Constitutionalogistix -- A Blog For the Constitution Party

Moving the blog to WordPress

2006-11-16T22:48:00.000-05:00

Dear friends: I am moving the contents of this blog to Wordpress (http://www.wordpress.com), which offers better management tools. I have my other main blog at this located (http://bromattsblog.wordpress.com or http://www.matt-perry.com). The blog location is at http://constitutionalogistix.wordpress.com. The new tag line is: Christ-centered. Conservative. Constitutionalist. At the end of 30 days, I will delete this blog, so please bookmark the new location. Thank you for your understanding.

Post-Election Analysis: Constitution Party Rising Toward 2008 (Tom Kovach)

2006-11-16T15:34:00.000-05:00

by Tom Kovach Constitution Party of Tennessee Communications Director

Even though I lost the election, several good things have come out of the process. Hence, this analysis.

This campaign for Congress was unique in the nation.

Although I’m the state PR coordinator for the Constitution Party, I ran on the Republican line.

The reason was because the CP does not yet have a ballot line in Tennessee. Thus, my Federal paperwork said Constitution Party, but my State paperwork said Republican Party. (I was unopposed in the Republican primary.) I chose the GOP primary, versus the Independent line, as the better long-term strategy.

As a result of that decision, I got the highest number of votes (49,036), and one of the highest percentages (28) of any Constitution Party candidate in the country. Rick Jore won a state legislative seat in Montana with 52% of his district, but a smaller number of actual votes (because a Congressional district is much more populous). The second highest number of votes in the CP was Ed Noonan, who ran for governor in California with 48,672 votes.

By the way, my numbers were achieved without one bit of support from the Republican Party (they could have afforded it, but didn’t), or the Constitution Party (they just can’t afford it). My total fundraising was barely over ONE thousand dollars (thus, I never had to file an FEC financial report).

When analyzed through those numbers, the effect of my campaign is truly realized. The national average cost per vote in a congressional campaign is over three dollars. My average cost per vote was about TWO CENTS. Therefore, I was able to deliver much more bang for the buck than an average candidate.

I believe that my campaign proves that a candidate that runs on Constitution Party principles, without compromise to "the forces of moderation", can do well -- even without a big budget. That fact, in turn, should encourage more TRUE conservatives to leave the GOP and join the Constitution Party.

For some of the hard numbers for CP candidates click here.

Given that foundation, the Constitution Party should be able to field a viable candidate in the 2008 presidential race. Obviously, that viability would be greatly increased if a prominent conservative Republican were to cross over to the Constitution Party in the wake of the Republican "spanking" of the recent election. But, even without that "crossover factor", the current post-election dissatisfaction of conservatives (whether Republicans, Independents, or members of another party), coupled with strong CP performance in several races nationwide, shows that the Constitution Party is the strongest of all the smaller parties. Couple that "magnet factor" with the "crossover factor", and the possibility exists that neither of the Big Two political parties will have an occupant in the White House in the next administration.

Tom Kovach, 2006 candidate 5th Congressional District of TN http://www.tk-05-tn.net Mount Juliet, TN CP National Veterans Coalition Executive Committee Member

CP of Kentucky Holds Constitutional Studies Class

2006-11-15T18:53:00.000-05:00

Steven Lind, the CP Chairman of the 6th Congressional District in the commonwealth of Kentucky, asked me to pass along this information. He will hold a Constitutional Studies class next Tuesday, November 21 where they will be starting a new study series on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights and ask that you consider joining us --- if you are in the area, please publicize this. For more information, contact Stephen Lind at steven.lind@insightbb.com.

Rick Jore's Role as a CP State Representative in Montana

2006-11-14T22:39:00.000-05:00

Jennifer McKee of the Missoulian State Bureau writes a great article about Rick Jore, the CP state representative for Montana. With 50 Republicans and 49 Democrats, Jore now has a considerable power with his swing vote. Rick made history as the first Constitution Party candidate elected to a state level office. Congratulations, State Representative Jore! To read the article, click here.

Constitution Party Celebrates National Election Victories

2006-11-11T19:12:00.000-05:00

The Constitution Party made great strides in the 2006 election and can, for the first time, celebrate victory!

First of all, congratulations go out to Rick Jore, of Montana, who made history becoming the first Constitution Party candidate from any state to be elected to the state legislature, capturing the seat in Montana’s 12th District. Jore actually won in 2004, by three votes only to see the courts throw out enough ballots to give the Democrat the victory. This year, in a rematch, he won convincingly, garnering 56.2% of the vote and drubbing his Democrat opponent.

Two candidates in Nevada’s Independent American Party were also elected to office. Jackie Berg was elected Eureka County Clerk with 54.10% of the vote, easily topping Republican and Libertarian opposition. Also, Cel Ochoa will be the new constable in Searchlight, Nevada by virtue of winning 54.93% of the vote to defeat her Republican rival. Another feather in the cap of the Nevada Independent Party was the victory of IAP member Bill Wilkerson to the Elko School Board, in a non-partisan race. Congratulations to our soon to be incumbent office holders in Nevada!

The Nevada party did exceedingly well across the board, with its five statewide candidates receiving from 3.44% of the vote to 6.75% of the vote all in races with three or more candidates plus a "none of the above" option. Two Nevada state senate candidates received in excess of 32% of the vote and one received over 22% of the vote. These results were indicative of results received across the board by over 40 Nevada candidates.

In Florida our candidates made impressive showings! C. Burt Linthicum received 34,528 votes and 28.9%of the vote for the 12th District State Senate seat. Ken MacPherson received 10,971 and 22.5% of the vote for State Representative in the 76th District!

The Utah Constitution Party did an outstanding job, running over 40 candidates. Scott Bradley, the candidate for US Senate, received 3.75% of the vote. Jim Noorlander, in the 3rd Congressional District won over 8% of the vote against incumbent Chris Cannon, while Congressional candidates Mark Hudson and David Perry received 3.1% and 1.5% respectively. Ed McGarr, in the 58th District State House race garnered 29.91% of the vote and was only kept from greatly exceeding that total by a full blown effort by the Utah Republican Party which feared that McGarr might actually win that seat. Through its high caliber candidates and their coordinated campaign effort under the able leadership of Chairman Frank Fluckiger, Utah has seen its membership grow and is on the threshold of electing candidates to office!

Ron Avery, the Constitution Party candidate for Congress in Texas’ 28th Congressional District won 13% of the vote. This can be compared to the 4% of the vote received by recent Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik, who was that party’s most recent Presidential nominee, despite his pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into the race in another Texas Congressional District.

John Langville, South Carolina candidate for state representative from the 28th District, received 19.4% of the vote.

The American Constitution Party of Colorado’s efforts resulted in their maintaining ballot access for 2008.

In Illinois Chuck Broy won ballot access in Tazewell County by receiving 6 percent of the votes, while Chairman Randy Stuffleman conducted an estensive write-in campaign for governor.

In Idaho Jared Eastley won 22% of the vote in his race for state senate, while Katherine Frazier and Jaclyn Ann Crooks running for state house positions in three way races, received respectable votes at 3.6% and 3.3% respectively.

In South Dakota, Scott Bartlett received 4.5% of the vote in the 11th State Senate District, while Bill Scott received 8.2% of the vote in the 14th State Senate District. Meanwhile, South Dakota’s candidate for Governor, Steve Willis, outpaced the Libertarian earning third place in that race.

Our Michigan affiliate, the U.S. Taxpayers Party, was once again able to retain their ballot position. Running over 30 candidates, the Michigan party proved the effectiveness of their candidate recruitment efforts.

John Gathings, candidate for State Treasurer, for Nebraska’s Constitution Party affiliate, the Nebraska Party, maintained that party’s ballot position by receiving 124,656 votes for 23.5%.

The American Independent Party in California ran six statewide candidates, and three for U.S. Congress. Gubernatorial candidate Ed Noonan received an impressive 48,672 votes.

Candidates running for the Pennsylvania State House had very good showings. Joe Murphy running in Pennsylvania’s 38th District received 15.9% of the vote, Chris Graham running in the 40th District received 15.3%, and .Janet Serene, running in the 66th District captured 5.7% of the vote in a three way race.

Tom Kovach, of Tennessee’s Constitution Party, ran as a Republican with the full endorsement and support of Tennessee’s Constitution Party in the 5th Congressional District and received 27.9% of the vote in a four way race. Tom is a member of the Constitution Party’s Veterans Coalition Executive Committee.

Mary Starrett, TV personality, conservative talk show host, and the dynamic candidate of the Constitution Party of Oregon for Governor, received 40,271 votes which amounted to 3.6% of the vote, a full percentage point more than the combined vote of the Libertarian and Green Party candidates. She ran against a liberal Republican and a liberal Democrat, and so worried the Republican establishment with her strong campaign that they even attempted to have her removed from the ballot!

Highlighted here are only some of the Constitution Party election results. We were represented by great candidates all across the country. The sacrifice they made in stepping forward and running for office gave them the all-important platform from which to speak out for Constitutional issues. They did a great job representing the Constitution Party and all deserve our gratitude for their tremendous efforts and for a job well done!

Randy Stufflebeam Endorsed by the Veteran's Coalition

2006-10-25T14:14:00.000-04:00

Randy Stufflebeam, a CP gubernatorial candidate was just recently endorsed by the Veteran's Coalition. Here's Randy's letter as well as the official endorsement:

Veteran's Coalition Endorsement

Dear Family, Friends, and Fellow Constitutionalists,

I just received the following endorsement from the National Constitution Party's Veteran Coalition. Please send it to all the media outlets here in Illinois and where ever you are. Hopefully, this will be an opportunity to call all ILLINOIS VETERANS to help support the only veteran candidate for Governor who will take care of our band of brothers (and sisters) who have put their all on the line for the preservation of our liberties and our safety.

Take every opportunity to spread the word that there is a conservative alternative and option here in Illinois. We are finding that we do not have to convince anyone to support me, over 51% of the voters are looking for some one else to vote for. All we have to do is let them know who the alternative is and the immediately are on-board and spreading the word. All you have to do is let 10 other people know that there is an alternative and encourage them to let 10 other people know and within 7 days, we could completely cover the state. But you have to ACT NOW. We have less than 2 weeks before Election Day.

Act now, spread the word and "We, the People" can take our state back from the hands of corruption on November the 7th.

Randall C. Stufflebeam

Chairman and

Gubernatorial Candidate

Constitution Party of Illinois

www.RunRandyRun.com

StufflebeamRC@RunRandyRun.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

CONSTITUTION PARTY NATIONAL VETERANS COALITION

23 North Lime Street, Lancaster, PA 17602

Randy Stufflebeam

Gubernatorial Candidate

Constitution Party, Illinois

http://www.RunRandyRun.com

Dear Randy,

The Constitution Party National Veterans Coalition strongly supports you for election to become the next Governor of the great State of Illinois. Our country is at war and at grave risk on two fronts and greatly needs your leadership at the State level of responsibility.

First, America is faced with an invasion of more than 20 million illegal aliens who are colonizing our towns, cities and states, over crowding our schools, prisons, hospital emergency rooms and breaking our welfare systems. Our people are now under a murder, rape, gang and crime siege due specifically to this illegal alien invasion. Why? Because too many elected politicians in both the Democrat and Republican Parties have ignored the will of the people and have placed pandering to voters, party power and campaign cash above national and economic security for the citizens of our country.

Second, is the Terrorist War whereby Islamic extremists are vowing to destroy America and kill all who will not convert to the religion of Islam! This terror began in 1979 when Iranian thugs took all Americans working in our U.S. Embassy hostage and kept them incarcerated for over one year. Iran continues to train and fund terrorists world wide and has rained death and destruction upon our people and Embassies unchecked by our elected leadership since 1979. 9/11 happened again because of key political failure as well as failure of our once capable intelligence gathering systems.

Equally important, our country is at war with its own people. Instead of providing security and sound defense for its citizens in ways authorized by the Constitution, our leaders flagrantly violate their oath of office by failing to repel an invasion, and by failing to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

It is now time for real change. Your untiring patriotism as a Constitution Party candidate to become Governor offers people of Illinois the opportunity for real change, to hold high the banner of fidelity to the Constitution and the chance to break the bonds of Democrat and Republican Party failures that now threaten our liberty.

Your long and selfless service to country in the United States Marine Corps marks you as a true patriot and now a military veteran of great importance for the future of America.

A tough Governor can exercise strong influence at local and national levels of government and greatly add to the National Security needs of today’s crises. The Veterans Coalition is confident that your leadership can and will become a leading factor in the future of Illinois. The issues to which you are committed coincide with those of the Veterans Coalition’s six key national issues and we will fight to help you become the next Governor of the State of Illinois.

Sincerely,

SIGNED

Charles Jones, B/Gen. USAF (ret)

Chairman, Constitution Party National Veterans Coalition

http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?cat=Veterans%20Coalition

W. Ed Parker Running for Congress (District 3 -- KY)

2006-07-12T14:31:00.000-04:00

(From his campaign website!)

PARKER FOR CONGRESS

God, Family, and Country!

I will "Vote No" on all bills that increase the Size, Cost, Reach, or Power of the Federal Government!

According to Saint James, "friendship with the world is enmity with God..."! In view of this and other considerations, I will work to get the United States out of the Communist United Nations (UN), and the UN out of America! The UN is an Engine for "ONE WORLD DICTATORSHIP"!

America has been forced into an endless string of "NO WIN WARS" since WW II. All of these WARS have cost the lives and fortunes of our citizens for no good reason, and have increased our National Debt. As a Congressman, I will only support Wars that are necessary for America" s Defense, and this includes the present "Iraq War" !

I will work to get America off of its present "Two Party Path" to Martial Law and Dictatorship. This will require the elimination of the Patriot Acts that cancel Constitutional Law, along with the all powerful Communist Style Homeland Security Operation. Other offending regulations not supported by the Constitution will be attacked.

New World Order programs such as NAFTA, GATT, WTO, CAFTA, and FTAA which export US jobs and US wealth would be repealed. They only support the Wealthy International Elite.

The above acts eliminate American jobs and create an unfavorable "Balance in Trade". This unbalance in trade will Bankrupt America as it Enriches the International Elite and other Countries.

I will work to stop all immigration into America until some sensible plan is developed. Illegal Aliens would be returned immediately to their Home of Origin, before they, and their internal supporters, are prosecuted under" Criminal Trespass Laws" ; at their expense!

To protect America" s remaining farms, industries, and businesses; import controls are needed. These enterprises cannot survive in to-days "Rigged World Markets" ! I will support reasonable controls.

The cost of Health Care in America is OUT OF CONTROL! To start on a program to fix Health Care, I would abolish the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)! The FDA is nothing more than a FASCIST Front Group to protect the Pharmaceutical and Food Industries and the American Medical Association (AMA)! Congress has only acted to support the Medical Monopoly.

Two Independent Private Agencies would be established. One to conduct all medical related drug tests and to keep records on all drugs, in the interest of the people; with "NO" ties to the above groups or other Government Agencies. The other would take control of Food along the same lines.

I propose a drastic reduction in the Federal Bureaucracy. America has more than $44 Trillion in debt obligations, including a current $8.2 Trillion debt.

The "Two Party Monopoly" has increased the cost of the Bureaucracy every year sense 1994, when the GOP took control of Congress.

Some changes that I propose to reduce costs and to curb the Bureaucracy include:

All Federal Funds for Education would be eliminated to turn Education back over to the States
All Federal funds for abortion would be eliminated to get the Federal Government out of the "Baby Killing Business" .
Federal Welfare would be limited to Federal Obligations from Wars and other Federal Actions. All other Welfare Programs would be cancelled, or referred back to the States.
All foreign aid would be terminated, and our funds would only be used to Defend America's Citizens.
All "Activist Groups" , and their lawyers, would be barred from use of Federal Funds.
I will support a "Federal Citizen's Defense Act" to allow Citizens to use deadly force to defend themselves and their property. All liability would be assigned to the "Intruders".
The Two Party System has struck out on Energy! Energy costs are controlled by the Oil Cartel with no help from Congress. I propose the freeing up of government owned energy sources and the promotion of energy from coal, atomic power, and other alternative energy sources.
Also, the EPA and the Federal Energy Department would be downsized and reorganized to stop their constant foot dragging on energy development.
Inasmuch as Judges, and Lawyers in general, are unable to understand our "State and Federal Constitutions,"I will work to set up a "Congressional Review Board" to review "Actions of Judges" and to recommend remedial action to the Congress.
Juries would be chosen "randomly" from Citizen Pools, according to Constitutional directions.

Davy Crockett vs. Welfare

2006-07-11T09:26:00.000-04:00

From The Life of Colonel David Crockett, by Edward S. Ellis (Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884)

Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.

I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support – rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:

"Mr. Speaker – I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.

(To read the rest of this compelling article, click here.)

Constitutional Isogesis (Patriot Post)

2006-07-07T15:22:00.000-04:00

Patriot No. 06-27 Digest | 07 July 2006 "Judge not, lest ye be judged." It's notable that this text from the Bible has replaced John 3:16 as Americans' favorite scriptural quotation—but what does it actually mean? Is this ageless admonition really a call to unmitigated tolerance over discernment between right and wrong? Is it really a biblical nod of the head to the virtues of postmodern morality and multicultural society? Of course not. As Christ's imperative against judgment appears in the Gospel accounts, a different picture emerges. With the Pharisees clearly in view, in the Sermon on the Mount account of Matthew 7, and again in Luke 6, "judge not" appears in the context of the proverbial man who perceives the speck that is in his brother's eye, but not the log that is in his own. The context, then, suggests a warning against hypocrisy, not moral discernment. Indeed, the full imperative of the passage encourages righteous judgment: "first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." Then, in John 7:24, taking aim at the Pharisees once again, Jesus makes another extraordinary statement: "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." So, does Jesus really call his followers to "judge not"? Not really. In the vocabulary of theologians, this practice of isolating and thereby misinterpreting a phrase or passage from its context is called isogesis. Other common examples of isogesis—which we'll leave to your own exegesis—include the imperative "care for orphans and widows" (James 1) to sanction a social, and thereby governmental, responsibility; "Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man" (I Corinthians 11) as an affirmation of male chauvinism; and "Love keeps no record of wrongs" (I Corinthians 13) as a get-out-of-jail-free card for habitual sin. But what, you ask, does this Bible lesson have to do with the Constitution? In truth, the same fallacies that affect biblical interpretation also affect our interpretation of the Constitution. The belief in a Constitution subject to the evolving interpretation of the judiciary has as its origin the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, where Chief Justice John Marshall ruled, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." All well and good if the courts would continue to interpret the law exegetically, but as history would soon show, constitutional isogesis was lurking just around the corner. In fact, by the early 20th century the isogetical interpretation of the Constitution had been given a name, courtesy of Howard McBain's 1927 book, The Living Constitution. In the decades that followed, this notion of a "living" Constitution, one subject to all manner of judicial interpretation, took hold in the federal courts. Judicial activists, who legislate from the bench by issuing rulings based on their personal interpretation of the Constitution, or at the behest of like-minded special-interest constituencies, were nominated for the federal bench and confirmed in droves. This degradation of law was codified by the Warren Court, under the influence of Justice William Brennan, Jr., in Trop v. Dulles (1958). In that ruling, the High Court noted that the Constitution should comport with "evolving standards...that mark the progress of a maturing society." In other words, it had now become a fully pliable document—one that Jefferson had warned us would be a "mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please." By 1987, living constitutionalism had become such the norm that Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall delivered a lecture, "The Constitution: A Living Document," in which he argued that the Constitution must be interpreted to the age in which it existed, given prevailing political, moral and cultural norms. More recently, "living" jurist Anthony Kennedy and court jesters Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens cited "national consensus" as a factor in last year's Roper v. Simmons ruling. In doing so, they disregarded the Constitution's prescription for federalism and republican government in the name of unmitigated democracy—and took us one step closer toward what every serious thinker since Plato has described as governance in its most degenerative form. Just as the problem of biblical and constitutional isogesis is essentially the same, so too is the solution. For centuries, a fundamental guiding principle has directed proper scriptural exegesis: Scripture interprets Scripture. That is to say, the primary lens for understanding a text is the text elsewhere in the Bible—thus, we interpret the Bible through what the Bible says. With the Constitution, the concept is easily applied. The Separation Clause certainly calls Marbury into question, and the Tenth Amendment contradicts the Roper decision, not to mention Roe v. Wade and the illusory constitutional "right to privacy." Further, the constitutional basis for Kelo is simply absent, as are our First Amendment rights under McCain-Feingold. And let's not forget the myriad laws that infringe upon our rights guaranteed by the Second. Just as the Bible's New Testament may be said to interpret its Old Testament, so too is the Constitution accompanied by a binding interpretation, the Federalist Papers. Authored by Founding Fathers Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, the Federalist Papers, as the definitive explication of our Constitution's original intent, clearly define original intent in regard to constitutional interpretation. In Federalist No. 78 Hamilton writes, "[The Judicial Branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment...liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments." In Federalist No. 81 Hamilton notes, "[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution..." Today, more than two centuries later, Justice Antonin Scalia warns of such judicial activism: "As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to 'do what the people want,' instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically." By contrast, the heart of the Constitution, and hence the heart of constitutional constructionism, is this: The federal government should be sovereign and strong in its constitutionally delimited competencies; in matters where the Constitution is silent, however, the states and the people, not the national government, are sovereign. This understanding transforms the debate between strong governance (the liberal position) and weak governance (the libertarian position) to one of constitutional governance (the conservative, constructionist position). In this way, the text itself—not its judicial caretakers—interprets the text. This is exegetical governance. Indeed, this is constitutional governance.

Thanks to Reed Heustis

2006-06-24T19:42:00.000-04:00

Reed Heustis of California has kindly included the link to this blog at his "Reciprocal Links" page along with other good Constitution Party links. Click on the blog entry title to check other links out. Thanks so much, Reed!

The "Other" Holiday Season (Chairman James Clymer)

2006-06-24T19:35:00.000-04:00

From the desk of James N. Clymer Constitution Party National Chairman

It has become customary to refer to the period from Thanksgiving week through New Year's Day as the "holiday season," and with good reason. Many major holidays, including Christmas and Hanukkah, are clustered in that six-week span. With the passage of time, the holiday season has expanded, with the first Christmas decorations sometimes appearing before Halloween, and the holiday shopping season becoming the lynchpin supporting much of the entire retail sector. I enjoy Christmas and Thanksgiving as much now as I ever did as a boy, and am certain our culture would be immeasurably impoverished without them.

There is, however, a second holiday season, a span of five weeks in late spring and early summer when we observe no less than three holidays, all of them patriotic in nature, but only one of which is still celebrated in a way that our ancestors would remotely recognize.

The first, the "Thanksgiving" if you will, of the patriotic holiday season, is Memorial Day, which originated in May 1868 as "Decoration Day," in honor of those who fell in the War Between the States. After World War I, the holiday was expanded to honor all of America's war dead, and in 1971, it was made into a national holiday. Once upon a time, Americans honored Memorial Day with parades, visits to cemeteries, and other commemorative events. Nowadays, unfortunately, very few Americans under fifty see Memorial Day as anything more than a paid holiday and an excuse for a barbecue or a weekend camping trip.

Two weeks after Memorial Day, on June 14th, falls the almost-forgotten Flag Day. On this day in 1777, the standard that evolved into our modern-day stars and stripes was officially countenanced by the Continental Congress. It was first observed in 1877 on the hundredth anniversary of our flag's creation. Since then various U.S. Presidents, including Woodrow Wilson and Harry S. Truman, have given Flag Day national recognition. As reverence for the flag has diminished, so too interest in Flag Day has waned, although many patriotic organizations and individuals still observe the holiday. My home state of Pennsylvania, in fact, has made Flag Day a legal holiday!

Finally, on July 4th we celebrate our independence, although the date marks only the signing of the Declaration of Independence and not victory over Great Britain when our independence became an established fact. Independence Day is still marked by parades, fireworks, and other patriotic activities, all of which prove that love of country is alive and well in the United States of America.

It is unfortunate that we have so willingly allowed our independence to be compromised by membership in organizations like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, NAFTA, and the International Monetary Fund, to mention but a few. The modern web of international governing bodies, all of which are designed to be way-stations on the road to world government, are often touted as enhancing our "interdependence." This they certainly do. However, it's worth pointing out that interdependence, unlike independence, is merely a form of dependence, the very antithesis of what our Founders wished for our nation. America is dependent on outside powers – for oil, manufacturing, borrowed money, and many other things – only to the extent that she chooses to be so. The assets of this great land are such that, if we wished, we could be self-sufficient for all of our essential needs.

Certainly the dead we honor on Memorial Day did not make the supreme sacrifice in the hope that America would someday become dependent on foreign powers. The flag we honor on Flag Day is not the standard of the United Nations or any other international body. And the independence we celebrate in early July presupposes dependence only on God, the grantor of our Rights.

May we of the Constitution Party all recommit our lives to honoring our country and the sacrifices of our forefathers, and to upholding the principles that have made America great during this, the "other" holiday season.

Peggy Noonan asks, "Are the days of the two-party system over?"

2006-06-01T22:47:00.000-04:00

Peggy Noonan, a writer for the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal and a former Reagan staffer writes just an excellent piece --- click here to read!

Check out the Patriot Post (from The Federalist)

2006-05-31T11:10:00.000-04:00

"Not Getting Burned Again" (Gary Bauer)

2006-05-30T22:48:00.000-04:00

“Not Getting Burned Again” Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa is not a man prone to hyperbole or rhetorical flourishes. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, he spends his days immersed in the arcane details of American tax law, and on most issues Sen. Grassley is a loyal partisan. On key issues and tough votes, the Senate’s “old bulls” can usually be relied upon to support the president. But for Sen. Grassley, the Senate immigration bill was “a bridge too far.” Introducing his list of “top 10 flaws” in the Senate’s immigration bill, Sen. Grassley said, “I was burned once in 1986 when I voted for amnesty believing that it would solve our problems. Now, we have a 12 million illegal immigrant problem. I’m not getting burned again. Not only do we have a glide path to citizenship, but it’s a glide path with plenty of loopholes that don’t meet the common sense test.” Among the most egregious flaws identified by Sen. Grassley is a provision allowing illegal aliens to avoid paying two of their last five years worth of back taxes. As Sen. Grassley noted, “Law-abiding American citizens do not have the option to pay some of their taxes. The bill would treat lawbreakers better than the American people.” The Department of Homeland Security is required to conduct background checks on illegal aliens in the United States. That’s good. But, the federal government is supposed to “complete the background checks on 10 million illegal aliens in 90 days.” Does anyone seriously believe the government can thoroughly screen 10 million aliens in 90 days? And what if they find something? (You might want to sit down for this one.) According to Sen. Grassley, “Under the bill, if an illegal alien applies for amnesty, the federal government cannot use information provided in the application for anything but adjudicating the petition. For example, if illegal aliens write in their applications that they are related to Osama Bin Laden, then our government cannot use that information. …Also, if a federal agent does use information provided by an illegal alien in an application for amnesty the agent would be fined $10,000.”

Oregon CP names gubernatorial candidate (ThirdPartyWatch.com)

2006-05-30T13:04:00.000-04:00

The Oregon Constitution Party claims to have recruited a strong candidate for governor, but they are not disclosing who it is until later in the week.

From OregonLive...

Members of the Oregon Constitution Party say they have recruited a gubernatorial candidate who could put Republican nominee Ron Saxton in a tough spot.
Party officials won’t reveal the name of their candidate until Wednesday or Thursday or this week, a few days before their nominating convention in Lake Oswego.

But Constitution Party state chairman Bob Ekstrom said the candidate will make opposition to abortion a central campaign theme. Saxton has said he supports abortion rights, but would also back some limits on the procedure, like parental notification.

“We intend to, with our candidate, make sure the public hears what a governor can do to end not only the funding, but the actual conduct of abortions in Oregon,” Ekstrom said.

The Constitution Party platform also stresses limited government and an official role for religion in public life.

The party, along with other minor parties that have secured automatic places on Oregon ballots, has until Aug. 29 to select its candidates for the general election in November.

“We’ve had what I would consider to be an excellent candidate for governor that has stepped forward,” Ekstrom said. “I think our candidate this year is going to be someone you’d call a well-known public figure.”

He said the nominee is not Lon Mabon, the anti-abortion rights activist who is the party’s most prominent figure.

2006: the year of the Constitution Party? As the "Big Tent" collapses, make way for the true "third" party

2006-05-30T09:19:00.000-04:00

by Tom Kovach According to research that I conducted in 1998, there were more than 400 political parties in America. (That number has grown smaller in recent years, but is still over 200 — far larger than the "mainstream" media admits.) According to research by Richard Winger, the publisher of Ballot Access News, the third-largest political party in the United States is the Constitution Party. Thus, the CP is the true third party. Statistically, the CP has more members than any political party other than the Big Two. And, statistically, there are more caves in Tennessee than any other state. But, there are not enough caves nationwide to prevent people from knowing that border security is the hot-button political issue across America this year. The issue has been simmering for a long time, and has now reached a boiling point. But, border security is not the only hot-button issue — especially for conservatives. Abortion is a perennial issue, but the death of Terri Schiavo has demonstrated that C. Everett Koop and Francis Schaeffer were absolutely right about the "slippery slope." That, in turn, has removed many abortion "moderates" from the fence. The party with the clearest stance against abortion is the Constitution Party. define "patriotism" As our nation struggles with the very definition (and name) of the War Against Terrorism, we are forced to also struggle with the definition of patriotism. (Is it patriotic to defend Iraq against insurgents, and South Korea against invasion, and Haiti against true reform — and Bosnia against Christians — while ignoring the "stealth invasion" of our own country?) Is it patriotic to continue a war that was started without a Constitutionally-required declaration of war? Is it patriotic to continue a war that recently reached its stated objective? (The recent free election of a "unity government" in Iraq provided the final stage of the "regime change" that we sought. And, the revelations by a former top Iraqi general proved that the WMD case was valid. I've been a strong supporter of the war itself — despite the bypass of Congress — until the recent Iraqi elections. Now, it's time to tell our troops, "Good job, and welcome home.") Questions about the ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan (with possible expansions toward Syria and Iran in the near future) have, in turn, forced many people to look away from the television long enough to at least consider studying and discussing the Constitution. That, in turn, has caused a rapidly growing number of people to discover, and embrace, the political party that is based upon that special document. So, perhaps 2006 really is "the year of the Constitution Party." Let's consider some facts. In the 2004 presidential elections, CP candidate Michael Peroutka got enough votes to force the national news media to pay attention to the Constitution Party for the first time since its creation in 1992. (Obviously, there had been other "mentions" of the CP, but not recurring coverage — including a CP line on some televised charts of candidate progress.) Those 2004 elections were so close that some analysts thought that Peroutka could swing the outcome. But, nobody was sure which way it would swing. So, the CP tally was watched closely for the first time. Fast-forward to January of 2006, and a special US House election in California. Although CP candidate Jim Gilchrist did not win, he made a very strong showing. Gilchrist, the co-founder of the Minutemen, forced the border security issue to the forefront of a key election in a state with a strong pro-illegal-alien history. And, he came close to winning. That fact was not lost on Republican analysts — who are now trying to "shoot full-auto in all directions" to regain votes that they have lost by compromise. Border security has caused some people to look at the Libertarian Party, only to discover that they favor open borders. (And, their national bylaws prohibit cross-party endorsements — which hamstrings any conservative coalitions. That fact cost me the Libertarian Party's endorsement, which I had sought at their recent state convention in Nashville.) That single fact could cause many Libertarians to jump to the Constitution Party. That migration actually started years ago. a "guilt-free option" Border security also creates angst for Democrats — because many labor unions are in favor of open borders, but most union members view illegal aliens as unfair threats to their own jobs. For this reason, many conservative Democrats will not be voting their party line this year. Will they vote for CP candidates? I think so. (In my own case, due to ballot-access problems, I'm a Constitution Party member running on the Republican Party line. That makes me the "guilt-free option" for those that would otherwise never vote Republican.) On my "day job," I'm an interpreter of Sign Language for a school district (and a union steward). Recently, I discovered that my union strongly favors illegal aliens. Most members don't know that; and, the same is true for other unions. I recently provided internal union documents, to be used in an upcoming book by Jim Gilchrist and Jerome Corsi. When the book's impact ripples into the union shops, angry members will look for another political party. Many will join the Constitution Party. Now, let's look at some statistics. This year, the number of CP candidates nationwide has exploded. There are four Constitutionalists running for the US Senate, and 13 for the US House. There are five CP candidates for governor of various states, and three of them also have CP lieutenant-governor running mates. One of those states is California, where history has proven that Arnold "The Governator" Schwarzenegger is no true conservative. There is also a CP candidate for secretary of state in California, along with several state legislative seats. The lower house of the Utah state legislature has a whopping 34 candidates from the Constitution Party, and there are 12 Constitutionalists running for the Utah State Senate. A similar, but smaller, trend is seen across Pennsylvania, where the CP has its headquarters. This year, although we might lose a race or two, the Constitution Party cannot be ignored. My sense is that some CP races will be absolute landslides, as the blowback from lax border security hits both halves of the Big Two square in the face. And, because many Democratic incumbents (including my opponent, Jim Cooper) are also vulnerable on abortion and other social issues, voters will be looking for a strong conservative. If the GOP candidates try to hide under the Big Tent, and seek votes as merely "Democrat Lite," such candidates just might get smothered by the tent's collapse. Americans are tired of compromise; we want leaders that actually stand for something. And, as the 2006 elections set the stage for the 2008 presidential elections, the candidates that stand the tallest will be the ones that control the 2008 debates. In turn, the presidential candidate that stands firm in the debates, and shows no compromise, will be the candidate that occupies the White House. It will not be enough to be simply "anyone but Hillary." (Although, having organized the first anti-Hillary rally in New York in 1999, and the first anti-Hillary rally in Nashville this past week, that theme is still one that I consider important.) Americans are looking for candidates that will help to make our country "feel like America again." We are looking for leaders that have the vision of Ronald Reagan, even if they are not from the "party of Reagan." Americans will find those leaders in the Constitution Party. Tom Kovach lives near Nashville, is a former USAF Blue Beret, and has written for several online publications. Tom has been involved in politics since 1992, is the state PR coordinator for the Constitution Party, and is on the November ballot (GOP line) for the 5th Congressional District of Tennessee. To learn more, click: www.tk-05-tn.net Copyright 2006 by Tom Kovach

Guess who left a comment on this blog? The Nevada IAP's Chris Hansen!

2006-05-27T21:40:00.000-04:00

[This form letter has been circulating around the Internet from Chris Hansen, the one who caught so much grief over his personal position on abortion being permissible when the life of the mother was in danger. He left this comment in the post I sent from James Clymer. Here's the comment below. I'd like your comments as well. -- MRP] For over 30 years the No Exceptionists in the Stop Abortion Movement have intimidated people like me by calling us Murderers and/or Baby Killers if we supported the original intent of the Founding Fathers concerning when life began, according to law. Abortion was not murder at the time the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were written. Sir William Blackstone, Sir Matthew Hale Lord chief justice of England and Sir Edward Coke all agreed that abortion, ESPECIALLY IN THE FIRST TRIMESTER was not murder. ”Blackstone's commentaries are clear on this. Blackstone was widely read in America for a century after it was published. Lawyers practicing in the West almost relied entirely on this and the Bible to defend or prosecute.” COMMENTARIES on the LAWS OF ENGLAND Sir William Blackstone 1765 BOOK THE FIRST OF THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS CHAPTER THE FIRST OF THE ABSOLUTE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS I. The right of personal security consists in a person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation. 1. Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the antient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor. Sir Matthew Hale Lord chief justice of England, born on the 1st of November 1609 at Alderley in Gloucestershire wrote in Hale's Pleas of the Crown: “If a woman be quick or great with child, if she take or another give her any potion to make an abortion, or if a man strike her, whereby the child within her is killed, it is not murder nor manslaughter by the law of England, because it is not yet in rerum natura, tho it be a great crime, and by the judicial law of Moses was punishable by death, nor can it legally be made known whether it were killed or not, so it is, if after such child were born alive, and baptized, and after die of the stroke given to the mother, this is not homicide.” 1 Hale, Pleas of the Crown 433 (1736). Jefferson, Madison, and John Adams, preferred the soft Edward Coke over the tough, systematic, and vastly superior Blackstone. Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634) was educated at Cambridge; Coke was called to the bar in 1578. His rise during the times (Elizabethan) in which he lived, was impressive; after a series of appointments he became: a member of the House of Commons (1589), solicitor-general (1592), Speaker of the House (1593), attorney-general (1594), judge (1606), and Chief justice (1613) Sir Coke. He wrote: “If a woman be quick with childe, and by a potion or otherwise killeth it in her wombe; or if a man beat her, whereby the childe dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead childe, this is a great misprison, and no murder… "Sir William Blackstone wrote his best-selling Commentaries on the Law of England from the perspective that Biblical principles form the foundation of all legitimate law. No legislative body nor monarch nor judge may usurp the authority of that divine law. Judges were to reach their decisions based upon what Blackstone refers to as 'general custom' which he understood to be reflective of Christian tenets. He said that judges were, 'the depositories of the laws-the living oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an oath to decide according to the law of the land.' The overriding assumptions, and the reason why the 'common law' was effective, was that the rules of conduct were generally accepted as true and the authority of the court to decide matters of law was generally unquestioned. "Blackstone believed that the Bible contained the revealed Law of God and that the Revealed Law was entirely consistent with Natural Law. He said that human laws were only 'declaratory of, and act in subordination to..' God's Law. Any act (law) of man which was contrary to God's Law would be 'destructive of man's real happiness, and therefore, … the law of nature forbids it.'" Biblical origins of American Political PhilosophyA Look at the Philosophical roots of American Constitutional Republicanism, by John A. Sterling http://www.lawandliberty.org/history1.htm "Next to the Bible, Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, were the most widely read books of the Founding Fathers. Blackstone, emphasized that judges do not make laws, that law is the will of the Divine sovereign, and the Bible is the ultimate sourcebook for laws." http://www.visionforumministries.org/sections/home/annual/2003review.asp?m=7 So the original intent of the word "life" in the Declaration of Independence does not include a pre-born that has not AT LEAST reached the second trimester. Therefore to call a person a "murderer" for supporting NO RESTRICTIONS (which I do not) if that abortion is in the first trimester, is not murder and the individual making such an accusation is guilty of violating the following commandment Ex. 20: 16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. It is interesting to note that the position on abortion of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is almost identical to that of Sir Coke, Sir Blackstone and Lord Hale. These legal authorities said: "this is a great misprison, and no murder…" "though not murder... at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor" "it is not murder nor manslaughter by the law of England,...tho it be a great crime" while the church's position is, "As the matter stands today, no definite statement has been made by the Lord one way or another regarding the crime of abortion. So far as is known, he has not listed it alongside the crime of the unpardonable sin and shedding of innocent human blood. That he has not done so would suggest that it is not in that class of crime and therefore that it will be amenable to the laws of repentance and forgiveness. This quoted statement, however, should not, in any sense, be construed to minimize the seriousness of this revolting sin." The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-Saints has also stated that they support original intent of the Constitution so these positions are not in contradiction at all, unlike the people that claim to support original intent while calling me a murderer and baby killer. WHAT CAN BE DONE TO STOP ABORTION This Nation is in a moral decline. Laws will not change this for as John Admas said: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Therefore we must FIRST encourage a return to morality and religion in all we do politically and personally. We must do all we can to overturn Roe v. Wade and similar court cases. We must NOT support a National Right to Life amendment as it will destory the Republic by destroying State's rights. We must work with ANYONE that wants to limit abortion in any way. We MUST act and look reasonable or we will get as far as we have in the last thirty years. We must promote films like "In the Womb" that show people that get abortions what they are destroying. If we can accomplish these things then we can work toward abolishing Abortion all together through love, law and science. But until we can accomplish these FIRST things we will never stop abortions at all. I am LDS. I am not ashamed of this. I am not apologetic of it. I proclaim it to the whole world. I agree with the Prophets and Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints concerning abortion. Policies and Procedures Statement on Abortion Harold B. Lee, N. Eldon Tanner, and Marion G. Romney, “Policies and Procedures,” New Era, Apr. 1973, 29 In view of a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court, we feel it necessary to restate the position of the Church on abortion in order that there be no misunderstanding of our attitude. The Church opposes abortion and counsels its members not to submit to or perform an abortion except in the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or good health of the mother is seriously endangered or where the pregnancy was caused by rape and produces serious emotional trauma in the mother. Even then it should be done only after counseling with the local presiding priesthood authority and after receiving divine confirmation through prayer. Abortion must be considered one of the most revolting and sinful practices in this day, when we are witnessing the frightening evidence of permissiveness leading to sexual immorality. Members of the Church guilty of being parties to the sin of abortion must be subjected to the disciplinary action of the councils of the Church as circumstances warrant. In dealing with this serious matter, it would be well to keep in mind the word of the Lord stated in the 59th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, verse 6, “Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it.” [D&C 59:6] As to the amenability of the sin of abortion to the laws of repentance and forgiveness, we quote the following statement made by President David O. McKay and his counselors, Stephen L Richards and J. Reuben Clark, Jr., which continues to represent the attitude and position of the Church: “As the matter stands today, no definite statement has been made by the Lord one way or another regarding the crime of abortion. So far as is known, he has not listed it alongside the crime of the unpardonable sin and shedding of innocent human blood. That he has not done so would suggest that it is not in that class of crime and therefore that it will be amenable to the laws of repentance and forgiveness.” This quoted statement, however, should not, in any sense, be construed to minimize the seriousness of this revolting sin. The First Presidency Harold B. Lee N. Eldon Tanner Marion G. Romney

Know Your RINO

2006-05-26T22:13:00.000-04:00

LEGISLATIVE ALERT (THE CONSERVATIVE CAUCUS)

2006-05-26T21:47:00.000-04:00

Dear Friend of The Conservative Caucus: Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, merits our support in pushing for the House passed legislation on immigration and rejecting the Senate amnesty bill. Here are the key points made by Chairman Sensenbrenner at a news conference held on Capitol Hill this morning. 1) "What we need to do is to secure the border and to cut off the attraction of cheap jobs in the United States". 2) "[T]he Simpson-Mazzoli bill (in the 1980s) failed because the employer sanctions were never enforced. And unless we have good internal enforcement as well as border security, there will be people who will have a strong economic attraction to try to get around the fence or over the fence because there is no internal enforcement of the immigrations laws". 3) "[I]t’s always cheaper to hire an illegal immigrant than it is to hire a United States citizen or someone who is legally here with a green card". 4) "[A]mnesty is wrong, because amnesty rewards someone for illegal behavior. And the system that has been set up in the Senate will also result in gross document fraud, because if someone can prove they’ve been here illegally for five years, then they can get the reward of citizenship by doing a few things and paying $2,750 in fines". 5) "Ronald Reagan was honest when he called the legalization procedure (under Simpson-Mazzoli) ‘amnesty.’ What’s going on now, in calling it a ‘pathway to citizenship’ or ‘earned legalization,’ is not honest, because it is amnesty". 6) "The mistake of Simpson-Mazzoli is that amnesty was offered and employer sanctions were never enforced. And because employer sanctions were never enforced, only a third of those eligible for amnesty bothered to sign up, because they feared they’d lose their jobs by pricing themselves out of the market by legalizing themselves". 7) "The amnesty provisions in the Senate bill are almost a carbon copy of Simpson-Mazzoli". 8) "We’ve got a lot of employers that have been breaking the law in hiring illegal immigrants. They get amnesty under this bill (the Senate bill), too". 9) "The problem…is that more and more illegal immigrants are displacing American workers, because in many cases the illegal immigrants are paid in cash, they work for less. In some cases, the Social Security and state and local taxes have not been taken out. So an industry or a company that is dependent upon illegal workers is lowering their labor costs by 30 to 40 percent". 10) "I don’t buy the argument that there are certain jobs that Americans will not do. Americans will do and have done any job as long as they’re paid enough money". 11) "The Chamber of Commerce has adamantly opposed checking out existing employees…If we don’t check out the existing employees, then an illegal immigrant currently in the country cannot change jobs, because if they move jobs, they’d get checked out, and they would get caught. And that establishes a de facto program of indentured servitude for people who are illegally in the country in their existing job". 12) "I’m the first to admit that it’s impractical to round up and deport 12 million people, all of whom will have lawyers filing all kinds of motions in either immigration courts of federal district courts. With the border controls and the enforcement of employer sanctions, the jobs for illegal immigrants will dry up. And if you can’t get a job because employer sanctions are enforced, my belief is that a lot of the illegal immigrants will simply go back home voluntarily". 13) "[S]ecuring the border is not just an immigration issue. It’s a drug enforcement and national security issue, as well….I have seen figures that indicate that 85 percent of the illegal drugs on the streets of Chicago that are sold by gangs come across the southwestern border. So we’re not only dealing with the people problem, but we’re dealing with criminal enterprises, we’re dealing with a huge drug problem, and we’re dealing with a potential terrorism problem as well, because the border is not secured". I urge you to contact your Senators and Representatives, urging them to back Chairman Sensenbrenner on this issue and to favor House immigration legislation, while rejecting that proposed by the U.S. Senate. Sincerely, Howard Phillips Chairman The Conservative Caucus Visit http://www.ConservativeUSA.org Read Howard Phillips' daily Constitutional Commentaries at www.HowardPhillips.com Contact Congress: www.conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm

Immigration, Polls, and the Constitution Party (James Clymer)

2006-05-25T09:50:00.000-04:00

FROM THE DESK OF JAMES N. CLYMER CHAIRMAN, CONSTITUTION PARTY NATIONAL COMMITTEE According to a recent AP article, President Bush's approval ratings continue to swoon to all-time lows, prompting many Republicans to fear an "Election Day massacre" this fall that could end the GOP's control of both houses of Congress. That’s right; the scales are finally falling from the eyes of the Bush-can-do-no-wrong crowd. The folks for whom criticism of the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, or the President’s inability to pronounce the word "nuclear" bordered on sacrilege are, according to the pollsters, angry, confused, and may well sit out this fall's elections altogether. It's too bad it has taken a bloody quagmire in Iraq with a spiraling American body count, astronomical fuel prices, and catastrophic immigration policies that threaten to bury our country, but better late than never. Among other things, the most recent polling data suggests that:

"Just 33 percent of the public approves of Bush's job performance, the lowest of his presidency. That compares with 36 percent approval in early April. Forty-five percent of self-described conservatives now disapprove of the president."
"Just one-fourth of the public approves of the job Congress is doing, a new low in AP-Ipsos polling and down 5 percentage points since last month. A whopping 65 percent of conservatives disapprove of Congress."
"A majority of Americans say they want Democrats rather than Republicans to control Congress (51 percent to 34 percent). That's the largest gap recorded by AP-Ipsos since Bush took office. Even 31 percent of conservatives want Republicans out of power."
"The souring of the nation's mood has accelerated the past three months, with the percentage of people describing the nation on the wrong track rising 12 points to a new high of 73 percent. Six of 10 conservatives say America is headed in the wrong direction."

These are absolutely stunning numbers. So bad has it become that GOP pollster Whit Ayres admitted that "It’s going to take some events of significance to turn this around. I don't think at this point you can talk your way back from these sorts of ratings." The article cited concerns about runaway government spending and homosexual marriage, in addition to gas prices, Iraq, and immigration, as reasons for conservative unrest. Now for the downside: many of these former Bush partisans, who refused to heed the warnings years ago, are still in denial about one crucial point. Many of them believe that the only alternative to milquetoast neocon Republicans are liberal Democrats, who, they rightly perceive, are attacking Bush's policies for all of the wrong reasons. These disgruntled conservatives need to know that there is an alternative to voting for a liberal or staying home in November. The Constitution Party has opposed all of the above mentioned misbegotten policies from their inception, and is unapologetic now for having done so. If elected to office, CP candidates will not stand by wringing their hands while illegal immigrants continue to pour across our southern border, American servicemen continue to die in Iraq, gas prices continue to spiral into the stratosphere, and moral decay continues apace with the help of laws that encourage abortion and sodomy. As a party, we must focus in particular on the illegal immigration crisis (calling it an "issue" somehow falls short). Our elected elites believe, almost to a man, that America needs to somehow accommodate a problem for which no solution is deemed feasible. Fence the border? Can't be done. Go after employers who hire illegals. Nuh-uh, too intrusive. Impose sanctions on Mexico? Who’re you trying to kid, they’re our friends! Mass deportations? Are you some kinda nutcase? And so forth it goes, an endless string of lukewarm platitudes served up as excuses for refusing to defend our own borders against illegal workers, drug traffickers, and other undesirables, perhaps even terrorists. As a party, we need to offer a solution to this problem, a program that will silence the critics of the "I-don’t-see-you-offering-any-better-idea" variety. Certainly enhanced border security, including properly constructed and controlled fences, is in order. So is diplomatic action against the Mexican government in the form of sanctions (of course, that would require defiance of the illicit NAFTA regime, a felicitous side effect!). Severe penalties on employers who hire illegals, banks that allow them to do business, and other institutions that facilitate the flow of illegal wages to illegal workers, would be no more difficult to implement than new rules, like "know your customer" requirements for banks, intended to discourage terrorist cells and other illicit activity. As for deportation, the alternative is another several decades of unimpeded illegal entry, which will nail shut the coffin lid on our once-proud, independent republic. Right now, aside from interdiction near the border, deportation is generally only carried out for high-profile cases with a political payoff, or in response to an extradition request. It is, however, a perfectly legal and very humane alternative to imprisoning illegal immigrants, who are, after all, breaking the law in a flagrant manner. The bottom line, and one worth emphasizing, is that we are literally undergoing a hostile invasion, one whose ultimate agenda its perpetrators do not scruple to conceal, as the recent May 1 demonstrations, boycotts, and work stoppages demonstrated. But the nice thing about this invasion is that we need not resort to armed conflict to stop it. Instead, non-violent, legal measures like those outlines above will put a stop to it in short order, without a shot being fired. Here's hoping that we will seize the fantastic opportunities of this electoral season and, by our successes this fall, send a loud and unmistakable message to the American body politic: the Constitution Party is here to stay!

Paying Tribute to Liberal Virtue" by James Taranto, Opinion Journal (WSJ)

2006-05-24T16:34:00.000-04:00

"The American Civil Liberties Union is weighing new standards that would discourage its board members from publicly criticizing the organization's policies and internal administration," reports the New York Times:

"Where an individual director disagrees with a board position on matters of civil liberties policy, the director should refrain from publicly highlighting the fact of such disagreement," the committee that compiled the standards wrote in its proposals. "Directors should remember that there is always a material prospect that public airing of the disagreement will affect the A.C.L.U. adversely in terms of public support and fund-raising," the proposals state.

Given the organization's longtime commitment to defending free speech, some former board members were shocked by the proposals. No kidding! The ACLU champions "whistleblowers" who reveal national-security secrets, but there are limits. When free speech threatens ACLU fund-raising efforts, why that just goes too far. Amusingly, the Times couldn't find anyone who would speak in defense of the proposed policy. This is as close as anyone would come: Anthony D. Romero, the A.C.L.U.'s executive director, said that he had not yet read the proposals and that it would be premature to discuss them before the board reviews them at its June meeting. . . . Lawrence A. Hamermesh, chairman of the committee, which was formed to define rights and responsibilities of board members, also said it was too early to discuss the proposals, as did Alison Steiner, a committee member who filed a dissent against some recommendations. . . . Susan Herman, a Brooklyn Law School professor who serves on the board, said board members and others were jumping to conclusions. "No one is arguing that board members have no right to disagree or express their own point of view," Ms. Herman said. "Many of us simply think that in exercising that right, board members should also consider their fiduciary duty to the A.C.L.U. and its process ideals." On a different subject but a similar theme, check out this passage from a Times report on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's commencement address at Boston College, which prompted some hippies to protest: The campus African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American organization sent a letter to the administration asking that it "stop touting Secretary Rice's race and gender [sic] as justification for her invitation." Of course, if the members of the campus African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American organization didn't want to go to a school with a commitment to diversity, they should have thought of that before enrolling at BC. (Hat tip: Tom Maguire.) Hypocrisy, La Rochefoucauld observed, is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. The left loves to point out instances in which conservative moralists fail to abide by their ideals. This, however, is a human failing, not a left- or right-wing one.

The Time has Never Been Better for a Third Party (Jeff Adams, Sierra Times)

2006-05-20T10:49:00.000-04:00

May 17, 2006 (Sent to me by Randall C. Stufflebeam, Illinois Gubernatorial Candidate running on the CP ticket. All you Illini out there --- Randy needs your signatures so he can receive ballot access in Illinois. He needs at least 25,000 but in reality much more so there is no question. The deadline is mid-June. Go to http://www.runrandyrun.com to get to know Mr. Stufflebeam better. He's worthy of your vote! THIS JUST IN: He has named a Lt. Governor candidate to run with him this November: Brad Carter. Log on to http://www.carter4freedom.com to get to know Mr. Carter better!) For quite some time, 20 years at least, conservatives, constitutionalists and traditionalists have been frustrated with political reality in America. The ‘Republican revolution’ of 1994 bore small fruit, that establishment Republicans let wither and die on the vine. In the place of promises of smaller government, fiscal responsibility and stronger defense of our liberties and sovereignty, the Republicans have given us what the Democrats wanted to give us: bigger government, larger debts, and big-brother government with fading liberty and sovereignty. The Democrats are nothing but pandering socialists who have sold out to corporate globalists, whereas Republicans are pandering corporatists who have sold out to socialistic globalists. There’s not a whole lot of difference is there? What we have running our country are a bunch of power hungry one-worlders who basically chose up sides to play their game and are only concerned with their team (political party) being in control. Either way we get the same raw deal. Not since the 1850s has the political environment been so ripe for the emergence of another political party onto the national scene in a manner that will allow it to ‘play with the big boys.’ Back then, it was the newly formed Republican Party that came on the scene and eventually eclipsed and killed the Whig Party. If a political party, whether it were to be a newly formed party or one of the current third parties, was to make the right move, it could dominate the right, become a defender of the Constitution, and truly get into the game with the ‘big boys.’ The Democratic Party has sold its soul to socialism and every leftist special interest or perversion known. The Republican Party is tearing itself apart due to the left-leaning elites that control the party, ignoring its conservative base. A new conservative party could pull in the disaffected voters who’ve given up on our political system, and also draw in conservatives hopelessly clinging to the Republican Party. The remaining liberal Republicans would simply fold themselves into the Democratic Party, where there hearts really reside already. According to a recent Scott Rasmussen’s survey, a third party candidate could easily take a third of the votes in a national election if they made preventing illegal immigration and enforcing our immigration laws their key issues. In fact, if Hillary Clinton was to run for president in 2008, without a third party candidate focused on illegal immigration, the survey shows nothing can stop Hillary from winning. Basically, we will have another Clinton in the White House in 2009 if a conservative third party candidate doesn’t come forth and champion U.S. sovereignty and fight illegal immigration. The survey shows that a third party candidate can win in a three-way race. Hillary wins in a two-way race between Democrats and Republicans. But a third party President facing a Congress split between two opposition parties could mean a seriously failed presidency. That is why a third party would have to ensure candidates run for the House and Senate at the same time, and do so with a ‘joint game plan’ with the presidential candidate. If the ‘Contract with America,’ where candidates ran on a group platform, worked in 1994, it can work in 2008, linking a third party’s presidential candidate with that party’s congressional candidates, all sporting the same key issues and ‘running together’ after a fashion. With this in mind, neo-con Republicans would no longer be able to scare conservatives into voting for them simply based on the idea that ‘if you don’t vote for us, the Democrats will control everything.” This worn out line has really lost its impact; especially with how the Republican controlled Congress and White House have spent the last five years acting like Democrats. But what party to form, or which party to look to? To try and form a new, independent party now, looking two years ahead, is a daunting task. I question if this can be done in a manner that will be effective. Looking at existing third parties, which ones have fairly viable organizations that stretch across the country? There are only two I’m aware of that meet the organizational criteria: the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. Both, overall, tend to hold fairly sound, traditional views on limited government, fiscal responsibility by government, and limited international involvement (leaving that involvement to be purely economic). It’s in the area of immigration that these two parties differ. It is the Constitution Party that holds the view the Rasmussen survey shows can take the White House. If the American people wish to break the stranglehold that the current two-party system holds over them (and will surely lead to our financial, cultural and political demise), then anyone who considers themselves a patriot should look to backing the one viable party that stands for American sovereignty and the control of our borders: The Constitution Party. Cast off fears that not voting Republican will mean Hillary gets the White House. The survey shows that that very fear will ensure she gets the White house. It takes courage to take a new path, and it’s time all conservatives, constitutionalists and traditionalists got in the one vehicle that’s currently available to take us back to the constitutional republic our forefathers left us. I’m not saying that every official position of the Constitution Party is going to appeal to all conservatives/constitutionalists/traditionalist, but neither do all the planks in the Republican or Democrat platforms. I’m just saying that if the citizens want to take back their country from the elites and globalists, it’s time to break with the establishment one-worlders who are selling us down the river and take action via a political party that is working to preserve our Constitution as intended, not as interpreted (or ignored) by elitists. The Constitution Party stands for more than just defending against immigration, and people should read up on them. At the same time, the Constitution Party needs to promote more of their fiscal views. Currently, they are known mostly as a pro-life party. They can’t ride an anti-abortion, one-trick pony to the White House or to Congress. To be viewed as a truly viable party, the Constitution Party needs to promote their other views concerning limited government, fiscal responsibility and halting illegal immigration. Getting a truly conservative, Constitution-honoring political party into Congress and the White House would help to steer the U.S. back towards sanity. A three-way split in political parties working in Congress could be really beneficial to the health of our Republic. I know there will be Republican supporters out there that will tell me I’m dividing their ranks and now is the time to fight to keep the Republican Party on track. I can only say that not only is the Republican Party not on track, it has derailed and had a horrible wreck. At this point in time, it is a fool’s errand to attempt to change the neo-con party. I’m also confidant that some Libertarians out there will tell me I should be backing the Libertarian Party rather than the Constitution Party, as they are the real party of true liberty. The Libertarian Party has a lot of good positions on issues. However, as I stated earlier, the big issue that is the turning point for making a third party a true player on the national level is illegal immigration, and the Libertarian Party doesn’t have the correct position on it to take advantage of the current situation in America. In looking for the best vehicle to break the stranglehold that the Republican-Democrat system has on public office, the Libertarian Party simply isn’t positioned properly to be that vehicle. I freely admit that I’m not a Republican any more (I haven’t been for about 10 years now), and that I’m not a Constitution Party member…yet. However, the time is ripe for change, and I’m tired of being a disaffected conservative. Thanks to the spinelessness of establishment politicians, the climate is right for a new major political party, and the Constitution Party is right on the issue of immigration to take advantage of the times. This is not just a chance to shake up the two-party system, but a chance to take our country back and make it a home again for citizens rather than territory to be conquered by the illegal invaders. Jeff Adams, born and raised in the South, is from a long line of independent-minded Southerners. Jeff is a former U.S.A.F. officer, has a Bachelor's degree in engineering and a Master's degree in Human Resources. A life long Southern Baptist, Jeff makes his living in Houston, Texas. Jeff is a regular columnist for Sierra Times. Jeff Adams can be reached at: jeffadams@clicksouth.net

THE CONSTITUTION PARTY REMAINS TRUE ON THE LIFE ISSUE

2006-05-19T10:46:00.000-04:00

by James N. Clymer Constitution Party National Chairman SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT AND HEALING THE RIFT The Constitution Party continues its unwavering stand on the life issue. The Constitution Party platform has not changed and reads in part "We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception. As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father" and "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." On April 21, 2006, at a meeting of the Constitution Party National Committee (CPNC) in Tampa, Florida, a resolution was presented to revoke the status of the Nevada Independent American Party (IAP.) as an affiliate of the Constitution Party National Committee, The issue being voted on was whether the personal opinions of the duly elected state chairman of the IAP, Chris Hansen, opinions which allow for some extremely rare exceptions to the pro-life position, were grounds to disaffiliate the whole Nevada party. The platform of the Independent American Party continues to be in full agreement with the platform of the National Party on the life issue. It stands clearly opposed to abortion and provides for no exceptions; in addition the IAP has adopted and approved the National Platform in its entirety. Chris Hansen’s exceptions position on the life issue is his personal view and not the official position of the party in Nevada. The IAP, since its formation in the 1960’s, has been and remains a pro-life party. Many IAP leaders have long histories of work on the pro-life issue. On the state level they are the party that has been out in front fighting on the life issue. If South Dakota type legislation, which outlaws virtually all medical and surgical abortions in the state, is put on the table in Nevada, it will be Janine Hansen, long - time IAP leader and activist that I call to lead the charge to get it passed. The Nevada IAP was one of the handful of independent state parties that originally banded together to form the national party for the purpose of advancing our platform and principles nationally and supporting a presidential candidate. Just as independent, sovereign states in the 1700’s came together to form the United States government with limited authority, the CP was formed by the state parties who limited the authority of the national organization. The relationship between the national party and its state affiliates is such that, no matter how much it might want to, the national party cannot dictate who the state chairman is or which candidates they put up for public office. The State Party organizations placed stringent limitations on National’s authority in the Party’s Constitution and Bylaws wherein it clearly states that the National Committee has no jurisdiction over the internal affairs of the state party organizations, which certainly includes the officers they elect to represent them. National’s only recourse is the drastic step of disaffiliation, and those National Committee members who were present in Tampa made the difficult decision that the Nevada party has not violated its terms of affiliation. They did so because they realize it is not the Nevada Party’s policy to espouse an exceptions position on the life issue. That does not mean that those present voted to endorse the fact that the Nevada party continues to support Chris Hansen as chairman. Chris Hansen is running for Governor this year, and, needless to say, the Constitution Party National Committee will not be supporting him in any way. On both sides of this issue are Godly people of conviction and principle. No one in Tampa voted in any way to weaken the Constitution Party’s pro-life stand, or in any way to support a compromise on the life issue. No one on either side is in favor of a "big tent" approach to party growth at the expense of principle. I know of no one who believes that the opinions of Chris Hansen are representative of the Constitution Party on the life issue, and I am dismayed that he has taken the bait in engaging in the tit-for-tat of religious insult. There can be no denying that this issue is also horribly complicated by the fact that some of the most outspoken on the pro-disaffiliation side are in favor of a religious test, do not believe that Mormons have any place in the Constitution Party, and are using this as a vehicle to get rid of a state party that is largely Mormon. This is not something that is merely alleged; it is fully documented. Religious tests have come up before. For example, several years ago a majority of the leadership of the CP in Illinois (the predecessor to the currently affiliated CP of Illinois) supported the exclusion of Catholics from leadership positions in the party or from membership positions altogether. At the 2004 National Convention of the Constitution Party in Valley Forge, there were platform amendment proposals submitted proposing a religious test for party membership. In both of these instances the CP rejected efforts to exclude certain religions from participating in the party. 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. We welcome people to become members, to apply to their state parties to run as candidates, and to run for positions of party leadership because they support our platform and will work to "limit the federal government to its delegated, enumerated, Constitutional functions and to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations". 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. Anyone who feels they must be in religious "fellowship" with someone to work with them to achieve common political goals and to save our country should start another party made up of only his particular type of Christian. With such an attitude, Madison could never have worked with Franklin or Witherspoon with Jefferson. I am glad they were able to put aside differences of theology to give us the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Too many on the pro-disaffiliation side of this dispute were clearly not out to heal a rift, but to get rid of the Nevada party at all costs. Even before the meeting they were saying that if they didn’t get their way in Tampa, they would work to destroy the Constitution Party and encourage as many state party organizations as possible to leave. E-mails that were being sent all over the place were ill-considered, full of misinformation, and seemingly designed to stir up discord. Articles published since the meeting have been of that same ilk, and publishing the names of those who voted not to disaffiliate Nevada as being "pro-abortion” is shameful and disingenuous. However, others on the pro-disaffiliation side had no knowledge of the other implications tied to the vote in Tampa. They had no desire to hurt the Constitution Party, and theirs was a vote solely of conscience and solely based on the life issue. Many of them will continue to work through the Constitution Party, and, while I wish it were not the case, some will choose to leave, but, I pray, continue to work alongside us. I also pray that as they see that the CPNC has not wavered and continues to stand by its pro-life principles, they will rejoin our efforts. I am particularly saddened to now see Howard Phillips being pilloried. Howard was the founder of the Constitution Party and has made huge sacrifices to build the party, including when he ran three times as our presidential candidate. I have worked with Howard for many years, he has had a huge influence on me, and I have a very high regard for him. Howard’s patriotism has truly been a labor of love, and to see people turn on him so quickly is appalling. I shouldn’t need to say that he is not a man of compromise, and certainly not a man to compromise on the life issue. His record speaks for itself. The Constitution Party National Committee has not changed its position on the life issue, and it has not abandoned its mission or its principles. I, for one, will continue to work alongside the many people on both sides of this issue who have paid the price in time, work, and money to save our country to the huge detriment of their material circumstances. These are people who have affected me and changed my thinking in profound ways and I know I walk the high-road because I serve alongside them. I appeal to all of you to desist from recrimination, bind up our wounds, and continue together in the fight to save our country. The freedoms of future generations may very well hang in the balance.

Harry Reid Needs Help

2006-05-19T10:37:00.000-04:00

From Gary Bauer, American Values Last night the United States Senate overwhelmingly passed an amendment to the immigration reform bill that declares English is the national language of the United States. The proposal was introduced by conservative Republican Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma and approved 63-to-34. (Unfortunately, it was watered down later in the evening by another amendment offered by Democrat Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado.) But the most outrageous thing was the reaction of Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid of Nevada to the Inhofe amendment. Reid is quoted by the Associated Press saying this: “I really believe this amendment is racist.” Ponder that for a moment. The leader of Senate Democrats believes that promoting one unifying language – English – in our nation is bigotry! On this point, President Bush has been very clear and he has repeatedly stated that immigrants coming to America, who want to be Americans, ought to learn English. The American people agree. One recent poll found that 84% of Americans want English to be our official language. That figure included 91% of Republicans, 82% of Democrats, 77% of Independents, and even 71% of Hispanics! Every Republican leader in Washington ought to be all over Reid this morning demanding an apology for his insult to the American people. Here’s what you can do. Call Senator Reid’s office right now at (202) 224-3542 and politely, but firmly tell them, in plain English, that his racism charge is outrageous and disgusting. As Teddy Roosevelt so wisely said, in the United States you “must also learn one language and that language is English.” (So what do you think? Leave a comment!)

Clinton Pushed RU-486 in His First Presidential Act

2006-05-15T13:26:00.000-04:00

By Randy Hall CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor May 15, 2006 (CNSNews.com) - Before being sworn in as president, Democrat Bill Clinton was told that he should "start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of the country." Clinton received the advice in a letter from an advocate for the abortion drug regimen RU-486, which the president promoted during his first official act in the White House, according to a new report. New attention is being paid to RU-486 as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) debates whether to ban the drug combination because of a spate of incidents in which women allegedly died or were injured from its effects. "The Clinton RU-486 Files", released by the conservative legal group Judicial Watch, contains recently uncovered documents that shed new light on the Clinton administration's legal, political and press strategy for bringing RU-486 into the American marketplace -- despite the manufacturer's earlier decision not to market the drug in the United States. According to the documents obtained last February from the National Archives at the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Ark., Clinton ordered the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the FDA to coordinate the marketing of RU-486. He did so in his first official act three days after moving into the White House in January 1993. Clinton had received advice concerning the abortion regimen in a letter from Ron Weddington, whose wife, Sarah, had advocated for the legal right to abortion as an attorney in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. In urging the legalization of RU-486, Ron Weddington wrote in a Jan. 6, 1992, letter to Clinton. "Something's got to be done very quickly. Twenty-six million food stamp recipients is (sic) more than the economy can stand." The "president-to-be" should "start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of the country," Weddington added. "Our survival depends upon our developing a population where everyone contributes," he wrote. "We don't need more cannon fodder. We don't need more parishioners. We don't need more cheap labor. We don't need more babies." "Weddington's ravings were not relegated to a file for unsolicited constituent correspondence," the Judicial Watch report notes. "On the contrary, the Weddington letter is, chronologically and philosophically, the foundation document for the Clinton RU-486 files." Within a month of Clinton's first directive, FDA Commissioner David Kessler met with the RU-486 manufacturer, the French pharmaceutical company Roussel Uclaf. After that, official political, economic and diplomatic pressure from the U.S. government was exercised to make the drug available in the United States, the Judicial Watch report states. In one confidential memo, former HHS Secretary Donna Shalala claimed that she and Kessler had personally changed the positions of the makers of RU-486 to market the pill in the U.S. The documents also indicate that Roussel Uclaf offered to give the patent for the abortion drug regimen to the U.S. government for free so the French company would not be liable for damages if anything went wrong. "Accepting the patent gift should be touted as a reproductive rights victory for American women and another example of the Clinton administration's commitment to deliver on its promises," Kevin Thurm, a deputy secretary with HHS, wrote in 1994. Still, Thurm noted that Shalala should accept the patent on behalf of the government rather than Clinton "for purposes of insulating the White House" from any political consequences. The documents also show that while Clinton administration officials were concerned rejecting the patent would alienate abortion "rights" groups, the White House turned down the offer anyway, and the company gave the rights to the non-profit Population Council. However, the drugmaker's board would only agree to the arrangement if it received an official letter from the president of the United States requesting RU-486 on behalf of the women of the country. Clinton's letter was dated May 16, 1994, and it stated that women of the United States needed "safe and effective medical treatment." The president concluded his missive by writing: "On behalf of the government of the United States and for the women of America, I thank you for your work." 'Culture of corruption' The Judicial Watch report also claims that pressure from the Clinton administration led the FDA to circumvent the standard requirements for certifying a drug as "safe and effective" in order to rush the abortion regimen to market. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), who is mentioned in a May 11, 1994, status memo by Thurm "as one of six Republicans who cosponsored a bill 'to prohibit federal funds from being used for clinical studies of RU-486 as an abortifacient,'" said that the expedited procedure used to approve RU-486 was "totally inappropriate." That process is "used for drugs that treat disease by providing some hope for life where there isn't any," Bartlett told Cybercast News Service. "Clearly, RU-486 is not that kind of drug." "These new documents prove the RU-486 approval process was infected by raw politics," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Accordingly, Congress and other authorities should launch appropriate investigations. "At least six women and 560,000 unborn children have lost their lives due to the Clinton administration's reckless drive to bring RU-486 to America," Fitton added. "This dangerous abortion pill needs to be pulled off the market immediately." "All of the Clinton administration's actions on this issue were based on the science and what was best for American women," Jay Carson, a current spokesman for the former president, said in a statement to the Associated Press on May 9. But, Joe Giganti, spokesman for the National Pro-Life Action Center (NPLAC), told Cybercast News Service that the report exposes a "culture of corruption" at the FDA. The problem is so severe that the agency is "no longer acting in the best interests of their own mandate, which is to look out for the public health and safety," he added. "They approved a drug that is dangerous to every baby and has been proven dangerous to most of the women who are taking it," Giganti said. Lannier Swann, director of government relations for the conservative organization Concerned Women for America (CWA), added that "it is now the duty of Congress to conduct a thorough investigation to get to the bottom of the unethical actions performed under Clinton's watch," she stated. "Both Clinton and the FDA should be held accountable for their careless disregard for women and failure to put the American people's interests above their own," Swann added. As Cybercast News Service previously reported, the FDA issued a health warning in July 2005 because five American women died after using RU-486. Several months later, Republican lawmakers urged Congress to suspend the availability of the abortion drug, calling it a "baby pesticide" that is also harmful to women. This past March, more deaths were linked to RU-486, and CWA called on the FDA to pull the drug. House Republicans demanded quick action on proposed legislation to force the FDA to withdraw approval of the abortion drug combination. The bill is called Holly's Law and is named after 18-year-old Holly Patterson of California, who died of an infection in 2003 after taking RU-486.

Bush Weighs Deploying Guard to U.S. Border (AP)

2006-05-12T21:07:00.001-04:00

Terrence Hunt, AP Friday, May 12, 2006 WASHINGTON - President Bush, trying to build momentum for an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, is considering plans to shore up the Mexican border with National Guard troops paid for by the federal government, according to senior administration officials. One defense official said military leaders believe the number of troops required could range from 3,500 to 10,000, depending on the final plan. Another administration official cautioned that the 10,000 figure was too high. The officials insisted on anonymity since no decision has been announced. The president was expected to reveal his plans in an address Monday at 8 p.m. EDT. It will be the first time he has used the Oval Office for a domestic policy speech - a gesture intended to underscore the importance he places on the divisive immigration issue. The key questions Friday were exactly how many National Guard troops might be deployed, for how long and at what cost to taxpayers - as well as the problem of possible disruption of upcoming deployments to Iraq and elsewhere overseas. Using those troops for border security is "maybe not the right way to go," said California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican former movie star, though he agreed the federal government is obliged to secure the borders. "Not to use our National Guard, soldiers that are coming back from Iraq, for instance, and they have spent a year and a half over there and now they're coming back," he said. "I think that we should let them go to work, back to work again." Texas Democratic Reps. Silvestre Reyes and Solomon Ortiz - both senior members of the Armed Services Committee - sent a letter to Bush urging him to consider a number of issues before deploying the troops, including whether another mission is in the best interest of "our over-stretched military." As discussions among the White House, the Pentagon and the states continued on how the military could be used to secure the southern border, defense officials said states want the federal government to pick up what will be a significant tab for the increased security. Officials had no estimates on that cost. Bush's speech Monday night is intended to build support for broad immigration overhaul by taking substantive steps to secure the border. "We need to beef up those (border) operations and the cost will be substantial," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said in an interview. "People are just not going to accept comprehensive immigration reform unless they are assured the government is going to secure the border. People have lost confidence in the federal government because they simply haven't addressed this in a dramatic and effective way." Paul McHale, assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense, asked officials earlier this week to offer options for the use of military resources and troops - particularly the National Guard - along the border with Mexico, according to defense officials familiar with the discussions. Cornyn said state officials are also looking for more unmanned aircraft, ground sensors, surveillance cameras and military training to help with border patrols. Defense officials said the National Guard may be used only until significant additions to the existing civilian border patrols can be fully funded and completed. Currently there are about 100 National Guard troops involved in counter-drug operations, including some along the border, said Guard Bureau spokesman Jack Harrison. He said there are also between 10-15 Guard members - mostly engineers - helping border patrol agents with vehicle and heavy equipment support. The discussions this week underscored the importance of the border and immigrations issues, yet were tentative enough to reflect worries about drawing the nation's armed forces into a politically sensitive domestic role. Southern lawmakers met with White House strategist Karl Rove earlier in the week for a discussion that included making greater use of National Guard troops to shore up border control. And on Capitol Hill, the Senate is poised to pass legislation this month that would call for additional border security, a new guest worker program and provisions opening the way to eventual citizenship for many of the estimated 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants in the country. Currently, the military plays a very limited role along the borders, but some active duty forces have been used in the past to help battle drug traffickers. The National Guard is generally under the control of the state governors, but Guard units can be federalized by the president, such as those sent to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Active duty military may not be used for law enforcement unless the president authorizes it. In addition, under federal law, in certain circumstances the states can maintain control of their Guard units but arrange to have the costs picked up by the federal government. That allows the Guard to continue to perform law enforcement activities. Officials wrangled over the use of the active military during Hurricane Katrina, with some suggesting that troops be used for law enforcement to quell violence and looters in New Orleans. There were also suggestions that Bush federalize the National Guard there, but state officials opposed that proposal. In the end, neither move was made. --- AP White House correspondent Terence Hunt contributed to this report. --- On the Net: Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil

Let's adopt a CP candidate from Florida!!!

2006-05-10T11:43:00.000-04:00

Constitution Party Candidates need your support! Have you checked your state website lately to find out who is running for office and needs your help? Please do so right away! If your state is not running a candidate please consider "adopting" a candidate from another state. The May 12 deadline for payment of the filing fee for the Constitution Party of Florida's two Federal candidates is fast approaching and without your help they aren't going to have the $9,726 they need to gain access to the ballot. These two candidates came on board too late to go the petition route, and the U.S. Senate candidate could not have petitioned anyway since the requirement is 103,000 + 25% signatures that must be gathered between January 1 and April 10. In order to get on the ballot they must each raise the $9,726 filing fee. Daniel Barker is running for U.S. Senate against Bill Nelson (D) (incumbent), and Katherine Harris (R). He is a 51 year old resident of Lakeland, Florida, single, and a retired government worker. He supports the Constitution Party platform and is pro-life without exceptions. Checks should be made out to "Daniel Barker for U.S. Senate" and send by expedited mail to 6339 Egret Drive, Lakeland, FL 33809. Carl J. Lauderdale IV of Tamarac, Florida is running for U.S. Congress in Florida's 23rd Congressional District against liberal Democrat Alcee Hastings. To date there is no Republican opposition. Hastings is notorious for his past unethical law-breaking and avoidance of incarceration. He's been in office since about 1992, and usually runs for re-election without any opposition. Carl is 30 years old and is married with four children and one on the way. He is a manager at Motorola and an expert in Space Aeronautics and Computer Science. He also supports the Constitution Party platform and is pro-life without exceptions. Checks should be made out to "Carl Lauderdale for U.S. Congress" and sent by expedited mail to 9481 Bradshaw Lane, Tamarac, FL 33321. Please consider helping these two candidates. Speed is essential as the filing deadline for both candidates is noon on May 12. Any questions should be directed to Jack McLain, the Southern States Chairman of the Constitution Party: jnlfarm@bellsouth.net .

Marion Daily Republican (IL) Article on CP Gubernatiorial Candidate Randy Stufflebeam of Illinois

2006-05-09T14:11:00.000-04:00

Dear Family, Friends, and Fellow Constitutionalists, On Saturday, we held an introductory press conference at the Marion Regional Airport. The press conference was set up by Alex Walker, a dynamic young man from that area. Below is an article that came out of that press conference and was printed today in the Marion (Illinois) Daily Republican. The article was written by Diane Wilkens and I think she has done a fantastic job of introducing my candidacy to the community. To read the article on-line you can click the link below the title. There is a space below the article where you can write a response. You can also write to Mrs. Wilkens expressing your appreciation for her article and how well she did in representing my campaign and the issues. Randall C. Stufflebeam Chairman and Gubernatorial Candidate Constitution Party of Illinois http://www.runrandyrun.com/ StufflebeamRC@RunRandyRun.com Stufflebeam joins race for Illinois governor http://www.mariondaily.com/articles/2006/05/08/news/news02.txt. By Diane Wilkins, wilkins@mariondaily Marion Daily Republican, http://www.mariondaily.com/ Published: Monday, May 8, 2006 12:56 PM CDT MARION — Randall Stufflebeam wants to see America get back to the principles of the Constitution. For this reason he has become a third party candidate from the Constitution Party for governor. The candidate made a campaign stop at the Williamson County Regional Airport Saturday to tell his story. The Canton native currently lives in Belleville with his wife of 26 years, Lisa, and daughter Krista. After retiring from the United States Marine Corps with 22 1/2 years of service, Stufflebeam came to Illinois and was appalled at the corruption, taxation and lack of accountability that was evident. "We are living in a topsy-turvy world, where right is called wrong and wrong is called right," Stufflebeam said. "There is an obvious push to centralize government and globalize the nation. Our rights are being sacrificed in the name of security. Our judicial system is providing for the right to die, instead of protecting the right to live." Stufflebeam states that he believes in the sanctity of life and that all life is precious. Stufflebeam says he will fight to have accountability with tax money and department revenues. "As Governor, I will push for absolute fiscal accountability and eventual elimination of the state income tax," Stufflebeam said. "In the entire United States, Illinois, with its proven lack of accountability, has one of the most corrupt systems regarding both the taxation and the spending of taxpayer's hard-earned money. Already there are several states that do not have an income tax, and neither should Illinois. As we eliminate unconstitutional taxation and spending, we will bring businesses and jobs back to Illinois." Stufflebeam said that the "No Child Left Behind" program, while sounding noble, has burdened our schools with additional administrative responsibilities and has also increased our taxes. However, the level of education in Illinois has not significantly improved. "Our children are our future," he said. "The responsibility of education should be returned to the local communities. "This is also just another tax issue really. How many places are you’re taxed for education? The federal government has a "Department of Education that likes to give the states 'conditional grants' with your money. This Federal Department of Education is funded through your tax dollars. The state also has a Dept. of Education that is funded through state income taxes. How about your property taxes? Aren't they supposed to be funding education? Then of course we have gambling here in the state of Illinois through the Illinois Lottery that is supposed to be funding education. I have just one statement — 'Show me the Money!' I have a hard time believing that all the educational funding is going to education. Once again, it is a matter of accountability. As governor, I will work with our legislators to ensure that all educational options including public, private, chartered and home schools are not only adequately, but also constitutionally funded." Stufflebeam pledged that he would not accept funding by corporations or other non-voting entities, regardless of whom or what they may represent. "We will only accept funding through private individuals," Stufflebeam said. "This is the only way to ensure that as governor I will be representing 'We, the people,' and not we the big business. Once in office, I will work with our legislators and justices to reform the entire election process." Stufflebeam has a target of getting 75,000 signatures on petitions to have his party placed on the ballot in November. "We know as a third party, every signature will be scrutinized and challenged," he said. "We want to make sure that even with all the challenges, we have the 25,000 needed to be on the ballot."

No Amnesty for Illegal Aliens

2006-05-08T16:12:00.000-04:00

Approved by the Constitution Party National Committee, Tampa, Florida, April 21, 2006 Whereas, there is a powerful movement afoot in Washington, D.C. and across the country to legislate amnesty for millions of illegal aliens residing and working in the United States, and Whereas little effort has been made to interdict, apprehend, deport, and otherwise prevent the flood of illegal immigrants into the United States, and Whereas the ongoing wave of illegal immigration constitutes nothing less than a hostile invasion of the United States, encouraged and abetted by foreign political leaders, in Mexico and elsewhere, some of whom have made clear their agenda to reclaim on behalf of the Mexican government territory annexed by the United States after the Mexican War, and Whereas the invasion of illegal immigrants presents a clear and present danger to the security of the United States, by facilitating traffic in human beings, drugs, and other contraband, and by opening conduits for terrorist infiltration, and Whereas illegal immigration and residence within the United States constitutes lawlessness of the most flagrant variety; Be it therefore resolved that the Constitution Party opposes any and all legislation that extends amnesty in any degree or in any form to illegal immigrants, or in any way rewards the millions of illegal aliens in the United States with legal work status, health or other benefits, or any other rights or privileges accorded to American citizens or to foreign nationals traveling or residing legally within the United States.

Being a Good Christian Equals Being a Republican? Get Real!

2006-05-07T13:33:00.000-04:00

When I attended the 2004 Southern Baptist Convention in Indianapolis, in the bookstore was a rather large display with Richard Land and various other men who were being interviewed in an initiative called i Vote Values. Being an election year, incumbent President George W. Bush (a so-called conservative Republican) went against Senator John F. Kerry (a socially and economic liberal Democrat from Massachusetts). Dr. Land clearly supported Bush --- maybe because compared to Senator Kerry he was the logical choice for the 'moral values' constituency. With moral values being the lynchpin that secured Bush the presidency, many in the SBC felt vindicated. Many feel that being a good Christian is being a loyal Republican (and sometimes vice versa). But does this work? Apparently not. After putting all their eggs in the GOP basket hoping to usher in a more moral America, there's a problem amongst the rank and file Republicans that has plunged President Bush's approval rating down to the tune of 33%. Two years being removed from a sound electoral victory, to drop that low means that expectations have not been met. And friends, they never will be. When you start believing that politics will save America and that having legislation outlawing same-sex marriage, late-term abortions, pornography, teaching Creationism in the schools, and other pet projects from the Christian Right --- you are heading down the wrong path. The Pharisees were 'moral' on the outside. But they were corrupt on the inside. What we need is not a change of legislation or even a change of administration, but a revival that changes hearts to be bent toward the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I wish we would stop all of this political nonsense and stop spending all our time trying to be more moral and rather spend time sharing the Gospel of Christ so that we might be more Christ-like in heart and mind. Am I against being a Republican? No --- for I was one up until November of last year. I'm now affiliated with a third-party that better reflects the values I hold dear. But be that as it may --- we must be careful not to buy into what seems to be the SBC's Equation. The Justice Sundays and our demonstrations have their place --- just may they never replace the role of the Gospel! What think ye?

What would a conservative Republican Party look like?

2006-05-05T15:06:00.000-04:00

(From The Patriot Post: Patriot No. 06-18) Well, that's exactly what Indiana Representative Mike Pence and 100 fellow House Republicans are out to answer—how to make the Republican Party the home of constitutionality and conservatism once again. That's not to say there's no conservatism in the GOP. As the titular head of the Republican Party, President George W. Bush has distinguished himself as a conservative when it comes to foreign policy and—all importantly—in restoring the judicial branch to its proper constitutional role through the appointment of constructionist-minded judges to federal benches. That said, President Bush has failed dismally when it comes to restoring, or even holding, government to its proper constitutionally limited role. The size of the central government has grown unabated since President Bush took office. At present, Republicans control the executive and legislative branches of government, yet the size and regulatory role of the central government has grown unabated since President Bush took office. Of course, our nation's vigorous response to the 9/11 attacks and our pre-emptive military response to Jihadis in the Middle East and elsewhere are responsible for some of that growth, but those necessary—and we might add, constitutionally mandated—expenditures have not been offset by spending cuts to domestic programs as Mr. Bush once promised would happen. Today, the federal government spends $2.47 trillion—that's 2,470 billions of dollars—each year. Adjusted for inflation, that's 50 percent larger than the big-government Clinton-era budgets of only a decade ago, about which Republicans constantly complained. Of that, only 21 cents of every taxpayer dollar goes to national defense and homeland security. By contrast, 54 cents goes to entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and 8 cents goes to servicing the federal debt. Meanwhile, the federal deficit will grow another $423 billion this year, raising the national debt to $8.28 trillion! While we're not exactly "The sky is falling!" deficit hawks, it's worth noting that big budgets and big deficits tighten the money supply, increasing the costs of investment and slowing economic growth and prosperity. Enter the Republican Study Committee. Founded in 1973 by Rep. Phil Crane to reinvigorate the GOP as the party of constitutional constructivism and social conservatism, the RSC became the premier mobilizing agent for House conservatives, dedicated to "a limited and Constitutional role for the federal government, a strong national defense, the protection of individual and property rights, and the preservation of traditional family values." In 2005, Rep. Mike Pence became the Committee's chairman for the 109th Congress. He and his fellow conservatives have rallied around principles outlined in a speech last fall, "Another Time for Choosing," picking up the central theme of Ronald Reagan's famous 1964 speech "A Time for Choosing". Today, under Pence's leadership, the RSC is the originator of the Contract with America: Renewed, created by Representatives Pence and Jeb Hensarling, with the aim of reviving the legislative agenda of Newt Gingrich's original 1994 Contract with America. It was that agenda, readers will recall, that catapulted Republicans into control of Congress for the first time in over 40 years. The RSC is taking steps to get the federal government out of the entitlement business altogether. Under the FY 2007 Contract with America: Renewed budget proposal, overall spending would be reduced by more than $700 billion and a balanced federal budget realized by 2011. The RSC proposal would make real reductions in discretionary spending (without silly and unconstitutional inventions like a "line-item veto"), rein in entitlement spending and undergird the U.S. economy with sound, pro-growth tax policy. Under the RSC plan, more than 150 other federal programs would be eliminated outright. Foreign aid—which should serve as a tool for U.S. security and interests abroad, but often falls prey to special interests—would be cut by $31 billion over five years. The ignominious six-year Highway Bill, pork-laden with roads and bridges to nowhere, would be repealed. Medicare, whose trustees this week announced will go broke in 2018, would be limited to a more sustainable growth of 5.4 percent annually—a necessary first step in getting the federal government out of the entitlement business altogether. As was the case in 1994, today's Contract isn't just about a return to fiscal conservatism; it includes a strong focus on social conservatism as well. Take, for instance, the Contract's objectives with respect to the three sacred cows of taxpayer-funded social liberalism: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts—not reduction, elimination. And that's just the beginning. In 1994, when the "Gingrich Revolution" launched the original Contract, Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, and the nation was in the grip of the Clinton presidency. The Contract nationalized the election around its agenda. It proved a monumental success in capturing both Houses for the GOP, promoting increased trade, reforming welfare and containing the advance of big-government entitlement schemes under the Clinton regime. Now, 12 years later, with Republican control of the Senate and the Presidency, true conservatism is again set for takeoff—so what's keeping this would-be juggernaut on the launch pad? Democrats? No, not really. In a word, it's the leadership of the Republican Party. Indeed, DC scuttlebutt says that Pence was told his Contract: Renewed would be DOA when it hit the House floor. Sadly, the party in control is all too vulnerable to Lord Acton's famous maxim ("Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."), using earmarks, pork-barreling and other budgetary quid pro quos to stay in power. As evidence, the Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) 2006 Congressional Pig Book identifies 9,963 pork projects in 11 appropriation bills, totaling $29 billion for FY 2006 alone. Since 2003, says CAGW, congressional pork has increased by a staggering 29 percent. Crusading reformers while out of power, the GOP in power seems seduced by Washington's tax-and-spend status quo. To make us feel better about it, it's now called "compassionate conservatism" —an agenda thoroughly embodied in President Bush's 2005 Nanny State of the Union. Where's the Republican leadership? It's a mixed bag. In the Senate, Majority Leader Bill Frist has a 92 percent overall approval rating by the American Conservative Union (ACU). Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has a 96 percent ACU rating. Both have 95 percent ratings from Americans for Tax Reform (ATR). In the House, where members are more responsive to their constituents, Speaker Dennis Hastert has a 100 percent ACU rating, as does the new Majority Leader, John Boehner. The ACU gives House Whip Roy Blunt a 96. Their ATR ratings are 100, 100 and 95, respectively. That's the good news. When it comes to government waste, the Republican leadership gets an "F." But when it comes to government waste the story takes a different turn. CAGW gives Frist and McConnell a 66 and 69, respectively, while in the House, Hastert, Boehner and Blunt line up with scores of 50, 75 and 65. That's an average score of 65—an "F" —for the Republican congressional leadership. With government waste out of control even among the otherwise moderate-conservative leadership, and no leadership on fiscal conservatism coming from the White House, the RSC agenda faces a tough, maybe insurmountable, hill to climb. In Rep. Pence's words during the latest round of budget negotiations, "We must not let this moment pass. The American people long for Congress to reaffirm our commitment to fiscal discipline and reform and House conservatives are ready to stand with our leadership to do just that."

"Un Dia Sin Immigrantes" by Rich Galen

2006-05-02T13:06:00.000-04:00

CNSNews.com Commentary from Mullings.com May 01, 2006 * I have been puzzling over why I have approximately zero sympathy for a national boycott in support of illegal immigrants which is planned for today. * I am only a second-generation, native-born American, so it is not as if I have some claim to citizenship because "my people" have been here since Christopher Columbus got lost and found America. * My grandparents came from Poland and Russia just about 100 years ago. Family lore has it that both sets came in through Ellis Island so I presume they followed whatever rules were in effect at the time, but it is only a presumption. * My paternal grandfather's name was, I believe, Zukufski, which has never been my name, so there exists the possibility of skullduggery at some point in the process. * I see no comparison to plight of illegal immigrants in 2006 to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's. (A) Africans didn't exactly sneak in, in fact they were captured, kidnapped, and brought here in chains. (B) Most African-Americans can trace their lineage in the United States to the early part of the 1800's if not earlier so they can't exactly go back to their family neighborhood. (C) Blacks were the victims of a Constitutionally-approved system of legal, societal, and cultural maltreatment up until only about 50 years ago. * Illegal immigrants have none of those attributes: (A) They have, by definition, come to the United States willingly -- they went to great lengths to sneak in. (B) Most have been here in the range of a decade or less so they can return from whence they came and, one suspects, find things pretty much as they left them. (C) If ATMs are any example (the first button you have to press tells the machine whether to proceed in English or Spanish), there are laws, rules, and customs which specifically attempt to make it easier -- not more difficult -- for illegal immigrants to function in the US. * A good deal consternation about how to deal with illegal immigrants who have children born in the US. A child born in the US is, under the concept of jus soli, a citizen of the US no matter the status of the child's parents. * Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand all changed their laws regarding jus soli citizenship by requiring that at least one parent be a citizen before citizenship is conferred upon the child. * In the US, the 14th Amendment confers citizenship on anyone born here, so that solution would require amending the Amendment. * It is not certain that the planned boycott will be effective in helping move legislation through Congress. It is absolutely certain that it will fuel the resolve of those -- especially in the US House -- who believe that all illegal immigration should be treated as a criminal matter. * According to the Associated Press, "immigrants [are] being urged boycott work, school and shopping. In Tucson, Ariz., an organizer urged 'no buying at all,' not even calls to Mexico." * Good slogan: No cell phones, no peace. NEW TOPIC * I listened to the wailing over gas prices on yesterday's Sunday shows and I was waiting for someone -- anyone -- to point out that it is not just US oil companies which are enjoying enormous profits, but our allies in the Middle East as well. * How about demanding that Saudi Arabia or (dare we suggest) Dubai pick up a significantly higher portion of the tab for ridding the region of Saddam? How about Kuwait - which was invaded by Saddam - offering to lead the way? * I have another question: How is it that when the price of a gallon of crude in the North Sea rises by $1.50 overnight; the price at the pump goes up first thing in the morning? * The gasoline in the tank buried beneath the station didn't become more expensive, did it? Nor did the gas already in the trucks which deliver it to your retailer, nor did fuel in the tanks waiting to be loaded onto the trucks become more expensive. * Why do we accept the fact that retail dealers will raise the price at the pump based upon the price of crude ... that day! * Want to make an impact on gas prices? Forget about not calling Mexico. Let's have a national day of not buying gasoline. * On a the Secret Decoder Ring page today: The text of the first clause of the 14th Amendment; a link to an interesting tribute to Tony Snow by Mullster Dr. Bill Hamilton; an unusual topic-relevant Mullfoto; and a Catchy Caption of the Day. Copyright 2006, Richard A. Galen

The Big Three: What the President Should Focus On in the Last 1000 Days (Peggy Noonan)

2006-04-29T12:32:00.000-04:00

Thursday, April 27, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT The meme is out there: "A thousand days." That's how long the Bush administration has in office (or had, to be precise, as of yesterday). To criticize the White House--if the criticism is serious, well-grounded and well-meant--is helpful, and part of a long and good tradition. But allowing philosophical estrangement to leave you wishing the administration ill is to give in to the destructive spirit of the age. That too has a tradition, but not a good one. Five years ago this September history took a dark turn, and though we can forget it in the day to day, we're all in this together. In that spirit, a plan for the thousand days. With the appointment of Tony Snow the first round of staff changes seems ended, and the desired effect is achieved: a new start, with new people. The sense of newness will last for a while because the reporters who tell us the news need a storyline. They need, as they say, a narrative. The narrative they will go with now is: "Staff Changes Being Felt Throughout White House / May Signal Policy Changes." The next story line will either be "Staff Changes Fail to Stop Listless Drift" or "Shakeups Yielded New Dynamism". So the story now is change, and the story a few months from now is the change that change wrought. This is a time of opportunity. White House staffers can work to help create the future headline they want. As a public face of the White House, Tony Snow will likely get a good start. His remarks to the press yesterday--"Believe it or not, I want very much to work with you"--were gracious, and showed legitimate sympathy for the press corps. They have hard jobs and operate under many pressures, from uncomprehending editors in the bubble back in the newsroom to officials who try to jerk them around to executive producers in New York who don't like their hair. (One of the best White House correspondents I ever knew, a woman of seriousness and sophistication who threw the ball straight down the middle, was removed from her assignment, her career thwarted, because she'd committed the sin of not being considered pretty enough by her boss. Before she was removed she had to spend half her time getting new clothes and haircuts and makeup. This so she could do a serious job with expertise and spirit. TV is absurd.) Mr. Snow's White House press briefings are going to be nice to watch. The press does not want to appear to be ungracious and oppositional. They have an investment in demonstrating that the tensions each day in Scott McClellan's press briefings, with David Gregory's rants and Helen Thomas's free-form animosities, were the fault of Mr. McClellan, not the press. So they will start out gracious with Tony. Good. Everyone involved will benefit from turning the page. A plan for the administration? Free advice is worth the price, but here goes: Narrow--and deepen--the focus. The administration has popped too much the past five years, tried to do too much, and all at the same time. An administration about everything is an administration about nothing. There are three issues on which the administration can, and should, focus, and only three. Why? Because three big issues in a thousand days is more than enough, and because history itself will hand the White House new problems every day and every week--a hurricane, a scandal, a coup, a famine, an insurrection, a terror incident. It all has to be dealt with. It all will come along and take your attention, for a while, from the big three. Lincoln confessed what all presidents learn: events controlled him more than he controlled events. Issue 1: Iraq, Afghanistan and the age of terror. On these, stabilize, fortify, succeed. Keep America safe. All this will require ruthless concentration. Back up all action with illustration and explanation. Inform the public--constantly--as to what is happening, and why, and what is being done, and why. We already know liberty is God's gift to man; make statements that are less emotive and more fact-filled, more strategically coherent. Renew attention to Afghanistan. The American invasion of that country had the support of the world. Don't let anything endanger the stability and health of the endeavor. Public confidence in the administration's management of homeland security went down after Katrina. Talk about what's being done, and how, and why. Find Osama--it is a scandal that the man who started the new era is still free, still taunting the West, still inspiring those who see the world as he does. It was a mistake to think finding him was not as important as a wider war on terror. Finding him is key. It is almost five years since he did what he did. Get him, try him, kill him. Issue 2: the economy. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is at new post-9/11 highs; there's little unemployment. New home sales are up, productivity up, profits up. This is President Bush's triumph. And yet in polls Americans don't credit him with it. (My hunch: Americans, a deeply savvy lot, never want to tell a politician he's doing well on the economy because their applause may lead him to feel he can shift focus to, say, colonizing Mars. Americans always name prosperity in retrospect. In real time they like to keep the pressure on.) There are problems, challenges, changes that require thought. The biggest complaint I hear now from people who email me from all parts of the country is that they're being worked to death, longer hours at the office, can't see the kids. Gas prices are up and up, etc. The president should talk about the economy--not in a braying, bragging way but in an instructive, engaged way that discusses the philosophy and actions that allowed the market to do what it wants to do, grow. Presidents always--all of them--like to say they created 50,000 jobs last month. No president has ever created a job, except in the public sector. But presidents can take steps that keep jobs from being created, and deserve credit when they don't. And they can take steps that are helpful to job creators, and deserve credit when they do. Did the tax cuts, at the end of the day, help the economy? Why? How? Will a change in the tax structure, or will making permanent the tax cuts, help? What impact does high federal government spending have on the economy? Where should we go on that, and why? Talk about the flow of money in America. Issue 3: the integrity of America's borders. That is, the right and ability to decide who comes here and when, the right and ability to make judgments based on our nation's needs. This is both an economic issue and a national security issue; it naturally connects to issues 1 and 2. On this, Washington is talking a lot and doing nothing. Congress and the White House right now are like people who live in a big house who have finally noticed the kitchen is on fire. So they all meet in the living room and debate how exactly to rebuild the kitchen, what color to repaint the walls, and how to get the best deal on a new microwave. And while they are holding their discussion they're forgetting to do the most important thing. They're forgetting to put out the fire. You can lose a house this way. Putting out the fire in this case is closing and policing the essentially open border with Mexico--now. Close down illegal immigration, now. Then talk. (A hunch for liberals: Your views will be received with greater generosity once the air of daily crisis is removed.) So that's it. Three big issues, plus whatever comes over the transom each day and demands a response. On that, the wisdom of Calvin Coolidge: When 10 problems are walking toward you, don't feel you have to do something right away. Some of the problems will fall to the side and not reach you, some will solve themselves. Face what remains. But focus, to the extent you can, on the big three. Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father," (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Thursdays.

Bad And Getting Worse (Gary Bauer)

2006-04-21T16:39:00.000-04:00

Every conservative (Read: Republican) in town has been losing sleep over President Bush’s falling poll numbers. Today’s Fox News poll will provide them no rest. The president’s approval rating hit a record low of 33 percent this week, down from 36 percent two weeks ago and 39 percent in mid-March. Is the country becoming more liberal? Not at all! The president’s decline, which appears to be picking up momentum on the down-side, is largely explained by falling support among self-described Republicans. For the first time, his approval rating from Republicans has dropped below 70 percent to 66 percent. So, what explains the horrendous numbers? Two issues have been in the headlines in the last week or so: rising gasoline prices and illegal immigration amnesty. On the gas prices, the media has been relentless with a new story every night. Meanwhile, the Republican Party and the White House have been largely silent, even though there is a strong case that can be made to explain the increase. By the way, this will get worse. Spot shortages are now showing up here in the East because of environmental requirements mandating that an additive be taken out of the gasoline and ethanol added. On immigration, the problem is more severe, and the Republican Party is in danger of self-destructing. The Fox poll shows that only 26 percent of the country thinks that recent demonstrations are appropriate, but there has not been one word from the administration questioning how illegal immigrants can freely march demanding – not requesting – that we change our laws. Do we want to reach out to the center? Then deal with illegal immigration. The Fox poll shows that Independents, in a backlash against the demonstrations, now say they are less likely to support easing immigration requirements by a 54-to-14 percent margin. [What do you think?]

Lessons on Effective Leadership from Harry Truman

2006-04-17T21:19:00.000-04:00

(From PreachingNow, Vol. 5, no. 15 --- http://www.preaching.com) In a recent edition of his TIPS newsletter, Philip Humbert writes, "Harry Truman didn't find a career until late in life. He didn't marry until well into his thirties, and before that he tried a variety of jobs and ventures, including farming and selling men's clothing. His clothing store went bankrupt and he referred to himself as a 'failed haberdasher' for the rest of his life. Because of poor eyesight, he barely made it into the Army, but served with distinction and courage in World War I. In his 40's and 50's he drifted into politics and served as a county commissioner, mainly dealing with road repair. "He never had money and he and his wife spend most of their married life living upstairs in his mother-in-law's home. When he was elected to the U.S. Senate, he was seen as a party hack and given little respect. In 1944, Franklin Roosevelt selected him to run for Vice President after the 'better' candidates were all rejected. FDR thought so little of him, they never had a serious conversation and Truman was told nothing about the atomic bomb until several days after he was sworn in as the new President. "And yet this 'common man' is often viewed as one of the greatest Presidents of the 20th century. How can this be? Truman himself often said that there 'are probably a million people more qualified than me to be President, but I'm the one with the job, and I'll do my best.' Throughout his life, he was always known for doing his best, and often astonished people by exceeding their expectations. Here are some of my observations about how he did it. 1. First, he out-worked everyone around him. FDR rarely got to work before 10:00 AM, but Truman was usually up by 5:30 and worked all day long. In his first days as President, the change caught the White House staff off-guard. From the butlers to members of the Cabinet, they had never seen anyone who worked so hard and demanded such from them. One key to his amazing success was simple hard work. 2. Second, he was decisive. Where FDR delayed and avoided decisions, Truman listened to advice, read the reports, made decisions promptly, and once they were made, he rarely changed his mind. He made bold decisions and once made, he knew how to hold a steady course. 3. Third, his personal integrity was beyond reproach. At the Potsdam Conference after the war, he went into Berlin and a staffer suggested they could go drinking or get some 'women of easy virtue,' to which Truman coldly responded that he loved his wife and didn't mess around on her. He kicked the staffer out of his car and never spoke to him again. 4. Fourth, he knew the value of loyalty. He was famous for his life-long friendships and personal warmth. He knew the names of staffers in the White House, and remembered their families. When members of his staff came under political fire, he ignored the newspapers and kept his team together. 5. Fifth and most important, he knew who he was. In the face of enormous pressures and criticism, Truman knew his goals and purposes, remained firm in his beliefs and seldom wavered. He had enormous personal courage and quiet confidence in his own judgment. "Sooner or later, life confronts each of us with problems that seem beyond our abilities and asks us to meet them anyway. Whether from illness or business gone bad, or in some other form, eventually we must dig deep to see what we are made of. These 'impossible' challenges reveal our character and give us the opportunity to surprise ourselves. President Truman did it, and so can we." (Copyright © 2006, all rights reserved. Contact Humbert at www.philiphumbert.com or email to Coach@philiphumbert.com )

Sanctions Against Iran (Ron Paul)

2006-04-17T10:35:00.000-04:00

As the drumbeat for military action against Iran grows louder, some members of Congress are calling to expand the longstanding U.S. trade ban that bars American companies from investing in that nation. In fact, many war hawks in Washington are pushing for a comprehensive international embargo against Iran. The international response has been lukewarm, however, because the world needs Iranian oil. But we cannot underestimate the irrational, almost manic desire of some neoconservatives to attack Iran one way or another, even if it means crippling a major source of oil and destabilizing the worldwide economy. (Click the title of this blog entry to read all of this article. I'd love to know your thoughts.)

Join the Resistance

2006-04-17T09:43:00.000-04:00

Rising Gas Prices: How to Fight Back April 17, 2006 by John W. Whitehead [Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org . Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org .] I have a friend whose story should be shocking. Instead, it is quickly becoming the norm. On her way home from work last Friday, she stopped at Sam’s Club for groceries and gas. She ran inside and less than a half hour later was filling up at the pump. But it seems that she should have gotten the gas first because it had gone up twenty-five cents a gallon in the few minutes it took her to grab a few groceries. As anyone who has to rely on an automobile for transportation knows, gasoline prices have soared in recent weeks. And some prognosticators are warning that by next summer, they could reach $4.00 a gallon. But rising gas prices affect us in many other ways. Since most American cities rely on cross-country truck delivery of food and other goods, when the price of gas goes up, so do the consumer’s costs. And it’s not just transportation and agriculture that are largely dependent on abundant, cheap oil. Modern medicine, water distribution and national defense are predominantly powered by oil and petroleum-derived chemicals. Also, many of the consumer goods we buy are made with plastic, which is derived from oil. In addition, all electrical devices—including solar panels and windmills—make use of silver, copper and/or platinum, all of which are discovered, extracted, transported and fashioned using oil-powered machinery. The U.S. government is blaming the steep gas prices on the war in Iraq, a limited supply of oil and blah, blah, blah. But absent last year’s hurricane damage or oil shortage, we have to look elsewhere. The volatility of crude oil prices, which have doubled in the last two years, is supposedly the driving force behind the rise in gas prices. Economists fear the tenuous state of the market, acknowledging that there is no room for disaster or a mistake this year. And the routine shutdown of some oil refineries to address maintenance and repairs that linger from hurricane damage or were postponed in the oil crisis after the hurricane could have a large effect on the supply needed in the busy summer months. Growing demand, high crude oil costs, requirements for low-sulfur gasoline and greater demand for corn-based ethanol as an additive are also expected to keep consumer prices for motor fuels high. The high prices, however, are not expected to dampen the demand during the April-September heavy driving season. Motorists are expected to use an average 9.4 million barrels of gasoline a day, or 1.5 percent more than last summer. With consumer driving habits unaltered and prices edging higher daily, the sluggish U.S. Congress has taken some action. The Senate Judiciary Committee recently introduced a bill that would increase competition in the oil and gas industries, therefore reducing the monopolies and large profit margins currently enjoyed by several giant companies. But who is really to blame here? Chrysler’s chief spokesman, Jason Vines, recently took a swipe at Big Oil, stating, “Big Oil would rather fill the pockets of its executives and shareholders rather than spend sufficient amounts to reduce the price of fuel, [therefore] letting consumers… pick up the tab.” Referring to a recent Exxon Mobil ad that blamed auto companies for the rising price of gas, Vines said, “Despite a documented history of blowing their exorbitant profits on outlandish executive salaries and stock buybacks, and hoarding their bounty by avoiding technologies, policies and legislation that would protect the population and environment and lower fuel costs, Big Oil insists on transferring all of that responsibility on the auto companies.” Nearly all American auto companies are losing money, while the oil giants are raking in record profits. The sharp rise in gas prices has severely lessened demand for the auto industry’s most profitable vehicles such as SUVs. Now that the auto industry is taking a large hit with the ever-increasing prices, auto executives are ready to fight back against greedy oil giants. Exxon Mobil leads the world’s oil companies in profits but has also set a record for both quarterly profits and overall net income. Profits for the fourth quarter reached $10.7 billion and yearly totals exceeded $36 billion, up nearly thirty-one percent from the previous year. What can be done? Big oil has us over a barrel, so to speak, but we can fight back. There is a movement slowly building to boycott big oil. To quote from a recent e-mail: “For the rest of the year, don’t purchase any gasoline from the two biggest companies (which now are one), Exxon and Mobil. If they are not selling any gas, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit.” Sounds good to me. Join the resistance!

An Easter Message from Randy Stufflebeam

2006-04-15T21:52:00.000-04:00

Dear Family, Friends, and Fellow Constitutionalists, Tomorrow, we celebrate the most significant day in Christian history -- the day Christ returned from the dead. As I thought about how that day must have gone for the Disciples and Apostles of Christ, I was reminded of perhaps my most favorite song of all time. It is a song entitled "He's Alive" written by Don Francisco. It is a story of Easter Morning as would have been told by the Apostle Peter. As I'm sure that many of you could say the same thing, I probably identify with Peter and his personality and therefore feel that this could well have been my song/story. The lyrics to the song are below. You can click the following link to go to the Easter Page that I created and listen to the song as sung by Don Francisco himself. Hope you enjoy. http://www.runrandyrun.com/easter/EasterMessage.htm. Lisa, Krista and myself all pray God's blessing upon you and your family this Easter Holiday!! Randall C. Stufflebeam CP Candidate for Governor

Name change to Constitutionalogistix

2006-04-15T20:22:00.000-04:00

Can you believe the nerve of some people --- changing the name of a two-day old blog? Well, I wanted to really crystallize what this blog was about! It's not just 'political,' but an aim to help all who read be more 'constitutional.' Logistics is defined by Merriam-Webster as "the handling of the details of an operation." And if there is ever a time that we as a country need to start handling the details of our Constitution, it is now! Tell your friends about the blog and be sure and subscribe!

A Review of "Stupid in America" (Lee Duigon)

2006-04-15T15:43:00.000-04:00

Stupid in America: How We Cheat Our Kids A Documentary by John Stossel, for ABC’s 20/20 Dressed like derelicts, teenagers in a public school classroom — with their teacher present — climb on top of their desks, crawl on the floor, turn their backs on the teacher and talk loudly with each other, play cards, or wander around the room. One boy even strips to the waist and “dances” during class. Everyone who has ever cracked his head against the brick wall of the government school monopoly owes ABC’s John Stossel a vote of thanks for filming these goings-on and broadcasting the images over the nation’s airwaves. Why? Because the American people don’t believe us when we say that public education is a failure. Even if they grant that “other schools” may be in trouble, they insist that “our schools” are all right. Parents and taxpayers need to see these images, and Stossel has provided them. But in one 60-minute documentary (with time out for commercials), he is able to reveal only the tip of the iceberg. As bad as the schools fare under his examination, the truth is ever so much worse. Are American Kids Stupid? Making the film wasn’t easy. “State after state wouldn’t let us in,” Stossel said. “Washington, D.C., directed us to a few of their best schools, and New York City wouldn’t let us in at all.” In fact, the chaotic classroom described above was in “one of America’s best public schools!” Stossel said. Why keep out the cameras? What do the schools have to hide? Plenty — but constrained by his time and format, Stossel focused sharply on the academics. “The longer they stay in school,” he concluded, “the stupider they are.” Stossel compared a “good” school district in suburban New Jersey to an “average” school in Belgium, administering to the students a general information test. The Belgian students answered 76% of the questions correctly; the New Jersey students, 46%. “It has to be something with the school,” said a disappointed American child, “’cause I don’t think we’re stupider.” A recent report by the National Center for Education Statistics reveals that only 31% of American college graduates can read a complex book with good comprehension.[1] How can that be? Stossel zeroed in on an 18-year-old in South Carolina who could not read, period. School administrators and “education specialists” insisted he was making progress, “doing fine,” etc. — only he still couldn’t read. His mother finally sent him to the local Sylvan Learning Center, where he learned to read in 72 hours. “South Carolina schools, in 12 years, spent $100,000 on [his] education,” Stossel said, “and left him behind.” Compared to students in 24 other countries, American children at the age of 10 take a standardized test and place eighth out of 25. At the age of 15, when children from 40 countries take the test, the Americans slip to 25th place. “They do worse than kids from much poorer countries, like Korea and Poland,” Stossel said. Why are America’s schools so bad? It’s the Monopoly, Stupid

Ask an “educator,” and he’ll surely tell you that our schools would get better if only we spent more money on them. “They tell us, ‘There’s nothing wrong that money can’t fix,’” Stossel said. He went on to examine a Kansas City school district where $2 billion was spent on gaudy “improvements” — indoor pool, indoor track, weight rooms, computer labs, and so on. “The kids’ scores got worse, and those schools lost their accreditation.” “You could give the public schools all the money in America, and it wouldn’t be enough,” said a frustrated reformer. “Where does the money go?” Stossel asked. To administrative salaries, additional administrative staff, new administration buildings, “consultants,” and “experts,” he answered. Asking a few teachers how much money ought to be spent per child, per year, the teachers replied: “Oh … $10,000 per pupil … maybe $25,000 … or $30,000. The more, the better.” The money makes no difference, Stossel said, because public education is a government monopoly — immune to competition and under no pressure whatsoever to improve. Competition and school choice, in the form of vouchers and charter schools, would force the public schools to improve, Stossel said. Stossel is well-known for his libertarian, free-market views. Returning to Belgium, he compared that country’s choice-based school system to America’s government monopoly. “Belgium has school choice,” he said. “The money for education is attached to the kids, not the schools, and parents have full choice. So if the schools are not good, they’re gone. “Why should we keep kids in a school that’s not working?” Why No Reform?

Just before Stossel finished preparing his documentary, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the state’s experimental school choice program — which had already produced positive results — was unconstitutional. Earlier, school choice proposals in South Carolina, backed strongly by the governor, were killed by the state legislature. In Florida, a public school teacher sued to abolish school choice. “Competition is not for human beings,” she said. In South Carolina, the state teachers’ union spent millions of dollars on lobbying and television ads to keep school choice from seeing the light of day. Reform efforts fail, Stossel said, because public school administrators and teachers’ unions do everything in their power to defeat it. To show the political face of the teachers’ unions, Stossel filmed a mass rally by the New York City teachers. “You are heroes!” the union president roared to the crowd; and the crowd roared back. How strong are the unions? “The monopoly in my town [New York],” Stossel said, “can’t fire a teacher who sends sexual emails to a 16-year-old student.” That teacher finally was fired, he said, but only after a five-year wrangle with the union. In a rhetorical coup, Stossel displayed a chart showing the process that must be followed by a New York City principal seeking to fire a teacher for cause. The chart was six feet long and featured enough arrows, boxes, solid and dotted lines to make the schematic for a lunar probe look like a diagram for a balsa wood toy glider. And it’s backed up by a 200-page union contract! What He Left Out

Unable to dissect a world-class mess in an hour-long documentary, Stossel omitted any reference to the teachers’ unions’ political and cultural agenda. The unions spend tens of millions of dollars a year to support left-wing political candidates and causes. And in most states, if you match up the names of your teachers’ union officers with those on the rosters of the leading homosexual activist groups, you’ll find many of them on both lists. These are not the persons to whom Christian parents should entrust their children. The unions may not be doing a good job of teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic; but they are teaching promiscuity, abortion, and sodomy. Stossel also neglected to mention the only real solution to the problem — remove your children from the public schools, and either send them to Christian schools or homeschool them. This has long been Chalcedon’s position. An evil tree can bear only evil fruit, and public education is an evil tree. R.J. Rushdoony spent decades proving this: see his 1963 book, The Messianic Character of American Education.[2] American public schools rest on a non-Christian, aggressively secularist philosophy that rejects God’s laws and puts man and the state in His place. This is not fruit you want your children to be eating. Stossel also found no time to explore the rising tide of violence, crime, drug use, and sexual activity in the public schools. Perhaps he will oblige us with a follow-up. Meanwhile, if he has succeeded in jarring a few parents out of their false sense of educational security and inspiring them to seek an alternative to the public schools, he has done America a service. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] See http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48309. [2] Ross House Books, Vallecito, CA: 1995 edition. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lee Duigon is a Christian free-lance writer and contributing editor for the Chalcedon Report. He has been a newspaper editor and reporter and a published novelist.

(Thanks to Bill Pershing, a registered CPer in Missouri for sending the article this way!)

Every Reason to Be a Constitutionalist ... But No Thanks

2006-04-14T08:12:00.000-04:00

Back in July of 2004, LaShawn Barber on her rather conservative blog "LaShawn Barber's Corner," she asked herself the question, "Am I a Constitutionalist?" She went on for paragraphs outlining how she agreed with every single position the CP holds. But at the end, she says this:

"These guys are reading my mind. The Constitution Party stands for everything I stand for. So why am I not a constitutionalist? Because third parties don’t win elections. Republicans are the lesser of two evils, so George Bush, here I come!

That's what it all comes down to: results. Victories. Who will succeed! Republicans and Democrats by and large will win 99.99% of all elections. The CP? Green Party? Other independents? Hardly. Everyone wants to be on the winning side, right? Joining the CP will not be on 'the winning side' come election time. But isn't there more to it? What about going to sleep at night knowing you are operating based upon clear moral and biblical convictions rather than, as Ms. Barber puts it, siding with "the lesser of two evils." What about advancing a clear message to the public not simply about how bad one party is over another, but what this realm can do in returning us back to the two key documents of our land (The Declaration of Independence and The United States Constitution) that made this country a 'city on a hill' for all the world to see. What do you think? (Thanks to Bill Pershing of Missouri for forwarding me the Barber article.)

To all the voters in Illinois!

2006-04-12T14:40:00.000-04:00

It's time to get on the ball and vote for the right man for the right time. No, he's not a Democrat. No, he's not a Republican... he's Randall Stufflebeam from the Constitution Party. You can read more about him at his campaign website at http://www.runrandyrun.com and download a petition from his site to help him get access to the polls. He needs 25,000 signatures --- but wants 75,000 to make a statement to the political higher-ups that a third party is around to be reckoned with. The Democrats and the Republicans' worldview is increasingly becoming the same! Vote for someone who actually heeds (and has actually read the Constitution!). Illinois, it's time for you to speak up and sign up! Help Randy Stufflebeam obtain voter access!