Constitution Party

So only Christians can be part of your political party?

I would disagree, we have more power, we have a greater responsibility, that is a given. The only question left to be answered is where and when!

How are these first two statements not contridicting the last statement? You would recognize a Free China, but not give them any kind of aid KNOWING the history of the current government of China? They would love that...couldn't get the tanks rolling fast enough!

Since your party formed in 1996 it seems to me that your party seems is simply a Clinton enduced reaction.

 

The Constitution Party existed before Bill Clinton was elected as I voted for Howard Phillips in 1992. It was then known as the U.S. Taxpayers Party.

 

1)No. But I would be surprised if someone joined the party who did not share a Christian worldview.

2)Then I respectfully suggest that you work to change the federal constitution to reflect that.

 

Ken is correct. The Constitution Party was known originally as the U.S. Taxpayers Party. It was formed in 1992, BEFORE Clinton ever became president.

It's sad that people who don't like the CP must spread falsehoods about it.

 

No intended falsehood, the first post stated that was recognized in 1995. I don't know the exact process of becoming a political party, is there a difference in being recognized by the federal government and not being recognized. As far as what can said, how you can raise money etc.?

 

The first post also said, "In 1992 a coalition of Independent State Parties united to form the U.S. Taxpayers Party with the common goal of limiting the Federal Government to its Constitutional boundaries and restoring the foundations of civil government back to the fundamental principles our country was founded upon."

I don't know what recognition by the FEC entails. Perhaps it has something to do with some fundraising threshold.

The bottom line is the party first fielded a presidential candidate in 1992.

 

One thing I'm sure we agree on is that all parties should be allowed not only on the ballot but access to the debates, matching funds, and all the other political manuvering that takes place during an election. I may or may not like what you say, I may or may not agree with your platform, but EVERYONE deserves a seat at the table of public debate on a level playing field.

I reject out of hand that idea the idea of being a "viable candidate" in order to sit at the table. How do you know someone is or isn't viable if you never get to hear what they have to say?!?!

 

What's the word on when they're going to determine the Constitution Party presidential candidate? I couldn't find anything on the web site.

 

June 23-27, 2004
2004 Constitution Party National Convention
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

It's on the party's website under "Events".

 

That's part of the problem here: That's way too late to be announcing a presidential candidate. Needs to be done this month, or March at the latest.

We need to send them some e-mails, and see about moving that up.

 

I agree that it's too late. Consider, though, that the DemoPublicans don't actually rig the election (...er...ahem..I mean hold the primaries)until May, so it's not too far behind that. But the CP could use a head start, rather than a late one.

 

I'm not sure how I missed this before! I wonder if Webmaster is a Peroutka supporter?
Gina

 

Did you also miss the banner ad for the Constitution Party at the top of the politics forum? All other political banners or posted ads get deleted.

 

Yes, Gershom, this is a Christian bulletin board.

 

Good one.

We got Roman Catholics posting as well as other religions commenting on or presenting their view of God's Word, but we can't post a Bush/Cheney banner within a thread. Makes no sense to me, but then, it's not my board.

 

No one can post a Kerry/Edwards banner in a post, neither. Nor can I place a Peroutka banner in my posts. No one can put a Badnarik or a Nader banner in a post, either.

I guess if you want a Bush/Cheney banner at the top of the page you'll have to start your own board.

 

I realize that.

 

One can pay to advertise on this site, so it may be that one could pay to have the ad of their choice at the top of the forum. That could be the case with the Peroutka one, but who knows.
I suppose the decision to allow or disallow an advertisement at the top is up to Webmaster. If someone's that interested it might be worth your time to ask him though!
Gina

 

Here's what the Constitution party said about Bush's "Christian faith."

Bush Unworthy of the Christian Vote
Reed R. Heustis, Jr.
October 29, AD 2004
http://www.reedheustis.com

I couldn't believe my own ears when I heard it myself.

Goosebumps riddled my body, and my blood curdled.

Earlier this week on ABC News, our "Christian" President George W. Bush proclaimed in front of a national audience that Christians and Muslims worship "the same god". (To see and view the interview online, please visit: http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/elections/article.adp?id=20041026095909990008)

Bush also said that Muslims and non-Christians both go to heaven because "we have different routes of getting there."

These statements are utter rejections of the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Said Christ, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6) No genuine Christian would ever proclaim that Muslims and Christians worship the same deity.

The Book of John says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:1-3)

This is a clear reference to the Creator God. Later in the same chapter it is revealed, "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us," which is a reference to the Creator God taking on human shape in the form of Jesus Christ.

This begs the question, If Muslims worship the same "Creator God", then how can Muslims logically reject Christ's deity?

It just cannot be said by any stretch of the imagination, unless you're a President attempting to bamboozle Christian voters yet again, that Muslims and Christians worship the same god.

Mere disagreements on peripheral issues are acceptable. Some Christians believe in infant baptism, while others do not. Many differ in their views of "end times" theology. Some embrace "charismatic" means of worship, while others abide by regulative principles. These issues and others are non-essential in that honest disagreements may occur even amongst saved Bible-believing Christians.

However, essential Christian doctrine can never be compromised!

The deity of Jesus Christ is essential, and President Bush not only compromised on this doctrine, but he embraced the demonic view of Universalism, the false belief that all roads lead to God.

He used the bully pulpit of the Presidency to poison the minds of millions into believing a lie that rises out of the pit of hell itself.

Logically, if it were true that "all roads lead to God," then the crucifixion and sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Calvary for the sins of many are rendered totally and completely meaningless.

Why should it matter that Christ paid for people's sins when people can still achieve heaven simply by embracing Allah of the Koran or some other make-believe deity?

It is unfortunate that Christians once again will be led to the slaughter by casting their votes for President Bush's re-election campaign.

It is also unfortunate that many "Christian" organizations, such as the Christian Coalition, are doing the leading.

Many of these organizations intentionally black out any mention of any superior candidate because of their fear of electing a Democrat. Recently, the Christian Coalition published its "Voter Guide" which only presented two choices: Bush and Democrat John Kerry. As expected, the Coalition's choice of issues were framed in such a way to lead any reasonable, yet politically naive Christian voter, into believing that Bush is somehow "our man".

The Constitution Party Presidential nominee, Michael A. Peroutka, who appears on enough state ballots to achieve a majority of electoral votes, represents a party that proclaims the Kingship of Jesus Christ in its Platform. Peroutka also never hesitates to advance biblical principles in governance and a return to solid constitutional government. Yet, these false opposition organizations such as the Christian Coalition black his name out so that Bush is the only one that appears to be in favor of biblical principles.

This is deception at its finest.

The Christian Coalition touts itself as an "educational" organization intended to educate Christians on the issues and elections of the day, but it deliberately ignores the existence of candidates like Peroutka. In so doing, these organizations mislead millions of Christians into believing that President Bush and the Republican Party have their interests in mind. (For a full expose on this story, please see: http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=eventview&event_id=534 )

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay, who contributed five essays to the Federalist Papers and who was a tremendous influence on the framing of the Constitution, once said, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

It is the duty of Christians to select and prefer a Christian President.

Is Bush a Christian? Would a Christian ever embrace Universalism?

The only way to restore our nation to biblical principles is to support candidates and parties that proclaim that mission as their goal. Bush has already revealed his opposition to that goal.

 

Such arguments are irrelevant now. The election is over.