Lets Get A Little Practical: Defining the Constitution Party

Owing to the unfortunate smear articles here against the Constitution Party, its time to clarify the CP name here… Bill Shearer style.

While there have been many critical articles on the CP, lets start with one written previously by Andrew Davis- he quotes the whole CP Preamble starting off, or does he?
Let’s look at that one paragraph he left out:

The Constitution of these United States provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.

Unfortunately, the italic written paragraph in this statement was left out in order to make the CP look theocratic. Which is further suggested by this sentence:

their raison d’etre is to essentially establish a “Christian” nation, and somehow maintain religious tolerance (though this latter portion is never explained).

Apparently, Mr. Davis just doesn’t get it, or the straw man is just getting started.

The CP doesn’t want to establish a Christian nation, only restore a nation that upheld the title of liberty for all beliefs and faiths, yet was still founded on the ideas and principles based on a certain religion which many of the Founding Fathers belonged to.

Indeed, besides the Declaration of Independence, even our Constitution had Christian themes to it, as even the Conclusion of the first half of the Constitution:

“...Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the States present, the seventeenth of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven…”

And what book is it that politicians put their hand on when sworn into office? Better yet, if one goes to our Nation’s capital, what figures does he/she see in front of the US Supreme Court building, above the columns?

While there is reliable evidence that our Founding fathers did not mean for our nation to be explicitly Christian, nevertheless they saw good in the Christian faith.

In his Will and Testament, Patrick Henry said:

“...This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”

In his farewell address, George Washington stated:

“...reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle…”

Charles Carroll also had exclaimed:

” Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.”

I could bring up more quotes, but we rather should move on.

On issues such as gambling, the CP believes the 10th Amendment best applies to it. Whether in Nevada or Utah, the state government best decides the issue of gaming. Indeed while the CP plank on gaming is not positive of it, it is only an opinion, that perhaps it may have merit, nevertheless it is still, not a goal.

On the hot topic of gay marriage is also a matter best left up to the states, not the federal, as the CP believes, though in a socially conservative fashion, which doesn’t seem to infringe on the US Constitution at all.

Even back when the United States of American was still young, the original 13 states had differing marriage laws and regulations, some were very restrictive in matters of gender, and of course, race. In New York, a married woman couldn’t own property in her name until 1848.

Indeed while there were good laws and also bad laws concerning marriage, it still was left to the states then to decide on whether to join the band wagon for gender equality or not. Even if the people of California vote to uphold gay marriage, that is their problem and not for the Federal government to get into.
Even if by principle, the CP condemns homosexuality, that, again, is opinion and not a goal for the CP to penalize or eliminate.

Pornography, as differing from the LP platform, is seen as a moral vice, which, is pretty obvious that it is.
I highly doubt that the Founding Fathers would approve of pornography and obscenity being unrestricted, or even seek to protect the freedom to expose the public to it.

As quoted from Samuel Adams:

“While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.”

Conservatives, I highly doubt, would be willing to defend pornography being viewed without restrictions. And in dealing with similiar matters, would not be willing to legalize Prostitution either, as the Libertarian Party wants to do.
Maybe one should question whether society is better off with unrestricted pornography in the first place?

Now onto the matter which seems to be the main point that both Mr. Davis and another LP blogger have tried to drive home, yet fail when it comes to the truth…

The CP does not advocate theocracy.

From CP National Chair, Jim Clymer-

“...The Constitution Party was founded as an organization for American patriots to join together to save our country. It was always understood that our membership would include people of disparate faiths…
“One can debate the issue of whether a political party should have an exclusively Christian membership and what form of Christian would be allowed until the cows come home, but the fact remains that it is not part of the mission of the Constitution Party. References to the CP platform as a “covenant” in the purely religious sense, to not being able to be in “fellowship” with people of other faiths, and expressions of discontent at being “unequally yoked” have no place in this party and nothing in our founding or official pronouncements can be taken to indicate otherwise... “

There are also other quotes here that seem to rebuff such accusations of theocracy…

From a CP resolution that was passed 2 years ago-

“...Whereas the Constitution party invites the participation of all Americans who share a commitment to our platform, principles, and purposes regardless of their religious affiliations and beliefs…”

On the official CP plank on Religious Liberty:

“Our Constitution grants no authority to the federal government either to grant or deny the religious expressions of the people in any place. Both the First and Tenth Amendments forbid such tyranny.
We call upon all branches of government to cease their attacks on the religious liberties of the people and the states, regardless of the forum in which these liberties are exercised.”

However, on the other side of the coin, we have those that advocate for actual Christian theocracy, have these things to say about the CP:

“Well, in politics it is all about power, but the CP was founded on “Principle over Politics”, or at least that’s what we were told. In reality, the USTP was founded by pluralists and compromisers who are willing to sacrifice a few babies to achieve their coveted “political power”. Forget your principles; they are mere lip service to attract more sheep to the slaughter as it were.”

...As echoed by Reed Heustis:

Four years later, I now realize that I was wrong. Before joining the Constitution Party and promoting it faithfully, I failed to research the 1992 founding of the Constitution Party, which had been a “coming together” – an unholy alliance, if you will – of Christians with many who embraced Christless philosophies. I discovered that the Constitution Party originally had been founded on a “rock” other than Jesus Christ, and that Christ’s Name originally was not proclaimed in its Platform. I learned that many that did proclaim Christ actually believed in a completely different “Jesus” – the Jesus of Mormonism. I learned that the party’s founders, pursuing a Pluralist strategy in league with Mormonism, welcomed any newcomer who held to any Christless religion, just so long as he or she believed in “Constitutional government.”

So when you hear Libertarians say this:

The Constitution Party, while I agree with some of its positions, embraces theocratic ideals. Perhaps it should be renamed the Puritan Party.

Know better then to take them by their word.

While I do think that the CP can tone down the religious language, I would rather be part of a political party that may sound a little dogmatic in its opinions and yet agree with its goals, rather then be part of a political party that wants to legalize every vice and inconvience you can think of, and also supports NAFTA and open-borders.
Might I add, I also don’t want to be a member of a party those members bash Christianity and religion in general, in the TPW blogs.

The LP has done a good job in fighting strict ballot access and other such unconstitutional laws across the land, but to engage in petty smear tactics based on half-truths and biased shows not all third-parties, including the LP, are above the same attitude as the two major parties.

51 Responses to “Lets Get A Little Practical: Defining the Constitution Party”

  1. Brandon Sharitt Says:

    “The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.”

    This as the opening to the party platform ensures that I as an athiest won’t vote for it except as a very last resort(the odds about the same as the republicans nowadays), even then when the other option is an unabashed socialist with not redeeming qualities. Sure they may leave gambling and gay marriage up to the state, but at a state level, the CP seems to be opposed to them on “moral” grounds(though I fail to see how bigotry is moral). Overall, my experiance with Constituion Party members has been that they are small government conservatives, but with a heavy christian fundamentalist streak. When your presidential candidate was high ranking mamber of the moral majority(which was practiclly a hate group when it comes to gay rights), I really can’t support that party.

  2. Dr. Gonzo Says:

    Seems to be another delusional CP supporter.

    His post proves he doesn’t actually support Liberty. He supports Liberty he agrees with. What a joke. They should be renamed the statist theocrat party. Thats even better.

    Maybe they need to read their own platform every now and then before writing out something as ridiculous as his post.

  3. Red Phillips Says:

    Cody, I hate to say it, but you are wasting your time. The militant secularist and the anti-religion crowd are just never going to be fertile ground for the CP. If the CP is going to grow, it is going to get converts from those who are personally religious.

    Their hostility to God is a pathology. It is part of a systemic rejection of authority. They are 17 year old brats who have never grown up.

    “Nobody can tell me what to do!” they say as they stamp their feet and slam their bedroom door.

  4. guy fawkes Says:

    So Red, in your world, you reject the authority of the state, buy submit to the authority of your god. Hmm… you must not have read that magic book all the way through.

    Romans 13
    Submission to the Authorities

    1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

    So shut the fuck up. Pay your income taxes. Serve the state, and keep talking to the voices you hear in your head, and please for the love of allah, keep being crazy aloud so the constitution party can be broadcast for the bigoted zealot ridden organization it is.

  5. Andy Says:

    “and also supports NAFTA

    Most Libertarians oppose NAFTA (any who support it are either uninformed and/or are not real Libertarians).

  6. Dr. Gonzo Says:

    I would vote for a Republicrat before I would vote for the CP. Thankfully most have seen through their false claims of standing for the Constitution and seen them for what they really are.

    They are as close to statist as you can get. A theocracy wasn’t the intent of the Founding Fathers. Keep telling yourselves you aren’t trying to establish one though.

    I’d also suggest reading up a little history while you theocrats are at it. That way you can quit disrespecting the Constitution by claiming to represent it.

  7. DonaldRaymondLake Says:

    Oh Come on Cody!

    Ya was doing kinda well. You were not stealing stuff and stretching the truth TOO MUCH.

    This post is TOO MUCH! Shame on you Cody!

    Just admit that you all are a bunch of narrow minded pin headed holier than thou hypocrites who infinately debate [with a frightenly certainty of belief] the infinate.

    You guys are more crooked, more dishonest, than the average person, and much more than the average heathen! Yet you are more than happy to [figurately] send the rest of us to Haydes. Such hypocricy!

    Plz protect my spirituality by keeping your religion out of SECULAR Public Administration!

    Down with forced public prayer. Down with military chaplains. Down with public meeting invocations. Down with religious artifacts in public places.

    Down with religious fanatics bullying active duty military,——especially cadets, low ranking enlisted and junior officers! See ‘Military Religous Freedom Foundation’!

  8. Bradley in DC Says:

    Cody,

    I continued our exchange here:
    http://www.nolanchart.com/article5175.html

  9. Kraeken Says:

    The CP would be the biggest third party challenge to the two party dictatorship(they have more registered voters than the LP) they only need drop the christitution bit which would change nothing really and allow the core principles to stay and attract swarms of disenfranchised voters turned off by the christian talk.
    Remember that not al the founding fathers believed the same nor was everyone in the colonies a christian, hence there opinions on religious matters have no bearing on the constitution which is for the people not for a religious grouping.

  10. Red Phillips Says:

    Oh that’s right. The anti-religion “guy fawkes.” Still haven’t read up on your Guy Fawkes history, I see.

    I never said I reject the authority of the state. I am not crazy about the post-French Revolution modern state.

    Now please change your name. You are really embarrassing yourself.

    See what I mean Cody. You are wasting your breath. There is no reasoning with the God haters.

  11. John Lowell Says:

    “I do think that the CP can tone down the religious language …”

    The problem here can be traced to an attitude of much of Evangelical Christianity that specifically sees the world pictured in Holy Scripture – as opposed to the living Christ about whom it teaches – as the context for life and living. In this vision, Holy Scripture and the ancient world from which it emerged become transposed onto modern life almost as the landing on Earth of a spacecraft from another galaxy. Theology – and much of intellectual life – is seen as arrayed over against Scripture rather than as an aid to its understanding. To a great extent, it is this very mind set, accompanied by an errand eschatology, from which much of “religious right” enthusiasm for the present war has developed. The tendency of dispensationalism to hyper-Judaize Christian life is another example of this distortion.

    I would submit that it is this phenomenon rather than a desire to bring about a theocracy that lays at the heart of this misunderstanding. Non-religious or quasi-religious people are responding more to a mind set and a religious style than to anything genuinely threatening. But it doesn’t help to make a presentation of oneself as though life and history were simply extensions of the content of a Wednesday night Baptist prayer meeting. And that’s what’s happening here.

  12. Red Phillips Says:

    John I do and I don’t understand what you are saying.

    “In this vision, Holy Scripture and the ancient world from which it emerged become transposed onto modern life almost as the landing on Earth of a spacecraft from another galaxy.”

    Modern life should certainly be viewed through the lens of Scripture, instead of modern life and thought imposed on Scripture. That is a point I make over and over, and I think Evangelicals with a few exceptions are actually really bad at it. Their opposition to certain modern commonplaces such as fornication or homosexuality are exceptions to their otherwise thoroughly modern outlook.

    “Theology – and much of intellectual life – is seen as arrayed over against Scripture rather than as an aid to its understanding.”

    Theology must flow from Scripture. It can call upon philosophy, tradition, science, etc. but theology must ultimately be anchored in Scripture. I’m not sure what you mean by “arrayed over against.”

    The problem with most Evangelicals is that their theology stops at soteriology (which we get right and Catholics get gravely wrong) and the fundamentals. And doesn’t apply across all areas of their life and thought.

  13. Stephanie Kansas Says:

    To me, marriage (a fundamental civil right) is a non-issue. If you don’t agree with marriage equality, don’t marry someone of the same sex! As a school teacher, I don’t ever recall reading/citing the words…”with liberty and justice for ALL” and seeing the word, “except”. Separate but equal does not, has not and should not work. We can not “eenie meenie miney moe” through our neighborhoods and point to who is allowed marriage or not. As a christian and American, I am for equality, love, and acceptance to all human life. God bless, Stephanie

  14. Dr. Gonzo Says:

    There is no reasoning with the God haters.

    This seems to be the only excuse CPers can come up with to justify their theocratic platform.

    The CP would be the biggest third party challenge to the two party dictatorship(they have more registered voters than the LP)

    Yeah, I’d like to see some evidence that proves that. If true, why is Baldwin going to be lucky to get .5% of the vote?

  15. George Phillies Says:

    In fairness to Baldwin, he missed ballot access in several large states.

    The reference to religious test, above, could be read as misinterpreting the requirement. A religious test, in the sense of the Founding Fathers (and there is no more modern use of the language), is a requirement that a person must belong to a particular confession (or set of them) in order to be legally eligible to run for office. That is entirely unrelated to the privilege of voters to decide that they will not vote for someone because that someone is an atheist, a Latter Day Saint, or believes in the Rapture and not in Evolution.

  16. Sloppy Joe Says:

    Cody, why should Christians be against religious tests for office or even religious tests for voting? If we had them, then atheist like those who comment here wouldn’t be able to poison the Republic with their infidel opinions.

  17. Jonathan Says:

    Got to give it to Cody Quirke , he really is trying hard. Too bad this site became so un-objective, and more than that too bad Cody Quirke thinks its best to convert Libertarians to leave their Party then to convert the 95% of the people that vote for the Duopoly.

    Here is the fact on the Constitution Party:

    The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

    This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

    The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

  18. Cody Quirk Says:

    I see the comments here are nothing but ignorance and Barr-gasms.

  19. Ron Monroe Says:

    Chuck Baldwin is in a uphill struggle to build a foundation of a strong third party that will protect the Constitution of the United States and not allow the secular fraction of our nation to inaccurately portray Christians in our country

    I call to all Constitution Party members to vote for Chuck and support him in his struggle. .

  20. Raoul Duke Says:

    “Last month, Paul endorsed a slate of third-party candidates, but not Barr, who was a no-show at the press conference. Then Paul—who has campaigned for smaller government that doesn’t interfere with free markets—endorsed Baldwin, who advocates for governmental incursion into international trade, and whose party walks a delicate line on the First Amendment. (They support it for campaign donations, but not for pornography, for example.)

    As a solution to the current financial crisis, Baldwin has proposed the “Baldwin/ Castle Doctrine,” named for Baldwin and his running mate, ex-Marine Darrell Castle. In it, he proposes barring foreign interests from owning any portion of American commerce or infrastructure, including stocks and bonds—without explaining how he will dismantle the global economy.

    “We will stop this international meddling … this intentional empire-building,” Baldwin writes on his foreign-policy issue page. “When Chuck Baldwin is sworn in as President of these United States the ‘New World Order’ comes crashing down!”

    The “New World Order,” which takes its name from an H.G. Wells book, is a conspiracy theory that posits multilateralism efforts, including wartime alliances and the United Nations, will lead to a singular world government.”

    http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A266408

    Not only does the CP hate free trade and government meddling in international trade—which is the dumbest and most idiotic thing ever in regards to the US economy, Baldwin is a lightning rods for the freaks and nutcases of the third-party world.

  21. Jonathan Says:

    http://www.nolanchart.com/article5004.html
    Stop smearing and get the vote out

    Cody Quirk should try to convert the religious right who is unhappy with McCain instead of trying to steal votes from other Third Parties.

    It’s absolutely insane. We have to grow Third Parties, not recycle the vote

  22. Red Phillips Says:

    “Cody Quirk should try to convert the religious right who is unhappy with McCain instead of trying to steal votes from other Third Parties.”

    I actually agree although I would not characterize it as stealing. The ideological libertarians, especially of the modal/libertine/cosmo/militant secularist variety (as opposed to tradition and religion respecting paleolibs), aren’t going to vote for Baldwin or the CP. At least not in significant numbers. Baldwin does have a chance to grab some of the Ron Paul vote. But the CP really needs to go after the disgruntled right, especially the religious segment of it. The first step is to convert them on the War and foreign policy. But Baldwin has a better chance of wooing the Huckabee vote than he does the TPW village atheist vote.

  23. Cody Quirk Says:

    My colleague at Third Party Watch Cody Quirk has been debating me on the Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Ron Paul question. I suspect our dialog began when I published my column analyzing Chuck Baldwin’s campaign here. He took issue with some facts, I corrected him (I was right),

    = In the Libertarian world.

    he repeated his misinformed opinion, I corrected him again with the same facts from the original article (hypertexted to their source in the original). Ultimately, he responded with a column of his own which largely consisted of personal attacks on Barr and misrepresentation of Congressman Ron Paul’s views (and I suspect a misrepresentation of the views of Chuck Baldwin as well).

    = You guys have been hitting on Baldwin too much, so now I’m giving you a taste of your own medicine- how do you like it?

    So, I wrote a column urging an end to personal attacks, praised Messrs. Baldwin and Barr and Dr. Paul,

    = to back you didn’t do it sooner until I started fighting back against the lies and bigotry against us.

    and took issue with the substance of the issues. I repeat now that the demonization of the two candidates most similar to Dr. Paul harms our movement and that the personal attacks on the candidates and each other do not help either.

    = Yet your people keep attacking Baldwin. As soon as the attacks on Baldwin stop, then so will the attacks on Barr- that’s how I work.

    I summed up my argument which bears repeating, “The bottom line is that Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin all agree more than they disagree. Any of them would be better, on the whole, than the status quo—or either of the two main major party contenders. All three would aim to cut spending drastically, eliminate the Federal Reserve, abolish the income tax, end our interventionist foreign policy and nation-building overseas, etc.”

    = Yet I don’t here that on TPW, or from that many Libertarians either.
    I also didn‘t here that until I finally started dragging your guy through the mud as Libertarians have done so to Baldwin and the CP repeatedly.

    Quirk quotes from that plea with more (baseless) personal attacks on me and Barr. For all of our sakes, I hope Quirk does not represent the typical Baldwin supporter.

    = No, I represent a Constitutionalist that’s had it with the bigotry against Baldwin and Christianity in general and is going turn the tables.

    Some substantive questions remain (which will show Quirks personal attacks to be baseless):

    His main premise on the immigration question is that everyone who shares his nativist views has a monopoly “Americans concered [sic] about immigration.”

    = I guess the majority of Americans are nativist then, since many polls have shown that the majority of Americans want better laws in immigration.

    His misplaced arrogance blinds him to the simple fact is that many people concerned about immigration hold different views.

    = Yet are united on that fact that something must be done about illegal immigration, and need better laws put in place in the matter, even people of different beliefs can come together on something.

    Many Ron Paul supporters consider your solution a variation of socialist central planning.

    = Compared to the Leftist rhetoric on immigration, the support of deregulating the free-market and also the atheistic views on religion. Many Ron Paul supports abhor the radical views of the LP, that’s why many here in my state have been going with us over the local LP..

    I substantiated the reasoning behind the opposition to the protectist and isolationist views Quirk expressed with a quotation from Ludwig von Mises’ Human Action which explained that the “outgrowth of the various governments’ interference with business, of trade and migration barriers and discrimination against foreign labor, foreign products, and foreign capital” is the source of “conflicts which generate war.” Dr. Paul, Bob Barr and I all oppose interventionist policies and non-defensive wars.

    = You also were comparing that to immigration, which I rebutted. Regardless of government interference, wars don’t start because of American Protectionism.
    And Mr. Barr voted for the Iraqi Resolution in the first place while Chuck Baldwin has never supported it in the first place.

    I asked (and the question stands) where does the constitution grant the president the authority Quirk wants Baldwin to have to micromanage municipal priorities, dictate to states how to license drivers run their state tuition systems, etc? Quirk replied, “Apparently the President has the power to sign congressional legislation dealing with these matters, or working with congress on drafting such legislation.” So, “apparently” anything Presidents Clinton or Bush say they can do is inherently constitutional.

    = I address this a few paragraphs below. However, Chuck Baldwin’s stance on immigration and his set goals on it are not unconstitutional.

    We hold different views is the nicest way I can put it.

    = Too bad your views don’t resonate with the millions of Americans being laid-off or having their jobs taken over by cheaper labor, I should know- I do Assembly work & I‘ve been laid off before.

    Specifically on the immigration question, Quirk says that “the rules regardling [sic] naturalization is [sic] left to Congress to regulate.” I do not question Congress’ authority to regulate “naturalization,” but that is a very different matter than “immigration.”

    = According to your interpretation, yet it doesn’t specify on how Congress can deal with naturalization, so that is a gray area there.

    Authority to regulate one does not grant any other authority over the other. They are not the same.

    = Sorry, but its in the same area- if Congress passes a law stating that all persons in the US defying the naturalization laws set in place must be immediately sought after and removed from the country- it will be on constitutional grounds.

    I cited Mises as an immigrant to the US and an inspiration for Dr. Paul to get involved in politics. It was the breakdown of the Bretton Woods System that convinced Dr. Paul to run for Congress in the first place—and he credits his understanding of the world monetary system to having studied Mises. He often speaks fondly of hearing Mises give a lecture when Dr. Paul was still a student and the effect it had on him. Dismissing the importance of Mises (whose picture hangs in Dr. Paul’s office), Quirk cites immigrant Ayn Rand and fellow immigrant F. A. Hayek as important to Dr. Paul’s philosophical development. Perhaps Quirk does not know that they were immigrants too.

    = And yet they came over legally and assimilated, especially when we had in Quotas and other good laws in place which were later repealed. Again, if such laws were still in place, then we wouldn’t need to regulate immigration today, necessarily. Your argument is still not working here.

    Quirk erroneously claimed that Barr tried to “ban” Wicca from the military. I pointed out that his evidence showed only that Barr tried to end tax-payer subsidies to it which is not at all the same thing. He repeats his canard saying Barr “wanted to literally ban it from the military!” He then cites the same Barr congressional press release laying out Barr’s argument (and not saying nice things about Wicca to be sure) only to cut off the taxpayer subsidy. There is no there there to Quirk’s argument despite the charges of my “hypocracy.”

    = Where does he say he ONLY wants to cut off taxpayer subsidies for it? Cite your source, because in that article is doesn’t say he only wants to stop taxpayer funding of it. Again cite your source or admit you are only trying to put your spin on his actions.

    As I explained removing a tax subsidy is not prohibiting a liberty or right. Ignoring his own evidence to the contrary, Quirk repeats “Better get your hearing checked, because I was talking about Barr wanting to literally ban Wicca from the military. LOL!” No, he wanted to end the taxpayer subsidy which made no mention of “banning” anyone. Mr. Quirk, please read your own evidence and read what it says, not what you want to hear.

    =Wrong.

    “Barr stated that allowing Wiccans to follow their religion on base: “...sets a dangerous precedent that could easily result in the practice of all sorts of bizarre practices being supported by the military under the rubric of ‘religion.’”

    Again, please cite were he ONLY wanted to ban taxpayer funding of it.

    Not even Chuck Baldwin wanted a religion banned from the military however. Unless you can find evidence to the contrary.
    That’s hypocritical, compared to the Barristas screaming that Chuck Baldwin is a enemy of Religious Liberty.

    At that point he accuses me of taking the Constitution Party platform out of context after I wrote, “I am explicitly refraining from an examination of the Constitution Party here; others can look at their platform and candidate and make their own assessment.” Exactly how is that taking the CP platform out of context?

    = Like it has been done repeatedly on TPW and elsewhere, where the prohibition on religious tests is left out in such anti-CP articles when quoting the Preamble, and leaving out parts of the Platform that sound Libertarian and only quoting the language and opinions (not the goals or stances) of each plank.

    Quirk’s main charge is that Barr is a “flip-flopper” on issues such as gay marriage. The simple answer is that Barr always believed the issue should be left to the states.

    = And he yet supported a court ruling overturning the Will of People of a State (California) on that issue.

    For that reason, he authored the Defense of Marriage Act which did that and defined marriage for federal purposes. Barr, Baldwin and Paul all oppose a constitutional amendment and always have. Bothered by the use of DOMA as a club to beat down citizens, Barr now favors repealing at least the federal definition part of it (the rest is now part of our culture in part thanks to Barr’s leadership). Quirk claims that Barr is a flip flopper for wanting the states to decide the issue by, of all things, respecting California’s decision-making process.

    = That is not the only thing he’s flip flopped on. The fact that he wants to repeal a part of the SAME legislation that he authored and co-sponsored is nearly equivalent to John Kerry’s stance on Iraq.

    Quirk claims that Barr’s approach of leaving the issue to the states or private sector was a reflection of his “anti-Libertarian” views. “Apparently” Quirk understands libertarian views as well as he understands the constitution.

    = Again, you understand my comments as much as Libertarians understand how the CP isn’t theocratic.

    I said, “Quirk seems to place a great deal of personal importance on integrity and principle. That is his right. The truth is that two of the three [Baldwin, Barr and Paul] have reputations for being principled in Congress.” He responded with “Count Barr out then.” He ignored the hypertexted source so I’ll spell it out here:

    In 2002, David Keene of the American Conservative Union

    = The same ACU that defends President Bush and the GOP and also gave Ron Paul the same rating as John McCain in their 2006 Congressional ratings. Pathetic!

    defended Barr, saying, “[The] man’s ubiquitous. He fights for his beliefs in committee, on the House floor and in the media. [He’s] brimming with ideas, unwilling to compromise on matters of principle, and ready to take on all comers in the fight for what [he sees] as right.”

    = Of course they should be talking about Ron Paul, who doesn’t flip-flop on his views and voting record.

    That sentiment is shared by the civil libertarians of the Left. “Social issues journalist” Walter Brasch observes: “[Barr] has spoken out against the neo-conservative movement

    = Despite being praised by the same people he now butts heads with, including the ACU.

    for its super-patriotic suppression of dissent, rising beliefs in a tax-and-spend’ bureaucracy, and unqualified support of the PATRIOT Act . . . Bob Barr isn’t the ogre portrayed by many liberals and moderates, nor is he the saint that the conservatives believe. He is just a man of principle who believes our Constitution must be protected and defended against all enemies foreign and domestic.”

    = What a joke.
    Then again I have some more Barr articles coming, unless the Baldwin bashing stops, stay tuned!

  24. Cody Quirk Says:

    Cody Quirk should try to convert the religious right who is unhappy with McCain instead of trying to steal votes from other Third Parties.

    = The Religious Right is too ignorant and set in their ways to part with the GOP, the CP learned that finally and now we’re going for the crowd concerned about immigration & government.

    BTW, we can reach out to anybody we like, if you have a problem with that, then TS.

  25. Cody Quirk Says:

    However, I will publish that article.

  26. Red Phillips Says:

    Cody, for the libertarian ideological dogmatists deviation from the dogma is, for them, proof positive that someone is wrong. You have deviated from the dogma, therefore you are wrong. It is circular logic of course, with certain highly debatable first principles just assumed, but that is what ideology is all about.

    It is futile to debate them on their own terms. It might be better to go after their first principles, which are ridiculously Utopian and blind to the fallen nature of man and ignorant of all of human history. (Where no such libertarian Utopia has ever or can ever exist.)

    Remember what Kirk said about conservatism. It is the rejection of ideology. (There are certain problems with how that formulation has at times played out, but that is for another day.) Conservatism is not about ideas or abstract principles or philosophy. It is about the conservation and preservation of a particular people, place, culture, etc.

    Viewed in this light then, it is easy to understand the “nativist” (oh boogie word) position on immigration. Ask these clown acts if they have ever looked into how difficult it is to immigrate to Japan, for example. The Japanese are a bunch of evil nativists I guess. These faux philosophers are willing to sacrifice their own country on the altar of some abstract principle. Be done with them.

  27. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Or, Red, Cody, et al., it could simply be that we don’t give a damn one way or another…

  28. John Lowell Says:

    Hello Red,

    “Modern life should certainly be viewed through the lens of Scripture, instead of modern life and thought imposed on Scripture. That is a point I make over and over, and I think Evangelicals with a few exceptions are actually really bad at it. Their opposition to certain modern commonplaces such as fornication or homosexuality are exceptions to their otherwise thoroughly modern outlook.”

    There’s a point here that I suspect you may be missing which should tie the loose ends together for you. What I’d said was that the problem can be traced to an attitude of much of Evangelical Christianity that specifically sees the world pictured in Holy Scripture – as opposed to the living Christ about whom it teaches – as the context for life and living. And I emphasize, the world pictured in Holy Scripture not the present world.

    The notion of inspiration current in Evangelicalism so objectifies the Word of God that it gives birth to an absurd literalism that forces the reader onto a procrustean bed which ultimately renders him a prisoner of the text. All that is real to him is the ancient world in which the text was given. The Evangelical comes to live in that world, not in the present one. The faith is thus reduced to gleaning sets of imagined “principles” from the text which are then to be lived out much in the fashion that one might live out a philosophy. And this reduction, of course, is the most egregious corruption of the faith as principles, in and of themselves, are inanimate and sterile. All of that when the Scripture itself speaks to us of the living Christ. Sad, I’d say.

    No one is arguing that the world shouldn’t be viewed through the lens of faith, Red. It is rather felt that Evangelicals must emerge from the confines of a crippling rationalism, and to see the world both as contextualized by Christ, and referred through Him to God The Father, in God the Holy Spirt.

  29. Michael Seebeck Says:

    BTW, Cody’s claims of Barr trying to ban Wicca have merit.

    Barr’s attempt to ban Wicca is documented here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/boy_arm3.htm. They cite US News and World Report.

  30. G.E. Says:

    Sam Adams and Patrick Henry, both quoted in this article, OPPOSED ratification of the Constitution. The Constitution Party’s problem is not that it’s “theocratic,” but that it is the Constitution Party and not the Articles of Confederation Party.

  31. Chuck Moulton Says:

    The Constitution Party’s problem is not that it’s “theocratic,” but that it is the Constitution Party and not the Articles of Confederation Party.

    That’s a false dichotomy. The Constitution Party has more than one problem.

  32. disinter Says:

    What Ron Paul Saw in Baldwin

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance151.html

  33. Richgriffin Says:

    Since there is no god i can’t possibly be a god hater! “Belief” in god is completely delusional. This goes to the heart of it: the constitution party and the libertarian party are right wing ideologue parties that are easy to completely reject as delusional and dangerous. I WOULD argue that the world should not ever be viewed through the lens of “faith” (sic). The “bible” has been translated incorrectly and is a work of historical fiction, nothing more. It’s the POLICIES, stupid. At the very least, there ought to always be a complete separation of church and state. I’d prefer an elimination of church, which would make our world much safer!

  34. Red Phillips Says:

    “Since there is no god i can’t possibly be a god hater! “Belief” in god is completely delusional.”

    Spoken with such faith by an apostle of the gospel according to Dawkins.

    I’m so glad we have smart, enlightened people like you to tell the rest of us how stupid we are. What would we do without you?

    John, I thought that is what you might be getting at. “The notion of inspiration current in Evangelicalism.” Problem is I accept that notion.

    One of the chief complaints of my Catholic friends re. Protestantism is that once Christians divorced themselves from the authority of the CC, then they invited a theological free-for-all. That has been an unfortunate result. But how is it not worse to divorce yourself from the authority of Scripture? Then you run the risk of becoming a religion of man.

  35. Don Grundmann Says:

    “... The militant secularist and the anti-religion crowd are just never going to be fertile ground for the CP. If the CP is going to grow, it is going to get converts from those who are personally religious.

    Their hostility to God is a pathology. It is part of a systemic rejection of authority. They are 17 year old brats who have never grown up.”

    Response – Red : A excellent post. The God haters will sacrifice their own children to NAMBLA rather than be called politically incorrect. That is if they haven’t shredded them via abortion already.

    Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party of California

  36. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” Plz protect my spirituality by keeping your religion out of SECULAR Public Administration!”

    Response – Don : There is no such thing as a non-religious human including atheists and agnostics. Therefore there is not, never has been, and never can be a non-religious public administration. The removal of Christianity from government will simply produce a vacumn which will be filled by another religion – Secular Humanism which proclaims that man is God since God doesn’t exist. Famous secular humanists – Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. I can assure you that just as our nation and its freedoms were founded on a Christian base that a Christian controlled public administration will protect your freedoms and those of all Americans galactically better than any secular humanist ever could. But then some people hate God so much that they would prefer to exist under Stalin with the only condition being that they were members of his terror gulag.

    Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party of California

  37. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” To me, marriage (a fundamental civil right) is a non-issue. If you don’t agree with marriage equality, don’t marry someone of the same sex! As a school teacher, I don’t ever recall reading/citing the words…”with liberty and justice for ALL” and seeing the word, “except”. Separate but equal does not, has not and should not work. We can not “eenie meenie miney moe” through our neighborhoods and point to who is allowed marriage or not. As a christian and American, I am for equality, love, and acceptance to all human life.”

    Response – The real reason for homosexual marriage is not marriage in itself but the ability to mass indoctrinate; i.e.; brainwash/mentally molest; children that homosexuality is normal and natural once homosexual/pervert marriage is legalized. The teaching of homosexual marriage starting in kindergarten is intended to produce mass numbers of converts to homosexuality via the crushing of their natural resistance to the pathology and their subsequent physical molestation. Homosexuality is a emotional pathology which results from the breakdown of the family unit. At the time of the writing of the Constitution and simply all through history, except in our own pathological times and nation, homosexuality was correctly seen as a sickness of the soul. The Constitution was not written to recognize emotional pathologies as ” equal ” to normal/rational citizens. The Constitution Party opposes same-sex marriage because it recognizes the horrendous threat to the future of our nation by the inherent attack upon children which homosexual marriage presents. It is not a issue of ” equality.” It is a issue of sanity.

    Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party of California

  38. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” Not only does the CP hate free trade and government meddling in international trade—which is the dumbest and most idiotic thing ever in regards to the US economy,...”

    Response – The United States grew to be the most powerful industrial nation in the world via the usage of protective tariffs to protect our domestic industry from economic warfare. A little knowledge of history helps when you don’t know what you are talking about.

    Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party of California

  39. DonaldRaymondLake Says:

    GE is no longer head honcho of TPW II, the revised Third Party Watch version aka Independent Political Report!

    Good ‘riddens’ for GE and those others whom look the other way at the accurate and ongoing criticism that TPW is WAY slanted to conservative, libertarian, CP factors at the expense of centrist and non conservatives.

    If the site is Conservative Party Watch then drop the TPW moniker!

  40. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Hey Don G, how many species of animal, including the human one, have homosexual relationships? Plenty. Study some biology, will ya?

    Then tell me how my hetero marriage of 11 years and counting is threatened by my gay neighbors two doors down getting married, because neither me nor my wife feel threatened.

    Then tell me how gay marriage is a “preversion” without resorting to a biblical argument, since I have yet to see one anywhere.

    And last, please explain to us all how love for any person is a “sickness of the soul”, without using a biblical argument.

    And FWIW, I voted NO on Prop 8 two days ago.

  41. Michael Seebeck Says:

    “The God haters will sacrifice their own children to NAMBLA rather than be called politically incorrect. That is if they haven’t shredded them via abortion already.”

    Oh, how radically clueless you are!

    So says this non-Christian, happily married, pro-life father.

    So much for AIP’s credibility in CA…

  42. John Lowell Says:

    Hello Red,

    “But how is it not worse to divorce yourself from the authority of Scripture? Then you run the risk of becoming a religion of man.”

    And who is it that’s divorced from the authority of Scripture? The Scripture was and is to be read in a community precisely to avoid its being used as simply a set of proof texts for the opinions of men, Red. There are now over 2000 years of this community-interpretive use of Holy Scripture and what it has produced is called the Tradition. The Tradition is a living reality whose grasp of the meaning of Scripture is always deepened by the fresh perspectives of theologians and this living interplay of community and book stands at the foundation of all Church teaching. The teaching is expressive of it.

  43. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” Michael Seebeck Says:

    October 14th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
    Hey Don G, how many species of animal, including the human one, have homosexual relationships? Plenty. Study some biology, will ya?

    Then tell me how my hetero marriage of 11 years and counting is threatened by my gay neighbors two doors down getting married, because neither me nor my wife feel threatened.

    Then tell me how gay marriage is a “preversion” without resorting to a biblical argument, since I have yet to see one anywhere.

    And last, please explain to us all how love for any person is a “sickness of the soul”, without using a biblical argument.

    And FWIW, I voted NO on Prop 8 two days ago.”

    Response – 1) If you want to be a animal then go ahead. If you want your children to be animals then go ahead. What a gift giver you are to themThe philosphical/religious issue is teaching our children to be animals. I am a created ( by God ) human being. I am NOT a animal. In the true human area the issue is men and women vs. males and females. It is the collapse of the family unit via and producing emotional trauma which manufactures the shattered and broken personality which then manifests via drug usage, alcoholism, or any other pathology such as homosexuality. Men and women are reduced to their inferior ( afflicted ) male and female counterparts who then suffer from and indulge in countless pathologies as expressed most clearly in the homosexual community by those who from their self-loathing butcher themselves into a fake of the opposite sex; i.e.; ” transgenders.” The first thing the homosexual community did upon being allowed into public schools ( and this was several years ago ) in Massachusetts was to teach ” fisting ” to elementary school students. Google ” fistgate ” and ” MassResistance ” for the proof which you will doubtless deny. Of course you, as a male, will have no objection to sexualizing children in elementary school and kindergarten; a process already occuring in California schools. This is because you see the children as extensions of your own self-belief; i.e.; as animals; and will treat them as such without a second thought ( or even a first ). Hence your religion of secular humanism leads to your political decision to sacrifice the children of the state, nation, and future to fulfill your politically correct male perspectives. 2) Your marriage will collapse of its own accord. 3) The femanization of men and the masculinization of women; i.e.; becoming males and females; is not ” diversity.” It is psychotic ( broken from reality ). Your willingness to allow societal and cultural norms to be shattered and replaced by psychotic behavior which will then be required teaching in the public school system reveals your own pathology, weakness, and willingness to condone sickness/pathology and especially to encourage its cancerous spread to and through the children of our nation. When you see yourself as a animal then you obviously have no objection to teaching others to be the same. As a animal you will sneer at normal people just as cannibals sneer at non-cannibals. If you can’t see how being homosexual is being a pervert then you never will. ” The things of God are foolishness to men.” Incidentally ” GAY ” does not exist. The word stands for Going After Youth. 4) Child molestors ( soon to flourish even more via your support ) will say that they ” love ” children.” To use your ” logic ” – How is their ” love ” bad? Answer – A sane person knows it is bad/evil/sick/soul sick. A sick person defends it. You either see it or you don’t. And since you don’t want to see it you won’t. Until your children are molested and then you might, might, get the picture. You certainly won’t care when countless other children are molested via your support of the pathology. You will only ” get it ” when your chickens come home to roost. 5) The child molestors of the nation will thank you for your vote. They can count on you as being their good buddy. 6) Since you are doubtless a believer in the religious lunacy of evolution so I will close with 2 quotes from Charles Darwin himself – ” If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” ” To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Darwin was at least smart enough to finally see what a fool he had been. Would that you could be blessed with the same insight. 7) ” The fool hath said in his heart there is no God.” As true today as it was when written thousands of years ago. Have fun when your chickens come home. Your children will pay the price for your cultivation of them. The children of our state and nation will also pay the price for that same indulgence/pathology.

    Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party of California

  44. Brian Holtz Says:

    “Secular Humanism proclaims that man is God since God doesn’t exist.”

    I guest secular humanism also proclaims that man is the Great Pumpkin since it holds that the Great Pumpkin doesn’t exist.

  45. Johncjackson Says:

    I don’t consider myself a militant atheist. Perhaps some should consider there are OTHER reasons a libertarian could not vote for the CP and vice versa.

    As a libertarian I am not an authoritarian, for one thing. That really has nothing to do with religious beliefs.

    In posts above ( as he has many times before) Red Phillips proclaims that the CP is authoritarian and goes to far as to correct someone who accuses him of NOT supporting the authority of the state.

    Libertarians support individual rights and consider individuals important. We don’t worship the power of State or some other institution.

    FWIW, there are people of all religions who oppose theocracy and bigotry, not just “libertine atheists.”

    The CP is hurt by the attitudes of people like Red Phillips who can’t debate a single point without resorting to name calling and acting like the spoiled child he professes to oppose.

    It’s either you support the CP and bow down to their theocratic rule or you must be an idiotic. libertine, coke snorting gay atheist prostitute. or something like that.

    As a Libertarian, I am used to nutjobs in my own party and understand why some people have negative opinions of us, but the CP really takes the cake.

  46. Clark Says:

    ...oh the poor, picked-on ‘christians’...boo fucking hoo hoo..

    ...nobody decent gives a shit what you ‘christians’ do—what strange, ooga-booga ceremonies you perform, what ancient chants you perform, whom your high priests confirm in marriage, etc. ooga booga ad goddamned nauseam—ON YOUR PROPERTY

    ...what bothers me most about ‘christianity,’ and the rest of the ooga boogans galore, are the $pecial con$ideration$ the ‘government-recognized’ ooga booga artists receive at ‘the public trough’..

    ...noboby decent ‘hates christianity’ or its practitioners any more than they hate trick-or-treaters!..

    ...btw, you republicrat war-mongering, fear-mongering, hate-mongering, ignorance-mongering fucks galore, deserve to have your houses egged, covered in toilet paper, all your pumpkins smashed, the air let out of your tires, etc. ad fucking nauseam!..

    ..but you decent folks, have a good day!.. ;o)

  47. ETJB Says:

    OK, a couple of points. People who really, really love or hate the Constitution Party are, probably, not the most objective people to comment on its principles and beliefs.

    The Constitution Party is, essentially, the Libertarian Party minus two major things; CP does not believe in a separation between Church and State and does not believe in equal government treatment.

    This is why on many notable issues (foreign policy, gun rights, free market capitalism), these two minor parties often speak a very similar language.

    Yet, when it comes to the role that religion (or a particular interpretation of religion) ought to play in limiting freedom or in the government treatment of certain citizens (i.e. homosexuals) the two parties are speaking a very, very different language.

    Several good friends of mine were active in the Libertarian Party. I have also known, by association, a handful of Constitution Party members.

    I am not sure I would trust either group with serious elected office but the Libertarians were, generally, friendlier and willing to work with non-libertarians on points of common ground.

    The Constitution Party members were, from my experience, obsessed with abortion and gay sex (and how to outlaw them) and only wanted to deal with ‘their own kind’ and were not especially comfortable with ‘anti-Christians’, which seemed to be anyone who ever disagreed with them on any issue.

    The Constitution Party does indeed have a quasi-theocratic bent to it, with its early leadership support of the ultra-right-wing-moral majority-is-too liberal-Christian Reconstructivist movement. Howard Philips was a support of this movement and the party’s presidential nominee a couple of times.

  48. Mark Seidenberg Says:

    On 15 October 2008, a “Certificado de Inexistencia de Registro de Matrimonio” was issued by the “Direccion del Registro Civiel” stating
    that the records of Baja California so no record of marriage between
    John Sidney McCain and Roberta Wright (mother of Senator John McCain)
    on any datrye from the year 1927 to the present. According

  49. Mark Seidenberg Says:

    On 15 October 2008, a “Certificado de Inexistencia de Registro de Matrimonio” was issued by the “Direccion del Registro Civiel” stating
    that the records of Baja California so no record of marriage between
    John Sidney McCain and Roberta Wright (mother of Senator John McCain)
    on any datrye from the year 1927 to the present. According

  50. Mark Seidenberg Says:

    (continued) to John McCain his parents were married in a bar in TJ on Saturday, 21 January 1933. The document number is B 0015879.
    Therefore, John Sidney McCain is wrong, his purported parents were not
    married in Baja California, therefore what does that make John McCain?

    If Senator McCain’s parents were not married at or prior to the birth
    of Senator McCain at the Colon Hospital (located in the City of Colon,
    Republic of Panama) at 6:35 p.m., 29 August 1936, than he (Senator
    John McCain) could not be a United States Citizen under the Act of
    August 4, 1937 [United States Code, title 8, section 5e (which was repealed
    on January 13, 1941. If that is the case McCain can not take office as President.
    th
    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party.

    P.S. Don Grundmann hold no office in the AIP since September 2, 2008.

  51. Don Grundmann Says:

    ” P.S. Don Grundmann hold no office in the AIP since September 2, 2008.”

    Response : The corruption of Mark Seidenberg is virtually endless as illustrated by the above lie which he is the author of.

    Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party of California

Leave a Reply