ConCap
01-16-2012, 03:55 PM
And the Constitution is the only thing I advocate.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It is not time to split the party,
It is time to split the people,
Identify those 100% for the Constitution as written.
And those not 100% for the Constitution as written.
This will be the new two party system.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I place the Constitution to the far right, and anyone who advocates any thing on a federal level that is not in 100% compliance of the Constitution as written (not interpreted) is to the left.
The more things you advocate non Constitutional, the farther you are to the left. Social Conservatives (on a federal level) are farther to the left than say Fiscal Conservatives.
Being 100% for the Constitution makes you conservative, not a Conservative.
There are as many Conservatives as there are people.
Every one is trying to conserve what they believe in through politics, left or right.
You can’t just call your self a generic “Conservative” , you must call your self a Constitutional Conservative ( No social issues on a Federal level ) and differentiate your self from the other so called Conservatives that have compromised away all of our lost freedoms in the last 60 years.
Section 8, Article I and nothing more. (on a Federal level)
In my opinion, one should always back the person in the primaries who is deemed Constitutionally farthest to the right and brings (no social issues) to the Federal level, wither you personally like that person or not.
If that person drops out, or is found non deserving, one should then pick up the flag of the next person farthest to the right, so on and so on. One should not even talk about anyone on the list left of the person farthest to the right until it is his or her turn.
To back any one left of the person farthest to the right is a COMPROMISE to the existents of our Constitution and the Nation.
Any one who backs any one left of the farthest person to the right, mainly does so because of (ME, ME, ME) by placing their personal social issues before the Constitutional need of the Nation on a Federal level.
That’s why we end up with people like Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Bush II and others like them.
Technically speaking, no one should back any one in the primaries on the Federal level, based on their personal social issues.
To do this, is to FORCE others through Federal taxation to back their cause. One should take this fight to the State or local level.
Should the vote for President, come down to some one, one does not like, one should simply vote for the one that is farthest to the right.
Do not, NOT VOTE!
I think, if one would follow this idea, it should not come down to voting for the lesser of the two evils because the one we ended up with would be the one farthest to the right.
If it does come down to voting for the lesser of the two evils, it is because members on the right in part, but self in front of Country and failed to unite as a whole and support the candidate best qualified to protect the Constitution and the Nation.
Again. The more a candidate believes in making non Constitutional issues an issue on a Federal level, the farther they are to the left. Also, considering their oath of office, the more criminal they are.
You should all ways vote for the candidate farthest to the right wither you personally like that candidate or not, no matter WHAT.
Be “A” political. You do not have to be political to vote. Rate who you back in the primaries by how they appear to uphold the true meaning of the Constitution as written (not interpreted)
Until there is a movement that is “A” political, and who’s goal is the reinstatement of a Federal Government that is strictly run under the guidance of the U.S. Constitution, there is no hope for our Nation as intended by our founding Fathers‘.
Political Parties
Political parties are such a basic part of our political system today, that many people might assume the Constitution must at least mention parties in one way or another... but there is absolutely no mention of political parties anywhere in the Constitution. In fact, in the times of the Articles of Confederation, there weren't even any parties; factions, perhaps; regional blocs, yes; but no parties. Not until the Jackson and Van Buren administrations did organized parties really take hold in the American political system.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#pparty
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The first thing we should do, is on a State level.
Circumvent the Government with a law, like the Government circumvents the Constitution with laws.
Pass a law, recombining the Oath of Office with the old Lincoln test oath, and making it legally binding and punishable in a court of law.
If we push the oath angle just as strong as the Constitution that will put a stop to the movement left.
The outbreak of the Civil War quickly transformed the routine act of oath-taking into one of enormous significance. In April 1861, a time of uncertain and shifting loyalties, President Abraham Lincoln ordered all federal civilian employees within the executive branch to take an expanded oath. When Congress convened for a brief emergency session in July, members echoed the president's action by enacting legislation requiring employees to take the expanded oath in support of the Union. This oath is the earliest direct predecessor of the modern version of the oath.
When Congress returned for its regular session in December 1861, members who believed that the Union had as much to fear from northern traitors as southern soldiers again revised the oath, adding a new first section known as the "Ironclad Test Oath." The war-inspired Test Oath, signed into law on July 2, 1862, required "every person elected or appointed to any office ... under the Government of the United States ... excepting the President (who now should be included) of the United States" to swear or affirm that they had never previously engaged in criminal or disloyal conduct. Those government employees who failed to take the 1862 Test Oath would not receive a salary; those who swore falsely would be prosecuted for perjury and forever denied federal employment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
As for Paul
His Constitutional stand, far outweighs anything one may PERSONALLY think.
Why do people think, as soon as he is elected, all of his (so called radical) ideas will become law?
With all those left wing members of the Republican Party in office now, most of his ideas (good or bad) will never have a chance.
Be sides, all most all of these arguments against Paul have nothing to do with the Constitution and if he does anything, he will make them a States rights issue.
Obama is the Democrats, Ron Paul. A lot of his backers are far left wing extremists like himself.
Obama has lost most if not all of those backers because of his inability to get their extreme demands passed or even introduced.
Should Paul become President, the same thing will happen to him and those people will turn to someone else, leaving the rest of us trying to get him re elected.
I think at the very least, Paul will slow down or even stop the degradation of the Constitution the first four years. If he makes it to the second round without his radical backers, he may even manage to "reverse" some of the damage.
I do not back Paul because he is Paul. I back him and all the rest, to the extent he or she backs the Constitution, no more no less.
If Bachmann could of proved she could or would back the Constitution even more than Paul, I would have moved her to the front for the primaries.
Please remember.
All freedoms’ lost in the last 100 years have been compromised away by Republicans, and the last 60 years by so called Conservatives.
To compromise on the well being of the Constitution by picking someone who will beat Obama, over the Constitution, is to do the same thing.
The Constitution first, the rest will take care of itself.
Right to Left
CAIN-PAUL-HUNTSMAN-(RAND PAUL 2016)-(RUBIO 2016)-BACHMANN-SANTORUM-PALIN-CHRISTIE-
(PERRY-GINGRICH-ROMNEY, TIE)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Once again.
It is not time to split the party,
It is time to split the people,
Identify those 100% for the Constitution as written.
And those not 100% for the Constitution as written.
This will be the new two party system.
Cut and dry,
For or Against.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHO TO VOTE FOR, VOTE FOR THE CONSTITUTION.
THE CONSTITUTION IS THE RULE OF LAW. CUT AND DRY. THE RULE OF LAW MORE THEN ANYTHING, IS WHAT HELPED MAKE THIS NATION WHAT IT WAS, AND WHAT IT CAN BE AGAIN.
THE FIRST TWO SESSIONS OF CONGRESS WERE “A” POLITICAL AND ALL FRESHMEN.
IT WORKED ALL RIGHT THEN, IT WILL WORK AGAIN.
NOTHING MATTERS BUT THE FULL COMPLIANCE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES…. THE REST WILL TAKE CARE OF IT’S SELF.
CONCAP
Constitutional Capitalist-20yr retired combat vet. 75-95 and a Keeper of the Oath.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It is not time to split the party,
It is time to split the people,
Identify those 100% for the Constitution as written.
And those not 100% for the Constitution as written.
This will be the new two party system.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I place the Constitution to the far right, and anyone who advocates any thing on a federal level that is not in 100% compliance of the Constitution as written (not interpreted) is to the left.
The more things you advocate non Constitutional, the farther you are to the left. Social Conservatives (on a federal level) are farther to the left than say Fiscal Conservatives.
Being 100% for the Constitution makes you conservative, not a Conservative.
There are as many Conservatives as there are people.
Every one is trying to conserve what they believe in through politics, left or right.
You can’t just call your self a generic “Conservative” , you must call your self a Constitutional Conservative ( No social issues on a Federal level ) and differentiate your self from the other so called Conservatives that have compromised away all of our lost freedoms in the last 60 years.
Section 8, Article I and nothing more. (on a Federal level)
In my opinion, one should always back the person in the primaries who is deemed Constitutionally farthest to the right and brings (no social issues) to the Federal level, wither you personally like that person or not.
If that person drops out, or is found non deserving, one should then pick up the flag of the next person farthest to the right, so on and so on. One should not even talk about anyone on the list left of the person farthest to the right until it is his or her turn.
To back any one left of the person farthest to the right is a COMPROMISE to the existents of our Constitution and the Nation.
Any one who backs any one left of the farthest person to the right, mainly does so because of (ME, ME, ME) by placing their personal social issues before the Constitutional need of the Nation on a Federal level.
That’s why we end up with people like Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Bush II and others like them.
Technically speaking, no one should back any one in the primaries on the Federal level, based on their personal social issues.
To do this, is to FORCE others through Federal taxation to back their cause. One should take this fight to the State or local level.
Should the vote for President, come down to some one, one does not like, one should simply vote for the one that is farthest to the right.
Do not, NOT VOTE!
I think, if one would follow this idea, it should not come down to voting for the lesser of the two evils because the one we ended up with would be the one farthest to the right.
If it does come down to voting for the lesser of the two evils, it is because members on the right in part, but self in front of Country and failed to unite as a whole and support the candidate best qualified to protect the Constitution and the Nation.
Again. The more a candidate believes in making non Constitutional issues an issue on a Federal level, the farther they are to the left. Also, considering their oath of office, the more criminal they are.
You should all ways vote for the candidate farthest to the right wither you personally like that candidate or not, no matter WHAT.
Be “A” political. You do not have to be political to vote. Rate who you back in the primaries by how they appear to uphold the true meaning of the Constitution as written (not interpreted)
Until there is a movement that is “A” political, and who’s goal is the reinstatement of a Federal Government that is strictly run under the guidance of the U.S. Constitution, there is no hope for our Nation as intended by our founding Fathers‘.
Political Parties
Political parties are such a basic part of our political system today, that many people might assume the Constitution must at least mention parties in one way or another... but there is absolutely no mention of political parties anywhere in the Constitution. In fact, in the times of the Articles of Confederation, there weren't even any parties; factions, perhaps; regional blocs, yes; but no parties. Not until the Jackson and Van Buren administrations did organized parties really take hold in the American political system.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#pparty
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The first thing we should do, is on a State level.
Circumvent the Government with a law, like the Government circumvents the Constitution with laws.
Pass a law, recombining the Oath of Office with the old Lincoln test oath, and making it legally binding and punishable in a court of law.
If we push the oath angle just as strong as the Constitution that will put a stop to the movement left.
The outbreak of the Civil War quickly transformed the routine act of oath-taking into one of enormous significance. In April 1861, a time of uncertain and shifting loyalties, President Abraham Lincoln ordered all federal civilian employees within the executive branch to take an expanded oath. When Congress convened for a brief emergency session in July, members echoed the president's action by enacting legislation requiring employees to take the expanded oath in support of the Union. This oath is the earliest direct predecessor of the modern version of the oath.
When Congress returned for its regular session in December 1861, members who believed that the Union had as much to fear from northern traitors as southern soldiers again revised the oath, adding a new first section known as the "Ironclad Test Oath." The war-inspired Test Oath, signed into law on July 2, 1862, required "every person elected or appointed to any office ... under the Government of the United States ... excepting the President (who now should be included) of the United States" to swear or affirm that they had never previously engaged in criminal or disloyal conduct. Those government employees who failed to take the 1862 Test Oath would not receive a salary; those who swore falsely would be prosecuted for perjury and forever denied federal employment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
As for Paul
His Constitutional stand, far outweighs anything one may PERSONALLY think.
Why do people think, as soon as he is elected, all of his (so called radical) ideas will become law?
With all those left wing members of the Republican Party in office now, most of his ideas (good or bad) will never have a chance.
Be sides, all most all of these arguments against Paul have nothing to do with the Constitution and if he does anything, he will make them a States rights issue.
Obama is the Democrats, Ron Paul. A lot of his backers are far left wing extremists like himself.
Obama has lost most if not all of those backers because of his inability to get their extreme demands passed or even introduced.
Should Paul become President, the same thing will happen to him and those people will turn to someone else, leaving the rest of us trying to get him re elected.
I think at the very least, Paul will slow down or even stop the degradation of the Constitution the first four years. If he makes it to the second round without his radical backers, he may even manage to "reverse" some of the damage.
I do not back Paul because he is Paul. I back him and all the rest, to the extent he or she backs the Constitution, no more no less.
If Bachmann could of proved she could or would back the Constitution even more than Paul, I would have moved her to the front for the primaries.
Please remember.
All freedoms’ lost in the last 100 years have been compromised away by Republicans, and the last 60 years by so called Conservatives.
To compromise on the well being of the Constitution by picking someone who will beat Obama, over the Constitution, is to do the same thing.
The Constitution first, the rest will take care of itself.
Right to Left
CAIN-PAUL-HUNTSMAN-(RAND PAUL 2016)-(RUBIO 2016)-BACHMANN-SANTORUM-PALIN-CHRISTIE-
(PERRY-GINGRICH-ROMNEY, TIE)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Once again.
It is not time to split the party,
It is time to split the people,
Identify those 100% for the Constitution as written.
And those not 100% for the Constitution as written.
This will be the new two party system.
Cut and dry,
For or Against.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHO TO VOTE FOR, VOTE FOR THE CONSTITUTION.
THE CONSTITUTION IS THE RULE OF LAW. CUT AND DRY. THE RULE OF LAW MORE THEN ANYTHING, IS WHAT HELPED MAKE THIS NATION WHAT IT WAS, AND WHAT IT CAN BE AGAIN.
THE FIRST TWO SESSIONS OF CONGRESS WERE “A” POLITICAL AND ALL FRESHMEN.
IT WORKED ALL RIGHT THEN, IT WILL WORK AGAIN.
NOTHING MATTERS BUT THE FULL COMPLIANCE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES…. THE REST WILL TAKE CARE OF IT’S SELF.
CONCAP
Constitutional Capitalist-20yr retired combat vet. 75-95 and a Keeper of the Oath.