This is a very powerful read from the Constitution Party

[Dave Wood]

Dear Fellow Constitution Party Members,

Like many others, I was sorely disappointed in Ron Paul’s decision this weekend to stay within the Republican Party. Quoting from his letter:

“Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties — just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.”

I have been thrilled with how much attention and support Ron Paul has received. Never before have I seen our values and beliefs get so much attention from the mainstream media. He has done more than any other person to raise our standard high. I publicly endorsed the man, and was a Ron Paul for President precinct captain. However, I was saddened by his refusal to take his candidacy to the next step.

Ron Paul would have made an incredible Constitution Party nominee. He would have brought more people into the party, united us under one banner, and given us more exposure than ever before. Ron Paul supporters are enthusiastic, dedicated Constitutionalists who are willing to sacrifice and work for their cause. Paul’s views clearly have no home in the GOP (thus his poor primary polling numbers) but would have received much better numbers in a general election. Republicans may not have elected him, but Americans could have.

Yet, Dr. Paul knows he will not capture the GOP nod and believes he should focus on keeping his seat in Congress. I have heard many others echo this same sentiment. What a loss it would be for us to lose Ron Paul in Congress – our ONLY voice in Washington. I share those concerns, but I have a far greater scheme in mind.

We often hear it said that freedom is never free. That is 100% correct. If we wish to regain our freedom and God-given liberty, we must be willing to sacrifice. If it means losing a House seat, we must be willing to sacrifice that for the greater good and future of the nation.

The Ron Paul Revolution often reminds us of another revolution back in 1776. In that year, 55 men signed the Declaration of Independence. They signed this document knowing this would sever all ties with England. It was a point of no return. Not only was there no longer a safety net, each of these signers knew should they lose in their efforts, this document would turn into their death warrant. They were willing to sacrifice everything. Now it is our turn.

If we are ever going to win the fight for freedom and liberty, we must be willing to put all on the line. Ron Paul took the first step, and now has decided to go back to the safety of his Congressional district. I applaud his efforts and thank him for his hard work. But, someone needs to pick up the mantle. Some needs to pick up where he left off – that is the job of the Constitution Party.

I do not know who our nominee will be. We have some excellent possibilities – Chuck Baldwin, Bob Smith, Alan Keyes, Judge Roy Moore, or others who are willing to throw their hat into the ring. But no matter who our nominee is, there is hard work for us ahead. We must all be willing to sacrifice and lay it all on the line in the next months leading up to November.

Our first step is choosing a nominee. We ought to be praying right now for God’s guidance in this crucial area. We want just the right man. Along with this, each state should be trying their best to get as many people to Kansas City for the convention as possible. Your voice cannot be heard if your body is not present.

Second, we need to secure ballot access for our nominee. No matter who we choose, they have no possibility of success if people cannot vote for him. This is difficult in some states. It will take great amounts of effort to see this accomplished. Yet, let us remember – it is worth the effort, the time and the money involved. We are fighting for freedom!

Third, we need to get the word out. We ought to be willing to sacrifice our time and go door-to-door and let people know we exist! Let’s get the bumper stickers and yard signs out for all to see. Let’s write the editors of our papers and take every opportunity to let everyone know what we stand for!

This may mean taking time off of work. This will require great amounts of money. In a word: sacrifice. I know not everyone can give thousands or take off much time from work. But we all can do something. Together, we can all do something great.

2008 can be the greatest year the Constitution Party has ever had. Our message is getting out there. Ron Paul had a lot of success. Ron Paul did not have success in the Republican party, because his views are not Republican views – they are Constitutional. Constitutional values transcend this two-party system and reaches out into all demographics, voting blocs and social classes. We can make some headway.

Last year, I ran for Congress in a special election. At first, my only goal was to get on the ballot in order to give the party some exposure. I now look back on that as the biggest mistake of my campaign. You see, I never thought any one would listen to me. Boy, was I wrong! I had to turn down speaking engagements! We have an audience out there. I live in liberal Massachusetts, but everyday I found more people who believe just as we do. They are out there. Had I actually set the goal of winning that election, who knows what could have happened?

Being Ron Paul’s precinct captain here in Brockton, MA, I paid close attention to the voter turn-out on February 5 (Super Tuesday). Our Secretary of State boasted of a great voter turn-out that day – 30%. That was a great turn-out! That means 70% of those registered to vote did not vote! They chose to sit out. That means two things. First, it means that we still do not know what the majority of voters in Massachusetts think. We know that the minority of citizens that show-up to the polls are liberal. This gives us 70%, millions of people, to work with! That is encouraging. Second, this statistic means the overwhelming majority of registered voters are not happy with their current crop of choices. They are not thrilled with anyone in the two major parties, at least not enough to drive to a voting place. America is ripe for a third party.

Now is not the time to be discouraged because one man has decided not to run with us. Now is the time to dig in our heals and prepare for the fight ahead. I’ve said it once, and I will say it again – Liberty is worth the fight!

Kevin Thompson

[nbhadja]

bump
They are the best party there is.

[Richie]

I'm a Libertarian, but have been involved with the Constitution Party in the past. This letter KILLS the letter the LP sent out.

[virginiakid]

I like the constitution party. They have a long ways to go though if they are wanting to get someone elected to office. Do they have anybody elected to office yet?

[Richie]

I like the constitution party. They have a long ways to go though if they are wanting to get someone elected to office. Do they have anybody elected to office yet?

I've heard that they have a few elected to local offices.

[DealzOnWheelz]

I will WRITE IN RON

[Omnis]

I notice something that seems to be recurring with our kinds of candidates-- the ones that are worth votes.

We good men (and women) hop into these races and expect to only make a small dent and not get very far. McCain was able to turn around his campaign because he had a must-win mindset from the beginning. If you're going to run for office, do everyone a favor and make the right preparations in order to expect the win.

[t3rmin]

If McCain gets the nom, I'll vote Constitution or Libertarian. I'd rather lean Constitution, but we'll see what kind of candidates they end up with.

Before I was involved with Ron Paul, I was into the Constitution Party. Good stuff.

I think RP deserves more credit than this letter gives, though. But I don't care to get sidetracked with picking nits.

[nbhadja]

I notice something that seems to be recurring with our kinds of candidates-- the ones that are worth votes.

We good men (and women) hop into these races and expect to only make a small dent and not get very far. McCain was able to turn around his campaign because he had a must-win mindset from the beginning. If you're going to run for office, do everyone a favor and make the right preparations in order to expect the win.

McCain was a establishment candidate, he got hours of free coverage on national news everyday, endorsements from establishment owned newspapers across the country etc.

[ivote4paul]

March 4 2008
Please post constitutionmoneybom b.com everywhere
Facebook
Myspace
In the bottom of your emails
Dailypaul.com
on this site as well
call in to Ron Paul Radio 877 646-2008
at the bottom of every online post
If you know a Ron Paul Website owner please ask them to post a banner or
link to constitutionmoneybom b

We will all be thankful for our efforts!!!

P.S. will you be so kind to put this event on your meetup calendar, email the group and ask them to promote this. Thank You!!!

[Original_Intent]

I'm a Libertarian, but have been involved with the Constitution Party in the past. This letter KILLS the letter the LP sent out.

The reason this letter kills the LP letter, is because the LP is scrambling trying to build the party, they are not focused on principle.

Yes I know that Libertarians were HUGE ing supporting RP, I am not dissing Libertarians, but the Libertarian Party (the Party, not the members) is nowhere near the CP organization, imo.

[IRO-bot]

I like alot of the Constitution Party's principles, I just can't support them. Their "platform" sounds too intolerant of other religions.

And I quote

"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."


I don't like that.

[Mahkato]

Now is the time to dig in our heals and prepare for the fight ahead.

+1 HP

[mtmedlin]

Time for the two parties to unite and get over the petty diferences. The Constitutional Libertarian Party needs to come together.

[IRO-bot]

Time for the two parties to unite and get over the petty diferences. The Constitutional Libertarian Party needs to come together.

Won't happen. My previous post can tell you why.

[Goldwater Conservative]

My problem with the Constitution Party, and the big reason I don't think it'll ever quite take off, is that it's too built on religion and spirituality. That's fine on a personal level, but making that the basis for your political party's platform is too much for me. Other than that, their ideas are mostly great (they're still too "populist" on issues like drug prohibition, for example, but we can have dialogue about that) and their people are awesome.

That said, I haven't checked out their website in a few years, so they may have toned down the religious rhetoric.

[Scott Wilson]

I like alot of the Constitution Party's principles, I just can't support them. Their "platform" sounds too intolerant of other religions.

And I quote

"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."


I don't like that.

Unalienable rights granted by a Creator is the foundation upon which the U.S. was built. That Creator was recognised as the God of Christianity. Not denominational Chistianity just Christianity in general.

The Constitution Party does not aim to force you to be a Christian, their goal is to restore the respect and authority of the Constitution.

Without the recognition of a Creator there can be no unalienable rights as everything simply becomes subjective and a violation of ones rights simply becomes "not nice" as opposed to being morally wrong.

[Richie]

That said, I haven't checked out their website in a few years, so they may have toned down the religious rhetoric.

HA! Half of their state affiliates left the national party because one of them nominated a candidate that was pro-life with the exception of rape and incest, and not 100% pro-life. I doubt that.

[beachmaster]

I like alot of the Constitution Party's principles, I just can't support them. Their "platform" sounds too intolerant of other religions.

And I quote

"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."


I don't like that.

As a non-christian constitutionalist, neither do I. One does not have to be a christian to be a constitutionalist, so WTF?

Shouldn't their party be renamed the Jesus Christ Party?

Not saying I wouldn't vote for a Chuck Baldwin type, but I'm not joining something that would have me be in agreement with those statements that are quoted... if I did, I would be lying, and I doubt they want liars in their midst.

[IRO-bot]

Unalienable rights granted by a Creator is the foundation upon which the U.S. was built. That Creator was recognised as the God of Christianity. Not denominational Chistianity just Christianity in general.

The Constitution Party does not aim to force you to be a Christian, their goal is to restore the respect and authority of the Constitution.

Without the recognition of a Creator there can be no unalienable rights as everything simply becomes subjective and a violation of ones rights simply becomes "not nice" as opposed to being morally wrong.

"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.


Did you not read that part? If it wants to acknowledge a creator. Then acknowledge a creator but not a spicific one. I don't like when people think that their religion is the only path to heaven.

[IRO-bot]

As a non-christian constitutionalist, neither do I. One does not have to be a christian to be a constitutionalist, so WTF?

Shouldn't their party be renamed the Jesus Christ Party?

Not saying I wouldn't vote for a Chuck Baldwin type, but I'm not joining something that would have me be in agreement with those statements that are quoted... if I did, I would be lying, and I doubt they want liars in their midst.

+1. Like I said. I would be fine if it just said Creator and not Mr. Jesus.

[Caulfield]

The reason this letter kills the LP letter, is because the LP is scrambling trying to build the party, they are not focused on principle.

Yes I know that Libertarians were HUGE ing supporting RP, I am not dissing Libertarians, but the Libertarian Party (the Party, not the members) is nowhere near the CP organization, imo.

The Libertarian Party out-fundraised all other national third parties combined last year (including the Constitution Party), has more candidates elected to office nationally, and has better access to the ballot.

What exactly does the Constitution Party do better than the LP?

[Goldwater Conservative]

+1. Like I said. I would be fine if it just said Creator and not Mr. Jesus.

Agreed. Thomas Jefferson is held in high esteem by many constitutionalists and classical liberals, yet he was a deist. Over 90% of the population believes in a higher power, and most of the rest probably aren't offended by mentioning or appealing to a vague "God" (many of them probably do it themselves), but making it specifically about Jesus and the Christian Bible is an instant turnoff for most of the population, and with good reason.

[Russellk30]

Won't happen. My previous post can tell you why.

I don’t think it is an impossibility. After all, there are many different organizations within the Republican Party. I agree with you that the CP has a heavy religious tilt, but besides that their positions are mostly libertarian in nature.

I do have to say that the LP and CP have much in common than say the Liberty Caucus and the Social Conservatives within the Republican Party.

As long as a group supports a small Federal Government, Ill listen to what they have to say. If the freedom movement is ever expect to become relevant, it cannot be fractured.

[mtmedlin]

So why not take over Both the LP and the COnsitution Party. Hell, the LP nominated its presidential candidate with around 500 votes. If we could find a new candidate (read my siggy) that we could nominate on both the LP and Consitution Party. We have enough people to unite these two parties and continue the Revolution even if Ron doesnt win. If he does win the Republican nomination, then he could reach across party lines and offer the LP's or the CP's presidnetial candidate the VP spot.

[beachmaster]

If the freedom movement is ever expect to become relevant, it cannot be fractured.

Agreed. That's why it's such a shame the CP insists on putting in this divisive Jesus litmus test for any would-be members.

[wgadget]

Chuck Baldwin wrote an article saying RP should run Constitution Party.

[beachmaster]

Recruit Judge Andrew Napolitano for the Libertarian Party!
Hell yeah I'd go for that!

Napolitano/Barr in 08! (under ANY party banner)

[Russellk30]

Unalienable rights granted by a Creator is the foundation upon which the U.S. was built. That Creator was recognised as the God of Christianity. Not denominational Chistianity just Christianity in general.

The Constitution Party does not aim to force you to be a Christian, their goal is to restore the respect and authority of the Constitution.

Without the recognition of a Creator there can be no unalienable rights as everything simply becomes subjective and a violation of ones rights simply becomes "not nice" as opposed to being morally wrong.

Are you to say that in a completely atheistic society, innate freedom is impossible? I refuse to believe that. I consider my creator the natural world, which is not incompatible with the wording of the constitution. You may not agree with me, but I am not asking you to. I only ask that you do not shape my government in the image of your religion.

[Nickel]

Alan Keys! Really? :rolleyes:

The Constitution Party is incorrectly named... similar to how Greenland is incorrectly named (no offense to anyone from Greenland).

Argh.

[Russellk30]

So why not take over Both the LP and the COnsitution Party. Hell, the LP nominated its presidential candidate with around 500 votes. If we could find a new candidate (read my siggy) that we could nominate on both the LP and Consitution Party. We have enough people to unite these two parties and continue the Revolution even if Ron doesnt win. If he does win the Republican nomination, then he could reach across party lines and offer the LP's or the CP's presidnetial candidate the VP spot.

and then merge them together! That is a great idea! Lets do it! Im in.

[Caulfield]

and then merge them together! That is a great idea! Lets do it! Im in.

To be a delegate at the national convention, you must be a member in good standing with your state party. Additionally, the party bylaws would more than likely prevent any "merger." You can't just merge a party that is based on a secular basis of freedom and one that is based on a religious basis of freedom, at least, one won't blend into another. More than likely, you'd have to get the Constitution Party to fold and get the members to come into the LP. There are plenty of religious LPr's (myself, for example), but you're not going to find a secular Constitution Party member (otherwise he'd be a Libertarian).

[mtmedlin]

and then merge them together! That is a great idea! Lets do it! Im in.

There nominating system leaves it open to allow for a group to come in and change the direction of the party. 1000 supporters could show up to the LP convention and change their platform (a little) and choose the candidate.

[RoyalShock]

I am a Christian, but feel like the CP could scale back the overt Christianity references without sacrificing their integrity. And do you know the best way to accomplish that? Join the party and work toward rewording the platform.

I have thought about joining the CP and was very close until discovering Dr. Paul and his message. I'm now in a holding pattern as a registered Republican. It's still too early in the Revolution to switch horses. The next four years will tell us a lot:

1) We know McCain is going to suffer a humiliating defeat in November.
2) If things go our way, we should see a gain in conservative congressional seats.
3) Unfortunately, the Middle East conflicts will rage on, but how it progresses should say a lot as to Paul's position vs. the neo-cons.
4) If the economy and the dollar continues to suffer, we may be able to capitalize on a big "we told you so" and gain credibility in the eyes of many.

The next few years could give the Revolution the traction it needs to make some strides.

[Caulfield]

There nominating system leaves it open to allow for a group to come in and change the direction of the party. 1000 supporters could show up to the LP convention and change their platform (a little) and choose the candidate.

Again, this is not true. As of the beginning of this year, the state parties had their delegate count locked in. Additionally, to be a delegate to the national convention, you must be chosen by the state party as a delegate, which means you have to be a member in good standing with that state party. Read: member of the Libertarian Party.

I'm not sure what the individual state requirements are to be a member in good standing, but I wouldn't guess it would be that stringent; however, you'd have to join up with the national party as a member.

[DeafPalmdale]

How about merge both LP and CP into the Revolution Party? :)

[literatim]

The Libertarian Party out-fundraised all other national third parties combined last year (including the Constitution Party), has more candidates elected to office nationally, and has better access to the ballot.

What exactly does the Constitution Party do better than the LP?

It has more members. They put country before party and really try and get anyone elected that matches their party line, no matter their party affiliation.

[robmpreston]

Isn't the constitution party pretty heavily Christian based in its beliefs?

[Caulfield]

It has more members. They put country before party and really try and get anyone elected that matches their party line, no matter their party affiliation.

Actually, it only has more members by technicality. If you want to count members, technically the Independent Party of California has the most members (which is an offshoot of the Constitution Party), and only because when people in California are switching to independent, they don't realize they're registering with another political party.

Even if you're not convinced, for all those "members," they still vastly lack the funding and ballot access that the Libertarian Party has and the number of people elected to office. When it comes to third parties, the Libertarian Party is basically it.

[Russellk30]

There nominating system leaves it open to allow for a group to come in and change the direction of the party. 1000 supporters could show up to the LP convention and change their platform (a little) and choose the candidate.

Don’t be such a downer. :D It may take a little while, but if the Christian libertarians in our movement join the Constitution Party for a few years and everybody else joins the Libertarian Party, we can be close to a merger by the next election cycle. I am sure there is already some mutual respect between the two.

This seems like a much more productive approach than reforming the “unreformable” Republican Party. If one does not understand the power of the Republican Party and how difficult it would be to unseat them, just ask yourself if the Taft revolution ever actually took over the party. If that was the case, something would have been accomplished but the size of government just kept going up. The Taft Republicans were purged from the party and many formed the Libertarian Party.

If one truly wanted to follow in the footsteps of the Taft Republicans, we should consentrate on third party.

[Cinnaboo]

From the Constitutional Party website -- the Mission Statement.


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.
Yikes. Well, at least they're for decentralization...


The federal government was clearly established as a government of limited authority. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution specifically provides that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Over time, the limitations of federal government power imposed by the Constitution have been substantially eroded. Preservation of constitutional government requires a restoration of the balance of authority between the federal government and the States as provided in the Constitution, itself, and as intended and construed by those who framed and ratified that document.

We pledge to be faithful to this constitutional requirement and to work methodically to restore to the States and to the people their rightful control over legislative, judicial, executive, and regulatory functions which are not constitutionally delegated to the federal government.


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.


The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted.


We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.

when it's convenient.

[Karsten]

bump
They are the best party there is.

uh... no they're NOT. They may be anti-neo-con but they are extreme religious kooks.

[4Horsemen]

This country is ready for a 3rd party..

[Karsten]

This country is ready for a 3rd party..

Yeah, but not the extreme theocratic constitution party.

[Eponym_mi]

bump
They are the best party there is.

ACK!!! Way too much non-constitutional stuff in their platform for me. Their influence in the Republican party is my biggest complaint. Huckabee supporters would fit right in there.

[RPTXState]

God and Government don 't mix.

I'd rather try to fix the GOP than correct and build the Const. and Lib. parties

[Quick]

Alan Keyes? And to think I was considering joining this party.

[Goldwater Conservative]

Alan Keyes? And to think I was considering joining this party.

Shame they have the best name around.

[TurtleBurger]

I'd bet anything that Keyes is not CFR. That said, I think the CP has to look very closely at his positions before inviting him in.

[Caulfield]

http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000719.shtml


December 26, 2007
D'Souza's blunder

I celebrated Christmas yesterday with my family back home in South Carolina. While a seemingly innocuous event, my celebration of Christmas may come as a great shock to people like Dinesh D'Souza, because I am what you may call. . .a libertarian.

According to D'Souza, who recently blogged about Christopher Hitchens' appearance at a Reason magazine Christmas event, "many libertarians are basically conservatives who are either gay or druggies or people who generally find the conservative moral agenda too restrictive." Because D'Souza believes libertarians embrace "much wider parameters of personal behavior," he sees most libertarians as hedonistic atheists, and uses a tipsy Hitchens as the chief example of our disdain for morality.

As a devout Southern Baptist, I was taken aback. After all, I am neither gay nor a drug user, and consider myself to be very socially conservative. But such petty stereotypes demonstrate that the accuser has either a very tenuous understanding of the libertarian philosophy or is just stupid. In D'Souza's case, I would hope it is merely the first.

D'Souza's view of freedom and humanity is incredibly pessimistic. Not only this, but it contradicts both the values of his own religious faith and the founding philosophy of the United States--two things that D'Souza supposedly champions. Both Christianity and the founding philosophy of the United States teaches that all men should be free, and the choices they make should be of their own volition. However, D'Souza seems to believe that freedom begets immorality, and it should be the role of the state to define moral conduct.

For me as a Southern Baptist, I saw the Libertarian Party as the only political party committed to the basic principles of my faith, and D'Souza could learn a lot from my experiences with it. Unlike the Republican Party, which has been overrun by those who wish to impose their concept of morality on all people by way of legislation, the Libertarian Party believes that all people should be free to live how they choose by the rules they set for themselves (with the caveat that they do so without causing harm to others).

People like D'Souza see the Libertarian Party's social tolerance as an endorsement of what he would see as negative behavior, rather than an endorsement of the principle of liberty, which leaves the individual free to live how he chooses. This is a very serious misinterpretation, and one that can lead to foolish generalizations such as the one D'Souza made last week. The Libertarian Party promotes no moral code other than that people should live in freedom and do no harm to others.

But if D'Souza believes that liberty and morality are mutually exclusive ideals, then he can neither fully believe in the American values he supports, nor the Christian principle of free will. You can be both a Christian and a libertarian, as I clearly am. And if you're not, well, that's perfectly okay with the Libertarian Party too.

By and large, libertarians are peace-loving individuals who simply want to be free from government. These people are pastors, police officers, doctors, lawyers, mechanics, school teachers, college students, business men and anyone else who believes in limited government, fewer taxes and more individual freedom. It is safe to say that most Americans are libertarian at heart--be them gay, straight, Christian or atheist.

That's the unifying magic of liberty.

We challenge D'Souza to rescind his simplistic generalization of libertarians, and ask him not to make broad assessments of topics he doesn't fully understand.

[Andrew76]

I like alot of the Constitution Party's principles, I just can't support them. Their "platform" sounds too intolerant of other religions.

And I quote

"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."


I don't like that.


Agreed. While the constitution party may want to "pray to god for guidance," in these events, I'll choose to use my own head, thank you very much. I don't imagine that praying to Zeus - or whichever invisible sky god you believe - will do a whole lot here.
The U.S. was founded by enlightenment era Deists, and could only be considered "christian," in the very broadest sense of the term. Jefferson himself faced serious opposition from the church when running for prez. Ben Franklin refused to get married in a church because his thought was that the church should have no authority on this personal matter. Thomas Paine's, The Age of Reason, is perhaps the most staunch, anti-church document from that time period. Give it a read sometime. Deists, all of them. Christians, in today's sense, they simply were not. I realize this is a touchy subject to say the least.

Furthermore, the Constitution party does not seem organized at all to me, as some seem to suggest. And with certain beltway libertarians having serious problems with Ron Paul, I'd hoped Ron Paul would start his own party.

[Russellk30]

God and Government don 't mix.

I'd rather try to fix the GOP than correct and build the Const. and Lib. parties

Do you plan on kicking all of the theocrats out of the Republican Party?

[Wyurm]

What is with the parties? I'm supporting anyone that will do the job the way it was intended to be done. The Constitution isn't hard to understand at all, you just have to obey it. If they are willing to obey the Constituion and not violate any of it, then they have my vote be they Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, Green, Whig, etc... I don't care what title they give themselves I just want them to obey the laws set for them and LEAVE ME ALONE, allow me to live my life rather than spending it having to fight for something my forefathers already fought for and won. I long for the day when I have to choose between 2 or more candidates who are all liberty minded.

[FreeTraveler]

uh... no they're NOT. They may be anti-neo-con but they are extreme religious kooks.

+1776

[IRO-bot]

Agreed. While the constitution party may want to "pray to god for guidance," in these events, I'll choose to use my own head, thank you very much. I don't imagine that praying to Zeus - or whichever invisible sky god you believe - will do a whole lot here.
The U.S. was founded by enlightenment era Deists, and could only be considered "christian," in the very broadest sense of the term. Jefferson himself faced serious opposition from the church when running for prez. Ben Franklin refused to get married in a church because his thought was that the church should have no authority on this personal matter. Thomas Paine's, The Age of Reason, is perhaps the most staunch, anti-church document from that time period. Give it a read sometime. Deists, all of them. Christians, in today's sense, they simply were not. I realize this is a touchy subject to say the least.

Furthermore, the Constitution party does not seem organized at all to me, as some seem to suggest. And with certain beltway libertarians having serious problems with Ron Paul, I'd hoped Ron Paul would start his own party.



Yeah what is that? Jealousy? The anti-abortaion stuff? Get over it I say. It's not like Ron is trying to push it on a federal level. Give it back to the states. What are they afraid of?

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

I'd consider giving heavier support to the Constitution Party if they ever throw out the Huckabee-like theocratic garbage and adopt a more libertarian position on social issues. Maybe this will be the case if they attract Ron Paul supporters. In any case, I look forward to voting for any local candidates they might run in my area, as I've done on a few occasions in the past.