Posts Tagged ‘Constitution Party’

Is it time for a third party to emerge?

February 20, 2013

This is a reposting of a previously posted article

 

I wrote this article last year and I feel as strongly about this issue now as I did then.  With early voting already started and election day quickly approaching I urge you to refuse to continue to vote for “the lessor of two evils”.  It is time to break the cycle!!    Let’s let our elected officials know that they can no longer take us for granted and that we will require them to represent us and put our country’s needs before their own or we will fire them.

 


 

As our country continues to spiral into oblivion I find myself not satisfied with the current two party system.  More and more each day I realize they my interests are less and less represented in Washington.  With this understanding I have to begin looking at what my options are.

First, I could believe that my representatives know more than I do and have our country’s and my best interest at heart. After all, they say all the right things while they are trying to get my vote.  They make all the right promises and go on the right shows.  Maybe they really do have the country’s and my best interest at heart.  To do this I would have to stop paying attention to what they are doing and shift into blind faith mode.  Hmmm, I don’t think so….

Next, I could disassociate myself from the whole process.  I could stop paying attention to politics altogether and stop worrying about what goes on in Washington or Nashville.  But in order to pull this off I will have to stop caring about my children’s and grand-children’s futures.  I know I can’t do that, so…..

Thirdly, I could work to reform one of the two major parties from within….to return it to it’s core, stated values so that it would once again represent me.  To do this would require the help of many higher ups within the party.  These are people that are not easily accessed.  I would have to find someway to speak with them and convince them to help me advance the reform agenda I have.  This is viable option for local and state representatives.  I mean, I could make an appointment and actually get to speak with them, or I could knock on their front door and ask to speak with them, or maybe I would see them at church or the little league field.  Unfortunately, this is not an option on the federal level.  These people only want to hear from me when I am casting a vote for them.  The rest of the time they seem to want me to sit down, shut up, and trust them no matter what I hear or see.  At one time I thought this was the best alternative.

Lastly, I can look to change the rules of the game.  To do this, new players must be introduced and paradigms must be shifted.  To do this I would have to leave my comfort zone.  I would have to realize that the only way to stop or change the monstrous system we now have is to stop feeding it.  The old saying about the definition of insanity comes to mind here.  I would have to accept the fact that I would have to take some steps back in order to ultimately go forward in a better way.  At this point I am beginning to think that I can do this.  It is worth the short term cost in order to get the long term gain.

I believe it is time for a viable third party to emerge.  I believe we can’t fix our issues by remaining on the same path.  Drastic and radical changes must be made and made now.  I invite you to join me in looking for that viable third party.

Advertisements

Montana Has It Right On Second Amendment By Chuck Baldwin

March 4, 2009

Montana Has It Right On Second Amendment
By Chuck Baldwin
March 3, 2009

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090303.html

According to ABC News (Feb. 25, 2009), “The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

“‘As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,’ Holder told reporters.”

Holder also said that President Obama would seek to make the assault weapons ban permanent, close the “gun show loophole,” and ban “cop-killer” bullets.

At this point, I believe it is incumbent on me to say that both Eric Holder and Barack Obama have made a career out of doing everything in their power to strip the American people of their right to keep and bear arms. Even under the rubric of the abovementioned “few gun-related changes,” there is the potential for widespread assault against our Second Amendment.

For example, the so-called “assault weapons” ban is as phony as the Bush-Obama stimulus spending bills–and just as fraudulent. A semi-automatic rifle, which is incapable of automatic fire, is not an “assault weapon.” By definition, an assault weapon must be capable of fully automatic fire. A civilian AR-15-style rifle–in any configuration–is functionally identical to any semi-automatic hunting rifle. In fact, many hunters commonly use AR-15-style rifles for all types of hunting, both predator and big game. The term “assault weapon” is simply a dangerous-sounding moniker that makes it easy for a compliant media to intimidate the public and public officials into passing a ban against semi-automatic rifles.

Furthermore, does anyone believe that if Obama and Holder were successful in outlawing semi-automatic rifles, pump and bolt-action rifles would not also be targeted? Get real! I well remember gun control zealots during the Clinton years railing against bolt-action rifles, calling them “sniper” rifles. And once rifles are outlawed, how long would it be before handguns and shotguns would fall victim to a similar fate? As always, the issue for these people is not what type of firearm it is; the issue is the infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms–any arms.

Of course, the “gun show loophole” is nothing more than the prohibition against private citizens selling and trading their own personal firearms. I would like to remind the Obamas and Holders of this country that liberty is not a “loophole.”

In the beginning, the private sale and trading of firearms was almost exclusively the purpose for which gun shows were started. Today, commercial firearms dealers dominate gun shows, but it is still a convenient marketplace for citizens to buy and trade guns. This is a freedom and right that is as old as the country itself. Shoot (pun intended)! I remember when we were free to buy guns from a Sears & Roebuck catalog.

And as to banning “cop-killer” bullets, what bullet is not capable of killing? Any bullet that is not capable of killing a good guy is not capable of killing a bad guy (be it two-legged or four). This is just another approach to the same goal: the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. Obviously, any gun without a bullet is pretty much useless.

The Democrats went down this road in 1994. Are they really willing to go down the same road again? It looks like they are.

It was largely an aggressive gun control agenda that caused the Republicans to sweep both houses of Congress in 1994 and render Bill Clinton without a majority in either chamber. It was also an aggressive gun control agenda that caused Al Gore to lose the Presidential election in 2000. Even Bill Clinton publicly acknowledged that fact.

All of that said, however, the underlying reality is that it is the individual States that must ultimately be guardians of the Second Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights, of course). States must be willing to resist any and all efforts by the central government to intrude upon their independence, sovereignty, and liberties. If this was not the case, why did the individual States not dissolve after the federal government was created by the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787? Why? Because the States were deemed to be superior entities. Superior in assignment. Superior in responsibility. Superior in nature. Superior in scope.

As James Madison said in the Federalist Papers, No. 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Therefore, when the federal government begins to intrude upon the rights and liberties of the people, it is the responsibility of the States to resist.  Obviously, the way the federal government tries to keep States in subjection is through bribery: by threatening to deny federal tax dollars unless States comply with their despotic machinations. And, sadly, most States have succumbed to this menacing temptation for far, far too long.

The good news is that States are finally beginning to fight back.

According to World Net Daily, “So far, eight states have introduced  resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, including Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.

“Analysts expect that in addition, another 20 states may see similar measures introduced this year, including Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.”

Pertaining specifically to the Second Amendment, the State of Montana, in particular, seems to have it all together. In anticipation of the recent Heller Supreme Court decision, a host of Montana’s senators and representatives–along with its Secretary of State– proposed a resolution stating “that any ‘collective rights’ holding in D.C. v. Heller will violate Montana’s compact with the United States, the contract by which Montana entered the Union in 1889.”

The Montana resolution recalls, “When Montana entered into statehood and adopted the Compact as a part of the Montana Constitution in 1889, included was a provision guaranteeing the right to bear arms to ‘any person.'”

The resolution continues, “To be clear, the wording of the right to bear arms reservation in the Montana constitution is exactly the same today as it was in 1884.”

Furthermore, the Montana resolution says, “There is no question that the contract into which Montana entered for statehood was predicated upon an understanding that the people of Montana would benefit from an individual and personal right to bear arms, protected from governmental interference by both the federal and Montana constitutions. That was the clear intent of the parties to the contract.”

The resolution ended by stating sternly, “A collective rights holding in Heller would not only open the Pandora’s box of unilaterally morphing contracts, it would also poise Montana to claim appropriate and historically entrenched remedies for contract violation.”

In other words, representatives and senators in the State of Montana unequivocally put Washington, D.C., on notice that it would not tolerate the infringement of its citizens’ right to keep and bear arms. I don’t think I’m reading anything into the resolution by assuming that they were implying that they would secede before they let the federal government trample their Second Amendment liberties. (Plus, I’ve just been told that New Hampshire may also be preparing to propose such a resolution.)

Montana has it exactly right!

Now it is time for every State legislative body in America that believes in the Second Amendment to step up to the plate and let Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and the rest of these gun-grabbing socialists know that they will not tolerate even one more attempt to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms–and that includes any so-called “assault weapons” ban.

And let’s never forget that the purpose of the Second Amendment was not to ensure the rights of hunters, but of citizens to protect themselves–and their States–against the tyrannical tendencies of their own government.

P.S. If anyone wants to see firsthand testimony regarding the importance of the Second Amendment, I encourage him or her to watch this testimony given before Congress not long ago:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675

Constitutional Convention: Should We Have Another One

January 1, 2009

I was caugt a bit off guard when I read this article written by former Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin.  I have heard calls before for a new constitutional convention but I did not give them any consideration because I did not consider them to be serious.  It appears that I was WRONG.  According to the article, 32 states have already formally called for a new constitutional convention and only 34 are needed.  That shocks me.  I had no idea.  What is more is that Baldwin lists Tennessee as one of the 32 who have already called for the convention.  Did you know that there was talk of another Constitutional Convention?  Have you thought of the ramifications of such an event.  Baldwin says

“However, can one imagine what would happen if the current bunch of politically correct leftists in Washington, D.C., were to be granted the power to rewrite our Constitution? It would be the end of the United States of America, and that is no hyperbole.”

I think he is right.  What do you think the end product would be if our  current leaders were in charge of creating a new constitution?  Do you think the country would survive?  It would not.  Baldwin says

Given the fact that Washington, D.C., is comprised mostly of Big-Government liberals and neocons, it is almost certain that the founders’ Constitution–which was founded on the principles of Natural Law that protects individual liberty–would be replaced with some sort of “collective rights” document protecting an ambiguous “common good.” At that point, there is no more United States of America. There would be no more Bill of Rights protecting individuals from governmental abuse and overreach. Furthermore, the principles of Natural Law would be forever removed as a basis of all our nation’s laws and statutes. The nation that had been bequeathed to us by our forebears would be gone forever.

Now, we must remember that even if a constitutional convention is called, whatever comes out of it must be ratified by the states so there would be a small hope of stopping it.  But we must also remember that our state politicians are as liberal as our federal politicians in most cases.  Even so, we should be very wary of calling a new constitutional convention.  There would be no limits on what they could do.  So, if you begin to hear this discussed, contact your state leaders and lets “nip it in the bud“.

Seven Principles of the Constitution Party

December 17, 2008

Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:

  1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
  2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
  3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
  4. Property: Each individual’s right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
  5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;
  6. States’ Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions;
  7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

Source:  www.constitutionparty.com

Abortion: How Is It Addressed In The 2008 Party Platforms?

November 23, 2008

For many conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, abortion is one issue that we cannot and will not compromise on.  Because we believe that life begins at conception, we have no choice but to extend the full protections of the law to all unborn babies.  But it is much more than legal issue, it is a moral issue.  It is a moral issue because of our belief that life comes as a gift from God.

The Constitution Party best represents my beliefs on abortion.  It is my belief that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances and in all forms.  Abortion actually amounts to child sacrifice.  I know that is harsh but I think harshness is called for.  The vast majority of abortions are elective or, if you prefer, a matter of convenience.  That means they are not necessary to save the life of the mother.  The other primary reason that is given as to why abortion should be legal are cases of rape and incest.  It is true that these are terrible situations and the woman involved is not at fault but neither is the unborn baby.  In no other instance do we punish (with the death penalty no less) the child for the crimes of the father.  But that is exactly what we do when we abort unborn children in the case of rape and incest.  You are free not to agree with me but you must justify this in any discussion we have.

Have you ever wondered what the party platform of the five biggest political parties say about abortion?  This post will give you what they actually say in their platforms.  I will quote the entire section from each platform for you to read and see which one might best fit your beliefs.

Democratic Party

Choice

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of  programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs. [2008 Democratic Party Platform, SectionIII]

Republican Party

Maintaining The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life

Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.  We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.

We have made progress. The Supreme Court has upheld prohibitions against the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. States are now permitted to extend health-care coverage to children before birth.  And the Born Alive Infants Protection Act has become law; this law ensures that infants who are born alive during an abortion receive all treatment and care that is provided to all newborn infants and are not neglected and left to die. We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification requirement. We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy.  At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life. Women deserve better than abortion. Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life. We salute those who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers, and we take pride in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.

Respect for life requires efforts to include persons with disabilities in education, employment, the justice system, and civic participation. In keeping with that commitment, we oppose the nonconsensual withholding of care or treatment from people with disabilities, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, which endanger especially those on the margins of society. Because government should set a positive standard in hiring and contracting for the services of persons with disabilities, we need to update the statutory authority for the AbilityOne program, the main avenue by which those productive members of our society can offer high quality services at the best
possible value.  [2008 Republican Party Platform]

Constitution Party

Sanctity of Life

The Declaration of Independence states:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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”.

The Preamble of the Constitution states a purpose of the Constitution to be to:

“secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”.

We declare the unalienable right of Life to be secured by our Constitution “to ourselves and our Posterity“. Our posterity includes children born and future generations yet unborn. Any legalization of the termination of innocent life of the born or unborn is a direct violation of our unalienable right to life.

The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God’s image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born.

To that end, the Constitution of these United States was ordained and established for “ourselves and our posterity.” Under no circumstances may the federal government fund or otherwise support any state or local government or any organization or entity, foreign or domestic, which advocates, encourages or participates in the practice of abortion. We also oppose the distribution and use of all abortifacients.

We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception. As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.

No government may legalize the taking of the unalienable right to life without justification, including the life of the pre-born; abortion may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government – legislative, judicial, or executive. The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body.

In addition, Article IV of the Constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government. Therefore, although a Supreme Court opinion is binding on the parties to the controversy as to the particulars of the case, it is not a political rule for the nation. Roe v. Wade is an illegitimate usurpation of authority, contrary to the law of the nation’s Charter and Constitution. It must be resisted by all civil government officials, federal, state, and local, and by all branches of the government – legislative, executive, and judicial.

We affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of abortion in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2.

In office, we shall only appoint to the federal judiciary, and to other positions of federal authority, qualified individuals who publicly acknowledge and commit themselves to the legal personhood of the pre-born child. In addition, we will do all that is within our power to encourage federal, state, and local government officials to protect the sanctity of the life of the pre-born through legislation, executive action, and judicial enforcement of the law of the land.

Further, we condemn the misuse of federal laws against pro-life demonstrators, and strongly urge the repeal of the FACE Acts as an unconstitutional expansion of federal power into areas reserved to the states or people by the Tenth Amendment.

In addition, we oppose the funding and legalization of bio-research involving human embryonic or pre-embryonic cells.

Finally, we also oppose all government “legalization” of euthanasia, infanticide and suicide. [2008 Constitution Party Platform]

Libertarian Party

1.4    Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration. [2008 Libertarian Party Platform]

Green Party

Reproductive Rights

f.  Women’s rights must be protected and expanded to guarantee each woman’s right as a full participant in society, free from sexual harassment, job discrimination or interference in the intensely personal choice about whether to have a child.

g.  Women’s right to control their bodies is nonnegotiable. It is essential that the option of a safe, legal abortion remains available. The “morning after” pill must be affordable and easily accessible without a prescription, together with a government-sponsored public relations campaign to educate women about this form of contraception. Clinics must be accessible and must offer advice on contraception and the means for contraception; consultation about abortion and the performance of abortions, and; abortion regardless of age or marital status.

h.  We endorse women’s right to use contraception and, when they choose, to have an abortion. This right cannot be limited to women’s age or marital status. Contraception and abortion must be included in all health insurance policies in the U.S., and any state government must be able to legally offer these services free of charge to women at the poverty level. Public health agencies operating abroad should be allowed to offer family planning, contraception, and abortion in all countries that ask for those services. We oppose our government’s habit of cutting family planning funds when those funds go to agencies in foreign countries that give out contraceptive devices, offer advice on abortion, and perform abortions.

i.  We encourage women and men to prevent unwanted pregnancies. It is the inalienable right and duty of every woman to learn about her body and to be aware of the phases of her menstrual cycle, and it is the duty for every man to be aware of the functions and health of his and his partner’s bodies. This information is necessary for self determination, to make informed decisions, and to prevent unintended consequences. Unplanned conception takes control away from individuals and makes them subject to external controls. The “morning-after” pill and option of a safe and legal abortion need to remain available. [2008 Green Party Platform]

Okay, now we have seen how the five biggest parties address abortion in their own words.  Which one most closely resembles your beliefs on the issue?  Are you surprised by any of these?  The forcefulness of the Green Party’s position is surprising to me.  I guess because I am not as familiar with them as I am with some of the others.

What are you thoughts?

Constitution Party Platform Preamble

November 22, 2008

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

The Constitution of these United States provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are Constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.

We affirm the principles of inherent individual rights upon which these United States of America were founded:

  • That each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness;
  • That the freedom to own, use, exchange, control, protect, and freely dispose of property is a natural, necessary and inseparable extension of the individual’s unalienable rights;
  • That the legitimate function of government is to secure these rights through the preservation of domestic tranquility, the maintenance of a strong national defense, and the promotion of equal justice for all;
  • That history makes clear that left unchecked, it is the nature of government to usurp the liberty of its citizens and eventually become a major violator of the people’s rights; and
  • That, therefore, it is essential to bind government with the chains of the Constitution and carefully divide and jealously limit government powers to those assigned by the consent of the governed.

Source:  Constitution Party Website

Which Political Party Is The Best Fit For You?

November 20, 2008

I have recently changed my party affiliation.  I am no longer a Republican, now I am a member of the Constitution Party.  It took me quite a while to get the point of actually making the switch.  It still sounds a bit weird when I tell others that I am no longer a Republican.

It took me quite a while to get to this point.  I had to answer all the standard objections.  You have heard them.  They all basically come down to one common objection:  you are throwing away your vote if you vote for a third party candidate since that candidate has virtually no chance at winning.  With that understanding I was then forced to vote for the candidate I considered the “lessor of two evils”.  I am tired of being put in this position.  I am tired of supporting a party that no longer represents me or my beliefs.  I have (finally) come to the conclusion that I have to stand on principles God’s word and trust Him for the details.

I was thinking that maybe others might be in a similar situation to what I was in….dissatisfied with both major parties because neither represents your views.  So, I have decided to do a series of posts sharing some major points of the party platforms for various political parties currently operating in our country.  Maybe this will help you to re-evaluate your party affiliation and make a change if it is necessary.

Here is a list of the posts (with links) I will be doing.  I will update this list as I add new posts so check back regularly.

  1. Constitution Party
  2. Republican Party
  3. Democratic Party
  4. Green Party
  5. Libertarian Party
  6. Others (maybe)

Introduction

November 17, 2008

I have been given the opportunity to contribute posts to this blog from a conservative perspective.  As such, first I would like to take an opportunity to introduce myself.

I grew up in Unicoi County.  I moved to Johnson City when I began college and lived there until about 3 years ago.  I have been married to my wife for 16 years and we have 3 children.  We are very active in our church.  I am an accountant by trade. For most of my adult life I labeled myself a Republican but the Republican party no longer is the best representation of my beliefs.  The Constitution Party now seems to best represent my beliefs.

My two favorite topics to discuss are religion and politics.  I am always ready to discuss either although I don’t claim to be an expert on anything other than my opinion (and I guarantee that it will be worth exactly what you paid for it).  I hope that as you read this blog we can discuss our views in a way that will be beneficial to all involved.  Please feel free to question or comment on any post.  I don’t promise to reply to all comments but, as time permits, I will reply to some.  I look forward to our discussions.