Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Growth of third parties reflects voter unease: Constitution Party makes Wyoming ballot
Trib.com ^ | March 29, 2012 | JEREMY PELZER

Posted on 04/02/2012 10:39:52 AM PDT by xzins

The Constitution Party of Wyoming announced Wednesday that it has submitted enough petition signatures to become the state’s fifth recognized political party.

It’s the most political parties Wyoming has had in more than a decade. Analysts say the number reflects voter discontent, but it is unlikely to make a significant impact on Wyoming elections, at least in the near future.

Founded in 1992 as the U.S. Taxpayers Party, the Constitution Party is one of the top three minor parties in the United States. The party’s stated goals include restoring the Founding Fathers’ vision of a limited federal government based on Biblical foundations.

(Excerpt) Read more at trib.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Wyoming
KEYWORDS: 3rdparty; constitution; constitutionparty; rino
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last
Seven Principles of the Constitution Party:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;

Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;

Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;

Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;

Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;

States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people;

American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

1 posted on 04/02/2012 10:40:07 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: xzins

This is a real dilemma for me this year. My heart is 100% on board with the Constitution Party. My head is telling me that at whatever cost Comrade Zero must go, or there won’t be an America by 2016.


2 posted on 04/02/2012 10:45:50 AM PDT by Marathoner (2 goals this year: (1) S##tcan Obamacare; (2) S##tcan Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I looked at the Constitution Party website several elections ago.

Their domestic platforms sounded pretty good.

They fell flat on foreign policy, however. They seemed more like Ron Paul. They were advocating isolationsim, which is impractical in the current world.


3 posted on 04/02/2012 10:47:52 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marathoner; P-Marlowe; wmfights

There is no shame in standing up for your principles.

I’ve been asked one too many times to vote for a loser who doesn’t represent my beliefs.

So, after much soul-searching, I’ve decided it’s better, win or lose, to work for the future to build something that does represent me rather than to keep supporting a system that fights against my beliefs and fights to undermine my country.


4 posted on 04/02/2012 10:49:29 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Hardly seems like news: My 2008 presidential ballot had seven other choices besides Obama/McCain. Been that way since I remember.


5 posted on 04/02/2012 10:49:29 AM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
Actually Isolationism is exactly what we need to do.
We can't be the World Policeman, we need to close most of the overseas bases, bring all of our troops home and let these people kill each other as they have for thousands of years.
We need to concentrate on our country, put the troops on the southern border and close it once and for all.
6 posted on 04/02/2012 10:51:37 AM PDT by Captain Peter Blood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

What do you mean by isolationism?


7 posted on 04/02/2012 10:54:05 AM PDT by SatinDoll (No Foreign Nationals as our President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I really do respect you for standing up for your principles. I may well do the same. If the GD Rats would run a genuine American and not a Kenyan Marxist POS it would be a no brainer.I’m just scared to death of what this monster will do if (GOD forbid) he gets another term.


8 posted on 04/02/2012 10:54:18 AM PDT by Marathoner (2 goals this year: (1) S##tcan Obamacare; (2) S##tcan Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
The following is their position on defense. It is not isolationist. It is best described as "Defending America".

Defense

The very purpose of Government, as defined in the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, is "to secure these [unalienable] rights, Governments are instituted among Men", "that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

To fulfill this obligation, the Preamble of the Constitution states one of the duties specifically delegated to the Federal Government is to "Provide for the common defense".

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 11 - 16 give Congress further direction and authority in this area, including the power "To raise and support Armies" and "To provide and maintain a Navy".

It is a primary obligation of the federal government to provide for the common defense, and to be vigilant regarding potential threats, prospective capabilities, and perceived intentions of potential enemies.

We oppose unilateral disarmament and dismemberment of America's defense infrastructure. That which is hastily torn down will not be easily rebuilt.

We condemn the presidential assumption of authority to deploy American troops into combat without a declaration of war by Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

Under no circumstances would we commit U.S. forces to serve under any foreign flag or command. We are opposed to any New World Order, and we reject U.S. participation in or a relinquishing of command to any foreign authority.

The goal of U.S. security policy is to defend the national security interests of these United States. Therefore, except in time of declared war, for the purposes of state security, no state national guard or reserve troops shall be called upon to support or conduct operations in foreign theatres.

We should be the friend of liberty everywhere, but the guarantor and provisioner of ours alone.

We call for the maintenance of a strong, state-of-the-art military on land, sea, in the air, and in space. We urge the executive and legislative branches to continue to provide for the modernization of our armed forces, in keeping with advancing technologies and a constantly changing world situation. We call for the deployment of a fully-operational strategic defense system as soon as possible.

We believe that all defense expenditures should be directly related to the protection of our nation, and that every item of expenditure must be carefully reviewed to eliminate foreign aid, waste, fraud, theft, inefficiency, and excess profits from all defense contracts and military expenditures.

We reject the policies and practices that permit women to train for or participate in combat. Because of the radical feminization of the military over the past two decades, it must be recognized that these "advances" undermine the integrity, morale, and performance of our military organizations by dual qualification standards and forced integration.

We fully support well regulated militias organized at the state level. Further, we fully support and encourage the restoration of unorganized militia at the county and community level in compliance with our patriotic and legal responsibilities as free citizens of these United States.

Under no circumstances should we have unilaterally surrendered our military base rights in Panama. The sovereign right of these United States to the United States territory of the Canal Zone has been jeopardized by treaties between these United States and Panama. Inasmuch as these United States bought both the sovereignty and the grant ownership of the ten-mile-wide Canal Zone, we propose that the government of these United States restore and protect its sovereign right and exclusive jurisdiction of the Canal Zone in perpetuity, and renegotiate the treaties with Panama by which the ownership of the canal was surrendered to Panama.

It should be a priority goal of the President and Congress to insist on enforcement of that portion of the 1978 Panama Canal Neutrality Treaty which prohibits control of the entrances to the Panama Canal by any entity not part of the Republic of Panama or these United States of America. By this standard, the award of port facilities at the entrances to the Panama Canal to Hutchison Whampoa, a Hong Kong company closely linked to the Chinese Communist People's Liberation Army, must be overturned. Similarly, Congress and the President should take advantage of Panama Canal treaty provisions to negotiate the return of a U.S. military presence at the Isthmus of Panama. At a time when the U.S. Navy is one-third its former size, it is essential that rapid transit of U.S. military vessels between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans be assured.

9 posted on 04/02/2012 10:54:26 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All
America's Party - SelfGovernment.US

America's Party News

Support a FReeper for President

10 posted on 04/02/2012 10:58:30 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (You can be a Romney Republican or you can be a conservative. You can't be both. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Peter Blood

BTTT!

I do not understand how people think we can continue to wage wars everywhere, when the nation is completely bankrupt. We are no longer an actual superpower, but a financially bankrupted and morally corrupt, nearly-lawless nation.

We will not even be able to pay back the SS that some of us have paid into for 30-40 years+++. The politicians will not secure the border, which is one of the most basic tenets of the lousy government. Are we just supposed to keep printing money to fight lost causes thousands of miles away??


11 posted on 04/02/2012 11:00:16 AM PDT by Borax Queen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"I’ve been asked one too many times to vote for a loser who doesn’t represent my beliefs. So, after much soul-searching, I’ve decided it’s better, win or lose, to work for the future to build something that does represent me rather than to keep supporting a system that fights against my beliefs and fights to undermine my country. "

hear hear, that is why I cannot vote for Romney!!!
12 posted on 04/02/2012 11:02:29 AM PDT by askrenr (HOOAH! It's an Army thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“Under no circumstances should we have unilaterally surrendered our military base rights in Panama. The sovereign right of these United States to the United States territory of the Canal Zone has been jeopardized by treaties between these United States and Panama. Inasmuch as these United States bought both the sovereignty and the grant ownership of the ten-mile-wide Canal Zone,...”

The above statement is patently false, as Panama never surrendered its sovereignty over its own land to the U.S. government. The U.S. government has recognized the Panama Canal Zone as an unincorporated territory not covered by the U.S.Constitution but controlled by Congress. Children born in the Canal Zone are considered simply ‘citizens’ but are not ‘natural born citizens’, period.


13 posted on 04/02/2012 11:02:38 AM PDT by SatinDoll (No Foreign Nationals as our President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Captain Peter Blood

[ Actually Isolationism is exactly what we need to do.
We can’t be the World Policeman, we need to close most of the overseas bases, bring all of our troops home and let these people kill each other as they have for thousands of years.
We need to concentrate on our country, put the troops on the southern border and close it once and for all. ]

What we really need is “enemy isolationism” and that is basically we need to stop giving our enemies foreign aid. Cut off all foreign aid to countries that don’t like us and cut in half foreign aid to countries that are neutral to us. Why the damned hell are we even sending ANY money to Egypt or Pakistan, we would at least be doing better giving the money we give to egypt to israel and Pakistan to India.

It sounds weird but we need to “Saul Alinsky” our enemy foreign countries, that is Isolate and Ridicule them.


14 posted on 04/02/2012 11:06:49 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I’ll be taking a closer look at this party. I’m still embarrassed by voting for McCain and I will simply not be a Republican if Romney gets nominated.


15 posted on 04/02/2012 11:09:28 AM PDT by kreitzer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Borax Queen
Are we just supposed to keep printing money to fight lost causes thousands of miles away??

The biggest attacks on Americans over the last years have been from Islamoterror nations.

Why on earth would you say fighting them is a lost cause?

Did you happen to notice that the ring-leader of the largest attack on our soil is now dead because of battles we took over there instead of fighting them on our soil?

16 posted on 04/02/2012 11:12:11 AM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: xzins

IOW another sucker party.

I rank this group as likely winning anything as the “Birthday Party” (yes that is a real political party)


17 posted on 04/02/2012 11:12:20 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

According to one explanation of the US treaty with Panama in 1903, the US received rights to a 5 mile wide canal zone on each side of the canal in perpetuity.

I remember the Carter years debate, and we had no doubt that the Canal was under our control. As part of the US force that put Noriega in his proper place in Dec ‘89, we still knew the place was rightfully US purchased territory.


18 posted on 04/02/2012 11:13:17 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: xzins
It's great to have principles down on paper.

To come up with tested leadership is not so easy.

The right seems to go through "flavors of the week" like playing cards...Cain, Bachmann, Fred Thompson, Alan Keyes, Rick Perry, etc. etc. They talk great but the right gets disillusioned with them when they don't seem able to stand up under fire.

You gotta have more than good words. Executive leadership skills MATTER.

19 posted on 04/02/2012 11:15:56 AM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kreitzer

Not only was McCain a faux-conservative, he gave up. He would not fight Obama, he wouldn’t join with Palin, and he wouldn’t untie her hands.

McCain is Dole.

In far too many ways, Romney is Obama.


20 posted on 04/02/2012 11:17:11 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

[ What do you mean by isolationism? ]

In response to terrorism we should take a “Direct Numerical Magnitude Response”.

Say some terrorists from “Pockystan” kill 500 people in our country. Ok, then we go over there like the fist of an angry God and kill 5,000 of the terrorists +/- 10% and then leave immediately. And leave with the warning that this time the Multiplier is 10X, each subsequent attack the Multiplier will be raised a Magnitude more, so 100x, 1000x, etc....

It should be a plain spoken Policy that every country will understand.

“Your country directly attacks our civilians or allows terrorist organisations to operate from your country that attack our civilians, and we will keep adding up how many dirtbags in your country we will take out each time and increase the Magnitude per each incident. We will take out all ther terrorists first and if we run out of them, any male that is considered an adult in your culture will then be fair game until your country runs out of adult men.”

If any country is stuipid enough to allow terroists to come over and attack us eventually they will run out adult men long before we run out of civilians. Not only that byt they will run out of adult ment to defend their country leading their own country as “fair game” to any neighboring country.

It sounds downright macavellian, but this policy is the only way to deal with countries that are still socially living 1,000years ago.


21 posted on 04/02/2012 11:18:58 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: what's up

There is leadership that fails in some venues and succeeds in others.

Romney was a dismal failure as a governor, so bad he crawled undetected away from a re-election effort. He signed gay marriage legislation, he created RomneyCAre, he provided for $50 abortions, he raised fees (hidden tax) an enormous amount. When the nation was booming, his state slid to about 2nd last.

As a Corporatist at Bain Capital he made money decisions that made his partners money.

As a college football running back, Archie Griffin was one of the best ever. As a pro, he was a flop.


22 posted on 04/02/2012 11:22:03 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Captain Peter Blood
"Actually Isolationism is exactly what we need to do. We can't be the World Policeman, "

Total agreement on ending expending our treasure and blood as world policeman and nation builder. Balanced trade with the world, military intervention for none. Let others fight their endless battles. Enough with this 'everything on the table' involvement.

Protect America with an unexcelled military. Nation build here, nation build now.

23 posted on 04/02/2012 11:22:59 AM PDT by ex-snook ("above all things, truth beareth away the victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory; P-Marlowe

I was a sucker when I voted for McCain.

That was the last time.


24 posted on 04/02/2012 11:23:34 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: xzins

The problem with that “treaty” is no Panamanian government sanctioned representative signed it - the land was not for sale and so the U.S. never ‘bought’ it.

We had the rights to manage and control the canal, not own it outright as part of the United States.

Switch the places of each nation: would the United States sign away part of its nation to a foreign entity? I sure as Hell hope not! And I cannot imagine any citizen agreeing to that kind of deal.

“The party’s stated goals include restoring the Founding Fathers’ vision of a limited federal government based on Biblical foundations.”

I believe that the very Progressive attitude and actions taken by those pushing the treaties on Panama a century ago would have astonished and alarmed our Founders. Christian men that they were, treating another nation in a manner the U.S. would not have tolerated, well, it is not something they would have done.

I like the Constitution Party’s platform and if they change that one plank towards Panama I will join with them whole-heartedly.


25 posted on 04/02/2012 11:26:52 AM PDT by SatinDoll (No Foreign Nationals as our President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

If I have my history correct, there was no such thing as Panama. The land belonged to Columbia, the US blocked Columbian troops from protecting it, and then dealt with the “leaders” of that time.

Considering our means of acquiring just about the entire southwest, we can’t really get up in arms about our means of expanding our power in Panama. It was a natural outgrowth of our view of the Monroe Doctrine.


26 posted on 04/02/2012 11:31:48 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I don't see where what you said has anything to do with what I stated.

I don't like Romney much either. Although I have to say it doesn't bother me a whit that he was a "corporatist" and made money for people. I think that's still allowed in America.

My overall point is that words on paper are pretty, but it's hard to find people who can live up to them and not just talk nice.

27 posted on 04/02/2012 11:32:21 AM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

One more thing, as a member of the CP you could attend their convention and work to change that plank or to drop that portion of it altogether.


28 posted on 04/02/2012 11:33:43 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: what's up
My overall point is that words on paper are pretty, but it's hard to find people who can live up to them and not just talk nice.

And mine was similar: as a corporatist, romney made money, but as a governor he was a dismal failure

Since he had to run a successful first campaign to be elected, he said all the right things, but then couldn't follow through.

Romney is a talker and not a doer when in a government role.

29 posted on 04/02/2012 11:38:53 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I never said Romney was a doer.

But why does that make your constitution more promising?

30 posted on 04/02/2012 11:40:39 AM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Marathoner
This is a real dilemma for me this year.

Yeah, me too.

I'd crawl over broken glass to vote for a wet mop if the wet mop was running against Obama. But the wet mop is still a better candidate than Romney.

I vowed that the most liberal person I would vote for anymore was George W. Bush. I don't want to see the GOP move any further to the left than W. Rick Santorum is about equal to W, and Gingrich is a bit more conservative than W. Either is ok with me.

I decided that Romney is wrong for the future of the GOP, and thus for future of the country, but he couldn't possibly be worse than Obama is for the present.

I live in a deep blue state, where my conservative vote won't have much play. If Romney is the GOP nominee, I might just give the Constitution Party / Falcon Party a vote so that they get a better tally in the popular vote.

31 posted on 04/02/2012 11:43:08 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: what's up
why does that make your constitution more promising?

I assume you mean the Constitution Party.

I don't find the republican party promising at all. It is controlled by a liberal establishment that seems very much in control.

The promise of a new party is just that. It offers an opportunity to build something different and better. It is a long-term view.

32 posted on 04/02/2012 11:44:25 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Marathoner

If it is apparent that Barry will wipe the map with Mittster anyway, then there is some real long-term utility in punishing the Karl Roves of the world by making Romney come in third.


33 posted on 04/02/2012 11:55:29 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

Yeah, we agree closely. That is basically my attitude.

We deal with terrorists and pirates in the same manner: punish those who give santuary to the terrorists/pirates. We punish those nations until it hurts so much they want to kill the terrorists/pirates themselves. With no place to operated from or to hide, piracy and terrorism will decline.

This worked quite well in the early 19th century when we dealt with Muslim piracy and brigands in the Mediterranean, and it will continue to work in the 21st century.

I also have an issue with the role the military has been tasked with during the past fifty years. We have morphed from a military used to protect U.S. national interests to a global police force protectiing the international mercantiile community everywhere in the world in the mistaken belief with will maintain world peace.

I hope you will tolerate my soapbox about this, because it is a major part of this forthcoming election, and very important.

What is a “Globalist”?

In the context used here, American power players and Wall Street interests who have dominated international commerce and established monetary structures in a Global network that requires military strength projected worldwide as protection from Third World aggression. It is commonly referred to as protecting US interests overseas but has grown far beyond that in reality as huge international conglomerates have developed and moved American jobs overseas. It has in the past been neither conservative nor liberal in orientation and both Democrats and Republicans have been involved over the decades.

Basically, it is all about money and thus power.

Gobalists like those on Wall Street, first and foremost, see themselves as world citizens, responsible for maintaining peace and security world-wide through commerce. And of course, getting rich is important, too, as it keeps the military ‘machine’ primed and ready to maintain the all important security overseas.

That military is paid for by tax revenue and staffed by the sons and daughters of people who no longer have jobs, as those have all, well mostly all, been moved offshore by the above mentioned “world citizens”.

For those who do not know what I’m talking about, here’s a quick primer: this election in 2012 is all about money, power, and who will eventually wield both here at home and internationally.

Gov.Mitt Romney is the candidate for the elitist Republicans who are, in essense, supporters of Globalism. Wall Street’s business model is international in scope and must have security overseas in order for commerce to thrive.

Obama is a champion of Glabal Social Justice, just communism by another name.

The only thing that matters to Globalists is power and the money that can be made for themselves. They don’t give a damn about the rights of individuals. The common man or woman on the street is just a “unit” to be taxed or obliterated, it matters not to them.

The last thing they want is for conservatives with Bibles and guns asserting their God-given rights and demanding that Washington, D.C., changes how it does business.

Voting in this national election is basically choosing between the Fascism of Romney v. the Communism of Obama.


34 posted on 04/02/2012 11:55:57 AM PDT by SatinDoll (No Foreign Nationals as our President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: what's up
it doesn't bother me a whit that he [Romney] was a "corporatist" and made money for people

Just for future reference, a "corporatist" is someone who believes that government has the right to dictate to corporations what they should and shouldn't produce. It is closer to socialism than capitalism.

Nazi Germany used a "corporatist" philosophy. And many have argued that Obama is a "corporatist" (for example green energy dictates, the Chevy Volt, American petroleum, etc)

It should bother you quite a bit that anyone is a "corporatist".

Mitt Romney (despite his liberal views) does not rise to the level of a "Corporatist". He is a venture capitalist - he bought up weak companies that would otherwise go bankrupt, for bargain prices - some he saved, others couldn't be saved.

35 posted on 04/02/2012 11:58:11 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: what's up

Romney isn’t a ‘corporatist’. He is a Globalist, which is basically Fascist.


36 posted on 04/02/2012 11:59:19 AM PDT by SatinDoll (No Foreign Nationals as our President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: xzins; All
I'm not interested in running a crusade against the Constitution Party for three reasons:

First, I'm extremely unhappy with the direction the Republican Party seems to be going,

Second, I'm a conservative Christian and I have strong sympathy for the core convictions of many of the Constitution Party's leaders, and

Third, I'm quite aware of the precedent of the Whig Party and I don't want to totally rule out the possibility of a third party destroying one of the two existing parties of American politics.

However, for those who are prepared to jump ship and vote not only against Romney but also against the whole Republican ticket, read this post and then take a second and third look at what you're doing: http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/2865260/posts?page=162#162

Counting the cost before starting a project is a biblical imperative.

As I said in the post referenced above: “Here's the main problem with applying that precedent to the Constitution Party: single-member winner-take-all voting districts... The problem in the United States is that in most state and local elections (West Virginia's multimember districts being an important exception) the only thing that counts is having enough votes to get to 50 percent of the voters, or in some cases not even an absolute majority is needed and all a candidate needs is to get the largest number of votes... If we as conservatives are going to talk third-party, recognize that we need to count the cost. That cost is very steep, and while some argue it could be a good idea long-term, for the short- and medium-term, it could easily get President Obama re-elected, turn the House of Representatives back over to the control of the Democratic Party, and cost numerous Republican senators their seats.”

37 posted on 04/02/2012 12:24:01 PM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: what's up
The biggest attacks on Americans over the last years have been from Islamoterror nations.

Yes, I agree.

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.

All of which have gotten off completely scot-free under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Instead, we throw away thousands of brave lives and trillions of dollars playing whack-a-mole with the small fry.

Count me out of that "strategy"!

38 posted on 04/02/2012 12:32:00 PM PDT by Notary Sojac (Mi tio esta enfermo, pero la carretera es verde!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: xzins
It offers an opportunity

Only if you offer up a better candidate.

It's just a piece of paper with nice words until that happens.

39 posted on 04/02/2012 1:06:57 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: kidd
Just for future reference, a "corporatist"

I was just using the terminology used by the poster. The implication was that private citizens making money was a bad thing.

Your point on the true definition is well taken.

40 posted on 04/02/2012 1:09:20 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

I think you missed Iraq and Afganistan.


41 posted on 04/02/2012 1:11:27 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Fascists have traditionally been nationalists (Germany, Japan, etc.)


42 posted on 04/02/2012 1:13:31 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: what's up; P-Marlowe; wmfights

My gut reaction is to say that any real conservative will be better than Romney, and certainly better than Obama.

However, the long view is the proper way to look at this. We build for the future a conservative party or we continue to be manipulated idiots for the Rino Party.

The liberal republican establishment is firmly in control of that party and nothing is going to change that.


43 posted on 04/02/2012 1:22:24 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

Very thoughtful post, DM. You spell out exactly the hurdles an individual must cross in order to convince himself/herself that building a new party is a good idea.

I crossed those hurdles. Additionally, I’m convinced that there is no changing the liberal control of the republican party.

Those things shouldn’t be just soundbites, either. It requires making actions speak louder than words. It requires presenting the case for change to others. It requires old-fashioned shoe leather work. Finally, it has to be seen as a long-term approach.

In some case, a tipping point could be reached that moves a new party along much more quickly, but a reasonable person will realize they are working now for a future payoff. I’m of an age where it could be after my life has run its course.

A wise man builds his house upon a rock.


44 posted on 04/02/2012 1:29:42 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: xzins
My gut reaction is to say that any real conservative will be better than Romney

That all depends.

Take Alan Keyes, for example. A great speaker...all conservatives loved the way he talked.

However, he fell apart during his Senate campaign. And for those who say, "they played dirty tricks against him" do you not think they would do the same and more if he ran for the Presidency?

You have to be more than "a real conservative". You have to have skills also.

45 posted on 04/02/2012 1:33:33 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: what's up

Most times, What’s up, the ideas of a movement are more important than it’s current leader, and those ideas will survive far beyond any leader.

You are correct, though, that a great candidate would be a big help in any election.


46 posted on 04/02/2012 1:51:19 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Thank you, Chaplain Xzins... I do read your posts on other matters besides politics, and since you've mentioned before that you are an ordained minister in one of the mainline denominations, I believe you understand better than many political and religious conservatives just how huge of a step it is to tear up an existing structure and start over again. Not everyone is willing to take that step, and some who won't leave initially are willing to leave later.

My attitude toward the Constitution Party is more or less wait-and-see. That's the same approach used by Dr. D. James Kennedy toward the PCA when he was still a minister in the old Southern Presbyterian PCUS — on the one hand, he wanted to make sure the PCA wouldn't degenerate into a group of radical extremists who couldn't effectively reach anyone, and on the other hand, he wanted to see if the moderate conservatives in the PCUS such as Dr. John R. deWitt would be able to succeed in their efforts to reform the PCUS.

Dr. Kennedy left only after it became clear that the PCA was viable and the PCUS conservative movement was not.

If the Constitution Party ever becomes a viable movement, its supporters will include some fiery radicals who treat all Republicans as enemies because they haven't yet left the Republican Party for the new third party movement. Such people need to remember Dr. Kennedy's actions when it comes to people who, like me, believe the Republican Party can still be saved. We may be wrong, but we're on the same side when it comes to restoring America's conservative foundations, and we need to treat each other as allies, not enemies.

And yes, for those who are probably going to start FRmailing me, I am very much aware of the Reformed theology of many of the Constitution Party leaders. I cited Dr. Kennedy for a reason. There are lots of problems in the PCA, but there are reasons the PCA grew and a lot of other conservative secession movements collapsed or became numerically irrelevant. You can have a small denomination in the United States with a few hundred or a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of members, but you can't build a political party that way if you want your candidates to get elected, so you'd better pay very close attention to what worked with the PCA and what didn't if you're looking for an ecclesiastical model for a political movement.

(By the way, I'm a member of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, where Dr. John R. deWitt ended up after finally leaving the mainline denominational world — late in life, Dr. deWitt ended up being elected moderator of the general synod as the conservative candidate in our battle over what to do with liberals at Erskine College. If I ever see Dr. deWitt again, I'll probably congratulate him on finally being able to say he was on the winning side of a conservative-liberal denominational fight.)

47 posted on 04/02/2012 2:12:15 PM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: askrenr

I cannot and WILL NOT vote for Romney.

PRO HOMO, PRO ABORTION, anti-traditional marriage, and socialistic heathcare that he embraces - NEVER! It’s like casting a vote for satan, mitt being his pawn.


48 posted on 04/02/2012 2:23:32 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: what's up

I didn’t say they weren’t nationalists.

Globalism has two definitions that possess at least two different and opposing meanings. One (1) is the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations. The Second (2) is viewing the entire world as a proper sphere for one nation to project political influence.

The Republicans and Wall Street have refined the Second (2) in an attempt to dominate international commerce, the monetary structure, and projecting U.S. military strength world-wide to establish and protect a New World Order. THIS is what President George H.W.Bush (POTUS 41) kept repeating while trying to checkmate Saddam Hussein.


49 posted on 04/02/2012 2:47:54 PM PDT by SatinDoll (No Foreign Nationals as our President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
New World Order. THIS is what President George H.W.Bush (POTUS 41) kept repeating

Actually, I think what Bush was referring to was the necessity to align power differently since the end of the Cold War.

The Old World Order was no more. A new one was now to begin to show itself. Asia's rise in markets over the last 2 decades has shown that this is taking place.

50 posted on 04/02/2012 3:30:20 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson