Conservative my a** Below is from lthe const. web site.
It is no different than the left wing anti war idiots.
CONSTITUTION PARTY IS NOT CONSERVATIVE
see below
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.
the from their web site
Are you sure that's not from the DNC web site ...
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 could agree our war is against islamic radicals and not 'terrorism'.
The rest is true.
"CONSTITUTION PARTY IS NOT CONSERVATIVE "
Thanks for pointing that out and bursting the balloon of those who claim to be conservative, while being the opposite.
Those are LIBERAL ideas.
Based on comments like yours I am starting to feel that the "conservative" tag has lost all meaning. There are conservatives with so many beliefs that nothing really unites us. Perhaps only "Democrats are worse". That doesn't sound like a winning proposition to me.
I agree that there are structural impediments to 3rd parties winning elections in the USA. But I think it's hard to read the Constitution Party platform and not think they are more Conservative than what we have seen out of Bush & the Republican Congress in the last six years.
What's the Constitution Party's view on "domestic spying" on international phone calls?
I see nothing non-conservative about that at all. It is simply non-support of the State. However the candidates suggested by the Constitution Party have little to no respect for federalism either so I won't be voting for them for President. Of course as a conservative, my stance is there should not be a popular election that affects who is sworn in for President either. Same for the Senate
Not one thing which you say you quote from their web site is untrue. Also I find all of it conforming to traditional conservatism. Attacking another nation which has not threatened our own is not my definition of conservatism. The Republican party will not likely get my vote for president in 2008, especially with the lackluster crop of candidates they have displayed so far.
If you want to wage war, DECLARE IT.
The WOT HAS been used to expand the Federalk government beyond its proper means. Some of that is necessary war measures, some is arguable, but you can't deny that it has happened.
And the fact is that once the governmetn starts a program, it's very hard to get rid of it. I have concerns about the civil liberties aspects of some of these programs too, although I understand the national-security reasoning for them.
The FACT is that the CP is one of the very few out there actually supporting constitutionally limited government, a position most of the GOP abandoned long ago. So yes, it's a conservative party. No question about that.
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.
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."