Constitution Party: New Conscience of Conservative America

That would be a surprise, wouldn't it? I plan to vote for Peroutka as a protest, and I might not be happy with him as president.

But how nice it would be to hear him give it to the loons running Congress...

 

LOL

 

Last night Peroutka was interviewed by Jon Leiberman with FoxNews Central which was broadcast in 14 different states.

http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=eventview&event_id=141

 

Someday, Pennsylvania, you and the other members of the CP--the iron fist in the velvet glove--are going to break your arms patting yourselves on your backs. All you do is take the Democrat line that jobs are going overseas, taxes should be raised, Bush committed treason, austerity should be initiated, etc. Sorry, but I have seen your iron fist, Pennsylvania.

 

Most CP people I know believe the Income tax should be abolished. I will probably vote for Gary Nolan but if Aaron Russo wins the Libertarian Party nomination instead of Nolan, I might consider Peroutka.

 

There aren't many genuine conservative republicans left.

Ron Paul, McCain, who else? Sam Hall in Texas switched to the GOP, providing them with a genuine conservative voice, and he lost the election as a republican.

The real alignment now is between neocons who think the government has all the answers, and libertarians who want to limit it.

 

The 2000 GOP platform shows a turn to the left from the conservative 1996 platform on many issues.

Education: The 1996 plan called for abolishing the Department of Education and ending "federal meddling in schools.'' The far milder 2000 draft calls for programs improving literacy, replacing federal fiats with grants, offering Education Savings Accounts and defending home schooling.

Teachers, not even mentioned when Bob Dole was the Republican nominee, are wooed with programs promising merit pay, improved training and protection from ''meritless lawsuits.''

Bureaucracy: In 1996 Republicans also called for eliminating the departments of Commerce, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development and the National Endowment for the Arts. The tame 2000 draft merely includes a vague call for "downsizing" the "mess" in Washington.

Health: The 1996 platform made no specific mention of women's health. The 2000 draft says Republicans are leading the charge to improve women's health, including increased National Institutes of Health funding on diseases that affect women more than men.

Immigration: The 1996 platform said U.S. borders should be secured "from the threat of illegal immigration.'' The 2000 draft omits opposition to non-emergency public benefits for illegal aliens and no longer demands a constitutional amendment to deny automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.

The draft merely says the "long-term solution for illegal immigration is economic growth in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean.'' It dwells on the "enormous treasure'' immigrants have brought to the United States.

In 1996, Republicans called for "the official recognition of English as the nation's common language." However, the 2000 draft simply says, "Another sign of our unity is the role of English as our common language."

Environment: The 2000 draft calls for increased environmental spending

Tommy Thompson said that the draft reflected Bush's "compassionate conservatism" and showed "a more uplifting view of the Republican Party, one that's more inclusive, that attempts to build a winning team, that people can rally around."

SOURCE

 

Now four years later and we see what these changes in the platform have lead to:

Education: Largest increase in federal spending

Bureaucracy: Increase in federal bureaucracy including an increase to the National Endowment for the Arts.

Health: Senior prescription welfare plan

Immigration: Need I say more?

I wonder if the 2004 party platform will move even further to the left?

 

No, the party platform will be written by Christian conservatives. They will once more believe that this time, it will make a difference.

Then, after the election, it will be promptly tossed out like yesterday's newspapers.

 

Galatian,

HOW TRUE!

I receive all the GOP platform and issue surveys. On paper, the party appears conservative but, as NetPublicist so correctly pointed out above, it is not in reality.

I'm convinced a vote for the Constitution Party should be a no-brainer for ALL Conservative Christians.

Also wondering Kiffin, how do you square your Christian views with the Liberterian views on homosexuality and illegal drugs?

Let's not just sit back this election. Tell all your Christian friends about Peroutka 2004.

God Bless,

Brian

 

To call McCain a conservative is a sad mistake. It shows that the CP is long on words and short on thoughts.

The CP is no more ex-Republican than the man in the moon. No Republican would resort to the iron-fist methods of the CP.

It is the methods of the CP--such as enforcing the liberal line of attack and personal assault--that show the CP for what it is. It is a self-congratulatory and iron-fisted group of French-speaking people intent upon electing Monsieur Kerry.

 

Thanks for the question. First of all Libertarians are probably your most diverse party. We are not monlithic. You have people such as Neil Boortz who supports the War in Iraq, and supports the Patriot Act, then you have Constitutional scholars lke Walter Williams and then Leftists like Carol Moore. Libertarians are united on this issues of individual liberty, smaller government, abolish the Income tax, do way with most Federal funding, States rights. I would probably be called part of the Libertarian Right Wing.


1. homosexuality - I am not sure what you mean regarding this. The Libertarian party does not endorse the homosexual lifestyle. Libertarians generaly believe that the Constitution does not give Government the authority to define marriage or that it is a States right issue. I oppose a Federal Marriage Ammendment in that I don't think the Federal government has the authority to define it. I would not be opposed to States defining it in that it is States not the Federal government that issues marriage licenses. On the other hand I think homosexuality is a gross sin but government does not have the solution. Only the Gospel can change hearts and not Government. I personaly think Marriage should be under the authority of Churches and not government since marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman and God.

2. Illegal Drugs - I oppose the Libertarian position on legalizing drugs. I do agree with the LP that the Drug War is a failure and is wasting federal money. Federal drug laws are failing and some alternate solution probably from either churches, local or State government could provide a better solution that the DEA failed policy.

I may someday consider the Constitution Party. They are not well organized in Louisiana as of yet and I am disturbed by some Christian Reconstructionists in the party. So for now I will stick with the LP. One of the things I do respect about the LP is that they do not try to muffle people in their party that disagree with the majority. Neil Boortz will be speaking at the Convention this year though about 98% of the LP (including myself) disagree with him. Pro life Republican Congressman Ron Paul will also be speaking at the Libertarian Convention. My appreciation for the LP is that they will respect your views even if in disagreement with you.

 

The Republican Party HAS moved our jobs overseas.

Don't believe it?

The PROOF is here, my friends!


Click HERE for The Facts! Get Involved! Save Your Job!

 

.
church mouse guy, lay down the pipe and slowly back away.

 

I don't know any French

 

According to the following article it looks like Aaron Russo will win the LP nomination.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38279

 

I didn't know the Republicans hired that many people. I was pretty sure they were a fairly small employer. I think the people you are referring to as moving jobs overseas are businesses. They, in the interest of doing what they are supposed to do, are moving jobs to places where they perceive they can better serve their stockholders and customers.

As I have often pointed out, everyone wants to keep jobs in America. No one wants to pay the prices that would be required to keep these jobs in America. It is the ultimate hypocrisy.