Posted on 01/02/2007 9:25:56 PM PST by TBP
http://conservativepresident2008.blogspot.com/2006/12/constitution-party-to-select-candidate.html
The Constitution Party, a conservative third party founded in 1992 to serve as a possible ticket for Pat Buchanan to run on, plans to have nominated its candidate for President by July 2007, World Net Daily reports.
The party held a national committee meeting last weekend where Howard Phillips, who is the party's founder and three time Presidential candidate (1992, 1996 and 2000), told World Net Daily "The time has never been better for a third party dark horse candidate to grab the White House."
Phillips said that the party will nominate candidate next year and among the possibilities are: Jim Gilchrist, former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes, Pastor Chuck Baldwin and World Net Daily columnist Jerome Corsi.
Where do you live?
Yea we need to elect leaders who are for small government like, ummm.... you know guys who wont waste money on the more bacon soaked transportation bill in my lifetime like, ummm....
Republicans left conservatives out in the cold a long time ago..
The Constitution Party is a joke and politically irrelevat in any other function other that a paid spoiler.
Democrats know they won the house by running DINOs in close areas.
The contitution party is only there to be paid by democrats to be spoiler for the useful idiots the MSM can't convince to stay home.
You pick one issue that they *might* be wrong on and cast them as not conservative? look at their whole platform.
They are for a *small* federal government something the republicans cant claim any more. They want to take illegal immigration seriously not just pay the lip service the RNC has done. They want to stop the practice of involving the federal government in local education something that republicans have not done.
Sorry but being for the war and tax cuts don't alone make you a conservative just like being against one or both of those things does not make you nonconservative.
Jack,
look into the swirling dial... If you ever criticize a Bush decision you are a democrat...
We know youo hate the Constitution Party, but must you repeat this false claim? I have asked a hundred times for any evidence of this scurrilous charge, and I have never gotten any response except people insisting really, really hard that it must be so.
Your limited government won't exist if the Muzies take over.
Get real.
If your limited government is taken over by the Muzzies, it won't exist.
Get real.
And if you give up your limited government in the process of fighting a non nation and a threat which by definition will not end you have given up your freedom..
The give me liberty or give me death spirit of conservatives has been killed by the republican party, empty pandering fools is all thats left.
If politician x gives me tax breaks and is for the war I don't care if he grows the government... What a sick joke..
Below from a year old thread, The Constitution Party on the War on Terror. Their platform is in post 2. They differ from left wing anti-war idiots in that they plan on re-taking the Panama Canal. That will only happen militarily.
From a personal perspective, I wouldn't support a party that runs Mark Dankoff, nor one that religious freedom in terms of tolerance of and asylum for non-Christians.
--------------------
The Constitution Party on the War on Terror
The Constitution Party ^ | 4-11-06
Posted on 04/11/2006 9:31:43 AM CDT by SJackson
Since third parties, specifically the Constitution Party, have become an issue
Constitution Party on Immigration
Constitution Party gains strength, could hurt Republicans
I thought it might be helpful to look at issues other than immigration. The entire platform is in post 1, since there are issues other than the WOT and immigration.
Terrorism and Personal Liberty
America is engaged in an undeclared war with an ill-defined enemy (terrorism), a war which threatens to be never ending, and which is being used to vastly expand government power, particularly that of the executive branch, at the expense of the individual liberties of the American people.
The "war on terrorism" is serving as an excuse for the government to spend beyond its income, expand the Federal bureaucracy, and socialize the nation through taxpayer bailouts of the airlines, subsidies to the giant insurance corporations, and other Federal programs.
We deplore and vigorously oppose legislation and executive action, that deprive the people of their rights secured under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments under the guise of "combating terrorism" or "protecting national security." Examples of such legislation are the National Security Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the proposed Domestic Securities Enhancement Act (colloquially known as "Patriot II").
The National Security Act is used by the federal government as a shroud to prevent the American people and our elected officials from knowing how much and where our tax dollars are spent from covert operations around the world. The National Security Act prevents the release of Executive Orders and Presidential Decision Directives, e.g., PDD 25, to the American people and our elected representatives. Not only are many of these used to thwart justice in the name of national security, but some of the operations under this act may threaten our very national sovereignty.
The USA PATRIOT Act permits arrests without warrants and secret detention without counsel, wiretaps without court supervision, searches and seizures without notification to the individual whose property is invaded, and a host of other violations of the legal safeguards our nation has historically developed according to principles descending from the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
Since we will no longer have a free nation while the federal government (or the governments of the several states, as the federal government may authorize) can violate our historic rights under such laws, we call for the rejection of all such laws and the ceasing of any such further proposals including the aforementioned Domestic Securities Enhancement Act.
The Constitution Party is unalterably opposed to the criminal acts of terrorists, and their organizations, as well as the governments which condone them. Individuals responsible for acts of terrorism must be punished for their crimes, including the infliction of capital punishment where appropriate. In responding to terrorism, however, the United States must avoid acts of retaliation abroad which destroy innocent human lives, creating enmity toward the United States and its people; and
In accord with the views of our Founding Fathers, we must disengage this nation from the international entanglements which generate foreign hatred of the United States, and are used as the excuse for terrorist attacks on America and its people. The 'war on terrorism" is not a proper excuse for perpetual U.S. occupation of foreign lands, military assaults on countries which have not injured us, or perpetual commitment of taxpayer dollars to finance foreign governments.
----------------------
Peroutka’s Plan for Iraq
April 16, 2004
"I like President Bush personally. He is a sincere man. I respect his office. But, it is becoming painfully obvious that he has no plan to get our country out of the un-Constitutional, bloody, deadly, mess going on in Iraq. In fact, Mr. Bush and John Kerry both favor putting more troops into Iraq. In his recent press conference, Mr. Bush said our troops would be in Iraq 'as long as necessary,' 'for a while,' until Iraq is 'a free country.' He said Iraqis would provide their own security 'eventually.' I strongly disagree. As President, I would move immediately to withdraw all our troops from Iraq in a way that would provide for the safety of those Iraqis who worked with us during this illegal, wrong-headed war.
"I, like President Bush, hope that the Iraqi people, and all people, will be free from tyranny. But, unlike President Bush, I realize that, Constitutionally, as President, it would not be my job to use our military to spread 'freedom' everywhere in the world. Unlike President Bush, I, as President, would realize that I had been elected President of the United States, not President of the World.
"In 1821, John Quincy Adams said, of America:
'She goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.'
But, ignoring Adams' wise advice, President Bush, using our military, has gone abroad and destroyed the monster Saddam Hussein who posed no threat to the vital national security interests of our country. The result: We are bogged down in a bloody and expensive mess with no end in sight. If elected President, however, I would move immediately to end our involvement in Iraq. I am not one who believes that when you are in a hole you should not be in, you should keep digging. "
For God, Family and the Republic,
Michael A. Peroutka
----------------------
Peroutka says, "Article I.8 of the US Constitution does not grant to Congress the power of "nation-building." If I am elected President, no longer will these United States seek regime change nor the concept of spreading democracy through warfare, and the children within these United States will not be committed to engage in a war to `free' any people."
Your views are no different than the soscaliest, CPUSA, etc. who rally against the war and share many of your ideas.
No Thank You. I am against your socialist values.
Panama threatens us? If we don't attack them, how do we recover the canal?
Under no circumstances should we have unilaterally surrendered our military base rights in Panama. The sovereign right of the United States to the United States territory of the Canal Zone has been jeopardized by treaties between the United States and Panama. Inasmuch as the United States bought both the sovereignty and the grant ownership of the ten-mile-wide Canal Zone, we propose that the government of the 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.
A Party dedicated to Constitutional governance? That's just plain crazy.
Me too. I think Harry Reid rocks!
BTW, since you don't vote, proudly, I don't see why the Republican should care about your views. They need to concentrate on people who will vote.
Yup, I'm a communist.
Yet that is what it is -- a party seekign to resxtore our government to its Constitutional limits. Nothing more, nothing less.
Darn right. Only a Communist would suggest that we need to limit the government to its Constitutional functions. You're obviously an America-hating Marxist if you think that.
You're probably a jihadist too.
And the proof is clear: you criticized the GOP, the RINOs, and President Bush.
Another RINO falsehood.
EArlk Warren? Williamm Brennan? Harry Blackmun? John Paul Stevens? Sandra Day O'Connor? David Souter? Harriet Miers (fortunately withdrawn)? Yeah, those were great.
In what way do they "not care about Federalism"? (This ought to be good.)
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.