Republican Party Establishment: Constitutionalists Must Stop "Meddling" with the GOP

[Njon]

So I decided to start a personal e-mail campaign to Republican Party leaders across the country: state and county officials, central committee members, etc. I'm trying to get them to cut off support to the statists and instead endorse genuine Constitutional conservatives. Of course, a number of these people in the party establishment are part of the problem, but hopefully I can reach out to some people. And I'm making it clear that I'm sending the same message to many other party officials in their state so they are aware that this information is being disseminated to people other than themselves.

So, last night I e-mail over 300 officials in the Texas GOP. I used then-Governor Ronald Reagan's quote from Reason Magazine in 1975:

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."
Quoted from http://www.reason.com/news/show/29318.html


And I also used Senator Barry Goldwater's quote:

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ ‘interests,’ I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."
Quoted from The Conscience of a Conservative (Regnery Publishing, 1990) at http://www.heritage.org/research/features/presidentsessay/presessay2004.pdf (2004 reprint by The Heritage Foundation)


I condemned the failure of Republicans (when they controlled the executive and legislative branches from 2000-2006) to end any unconstitutional cabinet departments, stop the IRS, end our membership in the United Nations and so on. I called on the party to start tossing most of their incumbents --- at all levels of government --- out by the hundreds; they've had their chance and failed continually. There's a few worthy people in office, but most incumbents are of the statist establishment and they need to go.

I'm tailoring these messages a bit depending on which state I'm e-mailing to, and so for the Texas letter I used the gubernatorial race as an example. I said there is incumbent Governor Perry who is a globalist, went to the Bilderberg Group meeting in 2007 and supports the North American Union plan for the Trans-Texas Corridor. Then there is Senator Hutchison who --- in addition to her failure to try and reign in the federal government in a substantive way (such as working to end any cabinet departments) --- voted for the bankster bailout. Yet then there is Debra Medina, a genuine conservative and state sovereignty advocate who is also running for governor, and she is hardly even being recognized as a candidate in this race. So why, I asked them, is the party rallying behind a globalist and a big-government senator who voted for socialism, instead of a Constitutional conservative like Medina?

One of the county chairmen e-mailed me back basically saying that Perry and Hutchison aren't perfect, but that nobody is. (That's true, but consistent political betrayal is not just imperfection; it means they don't deserve to remain in office) He then said that Medina is a "libertarian" regardless of what I choose to call her (he used that term like it's a bad word, even though I had that Reagan quote in the e-mail). He complained about libertarians trying to take over the party and imposing their views on Texas Republicans (as if he was the spokesman for all Texas Republicans and he had decided that big government / neoconservatism was the way to go, and libertarian / Constitutional conservatism was incompatible with what Texas Republicans wanted). He then told me that if I wanted my political views enacted, I should work within my Libertarian Party (he's assuming; I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party; I'm actually in the Constitution Party) and stop "meddling" with the Texas Republican Party.

This guy apparently thinks he owns the Texas Republican Party and speaks for everyone in it. That's particularly lame considering that Debra Medina has also served as a county GOP chair just like this guy, but apparently she doesn't count as a real Republican in his view.

"Meddling." What a choice of words. This is indicative that the neocon establishment is intimidated by our influence, and that we need to keep "meddling" --- as this guy calls it --- until the neocons are forced out of power in the GOP. For any of you who are still registered with the Republican Party, keep working to get on your local central committees and push out the statist party leaders and candidates. And if anyone else wants to do some e-mailing to all of these party officials, it does seem to help at least somewhat; at the very least it's shaking up some of the party establishment. If you do so, though, it's probably best to BCC the e-mail addresses so they don't see that you sent to all the addresses at once, and yet make clear in the letter itself that you are sending the same message to many other party officials in the state so they know that the information is being spread around.

If anyone wants the lists of e-mail addresses I've compiled thus far, send me a PM and I'll give them to you (I don't know how long I'll keep these lists around, but I should have them for a while). I've completed lists of party official e-mails for 10 states as of right now. Among them are Connecticut, Kentucky, Georgia, Oklahoma and New Mexico because I am tailoring these messages in support for Peter Schiff, Rand Paul, Ray McBerry, Randy Brogdon, R.J. Harris and Adam Kokesh.

[Theocrat]

The GOP is dead. Our beloved doctor is trying to breathe life into them. No response. They are still high off the fumes of their own elephant dung. Libertarian reforms are leprosy in their eyes. Time to move on...

[acptulsa]

Everyone active in politics is a 'team player' or a 'meddlesome individual', didn't you know that? But that's o.k. The word 'meddling' is an excellent indicator; I hope they keep using it. I wonder if they'll voluntarily refrain from 'meddling' once we have them out and we're the 'team players'?

Nah. Never in a million years will they refrain from 'meddling'.

[jsu718]

The only ones that consider it "meddling" and not "saving" are those that are afraid they will lose power and have no place in a Constitutional freedom-oriented GOP.

[FSP-Rebel]

Yeah, the local party apparatchiks look up to those who hold office in their party and tow the line to the T. They are perfectly happy with candidates that aren't 'perfect', especially in neocon powerhouse states like TX. They have lot's of corporate interests on the line, so in effect, you're going up against the kingmakers themselves. I appreciate your enthusiasm though.

[JK/SEA]

Funny you should bring this subject up. Here is a c/p email message from the party in my county..btw, i am a PCO.

"SNOHOMISH COUNTY
PCO TRAINING

Thursday
June 18, 2009

7:00-9:00 PM

Snohomish Co. PUD Building
21018 Hwy 99
Edmonds, Wa. 98026

Please come!

We shall be covering
Votervault
Identifying Republicans
Door Belling
Phone banking
Registering People to vote

It will be a terrific opportunity to meet and learn from your fellow Republicans."

Identifying republicans?...hmmm. Looks like i may have to go and see if they can brainwash me. Might be fun.

[heavenlyboy34]

The GOP is dead. Our beloved doctor is trying to breathe life into them. No response. They are still high off the fumes of their own elephant dung. Libertarian reforms are leprosy in their eyes. Time to move on...

qft! One of those rare instances that you and I agree. :eek::D

[kathy88]

Excellent work!

[Sandman33]

republocrat democran one party system.

Like Ron says, the party office may change but the policy never does.

[Eric21ND]

This is a great idea. Do you have anything for North Dakota?

[Njon]

This is a great idea. Do you have anything for North Dakota?

I do now. :)

PM me if you just want the ND list, or if you want the lists for all the states I have thus far.

[MsDoodahs]

One of the county chairmen e-mailed me back basically saying that Perry and Hutchison aren't perfect, but that nobody is. (That's true, but consistent political betrayal is not just imperfection; it means they don't deserve to remain in office) He then said that Medina is a "libertarian" regardless of what I choose to call her (he used that term like it's a bad word, even though I had that Reagan quote in the e-mail). He complained about libertarians trying to take over the party and imposing their views on Texas Republicans (as if he was the spokesman for all Texas Republicans and he had decided that big government / neoconservatism was the way to go, and libertarian / Constitutional conservatism was incompatible with what Texas Republicans wanted). He then told me that if I wanted my political views enacted, I should work within my Libertarian Party (he's assuming; I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party; I'm actually in the Constitution Party) and stop "meddling" with the Texas Republican Party.

This guy apparently thinks he owns the Texas Republican Party and speaks for everyone in it. That's particularly lame considering that Debra Medina has also served as a county GOP chair just like this guy, but apparently she doesn't count as a real Republican in his view.

"Meddling." What a choice of words. This is indicative that the neocon establishment is intimidated by our influence, and that we need to keep "meddling" --- as this guy calls it --- until the neocons are forced out of power in the GOP.

Please PM me the name of the county with the neocon chairman.

:)

[Njon]

I got three other replies from officials in Texas (well, I might have more waiting for me, but I haven't checked for them yet), one of which was actually respectable (I think it was a county chair; he partially agreed with me, partially disagreed). Of the other two, one was a male state committee member (I think) and the other was a female who is a county chair; both used the term 'libertarian' in a derogatory manner. The woman said her goal, after ridding the party of Democrats, was to rid the party of libertarians! (Again, someone else who ignored the Reagan quote, and apparently thinks Republican must = neocon)

And the committee guy also used some religious rhetoric against me, even though I didn't discuss such matters in my letter, and I'm an evangelical Christian. So, I took this further opportunity to condemn Republicans in Congress for not legislatively overturning Roe v. Wade (like Dr. Paul's We the People Act would do).

Glad to see we've got them concerned about losing their control over the party.

[Volitzer]

www.constitutionparty.org

www.believeinamerica.com

Click the links and then click on to your state.

[Volitzer]

The Constitution Party:

HISTORY
1992 A coalition of independent state parties united to form the U.S. Taxpayers Party. The party’s founder, Howard Phillips, was on the ballot in 21 states as its first presidential candidate.

1995-99 Party recognized by Federal Election Commission as a national party bringing the number of recognized parties to 5. Ballot access achieved in 39 states for the 1996 elections, representing over 80% of the electoral college votes available.

1999 Name changed to “Constitution Party” by delegates at the National Convention to better reflect the party’s primary focus of returning government to the U.S. Constitution’s provisions and limitations.

2000 & 2004 The party achieved ballot access in 41 and 36 states respectively. Though the party was on fewer state ballots in 2004, the vote tally increased by 40% compared to the 2000 elections while other ‘alternative’ parties lost ground or barely matched their 2000 vote totals.

2008 The Constitution Party was on the ballot in 37 states. Presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin and vice-presidential candidate Darrell Castle, endorsed by former GOP presidential candidate, Congressman Ron Paul, polled a higher percentage of the vote than any other Constitution Party presidential ticket in 27 states for a total of 384,722 votes.

NUMBERS
The CP is the third largest political party in terms of voter registration. There are 367,000 registered Constitution Party voters. (This number does not take into account the many states which do not tally voter registrations by party. In addition, thousands of voters registered with other parties have chosen to vote for Constitution Party candidates at the national, state and local levels.)

One quarter of all voters nation-wide are registered as independent or as members of a ‘third party’. Over the last 10 years this has been the largest growing segment of voter registrations. Some states’ third party or independent registrations approach 1/3 of all registered voters.

Independent voters are playing a bigger role in national and local politics as disappointment with both the Republican and Democratic parties increases.

A Fox News poll (www.foxnews.com) showed 67% of Americans said they'd consider voting for an independent candidate. An earlier Rasmussen survey showed 58% said it would be good for the United States to have a "truly competitive" third party. Voters are now weighing their options, especially on the issue of immigration. According to Rasmussen, 35% of conservatives said they'd pick a third party candidate over a Republican.

In 2012, the Constitution Party expects to have ballot access in all 50 states.

CANDIDATES
CP candidates were elected to partisan offices for the first time in 2006, including Montana State Representative Rick Jore.

PLATFORM
The Constitution Party is the only party which is completely:
Pro-Life
Pro-States’ Rights
Pro-Second Amendment
Pro-Constitutional, Limited Government
Against- illegal immigration and open borders
Against- U.S. policy being dictated by the United Nations
Against- undeclared unconstitutional wars (such as Iraq and Afghanistan)
Against- free trade and all international trade agreements such as NAFTA & GATT

WHY A THIRD PARTY?

1. To encourage voter participation and citizen involvement in the governing process.

2. Competition yields a Superior Product; i.e. better elected officials and better government.

· 95% of all incumbent candidates win re-election. In recent years, between 50 and 75 of incumbent Congressmen in the U.S. did not face an opponent on the November ballot, allowing them to be reelected without even campaigning.

· Voter choice is even more limited in state legislative races. 35 to 40% of the 6900 seats in state houses across the US (over 2500 seats) typically have no competition.

3. To address issues ignored by the two parties in power.

Past third parties championed…

· A Woman’s Right to Vote -introduced in 1872 by the Prohibition Party. It wasn’t until 1916 that the two political parties in power began to consider the issue.

· Abolition of Slavery-introduced by the Liberty Party (1840/1844) The issue was not fully accepted by the Republican Party even as late as 1860. The Republican Party was itself a third party in 1854 when it was founded. Just a few years later, the Republicans defeated the incumbent conservative party, the Whigs, by running a man named Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln, running in a four-way race, won the electoral college and the presidency even though he wasn't on the ballot in nine states and received less that 40% of the popular vote.

· A Balanced Budget- focus of Independent/Reform Party (1992/1996) candidate Ross Perot who campaigned for fiscal restraint. By the time George W. Bush became president the budget was balanced. Today both parties give strong lip service to ending deficit spending though neither party is willing to make the tough political choices needed to balance the budget.
COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR
Mary Starrett 602.315.6193
mstarrett@constitutionparty.com

[Volitzer]

http://www.constitutionparty.org/press_kit.php

[anaconda]

Everyone active in politics is a 'team player' or a 'meddlesome individual', didn't you know that? But that's o.k. The word 'meddling' is an excellent indicator; I hope they keep using it. I wonder if they'll voluntarily refrain from 'meddling' once we have them out and we're the 'team players'?

Nah. Never in a million years will they refrain from 'meddling'.

You don't think the GOP's power brokers are going to give up their military/industrial complex cash cow without an enormous fight, do you? We will "meddle" them right on to the scrap heap of history.

[Volitzer]

The NWO is just going put up a Republican "reformist" who is an even smoother liar than Obama. Then the NWO will march on unless we either elect Ron Paul or a Constitution Party candidate.

[Njon]

The NWO is just going put up a Republican "reformist" who is an even smoother liar than Obama.


They probably will. With this particular effort I'm hoping more to impact state and Congressional races. If even just three or four state parties started condemning and tossing out these neocons it would shake things up.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

The NWO is just going put up a Republican "reformist" who is an even smoother liar than Obama. Then the NWO will march on unless we either elect Ron Paul or a Constitution Party candidate.

Sorry, but the Constitution Party is a haven for theocratic fuckholes. They're meddlesome jackasses who think that we should be ruled by the Evangelical Christian God's Right Hand who knows whats good for us. They do not respect Contracts between consenting adults, otherwise, they would not be opposed to gambling, drugs, prostitution, 'alternative' civil unions/marriages etc.

[heavenlyboy34]

Sorry, but the Constitution Party is a haven for theocratic fuckholes. They're meddlesome jackasses who think that we should be ruled by the Evangelical Christian God's Right Hand who knows whats good for us. They do not respect Contracts between consenting adults, otherwise, they would not be opposed to gambling, drugs, prostitution, 'alternative' civil unions/marriages etc.

Do you know this to be fact? I'm not really familiar with the CP. :confused:

[ladyjade3]

I love how they use ballot access laws to keep the LP off of ballots and out of power, then when we strategically come over and join their party, they tell us to get our own.

Yeah. You WISH we would keep chasing our tails like that.

You should retort with: Until you change ballot access, I'm sorry sir, but we are here to stay. Get used to it.

THAT might be the only way anyone in power is motivated to change ballot access! lol

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Do you know this to be fact? I'm not really familiar with the CP. :confused:

Your Google-fu is weak, Grasshoppa. :D Constitution Party Platform (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php)

I want to laugh when they claim they're for returning the US government to The Constitution.

[Njon]

Sorry, but the Constitution Party is a haven for theocratic fuckholes. They're meddlesome jackasses who think that we should be ruled by the Evangelical Christian God's Right Hand who knows whats good for us. They do not respect Contracts between consenting adults, otherwise, they would not be opposed to gambling, drugs, prostitution, 'alternative' civil unions/marriages etc.


Theocratic? Stop throwing words around in ignorance. It sounds like you may be a theophobe.

Also, the CP isn't just evangelicals. I know Mormons in the CP, and Mormonism and evangelical Christianity are vastly different.

And see what Dr. Paul said about marriage in 2004: http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=590

We need to be working together against neocons and socialists, not alienating one another.

[heavenlyboy34]

Your Google-fu is weak, Grasshoppa. :D Constitution Party Platform (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php)

I want to laugh when they claim they're for returning the US government to The Constitution.

I see your point. They seem to misunderstand the abusive, evil nature of the State from that document. :p

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Theocratic? Stop throwing words around in ignorance. It sounds like you may be a theophobe.

:rolleyes: Give me a fucking break. Not all of us here are Christians, brainiac.


Also, the CP isn't just evangelicals. I know Mormons in the CP, and Mormonism and evangelical Christianity are vastly different.

Bullshit. They may differ on the exact nature of theology, but their methods are the same.


And see what Dr. Paul said about marriage in 2004

Maybe you failed to hear where he said that we should get the government OUT of the marriage business altogether.


We need to be working together against neocons and socialists, not alienating one another.

What fucking good is it to work with people that will turn around and use the government as a bludgeon against us if we get them into power? Claiming that you respect liberty with one breath and then saying you'll get government to run people's lives is hypocritical bullshit. They believe in liberty only if you think like they do. Its no different than working with asshole NeoCons and Socialists when our goals happen to coincidentally overlap. The idea that we have to 'moderate' our stance on Liberty to work with these people makes us no better than the mainline Democrats or Republicans. Its time to draw a line in the sand.

[Kotin]

I dont think that debra medina will go anywhere..

which sucks cause I really like her and have donated.

I am in the Kinky Friedman camp for now.. I have met with him personally and hes the real deal.

his was the first campaign I ever worked on back in 2006.

[anaconda]

The NWO is just going put up a Republican "reformist" who is an even smoother liar than Obama. Then the NWO will march on unless we either elect Ron Paul or a Constitution Party candidate.

And as many on the Forum have pointed out, the NWO GOP hacks try to sound like Ron Paul when they are out of power. Hopefully people are waking up to this dog-and-pony show. Maybe we can all help with this.

[Imperial]

I dont think that debra medina will go anywhere..

which sucks cause I really like her and have donated.

I am in the Kinky Friedman camp for now.. I have met with him personally and hes the real deal.

his was the first campaign I ever worked on back in 2006.

I'm with you I've been torn between Kinky Friedman and Debra Medina. I will probably end up voting for Medina in the Republican primary just because it is most likely at this point I will be working within the Republican Party.

In the general election? It just depends which one makes it through their primary...

[heavenlyboy34]

I love how they use ballot access laws to keep the LP off of ballots and out of power, then when we strategically come over and join their party, they tell us to get our own.

Yeah. You WISH we would keep chasing our tails like that.

You should retort with: Until you change ballot access, I'm sorry sir, but we are here to stay. Get used to it.

THAT might be the only way anyone in power is motivated to change ballot access! lol

lolz!

[Theocrat]

Sorry, but the Constitution Party is a haven for theocratic fuckholes. They're meddlesome jackasses who think that we should be ruled by the Evangelical Christian God's Right Hand who knows whats good for us. They do not respect Contracts between consenting adults, otherwise, they would not be opposed to gambling, drugs, prostitution, 'alternative' civil unions/marriages etc.[Emphasis mine]

That pretty much sums up what your ideas of freedom are. If we don't allow gambling, drugs, prostitution, and gay marriages, then there is no way we can not stand for getting rid of the Federal Reserve and returning to sound money (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Money%20and%20Banking), returning to state sovereignty (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#State%20Sovereignty), and a humble foreign policy (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Foreign%20Policy), among other things. :rolleyes:

Gee, is all you care about is people having the "freedom" to act in debauchery? Besides, no one in the Constitution Party wants to force anyone else to become Christians. We just believe morality is essential to a decent and prosperous republic. You simply cannot have liberty without morality.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Gee, is all you care about is people having the "freedom" to act in debauchery? Besides, no one in the Constitution Party wants to force anyone else to become Christians. We just believe morality is essential to a decent and prosperous republic. You simply cannot have liberty without morality.

Debauchery is in the eye of the beholder. Plenty of Christians were accused of cannibalism during the days of the Roman Principate. Morality is also in the eye of the beholder. What you consider moral/immoral might not be the same as what someone else does. If I snort cocaine, fuck prostitutes in the ass and gamble away my life savings, what is it to you? Getting the government involved in any of those situations is the antithesis of liberty. Its also the antithesis of The Constitution. People seem to conveniently forget that The People have unlimited Rights.

[He Who Pawns]

Gee, is all you care about is people having the "freedom" to act in debauchery? Besides, no one in the Constitution Party wants to force anyone else to become Christians. We just believe morality is essential to a decent and prosperous republic. You simply cannot have liberty without morality.

Gee, all you seem to care about is using the government to control people's personal lives. You are no champion of liberty; you are an enemy of liberty.

[heavenlyboy34]

Gee, all you seem to care about is using the government to control people's personal lives. You are no champion of liberty; you are an enemy of liberty.

He's also not much of a student of Yeshua. :(:p

[LibertyEagle]

:rolleyes: Give me a fucking break. Not all of us here are Christians, brainiac.

And some of us ARE Christians. So how about cutting out the insults.

[LibertyEagle]

Debauchery is in the eye of the beholder. Plenty of Christians were accused of cannibalism during the days of the Roman Principate. Morality is also in the eye of the beholder. What you consider moral/immoral might not be the same as what someone else does. If I snort cocaine, fuck prostitutes in the ass and gamble away my life savings, what is it to you? Getting the government involved in any of those situations is the antithesis of liberty. Its also the antithesis of The Constitution. People seem to conveniently forget that The People have unlimited Rights.

True enough. But, I think we should also remember that our Founders made it clear that the form of government they had created for us would only work in a moral society.

That said, I think most issues regarding morality should be left to the local levels. Local ordinances have been used for a very long time for such things and they seem to have worked quite well.

[LibertyEagle]

[Emphasis mine]

That pretty much sums up what your ideas of freedom are. If we don't allow gambling, drugs, prostitution, and gay marriages, then there is no way we can not stand for getting rid of the Federal Reserve and returning to sound money (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Money%20and%20Banking), returning to state sovereignty (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#State%20Sovereignty), and a humble foreign policy (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Foreign%20Policy), among other things. :rolleyes:
Well Theo, with all due respect, whose business is it, especially at the federal level, to decide how someone else should spend their own money if they are not infringing on anyone else's liberty. For example, gambling. If I want to spend my money gambling, how could you support using the force of the federal government to keep me from doing it? There is no way that our Founders would support such force.


Gee, is all you care about is people having the "freedom" to act in debauchery? Besides, no one in the Constitution Party wants to force anyone else to become Christians. We just believe morality is essential to a decent and prosperous republic. You simply cannot have liberty without morality.
Good point, but the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to legislate many of these things that you mention. If they're to be curtailed, it can only be at the state or local level. I'm frankly surprised that the Constitution Party would advocate something that is so clearly unconstitutional.

[nobody's_hero]

I have often thought that if God himself does not intervene in trivial matters of free-will, what an insult it must be to God to presume that the government we have now is any more qualified of an entity to do so.

[Imperial]

That pretty much sums up what your ideas of freedom are. If we don't allow gambling, drugs, prostitution, and gay marriages, then there is no way we can not stand for getting rid of the Federal Reserve and returning to sound money, returning to state sovereignty, and a humble foreign policy, among other things.

I don't agree with your sympathy for some of what you want to restrict, but I can look past that to work on what seems more important. But isn't that what the liberty movement is all about?

If we have to work with the premise that government will exist, let's work together to maximize liberty with whomever wants to expand it. If we don't agree on some points it doesn't matter. We can leave it to debate when the time comes to see whose ideas are superior. Until then, lets focus on the big issues.

[Number19]

Down here in the Houston area we just had a huge bust; it was the largest in Texas law enforcement history for this particular, heinous crime. And who did they go after? Health centers and trainers! In Texas, these are not regulated or registered with the state. And the "crime" they went after was ordinary, adult civilians - not athletes, not students - who were using steroids to get into shape.

I could never join, or cooperate, or ally myself with those who believe that it is a proper function of government to control or regulate "morals" at the federal or state levels of governance.

I would be willing to allow such restrictions on life if this control was limited to the community, with strong constitutional controls to prevent its spread higher up the political pyramid. But I don't understand the Constitution Party as limiting themselves in their piety. They will be constantly working and pushing to extend their moral governance to the state capitals and to Washington City.

There's a lot of negativity and baggage, but the LP are the only ones to maintain consistency in their belief.

http://www.fbherald.com/articles/2009/05/29/opinion/doc4a2088bac422a097477160.txt

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

But, I think we should also remember that our Founders made it clear that the form of government they had created for us would only work in a moral society.

You can't have it both ways. Isn't it claimed by many that The Founders were Christians? Isn't one of the basic tenets of Christianity that we are all Sinners, and therefore immoral? If that is so, and if our society can ONLY work if we are moral, then The Founders were the biggest bunch of frauds on the planet. How can a Government exist, that is supposed to be the bastion of morality, if The People are inherently immoral?

[jkr]

What gop?

[Njon]

:rolleyes: Give me a fucking break. Not all of us here are Christians, brainiac.

And yet you make it seem like "all of us here" are non-believers. Is that not hypocritical?


Bullshit. They may differ on the exact nature of theology, but their methods are the same.

Care to elaborate on that?


Maybe you failed to hear where he said that we should get the government OUT of the marriage business altogether.

And I agree. But perhaps you failed to see where he said he would support the power of the state to not be forced into redefining marriage, either.


The idea that we have to 'moderate' our stance on Liberty to work with these people makes us no better than the mainline Democrats or Republicans. Its time to draw a line in the sand.

There is no moderation of liberty; you're just being divisive. Dr. Paul endorsed Dr. Chuck Baldwin for president, so if you're got a problem with the Constitution Party, are you going to take your angry, senseless rant to the good doctor in opposition of his decision? I doubt it.

[Njon]

Morality is also in the eye of the beholder. What you consider moral/immoral might not be the same as what someone else does.

Is it always wrong to murder someone in cold blood purely for entertainment purposes? According to your views, apparently there are some situations in which that kind of thing might be okay. But for the sensible observer, it's clear that such actions are always wrong for all people, at all times and in all places.

[Volitzer]

Look for the 2012 election why not a joint party effort between the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party ??

Isn't it obvious by now that Republicans and Democrats are just different wings to the Bilder-bird Party ??

;)

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

And yet you make it seem like "all of us here" are non-believers. Is that not hypocritical?

I call bullshit. Please point to where I said and/or implied 'all of us here' are non-believers.


Care to elaborate on that?

:rolleyes:

Do you understand the nature of the word heresy? Arians, Catholics, Cathars, Mormons, Protestants, Evangelicals all agree on numerous BASIC tenets. Where conflict arises is in exact details. Other than that, they all generally proscribe certain behaviour that is none of anyone else's business. And I'm not talking about murder/fraud.


And I agree. But perhaps you failed to see where he said he would support the power of the state to not be forced into redefining marriage, either.

So what? The Constitution Party has part of its PLATFORM that its opposed to any kind of marriage but that of 1 man and 1 woman. It also has in its platform that its opposed to contracts between consenting adults and for continuing the fraudulent War on Drugs. These positions are INCOMPATIBLE with liberty.

And in case you missed it:


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.

This right there means that they are for the government, at ALL levels, restricting what you can see. Are you an adult or are you a child? In case you missed it, this also means that they will be able to restrict ANY speech that is critical of the government by simply declaring it obscene.


There is no moderation of liberty; you're just being divisive.

Bullshit.


Dr. Paul endorsed Dr. Chuck Baldwin for president, so if you're got a problem with the Constitution Party, are you going to take your angry, senseless rant to the good doctor in opposition of his decision? I doubt it.

What the fuck is this supposed to mean? That if I don't care for the Constitution Party, I'm all of a sudden anti-Ron Paul? What the fuck are you, the enforcer of Orthodoxy? When did this become a Religion?

[Njon]

I call bullshit. Please point to where I said and/or implied 'all of us here' are non-believers.

You stated that everyone here is not a Christian. Well, obviously that's the case, but some of us here are. Why go on your anti-theistic tirade? See, I never said everyone here was a Christian; you stated that was not the case, but no one ever said it was. So the real question is, why did you bring that up?


:rolleyes:

Do you understand the nature of the word heresy? Arians, Catholics, Cathars, Mormons, Protestants, Evangelicals all agree on numerous BASIC tenets. Where conflict arises is in exact details. Other than that, they all generally proscribe certain behaviour that is none of anyone else's business. And I'm not talking about murder/fraud.

Apparently you don't understand theology or church history very well at all. We're not talking minor differences like you insinuate, but major doctrinal divides.

For example, here's a chart comparing some Mormon beliefs to Protestant beliefs: http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/mormonism/comparison-between-christian-doctrine-and-mormon-doctrine

And here's some examinations of famous heresies: http://www.carm.org/apologetics/heresies

I have absolutely no problem working with people of other religious backgrounds (or those who are atheists and agnostics) in the liberty movement, but when we're speaking theologically it needs to be made clear that these beliefs are generally not similar.


So what? The Constitution Party has part of its PLATFORM that its opposed to any kind of marriage but that of 1 man and 1 woman.

What's your point? Dr. Paul also opposes redefining marriage, so I don't see where you're going with this. Ideally the government should not be involved in marriage at all, but so long as it is, many of us oppose having a new definition forced on us via the government.


It also has in its platform that its opposed to contracts between consenting adults and for continuing the fraudulent War on Drugs. These positions are INCOMPATIBLE with liberty.

The first thing that appears in the drug section of the platform at http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Drug%20Abuse is the 10th amendment. The platform does not condone the federal drug war; it refers the issue to the states. The only thing it says about the federal government is keeping foreign drug traffickers from bringing their materials into the country in the first place. Whether you agree with that or not, it's not the same thing as federal criminal prosecution for possession of illicit substances inside of the United States.


This right there means that they are for the government, at ALL levels, restricting what you can see. Are you an adult or are you a child? In case you missed it, this also means that they will be able to restrict ANY speech that is critical of the government by simply declaring it obscene.

Some laws --- albeit few --- against genuine obscenity are necessary. For example, you do not have the right to watch pornography in a public place.

While I Constitutionally disagree with involving the federal government in any such process (save for in federal territory, which the Constitution allows the feds to govern), at the state/local levels laws preventing that sort of thing are necessary. And note we're talking about actual obscenity, not criticism of the government. Stop reading the platform like you'd read a statute. It's not about weaseling expanded meaning out of the words.


What the fuck is this supposed to mean? That if I don't care for the Constitution Party, I'm all of a sudden anti-Ron Paul? What the fuck are you, the enforcer of Orthodoxy? When did this become a Religion?

No, it just means you're being a troublesome hypocrite who is apparently trying to (selectively) stir up conflict.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

You stated that everyone here is not a Christian. Well, obviously that's the case, but some of us here are.

Did you fail basic English comprehension?


Not all of us here are Christians

Thats what I wrote, not 'All of us here are not Christians', which means something entirely different.


Why go on your anti-theistic tirade?

Where did I go on an Anti-Theistic tirade? I said I don't like and won't support the misnamed Constitution Party because its full of theocratic fuckholes.


See, I never said everyone here was a Christian; you stated that was not the case, but no one ever said it was. So the real question is, why did you bring that up?

Because I was calling bullshit to your notion that I'm a theophobe. There are a number of us on this forum that have been attacked, numerous times, by various forum posters because we're not Christians.


Apparently you don't understand theology or church history very well at all. We're not talking minor differences like you insinuate, but major doctrinal divides.

Thus spaketh the Inquisition.


I have absolutely no problem working with people of other religious backgrounds (or those who are atheists and agnostics) in the liberty movement, but when we're speaking theologically it needs to be made clear that these beliefs are generally not similar.

To an outsider looking in, I'd say you're not looking at the same things I am.


What's your point? Dr. Paul also opposes redefining marriage, so I don't see where you're going with this. Ideally the government should not be involved in marriage at all, but so long as it is, many of us oppose having a new definition forced on us via the government.

If Marriage is a Religious Institution, how the fuck is it The State can define it? The Constitution Party, in its PLATFORM, says this:


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 are opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage.

That is meddling not only in Religious Freedom (as there are churches that will marry Gay couples), but also in the nature of private contracts and freedom of association. I don't give a hoot in hell how you wrap it to make it not stink, but its advocacy of Theocracy.


The first thing that appears in the drug section of the platform at is the 10th amendment.

Except the 10th Amendment, along with the 9th, ensures that The People have Unlimited Rights. The War on Drugs, even at a State or Local Level is the antithesis of the 10th Amendment. Just because The States were given SOME power by The People does not mean they can willy-nilly restrict freedom.


The only thing it says about the federal government is keeping foreign drug traffickers from bringing their materials into the country in the first place. Whether you agree with that or not, it's not the same thing as federal criminal prosecution for possession of illicit substances inside of the United States.

Oh really? So if I as a citizen happen to have 10 grams of Jamaican grown dope and get caught with the intent to distribute, I'm not going to be charged with a crime? Only people from OUTSIDE the US trying to sneak in substances?


Some laws --- albeit few --- against genuine obscenity are necessary. For example, you do not have the right to watch pornography in a public place.

Yes, which has lead to such wonderful outrcies of public support such as the covering and/or non-displaying of Michael Angelo's David or Bodicelli's Venus.

And, since you again didn't read it, here is what the Platform says:


With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards

They're advocating censoring The Internet. Given the language of this, they also advocate that you can be debarred recieving anything through the mail they consider 'obscene'. Twist it far enough and you could be arrested for having porn in your home that you bought somewhere else.


While I Constitutionally disagree with involving the federal government in any such process (save for in federal territory, which the Constitution allows the feds to govern), at the state/local levels laws preventing that sort of thing are necessary. And note we're talking about actual obscenity, not criticism of the government. Stop reading the platform like you'd read a statute. It's not about weaseling expanded meaning out of the words.

You apparently are a lost cause. I don't give a good goddamn who it is, if they're in government, I do not want them telling me what I can or can't do. As long as I do not commit fraud or harm/aggress against another, there is nothing to be said.


No, it just means you're being a troublesome hypocrite who is apparently trying to (selectively) stir up conflict.

:rolleyes:

Welcome to my Ignore List. You're Person #3. Have fun arguing with yourself.

[Njon]

Did you fail basic English comprehension?

People without a good argument typically make ad hom attacks like this.


Thats what I wrote, not 'All of us here are not Christians', which means something entirely different.

That was a typo on my part. This was your initial statement and my initial reply:

You: Not all of us here are Christians, brainiac.

Me: And yet you make it seem like "all of us here" are non-believers. Is that not hypocritical?

In other words, you brought up the fact that not everyone here is a Christian, when nobody said that everyone here was a Christian. My response was a way of pointing out that some of us are.


Where did I go on an Anti-Theistic tirade? I said I don't like and won't support the misnamed Constitution Party because its full of theocratic fuckholes.

Your whole series of posts have been a tirade, filled with insults and crude language (which apparently is a substitute for rationale).


Because I was calling bullshit to your notion that I'm a theophobe. There are a number of us on this forum that have been attacked, numerous times, by various forum posters because we're not Christians.

You're the one who started the attacking here.


Thus spaketh the Inquisition.

That's a logically fallacious statement. Exposing doctrinal differences is not the same thing as persecuting people. And note, it was people close to what we today call evangelicals that were the primary victims of the Inquisition, not, for example, people who professed to be non-believers.


That is meddling not only in Religious Freedom (as there are churches that will marry Gay couples), but also in the nature of private contracts and freedom of association. I don't give a hoot in hell how you wrap it to make it not stink, but its advocacy of Theocracy.

Churches are not God.

Besides, government exists to uphold natural law, and homosexual unions aren't natural, therefore they cannot be protected by natural law. In any case, like I said, I want government out of marriage completely. But in the mean time, you need to realize that many of us who support Dr. Paul do not believe homosexuality is legitimate. While it is not my business to regulate what a homosexual does with his/her life, as long as government remains in the marriage business I will fight to not be forced to recognize that 'union' thru the government.


Except the 10th Amendment, along with the 9th, ensures that The People have Unlimited Rights.

No, they don't. You don't have unlimited rights. You can't do whatever you want regardless of how it affects others. You have a limited number of unalienable rights. And government doesn't ensure or give you any rights; government can only protect natural (God-given) rights that are already there.


The War on Drugs, even at a State or Local Level is the antithesis of the 10th Amendment. Just because The States were given SOME power by The People does not mean they can willy-nilly restrict freedom.

Personally I'm also generally opposed to prohibition at the state level, too, not because I think drugs are okay (I don't) but because it's generally not a government issue.

But for those who aren't opposed to state/local prohibition, you can't legitimately argue that their position is unconstitutional, because it's not.


Oh really? So if I as a citizen happen to have 10 grams of Jamaican grown dope and get caught with the intent to distribute, I'm not going to be charged with a crime? Only people from OUTSIDE the US trying to sneak in substances?

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here, besides apparently reading things into the platform. You can see what it says; it's implicitly against federal drug prohibition.


Yes, which has lead to such wonderful outrcies of public support such as the covering and/or non-displaying of Michael Angelo's David or Bodicelli's Venus.

What is your point with these examples? That sometimes laws are badly applied? That can happen with most any law, but we still need some form of laws in our society.


And, since you again didn't read it, here is what the Platform says:


They're advocating censoring The Internet. Given the language of this, they also advocate that you can be debarred recieving anything through the mail they consider 'obscene'. Twist it far enough and you could be arrested for having porn in your home that you bought somewhere else.

You didn't quote the internet portion the first time around, so stop making it seem like I didn't read what you posted.

That provision of the platform could well be referring to prohibiting things like bestiality, child pornography, etc. I think you're reading too much into it.


Welcome to my Ignore List. You're Person #3.

Not conversing with bitter, divisive trolls such as yourself is a blessing.


Have fun arguing with yourself.

Well, you certainly didn't present much to argue with, so what can I say?

[spotics]

I have to say that after attending a few county Republican Party meetings, I have no use for the GOP. The typical conversation usually goes, "Those Democrats just don't appreciate all the money (insert name of elected Republican official) brings to this area."

[TGGRV]

The biggest problem of the liberty movements is that they focus on irrelevant issues like gambling, drugs, prostitution, and gay marriages. Of course, if you want to have morality on your side, you can't just choose the liberties you want and those that you don't want - gambling, prostitution are things done by two consenting adults so I don't see the problem of the state in it. On the other hand, gay marriages... Marriages shouldn't be done by the government. If a church wants to marry two gay people, it's their thing. The government should do a contract thing, but I dont see how that's a marriage.