Conservative Heritage Times

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.

Continue Reading »

22 Comments »

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.

Crossposted at IPR.

See all third party results here.

Addendum: I have been informed that this is not an official campaign statement, so I changed the title.

No Comments »

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.

Read more…

““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

9 Comments »

Speaking of TAC’s symposium, they have added a “Round 2.”

4 Comments »

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

Continue Reading »

30 Comments »

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.

7 Comments »

I don’t mean to steal Sean’s thunder below, but I made this post for IPR and wanted to cross post it here. There are some additional links you should be aware of.

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.

Johnson — 6 (Bandow, Brimelow, Galupo, Giraldi, Goldman, Kauffman, Larison if he could, Bovard if he doesn’t write in Ron Paul)

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)

11 Comments »

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:

Dear Jon:

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.

Sincerely,

Virgil Goode

Cross posted at IPR.

1 Comment »

 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.”

2 Comments »

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.

5 Comments »

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.

That said, Galupo has identified the same issue with Goode that I identified below. See here and here. This is a problem for Goode. Some people may not want to hear criticism, but it is.

1 Comment »

First of all, I can’t win regarding Goode no matter what I do. When I criticize Goode I get criticized for being too critical and not being fully on board. When I say positive things about him or promotes his candidacy, others blast me for supporting someone who supported the Iraq War, etc., etc., etc. For the record, I intend to write in Goode. He is not on the ballot in my state, but he is a certified write-in candidate. I recognize that he is less than perfect, but in casting my vote for the Constitution Party candidate, I am endorsing the idea of the Constitution Party, a Constitutionalist party that is to the right of the GOP, as much as I am the candidate.

Also, Goode almost deserves a vote just based on his awesome Southern accent alone. You know that Goode’s accent in the White House would horrify all the right people. Imagining it makes me giddy.

Now for the debate, regarding who the candidates should pitch to, I thought all four candidates basically pitched to a general audience and against both Romney and Obama. They weren’t pitching against each other although Virgil Goode emphasized a couple of distinctions, and none seemed to be pitching specifically against the major party candidate most closely aligned to them.

This was a mistake, IMO. Goode should have pitched to conservatives and against Romney as I suggested below. Jill Stein should have pitched to liberals and against Obama. Etc. Do the candidates really think there is some general mass of undecideds who are open to third parties who could be persuaded to vote for Stein or Goode? I don’t think that’s the playing field. I think Stein’s audience is liberals who think Obama has betrayed them. I think Goode’s audience is conservatives who think Romney is insufficiently so. That is who they should pitch to. (I recognize that this dynamic is somewhat different for the Libertarian.)

That said, I was very impressed with Rocky Anderson. I have no idea what separates the Justice Party from the Green Party and Stein and Anderson didn’t seem to differ on anything, but Anderson was much more smooth and polished. Perhaps in 2016 Anderson could attempt a fusion campaign and run for both nominations. Johnson did fine, although on one of his drug answers he ran long and didn’t make his point. He needs to work a bit on sound bites. Also, it is absurd to suggest, as Johnson did, that gay rights are Constitutionally guaranteed. So the Founders were intending to protect gay marriage? The notion is laughable on its face. This marks Johnson as an unserious Constitutionalist. He is imposing his beliefs onto the Constitution. He is not taking the Constitution as a serious historical document. And moving on, Stein seemed flustered and amateurish.

Goode was a very mixed bag. He was right to pound home the immigration issue. And he is definitely playing the populist (getting rid of PACs, term limits, etc.) rather than the strict Constitutionalist. I’m OK with him playing the populist because that is an issue cluster that isn’t represented well by either major party and there are votes to be had there, but to do so while maintaining a Constitutionalist pretense takes nuance. I think he bungled the Constitutional Amendment question. Term limits? Really? If you could guaranteed pass one amendment it would be term limits? How about overturning the 16th? Or how about a pro-life amendment? And I think his drug answer was very problematic. I know it’s trendy to be for drug legalization, and it is popular among the third party crowd, but there are a lot of conservatives out there for whom it is still a radical idea and a non-starter. Therefore, Goode is wise to not just casually endorse drug legalization, but he should frame it as a state issue, which it is. He needs to acknowledge, however, that federal drug laws are unconstitutional on enumerated powers grounds. This way you don’t frighten little old ladies who imagine meth addicts buying their meth at the local Seven Eleven, but also keep your Constitutionalist core happy. This is essentially how Ron Paul played the issue, even though philosophically he opposes all drug laws on libertarian grounds, and it was only a marginal problem for him in the GOP primary. Goode’s answer was all over the map. He treated it mostly as an spending issue (ending the “war on drugs” wouldn’t really save that much), gave a nod to it being a state issue, then reaffirmed his support of drug laws (presumably federal).

After watching the debate, I think I may have been over thinking Goode in my post below. I’m not sure he is making some calculated effort to split the difference. I think Goode just really doesn’t understands his new audience, which makes sense since this hasn’t been his milieu until recently. His audience has been mainstream conservatives and Republicans, and I think he thinks he is still speaking to that same audience. Did Goode prep for the debate or did he shoot from the hip? Is he open to instruction? Some Constitution Party long termer needs to coach Goode up on CP and “far” right dynamics to help him avoid land mines like the drug issue.

3 Comments »

Here is what I will be watching for when Virgil Goode debates tonight. Does he style himself as a mainstreamish candidate who was disgruntled with his ex-party and happened to capture the nomination of a third party, or does he style himself as the spokesman of his new party carrying the Constitutionalist banner even when doing so will force him to take unpopular positions? To some degree (but not entirely) this is a question of whether to Virgil Goode this campaign is about Virgil Goode or the Constitution Party. Was the Constitution Party a convenient and available vehicle for Goode, or is he really a convert to a Constitution Party way of thinking?

My hunch is the former. This is based on several things. His initial website blared his intention to save Social Security. He mentions the Fair Tax on his issues page. He has so far failed to fully embrace non-interventionism. Etc. A lot of Tea Party style Republicans would be comfortable with his issues page and candidate comparison page. There is no “radical” Constitutionalism in it. His opposition to NAFTA, his mention of the North American Union, his opposition to US soldiers under UN command, his opposition to birthright citizenship, etc. clearly signal to a lot of Constitution Party types, but these issues tend to distinguish him in kind as much as they do by degree. He is running as a more populist/paleo/Buchananite candidate, but is he running a hard to the right of Romney campaign?

In the back of my mind in asking this question is whether Goode is attempting to maintain his viability for a future GOP or independent run, or is he all in with the CP. (Goode is, as my Mom would say, no spring chicken so that factors in. He may not be planning a future run due to his age so this may be more of a last hurrah.)

In a related question, who is the audience of a third party debate on C-SPAN? Will there be a large contingent of undecideds who are genuinely considering a third party vote, and if so what percentage of these will be conservatives who are trying to decide between Romney and Goode and/or Johnson and liberals who are trying to decide between Obama and Stein or Anderson? Or will the audience mostly be partisans who tune in to root for their candidate? There may be some data on such things, but my hunch is the latter.

So who will Goode be pitching to? Will he be pitching to undecideds that he doesn’t want to scare off with budget slashing Constitutionalism, or will he be pitching to hard right true believers who are still skeptical of him?

This dynamic also applies to Gary Johnson, who is considered by many hard core l/Libertarians to be insufficiently plumb line, but I have the sense that l/Libertarians have come to terms with Gary Johnson more so than right-wing Constitutionalists have come to terms with Virgil Goode.

My advice to Goode, were he to solicit it, would be to run against Romney as insufficiently conservative every chance he gets. Turn every question into a reason why Romney is unacceptable on the issue. He could play to both potential audiences by doing this. He doesn’t necessarily have to embrace purist Constitutionalism, although some nod that this or that program is unconstitutional on enumerated powers grounds would be appreciated. Goode’s opponent in this debate is not the other three candidates except Johnson to some degree. His opponent is Romney. And his audience, which I suspect is more likely to be exposed to his performance in discussions about the debate than by actually watching it, is conservative but wavering Romney supporters. People he can convince that Romney is so unsound on the issues from a conservative standpoint, that they are willing to say “Aww screw it” and cast a protest vote against Romney, especially in states that are safe one way or the other.

Discuss.

25 Comments »

Virgil Goode: Tune in tomorrow as I debate @jillstein2012 @garyjohnson@rockyanderson in a debate moderated by @larryking Watch live on@cspan (Editor’s note: tomorrow is now today.)

11 Comments »

Hat tip to Chuck Moulton for the tip:

Free and Equal Elections Foundation today announced that its second 2012 Presidential debate is scheduled for October 30 in Washington, DC, from 9:00pm to 10:30pm Eastern Time. The venue will be announced shortly.

As a follow-up to Free & Equal’s October 23 debate at the Hilton Chicago, viewers of the first debate will choose which two candidates advance to the final debate on October 30 via instant runoff voting online. The debate will be broadcast live online and will focus on international issues.

Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Constitution Party candidate Virgil Goode, and Justice Party candidate Rocky Anderson have all confirmed their participation in the October 23 debate.

Following the initial October 23 debate, viewers can vote for the candidates online, ranking their first and second choices. This form of instant runoff voting (IRV) — a method used in numerous countries, United States jurisdictions, and private organizations — allows voters to submit their top two choices, so they aren’t “throwing away” a vote. Voting ends 24 hours after the end of the debate. The top two candidates with the most votes will be announced Thursday morning and will advance to the final debate on October 30.

Read more…

Crossposted at IPR.

4 Comments »

Virgil Goode addressed the National Press Club on 12 Oct 12.

“We have an uphill battle, but I am optimistic that we will have a strong showing” in the coming election, Virgil Goode, the Constitution Party’s nominee for president, told reporters at a National Press Club Newsmaker on Oct. 12.

Whereas Gov. Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama have based their plans for job growth largely around a combination of tax cuts and stimulus, Goode puts immigration front-and-center in his jobs plan.  “Jobs in America, when you’ve got high unemployment, should go first to U.S. citizens,” said Goode.

Though his may not be a household name outside of his native Virginia, Goode believes that “if the American public wakes up”, his proposals for a moratorium on permanent-resident green cards IDs and a limit on congressional terms will resonate with those listening.

Read more…

No Comments »

Dear Fellow Constitution Party Supporters:

This November we have two very important races that are winnable.  One six person state house race in Michigan in which Bill Mohr is running for state house district 76.  The other race is in Missouri in which Cynthia Davis is running for Lt. Governor.  Both races are winnable by our candidates and both are attracting the news media.

However, to win these races funds are urgently needed.  Bill Mohr is in need of $5,000.00 and Cynthia Davis of course is in need of a greater amount of funds than that since she is running a state wide race. Winning either or both of these races would do wonders for the image of the party and to not do all in our power to make this possible would be a most unfortunate mistake on our part.

I am therefore making an appeal to all or our members to contribute what the can as quickly as they can to at least one and hopefully to both of these candidates. Instructions on how to make the funds payable and where they need to be send the funds is included in the information about the candidates.

The information regarding Bill Mohr is included with this email right below my signature.  The information for Cynthia Davis is in the email below mine.  Plus there is an attachment above that is part of the information.  I am trying to make this as simple and straight forward as possible.

Again, please read the information on both candidates and act quickly as time is of the essence.

My sincere thanks to each of you,

Frank Fluckger
National Chairman
Constitution Party.

Continue Reading »

No Comments »

From Gary Odom:

TONIGHT, Tuesday, October 2nd, at 10 PM central time, Missouri Freedom Radio will be interviewing Constitution Party Candidate Sue Beck.

1 Comment »

Here is an essay by Brian LaSorsa from Huffington Post, “Is a Vote for Ron Paul a Vote for Obama, or the Product of a Disenfranchised Right?”

In the end, though, we have meaningful questions to ask: are third-party voters betraying the Republican Party, or are these voters a product of the Republican Party betraying the ideals of small government? And, even if Ron Paul were to swing the election, is it possible that conservatives and libertarians are so disenfranchised that their symbolic votes of displeasure have become more important than winning a race to the White House?

Read more…

Cross posted at IPR.

The author, Brian LaSorsa, is listed as an intern at FreedomWorks. He might not be after they see this. FreedomWorks has tried to serve as an organizing force for the TeaParty, but it is reliably Republican.

1 Comment »

I came across this article on Facebook:

Free and Equal Elections Foundation announced today that four candidates have confirmed their participation in the 2012 Presidential Debate at the University Club of Chicago on October 23: Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Constitution Party candidate Virgil Goode, and Justice Party candidate Rocky Anderson.

This debate is the only 2012 Presidential Debate featuring four candidates. The top six candidates were invited to participate. Democratic Party candidate and incumbent Barack Obama and Republican Party candidate Mitt Romney are welcome to participate in this historic debate. The moderator will be announced shortly.

Read more…

 Cross posted at IPR.

1 Comment »