Statement from Oregon CP Chair…

The chairman of the Oregon Constitution Party has just distributed this statement…

The Constitution Party of Oregon, as a state-level, political entity, has voluntarily been in affiliation with the nationally organized Constitution Party since the year 2000 AD. We have shared common ground on matters of platform, candidates, and projects. Restoring liberty to the individual citizen and limits to the agencies of civil government are vitally important. Yet, the cornerstone issue for party leaders and members has been ending legalized abortion in Oregon and America. We believe that no legitimate government may sanction the killing of anyone who has not done anything wrong. Any government claiming such power has become the enemy of the people.

Recently, in Tampa, Florida, a National Committee of the Constitution Party stepped away from an authentic pro-life stand extending the welcome mat to those who hold that “children conceived through rape and incest are not innocent and not worthy of legal protection.” This matter has been on the table and under discussion for quite some time. The Tampa decision, supposedly, is final, but many state parties, including Oregon, cannot yield the high ground of their political purpose.

On May 20th, the steering committee for the Constitution Party of Oregon will convene to consider my recommendation that – until the national Constitution Party resumes a principled, pro-life position – we, in Oregon, should separate ourselves and proceed as an independent state party. We continue to function as the Constitution Party of Oregon. And yes, we still do visualize abortionists on trial.

48 Responses to “Statement from Oregon CP Chair…”

  1. Tim West Says:

    Heh. So long CP. You just dug your own grave. Lets hope we can turn the LP around before the same thing happens to it.

    This is why you dont mix politics and religion..or in the case of the LP, people that have substituted a concept of perfect negative liberty for God.

  2. NewFederalist Says:

    And if the LP does not turn around the basis for a new party might exist from those who choose to be more moderate in both the CP and the LP.

  3. Joe Says:

    I don’t understand why moderates would feel the need for yet another new party. If the Libertarian Partyabandoned its quest for perfect negative liberty, how would they be different from the Republicrat parties? If the Constitution Party has leaders and candidates who are pro-abortion, how are they different from the Republicrat parties? Aren’t there already two major parties, and a slew of alternative parties, where moderates could feel at home?

  4. Chris Campbell Says:

    Tim West apparently knows nothing of the Founders, as they were strongly Christian and incorporated it into the Declaration and Constitution.

    The Party’s leaders have NOT abandoned the Pro-life stance at all. See who voted “no”, they have a proven track record of Pro-life. Most of the yes voters did not-Peroutka, Lofton and Baldwin exempted of course.

    The party of Nevada has continued to back the platform, Hansen and a few adhere to the tenets of their faith-some Mormons may not agree with Hinckley’s views. They have divisions as do we all. We are in the early stages of the Apostasy.

    There are many Catholics that are pew warmers or that are unwillingly to take any stand-prefering to cover themselves in the cloak that the US is not a Catholic nation or that there are no Catholic Party’s or that there are no monarchs, etc. Some-a small number- prefer to stay locked in a room praying. Me? I like the brave Christians at Lepanto, rosary in 1 hand, sword in the other. Pray yes, but faith AND works together. Be a doer(James).

    The sun is going down on us, we need to fight the good fight together. Not divide.

  5. undercover_anarchist Says:

    How popular is the idea that a woman raped by her own father at age 11 and risks her life by giving birth should not be able to terminate the pregnancy?

    Total up the number of American Taliban in the CP and divide by the US population to find your answer.

    This conflict is the logical outcome of a Ovarian Marxist group that believes a woman’s womb is state property. There was a communist dictator in Romania who made exactly such a decree. As unwanted children were born to neglectful mothers, the Romanian crime rate soared. The CP would rather wait for these innocent womb parasites to develop into full-fledged children, born with original sin (therefore not innocent, right?) and then have the (communist) state execute them for smoking mairjuana or looking at white women.

    And yet they talk of “restoring individual liberty.”

    What a joke.

    I think Austin should stop covering this hate group on the blog. It is not a legitimate third party. Why not cover Nevada’s “White People’s Party” or the KKK party? The WPP is moderate compared to the CP.

    If a woman does not own her own body than who does? Her husband? The state? The CP?

    Abortion on demand and without apology!

    As those within the LP seek to reform it; pledge or no pledge, the greatest danger to the LP is the right-wing who are more inclined to CP membership than true liberty. A great pourge of such anti-libertarian Libertarians should be the goal of any LP reform movement.

  6. Tim West Says:

    the answer is that no person knows what God’s intention is. To know that beyond a matter of faith means that you have the power of knowing God’s intentions, one way or the other. In other words, God speak to you beyond all others.

    That shit makes me nervous. That’s what radical Islam thinks as well – only the words change slightly.

    Pat Robertson and Falwell believe that, as well as the other dime a dozen TV preachers. They are the modern day = of the Pharasees.

    It is not the job of political parties to institute God’s Laws on man.

  7. Joe Says:

    Chris,

    How about Bob Ekstrom and Paul deParrie who are recommending the Constitution Party of Oregon separate from the Constitution Party? Do they have a proven pro-life track record or not? How about Rick Jore and the other members of the Constitution Party of Montana who voted to disaffiliate IAP Nevada? Are you saying that they do not have a proven pro-life track record?

  8. Tim West Says:

    And in no way was America founded as a christian nation.

    Mason Locke Weems manufactured stories to establish Washington as a pious Christian, a man who suceeded in part because he prayed for God’s blessing. Weems was a parson, and his inaccuracies (including the moralistic “I can not tell a lie” tale about cutting down a cherry tree) have shaped the perspective of Washington for two centuries now. Many modern writers still repeat second-hand information of questionable reliability to describe Washington as a traditional Protestant. The individuals who describe Washington’s life as one marked by prayer and steady attendance at church are often advocates of a religious perspective, proselytizing the perspective of a particular denomination or at least trying to shape American society so more people attend church regularly.

    At times, they cite the generic proclamations issued as a public leader to portray Washington (or even Jefferson!) as a mainstream Christian, and to define the United States as a Christian Nation. Some of those who emphasize the personal faith – or faithlessness – of elected officials use it as a partisan issue. The Moral Majority led by Rev. Jerry Falwell was clearly allied with the Republican Party, and both Jimmy Carter and Pat Robertson used religion as part of his campaign for the presidency.

    In modern America, many religious leaders consider personal salvation to be fundamental to the strength/survival of American society. The debate about the morality of elected officials has been intense since the realization that Lyndon Johnson lied about the status of war in Vietnam and subsequent Presidents have demonstrated publicly their own lapses, particularly Presidents Nixon and Clinton.

    Those who attempt to project a religious theology upon Washington often seek to connect theological beliefs with civic benefits, assuming morality is based on religion. In contrast, Madison and others crafted a government that could succeed even if Americans were not angels, thanks to a balance of powers. Jefferson and other “natural law” theorists assumed that individuals in a mature society would follow a common set of ethical principles, independent of the different religious beliefs held by individuals.

    Washington was a man focused throughout his life on gaining honor and respect. He acted in public settings with some personal distance, even coldness, to reduce the likelihood of some informality reducing the respect he sought from others. So it is likely that he would desire political leaders today to also earn respect through moral, virtuous behavior – even at some personal cost to their comfort level.

    However, there is little in Washington’s life to suggest he would support a political movement based primarily on a moral agenda. To make such a claim requires that we project a light upon the monument of Washington, then look at our own reflected light and claim its source to be Washington. The “myth of Washington” created during his life and shortly thereafter by Parson Weems is not static. Even today, Washington’s life can be re-shaped when necessary to fulfill the agenda of a modern mythmaker…

    lots of other evidence out there on other figures, bu I dont want to spam.

    The claim that america was founded as a christian nation is 100% bullshit, and can readily be shown to be as such. You may want to read this again:

    The modern legal concept of religious freedom as the union of freedom of belief and freedom of worship with the absence of any state-sponsored religion, originated in the United States of America.

    This issue was addressed by Thomas Paine in his pamphlet, Common Sense (1776):

    “As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government, to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith . . .

    The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was written in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson. It proclaimed:

    “[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”

    In U.S. law, freedom of religion is codified in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which declares:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

    In the USA, many states have freedom of religion established in their constitution, though the exact legal consequences of this right vary for historical and cultural reasons. Most states interpret “freedom of religion” as including the freedom of long-established religious communities to remain intact and not be destroyed. By extension, democracies interpret “freedom of religion” as the right of each individual to freely choose to convert from one religion to another, mix religions, or abandon religion altogether.

    Campbell, it is you that know nothing of the founders. If they desired America to be a actual Christian nation, they would have codified it in the Constitution. They expressly did not do so.

  9. Chris Campbell Says:

    Joe,

    Not saying they do not have aproven track records. I was trying to get the idea across that Phillips, Clymer, et all have long been in the fight and its is wrong to label them “por-choice” or somehow denigrating Pro-Life due to their votes. There were some that voted “yes” that stated that those who voted “no” would be labelled as such over the web. Rick is a gentleman and I was priveledged to meet him and talk with him. I support him and I contributed to the “pased hat” that wa sent around the room to aid his campaign.

    To label those that voted “no” to dissafiliation as Pro-Choice is not correct at all and I would consider the label applied to myself as an insult. I did not get a chance to meet Mr. DeParrie or Ekstrom, I am sure they are good and decent folks.

    After the vote, I spoke to and worked alongside “yes” and “no” voters, Catholics, Protestants and Mormons, etc.

    Tim West, the role of Govt is to defend the shedding of innocent blood and to protect GOD given rights!! My rights do NOT come from Govt or any man-they come from the Creator. Read the OT, God judges or spare a nation based on its adherence to His law. Read the Founding documents, they adhere to this as well.

    A good place to start is Psalm 2.

    Falwell and Robertson are unabashed zionists-clinging to the belief that the Jews are still saved thruogh the Old Covenant and hence, do not need Christ. The message of salvation through Christ is apparently to them only for Gentiles.

    Both are unequivocal cheerleaders for the GOP-Robertson a profiteer in African dictatorships.

    My views, Jesus is King over the nations, our role is to obey his commandments and to cooperate in the civil running of a nation.

  10. Chris Campbell Says:

    Undercover Anarchist states: If a woman does not own her own body than who does? Her husband? The state? The CP?

    A woman is to have self control first and foremost. The child-a separate life and the woman belong to the Creator. Often times, when a woman is fully fertile, she cannot conceive. At times, though not fertile, she conceives.

    Does not sound like chance, but a Creator at work with His plan. Our duty is to obey, hard as it is at times. Job had a hard time, he obeyed and was rewarded-on Earth, esp in Heaven.

  11. Chris Campbell Says:

    One more comment.

    I have far too much to do to debate online. I really hate this division in the CP, yet I know that in the end, we will move forward and grow stronger.

    IF those who leave do leave, I wish them the best. May they continue to fight the good fight.

    I implore them to stay and continue to work in the CP, but they must follow the dictates of their beliefs.

  12. Fred C. Says:

    Besides infighting within a party, something that always bothers me is when third parties argue with eachother. The CP and LP especially considering they both want to reduce the federal government down to its constitutional size. Some libertarians might disagree given the social issues, but a libertarian gov’t would have to let the states decide on abortion, gays and a whole lot else just like the CP would, unless either is now supporting judicial activism. How do you intend on unseating the politicians when you guys are already playing politics?

    BTW to Chris Campbell – I tend to vote CP, but as a Catholic how do you resolve thier pure free market stance with Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno etc? The church has advocated a temperate state involvement in ensuring social justice, and most openly Catholic parties abroad have historically been entities near the center or at the third position (which most Americans wrongly identify as totalitarian fascism). I’ve struggled with this issue personally and don’t think I’m going to find an answer unless a Catholic party springs up out of the ground one day (or you feel up to starting one with me ;)

  13. Chris Campbell Says:

    I strongly support Distributiionism and Subsidiarity (If I can manage to spell).

    The CP wants the country back to its historic roots, post-Revolution. While not perfect, there was a far more conducive environment then then now for Catholic social thought and practice. Govt should only act to protect lives and property- it is the church and the people that help the poor, etc.

    The CP wold restore almost all the earnings to the earner-this would provide the money and the giving power to the church/people not the GOvt, that historically tends to be corrupt and to suppress its citizens (ask the jews in Germany or American Indians). The more centralized this nation became, the more oppressive and socialistic. The free market is not in and of itself a evil, the people in it can be. Fraud on the part of the Enron’s can be remedied by the states. Rerum seemed to indicated the post authority of any state should be at more local level. Leo XIII seemed to see this socialistic development on the part of the Centralizers.

    This I think led the Papal States to recognize the Confederacy-not some silly notion of Chinquay. Good book to read is Guns of the South-alternative history, but good as it shows Lincoln as what he was-a unabashed corporotist and socialist hybred.

    The Church should be the dispenser of any welfare, along with people. I read and reread Rerum Novarum. I see no large difference between the 2. I have a copy at home, will have to reread it more. Scripture lays out this, it never had the people running to Ceasar for sustanance. Paul does only to defend his citizenship in the face of unlawful persecution-probably too to get a chance to preach to Ceasar.

    Quadragesimo Anno -have not finished this, as with most Papal documents, they are hard to easily get through. Too many in Curia are too theological at times to make sense to common man.

    The present socialism has nothing in common with the Founders in USA.

    The state, hence defends the defenseless and insures domestic tranquility, yet should stay out of Church and peoples pockets. Defiantely, stay out of charity as $0.75/$1.00 winds up going to the Govt to “help” people.

    If I were you, I would get involved in the CP. Though the Austrian Empire was an Empire, it protected minorities-ethnic and religious. It still was broken up by infighting-aided of course by NWO adherent Wilson.

    Unfortunately, there will always be problems within and bumps. We are growing and having pains.

  14. Chris Campbell Says:

    To Fred C:

    Feel free to give me a call sometime, I not only am trying to build the CP in an veeery Red state, but trying to make the CP known and supported by fellow Catholics.

    I wouldn’t mind running a few things by you. Call my cell at 919-606-7140

    NOTE: this is open only to Catholics like Fred serious about the CP, not the detractors, the nuts, etc.

  15. George Phillies Says:

    The founding fathers based our Republic on Graeco-Roman law, not on Jewish Biblical beliefs or the substantially different Christian Biblical beliefs, as a result of which we have a Senate, not a council of tribes.

    George Washington was George Washington the slaveholder, and the accusations that are raised about Jefferson and one of his slaves are not raised about Washington only because in Washington’s case there was no doubt. It was a different time, and we have advanced beyond those attitudes. Someday our descendants will say the same of us.

    As a general suggestion, whenever readers here someone talking about our Judeo-Christian heritage they should immediately become suspicious, because people using that phrase are usually seriously ignorant of Judaism. In particular, they should become very suspicious of people who begin to talk about the nature of marriage in the Bible, which in the pre-Christian period in question included concubinage and polygamy, and which in the opinion of most of the overwhelmingly dominant branch of modern Judaism includes gay marriage.

  16. rj Says:

    “Tim West apparently knows nothing of the Founders, as they were strongly Christian and incorporated it into the Declaration and Constitution.”

    Funny, I thought Washington and Jefferson were Deists. Not only that, but Washington was an avid fan of the sport of cricket, which speaks for itself. :-D

  17. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Quoth Fred C:

    “The CP and LP especially considering they both want to reduce the federal government down to its constitutional size.”

    There are some constitutionalists in the Libertarian Party, but constitutionalism is not the criterion against which the LP tests its ideas or policy recommendations.

    There MAY be some constitutionalists in the “Constitution Party,” but their platform doesn’t reflect constitutionalism more than superficially—it reflects the political goals of a brand of evangelical Christianity which did not exist at the time the Constitution was created and which was certainly not endorsed, nor ever would be endorsed, by the framers.

    Why should Libertarians oppose the Constitution Party? Three reasons:

    1) In certain respects, they pretend to be us. They sell themselves as a limited government party when they are no such thing.

    2) In general, Americans should oppose anti-American, anti-freedom political combinations such as the Communist Party USA, the Constitution Party, etc. They shouldn’t be illegal, but they should be opposed, and they should be resisted should they manage, through force or subterfuge—including false advertising a la the Constitution Party—to seize power.

    3) The Libertarian Party, being the only authentic small government party, is the only party with any credibility to expose the Constitution Party as the anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-Constitution mob that it is.

    Tom Knapp

  18. undercover_anarchist Says:

    I do not agree that “a libertarian gov’t would have to let the states decide on abortion, gays and a whole lot else.” I know that the sheep rimming Luddite CP members may not recognize it (nor the prior amendment that abolished slavery), but the 14th amendment to your cherished constitution states that “no STATE shall make or enforce any law that shall abridge the privelages or immunities of any citizen of the United States.”

    Now, as a true libertarian (small “l”), I do not derive my rights from a 200 year old piece of parchment written behind closed doors by a cabal of slave raping elites. I derive them from my own existence and thought—thought, something foreign to ghost-worshipping rednecks of the CP variety. Regardless, the Constitution—which you reverently exhalt—clearly states that no STATE can violate the civil rights of a citizen.

    Abortion—on demand and without apology—is a civil right.

    Privacy—including having gay male anal intercourse, if I so choose—is a civil right.

    No state or federal government shall abridge my rights, under any kind of government, libertarian or white nationalist as the CP would like to have it.

    I do not believe in states’ rights. States have no rights. In fact, I’d argue that no “state” has the right to exist. You will not find the undercover_anarchist’s name on any social contract.

    Only individuals have rights. And this includes individuals who are not white, Christian, male, or heterosexual.

    THE ISSUE IS NOT that the CP “claims to be 100% pro-life but is not.” The issue is that the CP claims to be even 1% pro-liberty, when it is in fact the most authoritarian, statist, police state big government party to ever reach even the pitiful and delapitated state that it finds itself in today, in the history of our country.

  19. Chris Campbell Says:

    ) The Libertarian Party, being the only authentic small government party, is the only party with any credibility to expose the Constitution Party as the anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-Constitution mob that it is.

    Tom Knapp

    Hmm… have you considered looking into mental health treament?

    We are neither anit-American, nor a mob. I want the frredom to spend MY own money, live where I wish to and go about my daily life w/o a Govt regualtion for everything.

    The CP is the only Party today in line with the Founders-who were neither anarchists nor ‘libertarians’-they understood Liberty comes from teh Creator, not some man-made philosophy.

    Best to you on that and your subsequent treaments

  20. Chris Campbell Says:

    Views guaranteed, not spelling

  21. undercover_anarchist Says:

    And only unevolved apes are stupid enough to believe that the “Creator” doesn’t come from a man-made “philosophy” (if you can call it that).

    Hey, we have something in common. I, too, want the frredom to spend MY own money, live where I wish to and go about my daily life w/o a Govt regualtion for everything.

    But unlike you, I don’t feel the need to regulate other people’s rectums or wombs. I don’t feel the need to regulate the media they consume or the substances they choose to ingest. I don’t feel the need to coerce my neighbors to donate the fruits of their labor to support an armed goon squad that prevents (with lethal force, if necessary or pleasurable) brown people from crossing an imaginary line in the sand, beause, god forbid, they want to come here and work….

    ... and if you were in any way for liberty, you wouldn’t either.

  22. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Quoth Chris Campbell:

    “We are neither anit-American, nor a mob. I want the frredom to spend MY own money, live where I wish to and go about my daily life w/o a Govt regualtion for everything.”

    Then you don’t belong in the Constitution Party.

    “The CP is the only Party today in line with the Founders-who were neither anarchists nor ‘libertarians’-they understood Liberty comes from teh Creator, not some man-made philosophy.”

    “The Creator” is described elsewhere in the Declaration of Independence using a very specific label: “Nature’s God.” Look it up some time.

    Saying that the US was founded on the conception of religion that the Constitution Party centers itself on is like saying that the Soviet Union was founded on admiration for Tom Hanks movies—except that Hanks was making movies only 60 years or so after the Russian Revolution, and it was more like 130 years between the US revolution and the birth of the form of Christianity that Constitution Party members seem to think the founders practiced.

    Tom Knapp

  23. ms Says:

    To Chris Campbell

    What exactly is the difference between the CP and America First Party? Is there any real reason why the two parties have not merged when their platforms look almost identical? It seems like a real waste of money to have two third parties that espouse the same message.

  24. KenH Says:

    Chris Campbell stated: “The CP is the only Party today in line with the Founders-who were neither anarchists nor ‘libertarians’”

    The Founders were certainly, by and large, libertarians. I have no doubt that most of them would be active in the Libertarian Party if they were alive today.

  25. Kris Overstreet Says:

    “We are neither anit-American, nor a mob. I want the frredom to spend MY own money, live where I wish to and go about my daily life w/o a Govt regualtion for everything.”

    But you don’t want to extend that same freedom to people who are homosexual, atheist, pagan, Muslim, Jewish, sexually active before marriage, flag-burners, anti-war activists, etc. etc. etc.

  26. Chris Campbell Says:

    Odd, I didn’t know we were stripping Gays of their rights. Marraige is not a matter for civil authority to comment on at all- it is important to them only for taxation-something we would work to end.

    God has decided who is and is not to marry. Not Ceasar. The infant Christian Church did not get a license, nor did they ask permission.

    The Jews have representation in our Party-I met one in Tampa- and will continue to flock to us in the future.

    I did not ask who or who was not sexually active before marriage-that was not brought up. I think that in general, that is a personal matter. I did not discuss my sexual activity within marriage either. We are anti-war, we have made innumerable statements about foreign wars, entaglements, etc-this includes the current unconstitutional, unbiblical “war”. We have no statement about Muslims in the CP.

    We do not ask for religious statements upon joining the CP.

    Finally, doubtful the Founders would support the open borders, do anything at all you want views of the LP. They had strong moral codes. They beleived in securing our borders.

    The “Creator” and “natures God” are the one and the same God of the OT/NT, there is no difference. Study up, Mr. Knapp, the ‘Foudners were Deists” is getting old-obviously a product of public education. Most were active members of established religious faiths.

    Read the Founders own writings, and I have no idea about Tom Hanks, USSR and how this relates to the Founders, as again, they were members of long established faiths.

  27. Carl Milsted Says:

    I think the Founders, even those who were not particularly Christian in their beliefs, were better read on the Bible than many of today’s preachers.

    Forcible imposition of full Christian morality is un-Christian! Look in your New Testament! The proper Christian response to homosexuality, fornication, witchcraft, etc. is shunning, not calling in the might of the state. The use of force to impose such was limited to the Holy Land, under the old covenant.

    That said, I am pro-life. While I favor forgiveness and mercy, it is not merciful to kill the innocent. When the health of the mother is at state, yes. There, harm is a sunk cost.

    The rape/incest issue is a tough one. I think it is politically stupid for a pro-life party as a whole to take a strong stance one way or the other on this issue. Rule one in politics: don’t take strong stances on uncertain positions! This holds double when there are many certain positions to stand on. The LP is stupid to stand firm on legal crack, zero taxes etc. The pro-lifers are stupid to stand firm on making abortion illegal after rape.

    Politics is about coalitions. This means compromise. You cannot have the same high moral standards in a political party that you can have in a church or other moral organization. A church of 3 is a functioning church. A political party of 3 is a joke. Citing Lepanto is utterly inappropriate unless you are going to opt for violent revolution. You have to win a majority in this country to do something.

    The pro-life position is not just about religion. I used to be quite neutral on the subject, wishing it to go away. I changed my mind after reading Frank Herbert’s “Destination Void.” If you can kill an embryo, why can’t you tinker with it? Do you want to live in a world with genetically engineered semi-humans being produced by the likes of Monsanto? Some of us will be still alive when this technology is feasible. We are talking about the survival of humanity qua humanity.

  28. Gary Odom Says:

    I congratulate Mr. Cassidy on this site, generally, for focusing on “3rd Parties,” however I sure hope no Constitution Party leaders are spending more time debating some of these topics with the 15-20 “regulars’ who frequent these forums (many of whom don’t care a bit about the Constitution Party) than they are reaching out to the voters in their own towns, districts and states. I include myself in that admonition. It looks like it is very easy to get sucked into endless debates with a lot of people who no life besides sitting on the sidelines and trying to tweak people who are actually doing something. There are those who offer thoughtful discussion, no doubt. I’m not trying to denigrate the participants of these forums, but let’s all keep our perspective about what is really the important work and and what our priorities should be.

    PLEASE, I hope nobody takes this as a personal criticism, as I said I include myself in this as well!

  29. Kris Overstreet Says:

    The very first sentence of the Constitution Party Platform:

    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.

    In other words, you must be a Christian to join the Constitution Party.

    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.

    If the Constitution Party is truthful and non-hypocritical about applying Biblical law to secular law, it must therefore advocate the abolition of mixed-weave fabrics, the use as food of pork, shellfish, and other unclean creatures, indoor plumbing, adultery, male-male (but not female-female) homosexuality and the cohabitation of males with any female, married, related or not, during her menses. These are all forbidden in the Book of Leviticus.

    All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith.

    Although the rest of the plank backpedals, this is essentially a call for mandatory control of education by Christian religion.

    The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

    Well, no, actually it doesn’t. Hebraic law not only allowed for multiple wives, but under that law wives were property- slaves that could not be sold or traded away. It did not allow for a man to marry a man, or one woman to marry multiple women…

    ... but a multitude of other religions, past and present, allow just that. This rather puts the lie to the Constitutionalist claim that the CP welcomes people of all faiths. Nope- under a CP government, everyone’s Christian, OR ELSE.

    We stand against so-called “sexual orientation” and “hate crime” statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression.

    Translated: “Outlaw gays, then legalize lynching gays.”

    We affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of state sodomy laws in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2.

    Translated: “We want a cop in every bedroom to make sure that nobody, not even married Christian people in the privacy of their own home, does anything sexual that we don’t like.”

    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.

    “We had to destroy the First Amendment in order to save it. Obviously the Founders only intended for free speech to protect speech we like- never mind that several of them, including Benjamin Franklin, wrote and published pornography themselves.”

    As I said, the Constitution Party’s stance is not pro-freedom- it is pro-Fundamentalist Christian Talibanic society, where the mullahs- I mean pastors- force all to worship and obey, or else.

    As for the Founding Fathers’ worship habits? Washington, Jefferson and Monroe were all members of churches because, for most of their lifetimes, VIRGINIA LAW REQUIRED IT. Not until after Washington’s death, if memory serves, did Virginia finally disestablish its state churches and repeal tax support for them. All three were, in their private writings, professed Deists. Benjamin Franklin, likewise, wrote privately that he doubted the divinity of Christ altogether… but he still funded a pew at a Pennsylvania Presbyterian church and attended services occasionally, because as a businessman and politician he had to do so.

    I write this not to persuade you, but to warn off anyone who believes the Constitution Party stands for greater freedom. It stands for a religion-driven nation- plain and simple.

  30. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Amen, Brother Overstreet.

  31. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    And, oh, btw:

    “... the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion …”

    Treaty of Tripoli—approved by President John Adams and ratified by the US Senate on June 10, 1797.

    There were 16 states in the Union at the time, which means 32 Senators. I was only able to track down biographies of 13 of those Senators, but one (William Blount) was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, and another (Elijah Paine) was secretary of Vermont’s convention on ratification. Presumably if either of these two believed that the Constitution had established a “Christian nation,” they would have brought the Treaty of Tripoli into vigorous debate for claiming otherwise.

    Ditto for John Adams, the president who sent the treaty to the Senate and who was one of the drafters of, the chief advocate in Congress for the adoption of, and a signer of, the Declaration of Independence.

  32. NewFederalist Says:

    Geez everybody… get a grip! As I recall the Democrats and Republicans are the real adversary. If you compare the LP and CP platforms side by side you will find more agreement that with the Demorepublicrats. As I have said before, I guess that is why they call them MINOR parties.

  33. Tim West Says:

    http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html

  34. Kris Overstreet Says:

    The issue here is not how much the CP has in common with the LP. The issue is that the CP has one overriding element- an open call to theocracy- which is so abhorrent to me that, should I bolt the LP, I would vote for anything other than any CP candidate.

    Essentially the CP is nothing but the LP with a theocratic Christian fundamentalist bent. Unfortunately, that “but” stinks to high heaven (pardon the term).

  35. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Once again, I am in complete agreement with the comments above.

    And to say that the major parties are the “real adversary” isn’t true. The real adversary is intrusional big government, which the CP represents far more than the two majors. The CP is a right-wing socialist bloq masquarading as a freedom-loving political party.

  36. George Phillies Says:

    Carl writes
    “If you can kill an embryo, why can’t you tinker with it? ... We are talking about the survival of humanity qua humanity.”

    News that we could ‘tinker’ with embroyos to cure genetic diseases, conditions that condemn the new born to a life of pain and suffering or worse, would be a great boon for humanity. We are in no sense talking about the survival of humanity.

  37. Carl Milsted Says:

    Have a look at your STATE constitution. Look at the preamble of other state’s constitutions.

    e.g.

    Objects of government. We the people of Maine, in order to establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for our mutual defense, promote our common welfare, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty, acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring God’s aid and direction in its accomplishment, do agree to form ourselves into a free and independent State, by the style and title of the State of Maine and do ordain and establish the following Constitution for the government of the same.

    We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those blessings to us and our posterity, do, for the more certain security thereof and for the better government of this State, ordain and establish this Constitution.

  38. rj Says:

    “Although the rest of the plank backpedals, this is essentially a call for mandatory control of education by Christian religion.”

    What? As a person that grew up as a lower middle-class white person, I’d like to ask how you expect my parents to pay for it.

  39. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Carl: Two questions; (1) What state; (2) What is the point you’re trying to make? Thanks

  40. Chris Campbell Says:

    Kris Overstreet Says:

    May 5th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
    The issue here is not how much the CP has in common with the LP. The issue is that the CP has one overriding element- an open call to theocracy- which is so abhorrent to me that, should I bolt the LP, I would vote for anything other than any CP candidate.

    Essentially the CP is nothing but the LP with a theocratic Christian fundamentalist bent. Unfortunately, that “but” stinks to high heaven (pardon the term).

    Again, WRONG!

    With all the competing Christian beliefs, how then can we have a Theocracy? Whose Christian view? Catholic? Calvinist?

    Christians are not all the same, nor can there be an agreement on doctrine, let alone how to run a nation of 300 million on that doctrine.

    As Christ IS the Lord over all the nations (Psalm 2), we do in effect have a theocrat-Christ.

  41. Chris Campbell Says:

    rj Says:

    May 8th, 2006 at 7:37 am
    “Although the rest of the plank backpedals, this is essentially a call for mandatory control of education by Christian religion.”

    What? As a person that grew up as a lower middle-class white person, I’d like to ask how you expect my parents to pay for it.

    I attended private Catholic school, and my parents had to pay high taxes to the public school-I do not see that authority in the Constitution- as the school taught Godless, socialistic paganism. One of the teacher training courses “How to deal with Christian Right”

    Christians tax dollars at work. I did avoid condom talks, common fighting in the halls, etc.

    If you want your kids in schools teaching them the joys of sodomy-something we humans only do- go for it. I was taught the anus was only for waste removal

  42. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Only humans do sodomy?

    a) I guess that’s because we are created in “god’s image.” Jesus Christ: Divine Assmaster and Hole-y Redeemer!”

    b) I know that CP types think that sex-ed should be taught in the home, prefer to teach their own children the “joys of sodomy.” Buttsex: Redneck birth control.

    c) Then my childhood dog must have been some sort of human/dog hybrid, maybe blessed by Our Lord and Savior/Sodomy Police Warrior, Jesus H. Christ, Himself, becuase he would try to assblast every male dog that came into my yard.

    d) Also, are you familiar with the bonobo? They practice all forms of sodomy with one another. So, wrong again. I guess your “faith-based education” failed you, my friend.

    And to be clear: I’m all for the abolition of public schools. In a market-based education system, my child would be segregated from innerbred hate mongers like you and your ilk. Furthermore, the self-selection of CP types into one room school houses taught by Christian Mullahs would hasten your inevitable fall into a subhuman class that can mow our lawns, wash our cars, and clean our toilets—thus allowing hardworking immigrants to rise, and eventually, employ you to do their dirty work.

    What’s more, if segregated from the thinking populace, I’m sure your inbreeding would quickly produce genetic abnormalities that would make you more easily distinguishable from normal humans, and eventually might bring about your extinction. Happy days!

  43. undercover_anarchist Says:

    I would like to hear the CP’s response to the president of Iran’s letter to President Bush. I would have to think that that if the CP were to elect a president, there would be no objections to a single utterance made by Ahmadinejad in this letter.

  44. Chris Campbell Says:

    Iran’s Govt is THEIR Govt, not ours. We need to stop putting our nose into others business-that is a good way to get enemies.

    We could care less about Iran or anyone else’s ambition to get Nukes. OUr “friends” the Pakistanians and Chinese have them-yet globalist Bush/RNC and Kerry/DNC could really care less.

    Opening China was a paving for NWO- Rockafellar and others held up this brutal dictatorship as a model.

    Anyone that is a true Christian would mind their own business.

    I did not read the letter, nor do I care-we are going to go to war regardless of what is said or writtne. Iran is the next step to NWO-the NWO cannot tolerate any people of faith.

    We as a nationa-and Europe-are Godless, the only bump inteh road to NWO is Pope and Muslims. They are the only ones fighting abortion, population controllers.

    In USA, LDS, Fundamentalists Churches and Trad Catholics only ones talking about this and trying to do something.

  45. undercover_anarchist Says:

    As I’m sure you understand, I agree with paragraphs 1 & 2.

    You really should read the letter, though. I think Ahmadinejad would be your new hero. He is VERY big on Jesus Christ (PBUH) and statism.

    So let me get this straight: The Muslim states are the “good guys” in the battle vs. the NWO? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but I’m guessing that the World Trade Center could reasonably be taken for a symbol of the NWO, globalization, free trade, etc., right? So if the Muslims—with their book burning, throwing acid in the face of women who wish to read, etc.—are the good guys, does this mean that, as David Duke says, 9/11 was a good thing?

    Furthermore, if Muslim terrorists are the good guys, then why the preoccupation with “border security?” You’re not worried about Muslims coming in, since they are anti-abortionists and opponents of the NWO. Do you really consider tomato picking and toilet scrubbing a national security threat?

  46. Chris Campbell Says:

    He is VERY big on Jesus Christ (PBUH) and statism.

    -I am not statist but Christ is appealed to probably due to fact Bush plays the religious card. Muslism are neither good guys or bad. They are people. Sometimes good, often like 9/11 bad. Though, strong evidence suggestive that hte 9/11 was the Reichstag for Bush.

    Question-how do YOU know who comes over border, why and for what purpose? You don’t, nor do I, nor does GW. That is the issue.

    Here are a few encyclicals against socialism.

    http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0214/__P4.HTM

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_28121878_quod-apostolici-muneris_en.html

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

    Again, best to you and your man made world view.

  47. undercover_anarchist Says:

    I can see that others, including yourself, are tiring of our back and forth, so I will gladly end what has become an unproductive exercise. As outlined in the Gilchrist thread, I do think that drawing people from both sides have made it clear—at least to this limited audience—that there is no point of reconciliation between the Libertarian and “conservative” worldviews. I would sooner join the American Communist Party than be in any way affiliated with the white nationalist hate group masquerading as a political party known as the CP, and I think that I’m not alone.

    Mr. Campbell has refused to address the fact that human beings are not the only species to engage in sodomy (and by that, I take it he means anal intercourse, though accordingly, that is an incorrect and narrow definition). He and the other CPers have also declined to admit that even they would approve of abortion in the most extreme and limited circumstances. Their words have demonstrated their desires to install an American Caliphate through repeated citations of Biblical texts as justification for antilibertarian political aims. THEY HAVE COMPLETELY REFUSED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT THEIR PARTY HAS TIES WITH WHITE SELF-AVOWED WHITE SUPREMECIST ORGANIZATIONS AND HAS IN FACT NOMINATED WHITE SUPREMECIST CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT EVERY YEAR UNTIL 1992.

    I’m not suprised. Anyone who is so willfully blind and intellectually dishonest as to believe in a boogieman in the sky and that the founders of the nation (slave rapists as they may be) were Christian, is likely to have contempt for facts.

  48. Gary Odom Says:

    I vowed not to respond to any of UA’s ramblings, but when this person attempts to make statements of “fact” about the Constitution Party that are, in fact totally erroneous, I feel compelled to state the facts.

    First of all, we are talking about the Constitution Party which was founded in 1992. Of all of the state affilitates that have been a part of the Constitution Party since that time only two, California’s American Independent Party, and Nevada’s Independent American Party were affiliated with any previous national committees that nominated Presidential tickets. It is patently unreasonable to foist responsibility for blame or credit on the national Constitution ( or U.S. Taxpayers Party, as it was oarignially known) Party for any Presidential candidates prior to its inception. Since the very first Presidential candidate of the Constitution Party was nominated in 1992, I think we can have complete agreement, based on UA’s above statement, that the Constitution Party has NEVER nominated a White Supremist candidate for President.

    The Constitution Party has welcomed participation by all racial groups. Our current chairman in the State of Georgia is a black man. I prefer to just think of him as a man, but if you insist of pressing the issue, I will state that fact for that purpose alone. We have had black people in leadership positions in Missouri and Texas, that I know of. There was a mixed race couple from Utah who were delegates to our National Convention in 2004. This fact would normally not even deserve note or comment except as in response to UA’s ridiculous assertion that we are a white supremecist organization. In California, one of our current statewide candidates is black.

    I don’t know how many black Americans participate in the Constitution Party. Not enough, probably, but from, my view that same statement can apply to all races. We are building a party in which all Americans of all racial, ethnic and religious groups can feel welcome and we certainly hope more will join us!

    I would suspect, UA, that we in American Independent Party in California, which goes back to 1968, have more experience fighting racists and bigots than you do . Because the media perception of the party in the early days, as a result of the Wallace candidacy, as well as provacaturs, like yourself, we did from time to time, find ourselves “vistited” by Klansmen, white supremecsists, and anti-semetic nutjobs such as Tom Metzger, David Duke and others. Each and every time we “showed them door,” sometimes rather undiplomatically letting them know that their sick venom was not welcome in our party. Eventually they apparently got the message because we have not been plagued by them for a long time.

    Interestingly, UA, there is much in the tone of your statements that reminds me of them. They, too, liked to obfuscate the the truth and speak from ignorance, in bellicose ways that dripped with hate and vitrol. They were also often victims of a totally misplaced sense of the validity of their views and of their own self importance.

Leave a Reply