and the Nevada Constitution Party affiliate (there called the Independent American Party) thanks them.
Dear Fellow Constitionists,
Over the past few months the Constitution Party, with your help, has made inroads on several fronts – a new website, a new newsletter format, social media and internet advertising, ballot access battles in several states, and many more behind-the-scenes efforts by tireless patriot volunteers across the nation. We are making tremendous strides towards helping states build and improve their websites, improving our media relations, growing our social media outreach, too many ways to be listed in this brief email.
We are actively engaged in building a strong political opposition to the current two-party duopoly that is rapidly descending into a chaotic tyranny, as is evident from President Obama’s recent State of the Union address to Congress, the nation, and the world.
President Obama laid down the gauntlet at his first cabinet meeting of the year when he said, “We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.”
Click here to hear Darrell Castle (2008 Vice-presidential candidate) and Cynthia Davis (four-term Missouri State Legislator) present the Constitution Party Response to the State of the Union.
Our goal is simple: we want to re-establish the American Constitutional Republic, according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers.
Forget everything you have known about or experienced under the tutelage of the current two major parties. The Constitution Party is not your granddaddy’s political party. It is not your father’s political party. It probably isn’t the political party you first supported. The Constitution Party is committed to putting Principles before Party. Which principles? The principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the 1787 Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Find out about our basic Seven Principles on the national website.
The Constitution Party does not play Super Bowl politics. The Constitution and the impact it has on the American people, indeed the world, is not a simple football game between two opposing teams, whose strategy is to win the victory at all costs. Scoring a constitutionally-correct touchdown means standing up against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and saying “No, that is not within the authority granted to my office by the federal Constitution (or state Constitution, etc.). I will not do it.”
The Constitution Party is committed to putting forth constitutionally-committed candidates. Congressmen, the President, the Courts, elected and appointed officials at all levels of government have lost the vision of what constitutes a representative republic based on the Constitution. It is time for the Constitution, and the American people who believe it its principles, to have duly elected officials willing to make the tough decisions necessary to save the American economy and American Liberty.
We need you to make real change happen in America.
We need your time, your volunteerism. We are a grassroots, from the heart, organization. 99.9% of us take no pay for the work we do to build the Constitution Party. We do not rely on lobbyists or Daddy Warbucks. We are fighting against a corrupt system, which has no desire to support a political party that will not give those in charge the power, glory, and gain they seek. We need volunteers at all levels. Visit the State Parties page of our website to contact your state leaders or area chairman. Roll up your sleeves, it’s a hard job, but somebody has to do it and that somebody is you.
We need your financial support. It doesn’t matter how small or how often, just donate. Only you can provide the resources necessary to fight for ballot access in several states. Only you can give us the resources to expand our advertising outreach. Only you can choose to invest in a political party with the will to make the hard decisions necessary to restore Liberty. Only you can make a donation today!
We need your Vote. We need your commitment to vote for, or become, a constitutionally-committed candidate. No one else is going to do it for you. Stop wasting your vote on candidates who continue to support party over principle. If you don’t vote or run, then who? Contact your State Party or area chairman to find out more.
Explore our website and our commitment to the Constitution, then decide for yourselves if you are willing to take the next step and become an active participant the great struggle for Liberty, both for ourselves and our future generations.
National Communications Director
Editor’s Note: All the links in this letter are not intact due to formatting issues, but the link to the actual response is working.
Originally posted, in slightly different form, at Independent Political Report.
The Constitution Party has a new newsletter out and they have changed the name to The American Constitionist and changed the format a bit. Here is a letter from the CP Chairman. Please excuse the fund raising appeal.
One of the best ways to grow our party is by circulating our monthly newsletter. It carries news of our progress, our take on the vital issues of the day, and provides a platform for our candidates — running for offices ranging from town council to the U.S. Congress.
Now I have the pleasure of introducing you to The American Constitutionist. I urge you to read over the issue, and then send it to friends and allies. It’s another effective way to demonstrate that the Constitution Party means business at every turn.
We have to mean business because the hour is late. In 1884, Congress wrote its oath of office: “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same …”
I believe there are politicians who don’t believe in that oath. They seek to ignore or do away with any Constitutional restraints on the dominance of the federal government in our lives. They seek nothing less than raw political power. The calling of the Constitution Party is to educate and motivate our fellow citizens: we must instill faith and allegiance to the Constitution to protect our liberties.
Does the Constitution have enemies? You be the judge …
•In a television interview during a visit to Egypt, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court asserts, “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” In its place, she recommended, the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or the European Convention on Human Rights.
•New York Times Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak says, “The Constitution’s waning influence may be part of a general decline in American power and prestige.”
•Georgetown University law professor Louis Seidman claims, “Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues, and inflamed our public discourse.”
That is the challenge we face as Constitutionists: the Founding Fathers vision and values are either right and timeless for society, or we adopt situation ethics when it comes to the rule of law and the power of government.
I strongly believe in the advice handed down by Thomas Jefferson:
“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government,
so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution
so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”
Let the fight for the Constitution be led by the Constitution Party. Read The American Constitutionist to see how you can help — state parties are on the move, a number of campaigns are already off the ground, and ballot access drives are underway.
To ensure success, patriots must invest our time, talent, and financial resources — your gift of $25 or $50 or even $15 helps so much in this election cycle. And I remind you that early contributions are far more effective in setting in place battle plans.
So share our newsletter by posting it on your Facebook page and sending it to friends: TEA party activists, pro-lifers, home schoolers … those who are just one step away from finding a home in the Constitution Party, but haven’t yet got an invitation.
I hope you appreciate the newsletter, and I hope you will invest $100 or even $10 right away. The election is fast upon us, and the fight for the Constitution is our cause.
The Royalist Party of America has a FaceBook page. Apparently the page has been around a while, but my attention was only recently drawn to it. It looks like lately they have been posting more in the way of philosophical arguments in favor of constitutional monarchy. Here are a couple of samples:
A constitutional monarchy is the most stable form of government because its head of state is representative of the nation and responsible to its people, not to a party. A presidency divides people because he is the head of a party and is voted by its members, meaning those whom did not vote are not fully represented.
A constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a monarch acts as head of state within the parameters of a written (i.e., codified), unwritten (i.e., uncodified) or blended constitution. It differs from absolute monarchy in that an absolute monarch serves as the sole source of political power in the state and is not legally bound by any constitution. (Kind of like the Egyptian Soicial Pyramid) So to answer your question: Yes, a constitutional monarchy is a democratic country. In fact, the top 7 most democratic countries in the world (According to the Democracy Index) are constitutional monarchies (Norway, Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands).
(It’s always possible that this is mostly a spoof, but it looks serious on superficial inspection.)
The Constitution Party’s December newsletter can be found here.
The Constitution Party has recently launched a new website. Check it out. It is definitely an improvement over the old one which was quite underwhelming.
Here is a Townhall 2016 straw poll. Vote if you like. It’s quick. You do have to enter your e-mail which will get you on some e-mail list, but I already get Townhall e-mails so no biggy. You can also always unsubscribe. I post this mainly to illustrate how abysmal the potential 2016 lineup is. I voted other/none of the above because write-in were not allowed.
Here is the list of candidates:
Jeb Bush, former Governor of Florida
Benjamin Carson, Doctor of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University
Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey
Ted Cruz, Senator from Texas
Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana
John Kasich, Governor of Ohio
Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska
Rand Paul, Senator from Kentucky
Mike Pence, Governor of Indiana
Rick Perry, Governor of Texas
Marco Rubio, Senator from Florida
Paul Ryan, Congressman from Wisconsin
Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania
Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin
Other/None of the Above
What a sorry lot. Rand Paul is the closest to acceptable. As I said before, we need to start talking up potential acceptable GOP primary candidates and potential Constitution Party and Libertarian Party candidates.
Here is the comment I left.
There is no one in this list that represents non-interventionist conservatives. Rand Paul comes the closest, but he has already drifted too far away from the principled non-intervention of his father. I will not vote for a GOP interventionist. If they don’t do better than this it will be third party for me in 2016.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is stepping up her rhetoric against the “Republican establishment,” who she believes has turned its back on Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), commenting that there may already be a third party in American politics.
“I dare say we already have a third party. We have the liberal party, the GOP machine, and then we’ve got the good guys,” she told Neil Cavuto on Tuesday on Fox News, while Cruz was crossing the hour and a half mark of speaking on the Senate floor. “That is the third party. Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul … Those are the players in the party whom I will support.”
Palin isn’t really suggesting the formation of a third party, but there is an implied threat here. Palin has hinted around about a third party in the past.
My question is how much of this is just posturing for the proles on her part, and how much is real. I don’t think it’s out of the question that Palin has been genuinely wounded by the way she has been cast aside by the Establishment. Forming a third party would be a perfect way to screw them. Never underestimate what a powerful motivation that lack of recognition and appreciation can be for a narcissist. Just ask Walter White.
America First Party
1630 A 30th Street #111
Boulder, Colorado 80301
Monday, September 9, 2013
Looming Risk of Regional War Reflects Reckless and Poor Leadership
Boulder, CO -Ten years after the disastrous Iraq invasion, two years after
U.S. air strikes in Libya precipitated the fall of the Gaddafi regime, and
in the midst of widespread turmoil unleashed by the “Arab spring,” the Obama
administration and many Capitol Hill leaders persist in utopian efforts to
reshape the Middle East, thereby risking igniting wider regional conflict,
and possibly armed conflict with Russia and its allies.
While our sympathy and prayers go out to the people of Syria, use of U.S.
military power there seems likely to do more harm than good, an appraisal
shared by many desperate civilians in that war-ravaged nation. Indeed, if
this assessment is true, initiating strikes on Syria would be gravely
immoral. Will we replicate the results of immoral and unconstitutional
attacks on Libya and Iraq, by leaving a largely lawless state behind,
causing Christians and other religious minorities to flee, and creating yet
another haven for Islamic extremists?
Oaths of office notwithstanding, the simple policy solution of following our
founders’ constitutional blueprint seems off the radar of most leaders on
Capitol Hill. Under truly constitutional praxis, the U.S. military should
never be seriously considered for any combat role not in the service of U.S.
national defense. Since we have left that prudent outlook behind long ago,
we can expect more chaos in foreign affairs, and God forbid, perhaps another
AFP National Secretary John Pittman Hey commented, “This is Syria’s civil
war, not ours. Let’s not take our cue from extremists in Washington D.C.,
who seem to care little about the consequences of their actions, both for
our country and on people far away.”
“Reversing today’s dangerous foreign policy trends,” states AFP Chairman
Jonathan Hill, “requires electing people who are both competent and decent.
Given the moral implications of the oath of office, this goes hand in hand
with electing people who respect basic constitutional principles.”
Jonathan Hill, National Chairman 1-866-SOS-USA1, ext 4
John Pittman Hey, National Secretary, email@example.com
The following was submitted by frequent commenter Savrola. The opinions expressed are his and do not necessarily represent the views of Conservative Heritage Times.
How Conservative Third Parties Can Win Third World Voters.
Communication is key.
Whites and conservatives don’t communicate well because they lead sterile lives.
Americans of European extraction have left their ethnic culture behind and become atomized yet differentiated particles in a sea of adversaries.
A form of racial socialism is prevalent in the U.S. because ethnicity has been nationalized.
Before a blended humanity could be created, our overlords had to oversee the management of all the varying ethnic groups into four major categories based on skin color, white, black, brown and yellow.
Once these categories were established, they began to work towards the creation of a blended humanity.
Multiculturalism not assimilation is the answer to the West’s Third World problem.
Anglo conservatives since WWII have forcibly imposed their culture on European and non-European cultures, alike. Now the shoe is on the other foot.
Whites fear multiculturalism because they have lost control of their own identity. Their culture is controlled by interlopers, their ancestors are forgotten and descendants marginalized.
Why does the White man do nothing? Because he is a White man. More precisely he is not a Teuton, he is not a Celt, Slav or a Gaul. He has no homogeneous ethnic roots, no loyalty to any particular culture.
Europeans have been mongrelized, as Wyndham Lewis suggested in his book, “Paleface.” And why shouldn’t a German-Anglo-Gaul breed with a non white to fulfill their biological imperatives?
To argue that interracial relationships ruin cultures is a waste of time because the entire purpose of the Western Powers That Be is to destroy all cultures and create a blended humanity with a single corporative culture.
Whites are often embittered towards blacks and Amerinds due to these races being used against them in a variety of ways by the contemporary media culture.
The fact is that both these races and their cultures have been under assault by the corporate media for decades and have crumbled sooner due to the fact that they are not as resilient to propaganda as Europeans are.
The answer to the problem in the short-term is to ban Satellite-Media outreach into regions of the country that are still controlled by fairly conservative legislatures.
That’s correct. Ban Clear Channel, FOX, and MTV among others, from the South and Midwest.
The second step is to appeal to minority communities while they remain minority communities.
Encourage Hispanic, Asian (and soon) African immigrants to remain true to their own language and culture.
Assist in the establishment of foreign language radio and TV stations to cater to the immigrant communities.
From the Goode for President Facebook page:
The votes are still trickling in, and no write-ins have been counted yet, but Virgil Goode’s shoe-string campaign has accumulated over 110,000 votes nationwide. This despite voter intimidation against constitutionalists and unfair ballot access fights. This despite having to fight corporate interests and entrenched party-first mentality. Thank each and every one of you.
See all third party results here.
Addendum: I have been informed that this is not an official campaign statement, so I changed the title.
Salon has the following article: “GOP Civil War: Herman Cain Calls for Third Party”
Steve Schmidt, a top Republican strategist who ran John McCain’s 2008 campaign, invoked the term on MSNBC this morning. “When I talk about a civil war in the Republican Party, what I mean is, it’s time for Republican elected leaders to stand up and to repudiate this nonsense [of the extreme right wing], and to repudiate it directly,” he said.
But on the other side of the fight, Herman Cain, the former presidential candidate who still has a robust following via his popular talk radio program and speaking tours, today suggested the most clear step to open civil war: secession. Appearing on Bryan Fischer’s radio program this afternoon, Cain called for a large faction of Republican Party leaders to desert the party and form a third, more conservative party.
“I never thought that I would say this, and this is the first time publicly that I’ve said it: We need a third party to save this country. Not Ron Paul and the Ron Paulites. No. We need a legitimate third party to challenge the current system that we have, because I don’t believe that the Republican Party … has the ability to rebrand itself,” Cain said.
““When I talk about a civil war in the Republican Party, what I mean is, it’s time for Republican elected leaders to stand up and to repudiate this nonsense [of the extreme right wing], and to repudiate it directly,” he said.”
As a supporter of the Constitution Party, I dare Republican leaders to do so. I double dog dare them.
Crossposted at IPR minus the commentary.
HT: Jack Hunter
We at Conservative Heritage Times have been inspired by the TAC symposium to do one of our own, although one with more of a paleo edge. I’m actually not sure symposium is the best characterization of this. It is a virtual symposium I suppose. But I’m going with it because we are blatantly riffing (not ripping :-)) off TAC’s effort.
Not all the people here would be best described as paleoconservatives, and some would not claim that label, but the attempt was to try to get people who might be considered part of the paleo/traditionalist sphere. I asked CHT’s own contributors, plus people I know (both actually and virtually) whom I thought would represent a broad cross section of the paleo/traditionalist sphere, plus some of our regular commenters. Other of our regular commenters volunteered their services.
In order to avoid the appearance of favoritism, I have arranged the contributions in alphabetical order by first name. I am still expecting some more to roll in. They will be added in their appropriate alphabetical order as they do. Please check back frequently and please promote this on Facebook, Twitter, with you email contacts, etc. Thanks, enjoy and discuss. The endorsements commence below the fold. ~ Red
Inspired by TAC’s conservative vote symposium, CHT has decided to do a symposium of our own with a bit more of a paleo edge. Tune in tomorrow for the first installment We hope to add others as they come in. You might be surprised by some of the talent we have managed to attract.
TAC has a “symposium” of multiple writers discussing whom they plan to vote for. Some endorse voting for one of the major party candidates and some endorse not voting, but several endorse third party votes or write-ins. Some of the writers include Andrew Bacevich, Justin Raimondo, Paul Gottfried and friend of this website Sean Scallon.
Daniel Larison has a separate endorsement here that wasn’t included in the symposium for some reason.
Samuel Goldman has a separate endorsement here because Hurricane Sandy precluded his participation in the symposium.
Here is a summary of the endorsements.
Romney — 4 (Coombs, Pinkerton, Tippins, Zmirak, Antle and Birzer leaning)
Obama — 4 (Bacevich, Hadar, McConnell, Millman, Giraldi in a pinch)
Goode — 1 (Scallon, Brimelow and Gottfried would if they could)
Rand Paul — 1 (McCarthy)
Hapsburg Monarch — 1 (Lind)
Not voting/ambivalent/unclear — 7 (Dreher, Dougherty, Gordon, Murphy, Raimondo [rooting for Obama], Richman, Russello, Beer, Sailer)
As reported below, Gary Johnson has also endorsed Barrie. This letter from Virgil Goode is from an e-mail sent to us by the Barrie campaign:
I was encouraged by the news that you beat the odds and got on the ballot in New Mexico. I know full well how the establishment parties have set-up strong barriers for alternative candidates who offer voters real choices on the issues that matter.
On those issues I’m glad we are in agreement: Second Amendment rights must be protected; auditing the Federal Reserve is long overdue; and the abolition of such un-Constitutional federal agencies as the Departments of Energy and Education will help get the government out of debt.
Unlike the Democrat and Republican candidates, I admire your tough stance on the problems associated with illegal immigration. You are with the majority of voters in opposing amnesty of any kind, supporting the complete closing of the border, and establishing English as the official language of the United States. I particularly appreciate your endorsement of my proposal for a moratorium on issuing green cards until our unemployment rate is under five percent.
In sum, you are taking the message of liberty to New Mexico’s voters as a champion of Constitutional government. You have my full support and best wishes for your courageous and dynamic campaign.
Governor Johnson says, “Jon is committed to lowering and eliminating taxes, minimizing the size of our federal government, restoring our Liberty and Freedoms, and the limits placed on Government as explicated in our Constitution. His commitment to Liberty and demonstrated conservative economic principles make him the best qualified candidate for the US Senate in New Mexico. Be Libertarian with me! Vote for Jon Ross Barrie for the United States Senate.”
Jon Barrie says, “Our nation needs leaders that will guide us back to the freedoms and liberties set forth by our founding fathers. Governor Johnson and Judge Jim Gray will return us to freedom and prosperity.”
I have taken the liberty not watching any of the major party Presidential debates to protest their exclusion of non-major parties. I also did not watch the “third” party debate because no one is really debating policy differences so much as they debating how it sucks to be left at the kids table every four years.
Which is not their fault of course, having been excluded by a oligarchy which determines for itself the rules of participation. And it’s too bad because who loses out but voters who cannot decide among a wide variety of views. Monday’s so-called debate on foreign policy such a “me too” fest one wonders what could be any worse in terms of excitement level (Chess on TV? Congressional committee hearings? Watching the advertisements on the local cable access channel?)Viewers missed on a chance to hear a real debate on foreign policy if say Jill Stein of the Greens or Obama mixed it up on Guantanamo or having Gary Johnson question Mitt Romney on preventative war.
You may ask how many candidates should we let in the debates since there are many more than just three parties in U.S. politics? I would say an appropriate standard is any party which has enough ballot access to get to 270 electoral votes should have that chance. A five or six person debate involving the Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists and what’s left of the old Reform Party (Rocky Anderson’s Justice Party) is more than suitable to have a proper debate which is a give and take of ideas and views, thrust and parry of words and notions. Not: “I agree, but I can do it better than you.” Obama and Romney could have soared us the lack of drama.
Here is Scott Galupo from The American Conservative on last night’s debate. Below is his comment on Virgil Goode:
I was at pains to figure out exactly why Goode isn’t a Republican. Jim Antle’s profile of the former Virginia congressman found Goode doggedly on the side of the mainstream GOP on big issues like the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, and the drug war. Republicans don’t talk much these days about Goode’s hobbyhorse — term limits — but the issue figured prominently in the 1994 Contract with America. His position on immigration — no green cards for foreign workers until employment is under five percent — is more restrictionist than the average GOPer’s, but his irrational fear of Muslims would fit right into Sarah Palin’s “real America” party.
I could have done without the PC Muslim comment. Fear and hatred of Muslims that leads you to want to bomb them in far off countries is certainly a problem, but not wanting masses of them to immigrate here and change the culture is what some of us would call conservative. You know, that whole wanting to conserve things vibe.