whether constitutional rights can be horse traded away for increased hunting rights. One would hope that candidates for president of the United States could at least agree with the people that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and that “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” But neither Obama nor Romney can be trusted to defend the Second Amendment, and in no way should those who love liberty throw away their vote on men such as these. Jim Clymer is the Constitution Party candidate for vice president of the United States, the running mate of former Congressman Virgil Goode. Mr. Clymer served as chairman of The Constitution Party for 12 years. He practices law in Lancaster, Pa., with Clymer, Musser & Conrad, P.C. He can be reached at jim@clymerlaw.com. You can follow Jim Clymer on Twitter at twitter.com/jimclymer.   Webmaster Wed, 17 Oct 2012 21:59:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:107 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/104/America-Rescued-and-Freedom-Preserved-as-Republicans-Adopt-a-Conservative-Platform.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=104 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=104&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/104/America-Rescued-and-Freedom-Preserved-as-Republicans-Adopt-a-Conservative-Platform.aspx By Robert W. Peck, Constitution Party of Washington Chairman I suppose it is inevitable as it happens once every four years – the spectacle of the Christian-conservative right jumping for joy and shouting aloud, in a manner reminiscent of Steve Martin’s ‘new phone book’ scene in the movie The Jerk, “It’s here, it’s here, the new Republican Platform is here!” Today I received the daily blog email of a Christian organization telling about the great Christian-conservative leaders who are touting this year’s platform as the “Best GOP Platform Yet.” After reviewing some of the key platform components, the article concludes by asking the question, “how can any biblical Christian vote for Barack Obama?” Now most who are paying attention realize that rejecting Mitt Romney does not require that anyone vote for Barack Obama as there are plenty of alternatives out there. In most states there will be half a dozen or more Presidential candidates on the ballot representing enough political flavors to satisfy most any palate. So my question is not “how can any biblical Christian vote for Barack Obama” as that is a red herring question founded on a flawed premise. My question is “why should anyone care what’s in the new Republican Platform seeing as they never follow it anyway?” For all practical purposes, once the Republican convention is over, the platform is ‘dead and buried.’ I can’t remember the last time anyone so much as referred to the Republican platform once the convention was over, much less followed it. The Republicans have had plenty of opportunities to act on their platform – from George Bush the First becoming President in 1988, to the Republican Revolution of 1994 when they took control of Congress, to George Bush the Second and a Republican Congress holding all the reins of power for six years, to the current Republican controlled house which holds the purse strings and has it in their power to end all deficit spending and cut off every unconstitutional program and agency. To be honest, I can’t remember one time when Republicans have implemented one element of their own platform – perhaps in a state legislature somewhere sometime long ago and far away, but not at the federal level. Nevertheless, once every four years some of the oldest died in the wool Republican diehard conservatives announce what a wonderful platform the Republican Party has just adopted, why ‘it may be the best one yet.’ This proclamation is usually followed by Christians and conservatives everywhere jumping for joy and declaring victory over all the forces of evil, as though America has been saved and freedom restored. Then they immediately line up and vote for an establishment picked Presidential nominee who hasn’t read the platform, doesn’t care what’s in it and will never follow it. And do you suppose it will be any different this year? Already these same Christians and conservatives who ask how any biblical Christian could vote for Obama are lining up in lockstep to vote for a nominee who constitutes little more than ‘Obama lite’ – a globalist, socialist, pro-homosexual, with no intentions of securing the borders, balancing the budget, abolishing the department of education, auditing the Federal Reserve or implementing any of the other tenets of traditional conservatism. A candidate with a “D-” rating on gun rights; a candidate who implemented the socialized medicine program that Obamacare is patterned after; a candidate who supports TARP (Wall Street bailouts); a candidate who will continue the subversion of our national sovereignty and our amalgamation into Republican George HW Bush’s ‘New World Order.’ The only real purpose that the Republican Party platform serves is that of a public relations tool designed to keep gullible Christians and conservatives pacified as the establishment throws them a bone every four years, then goes off and does whatever it wants knowing it will be able to enjoy the full support of the religious right so long as they are reminded from time to time that, “we let you have a conservative platform, we’re the good guys, we have an “R” after our name, so keep supporting us.” Webmaster Wed, 29 Aug 2012 21:20:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:104 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/105/Republican-Loyalists.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=105 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=105&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/105/Republican-Loyalists.aspx By Darrell Castle There has been much controversy over rule changes initially passed by the Rules Committee of the Republican National Committee at the Republican National Convention now ongoing in Tampa, Florida. The new rules would have given the presidential nominee veto power over any delegates selected by the normal selection process in their states.   The republican delegates have always been pledged to support the winner of their state’s primary; but they have until now been free to vote their consciences on other things, such as on the Rules and Platform Committees. Should the apparent nominee have the power to select or reject lawfully chosen delegates, he would then have control of the entire process and, in effect, he and a few of those at the top of the party would hold dictatorial power.   My understanding at the time of this writing is that this conflict - which would have inevitably led to the first fight on the floor of a Republican Convention since 1972 - has been averted, and a compromise has been reached.   There have been other controversies in the republication nomination process, however, such as those surrounding the Ron Paul delegates that were duly chosen in many states and then rejected through what many in the Republican Party believe to be unlawful means. Party leadership cannot admit this occurred, because to do so might be tantamount to admitting to election fraud.   There is one other controversy with which I am personally acquainted: the efforts by republicans in various states to keep other parties like the Constitution and Libertarian Parties off the ballot. In Pennsylvania for example, many more signatures were delivered to state authorities than the number necessary to secure ballot access for the Constitution Party; but republicans objected to the signatures. To contest the objections would have cost perhaps $100,000; and under Pennsylvania’s loser pays law, had the Constitution Party lost the battle it would have been responsible for paying that fee from funds it did not have. Similar tactics have been used in other states with which I am personally acquainted but am not at liberty to discuss because I am co-counsel in a lawsuit still ongoing.   Republican Party leaders defend these tactics as being necessary to save the republic. These people believe that if President Obama is reelected the nation will not survive for another four years and therefore any tactic, lawful or unlawful, is justified. They say, "We will save our country from the legitimate democratic process if we have to destroy the democratic process to do it."   The unethical and sometimes unlawful tactics employed by the Republican Party leadership have had the effect of disenfranchising many members of the American voting public; and I trust these voters are outraged by it.   There is a good side to the tactics that I have described, of course, and that is that they have finally revealed by their own hands who and what these republicans really are.   The Grand Old Party of ethics and fair dealing, the party of high moral values, freedom, and life, is actually the Party of Royalists and Monarchists. These power grabs are a move toward centralization of power in the hands of a few at the expense of the many; but they do not care because they are saving their country from a bad leader.   This excuse of necessity is the tyrant's call and has been used by tyrants for centuries. Finally though, the Republican Party leadership has allowed us, the general voting American public, a clear look at their rotten and decayed core. I pray that we will act accordingly when and if we vote in November and in future elections.   For those who might agree with me, the Constitution Party would welcome you. Please consider my words in November.   Darrell Castle Webmaster Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:36:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:105 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/106/The-Assault-on-One-of-the-Chief-Cornerstones-of-Our-Freedom.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=106 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=106&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/106/The-Assault-on-One-of-the-Chief-Cornerstones-of-Our-Freedom.aspx By Robert W. Peck, Constitution Party of Washington Chairman The idea of freedom being under attack is nothing new. Our liberties, our God given rights and Constitutional protections have been under assault for some time now. However, while we have been busy running from one battle to another, our minds overwhelmed by the minutia of the multitude of issues that we are inundated with by television and talk radio hosts, I am concerned that one of the chief cornerstones of freedom has been under a more subtle and unpublicized assault. That assault began with mere hindrances, then onerous and even stifling rules and regulations and now some have begun to directly attack this essential element of freedom. The chief cornerstone of freedom that I am talking about is the ability to choose those who will govern us and to have our voices heard in the public arena of political debate. While none of our God given rights should ever be compromised, some can, from time to time, be infringed upon without losing freedom as a whole. We may not approve of an encroachment in a particular area – a new rule or regulation, a new tax, the licensing of a liberty, etc, but so long as free and open elections still exist, the people have a voice and can even place onto the ballot and elect to office representatives of “we the people” who can right the wrong. However, once a people begin to lose access to the ballot, and thereby their voice in the public forum, then freedom in its entirety is in peril. We do still have elections in America and for the most part they are open to “we the people.” However, access to the ballot is not as free and easy as you might think and even the access that exists is under attack by some. For freedom to flourish, the people, the common man, every man, must be afforded equal opportunity to enter the public forum, have their name placed on the ballot and have their views and concerns heard in the political arena. Those watching the political game from the bleachers may not realize it, but getting a candidate on the ballot is not always easy. Ballot access laws vary from state to state. Depending on the state and the office being sought, requirements can range from paying a simple filing fee to having to collect tens of thousands of petition signatures. One thing is quite consistent in most of the states and that is the existence of a tiered structure that segregates citizens into different classes such as major parties, minor parties or independents, then applies different ballot access requirements to each. It appears that in the spirit of “equality before the law,” those who make the laws (Democrats and Republicans) have determined by their infinite wisdom that the best way to make sure that all the citizens are treated equally is to require that those who reject the established powers of the “major parties” and choose to identify with another group, party or individual, are assigned second class status and given extra hoops to jump through before they can appear on the ballot and enjoy being treated equally. While this practice has not eliminated the ability of those outside the “major party” establishment to appear on the ballot and have their opinions heard, it has greatly hindered those who dissent from the views of the dominant political powers from entering the public forum. While this practice cannot exactly be labeled as dictatorial or totalitarian, it certainly does favor the creation of an oligarchy that has over the years gathered to itself ever increasing power. However, it appears that simply having the playing field tilted in their favor is no longer enough to satisfy the lust of some who love power as they have now begun to resort to lawsuits in an attempt to remove competitors from the ballot. It’s funny, but as those who lust for power get more and more of it, they grow increasingly fearful of losing their position of power, so they resort to ever more oppressive tactics in an attempt to get even more power in the hope that it will enable them to retain the power that they have. I have personally witnessed this very phenomenon in individuals who lie, cheat and seek to control others on a personal level. It can be seen in the pages of history as well. King Saul, knowing that he had disobeyed God and had been rejected from being king over Israel, busied himself with attempts to kill David thinking he could thwart God’s plan for replacing him by killing the man that God had anointed to take his place. Dictators and tyrants throughout history, Joseph Stalin being a good example, have kept themselves busy falsely accusing and executing individuals or even wiping out whole districts or segments of the population for fear that someone might be plotting against them and they might lose their grip on power. It shouldn’t be surprising though as Satan himself, the ultimate and original power monger, is growing, and will grow, ever more wild and frantic in his attempts to hold on to power over men as he sees his inevitable demise approaching at the end of this age and the power that he lusted for slipping through his fingers. Actually, tyrants and oppressors are merely reflecting the nature of Satan, the one who taught them to trust in and lust for power in the first place. In similar fashion, some in America who trust in political might and who are unwilling to share even the crumbs of it that fall from their table, are now engaging in overt attacks on the right of “we the people” to access the ballot and take part in the political debate. They are challenging the ballot access efforts of some third party candidates in an attempt to have them blocked or thrown off the ballot despite their having cleared monumental hurdles in acquiring the necessary number of ballot access petitions. One third party official personally admitted to me that this year’s attacks against the party’s ballot access efforts are unprecedented in the party’s 25 year history. In Virginia, the Board of Elections has asked the state’s Attorney General to “investigate” the petitions being submitted by the Constitution Party to have its Presidential candidate, former Congressman Virgil Goode, placed on the ballot. Interestingly, the challenge coincides with the first time in the party’s history that it has had a Presidential candidate shown to be polling at 9% and deemed to have a probability of affecting the outcome of the election in that state. A longtime Democrat strategist was quoted in a Washington Times article as saying, “You’d have to be on the Mars rover not to know that Republicans don’t want Goode on the ballot.” The Constitution Party of Virginia has issued a statement requesting that the Virginia Attorney General investigating the matter, also look into whether state election officials were influenced by or working with political operatives. In Pennsylvania, the Republican Party has directly challenged the ballot petitions submitted by both the Constitution and Libertarian parties despite the fact that both parties submitted far more signatures than required by the already onerous ballot access laws of that state. An Associated Press article titled, Republicans Work to get Third-Party Hopefuls off State Ballot, points out that “analysts say Republicans are probably worried that conservatives dissatisfied with their presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, will defect to Constitution or Libertarian party candidates.” That assessment is validated by the fact that the Republican Party chose to challenge only the two parties most likely to snatch up conservatives who are repulsed by the idea of voting for Romney, but no similar challenge was issued to any of the left leaning third parties. In a thinly veiled attempt to justify the action, a Republican spokeswoman offers the absurd claim that they are concerned that Democrats are behind the petitions. Oh yes, those pesky Democrats are always going around putting pro-liberty, pro-Second Amendment, pro-life and pro-Constitutionally limited government candidates on the ballot. To add an intimidation factor, the Constitution and Libertarian parties are under threat of having to pay the Republican Party’s court costs should the Republican Party succeed in denying these parties access to the ballot. The Republican Party has employed three law firms and is represented by five attorneys, putting Constitution and Libertarian party folk, whose chief assets consist of the shirt on their back, at risk of having to pay perhaps as much as $100,000. In California, the newly implemented “top two” primary election system has effectively hamstrung the ability of any new parties to get on the ballot. The measure that implemented the top two primary was backed by business interests, health insurance corporations and “liberal Republican millionaires, like Charlie Munger Jr.” in the words of one article. Interestingly, the ACLU of Southern California is now going to bat for disenfranchised voters and third parties, suing the California Secretary of State on behalf of the Justice Party and the Constitution Party of California, which seek to have their nominees for President included on the November ballot. On a brighter note, a victory for this most fundamental of freedoms has been won in Tennessee, but not without a fight. In 2010 a federal judge struck down the state’s ballot access law as unconstitutional. So what was the response from the Tennessee General Assembly? Pass a new law that still puts minor party and independent candidates at a disadvantage. In the wake of a suite against the new law by the Constitution and Green parties, a court has declared the state’s new ballot access law to also be unjustly oppressive of “we the people’s” right to access the public ballot and further deemed the law a violation of freedom of speech. A Tennessee attorney involved in the case who is a seasoned veteran of both the court room and the political arena, stated that he was “amazed at how hard the state and its AG [attorney general] has fought to keep any dissenting voice from being on the ballot. Not just the CP [Constitution Party] but also the Greens and Libertarians. Not challenging our signatures but appeal of every court decision in our favor as long as possible, filing motions to make the appeal last longer, and objecting to attorney fees etc.” I am hopeful that the current assault on third party candidates in Virginia and Pennsylvania will be thwarted and that the right of “we the people” to access the ballot will be upheld. However, the fact remains that these and other candidates seeking to bring an alternative voice to the political debate will not be on the ballot in several states where third party and independent candidates have effectively been legislated out of existence. Even when they manage to overcome onerous ballot access requirements, they are still at risk of being sued off the ballot by “major parties” who threaten to huff and puff and blow their house down. I’ll be the first to admit that we need to be thankful for the level of freedom and access to the ballot that we have in America, but we also need to jealously defend the freedom that we have and work to restore the rights that have been subverted. Just because there is more than one candidate on the ballot, or even more than one party, it doesn’t mean you have truly free elections. Free elections only exist when every citizen and every group of citizens have the same access to the ballot and the same ability to have their voices heard as the dominant political powers of the day. A chief cornerstone of our freedom, of our republican form of government and of our right to have our voice heard in the political arena, is indeed in peril and the assault is coming from the established political powers who seem unwilling to share access to the public ballot with “we the people.” Webmaster Mon, 20 Aug 2012 21:41:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:106 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/45/Thoughts-for-Memorial-Day.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=45 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=45&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/45/Thoughts-for-Memorial-Day.aspx by Author Unknow CP of Washington When you pass through the church door this Sunday, ask yourself a few questions- How is it we can worship freely? How is it we can even meet as a congregation for the purpose of worship? How is it we can choose which church or synagogue we wish to attend? How is it we can freely walk into a voting booth and vote for our favorite candidate? Or issue? How is it we can own and possess the means to protect and defend ourselves, our families and our property? How is it we have the right to a trial by a jury of our peers, and we are considered innocent until proven guilty? How is it that we are free? How is it that we, the people, are unique in all the world to be free to decide what is right for each of us as an individual? How is it that this Nation, the United States of America, even exists? Did our ministers do it? Our Rabbis? Our politicians? Did George Washington do it? Thomas Jefferson? No! From the Concord Green to the meadow at Chalmette, from Tripoli to Buena Vista, from Fort Sumter to Appomattox, from Belleau Wood to Iwo Jima and from Saigon to Tora Bora, those who have given us all of these things are our Veterans! Let us remember, and let us show our appreciation to them for the sacrifices they made for you, and for me! Shake their hands, and tell them "Thank you!" Without them, you would not be reading this column! Remember our Vets all year long--not just on Memorial Day!   Webmaster Wed, 23 May 2012 22:17:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:45 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/46/High-Gasoline-Prices--Ouch.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=46 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=46&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/46/High-Gasoline-Prices--Ouch.aspx by Thom Holmes Chairman, Constitution Party of Oklahoma Is your wallet feeling the sting of the rising gasoline prices? Mine sure is! Do you wonder why and what is causing it? We heard predictions at the beginning of this year that gasoline would set records for high prices this year which seemed pretty odd to me. However, several companies had already made known their plans to reduce the gasoline refining capacity in the East Coast region by 50% because those aging facilities were unprofitable. No matter what the product is, if you reduce capacity by 50% then it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to predict a rise in prices. A simple internet search yielded that, "Recent closures in the refining sector have certainly been bad news for consumers. Sunoco Inc plans to shut a 14 million gallons-per-day Philadelphia refinery this summer if no buyer is found. And in the last few months in Pennsylvania, Sunoco shut a 7.5 million gallons-per-day refinery and ConocoPhillips closed a 7.8 millions gallons-per-day refinery. More recently, Hovensa SA shut its 14.7 million gallons-per-day joint venture refinery in the U.S. Virgin Islands." (ref 1) So, in a few short months 44 million gallons of gasoline per day has been or will soon be removed from the market. To learn why, I went to the ConocoPhillips website and found this statement in the press release about the closure and sale of their Trainer, PA refinery: “After exploring a wide range of alternatives for the refinery, the decision to sell is based on the level of investment required to remain competitive,” said Willie Chiang, senior vice president. “U.S. East Coast refining has been under severe market pressure for several years. Product imports, weakness in motor fuel demand, and costly regulatory requirements are key factors in creating this very difficult environment.” (ref 2) New air emissions requirements and numerous other regulatory changes are making older facilities unprofitable, therefore companies are selling or closing them down. In fact, there have been no new refineries built in the U.S. since 1976 and in the past 35 years the number of refineries in our country has declined by 50%. This reduction in refining capacity, and therefore the rise in gasoline prices, is a direct result of the laws and regulations coming out of Washington DC, and the American public is paying the price. Washington politicians and bureaucrats like to point at industry as being greedy and driving up prices to unreasonable levels when in fact rising prices are due to regulation induced supply shortages. So you see, the federal government is more to blame for the high gas prices than anyone else. To learn the real truth about any topic we must dig deeper into the sound bites fed to us by the media, and fortunately with the internet as a tool it doesn’t take too long to learn the rest of the story. Thom Holmes Chandler, OK References: 1. Why retail gasoline prices are nearing a record. By Myra P. Saefong, MarketWatch of the Wall Street Journal http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-retail-gasoline-prices-are-nearing-a-record-2012-03-01?pagenumber=1 2. Conoco Press Release 9-27-11 http://www.conocophillips.com/EN/newsroom/news_releases/2011news/Pages/09-27-2011.aspx Webmaster Sun, 11 Mar 2012 22:19:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:46 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/47/Santorums-Contradictions-A-Record-of-Forcing-Catholics-to-Pay-for-Contraception.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=47 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=47&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/47/Santorums-Contradictions-A-Record-of-Forcing-Catholics-to-Pay-for-Contraception.aspx by Thomas R. Eddlem The New American Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum told a Georgia megachurch that President Obama is "trampling on a constitutional right" by forcing Catholic institutions to pay for contraception through healthcare coverage. The GOP presidential candidate added that Obama "is imposing his ideology on a group of people expressing their theology, their moral code." The remarks were delivered February 19 at the Cumming, Georgia, First Redeemer Church.   But Santorum himself has a record of forcing Catholics to pay for other people’s contraception through the instrument of taxation, and has recently boasted about it. Santorum told Greta Van Susteren on Fox News February 16: "The bottom line in my position is very clear. I’ve had a consistent record on this of supporting women’s right to have contraception. I’ve supported funding for it." Santorum went on to note:   I actually have been criticized by — I think it was Governor Romney or maybe it was Congressman Paul’s campaign for voting for contraception, that I voted for funding for — I think it was Title X — which I have voted for in the past. That provides for free contraception through organizations, even like Planned Parenthood.   Indeed, some of Congressman Ron Paul’s supporters — such as Dr. Thomas Woods — have also criticized Santorum for forcing Catholics to pay for contraceptives through taxation. Santorum’s words to Van Susteren have matched his votes. The New American’s Alex Newman has pointed out that Santorum repeatedly voted to force taxpayers to fund contraceptives, including funding to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. Texas Congressman Ron Paul himself has defined the issue in terms of whether the "free exercise" of religion should continue to be allowed:   The benefits or drawbacks of birth control are not the issue. The issue is whether government may force private employers and private citizens to violate their moral codes simply by operating their businesses or paying their taxes.   Rep. Paul is right that, strictly speaking, contraceptive funding is less the issue than the principles involved. Constitutionally speaking, there’s no difference between forcing Catholics to pay for contraceptives through health insurance and forcing them to pay for abortions through health insurance. If the federal government has the constitutional power to force Catholics to fund one, it can force anyone to do the other. The First Amendment guarantees the people’s right not only to believe in religion but to "free exercise" of that religion:   Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.   Congress claims the power to regulate health insurance through the commerce clause of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power ....To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States." Strict constructionists have pointed out that the power to regulate commerce was qualified by being "among the states," meaning interstate commerce and not between a patient and a doctor, in addition to being qualified by the Bill of Rights (including the First Amendment), which were ratified after adoption of the U.S. Constitution.   Congress’ right to regulate the commerce, or the lack of commerce in this case of forced funding of contraceptives, trumps the First Amendment’s right to free exercise of religion, according to both the Obama administration and Senator Santorum. Both would force all Catholics to fund contraception, regardless of their religious principles. Santorum himself seemed to indicate that his views had less to do with constitutional principles than his personal preferences in his remarks to Van Susteren, where he said it was the level of offense in abortion, not constitutional principles, that prompted his opposition:   I have my own views on these things. They are deeply held beliefs. But not everything that I disagree with morally should the government be involved in. Only where there are real consequences to society or to the rights of individuals do I feel a need to speak out and that’s why I do on the issue of abortion, because we have another person involved in the decision. But in the issue of contraception that’s certainly not the case.   Santorum also argued on Van Susteren’s show that contraceptives have exacerbated social ills: "The whole conception of sexual liberation, sexual freedom had had its downside — and certainly birth control is part of that — with dramatic increase in sexually transmitted diseases, dramatic increase in out-of-wedlock births and dramatic increase in the number of abortions." But if this is true, then why does Santorum support government financing of contraception? As Commentary magazine noted: "if contraception is as damaging as Mr. Santorum argues, both outside and within the context of marriage, why does he continue to support federal funding for contraception? Why wouldn’t he feel an obligation to at least talk about something that he thinks is injurious to America?"   Such an observation is a justifiable criticism of Santorum’s contradiction.   Commentary magazine highlighted a clear contradiction, but a minor one compared to the constitutional issue. The real issue is how Santorum can condemn the Obama administration for "imposing his ideology on a group of people expressing their theology, their moral code, and saying government will force you to do what your faith says is gravely wrong," in the case of a government healthcare mandate for private insurers, but in the case of general government funding do precisely the same thing. By failing to point out the constitutional trip-wires on contraceptive funding under the First Amendment, Santorum may have opened up the door to government funding of the abortions he so loudly claims to oppose.   Webmaster Sun, 19 Feb 2012 23:26:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:47 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/48/It-Could-Break-Your-Heart.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=48 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=48&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/48/It-Could-Break-Your-Heart.aspx by Jack McLain Secretary, Constitution Party of Florida The woman stood at the corner with a sign reading, “Homeless – Two Children – Please Help.”  She resembled an average housewife without signs of drug or alcohol abuse.  I stopped for the red light, opened my window, and asked her if she knew of a rescue mission in the area.  She named a couple of homes that help folks but said they were full.   I asked her about her children.  She replied that they were with her sister.  I didn’t have any cash to give her (only had my credit card), but I gave her a Gospel tract with our church address imprinted.  Then the light changed to green and I had to move on.  But her forlorn face remained in my memory.    Then last night I read of the homeless with a photo of a nice looking woman with a baby in her lap and a small boy sitting next to her, apparently on the ground or pavement, mother and son holding signs reading, “Homeless - Please Help.”  The article, “Middle-class homelessness hits new high in U.S.” told of a 38 percent increase in homelessness in the last three years, that there are now an estimated 1.6 million children, or one in 45 children, out of their homes (American Free Press, 1/23/12)..    The one organization in our nation that represents homeless families and children is National Center on Family Homelessness.  President and founder, Dr. Ellen Bassuk states, “Those hardest hit…are the children.  As many as half…are less than six years old.  A lot of these children are living in cars and abandoned buildings.”  The article went on to list the States with the largest numbers of homeless children:  California, New York, Texas, Florida, Chicago, Illinois, and Arizona.  (Note that my State is listed).    As I sit at our table to eat a delicious meal in a pleasant home, or as I retire in a comfortable bed, the memory of these destitute families remains.  It could break your heart!  Could this be the once proud, sufficient America that we have known for many years?  I grew up during the great Depression.  We were poor, and my parents struggled to keep a roof over our head and food on the table, my brothers and I picked wild berries and sold them door-to-door, but what would it be like to try to live in a car or in an abandoned building, especially in mid-winter in the North?  Suppose there was nowhere to turn and no one to help, all doors were closed to your pleas?   Frankly, it brings tears to my eyes.      What is the cause of such destitute conditions in America?  Suppose it continues or worsens?  Our own national government policies, national companies, and the banking field must accept much blame for conditions that exist.  Government rules, regulations, and taxation first drove many industries and jobs from the United States to foreign countries, especially to Communist China.  Americans cooperated with the purchase of Communist goods.  This continues today to our shame.  Even the financial crises in Europe are attributed to the disgusting policies of the United States government and bankers.      Banks began to allow the sale of homes without a down payment with many families making monthly payments that they no doubt couldn’t really afford.  With job losses and payments ceasing, banks then mercilessly foreclosed on multitudes of homes.  I read of a Sheriff who halted a bank from forcing a very elderly woman from her home.  Good for him!    Some even very old companies have excused themselves when asked why they shipped their manufacturing overseas and discharged employees, even bragging that they take good care of their Chinese employees (claiming that none are slaves), while other companies continue to manufacture in the United States, to their credit.  Does not the answer lie in the almighty dollar?  We can manufacture in China, ship the product thousands of miles across the ocean and make more money than if we continue here in the U.S., they would answer.  Try to buy a pair of shoes or a dress not made in China or some other foreign country. We do without first!  Whatever happened to the word “compassion?”  It is replaced with a “pink slip” in the final paycheck of an employee that served his company well for many years.  “Sorry,” the boss says, “It’s out of my hands.  Good luck.”   Americans have always been generous and beneficent giving to all manner of causes, some important and some unimportant.  Clubs, organizations, museums, art galleries, and many humanitarian institutions are started.  At this particular time in our nation’s history, churches, organizations, and the affluent have a wonderful opportunity to help their fellow man to have a place to live and a table with food.  America should not have destitute hungry children on the street as in some third world country!   With many Americans living in luxury, with money for every need, as well as for recreation, sports, and giving to prospective political candidates, much more thought and prayer needs to be given to those unemployed through no fault of their own.  We have known of some very hard workers who are now needy people.  Can we not help them to get back on their feet?  Do we care?  With all the promises that will be made this election year, will any candidates promise to personally help one needy family or to save one child from abortion?   Remember our Declaration of Independence, “that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness---that to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed…”  John Dickinson, a signer of the Constitution stated, “It is not our duty to leave wealth to our children; but it is our duty to leave liberty to them.”  We need to consider it our duty to provide life and happiness for them as well.    The Constitution Party Platform is clear concerning Welfare, reading in part:  “America’s welfare crisis is a government-induced crisis…Charity, and provision of welfare to those in need, is not a Constitutional responsibility of the federal government…The message of Christian charity is fundamentally at odds with the concept of welfare maintenance as a right…We encourage individuals, families, churches, civic groups and other private organizations, to fulfill their personal responsibility to help those in need.”   If you have not read the message of Congressman Davy Crockett of yesteryear, entitled, Not Yours to Give, we have copies available upon request.  Every Congressman should read this message!   “And let us not be weary in well doing:  for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not”  (Galatians 6:9).    Jack McLain, Secretary Constitution Party of Florida   Webmaster Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:31:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:48 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/49/Education-Taxes-Government-Schools.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=49 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=49&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/49/Education-Taxes-Government-Schools.aspx by Robert W. Peck Chairman - Constitution Party of Washington School levies will once again be on the ballot in various districts around my home state of Washington on February 14 (Valentine’s Day). The education establishment learned some time ago not to put bonds and levies on the regular November ballot as they often fail at elections where larger numbers of voters turn out. In recent years, such levies are nearly always voted on in a so-called “special election” at an off season when nothing else is on the ballot and few voters participate. If the education establishment can get its base of support to turn out, and if few voters participate overall, then an ever increasing flow of revenue for the bloated education bureaucracy will much more likely result. Never mind the waste of taxpayer dollars spent on a special election – “it’s for the kids!” My friend Rick Kiesz, editor of the Palouse Patriot together with his wife Carolyn, has written a great article on the topic of government schools and why he will be voting “No” on ALL school levies. I wholeheartedly agree with Rick’s sentiments and encourage you to read his article. However, I have a few thoughts of my own that I’d like to add. I’m sorry to have to say it, but those of us who identify ourselves as Christian, conservative or Constitutional, tend to spend more time complaining than taking action. We’ve become too preoccupied with talking about how big the education establishment is, how much money they have and how much power they have. We’ve convinced ourselves that there’s nothing we can do to stop the Godless, humanistic, socialistic brainwashing of a generation by the all-powerful government education establishment. But I beg to differ. In fact, I dare say that there are few if any problems facing America today that we couldn’t lick if we had the courage of our professed convictions and were willing to endure a little hardship and make some sacrifice. For example, I’m persuaded that if Christians, conservatives and Constitutionists were to act on their professed values, we could demonstrate for all to see that there isn’t even a need for a government run education system. If the large percentage of the population that identifies as Christian were to place their children into Christian private schools, or homeschool (an equal or in some cases even better alternative), the government run schools would become virtual ghost towns. The injustice of taxing all the citizens in order to prop up the establishment bureaucracy that serves only a few, would become evident for all to see. The people would soon demand their tax dollars be returned to them to be used on the education option of their choice. The government education bureaucracy just might be put out of business altogether. Now some will say "oh, but we can’t afford a private school tuition." This is where putting our money where our mouth is comes in. If everyone who rails against the deplorable and depraved state of the government schools were to donate $5, $10, $25, or $50 per month to a private school (or a neighborhood homeschool family), that school could then reduce it’s tuition rate so that most any family could afford a private education. Those with successful businesses, or those who have finished raising a family and whose household expenses are now reduced, have no excuse. If every Christian-conservative-Constitutionist were to act on their professed convictions, private Christian schools would become the new booming industry in America. They would be springing up in every neighborhood. They would be hiring teachers who would be set free from the bureaucracy of the government education establishment and turned loose to teach with all of their God given natural talent – free to honor their Creator as they educate children with all of the gifting that He has given them. And thanks to people like you giving to help support those private schools, they could offer assistance to families who truly cannot afford the tuition. The devotion of parents to their children in homeschooling or sacrificing to pay a tuition, and the sincere charity of others in assisting those who need it, would soon replace the bloated, bureaucracy ridden, government education establishment. Gee, I’m getting myself all worked up here. Maybe I’ll just have to practice what I preach. Okay, I just stopped and wrote a check to the K-8 school at my church. Take that government schools! This might sound like the lofty, idealistic vision of a dreamer, but the fulfilling of the dream is really only as far away as each of us giving up going to a movie once a month, or giving up a latte a couple times a week – a sacrifice alright, but much less sacrifice than those who laid down their lives and fortunes to give us this country. My point is that it is doable if we are willing to do what it takes. Therefore, whiling away my days complaining about the current state of affairs just isn’t an option for me, not while action can still be taken. While the current government run education system remains, please don’t talk to me about the need for a levy or bond until the entire education system, from Washington DC, to Olympia, to the local school district, has undergone and implemented all of the recommendations of an independent performance audit and is running at the efficiency levels that would be expected and required in the private sector. You see, I’m persuaded that the problem isn’t that taxpayers aren’t taxed enough. I’m persuaded that the problem lies in a bureaucracy that consumes most of the funds before they ever make it to the classroom. If it were up to me, I’d start by firing everyone in DC, Olympia and the local district except the teachers, the building maintenance staff, one principal and secretary per school and one administrator and secretary per district. I believe our teachers are smart enough to figure out how to properly educate children without an army of bureaucrats in far away places telling them how to do it. And if the district administrator isn’t capable of ordering the books requested by the teachers and assigning maintenance staff and funding in a manner that properly maintains the facilities, then we need to add hiring a new administrator to our to do list. Perhaps this sounds excessively harsh, like I’m being too severe, I mean really, expecting a government bureaucracy to tighten its belt and live like those of us in the private sector, yea, that’s just plain unreasonable. On this Valentine’s Day, or whatever day levies might be on your local ballot, let’s have a heart, show some love for the kids and vote “No” to heaping more debt, taxes and government bureaucracy on the backs of future generations. Get more information about schools and levies at http://www.taxfacs.com/ (information is for Spokane County, but is indicative of the situation elsewhere)   If you agree with the content of this article, please forward, post and publish far and wide. If you don’t, who will? © Robert W. Peck Robert Peck lives in Spokane Valley, Washington where he owns and manages residential rental properties. He serves as the Chairman of the Constitution Party of Washington and as Western Area Co-Chairman for the Constitution Party National Committee. Webmaster Mon, 23 Jan 2012 23:31:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:49 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/50/Vital-Freedoms-Lost-While-President-Consoles-Americans.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=50 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=50&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/50/Vital-Freedoms-Lost-While-President-Consoles-Americans.aspx by Jack McLain Secretary, Constitution Party of Florida In what is probably the most sorry piece of legislation ever passed by House and Senate, Americans have essentially lost their basic freedoms under the Bill of Rights!   While we sleep, work, and go about our daily routines, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 has been passed by House and Senate and signed by president Barack Obama at the turn of the New Year.   This bill, drafted and sponsored by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MI), claimed to be 500 pp long by Obama, but 926 pp long by constitutional attorney Tim Baldwin, “contains draconian language authorizing the U.S. military to seize and incarcerate U.S. citizens without warrant, due process, trial, etc.   “It completely nullifies a good portion of the Bill of Rights [Amendments 5,6,7, and 8], turns the U.S. into a war zone, and places U.S. citizens under military rule,” writes Chuck Baldwin in his report of January 9, 2012 entitled “Bill of Rights Is No More.” (ChuckBaldwinLive)  The bill, otherwise known as the “Indefinite Detention Act,” contains provisions in Sections 1031 and 1032 that deprive Americans of rights that have been guaranteed since the founding of our nation.  Those who are targeted for arrest are called “belligerents” and “covered persons,” while these terms are not defined and citizens are at the mercy of tyrants.   Two questions immediately arise:  Who wrote the bill and who read the bill?  Did these Senators really write the entire bill or their henchmen on the left?  How many Congressmen who voted for the bill, passed by a Republican House and a Democrat Senate, really read the bill?  An embarrassing question to ask them indeed.    Meanwhile, “president” Barack Obama, in a long, flowery statement upon signing the bill stated, “I have the power to detain Americans…but I won’t.”  Really?  Then why didn’t you take those provisions from the bill?  Obama had stated that he wouldn’t sign the bill but changed his mind (his promise) when it passed Congress.  “Detain” is a nice sounding word while the bill actually provides for arrest without any constitutionally guaranteed safeguards.        The bill is described in the “Freedom Index” of The New American (1/9/12, p. 31) as follows:  “Detainee-related language in the Defense authorization bill (S.1867) was written in such a sweeping way that even the United States can be considered part of the battlefield in the global war against terror---and even American citizens accused of being terrorists can be apprehended by the U.S. military and detained indefinitely without habeas corpus [L. you may have the body; i.e. show proof] and without being tried and found guilty in a court of law…the War on Terror must not be allowed to destroy legal protections stretching back to the Magna Carta.”   Mike Adams of NaturalNews wrote:  “One of the most extraordinary documents in human history---the Bill of Rights---has come to an end under president Barack Obama…a law that grants the U.S. military the ‘legal’ right to conduct secret kidnappings of U.S. citizens, followed by indefinite detention, interrogation, torture and even murder…with no jury, no trial, no legal representation and not even any requirement that the government produce evidence against the accused.”  Calling it “outright government tyranny,” Adams states that the bill “effectively nullifies the Bill of Rights.”   We read that constitutional scholars describe this bill as “extremist, tyrannical and dangerous.”   What can Americans do about such shameful legislation coming out of Washington?  Andrew Nappi, State Director of the Florida Tenth Amendment Center, has written a lengthy letter to Senator Michael Haridopolis, Florida Senate President, stating our position and requesting action for Floridians:    “The NDAA is the single biggest evisceration of our Bill of Rights in our lifetime.  Never before have the definitions of ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorist supporter’ been defined so broadly and vague; never before have we codified into law a president’s nonexistent authority to arrest and detain American citizens on American soil…the most egregious assault on our fundamental legal rights of protection under the Bill of Rights.   “In the interest of preserving the Bill of Rights, and checking the runaway abuse of the general government, the creation and agent of the several states, we are urging you to arrest the progress of the evil that endangers all Floridians under the National Defense Authorization Act arrest and detention provisions.  We request at the start of this coming legislative session you do the following:”  There follows a list of six requests that Nappi makes of the Florida Senate President which we can provide, or you can access at andrew.nappi@tenthamendmentcenter.com   In providing protection from tyranny for their citizens, every State legislature and Governor in this union should shortly declare that we will not tolerate such action by the federal government.  Our Tenth Amendment rights provide for us to resist and cease any action that would arrest and imprison law abiding citizens without cause.  This is yet another vital cause for Sheriff Richard Mack’s Constitutional Sheriff project to take notice of for proper action.   “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3).  Answer:  Prayer and Action!  “Reprove unfruitful works of darkness” (Ephesians 5:11).    “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God” – Benjamin Franklin. Webmaster Tue, 10 Jan 2012 23:34:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:50 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/51/Someone-Stop-Us-Before-We-Spend-Again.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=51 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=51&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/51/Someone-Stop-Us-Before-We-Spend-Again.aspx by Robert W. Peck Chairman, Constitution Party of Washington Yesterday I received an email from our U.S. Representative, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, seeking my opinion on a proposed balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Now I realize that a balanced budget amendment sounds like a good idea on the surface and I’m not inherently opposed to it, but I have my concerns and reasons why I believe it’s a waste of time to be fooling with.   I believe that amending the U.S. Constitution is a big deal, it should not be entered into lightly and it should not be resorted to unless all other options have been exhausted. The real concern is that we can fall into a trap of starting to use Constitutional amendments as a means of legislating. Good people fall into this trap when Congress or the courts manage to circumvent laws. We then think that if it were in the Constitution they would have to obey it. But courts and legislatures that lack the character to obey the laws that we already have will be little more inclined to obey a Constitutional amendment. Meanwhile, we cheapen the Constitution whenever we resort to using it as an instrument for legislating.   As for the matter at hand, it seems that when Congress passed the “Budget Control Act of 2011” (aka, the deficit ceiling increase) on August 1st of this year, one of the provisions of the bill was that Congress would hold a vote on a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. So now, our Congresswoman wants to know our opinion about this – I quote:   “Next week, the U.S. House will consider a Constitutional amendment to require the federal government to balance its budget – just like families and small businesses all across Eastern Washington have to do, plus 49 out of 50 states . . .   Should Congress vote to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution?  •Yes. The national debt is a genuine crisis and a balanced budget amendment is a smart way to force the government to start living within its means. •No. The national debt isn’t a threat and can be dealt with through other means.” Sounds good doesn’t it? Sounds like a fiscally responsible legislator out to balance the budget. But here’s the kicker. Cathy voted “For” the now infamous deficit ceiling increase that authorized up to another $2.4 trillion to be added to the then $14.3 trillion national debt. But it gets better.   The Budget Control Act of 2011 employs amendments to the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act designed to forcibly reduce spending through sequestration should Congress fail to do the job themselves. That 1985 law made spending reductions mandatory and required the budget to be balanced by 1991. That law, apparently still on the books, though often amended, contorted and mutilated, obviously did not work as it has been ignored, avoided and averted ever since it’s adoption.   The point is that I find it downright humorous to think that Congress, in one fell swoop of passing this year’s “Budget Control Act,” both authorized record deficits with one hand and with the other supposedly bound themselves to mandatory spending reductions through the use of a law that they have never in over three decades complied with. Then, in the same bill, they called for a vote on a balanced budget amendment, thus acknowledging right in the text of the bill that they know good and well that they will not be able to bring themselves to comply with the bill’s spending reduction requirements, so “let’s call for a vote on a Constitutional amendment too – maybe we’ll be able to bring ourselves to comply with that.”   I’m sorry, but this sounds like the drunk who every Friday goes out and spends his whole paycheck at the bar only to swear on Monday that he’ll never do it again, but on Friday he’s back at the bar. So next the drunk puts a padlock on his wallet in the hope that it will stop him from spending his paycheck, but he has since taught himself to pick the lock and can still be found at the bar every Friday emptying his wallet. Now he is talking about getting a bigger padlock in the hope that will stop him.   A vote on a balanced budget amendment by this Congress sounds to me like a group of legislators who are intoxicated with spending and know that they can’t stop, but are crying out saying “Someone please stop us before we spend again!”   "To preserve [the] independence [of the people,] we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude."   Thomas Jefferson   (NOTE: The cost of government in the United States now stands at 67% of all that we as Americans produce)       If you agree with the content of this article, please forward, post and publish far and wide. If you don’t, who will?       © Robert W. Peck       Robert Peck lives in Spokane Valley, Washington where he owns and manages residential rental properties. He serves as the Chairman of the Constitution Party of Washington and as Western Area Co-Chairman for the Constitution Party National Committee.   Webmaster Fri, 11 Nov 2011 23:36:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:51 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/52/Pat-Buchanans-new-book-is-clear-headed.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=52 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=52&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/52/Pat-Buchanans-new-book-is-clear-headed.aspx by Virgil Goode Former Congressman Virginia’s 5th District (1997 - 2009) For the last two decades, Pat Buchanan has warned that America is on the edge of ruin due to our irrational immigration, economic and foreign policies. As events have proven Buchanan right, Americans have become more receptive to his brand of conservatism, which he lays out in his new book Suicide of a Superpower. However, it is clear that the Republican Party is still ignoring his wise advice. On the issue of trade, just last week only a handful of Republicans voted against three sovereignty-sacrificing trade deals supported by the Obama administration. Buchanan, in contrast, makes a strong case that the $6.2 trillion trade deficit America ran in the past decade has ruined this country’s manufacturing base. With the exclusion of Ron Paul and a few others, Republicans are still committed to the wars in the Middle East. Pat Buchanan argues that we simply are too far in debt to maintain a global military empire. While I initially voted for funding for the troops in Iraq, I agree with him that it is absurd that we have hundreds of thousands of troops defending the borders of Korea and the Middle East when there is anarchy along our southern border. As he eloquently asks, “What does it profit America if we save Anbar and lose Arizona?” While Republicans have at least been giving lip service to the problem of illegal immigration, their words are rarely backed by action, and they still refuse to address legal immigration. In my opinion, this is the gravest issue facing the country. Buchanan takes the GOP to task for its dereliction of duty, “through its support of mass immigration, its support of paralysis in preventing twelve to twenty million illegal aliens from entering and staying in this country, and its failure to address the ‘anchor baby’ issue, the Republican Party has birthed a new electorate that will send the party the way of the Whigs.” What does he mean? Pat Buchanan accepts Howard Dean’s gaffe that the GOP is “the white party” as simple truth. Pat puts the facts bluntly: “Due to the immigration and higher birthrates among people of color, America is becoming less white and less Christian — and therefore inevitably less Republican.” No doubt many will accuse him of racism for making this point, but Buchanan quotes many liberal commentators who say they support immigration for that very reason. For example Michael Moore consoled liberals after George W. Bush’s victory in 2004, “88% of Bush’s support came from white voters, in 50 years America will no longer have a white majority.” Assuming our immigration policies do not change, that date will actually be 2042. One would think that out of pure political calculus, Republicans would oppose mass immigration, but instead GOP strategist Lance Tarrance called for the party to abandon the Southern Strategy for the “Hispanic Strategy.” However, as Buchanan shows, Hispanics vote overwhelmingly Democratic regardless of a GOP candidate’s position on immigration. In fact, a higher percentage of Hispanics support tough immigration policies than vote Republican. Of course, there are many more important reasons to be opposed to massive immigration than how it will affect the GOP’s electoral chances. For starters, there is the issue of American jobs. As Buchanan notes, “to bring in foreign workers when 34 million Americans are still underemployed or out of work is to put corporate profits ahead of country.” Perhaps most importantly, immigration without assimilation is undermining our very culture. With the majority of illegal immigrants and the plurality of legal immigrants coming from Mexico, Buchanan notes that many of our southern neighbor’s leaders and citizens have a grudge against America. He cites a Zogby poll that found that “69% of the people in Mexico believe that the first loyalty of U.S. Citizens of Mexican descent should be to Mexico.” Mexico even has a government Office for Mexicans Abroad with the explicit purpose of preventing assimilation. According to the one-time head of the agency Juan Hernandez, “I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think ‘Mexico First.’” While Buchanan paints a very bleak portrait of America, he offers very clear solutions to get us back on the right track. Buchanan’s solution for the immigration problem: an end to anchor baby citizenship, a moratorium on all legal immigration until unemployment is below 6%, a crackdown on the employers of illegal immigrants and a strong rejection of amnesty. He calls for a freeze on all government hiring, across-the-board cuts in all departments and the elimination of unnecessary agencies. On foreign policy, he wants to withdraw our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and remove our bases in Europe and Asia that do not serve our national interests. Buchanan is no pacifist, he simply wants to “shrink our defense perimeter” to focus on protecting America rather than the rest of the world. On social issues, Buchanan grimly admits that conservatives lost the culture wars. While there are still millions of Americans who believe in traditional values, the counterculture of the ’60s is now the dominant culture. Buchanan calls for a revival of states’ rights to allow traditionalists to win in red states without the interference of activist courts. Ultimately, he argues this fight needs to be won outside of politics. While I might quibble with a few points, Buchanan offers an astute diagnosis of America’s problems and gives constructive suggestions to put us back on track. Virgil Goode represented Virginia’s 5th Congressional District from 1997 through 2009. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/27/pat-buchanans-new-book-is-clear-headed/#ixzz1c6z8DTEK Webmaster Thu, 27 Oct 2011 22:38:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:52 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/53/President-Obamas-Job-Speech-A-Constitution-Party-Response.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=53 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=53&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/53/President-Obamas-Job-Speech-A-Constitution-Party-Response.aspx by Darrell Castle Vice-Chairman, Constitution Party National Committee Last night President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress and the nation on the subject of jobs. The result was a proposed bill he called “The American Jobs Act,” which he repeatedly urged Congress to pass right away. The president summarized his proposal in a pre-speech announcement by describing it as a series of bipartisan proposals that allow Congress to take immediate action to rebuild the American economy. He went on to say that his proposal would strengthen small businesses, help get Americans back to work, and put more money in the paychecks of the middle class and working American. His proposal would do all this while still reducing the deficit and getting our fiscal house in order. The meat of the president’s proposal could be summarized as follows: spending $447 billion on infrastructure, tax incentives to increase hiring, a reduction in the employer portion of the payroll tax, and a few other changes. The President has a very difficult situation on his hands. The 2012 presidential campaign has already started; his approval rating is the lowest since such records have been kept; and he is facing 9.1% unemployment. He knows that no president since FDR has been re-elected with unemployment above 7.2%. He must, therefore, bring down unemployment; he must do it quickly; and he must do it without offending any particular voting constituency. His very difficult situation is made close to impossible by the fact that he has only a set of failed economic theories to work with. The Keynesian Theory of how to revive a faltering economy has been tried several times in the last four years with no lasting effect. The trillions spent to prop up failing financial institutions, Cash for Clunkers, $8000 home purchase incentives – are all gone, all disappeared into the black hole of debt as if they were never there. The President is right about one thing, though. This fiscal disaster we are facing has been built by a joint effort of Democrats and Republicans. After all, one-half of the Federal Reserve’s mandate is to maintain full employment. It usually attempts to fulfill its mandate through a bipartisan formula of debt and more debt. What then is the problem? The problem is several decades of the Keynesian approach of debt and inflation. During the 98-year existence of the Federal Reserve, the dollar has lost more than 95% of its value and the national debt has passed 15 trillion dollars. The deep fiscal problems – perhaps unsolvable without serious pain – which we now face are the inevitable result of America’s severing the last connection of the dollar to gold in August 1971. That act, in effect, changed the world’s reserve currency from gold to paper and now the paper is returning to its intrinsic value. The other problem is the relentless transferring of American jobs, especially the high paying ones, to foreign countries. This process was brought about through trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO and GATT. President Obama made a campaign promise to revisit NAFTA but he has not done so. The President recognized that unemployment was a serious problem shortly after his inauguration, and he created a position commonly referred to as Jobs Czar, to deal with it. That position is currently held by Jeffrey Immelt, C.E.O. of General Electric. Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D – OH) recently issued a statement calling for Mr. Immelt to resign or be removed because of G.E.’s transference of vital technology to Chinese state-owned companies. Mr. Immelt, it seems, has created a lot of new jobs – in China. A problem caused by profligate spending, high inflation, and the resulting unsustainable debt, along with transferring jobs to foreign countries cannot be solved by more profligate spending and more job transfers. What then is the solution? There is no solution that will not bring with it at least temporary pain. Change our monetary system from one based on debt and inflation – which lead inevitably to recession or depression – to one based on sound money. Sound money would quickly return America to fiscal sanity after a period in which debt in the system is flushed out through repayment or default. Abolish the Federal Reserve and with it the policy of never-ending debt and inflation. Withdraw from international agreements such as NAFTA which encourage the transferring of American jobs and technology to foreign countries. Perhaps President Obama’s “American Jobs Act” will be passed by Congress, and will delay the inevitable long enough to allow him to survive the 2012 election. Time will tell, but should the things I have proposed be enacted, I have no doubt that America would quickly become the most prosperous and dynamic nation on earth again. Webmaster Thu, 08 Sep 2011 22:46:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:53 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/54/Endowed-or-Entitled--Your-Choice.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=54 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=54&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/54/Endowed-or-Entitled--Your-Choice.aspx   by Peg Luksik Once upon a time there were two brothers. The older would, by birthright, inherit all that his father owned. A day came when the older wanted something to eat. He had been outside all day, and was hungry. The younger had a meal already prepared. The older asked the younger to give him the dinner. The younger agreed, on the condition that the older would give up his birthright in return for the free meal. The older took the deal, gave up his birthright, and ate. Most of us recognize the story. And we scratch our heads at a person who would give away an entire birthright for one meal. We shouldn’t. We are just like him. America was founded on the recognition that each of us has a birthright of endowed and unalienable rights. Like all birthrights, it brings the promise of opportunity and blessing, provided that we honor the responsibility of protecting and cherishing it. Our birthright cannot legitimately be taken from any of us, but each of us can choose to give it away. If enough of us make that choice, the birthright’s promise will be lost to all of us. Sadly, many Americans are making that choice. They are selling their birthright of endowed rights for the free meal of government entitlements. And like the older brother in the story, they are convincing themselves that their immediate needs are so important that meeting them is worth what they are losing. They may not even realize that they are selling one thing to get another. But they are. It is not a coincidence that as the number of government entitlements increases, there is an equal increase in government’s assault on our endowed rights. The government is slowly changing its own job description from a protector of endowed rights to a grantor of entitlements. If it completes the transition, it will also have changed its status from a servant to a master of Americ’s citizens. Let’s look at just one example. The government is marketing an entitlement to health care. Accepting it means allowing the government “entitler” to determine who may receive what treatment at what cost under what conditions, effectively selling the endowed right of life. And, since the law creating the entitlement says the government’s power to make those treatment determinations is not limited to the individuals who have accepted the entitlement, the loss of the endowed right is more universal than the entitlement it has been traded for. Every American will be affected by the fact that some Americans have decided to sell their birthright. The younger brother understood the value of the birthright, and he was willing to give something to get it. He understood that the meal would quickly end, while the birthright would last forever. His elder freely chose immediate satisfaction over long-term blessing. Today’s government also understands the value of our birthright. To get us to trade it away, that government has created a whole system of enticements, hoping that we will act like the older brother -focus only on the meal and forget what we are selling. So far, the tactic is proving to be successful. The reality is, we can either be endowed, or we can be entitled. An America where endowed rights are cherished will be free and prosperous forever, while an America full of entitlements will last about as long as the older brother’s meal. We all know what we think about that older brother. The question is, what do we want our children to think when they remember us? _____________________________________ Peg Lutsik is a wife, mom, principled thinker, debater extraordinaire, and two-time Constitution Party candidate for Pennsylvania governor! A staunch pro-life leader, she authors the Internet blog, From the Kitchen Table, and is the founder of the Center for American Heritage. Please take time to visit her website, http://www.centerforamericanheritage.com . Peg has graciously given us permission to reprint her blog posts._ Webmaster Tue, 30 Aug 2011 22:47:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:54 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/55/Why-the-Constitution-Party.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=55 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=55&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/55/Why-the-Constitution-Party.aspx by Audrey Queckboerner Constitution Partyof Indiana, State Chairman I was reading an online editorial by a Brian Secor about declaring his independence from political parties by joining the tea party. He made reference to how both major parties were once a third party and it’s now time for a third party. He couldn’t be more correct! Unfortunately, though, he has a misunderstanding of the tea party movement. The tea party is not a political party. It is more of a grassroots activist group that holds rallies around causes and often supports Republicans to office. This is different than the Constitution Party. We are a real, actual political party acknowledged and registered with both the national FEC and the state election board. We hold conventions and can nominate and elect candidates to office. In regards to total national registered voters nationwide, we are the third-largest political party in the U.S. and were officially established as a political party in 1992. One of the first questions people ask us is why do we need the Constitution Party if we already have two parties? An overwhelming majority of our elected officials have routinely ignored constitutional limits placed on their power. As a result, there are now very few areas where government is not involved in our lives. Both major parties, in spite of their rhetoric, have routinely ignored the limits put in place by our Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution. This has been evident in the voting records of both major parties. Neither has stopped the funding of unconstitutional agencies and programs. Neither has stopped the unconstitutional wars and foreign aid. And neither has closed our borders and ended the government handouts to illegal immigrants. A recently Gall up poll reported that 52 percent of Republicans are ready for a third party. So yes, Brian, it is time for a third party that will turn this country back around to the principals of our Founding Fathers! But that party is not the tea party, which will more than likely lead you right back to the Republican Party. It is time for the Constitution Party! Wait no further! Check us out today by visiting our website at www.CPIndiana.org. If you don’t have access to the Internet, don’t hesitate to call and we will mail you information. Audrey Queckboerner serves as the State Chair of the Constitution Party of Indiana and resides in Leo-Cedarville. She ran for state representative in the 85th district in 2010. You can reach her at 1-260-466-6013 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 1-260-466-6013 end_of_the_skype_highlighting or info@cpindiana.org Webmaster Fri, 26 Aug 2011 22:53:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:55 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/56/We-Dont-Need-Another-George-W-Bush.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=56 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=56&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/56/We-Dont-Need-Another-George-W-Bush.aspx by Chuck Baldwin Constitution Party 2008 Presidential Candidate Last Saturday, Texas Governor Rick Perry unofficially launched his 2012 Presidential candidacy in Houston (in my opinion). Speculation is he will officially announce his intentions this weekend in South Carolina. If he does declare his candidacy, many election-watchers say Perry will become the GOP frontrunner, due to an extremely weak field of declared candidates. If Perry does declare his candidacy, everyone will know that the Houston event was staged for the purpose of launching his Presidential bid, rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.   If Perry declares his candidacy (and I’m confident he will), people should also realize that the Houston event was a precursor to the type of campaign that Perry will use throughout the Republican primary season. As a fellow Texan, it was not lost on Rick Perry how George W. Bush obtained the Republican nomination--and eventually the White House. In short, Rick Perry is going to use the G.W. Bush model to win a Presidential election.   Think about it: G.W. Bush won the White House after an extremely unpopular liberal Democrat had been President. Barack Obama’s popularity is even lower than Bill Clinton’s was--and Clinton was only the second President in US history to ever be impeached! Bush’s campaign boss, Karl Rove, brilliantly painted G.W. Bush as being a wholesome "born again Christian," which played very well with a Christian electorate that was tired of being embarrassed by a lying, philandering reprobate living in the White House.   In 2012, the American electorate, especially the Christian electorate, is totally fed up with an incumbent President whom everyone knows to be extremely sympathetic to Muslim and Marxist ideologies. Plus, a sizeable percentage of the American people truly suspect that Obama was NOT born in the United States and is, therefore, not even qualified to be President. This is the stage upon which Rick Perry appears. It is a stage very similar to the one George W. Bush stepped onto in 2000. And just as Bush played the "born again Christian" card to the max in the 2000 Presidential campaign, so Rick Perry appears to be ready to do in 2012. That is what the Houston event was all about last Saturday.   Billed as "A Day of Prayer and Fasting," the event solidified Perry’s preferred status among evangelical Christians. With the help of the American Family Association (which reportedly contributed up to a million dollars to the event), James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, and Cornerstone Church’s (San Antonio) Pastor John Hagee, Perry is all but assured of cornering the "born again" vote, just as G.W. Bush did in 2000.   One would like to think that America’s Christians learned something from the two GWB administrations, but it doesn’t appear that they have. I think it is safe to say that Dobson, Hagee, et al, would endorse ANYONE nominated by the Republican Party. They have already proven that, have they not? James Dobson went so far as to humiliate himself by endorsing big government John McCain in the 2008 general elections, even after vowing publicly that he would "NEVER" support McCain. During the primaries, however, the Republican candidate who can "talk the Bible" the best can expect the support of these clueless evangelical leaders. And this time around, it appears that Rick Perry is that man. You can rest assured if Perry doesn’t win the nomination, Dobson and Hagee will be right there for whoever does. For the record, I invite anyone out there who still labors under the delusion that George W. Bush presided over some kind of "born again" Christian administration to check out the vast amounts of information I have compiled on my web site that exposes Bush as being just another big government elitist, who did as much (or more) to strip America of its God-given liberties as any other President in history. See the record here.   Furthermore, even cursory research will uncover the fact that the Bush and Clinton families have long collaborated together in criminal activity on a massive scale--activity that, in all likelihood, continues to this very day. (I still say, don’t be surprised if Obama dumps Joe Biden as his Vice President and puts Hillary Clinton on the ticket before next year’s elections.)   Of course, G.W. Bush was never held accountable by evangelical Christian voters for his unconstitutional conduct. All they cared about was Bush’s Christian rhetoric. And it does appear that is all they care about today. As a result, Rick Perry will prove to be a formidable candidate in the GOP primaries.   I have said over and over again that I would rather vote for an unbeliever who would preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, than vote for a believer who would NOT preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States! The pious rhetoric of political candidates means nothing!   If I hire a plumber to fix a drainage problem at my house, I am not interested so much in where he goes to church, or whether he teaches Sunday School, or what denomination he claims. I am hiring him to fix my plumbing! We sign a contract, he and I. I promise to pay him "X" amount of dollars, and he promises that when he’s finished, my toilets will flush. Christian or not, I expect him to honor the terms of his contract.   Ladies and gentlemen, when we elect a civil magistrate (at any level), we are entering into a contract with the one we elected. We gave them our support, which allowed them to obtain public office, and they promise (before Almighty God) to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. They do not promise to be "good Christians." They do not promise to be "good Republicans." They do not promise to be "good conservatives." They take an oath before God (they sign a contract with the American people) to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. And it is our job as citizens to hold our civil magistrates to their oath! In fact, if any elected office holder were a TRUE Christian, he or she would take their oath even more seriously, would they not?   Instead of being excited about a candidate claiming to be a Christian, or claiming to pray and read his or her Bible, we need to get excited about a candidate who is serious about preserving the liberties of the American people, and who makes a commitment to protect and preserve the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and US Constitution!   Before we talk about Rick Perry’s commitment to prayer and fasting, let’s find out if Rick Perry believes that there must be a Declaration of War before America begins invading, bombing, and occupying foreign countries. Let’s find out if he believes he has the authority as President to use US military forces against American citizens. Let’s find out if he believes he has the authority to give billions and trillions of dollars away to foreign countries. Let’s find out if he plans to commit US military forces to the whims of the United Nations Security Council. Let’s find out if he supports the Military Commissions Act. Let’s find out if he supports the Patriot Act. Let’s find out if he believes the US government has the authority to use super-computers and advanced technology to continue to turn the United States into a giant surveillance-society. Let’s find out how serious he is about closing that southern border: speaking of which, what did Rick Perry do as governor of the border State of Texas to stop illegal immigration? And while we are on the subject of Border States, what did Rick Perry do to stop the NAFTA superhighway? Before we get excited about Rick Perry being a "good Christian," let’s find out if he supports the Council of Governors, or the North American Union, or the Continuity of Government, or Agenda 21. Let’s find out if Perry will launch a Justice Department investigation into the ATF’s (under Barack Obama and Eric Holder) clandestine operation of providing firearms to Mexican drug gangs. We could go on and on with these kinds of questions.   The sad truth is, our illustrious evangelical leaders on the right are just as culpable in the dismantling and deterioration of the American republic as are those on the political or religious left! Both sides are willing to give their favored politicos a pass on constitutional governance. And ladies and gentlemen, that is why it hasn’t mattered to a tinker’s dam whether a Democrat or Republican, "liberal" or "conservative" is in the White House! And that’s why it won’t matter in 2012.   Besides, if James Dobson and John Hagee were truly interested in protecting and preserving the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and US Constitution, they would be promoting the candidacy of Ron Paul. But, unfortunately, they wouldn’t do it in 2008, and they won’t do it in 2012. They lack both the courage and the sagacity.   We don’t need another George W. Bush in the White House. For that matter, we don’t need another Jimmy Carter in the White House. What we need is a President (governor, mayor, sheriff, etc.) who will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States!       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. Chuck and his family reside in the Flathead Valley of Montana.   Webmaster Wed, 10 Aug 2011 23:19:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:56 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/57/President-Obamas-Debt-Reduction-Speech-A-Constitution-Party-Response.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=57 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=57&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/57/President-Obamas-Debt-Reduction-Speech-A-Constitution-Party-Response.aspx by Darrell Castle Constitution Party National Committee Vice-Chairman    Last night President Obama addressed the nation in primetime concerning what he called “a debate we’ve been having in Washington over the national debt—a debate that directly affects the lives of all Americans.”  The president’s position as announced in his speech could be summarized by saying that he emphasized compromise and what he called a balanced approach over the position of the Republican House. He said that compromise is a good thing, and he mentioned Ronald Reagan as an example of one who agreed with him about compromise.   His balanced approach would trim $4 trillion from the deficit over 10 years. Assuming interest rates do not increase over the next 10 years, that would reduce the rate of increase in the national debt from a projected $10 trillion to about $6 trillion, leaving a national debt of about $21 trillion.   The president asserted that the Republican no-tax-increase position is based on narrow ideological grounds and is not a balanced approach.   He then attacked the Republican offer of a 6-month temporary increase in the debt ceiling. A six month increase, he said, would simply require that he and Congress have the same debate 6 months from now, and that would be unacceptable. He placed strong emphasis on the critical nature of the debt debate with mentions of possible job loss and cuts in Social Security and Medicare. If the debt ceiling is not raised, he told us, the US could lose its AAA credit rating and that would be a disaster for jobs, businesses, etc.   In response, the Republicans said that they will not impose a tax increase on the American people, not even on those “wealthy people” who make at least $250,000 per year. They offer instead a program they call Cut, Cap, and Balance, which is designed to cut the deficit, cap the rate of increase, and start the process toward a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution.   The Senate has already rejected the House version of Cut, Cap, and Balance, leaving only the president’s insistence on a tax increase as the chief sticking point to prevent the debt ceiling increase from happening.   Both the president’s balanced position and the Republican position of deficit cuts, with a suggestion of a balanced budget amendment, are misguided at best and disingenuous at worst. Neither solution as proposed will solve the problem long-term.   The president’s position of labeling people who make at least $250,000 per year as rich and equating them with millionaires and billionaires must be intended to appeal to what he thinks is the desire of his base for the scalps of those people responsible for the financial mess the nation is in. However, a Government Accounting Office (GAO) report that came out last week put the lie to that position.   According to the GAO, the Federal Reserve has provided more than 16 trillion dollars to banks, corporations, and other financial institutions all over the world. Employees of the Federal Reserve, including the current chairman of the New York Federal Reserve, were given special exemptions from conflict of interest laws so they could keep their investments in companies being bailed out.   The president’s refusal to accept a six-month increase also rings hollow, as does the offer itself. It is obvious that the reason for not accepting it is to prevent the debt debate from continuing into the 2012 election campaign, and the Republicans proposed it to make sure that it does.   That is what this whole debate is about: power and the desire to keep it. I doubt whether the president or Congress really care how much we owe or what it costs us. What they each care very passionately about is staying in power. Their plan for staying in power appears to involve serious disagreement and debate, but in the end nothing of any substance is ever done and the root of the debt problem is never attacked.   What is the root of the debt problem? Borrowing is the problem that makes our entire monetary system unsustainable. You can’t solve a problem caused by borrowing by borrowing more; but the attitude seems to be “let’s do more of what’s not working – perhaps we just haven’t done enough of it.” The problem then is not just borrowing to pay bills and finance debt but literally borrowing our money into existence.   The national government of the United States – “the greatest nation on earth” – as the president described it, has to go to a group of private bankers, hat in hand, to beg for enough money to pay its bills. This situation is intolerable and should be stopped immediately. The Federal Reserve should be disempowered and the trillions of dollars owed to it by the US Treasury should not be repaid. The Federal Reserve created that money from nothing on its computers and it therefore seems appropriate to repay it with nothing.   The other thing that would have an immediate effect on United States Treasury debt would be to change our policy of making war to a more Constitutional one. Recently President Obama took the US military to war against Libya without even consulting Congress. That should never be allowed. Coming home, minding our own business, and fighting only truly defensive wars should be our policy. That would save trillions of dollars and countless lives.   Our current path, the status quo, leads to bankruptcy, social unrest, and disorder, but if we would do the two things I just mentioned I am certain the most dynamic period in American history would begin.   Please listen to Darrell Castle’s most recent podcast concerning the debt crisis here: http://cptennessee.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/100725_0057.mp3 . Webmaster Tue, 26 Jul 2011 23:24:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:57 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/58/Sweet-Land-of-Liberty--or--It-Cant-Happen-Here.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=58 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=58&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/58/Sweet-Land-of-Liberty--or--It-Cant-Happen-Here.aspx by Jack McLain Constitution Party of Florida We sing and speak of our "Sweet land of liberty" and "Let freedom ring," while daily this sweet liberty is being taken from us and many seem scarcely to notice, much less to show opposition. It seems that so long as shameful events have not happened to us or our families, or as long as these events are infrequent, that we can easily forget them. We write this Part II to remind Americans that somehow we must take a stand to put a stop to government sponsored killing, as well as imprisonment, of our citizens for undue causes. As reported in Viewpoint last week, 26-year-old Marine Jose Guerena of Tucson, Arizona, who served two tours in Iraq, father of two, resting in his bed after a 12-hour night shift in a mine, was awakened by his wife at 9:30 am when men appeared at the window pointing a gun at her. Jose reached for his gun, but after a brief knock at the door, a SWAT team broke down the door and, seeing Jose with a gun (the safety of which was still on), fired 71 rounds at him, 60 bullets striking Guerena. Sponsoring a rally in Tucson opposing this tragic event, Oath Keepers’ Stewart Rhodes stated that Guerena had no criminal record, and that, "The only justification given by the Sheriff’s spokesman for using SWAT to serve the warrant was that it was a search warrant in a narcotic conspiracy investigation (with three other homes searched in the same neighborhood), and that this is their policy when the home-owner may be armed." Further, Rhodes wrote, "This policy of using SWAT to serve mere search warrants on people with no violent criminal history will lead to more deaths of veterans and other trained American gun owners...We must take a stand...and that stand must be a firm one...Many street criminals now impersonate police when they do home invasions...a receipe for disaster and death every time...an apparent home invasion. What would you have done? You will die for simply defending your home!" Friends, we are in a battle to preserve our God-given rights, the very rights assured us in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Notice the terms "secure" and "unreasonable." Americans are no longer "secure" when a team of armed men can crash down the door of their home. This certainly constitutes an "unreasonable" search regardless of whether or not a search warrant was issued. To murder a man with multiple bullets who had not even fired one shot, is a shameful act performed in the name of a government gone out of control. Should this happen in our American Republic?! Only if Americans let it happen!!! There are questions that must be answered satisfactorily to the family of Jose Guerena and to all Americans: 1. Is it necessary to use a team of fully armed men simply to deliver a search warrant to a homeowner who has no criminal record? 2. Is it necessary to point a threatening gun at a fearful unarmed mother at her window? 3. Is it necessary to tear down the door of a homeowner who did not immediately respond? 4. Is it necessary to use a non-criminal for target practice (a barbarian act) simply because he had a gun in his hand to protect his home from unknown men? 5. Would it not be sufficient to simply immobolize such a person with one non-lethal shot rather than to kill him? 6. Would it not seem true that such a team of officers live not only in fear, but also pride themselves in gunning down victims who have not been proven dangerous? What kind of men would perform such acts? 7. Are Americans now considered guilty before having an opportunity to be proven innocent? 8. Are innocent Americans to live in fear not only of increased criminal assaults, but also from deadly assaults by uniformed "protectors of the people?" 9. Do members of such a SWAT team ever consider for a moment the terrible trauma that would linger in the lives of a wife, mother, and children after multiple shots were fired in their home at husband and father? 10. Is a man’s home no longer his "castle?" Have we already gone the way of many totalitarian countries in the world? 11. Will truth prevail in the investigation of this terrible tragedy, or will there be a cover-up of the facts and attending black-out or bias of the media? Our Plea: Please do not simply read such facts as above and Part I (6/7/11) and not consider seriously what is happening in our beloved country---and that it could happen to your family! Please consider WHAT CAN I DO? to turn our country to righteousness and truth before it is too late and we have no freedom even to speak out against evil. Prayer is extremely important, but we must also put feet to our prayers. The Constitution Party of Florida, as affiliated with the Constitution Party national, is dedicated to that purpose. We take a steadfast stand for God and Country---www.cpflorida.com "And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not" (Galatians 6:9). Webmaster Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:26:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:58 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/59/Why-the-Constitution-Party-is-Not-Endorsing-Ron-Paul-For-2012.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=59 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=59&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/59/Why-the-Constitution-Party-is-Not-Endorsing-Ron-Paul-For-2012.aspx by Randall Stufflebeam and Audrey Queckboerner MidWest Regional Chairman and Indiana State Party Chairman Recently a question was asked of our Party why we were not endorsing Ron Paul for his 2012 Presidential bid. The following is our response written by the State Chairman of the Constitution Party of Indiana, Audrey Queckboerner and our Midwest Regional Chairman, Randy Stufflebeam: Point One – No amount of help from the Constitution Party will result in the Republican nomination of Ron Paul for president. I’m unsure how familiar you are with what the Republican Party did to Ron Paul and his supporters in the last primary season. I (Audrey) was not one who was watching from the outside through the glass, but I was personally on the inside as a state delegate for Ron Paul and saw first hand how the Republican Party used every tactic possible to keep Ron from being their nominee. They changed their own state party rules three days before the convention so that we could not nominate from the floor. They disregarded Roberts Rules of Order and were very rude to us. (The complete story of our experience can be found on my page under my notes section). This happened in 14 other states and that doesn’t include the Nevada state convention which they completely shut down by turning off the lights and locking the doors before the convention even began or Missouri where they denied delegates their credentials because they discovered they were on Ron Paul meetup sites and supported his nomination. They stopped at nothing to stop his nomination. Even at the National Convention when Boehner asked if there were any other nominees besides McCain you could clearly hear 2 or 3 delegates call out Ron Paul’s name and Boehner blatantly disregarded the nominations from the floor, banged his gavel and announced McCain as the winner. This is what they had planned all along. Now what makes you think they will not pull out all the stops once again to stop his nomination? I can tell you right now that the Indiana State Party rules have never been changed back, so delegates are still unable to nominate national delegates in their caucuses. Even if the Constitution Party went all out to endorse and totally support Ron Paul, the fact remains he is running as a Republican. As demonstrated above, it is those who control the Republican Party who will keep Ron Paul from being nominated. In 2008, many (probably most) in the Constitution Party endorsed and supported Ron Paul with their time and money. Remember that Ron Paul is running as a Republican and it was the corrupt Republican Party that denied him the nomination and they will be even better equipped to stop him this time around. Although, Ron Paul gave a bland endorsement of Chuck Baldwin for President, it didn’t matter because everyone had spent all their money and time on Ron Paul and had nothing left for Chuck Baldwin. Take Illinois for instance. They have to get 25,000 uncontestable signatures to get on the ballot. They were promised money to help them get ballot access for Chuck Baldwin’s candidacy. However, because of the support of Ron Paul, there was no money in the coffers to help, and Ron Paul sure didn’t release any of the money that Constitution Party members had donated to his campaign. He didn’t even do anything to encourage his supporters to spend their time and money to get Baldwin on state ballots. Even if the Constitution Party endorsed Ron Paul for President and dumped its entire treasury into Ron Paul’s Campaign and managed to persuade every one of its supporters to throw all their efforts and finances, forgoing ever other candidacy and focused everything on getting the nomination of Ron Paul, at the end of the day, the corrupt Republican Party would still reject Ron Paul. Point Two – The need for an alternative when Republicans fail to nominate Ron Paul Wouldn’t you agree that if Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination there should be a place for all his supporters to go? What happens if the Republicans elect someone who is the antithesis to Ron Paul? Where are Paul’s supporters to go? If the Constitution Party spends all its time and effort to nominate Ron Paul and he doesn’t win, then what? Just like in 2008, we’ll have nothing left to provide an alternative. In terms of ship building, we wouldn’t even be able to provide a raft for people to go to because we will have failed to get ballot access in crucial states and will have lost ballot access in states where the CP is ballot qualified because we will have not provided a presidential candidate. If there is to be a legitimate alternative to the Republican nominee in the Constitution Party, we have to be putting every resource at our disposal into that effort. Waiting to see if Ron Paul receives the nomination in 2012 would be equally devastating because there are some states that don’t even hold their caucuses until August. By then, it would be too late and the opportunity to get an alternate party candidate will have been lost. The Constitution Party must be about building a great ship for people to jump to when they discover that corruption has once again reigned supreme in the Republican Party. Point Three – Ballot Access and a Great Candidate of our own Unlike the two major parties, third parties have a far greater and in most cases daunting challenge in getting ballot access. Republicans and Democrats take ballot access for granted because it is so easy for them to achieve. In Indiana, it takes over 34,000 signatures to get on the ballot. If we supported Ron Paul and did not concentrate on getting signatures for the Constitution Party, it would be impossible to do so later. In fact, in order to get signatures, we have to declare a presidential candidate. As a Republican, it would be impossible for Ron Paul to sign on as the Constitution Party’s Presidential candidate in Indiana. It would be ludicrous for us to say we are supporting Ron Paul and trying to get another Presidential candidate on the ballot. Of course this conversation would be unnecessary if Ron Paul decided to run as a Constitution Party candidate, but he has made it quite clear he has no intention of running as a Constitution Party or a Libertarian Party candidate. Further, it is our intention to run a candidate who is every bit as good as Ron Paul or even “constitutionally” better. Point Four – The Constitution Party is not merely a ideological advocacy group. The Constitution Party is a Partisan Political Party that NOMINATES candidates for election. Endorsing a candidate for president of another party would seriously damage the credibility of the Constitution Party. So why would we be a political party if all we are going to do is act like a PAC, endorsing candidates from every other party because we can’t find one of our own? Point Five – Breaking the Two-Party-Duopoly By supporting Ron Paul, we would be asking our supporters to vote in the Republican Primaries and “declare” themselves as Republicans, or in some states, they would have to register Republican, thereby asking people to betray their political convictions for the sake of expediency. The Constitution Party is NOT about building other parties. The Constitution Party believes it is time to break the two-party-duopoly. With 52% of the Republicans saying they are willing to vote for third Party candidates and over 45% of the Republicans saying that they are dissatisfied with the presidential choices that have been put forward so far, it’s going to be even more difficult in 2012 than it was in 2008 to elect a principled nominee such as Dr. Paul. The Republican Party has done much to destroy this nation and cares nothing about Constitutional Government. Ron Paul would do better to understand that and run in a party that supports his Constitutional views. Webmaster Tue, 07 Jun 2011 23:27:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:59 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/60/Obama-in-a-Dream-World.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=60 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=60&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/60/Obama-in-a-Dream-World.aspx by Patrick J. Buchanan Obama in a Dream World At the G-8 summit in Deauville, France, the news was dramatic, delivered by Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Barack Obama. To sustain the Arab Spring, America, Europe and Japan will provide $40 billion in fresh foreign aid for Arab nations that take the democratic path. The $40 billion breaks down thus: $10 billion from the G-8, $10 billion from the Gulf Arabs, and $20 billion from the World Bank and the international development banks. Now, as Gulf petrodollars come from U.S. consumers of gas and oil, and we are to be the largest contributor of direct aid, and we are the largest contributor to the World Bank and the development banks, U.S. taxpayers have just been put on the hook for untold billions. Yet that $40 billion over three years is pocket change compared to what Hillary Clinton promised at the Copenhagen summit. In December 2009, a year that millions of Americans lost their jobs and homes, Clinton pledged $20 billion annually as the U.S. share of a $100-billion-a-year transfer of wealth to help Third World nations cope with global warning. The U.S. contribution would start under Obama and rise to $20 billion annually by 2020, when the First World would begin transferring $1 trillion dollars every decade to the developing world. Ethiopia’s prime minister, Meles Zenawi, who announced the plan, indicated Africa’s disappointment at its meagerness. But, in return for a seat at the table managing the money, he graciously accepted. Am I missing something? Was not 2009 a tough year for America? Was it not the first of three in which we ran a deficit of 10 percent of our gross domestic product? Are we not talking of cutting Medicare and Social Security for seniors who have chipped in to those programs all their working lives to secure their retirement years? Cities are cutting education. States are slashing pensions. The Pentagon is killing weapons systems. And Barack Obama is ladling out fresh foreign aid. The Europeans, too — are they living in the real world? Greece hangs on a precipice, with Europeans debating whether Athens should be allowed to default, which would blow a hole through banks all across Europe. Portugal and Ireland could follow. In the worst case, Spain and Italy fail, entailing a terminal crisis of the EU. In Athens, anarchists have taken to the streets. Huge protests have erupted in Spain and Britain. How long can the austerity continue among the big debtor nations before social cohesion collapses? Across the continent, populist parties of the right are rising that seek to retrieve the sovereignty surrendered to transnational institutions by their globalist elites. Yet Sarkozy and Obama are talking about new foreign aid. The Wall Street Journal banner June 1 read: “Housing Imperils Recovery: Home Prices Sink to 2002 Levels; Consumer Confidence Falls as Pessimism Grows.” The lead ran thus: “House prices have sunk to 2002 prices, effectively wiping out almost a decade’s worth of home equity across the U.S. and imperiling the fragile economic recovery as Americans confront the falling value of their biggest investment.” That day, the Dow fell 280 points. And the June 2 Journal banner read: “Economic Outlook Darkens: Markets Stumble as Factories, Hiring Slow Down; Biggest Drop in Stocks in a Year.” Nearly one-fourth of American homeowners live in houses that are underwater, worth less than the mortgages on them. The index of consumer confidence fell last month from 66 percent to 60.8 percent. Only 38,000 private-sector jobs were created in May. The manufacturing boomlet seems to have stalled. Some 422,000 American workers filed for unemployment benefits in May. Talk of the “double-dip recession” is now pandemic. Yet a U.S. government $14.3 trillion in debt, running a third straight deficit of $1.4 trillion, is talking of sending billions in aid to Arab regimes where the deposed despots looted the place. Nor is America any longer exempt from the anarchic violence plaguing Europe. Over Memorial Day, when millions happily took off for the beach for that first taste of summer, they found trouble. The Drudge Report headlines the day after Memorial Day tell the story: “Miami ‘War Zone’ During Urban Weekend,” “Poet … Gunned Down in Front of Miami Poetry Club,” “Violent Crime Explodes in Myrtle During Black Bike Week; 8-hour Hell,” “Rib Fest at Rochester Beach Turns Rowdy,” “Riot on Long Island,” “Urban Melee in Charlotte,” “Unruly Crowd Shuts Down Nashville Water Park,” “Dozens of Gang Bangers” at Chicago beach. This is not the peaceful, prosperous America of 1947, with half the world’s production, that could cobble together Marshall Plans and ship wealth abroad to rebuild nations devastated by World War II. Today, America is herself in need of repair and rebuilding. Yet her leaders are living in yesterday. Webmaster Mon, 06 Jun 2011 23:34:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:60 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/61/The-United-States-Should-Withdraw-From-the-International-Monetary-Fund.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=61 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=61&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/61/The-United-States-Should-Withdraw-From-the-International-Monetary-Fund.aspx by Darrell Castle Vice-Chairman Constitution Party National Committee The IMF Annual Meeting in Washington, DC Currently headquartered in Washington DC, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was formed in 1944 and finalized in 1945 as part of the Bretton Woods agreement made by the victorious Allied Powers at the end of WWII. The IMF’s stated purposes are as follows: To promote exchange rate stability; To facilitate and manage the growth and balance of international trade; To provide resources to member countries experiencing balance of payments problems; To help maintain a multilateral system of payments; And finally, to promote international monetary cooperation. Despite its stated purposes, many people believe that the real purpose of the IMF is to bring poorer, less-industrialized countries into the orbit of global government and multinational corporations. According to John Perkins in his book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, third world countries have been threatened with CIA destabilization and regime change unless they accept IMF loans. The loans are made with draconian repayment provisions like cutting social services, renegotiating union contracts and privatizing public services, which then allow foreign multinational corporations access to the country’s resources. Since these target countries often have their credit ratings downgraded, the loans also carry a very high interest rate. Chains line the pavement near IMF’s HQ in DC to protest IMF policies Who funds the IMF or where does the “fund” in the IMF come from? There are currently 187 IMF members, but the G-20 countries, meaning the top 20 economies, fund 71.21% of its revenue and the other 166 countries fund the other 28.79%. The United States share is 17.09% of the total. And Japan is second with 6.12%. Major decisions require an 85% super-majority to pass, and that makes the United States the only country that can block a super-majority on its own, because votes are commensurate with percentage of participation. The United States’ 17.09% allows it final veto over any major decision. As most people know by now, the current head of the IMF – current at least until his recent resignation – French politician Dominique Strauss-Kahn, was placed in a New York City jail after being charged with sexually assaulting a maid at his $3000 a night suite in the Midtown Manhattan Sofitel. Could DSK, as he is affectionately known by his friends, make do with a $600-per-night room at the Ritz? No way, nothing but the best will do for the head of the IMF and the most likely candidate to replace Nicholas Sarkozy as President of France. The maid who has accused DSK of rape is a West African immigrant with a 15-year-old daughter. Perhaps DSK reasoned that since the IMF has been raping her former continent for decades, what difference could one more rape make? This sordid mess is made worse by the fact that the IMF, like most of its member states, usually runs a negative balance sheet, leaving in doubt which party will pay for the damage. In 2009, the IMF sold 200 tons of gold to close a deficit in the amount of hundreds of millions of dollars. Who will pay for DSK’s latest (alleged) debauchery besides himself? Who will pay for DSK’s legal defense? The IMF has announced that it will sell some gold to cover that. The maid has a lawyer in addition to the NYC prosecutor’s office. I trust it will also sell enough gold to cover the several million that a NYC jury is likely to eventually award his victim. The taxpayers of the United States should not be on the hook for one penny of his defense, damages, or even his $3000 per night hotel suite. In fact, if the political leadership of the United States had an ounce of decency left, it would announce the immediate withdrawal of the United States from the IMF. Tragically, they do not and thus will not. Webmaster Thu, 19 May 2011 23:37:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:61 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/62/But-It-Has-Bipartisan-Support.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=62 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=62&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/62/But-It-Has-Bipartisan-Support.aspx by Robert Peck Chairman, Constitution Party of Washington A friend recently directed my attention to a YouTube video clip of a U.S. Senate hearing in which newly elected Senator, Rand Paul, unloaded a barge of righteous indignation on a bureaucrat from one of those multitude of federal agencies that seem determined to regulate every facet of our lives. While Senator Paul’s grilling of Kathleen Hogan from the Department of Energy was enjoyable enough to watch, I found Ms. Hogan’s response to the Senator to be the most telling part of the video. Senator Paul let loose on Ms. Hogan and her agency for denying the American people the ability to choose what kind of light bulb, toilet or refrigerator we will purchase, calling them hypocrites and busybodies. Ms. Hogan’s defense of her administration and its encroachments into our lives was that: “. . . the appliance standards program is an example of really a great partnership between the Congress and the administration over many many many years. So much of what we are implementing really had its genesis in bipartisan bills that had been put forth at a number of different points over the history of this country for the last 30 to 40 years.” Did you catch what she is saying? Ms. Hogan is saying that in her mind, and evidently in her understanding of our form of government, the Department of Energy is justified in subjecting the American people to every rule and regulation they can invent so long as it comes from “a partnership between the Congress and the administration” and it “has its genesis in bipartisan bills.” Unfortunately, Ms. Hogan is not alone in this perverted view of the role of civil government and its authority under the U.S. Constitution as it seems to be pervasive, not only in Washington DC, but in most every statehouse, county courthouse and city hall. Ms. Hogan and her ilk are completely oblivious to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution that limit the power and scope of the federal government. Our Constitution prohibits the federal government from ruling, regulating or making laws in any area of life or business not specifically authorized to it in the very limited, enumerated powers, listed in Article I, Section 8. But that seems to be lost on the myriad of busybody, do-gooders inhabiting the institutions of civil government today. Never mind that these regulations are beyond the Constitutionally authorized scope of the federal government, or that the very agency implementing the regulations is itself an extra-constitutional agency that has no Constitutionally authorized basis for wielding any power whatsoever. All that matters to these people is that a majority in Congress approved it and that makes it okay. Even better, it had ’bipartisan support,’ which seems to elevate the un-Constitutional act and make it something downright noble in these people’s minds. The only thing more damning than Senator Paul’s allegations against Ms. Hogan and her agency, and her subsequent demonstration of a complete lack of understanding of the supreme law of our land, is Ms. Hogan’s statement that her agency’s un-Constitutional regulations were the result of bills that had ’bipartisan support’ – a fact that no one in the hearing seems to have refuted. In other words, it is not just Ms. Hogan who is oblivious to the strictures of our Constitutional form of government; it is not just bureaucrats and their bureaucracies who trample our Constitution; it is not just the current chief executive who is overseeing this breach of the public trust who is to blame; it is both parties in Congress and every President who has held office for the past 30 to 40 years who has been consenting to the violation of the U.S. Constitution. But I guess it’s okay, so long as it has “Bipartisan Support.” ______________________________________ The video clip of the Senate hearing and Rand Paul’s comments can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELDHaeEsNF0 If you agree with the content of this article, please forward, post and publish far and wide. If you don’t, who will? © Robert W. Peck Robert Peck lives in Spokane Valley, Washington where he owns and manages residential rental properties. He serves as the Chairman of the Constitution Party of Washington and as Western Area Co-Chairman for the Constitution Party National Committee. Webmaster Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:43:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:62 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/63/Freedom-Fighters-and-Public-Sector-Unions.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=63 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=63&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/63/Freedom-Fighters-and-Public-Sector-Unions.aspx by Darrell Castle Constitution Party National Committee Vice-Chairman What do the people rioting in the Middle East and the people protesting reductions in public-sector union bargaining rights have in common? Not much, but the driving force behind each of them is similar, and that driving force is economic hardship. What we are likely seeing is the crumbling of a world economic order that has existed for decades if not for centuries. In the Middle East the order is one of military style-dictators or royal monarchs at the top, often installed and/or maintained by foreign powers. In the West, the order is one of an unsustainable welfare and public employment system. One interesting difference is that the protesters in the Middle East really are freedom fighters in that they are fighting to overthrow dictators and a way of life that has oppressed them for decades. In other words, they are seeking to tear down an unsustainable and unjust economic order. In Wisconsin and other American states, the public-sector unions are seeking to force the government that employs them to restore and maintain union bargaining rights and pay levels. In other words they are seeking to maintain an unsustainable and unjust economic order. Government employees form unions in order to bargain collectively with government representatives. These unions of government employees are called public-sector unions. The system that allows public-sector unions to organize and bargain collectively is unjust because the public unions exist at the expense of taxpayers who have little or no say in their hiring, firing, or contract negotiating. The public-sector unions are not the equivalent of private-sector unions at a factory or other place of employment who bargain collectively for better pay and working conditions. Those private employees have no ability or interest in lobbying their employers to constantly increase taxes for their benefit. The system that allows public-sector unions to form and exist is unsustainable because virtually every state is now technically bankrupt, as is the federal government. In the new budget proposed by President Obama on February 14, 2011, the federal government alone will spend 25.9 percent of America’s GDP or about 26 cents of every GDP dollar. That is a crushing burden of taxation on the American public which cannot be sustained. Even the relatively modest cuts proposed in Wisconsin are unacceptable to the public unions because their members don’t seem to grasp the fact that the old order is ending one way or the other. The modest cuts are designed to keep the system afloat for a short time and possibly push it ahead to the next administration, but it is going to take drastic changes in the entire system to prevent the catastrophic chaos that appears to be in our future. The reasoning behind the demands of public-sector unions is failed logic because by definition they are part of the government to which they object. They are, in reality, toadies of the ruling elite. This is not some poor group of under-paid, over-worked union employees in a cotton mill or factory chicken farm that is simply demanding a living wage. If those in public-sector unions object to government trying to sustain itself without destroying the taxpayers then let them join the private sector where bargaining rights are more solid. Behind the crises in the Middle East and the crisis in Wisconsin lie the policies of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve policy that it calls “quantitative easing” is causing the exploding prices of food and other commodities around the world. Flooding the world with dollars, as the Federal Reserve has done, lowers the dollar’s value relative to food and other commodities. When people live on a few dollars a day, if that, a 60 percent increase in the price of food is enough to send them into starvation. This increase in food prices is the driving force behind the Middle East revolution; therefore the Federal Reserve is responsible for it. How then can the crisis in Wisconsin and the crises in the Middle East be diffused before they spread and take more lives? Unfortunately for the public-sector unions, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has made it clear that bailouts are for banks, not people, and certainly not states. However, Middle Eastern governments have responded by giving money to what they call lower and middle class people. Saudi Arabia gave $37 billion to the Shiite minority and released some political prisoners. Middle Eastern people are sacrificing themselves to end an economic and political order that has oppressed them for decades. The public-sector unions are demonstrating in order to maintain an unsustainable economic system so that they might continue their way of life at taxpayer expense. That is the difference. Webmaster Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:48:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:63 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/64/The-Spirit-Of-Partisan-Politics.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=64 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=64&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/64/The-Spirit-Of-Partisan-Politics.aspx by Robert W. Peck Chairman, Constitution Party of Washington The subject of partisan politics recently crossed my path – not just the fact that partisan politics exists (something we’re all well aware of), but rather the dangers that it holds, its subtle nature and the extent to which it has crept into our thought process. Having been politically active for nearly two decades now, more than half that time spent in positions of leadership in both my county, state and national party, it seems I would have already learned this lesson. Most of us are aware of President George Washington’s warning in his Farewell Address as to the danger of partisan politics. However, we have grown forgetful of that warning and are failing to perceive the effect that the spirit of partisan politics is having on our political landscape. Most of all, we are woefully unaware of the degree to which we ourselves have fallen prey to the mentality of partisan politics. I am certainly not against the use of a political party as an organization that serves as a vehicle for promoting certain principles and for supporting candidates for public office who uphold those principles. I’m the chairman of a political party and I am constantly encouraging people to join my party and participate in the political process by supporting candidates for office who uphold Constitutional principles and sound moral values. Nevertheless, after reading a recent article by Constitution Party National Committee Chairman, Jim Clymer, and revisiting President Washington’s Farewell Address, I see more clearly than ever the danger of partisan politics and the snare that it brings – a snare that I perceive has taken the majority of my fellow American’s captive. Human nature seems to be such that we quickly degenerate from looking to the principles that rallied us to a common cause, to looking instead to the organization that we have learned to mentally associate with that cause. We then proceed to follow that organization with a sort of blind loyalty akin to the support that we show for our favorite sports team. Why? Because it is easier to simply pick a team to cheer for than it is to stay apprised of and be ever vigilant to guard over principles. I see two pitfalls of partisan politics, one that besets those elected to public office and another that ensnares those of us who elect them. For those elected to public office, the danger is that they will carry their party loyalties into office with them. Once elected and having sworn the oath of office, a public official’s only loyalty should be to God, the United States Constitution, their state’s constitution if elected to a state office and to the people who they represent, to seek the good, the best interest of, their constituents as the Great Commandment of Love would dictate. Any party loyalty should come subsequent to these considerations and should have no effect on an elected official’s vote. The fact that most votes taken in Congress and in state legislatures around the country follow partisan lines tells me that we have succumbed to a partisan spirit that places party above principle. If the members of one party were all voting for good and the other for evil, it would be different. However, members of both of the establishment parties currently in power regularly vote to violate the Constitution they swore to uphold; they vote for big government that oppresses those who they profess to serve; they vote to heap debt on the backs of future generations which they should be duty bound by love to protect and seek the peace and prosperity of. Yet while the parties currently controlling our legislative bodies are clearly not divided along lines of pure good versus pure evil, their votes are more often than not divided by a strict party line. Those of us who elect these public officials are faring no better. Rather than critiquing every action of our representatives by a set standard of timeless principles, we have instead succumbed to the spirit of partisan politics as we mindlessly cheer for our favored team void of any honest, introspective scrutiny of our chosen political party on the basis of the principles that it adheres to – or fails to adhere to. We praise the Presidents of one party and deride those of another. Yet when scrutinized under the microscope of the supreme law of our land, the U.S. Constitution, we find that Presidents of both parties have voided their oath of office and violated our Constitution with nearly equal impunity. Yet we are daily reminded by the voices that represent our preferred political persuasion, that one is good and the other evil. For an object lesson in the spirit of partisan politics, turn on the radio and listen for a few days to so called ’conservative’ talk radio, then to the liberal ’progressive’ shows. Half the time they are accusing each other of the same things, and half the time they’re right. Most of what passes for political commentary is little more than school yard name calling dressed up in more intellectually sophisticated, college educated terms – and sometimes not – “Hillary is fat” or “George Bush talks funny.” We really haven’t progressed very far from the childhood taunt of “you’re ugly and your mommy dresses you funny.” The frightful thing is that we are letting this blind partisan loyalty, team spirit mentality, guide our thinking and our decision making and thereby, the future of our once great nation. I grieve for the disgrace that we bring upon our venerated first President by so wantonly disregarding his words of wisdom in warning against the spirit of partisan politics. For first hand evidence of this partisan spirit at work in today’s politics, please read Jim Clymer’s article, That Hope Which Springs Eternal. Then, whether you have already read George Washington’s farewell address or not, click here to reread that insightful portion of his address warning of the dangers of partisan politics. Then, once you have been refreshed with a new insight and appreciation for the dangers of the spirit of partisan politics, go share it with others! ______________________   If you agree with the content of this article, please forward, post and publish far and wide. If you don’t, who will? © Robert W. Peck Robert Peck lives in Spokane Valley, Washington where he owns and manages residential rental properties. He serves as the Chairman of the Constitution Party of Washington and as Western Area Co-Chairman for the Constitution Party National Committee.   Webmaster Mon, 14 Feb 2011 00:50:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:64 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/65/Burning-for-Revolution.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=65 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=65&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/65/Burning-for-Revolution.aspx by Darrell Castle Constitution Party Vice-Chairman 2011 Egyptian protest – by Lihaas Mohamed Bouazizi was a 26 year old man who lived in a small town in Tunisia called Sidi Bouzid. According to family members, he supported his mother and six sisters with the US$140 per month he earned as a street vendor selling produce from a wheelbarrow-type cart. His dream was to someday buy a van for his produce and allow his sisters to go to university. Bouazizi did not have a license to sell from his cart, although the local police say that no license was needed. His sisters said that the police often harassed him and destroyed his produce because he could not or would not pay their bribes. His sisters accused the police of trying to extort money from him. On December 17, 2010, he contracted US$200 in debt to buy his merchandise to sell. He was then publicly humiliated when F. Hamdi, a 45 year old female official, slapped him in the face, spat at him, threw out his produce and confiscated his scales. The fact that she was female made the humiliation worse due to the customs and traditions under which he lived. He appealed to the governor’s office, but the governor refused to see him. He then told his mother that he was going to burn himself and he bought gasoline or paint thinner, sat down in front of a government building, doused himself and set himself on fire. He was transferred to several hospitals as the need for better trauma care overwhelmed the local hospitals, but he died 18 days later. More than 5,000 people attended his funeral, and the mayor of Paris announced that a place in Paris will be named after him. The protests and riots became so intense after Bouazizi’s death that the President of Tunisia, Ben Ali, fled the country, bringing down the Tunisian government after 23 years. Ben Ali tried first to go to Paris, but was refused entry. He eventually was accepted into Saudi Arabia and apparently resides there now. Since the death of Mohamed Bouazizi, many other people have burned themselves in protest in many countries. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt have had several cases of self-immolation. Protests have become widespread across the Middle East including Algeria, Egypt, Yemen, and Jordan. Some of us remember the TV images of Buddhist monks burning themselves in Vietnam as a form of religious protest. There was the public humiliation angle to what Bouazizi did, but his act had an economic angle as well. The poverty of the Tunisian people, the 30% unemployment rate, the rising food prices, along with the obvious official corruption, were enough for his act to serve as the match that burned down the Tunisian government. Now the Egyptian government looks to be on fire as well. Egypt – a nation of 85 million people – and 40% of them survive on less than US$1 dollar per day. It seems that one man really can make a difference when the conditions are ripe for him to do so. The world has never been so ripe as it now. Is this our future? Time will tell. Webmaster Thu, 10 Feb 2011 00:55:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:65 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/66/That-Hope-Which-Springs-Eternal.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=66 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=66&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/66/That-Hope-Which-Springs-Eternal.aspx by James N. Clymer Chairman, Constitution Party National Committee “A straggling few got up to go in deep despair.  The rest Clung to the hope which springs eternal in the human breast”   These poignant lines from Casey at the Bat speak to the emotions that those of us who follow and cheer our favorite baseball team have experienced countless times. Philadelphia Phillies fans have a reputation for being among the most fervent in professional sports. They can be churlish and cruel, yet they will be loyal to a fault; they exude emotion and expectation yet understand practicality.   What most people don’t understand is what made them that way. Growing up rooting for a team that a few short years ago became the only team in major professional sports to have lost 10,000 games in its franchise history develops a sports character that a Yankee, braves or Red Sox fan could never understand!   Politics has many parallels with baseball.  Those who develop team loyalty see everything through the tinted glasses of their team.  So if they are Republican, the GOP can do no wrong and the Democrats can do no right and vice versa.   Take the vitriol heaped on Barack Obama by most Republicans.  He evokes more emotion among the so-called Republican Right than any president in my memory.  He is described by many as the most leftist president in history.   On the other hand, I’ve attended gatherings on more than one occasion during the Bush presidency where loyalist Republicans declared Bush to be the “most conservative president in our lifetime”, in “the last fifty years” or in “the last hundred years.”  I guess you get to pick the absurdity.   Now don’t get me wrong.  I believe the current occupant of the oval office is a Constitutional miscreant of immense proportions.  He displays greater infidelity to the Constitution than any president since at least FDR.  His lack of fidelity started with his refusal to show that he meets the Constitutional qualifications to be president.  They are, after all, quite simple. One must be at least 35 years of age, shall have lived at least fourteen years in these United States and shall be a natural born citizen.  Why would one spend what has been estimated to exceed a million dollars to keep secret the long form birth certificate that would settle this question once and for all?  But I digress.   In fact, George W. Bush showed nearly as much disdain for the Constitution as does Obama.  For all the outbursts about Obama trampling on the Constitution and turning us into a socialist state, I wonder what they were smoking while the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for four years of the Bush II presidency. Bush’s alleged contemptuous remark that the Constitution is nothing but a “g*d d*mn” piece of paper”, was not merely a blasphemous statement; it exemplified an attitude and a policy.   I challenge anyone to name one major fiscal, individual liberty or foreign relations policy area where there is a significant ideological difference between the practice of Bush II and Obama.  Remember, I’m not comparing the degree to which the policy is taken but rather the ideological justification for the policy.   In the cover story of the December 6, 2010 issue of The New American, Charles Scaliger presents a compelling case for how Obama, despite campaign hype to the contrary, continued the war policies of Bush in both Iraq and Afghanistan, continued the course set by Bush in relations with Russia and in calling for an expansion of NATO, along with ever greater accommodations with the United Nations.   In fiscal matters, Republicans have suddenly discovered a verbal commitment to fiscal restraint and constitutional limitations on the power of the federal government, blasting Obama for his socialized medicine capers and stimulus package bailouts.  But where were they when Bush was doing the same sorts of things now done by Obama?  After all, it was Bush who pushed through the first stimulus package, a $700 billion dollar bank bailout.  As soon as Obama got into office, he started pushing for the second one to compound the disaster but it was not significantly less “unconstitutional” or “socialistic” than the one presided over by Bush.   Scaliger notes that overall federal spending has increased about ten percent per year during the first two years of the Obama administration which is about the same annual increases that occurred during the administration of George W. Bush.   Obamacare, the gargantuan intrusion of the federal government into the healthcare decisions of every American citizen, is presented as the proof case for Obama’s desire to lead us into socialism.  Without disputing the truth of that intent, let’s look objectively at what Bush did in the federal healthcare arena with his massive overhaul of Medicare at an estimated cost of $7 trillion, called “the greatest expansion of America’s welfare state in forty years” by CBS legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg.       It was George W. Bush who disdained the privacy rights of individuals that the federal government is supposed to protect under the Fourth Amendment by pushing through the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security along with its progeny of new intrusions on the privacy of American citizens.  Although candidate Obama decried these violations of the Constitution, once assuming the office of the presidency, he has continued these policies and has authorized even more draconian policies such as installation of new backscatter body imaging machines that electronically undress passengers who merely want to exercise their right to travel.  Those who refuse to have the naked features of their bodies viewed by strangers must face an enhanced groping “patdown” that would constitute a felonious sexual assault if done by anyone other than a government agent in a non-medical circumstance.       So Republicans have gained a substantial majority in the House of Representatives.  The pundits are buzzing about the opportunities this new crop of Republicans will have and hope again springs eternal that sanity will be restored in Washington.  But if the past is prologue, just as there was no joy in Mudville because mighty Casey had struck out, those pinning their hopes on Republican promises will see their hopes dashed once again. There are already emerging signs that the GOP really only wants to be a better caretaker of the welfare state than the Democrats.  I have no confidence that it has any intention of derailing the train to socialism.   Webmaster Fri, 28 Jan 2011 01:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:66 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/67/Response-to-the-Presidents-State-of-the-Union-Address.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=67 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=67&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/67/Response-to-the-Presidents-State-of-the-Union-Address.aspx by Darrell Castle Constitution Party Vice-Chairman Last night President Obama delivered his State of the Union address, as he is required by the Constitution to do once each year. Although he covered many different areas, he concentrated on only three: the domestic economy, which includes what he called job creation, domestic policy topics such as education and energy, and foreign policy, which includes military and defense issues. The President told us that the nation is doing well economically and is on its way to recovery from recession. Evidence of this recovery, according to the President, is the “booming stock market.” My response is that it is utterly ridiculous to say that we are well into recovery because the stock market is booming. Tell that news to the 43 million plus who have to use food stamps to eat. Tell that to the 15 million plus unemployed people. That number would be much higher than 15 million if the government kept honest numbers and counted the people who are no longer looking for jobs. Tell that to the millions of underemployed who used to have good jobs in manufacturing with benefits and who now work in service-related jobs with no benefits. The President said that we can’t live in the past with regard to our economy. For example, it used to take about 1000 jobs to operate a steel mill, but now it only takes 100, so we must adjust to that reality and innovate. What he didn’t say is that any jobs in steel are being performed in Korea and other countries and no amount of innovation will change that. What then is the answer to our economic problems? First, do no more harm with bailouts. Stop all bailouts and recover any money previously committed to bailouts that has not already been spent. Withdraw from all so-called free trade agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, and GATT which have been largely responsible for the destruction of America’s manufacturing base. Remove the regulations and restrictions that prevent businesses from doing business in America and from hiring the people they need to make the things that people want to buy. Finally, the economy cannot recover until the debt and deficit are resolved through de-leveraging of debt and control of spending. Stop spending more than you take in. It is a simple concept that Americans understand but that apparently their politicians don’t. Once the debt and deficit are under control, the President should endeavor to drive a stake through the heart of the entire Federal Reserve system and return to a monetary system based on sound money principles. Stop the destruction of our currency immediately. The President also told us that educationally we are doing well, but we can do better, so he launched a program called Race to the Top in all fifty states to replace No Child Left Behind. This is also total nonsense. The United States continues to lag behind other nations in math, science, and reading skills. Our system of education, controlled and paid for by the federal government, is a failure and should be scrapped and replaced with state and local control, with primary responsibility left to parents. There is no role for the federal government in education whatsoever. The nation’s energy needs could be met largely by domestic production if we were to allow our own domestic sources of energy to be exploited by repeal of harmful laws that unnecessarily restrain production. Technology will now allow energy exploration and production with minimal damage to the environment. This would prevent the US government from exploring for oil in the Middle East through military force and help foster a more peaceful world. Finally, the President talked about “shaping” a better world through strengthening NATO and rebuilding our relationship with Russia. He stated that 100,000 of our troops have come home from Iraq with their heads held high. That is also complete nonsense. It’s not his job to shape the world, it’s his job to protect and defend the Constitution and the American people. Many of those 100,000 troops didn’t come home but went to Afghanistan instead. Thousands of others did come home but in boxes or in rehab hospitals. What then is the foreign policy answer? Issue an order to General Patraeus and the other commanders to execute an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. Then order a military withdrawal from the other 100 nations around the world where we have over 700 foreign bases. That would save many lives, much money, and would create far fewer enemies than we are creating now. We simply must stop acting as if we own the world or as if we are responsible for it. That would not be isolationism but instead a lack of military domination. The US would trade with all nations who were willing to trade with us. Creditor nations would probably appreciate our new monetary policy whereby they were paid with real instead of counterfeit money. If the President were to dedicate himself to the ideas proposed in this response to his speech, we would be well on our way to the most dynamic period in American history. Webmaster Wed, 26 Jan 2011 01:01:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:67 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/69/Is-the-Cold-War-Back-On.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=69 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=69&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/69/Is-the-Cold-War-Back-On.aspx by Darrell Castle Constitution Party Vice-Chairman January 19, 2011 President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao in China This is the week of the 50th anniversary of President Eisenhower’s famous speech in which he warned the nation to beware of what he called “the military industrial complex.” He was talking about the military leaders joining with leaders of the arms industry for the purpose of expanding their budgets in order to line their own pockets and greatly expand their power over American foreign policy. President Eisenhower probably remembered the end of WWII, just 15 years before his speech, when the United States stood at the top of world power as no nation had ever stood before. With 12 million men under arms, the only nation with nuclear weapons and a proven disposition to use them, with Europe in ruins and the Soviet Union with millions of dead, who could challenge the United States? But challenged we were: just five years later we were at war again in Korea, and the Soviet Union also had nuclear weapons. By the time of President Eisenhower’s speech in 1960, we were in a life or death struggle with the Soviet Union for global supremacy. Those of us who lived through that time remember the “missile gap” and the constant stories of how much better Soviet weapons were than ours and how if we didn’t fund, fund, fund, and build, build, build, our civilization would be dead, dead, dead. The entire “free world” depended on the American taxpayer. The Soviet Union remained a faithful partner in the game until it finally imploded in 1989, but as luck would have it, Islamic fundamentalism was there to pick up the ball and carry it. Twenty years of fighting Islamic fundamentalism have certainly been rewarding for the players, but fighting a bunch of primitive people who live in caves and hovels makes it hard to justify building very many $350 million dollar plus (research and development factored in) F-22 Raptors, especially when the nation is bankrupt. The F-22 production line was, therefore, shut down after 187 were built. Permanent war fighting has its own set of rewards, but it just doesn’t create the same zeal as a real big iron showdown against a legitimate technologically advanced country. For a short time it looked as if the players of “the great game,” as Zbigniew Brzezinski called it, would have to adjust to only permanent war against Islamic fundamentalism, but they are clever and resourceful. Lo and behold, along comes China with the J-20 stealth fighter. We are told that China got its stealth technology from Russia which got it from us, but we are also told that most Russian technological systems are junk right now from lack of funding. China debuted its new fighter aircraft just in time for the summit between Chinese President Hu Jintao and U.S. President Barack Obama and at about the same time that China announced it was moving troops into North Korea. Oh how lucky can one group of people get! Look for the F-22 line to start up any day now, and, in addition, we have the Chinese in Korea again just like 50 years ago. Well, it will be extremely interesting to see how President Obama handles the summit with China. I am confident that he will handle it as well as he did the START talks with the Russians. The “great game” goes on, but if the dollar loses its reserve status, as now appears inevitable, the players will have to find a way to pay for all their big iron. - Darrell Castle Webmaster Thu, 20 Jan 2011 01:04:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:69 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/68/Staying-Focused-On-The-Big-Picture.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=68 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=68&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/68/Staying-Focused-On-The-Big-Picture.aspx by Robert W. Peck Chairman, Constitution Party of Washington As a new year begins and a new Congress comes on the stage promising reform, fiscal accountability and a return to conservative principles, I’ve got to remind us all to stay focused on the big picture. Too often, our attention is diverted from the real and weighty issues that determine the future of our country, our liberty and our prosperity. Like the illusionist who diverts our attention from what is really going on, the political powers that be, along with the dominant media and political pundits, direct our attention to whatever is being billed as the major political battle of the day. But more often than not, those battles are being waged over what amounts to minutia or only minor differences in policy when compared to what I consider to be the big picture. A CASE IN POINT The recent battle over extending the Bush tax cuts is a good case in point. Both Democrats and Republicans decried each other’s position as disastrous, ruinous, or downright evil. Both told their supporters that they were here to save them from the other party. Conservative commentators told us that the Democrats would destroy the economy and crush us under an unbearable burden of increased taxation. When the dust settled and the Republicans claimed victory, conservative leaders engaged in an orgy of self congratulation patting themselves on the back for ushering in the new age of conservatism that will save the country from the liberals. The casual observer would think it is now safe to go back to sleep confident that small government, low taxes, Tea Party Republicans are in charge now and all will be well. But was the extending of the Bush tax cuts the epic struggle for our economic survival that it was billed to be? Or was it a distraction that diverted our attention from the big picture? During that debate we were inundated with plenty of minutia from political pundits and talking heads discussing whether the Bush tax cuts increased GDP, decreased federal revenues, or increased the federal deficit and by what percentage of GDP adjusted for inflation as based on CBO projections for the year 2018 and how that will effect couples filing jointly with 2.3 children and a medical insurance co-payment of . . . . . blah, blah, blah, ad infinitum, insert endless stream of baffling BS here. Ultimately, there were really only two relevant questions; 1) How much of our personal income is being taken for the cost of government and; 2) Exactly how much did the Bush tax cuts reduce that burden for the average American? With that in mind, I set out looking for answers and found the following. OVERALL TAXATION What is known as the ’Bush tax cuts’ is actually a collection of various changes in federal tax laws, rates, rules, etc, assembled into two different bills passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in 2001 and 2003. To see exactly how much these tax cuts directly affected our lives and our standard, the following gives a sampling of what percentage of gross income the average American paid in taxation (local, state and federal combined) during the last 10 years. 2000 32.98% Last year of Clinton Presidency 2004 28.53% First year that all Bush tax cuts were fully implemented 2006 31.16% Last year of Republican controlled Congress 2008 28.99% Last year of Bush Presidency 2010 26.89% Current rate under Obama and Democrat Congress (source: http://www.taxfoundation.org) TOTAL COST OF GOVERNMENT The actual cost of government is considerably higher as it takes into account total spending, fees (not counted as taxes) and the cost of complying with government regulations. According to Americans for Tax Reform (www.costofgovernmentday.com), in the last decade, Cost of Government Day, the day at which Americans stop working to pay for the cost of government and start keeping what they earn, has fallen on: 2000 June 29 Last year of Clinton Presidency 2004 July 10 First year that all Bush tax cuts were fully implemented 2006 July 10 Last year of Republican controlled Congress 2008 July 16 Last year of Bush Presidency 2010 Aug 19 Current Cost of Government Day According to the above, while taxes may have gone down by as much as 3% during the time of the Bush tax cuts, the cost of government went up. In other words, our standard of living didn’t really change, but we did acquire a lot of new debt, over $4trillion during the Bush Presidency. THE DISTRACTION First of all, the battle over extending the Bush tax cuts was not really about lowering taxes, it was about maintaining the current level of taxation. And it wasn’t a battle over the whole 3% that those tax cuts appear to have represented, seeing as Democrats already planned to retain most of those cuts. The ’Great Battle’ was over one element of the Bush tax cuts that was directed at individuals earning over $200,000 per year. To win this ’Great Victory,’ Republicans acquiesced to nearly $1 trillion in new spending (i.e. debt), $313 billion of which their own budget point man concedes is unnecessary. By the way, all of this was done to gain only a two year extension, after which time we’ll be watching this movie all over again. While everyone was paying attention to the Republican versus Democrat battle being waged over extending that one element of the tax cuts, we were all successfully distracted from looking at the big picture – the fact that regardless of which party is in power, over half of all that we produce continues to be devoured by the government behemoth (63% currently and about 52% under Bush and the Republican Congress). It isn’t that the extending of the tax cuts doesn’t matter. It’s that issues like this often manage to distract us and cause us to lose sight of the bigger picture. Our party of preference wins the battle of the day and we all go back to our homes singing the victory, oblivious to the fact that taxpayers continue to lose the war as the establishment maintains the status quo. THE BIG PICTURE In 2011, let’s not get distracted by the minutia offered up by party leaders, political pundits and the 6 o’clock news. Let’s stay focused on the big picture – the weighty issues of life, liberty, property, the clear limits placed on government by the U.S. Constitution, the 63% of all our income that is being consumed by government, the $3.5 trillion per year being spent by the federal government and $1.2 trillion per year in new debt that is being heaped on the backs of the next generation. If the Republicans in Congress want to claim to represent Tea Partiers, Constitutionalists and traditional conservatives, they need to step up to the plate and wage a real war to rein in out of control spending and put the federal government back in its Constitutionally prescribed box. In 2011, the big picture is the fact that the Republican controlled House of the 112th Congress has it within their power to rein in most of the federal government’s un-Constitutional activities (by defunding them), end deficit spending and balance the budget. You see, Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states that “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” In other words, the federal government cannot, and will not, spend a penny more than what the controlling party in the House (the Republicans) decides it will spend. Now you may be thinking “Oh my, the Democrats would scream bloody murder – there would be gridlock – the government could shut down.” Yes! You’re catching on! That’s exactly the idea and it’s exactly what the framers of our Constitution intended. They intended for the people’s direct representatives (the House) to be able to hold the rest of the government in check by holding the purse strings and thereby be able to “compel the Senate to agree to a reasonable measure, by withholding supplies till the measure is consented to,” as James Iredell argues in connection with the Constitution ratification debates. As for a “reasonable measure,” I think balancing the budget and denying funding for any activity or agency not clearly authorized under the U.S. Constitution is quite reasonable. The next reasonable measure that I would like to see, is to get the total cost of government (local, state and federal) back to its 1910 level of 5% of income as opposed to the current 63%. If, in the coming two years, under a Republican controlled House, even one un-Constitutional program receives funding or one dollar is added to the deficit, or Cost of Government Day comes any later than January 19 (as it did in 1910), it will not be because Republicans are powerless. It will not be because of ’the big bad liberals.’ It will be because the Republicans in the House want it that way. The only other possible explanation would be that we the people have elected to high office weak-kneed, limp-wristed, panty-waists who are afraid of a fight. No, I didn’t call the Republicans panty-waists, I said we’re going to give them two years to show us whether they are or not. A CALL FOR TRUE GRIT With the remake of one of my favorite movies in mind, True Grit, I have to ask, where are the national leaders with grit? Men who without fear for their popularity or political careers, will stand up to the criminal violators of our Constitution, take the reins in their teeth and a gun in each hand and charge at the oppressing oligarchs who seek to tax us into oblivion. Oh for a handful of national leaders with True Grit! __________________________ If you agree with the content of this article, please forward, post and publish far and wide. If you don’t, who will? © Robert W. Peck Webmaster Thu, 20 Jan 2011 01:03:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:68 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/70/Lame-Duck-or-Just-Lame.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=70 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=70&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/70/Lame-Duck-or-Just-Lame.aspx by Darrell Castle Constitution Party Vice-Chairman “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” (United States Constitution, Article I Section 1.). This section of the Constitution places all legislative or law-making power clearly in the hands of Congress, and therefore denies them the right to transfer that responsibility to the president. In light of the Constitutional responsibilities of Congress, then, let’s take a brief look at not only what this lame duck session has accomplished, but also what has been accomplished in recent years. The lame duck session passed 3 of the 4 major items on its agenda. The three were the START treaty, the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), and the “deal” to extend the Bush tax cuts. The only thing they were denied was President Obama’s DREAM Act (AIM: amnesty for illegal minors). I won’t go into detail about any of these because we have so many accomplishments to list, except to say that the tax cut extension was really Stimulus II or, in other words, a deceitful way of pumping more money into the economy which the American public clearly rejected in the November elections. The total cost of the “deal” is estimated at $990 billion or just short of a trillion dollars, and two thirds of that money had nothing to do with tax cuts, middle class or otherwise. With the lame ducks out of the way, what else can Congress be proud of? Here’s just a few: Allowing the president to wage trillion dollar wars of aggression all over the world; Bankrupting the richest nation on earth; Destroying two-thirds of the manufacturing base of the greatest manufacturing nation on earth; Plunging future generations of Americans into debt peonage; Obamacare with its health mandates that deny the right to exit the system – a system, by the way, to which Congress is not subject; Return of death panels despite the assurances that they would not return; The Food Safety Bill, or the bill to make Monsanto our food controller; Genetically modified foods; irradiated foods; imported and uninspected foods; Net neutrality talks well under way; A controlled press, and destruction of the best education system in the world. I could go on with this for pages and pages but I think you get the idea. In light of all this I have a Christmas gift (winter holiday gift as they say in Washington) suggestion that Congress could give the American people to partially repent for what it has done. The gift is this: Just stay on your Christmas vacation forever. Congresspersons just stay permanently away from Washington. If you can’t bear to stay permanently away then give us one of those compromises you are so good at and stay away for a year. What a wonderful, glorious, happy time that would be for all Americans and indeed for the whole world for us to know that we were safe from your efforts to destroy our lives and property for a whole year. If you think about it you will see that we don’t need you. What bills could you pass that are not harmful? What have we lived without for almost 250 years that we can’t live without for just one more year? If Congress actually decided to give us a break and stay away for a year, a shout of joy and freedom would ring out around the world that has not been heard since the end of World War II. Not that you earn it or deserve it, but we would be willing to let you keep your salaries. It would be well worth it for the year of safety we would enjoy without your strutting, preening presence on our televisions. We might even be willing to make the day of the announcement a national holiday so we could have a day off too. But wait, that would require you to come back to Washington for a vote, so never mind. Webmaster Mon, 03 Jan 2011 01:05:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:70