Constitution Party Platform - Excerpts For Liberty-Lovers


In the wake of Bob Barr not attending last week’s multi-third-party press conference sponsored by Ron Paul, some fans of Paul’s Campaign For Liberty are reportedly considering voting for the Constitution Party nominee instead of the Libertarian nominee.  The LP Platform is a lean and clean statement of Libertarian principles (which Barr has publicly embraced), but many Ron Paul fans may not have read the lengthy CP Platform in its entirety.  Below are the parts they might want to check before casting a vote for the CP in November.

  • This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. [...] The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations [...] The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law [...] All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith. [...] We would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government. We commend Former Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court for his defense of the display of the Ten Commandments
  • The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. [...]. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. [...] We oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions [...] We oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples. [...] 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.
  • The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God’s image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born.
  • We reject the policies and practices that permit women to train for or participate in combat.
  • We also oppose all government “legalization” of suicide
  • The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.
  • 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. [...] Our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.
  • In no event will the U.S. tariff on any foreign import be less than the difference between the foreign item’s cost of production and the cost of production of a similar item produced in these United States.
  • It is necessary that these United States prohibit fractional reserve banking.
  • We favor a moratorium on immigration to these United States, except in extreme hardship cases or in other individual special circumstances, until the availability of all federal subsidies and assistance be discontinued
  • We propose that the government of these United States restore and protect its sovereign right and exclusive jurisdiction of the Canal Zone in perpetuity, and renegotiate the treaties with Panama by which the ownership of the canal was surrendered to Panama. [...] Congress and the President should take advantage of Panama Canal treaty provisions to negotiate the return of a U.S. military presence at the Isthmus of Panama.
  • We support the principle of the Monroe Doctrine, which expresses U.S. opposition to European adventurism in the Western Hemisphere.

51 Responses to “Constitution Party Platform - Excerpts For Liberty-Lovers”

  1. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    It doesn’t matter what the Constitution Party says. All that matters is how many Republican votes they will steal to contribute to the glorious victory of his Holiness the Great Imam Revolutionary General Barack H. Obama and Imperial Deacon Comrade Joseph Biden. Amen.

  2. Tharms Says:

    This is some scary stuff, but “It is necessary that these United States prohibit fractional reserve banking” almost makes it tempting. Is this in the LP platform?

  3. Justin Anthony Knapp Says:

    Don’t forget:

    RETURN THE PANAMA CANAL FROM CHINA TO US.

    http://www.theamericanparty.org/index.php/elect-templin-and-patterson-in-2008

    What’s up with all this Panama Canal Zone nonsense? Does this have something to do with McCain being born there?

    -JAK

  4. Bryan Says:

    Protecting it, or regaining complete control of it (panama canal) has been on the American Party platform for 20+ years.

  5. Clark Says:

    ...i get a hoot out of con. party folks who claim some ‘love of (individual) liberty’ when the first thing many of these disgruntled republicrats would do is add a bunch of ‘abortion’ officers, etc. ad nauseam, to state payroll$!..

    ...let’s face it, what we have here are a relatively small bunch of republicans pissed-off about the status-quo regarding ‘abortion!’..

    ...for whatever reason, they do appear more knowledgeable (although ultimately fatally flawed) than other politicos regarding ‘the money thing$!’..

    ...btw, where’s lowell?...i want lowell!! ;o)

  6. spinnikerca Says:

    So do we want a better platform but a bad candidate (which many of us can get by staying in the GOP?) or a worse platform with a better candidate (and Baldwin, unlike the LP candidate, does seem sincere.) I won’t go with the LP candidate this year because his record including sudden election year changes of heart are exactly what I find disgusting in the GOP. I was going to vote for him only because Ron Paul said so many nice things about him, and, yes, because of the CP platform. Now that won’t happen, so the question is CP or Boston Tea Party, or write in.

  7. Clark Says:

    ...and here’s a little something i came across while looking for a ?meet the press transcript of harry browne humbling the big government cheerleader, and CP hero, howard phillips.. (RED, is this your kin?)

    ...he may be a nice guy but his head, and apparently many other cp’ers heads, is stuffed with much ‘christain’ ooooooooooooga booooooooooooooooga!...:

    http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9805/phillips.html

    Howard Phillips’ speech at CNP

    “...It has been my privilege to be part of the Council for National Policy since Tim LaHaye conceived it and invited me and a handful of others to join in advancing his vision some years ago.

    There is really only one sound, overriding purpose for political participation, and that is to fulfill our Biblically mandated office to be elders in the gates, even as we are mindful that civil government represents only one area of governance with God’s Kingdom…

    ...Just as no one of us would surrender the law system which governs his family, neither should we, as a nation, surrender the Christian legal heritage which undergirds our civic order.

    Neither our own rationalizations, nor even unanimous decisions of the US Supreme Court can make legal what God has declared to be illegal. Homosexuality is an abomination proscribed by the laws of God. No human law should put us at odds with God’s instruction. Similarly, the intentional killing of an innocent human being is always illegal to God, whatever may be the opinion of appointed judges or elected politicians — always illegal.

    Each of the states at the time of our founding had explicitly Christian legal systems — rooted in the British common law and traceable to Holy Scriptures. Neither Congress nor any other component of the federal government had any right to interfere with those Christian law systems.

    Today, America is in trouble because we have departed from the original premise, the original design, the original contract. It does not have to be this way. We can return to Godly, Biblically based constitutional government.

    ...Instead of waging rear-guard actions against special legal protections and privileges for practitioners of buggery, we can terminate billions of dollars in federal subsidies which are given to militant homosexuals that they may propagandize for and implement their agenda for evangelization and recruitment in the name of AIDS education.

    Instead of merely opposing those abortions which are three inches short of infanticide, we can eliminate ALL legal abortion in the United States by appointing US Attorneys mandated to enforce the constitutional requirement that “no person may be deprived of life except by due process of law,” including even those persons who have just recently been conceived in the wombs of their mothers…

    ..My friends, it is time to leave the “political Titanic” on which the conservative movement has for too long booked passage. Instead, it is our task to build an ark so that we can and will be ready to renew and restore our nation and our culture when God brings the tide to flood.

    Let us act now to prepare and plan for the renewal of America’s role as the leading force for Godly leadership in the restoration of western Christian civilization.
    ...Ladies and gentlemen, I urge you to join with me in rejecting the politics of retreat, defeat, sellout, and surrender — as we raise once again the banner of truth, demanding justice, expecting victory, and marching forward as members of Gideon’s Army, faithful to our duty, knowing that God’s will shall be done on earth as it is in heaven.

    The United States Taxpayers Party is an ark in progress. It was made for you. In its behalf, I invite you to come aboard.”

    (YIKES!!)

  8. Chuck Moulton Says:

    Yeh, the tariff plank is pretty ridiculous. That plank would single-handedly destroy the economy.

    Let’s look at history:
    1. The Embargo Act of 1807 killed the economy. Exports plummeted from $108 million to $22 million. Thomas Jefferson was so embarrassed by the Act that he did not list “President of the United States” on his gravestone.
    2. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was one of the major factors deepening and prolonging the Great Depression. Imports and exports dropped by half as other countries retaliated to America’s tariffs.

    I could go on, but suffice it to say any politician who advocates such policies is so ignorant of economics that letting them anywhere near decision making positions would be a disaster.

    I’m a single issue voter and not plunging us into the next Great Depression is my single issue.

  9. Red Phillips Says:

    The obsessive hatred of some for Christianity never ceases to amaze me. It shouldn’t amaze me though as God said “you are either for Me or against Me.” The anti-God libertarians can’t acknowledge a Creator because if they do then they will have to acknowledge some inherent authority beyond man’s will, and we can’t have that. Harry Browne was a Christian, BTW.

    No I am not related to Howard Phillips. I asked him about his last name once, and he said his Father or Grandfather (I can’t remember which) had his name changed at Ellis Island to Phillips.

  10. Tom Bryant Says:

    Prohibit fractional reserve banking? What are these clowns thinking…geez.

    There’s nothing wrong with fractional reserve banking. There is something wrong with government imposing the 10% reserve – the free market should be opened up and allow banks to clearly state what their reserve is. If you want to put your savings in a 100% reserve bank that earns no interest whatsoever, and charges you a storage fee, you should be free to do so. But there’s no reason to force other business models to close down because some do not want to exchange risk for rate of return.

  11. nader PAUL mckinney Says:

    Beware Neocon Bob Barr.

  12. Winston Smith Says:

    Red,

    You are about as far off as you could possibly be. Its not a hatred for Christianity. Everyone else seems to recognize the importance of not establishing a state religion or mixing the two but the CP does not.

  13. Sam Marsh Says:

    The CP platform was enough to scare me away from them a few years ago, especially with Howard Phillips as the candidate. Chuck Baldwin himself has a softer take on this from what I can see. Practically everything he says sounds like Ron Paul to a great degree. I can still feel OK voting for Baldwin considering my options. Barr is right out.

  14. Justin Grover Says:

    Well said, Chuck.

  15. Robert J Says:

    Libertarian position on the Federal reserve: Hard to find since they removed most of their positions from the national platform in order to give candidates room for their own positions without contridicting the party.

    We favor free-market banking. We call for the abolition of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Banking System, and all similar interventions. Our opposition encompasses all controls on interest. We call for the abolition of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, the Resolution Trust Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, the National Credit Union Central Liquidity Facility, and all similar interventions.

    Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party Jul 2, 2000

  16. Red Phillips Says:

    Winston, Clark clearly has an obsessive hatred of Christianity. He can’t post anything about the CP that doesn’t reveal that.

    I know very few people who support establishing a “state religion” to the extent that I know what you mean by that. But it is complete foolishness to believe that one can keep from “mixing the two.” All views of the state arise from presuppositions that are fundamentally religious. (The rejection or subjugation of religion included.)

  17. Red Phillips Says:

    Here are some points I made on another blog.

    #7 is problematically phrased. To praise the First Amendment and then because of that oppose pornography is confusing. The issue is that the Founders never intended the First Amendment to apply to pornography. There is a very early court case involving nude art that makes this point as does common sense and any historical sense whatsoever. And the First Amendment was not intended to apply to States. States and localities should be free to regulate pornography. That should be the point of the plank.

    #8 is a mess even if you are not a free trader and support some form of protectionism. Such a thing would be IMPOSSIBLE to calculate and administer for every product. To avoid conflict on this very contentious issue I think endorsing a revenue tariff and abolishing the income tax is the best way to go.

    #11 is in there because the Panama Canal was one of Howard Phillips’ pet issues in the 80’s, and it was a hot button issue that really fired up the base. At this point I see no point in addressing it. An argument could be made that the Panama Canal Zone is the most bought and paid for piece of land in history, but a case could also be made that it was sold under duress. Either way, it is no longer a live issue.

    #12 is anachronistic. There is no need to restate support of the Monroe Doctrine. No European powers are meddling here, and I don’t see that as an issue in the near future. I’m not sure I would welcome any meddling but an entire hemisphere seems like a large area to carve out as your sphere of influence.

    Again, I wouldn’t welcome China invading Cuba, but #11 and #12 do seem to undermine somewhat the party’s claim to non-interventionsim. I recall a few Keyes supporters pointing this out.

    I was on the platform committee, and it was some very ugly sausage making. The basic platform remained unchanged unless someone proposed a change. I recognized a few of these problems, but you have to pick your battles. What we ended up with (long story) is, IMO, a cumbersome mess. There is a group working on streamlining the platform and the streamlined version may be the base we start with in 2012.

    For the record, I do not have a problem in general with #1. There is a debate between honest paleos over to what extent the “founding” was inherently liberal and hence not particularisticly Christian. But the true paleo bemoans and doesn’t celebrate any inherent liberalism. I do think the language of #1 may reflect an overly optimistic view of this debate.

  18. Jim S Says:

    Look I’m glad the CP exists, those issues they raise need to be raised from the aspect of what they feel is a lack of freedom. It’s not my flavor of freedom exactly but who am I to tell the CP that those views do not need to be raised. I’m all for the LP and would love to see them have some success. But lets face it the LP is a long long way away from dong any real damage to the 2 party system. What they need to do is re-focus on basics.

    1) Get some judges, a huge increase in local offices and small government posts.
    2) Get some LP members of congress.
    3) Recruit Republicans like there is no tomorrow, make them wish they had never been a republican in the first place.
    4) Then go after a senate seat with everything they have put all the eggs in one basket dump all the funds the LP has into wining that seat.
    5) Then after being successful in all of that – run for POTUS.

    Of course (in the meantime) campaign, lobby, and support outside the LP “friendly to the cause” republicans as much as possible. The CP on the other hand can have the social cons for all I care. The wheels turn in our system they just turn insanely slow.

  19. Rich Paul Says:

    I’ll be voting Barr. This election is about party building, not about the candidate. Hopefully, in 2012, we’ll have to worry about how our candidate would govern. That’s a problem I really want to have. But for now, I’ll be happy to get easier ballot access and more attention, and hopefully a ‘campaign for liberty’ style influx of Ron Paul people to help us nominate a better candidate for 2012.

  20. Charlie's Angel Says:

    Many people confuse the CP with the Religious Right. I see the same thing with the LP and atheists. Some can’t get past a candidate who is vocally Christian because they believe that ALL Christians would use the force of government to impose their beliefs on others. This is wrong. The Constitution Party stands squarly where our founding fathers were in recognizing the purpose of the federal government and the importance of their limitations as defines by the U.S. Constitution.

    Sadly, MOST people in the liberty movement are ignorant of the principles in our Constitution and where those principles came from. Accordingly, they are left with 20th century propaganda with which they operate. Like the separation of chuch and state. Because of this many don’t think Christians should hold public office. But if they were to study the original intent of the Founders through their writings they would find that the First Amendement limits the government, not the people.

    True Christians (not the Religious Right sell out brand) hold the Constitution in the highests respect and recognize the importance of the limitations and enumerated powers.

    The movement endorses too many different “types” of liberty and the folly is that only one form—liberty in law—is truly liberty. The law of our land is the Constitution and it says to leave issue of family and abortion to the states. The only way to overturn Roe v. Wade is for Congress to define life which rips the 14th Amendment, which Roe relies on right out from under them, AND to remove these issues from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court so the states can determine if murder of the preborn is a crime. Most states will.

    The movement will stagnate until people understand our heritage and the Constitution. Sadly, not many libertarians will embrace the Constitution when they can get elected on vague ideas of small government, civil liberties and lower taxes. These “ideas” eventually lead right back to tyranny. We must embrace the rule of law—not the rule of fallible, corruptible man.

  21. Charlie's Angel Says:

    I don’t see anywhere in the LP platform an endorsement of or allegiance to the Constitution. That is dangerous.

  22. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” Yeh, the tariff plank is pretty ridiculous. That plank would single-handedly destroy the economy.”

    Response : Thi ststaement is totally erroneous. Our nation grew to be the greatest economic power in the world by the use of tariffs to protect our domestic industry from economic warfare. ” Free trade ” is simply the use of economic warfare to annihilate the domestic industry of the target nation. In our current time that is us.

  23. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” Its not a hatred for Christianity. Everyone else seems to recognize the importance of not establishing a state religion or mixing the two but the CP does not.”

    Response : There is no such thing or possibility as a state without a religion. This is because there is no such thing as a human being without a religion and that includes atheists and agnostics. The CP has never advocated a ” state religion ” but simply a return to the Christian principles of government upon which our nation is founded. The current rodents who bray about ” separtion of church and state ” simply want to replace Christianity with their own religion of secular humanism.

  24. Red Phillips Says:

    I second Don’s second post emphatically.

    Whether free trade is bad or good for the country is one debate. Attempting to equalize production cost using the tariff, which is what the plank suggests, is simply unworkable. How would you even begin to calculate that? Duncan Hunter’s “mirror trade” where the tariff on imports from a country simply match what they charge us on exports might be workable. Whether it is wise is, again, another debate. I don’t think that plank was particularly thought out.

  25. Chuck Moulton Says:

    Response : Thi ststaement is totally erroneous. Our nation grew to be the greatest economic power in the world by the use of tariffs to protect our domestic industry from economic warfare. ” Free trade ” is simply the use of economic warfare to annihilate the domestic industry of the target nation. In our current time that is us.

    Ridiculous. Go take an economics course. Or a history course for that matter.

    The consumer gain from free trade more than offsets the producer loss from free trade in the industries hurt. Voluntary trade allows specialization in areas of comparative advantage.

    Imagine if Alaska put up a protective tariff to protect its domestic orange tree industry. You can grow oranges in Alaska… it just is a lot more expensive than in Florida. If Alaska protected its domestic growers of oranges that would be good for producers. But it would be horrible for consumers. The harm to consumers far outweighs the benefits to producers because there is a huge deadweight loss from failing to take advantage of specialization where production is more efficient.

    The Constitution Party’s tariff plank is taking that sort of horrible economic policy and applying it to the whole country. Instead of specializing in areas of comparative advantage and benefiting from trade, America would become an autarky with far less wealth and income for all Americans. The standard of living would drop precipitously.

    Rather than continue a long argument with you on this subject, I’ll just quote Murray Rothbard and be done with it:

    It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a dismal science. But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

  26. Cody Quirk Says:

    Yeh, the tariff plank is pretty ridiculous. That plank would single-handedly destroy the economy.

    = Isn’t it funny how our economy and our jobs are going down the crapper, AND yet we don’t have any strict tariffs in place!

    A Libertarian President would have no qualms about letting your job be outsourced to India.

  27. William Says:

    I’m for God, and for Jesus, and a Christian. What I am NOT for, is attempting to make those who are NOT for Jesus into hypocrites by denying them the freedom to choose whether or how they will worship. Establishing laws based on a party’s view of the Bible is scary to me. I think all of us would agree that laws found in the Bible, such as “thou shalt not murder” and “thou shalt not steal” are for the good of society. But some of how you interpret the Bible (if you are a Believer in it) depends on what your world view is.

    Even though gambling isn’t important to me personally, I can’t really see how a party such as the CP which has, as a plank in its platform, a mention of the destructiveness of gambling, can seem to deceive so many into thinking it’s a party that values Liberty.

    Am I pro life? Personally, yes. Do I gamble? Personally, no. But these are not matters that are the Federal Government’s responsibility, and to a party that calls itself the “Constitution” party, I would think that would be obvious. Unfortunately, it is not.

  28. William Says:

    “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. [...] Our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.”

    Uhh, let me get this straight…we are to uphold our cherished right to free speech by censorship? ??? If you find something offensive, don’t listen to it. If you don’t like what you’re watching or listening to, change the channel or station, simple as that. When my wife and I have children, WE will, with the Lord’s help, guide them in what we believe is right. That’s NOT the government’s job, and besides…who gets to decide what “decent” is? Who gets to decide what crosses the line? It doesn’t matter what you do or say, it’s gonna offend somebody. It’s time to stop being a nation of wusses and grow a spine. If you don’t like something, it’s your right to stand up and say so. But censorship is NOT conducive to freedom.

    I’m sorry, but the more I see the CP platform up close, the more scary it seems.

  29. nader PAUL mckinney Says:

    The American Ruse &
    when Black Friday comes.

    Honesty or lies?
    Compassion or greed?
    Intelligence or narrow-minded?
    Guts – or go along to get along?

    Ralph Nader
    Cynthia McKinney

    Ron Paul
    Mike Gravel
    Dennis Kucinich

    Jesse Ventura
    H. Ross Perot
    President Carter
    JFK RFK MLK Malcolm

  30. Clark Says:

    RED SPECULATES: ‘Winston, Clark clearly has an obsessive hatred of Christianity. He can’t post anything about the CP that doesn’t reveal that.’ (END)

    ...’obsessive hatred of christianity,’ my ass! ...more like, ‘disgust, lack of respect, etc., for most republicrat POLITICIANS calling themselves ‘christian’...

    ..i believe most/all people, calling themselves ‘christian’ today understand, act, teach, etc., in ways most decidedly UN’christian’...to the extent i can ‘know’ what real ‘christianity’ was/is..

    ..but i don’t ‘hate christianity’ any more than i hate halloween..(btw, i plan on wearing my scary ronald reagan mask again this year..booga booga..)

    TOM BRYANT WRITES: “Prohibit fractional reserve banking? What are these clowns thinking…geez.

    There’s nothing wrong with fractional reserve banking…” (END)

    good point…what i find abominable is not the loaning out of ‘money’ deposited, but of banksters having the fraudulent ‘privilege’ of loaning out, using, etc., more than what was deposited..

    ...the fraudulent privilege of money issuance/creation being in the hands of ‘bank corporations’..shrouded in secrecy, confusion, etc.. rather than honest transparency..etc….

    HERE IS A GOOD READ FOR MONETARY REALISM ENTHUSIASTS:

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hickory.html?q=hickory.html

    “..Against Corporations of every kind, the objection may be brought that whatever power is given to them is so much taken from either the government or the people. As the object of charters is to give to members of companies powers which they would not possess in their individual capacity, the very existence of monied corporations is incompatible with equality of rights.

    Corporations are unfavorable to the progress of national wealth. As the Argus eyes of private interest do not watch over their concerns, their affairs are much more carelessly and much more expensively conducted than those of individuals. What would be the condition of the merchant who should trust everything to his clerks, or of the farmer who should trust everything to his laborers? Corporations are obliged to trust everything to stipendiaries, who are oftentimes less trustworthy than the clerks of the merchant or the laborers of the farmer.

    Such are the inherent defects of corporations that they never can succeed, except when the laws or circumstances give them a monopoly or advantages partaking of the nature of a monopoly. Sometimes they are protected by direct inhibitions to individuals to engage in the same business. Sometimes they are protected by an exemption from liabilities to which individuals are subjected. Sometimes the extent of their capital or of their credit gives them a control of the market. They cannot, even then, work as cheap as the individual trader, but they can afford to throw away enough money in the contest to ruin the individual trader, and then they have the market to themselves.

    If a poor man suffers aggression from a rich man, the disproportion of power is such that it may be difficult for him to obtain redress; but if a man is aggrieved by a corporation, he may have all its stockholders, all its clerks, and all its protégés for parties against him. Corporations are so powerful as frequently to bid defiance to government.

    If a man is unjust or an extortioner, society is, sooner or later, relieved from the burden by his death. But corporations never die. What is worst of all (if worse than what has already been stated be possible) is that want of moral feeling and responsibility which characterizes corporations. A celebrated English writer expressed the truth, with some roughness, but with great force, when he declared that “corporations have neither bodies to be kicked , nor souls to be damned.”

    All these objections apply to our American banks. They are protected, in most of the states, by directed inhibitions on individuals engaging in the same business. They are exempted from liabilities to which individuals are subjected. If a poor man cannot pay his debts, his bed is, in some of the states, taken from under him. If that will not satisfy his creditors, his body is imprisoned. The shareholders in a bank are entitled to all the gain they can make by banking operations; but if the undertaking chances to be unsuccessful, the loss falls on those who have trusted them. They are responsible only for the amount of stock they may have subscribed….........

    ***************....If the superior credit the banks enjoy grew out of the natural order of things, it would not be a subject of complaint. But the banks owe their credit to their charters – to special acts of legislation in their favor, and to their notes being made receivable in payment of dues to government. The kind of credit which is created for them by law, being equalpollent with cash in the market, enables them to transfer an equal amount of substantial wealth from the productive classes to themselves, giving the productive classes only representatives of credit or evidences of debt in return for the substantial wealth which they part with. . .

  31. Red Phillips Says:

    “I’m for God, and for Jesus, and a Christian … But some of how you interpret the Bible (if you are a Believer in it) depends on what your world view is.”

    Exactly William. Most modern Christians read modernism into the Bible when it is not there. As a Christian, I hope you would agree that your world view should be informed by the Bible, not the other way around. So prey tell, where is freedom of religion in the Bible? Much in the Bible suggests otherwise. I’m not necessarily advocating a certain political position with that question, just hoping to get you to think. What is more important to you, your Christianity or your obviously modern worldview? Let the Bible guide you. Not the vain philosophies of man.

  32. Red Phillips Says:

    “Uhh, let me get this straight…we are to uphold our cherished right to free speech by censorship? ??? If you find something offensive, don’t listen to it. If you don’t like what you’re watching or listening to, change the channel or station, simple as that. When my wife and I have children, WE will, with the Lord’s help, guide them in what we believe is right. That’s NOT the government’s job, and besides…who gets to decide what “decent” is? Who gets to decide what crosses the line?”

    Do me a favor William. Please back the above statements up with Scripture. Where does the Bible say what is and is not the government’s job? Where does the Bible suggest a libertarian live and let live social ethic regarding moral choices? Perhaps you should start your search in Jeremiah.

    I anxiously await your reply.

    BTW, as I stated above, the wording of the pornography plank is confusing to say the least.

  33. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” The consumer gain from free trade more than offsets the producer loss from free trade in the industries hurt. Voluntary trade allows specialization in areas of comparative advantage.”

    Response : By free trade ” consumers ” can gain fantastic ” advantage ” when all jobs are shipped to Outer Outer Outer Mongolia where the workers are piad 1 cent per day wages. You can consider it a area of ” comparative advantage ” which consumers can celebrate while they all, at best, become hamburger flippers once our jobs leave the country due to ” comparative advantage.” The Plantation Masters ( P.M.s ) of the world can simply eliminate and manipulate the currency exchange rates and destroy any nation ( like us ) that doesn’t have the testicular kahones to protect its citizens from economic warfare. It is easy enough to exist in a ivory tower that claims the wonderful advantages of free trade. In the real world things are different and entire nations, not to mention their citizens, can and will be destroyed by listening to academics who are more interested in their P.H.D’s, tenure, and ego protection than the real economic health of the nation. It is easy enough for the P.M.s to simply slander and eliminate all competitive thought regarding economics. The resulting ” educated ” drones will simply regurgitate what they have been ” taught ” and ” learned ” with no connection to reality and no realization of it since all other possibilities have been sterilized from their ” education.”

  34. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” Imagine if Alaska put up a protective tariff to protect its domestic orange tree industry. You can grow oranges in Alaska… it just is a lot more expensive than in Florida. If Alaska protected its domestic growers of oranges that would be good for producers. But it would be horrible for consumers. The harm to consumers far outweighs the benefits to producers because there is a huge deadweight loss from failing to take advantage of specialization where production is more efficient.

    The Constitution Party’s tariff plank is taking that sort of horrible economic policy and applying it to the whole country. Instead of specializing in areas of comparative advantage and benefiting from trade, America would become an autarky with far less wealth and income for all Americans. The standard of living would drop precipitously.”

    Response : The standard of living of Americans grew to be the greatest in the world when we had tariffs to protect our domestic industry. England lost the War for Independence but never gave up on their attempts to defeat our nation including the decimation of our industrial growth by introducing the philosophical cancer of ” free trade ” into our trade and monetary policies. The Alaska example above is erroneous as with the issue of free trade we are speaking of our NATIONAL economic defense versus those forces in the world which can, and will when given the opportunity, defeat our nation at least equivalently if not more completely than a military battle could achieve simply through the power of their economic superiority. Example – If we no longer make shoes in our nation we can claim that the consumer has saved a zillion dollars from the ” benefit ” of getting their shoes from Outer Mongolia. What happens if and when we are in a military conflict with Outer Mongolia or forces which control that nation? Answer – we will not even have the capacity to produce our own shoes much less the countless other necessities for our defense. We will be defeated and quite easily. To tout the presumed and always exaggerated ” benefits ” for the consumer of shipping our jobs overseas while simultaneously ignoring the beyond crucial factor of currency manipulation in producing such so-called ” benefits ” is charitibly ignorant at best, foolish, and downright stupid in more realistic understandings of the arguments involved. Bottom line – tariffs and their proper usage produced the greatest industrial nation and power in the world; a economic power that was produced with NO income tax and which had governmental funding surpluses every year of their usage. The corporate takeover of our government and educational institutions has produced a dumbed down populace that accepts completely the only idea that is every allowed for their consideration by their educational, cultural, and social masters – Remember, children that tariffs are BAD and free trade is GOOD. Always. And like everything else don’t ask any questions about what you are told just obey and like it. And while you are at it pay your unconstitutional and illegal income tax and don’t ask any questions about that either. Fortunately the CP is the one political party, and unfortunately the only, which is working to restore our national industrial base, a sound currency, and to break the corporate control of the people and their government via the reintroduction of tariffs to protect our domestic industry, the abolition of the FED, the establishment of interest free United States Notes, and the subsequent and associated end of the IRS and the fraud of the income tax.

  35. Christopher Barnes Says:

    Gentlemen, a state religions- OK, that means the Taliban, The Spanish Inquisitions, the Salem Witch Trials, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the most repressive existence.

    This just what our founding fathers were trying to avoid.
    Anyone suggesting such a thing should be SHOT for treason.

    If you want a theocracy leave my country alone and move to Iran.

    When you vote, write in RON PAUL.

  36. David D.... Says:

    This is a democracy not a theocracy and this is just one political party platform (opinion) its not eitched in stone that says we have to do this or do that because the ‘powers that be’ at the CP and there party platform says so, no indeed.

    But if anything this is a clarion call to return, fully and completely, to the original intent of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and The Declaration of Independence. No one says nor are we being made to vote for this party or its candidates we are all free to vote for who ever we want, but they have allot of good things to say and they understand the laws of our land. Serious consideration should be given to this and the countless other third parties that are running for office this fall.

    Political party platforms and “planks” come and go, but the laws of the land are forever and the CP is merely doing its part and partial to return us back to a democracy not a dictatorship, not a theocracy! “I am running to be (the next) Commander and Chief not Pastor and Chief!”—Chuck Baldwin, interview with Global Pundit in mid July 2008

  37. Clark Says:

    again, i don’t ‘hate christianity’...i do find much of it very silly, stoooooooooooooopid, etc…and many of its ‘practitioners’ in ‘politcs’ VERY destructive idiots!

    ...i’ve never heard any christian mythologist honestly challenge or even honestly address paine’s ideas about ‘religion’..

    http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Outline_of_Great_Books_Volume_I/thomaspai_bjh.html

    IF we permit ourselves to conceive right ideas of things, we must necessarily affix the idea, not only of unchangeableness, but of the utter impossibility of any change taking place, by any means of accident whatever, in that which we would honour with the name of the word of God; and therefore the word of God cannot exist in any written or human language.

    The continually progressive change to which the meaning of words is subject, the want of a universal language, which renders translation necessary, the errors to which translations are again subject, the mistakes of copyists and printers, together with the possibility of wilful alteration, are of themselves evidences that human language, whether in speech or in print, cannot be the vehicle of the word of God. The word of God exists in something else.

    It has been the practice of all Christian commentators on the Bible, and of all Christian priests and preachers, to impose the Bible on the world as a mass of truth, and as the word of God; they have disputed and wrangled, and have anathematised each other about the supposable meaning of particular parts and passages therein; one has said and insisted that such a passage meant such a thing; another, that it meant directly the contrary; and a third, that it meant neither the one nor the other, but something different from both; and this they have called understanding the Bible.

    I, therefore, pass on to an examination of the Books called the Old and the New Testament. The case historically appears to be as follows.

    WHEN the Church mythologists established their system, they collected all the writings they could find and managed them as they pleased. It is a matter altogether of uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as now appear under the name of the Old and the New Testament are in the same state in which these collectors say they found them; or whether they added, altered, abridged, or dressed them up.

    Be this as it may, they decided by vote which of the books out of the collection they had made should be the word of God, and which should not. They rejected several; they voted others to be doubtful, such as the books called the Apocrypha; and those books which had a majority of votes they voted to be the word of God. Had they voted otherwise, all the people since, calling themselves Christians, had believed otherwise; for the belief of the one comes from the vote of the other. Who the people were that did all this we know nothing of; save that they called themselves by the general name of the Church.

    There are matters in the Bible, said to be done by the express command of God, that are as shocking to humanity and to every idea we have of moral justice as anything done by Robespierre, by Carrier, by Joseph le Bon, in France; by the English government in the East Indies; or by any other assassin in modern times. Are we sure that the Creator of man commissioned these things to be done ? Are we sure that the books that tell us so were written by His authority ? To read the Bible without horror we must undo everything that is tender, sympathising and benevolent in the heart of man. Speaking for myself, if I had no other evidence that the Bible is fabulous than the sacrifice I must make to believe it to be true, that alone would be sufficient to determine my choice.

    BUT it can be shown by internal evidence that the Bible is not entitled to credit as the word of God. It can readily be proved that the first five books of the Bible, attributed to Moses, were not written by him nor in his time, but several hundred years afterwards. Moses could not have described his own death, nor mentioned that he was buried in a valley in the land of Moab. Similarly, the book of Joshua was not written by Joshua; it is manifest that Joshua could not write that Israel served the Lord not only in his days, but in the days of the elders that over-lived him. The book of Judges is anonymous on the face of it. The books of Samuel were not written by Samuel, for they relate many things that did not happen till after his death.

    The history in the two books of Kings, which is little more than a history of assassinations, treachery and war, sometimes contradicts itself; and several of the most extraordinary matters related in Kings are not mentioned in the companion books of Chronicles. The book of Job has no internal evidence of being a Hebrew book; it appears to have been translated from another language.

    I now go on to the book called the New Testament. Had it been the object of Jesus Christ to establish a new religion, He would undoubtedly have written the system Himself, or procured it to be written in His lifetime. But there is no publication extant authenticated with His name. All the books called the New Testament were written after His death. He was a Jew by birth and profession, and He was the son of God in like manner that every other person is; for the Creator is the Father of all.

    The first four books—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John—are altogether anecdotal. They relate events after they had taken place; and in several instances they relate the same event differently. Revelation, therefore, is out of the question with respect to these books. The presumption, moreover, is that they were written by other persons than those whose names they bear.

    The book of Acts of the Apostles belongs also to the anecdotal part. All the rest of the New Testament, except the book of enigmas called the Revelation, is a collection of letters under the name of epistles, and the forgery of letters under the name of epistles. One thing, however, is certain, which is that out of the matters contained in these books, together with the assistance of some old stories, the Church has set up a system of religion very contradictory to the character of the Person whose name it bears. It has set up a religion of pomp and reverence in pretended imitation of a Person whose life was humility and poverty….

    (it seems the intelligent christian mythologist must resign..checkmated by reason)

  38. Red Phillips Says:

    Clark, if you prefer not to call it hate, then fine. What it is is disrespectful. Whether you like it or not, Christianity is the majority religion in this country, it is the majority religion in the West (tragically its influence is waning), and without the Church, there would be no West as we know it. Paine and folks like you are perpetual adolescents thumbing your nose at authority. “No one can tell me what to do … blah, blah, blah …” Even if you don’t agree with Christianity your childish “oooga boooga” nonsense is beyond tacky. Grow up and learn some manners.

  39. Red Phillips Says:

    Mr. Barnes, I don’t know who advocated a “state religion.” The proper relationship between church and state, Biblically speaking, is a complex and disputable subject. My point is that it can’t be summarized with simplistic Enlightenment liberal platitudes.

    And yes, I am most certainly a Christian before I am an American or anything else, husband, father, son, etc. This is as it should unequivocally be for everyone who claims to be a Christian. This is one reason why Christianity is so subversive, when practiced correctly, to the modern state. And don’t think the modern state doesn’t know this. So if that is treason, then so be it. Why don’t you bring out the lions there Caesar?

  40. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” This is a democracy not a theocracy.”

    Response : The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic. It is NOT a ” democracy.”

  41. Don Grundmann Says:

    blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…(it seems the intelligent christian mythologist must resign..checkmated by reason).

    Response : 1) The fool has said in his heart that there is no God. 2) For the enemies of God the timeless saying always applies – Better to be a king in hell than a Servant in Heaven. 3) Reason. What a laugh.

  42. Charlie's Angel Says:

    “The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic. It is NOT a democracy.”

    This is the reason that so many libertarian types don’t get it. They are trying to remake the Constitution and our system of goverment to fit in with their modern, humanist world view. A Constitutional Republic, founded on the rule of law must have a foundation for those laws and that foundation has always been the Bible. Don’t steal, don’t kill…etc.

    It’s hard to get mad at them though, because they have been so brainwashed by 20th century separation of church and state garbage. Not to mention the hypocrisy and apostacy of the Religious Right. They fear anyone who is vocally Christian and wants to return to the principles understood by our Founding Fathers because they believe those candidates would FORCE religion upon them.

    The plain language of the First Amendment says pretty clearly that its intent is to prevent the government from establishing a specific religion and forcing people to worship a certain way. It also forbids the government from preventing the free excercise of religion.

    This is a Christian concept of freedom of conscience. This does not mean that our philosophy of government in America is secular. Many forget that the authority that our Founders pointed to in justifying their independence from Great Britain was the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s GOD. It’s pretty clear that they recognized our Creator as the authority and our nation’s jurisprudence is based on the Bible.

    Don’t confuse that with Relgious men who do not respect the rule of law and would use their interpretation of the Bible to justify not following the law (Bush, Keyes…etc.)

    The Constitution is the law of the land. Federal leaders swear an oath to support and defend it. But it is viewed in our modern times as some sort of formality. Chuck Baldwin would follow it—just like Ron Paul did. You won’t find much difference between the two.

  43. Charlie's Angel Says:

    It cracks me up how the LP is spinning its wheels trying so hard to prevent Ron Paul supporters from supporting Chuck Baldwin now that their standard bearer has messed up.

    It’s not “ideas” of small government, civil liberties and lower taxes that should get our vote. That will still lead us to the fallible and corrupt rule of man. It is adherance to the Constitution—the law of the land—Rule of Law, get it?

    Bob Barr never has and still doesn’t.

  44. Clark Says:

    ...gruntman, i knew you wouldn’t get it..i wrote ‘intelligent christain mythologists’

    ..alas..i, and thousands of my fellows, recently drove by some people in refrigerator boxes in the shadows of one the most enormous church steeples within 50 miles..

    ...i certainly do hope that, should gruntman and his ‘christians’ gain office, they can agree with me that the ‘tax $ystem’ ought NOT favor their church organization$/businesse$/etc. as it most CLEARLY does now…

    ..methinks there might be much fewer ooga booga church steeples, etceterot ad nauseam!.. and hopefully fewer occupants of refrigerator boxes too!..

  45. Ferenc Says:

    Wake up Libertarians, your hero is a republican. The only true American candidate is, Mr. Chuck Baldwin.

    God Bless

  46. pdixq zwhjgdpc Says:

    toar okysganwd yltebmuri mtnio lgamruvn dyum fzrcebv

  47. nexium drug Says:

    igfy

  48. effexor Says:

    xivg

  49. adipex diet phentermine pill Says:

    stxuyab engrw

  50. buy lorazepam generic ativan online Says:

    abtqpv xhzqr pbuhr

  51. prozac Says:

    osjy yuzbtmn

Leave a Reply