CONSTITUTION PARTY ANNOUNCES VETERANS COALITION

[Lambo]

http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=300

08/31/2006
CONSTITUTION PARTY ANNOUNCES VETERANS COALITION

by James N. Clymer
Constitution Party National Chairman

(Lancaster, PA) Jim Clymer, chairman of the Constitution Party National Committee, America’s largest and fastest growing third party, announced today the formation of the Constitution Party National Veterans Coalition.

"I am very pleased to announce that a most distinguished group of American veterans led by Brigadier General Charles Jones, USAFR Ret., of Las Vegas, Nevada, who will serve as chairman, have come together to form the Constitution Party National Veterans Coalition for the purpose of reaching out to America’s true heroes, its veterans. We wish to let them know they have a political home in the Constitution Party, a party which seeks to preserve and protect the national security, constitutional principles and freedoms for which they sacrificed so selflessly,” said Clymer.

General Jones added, “Veterans nationwide strongly believe the Democrat and Republican Parties have failed the American people in many ways and have done little to correct major problems in our society. Examples include allowing our borders to be unsecured, permitting an illegal invasion of over 20 million aliens, failing to protect against the effects of Islamic extremism and making us dependent upon foreign oil controlled by states that support terrorists. The safety of our people, our culture and the very future of America is at great risk because the politicians of both major parties have been derelict in not placing principle above party and country before self. We are asking fellow Military Veterans to once again band together, this time at the ballot box, before we descend into a national political disaster fostered by an invasion of illegal aliens and terrorism sponsored by nations on whom we depend for oil.”

The Veterans Coalition propounds that the only real solution is to reject the failed policies of the past and replace those politicians who are responsible for those failures with leaders who will faithfully follow the Constitution and truly represent the interests of the American people. To save our civilization, we must enforce our laws by securing the borders, imposing severe sanctions upon employers of illegal aliens, halting all taxpayer funded subsidies and social programs for illegal aliens and removing 20 million illegals by attrition through enforcement. Illegal immigrants are crushing our medical, educational, welfare, economic and penal systems and the American taxpayer in the process.

The Veterans Coalition’s immediate goal is to reach out to the 26 million veterans, plus their families and friends, to let them know that the Constitution Party stands 100% beside them in defense of America’s Constitution and its national security, its sovereignty and its freedoms. It will let them know that there is a strong Constitution Party option at the ballot box for those who want to change policy rather than merely changing administrators of failed policies.

The Veterans Coalition will focus on six urgent national issues:

1. Secure Borders

2. Strong National Defense

3. Punish Employers of Illegal Aliens to the full extent of the law

4. Limit Taxes to those for Constitutionally authorized expenditures(to include abolishing the IRS and replacing the current tax system)

5. Eliminate Taxpayer Subsidies and Social Programs for Illegal Aliens

6. Attain Energy Independence within five years

Veterans and their families and friends are encouraged to find out more about the Constitution Party and to join in this effort by visiting the national party website at www.constitutionparty.com or by calling 1(800) 2VETO-IRS or (717) 390-1993.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT JAMES N. CLYMER 717-299-7101 or 717-575-2534

 

[Manedwolf]

That'd be fine if the Constitution Party wasn't an oxymoron, given that they're blatant theocrats.

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

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

To be blunt, F- that.

Anyone who tries to tell me I have to accept that will be met with ordnance in return.

 

[SomeKid]

So, Maned, where do you get the idea they will force you to believe as they do? Saying they thank the Lord is not the same as saying YOU MUST thank the Lord.

Read that very last sentence you quoted. Read it. Here, let me help you.

For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

In case you can't understand, they are saying that one of the awesome things about living in a Christian country, is the freedom to not be a Christian.

 

[coat4gun]

Ok... so they state that they believe in Jesus Christ... and that makes them theocrats?

I guess most of the Founding Fathers would be theocrats as well...

Hmmm...

 

[Manedwolf]

Read that very last sentence you quoted. Read it. Here, let me help you.

Quote:
For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

Sounds like dhimmitude to me. Religion + government, well...that's what you've got in Iran. Best, quickest path to the stone age.

What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" isn't clear?

BTW, most of the founding fathers were DEISTS. Getting pretty tired of the revisionist history as to what they were.

Deism is a religious movement that originated in 17th and 18th century Europe and North America and continues in a mostly similar form today. Deism is a religious philosophy and methodology that asserts the existence of a God/Higher Power. It holds that the proper source of religion comes from the exercise of human reason, the observation of the natural world (existence) and the utilization of personal experience with emphasis on individual freedom of thought. As such, Deists reject divine revelation and holy books, which in turn leads to the rejection of revealed religion.

 

[SomeKid]

Maned,

If you hate revisionist history, then you may not want to spout it. The FF were not Deists. (A weak arguement can be made that 1 or two of them MIGHT have been, however, there were 55 founding Fathers.)

Secondly, saying that the government was founded by Christians on Christian princicples is not the same as forcing religion on anyone.

Ever here of Madison?
http://www.eadshome.com/JamesMadison.htm

 

[Shield529]

After reading thier information they are no champion of the Constitution.

They state "We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.

So thier Gov. will decide what is "truely speech". That single statement bars any hope for freedom under thier Judeo-Christain laws. They are about on the level with the Liberals. At this point the only question left in voting is which rights to give up first.

 

[StrikeFire83]

They’re not theocrats…really? Well, let’s see.

Everything taken verbatim from: http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations

Under no circumstances should the federal government continue to subsidize activities which have the effect of encouraging perverted or promiscuous sexual conduct.

All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith.

The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted.

AAnd my personal favorite piece of theocratic double-talk

Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. "to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy"

And WHO would get to determine what type of free speech "only seeks to distort and destroy...well, the Constitution party, of course.

You may want to trade a huge, incompetent Bureaucracy with a government of wackadoo theocrats, but not me. If you want to see how well this type of government works, see: IRAN.

 

[Manedwolf]

We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity

That just makes my head hurt. :banghead:

 

[SomeKid]

Alright, I see everyone calling them theocrats. It seems you guys don't even know what theocrats are. Theocrats are NOT Christians who actually believe their values.

Accoridng to websters:

the‧o‧crat  /ˈθiəˌkræt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-krat] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who rules, governs as a representative of God or a deity, or is a member of the ruling group in a theocracy, as a divine king or a high priest.
2. a person who favors theocracy.

I have yet to hear anyone from the CP state that they are God's rep among men, and that we should let them rule because of it. What you guys are going nuts over is a bunch of Christians who are open about their values. In case you missed the main theme, a huge Christian value is personal independence. Read the Bible soemtime why don't you. That book supports personal freedom more than you could imagine.

And, just because I am sure you will accuse the CP guys of supporting theocracy, since I have shown you that they are not theocrats, let us look at the definition of that word.

the‧oc‧ra‧cy  /θiˈɒkrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-ok-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies.
1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Religious Freedom

That right there shows that both definitions 1 and 2 cannot apply to them. You guys need to stop acting like the NYT and slandering groups of people you cannot be bothered to learn more about. Now, if you want to point to a position that seems odd to you, such as the porn one, fine, debate the merits. But simply slamming a group as a bunch of theocrats (which I have proven they are not based entirely upon the known values) is childish and disgraceful. Even some of the ardent leftists I deal with daily at college have more sense and decency than that.

 

[ArmedBear]

If you hate revisionist history, then you may not want to spout it. The FF were not Deists. (A weak arguement can be made that 1 or two of them MIGHT have been, however, there were 55 founding Fathers.)

You are just plain wrong about that. A good number were Freemasons, some were quite critical of Christianity in writing, and all were influenced greatly by Thomas Paine, an avowed Atheist who despised Christianity. It's hard to say what every one of them was thinking at any given moment, and they're long dead, but the attempt of modern American Evangelicals to Christianize the Founding Fathers is dishonest.

And yes, a political party that declares FIRST its religious dogma, then its political platform, and that prefaces several planks of that platform with declarations of religious belief, does want theocracy. Now, the form of theocracy that the CP wants is perhaps far better than any left-wing government, however, the CP's platform does say that jurisprudence should be based on religion. It's circumspect, but that is what theocracy means.

It is entirely possible for a theocracy to allow other faiths to exist within it. It's shaky ground, though, when you look at history.

Now, I do agree with much of their platform, but that doesn't make the CP platform any less a platform that advocates theocracy.

 

[StrikeFire83]

Sorry, fella, but the statements quoted above illustrate a theocratic mentality. If you cannot see it, well, then...that's your choice. Any group that seeks to abrogate the First Amendment so directly and selectively is no friend of freedom.

What is the fundamental difference between banning certain types of “dangerous and objectionable guns” and banning certain types of “unsavory” speech? Oh, that’s right, there is none.

Any political party that would have this statement emblazoned on its party platform,

uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.

Is too bad at crafting language to get anywhere near a lawmaking position.

It’s times like these when I glad to be well armed. :banghead:

 

[torpid]

uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.

Hmmm... let's try:

...uphold our cherished Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms by vigorously enforcing our laws against non-sporting purposes to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly hunting and target related, and that which only seeks to be used to destroy human life.

.

 

[StrikeFire83]

Oh, and here's some revisionist history of the glorious fundamentalist founding fathers for you:

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

-Thomas Paine

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.

-James Madison

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson

The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles.

-John Adams

 

[SomeKid]

Strike, you seem to have ignored some of my points. I never said they were right on the porno front. From my reading and understanding of the 1A and USCon, the FedGov has 0 powers to limit pornography, regardless of how dirty depraved or what is in it.

Now, if the CP wanted to say that STATES can limit/ban pornography, and the FedGov cannot stop them, then I would agree. States have the power to limit things such as porn, the FedGov doesn't.

ArmedBear, look up each Founding Father by name with religion next to it in google. 'Washington religion' for example. They WERE Christians. You will note that it is AFTER they die, people try to accuse them of not being what they professed to be during their own lives. Just to pick one example...

President George Washington, September 17th, 1796 "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible"

Shall I gather a few more?

Strike, your post with quotes came after I sent this one in, so on this edit I can reply to that.

Paine we know by his own admission to not like religions and churches. I do not argue his faith, he openly told us what he believed. As for the other three quotes, they are simple facts. That makes the speakers no less Christians. Thomas Jefferson was calling for people to tolerate other religions, a Christian principle, and Adams was attacking charlatans. I tolerate atheist neighbors, and I despise people who use Christianity for their own ends. Does this mean I cannot be a Christian now? Just because a Christian doesn't fit into the pigeonhole you created doesn't make a person less Christian.

For the record, I agree completely with the quotes you provided from Madison, Jefferson, and Adams. And I do consider myself a fundamentalist Christian.

 

[BrennanKG]

The last Constitutionalist Party-related thread was closed due to the exact thing happening in this thread: bickering over what the CP does or doesn't espouse and represent. Rather than falling into our normal and oh so comfortable picket lines why not just discuss the article and how it may or may not apply to 2nd amendment rights?

 

[torpid]

...why not just discuss the article and how it may or may not apply to 2nd amendment rights?

Ok, the article apparently doesn't apply.

.

 

[NailGun]

Wow...politics AND religion. I LOVE America, Good to have choices.

 

[BrennanKG]

Ok, the article apparently doesn't apply.

Torpid,

You noticed that too, huh?



B.

 

[StrikeFire83]

See my quotes above.

It’s easy to be Christian and not advocate theocracy. Clearly the Founding Fathers were good Christian men who understood the dangers of giving the state a monopoly on religion.

Now, if the CP wanted to say that STATES can limit/ban pornography, and the FedGov cannot stop them, then I would agree. States have the power to limit things such as porn, the FedGov doesn't.

Okay, now wait a minute here. The 1st Amendment is in the same bill of rights as the 2nd. So if the many states have the right to abrogate the 1st Amendment at will why don't they have the right to "modify" the 2nd.

The Constitution is either the supreme law of the land or it isn’t. Selective enforcement is the worst kind of insidious lie.

If you attempt to make any distinction between the two then everything you’ve said is suspect and thus meaningless.

 

[torpid]

You noticed that too, huh?

Yup!

 

[SomeKid]

Strike, care to read both the 1A and the 2A? You will note, they are written differently thus I can and WILL note the distinctions. Here, let us examine them, even if in your eyes pointing out the obvious renders everything I have said "suspect and thus meaningless".

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Note the bold. The 1A specifically states that Congress cannot do these things. While I would personally like to see every state have the same (or more stringent) safeguards on personal liberty, the 1A as written is directly applied towards the US Congress.

The 2A is much more broad. It simply states 'shall not be infringed'. This implies the FF intended for the 2A to apply to all government, and whenever a person felt a law or act had disrupted his right to keep and bear arms, he could ignore that law because the 2A would shield him.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti

 

[StrikeFire83]

Article IV, Section 2:

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Anyhow, I'm done with this, as this thread will soon be locked.
Nowhere would you be able to find me saying that any Religion, Christianity or otherwise, should be prohibited. Forcing atheism on the pubic isn’t any better than theocracy.

Nowhere have I said that members of Congress shouldn’t answer questions about their religious convictions, or be free to exercise their own 1st Amendment rights.

But when you meld Church and State, and give the Government the power to determine what sort of speech is protected and what sort isn’t, then you’ll find yourself trotting down a dark road indeed.

I keep myself well armed. Those who would attempt to re-distribute me into poverty and those who would seek to impose their concepts of religion on me are equally dangerous.

Like a wise man once said: Don’t tread on me.

 

[SomeKid]

Strike, I somehow expected a bit more. Why don't you go ahead and quote the rest of A4S2? Here, let me do it for you.

Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

Now that everyone has had a chance to read it all, you can see it was referring to criminals and slaves. Do you plan to respond to my previous post, or are you intent upon changing the subject?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html#section2

 

[StrikeFire83]

The various courts of the land, up to and including the Supreme Court have ruled on numerous occasions that state attempts to abrogate freedom of speech are unconstitutional.

United States v. Schwimmer

If you welcome theocracy, then there's really nothing more I can say to you. Most people here see the Constitution party for what it is, and that's why it will remain at the very fringes, and make the libertarians look like a monolithic power in this nation.