Republicans Can't Handle the Truth

Of course there is no real difference in design between the Bush and Clinton administrations. They all have the same goal - bigger, more globalistic government.

 

But Bush is a REPUBLICAN! How can you say he's the same as a democrat?

Just because he acts like one?

 

.
...and he acts like one(a republican)too. That's why I didn't vote for him in the first place. He's a republican. BOTH democrats and republicans are a joke.

 

Paul Sperry has impressive credentials. The article referenced by NetPublicist says this about him: 'Sperry, formerly Washington bureau chief of "Investors Business Daily," is a Hoover Institution media fellow and author of "Crude Politics: How Bush's Oil Cronies Hijacked the War on Terrorism" (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2003).'

There are many things to admire. I have to admit that I like the "Investors Business Daily" newspaper, but they have stood with Bush. And the Hoover Institution is a great place! And Thomas Nelson-a major publisher of The Holy Bible--has even published his book!

Talk radio is not a great influence in my life. I hear more Laura Ingram and Michael Medved than anyone else. Sometimes I listen to the pro-war Libertarian Matt Drudge on talk radio.

What interests me is that the Constitution Party has once again gone to an anti-war source. In this case, it is www.antiwar.com It seems clear that the CP will stick to its position that the war in Iraq is an illegal war. In June, I wonder if they will pass a plank of "cut and run"?

Can Sperry really cast doubt on the veracity of Powell and Rice? Both are pro-choice, and Powell may be a Rhino, but Powell and Rice are bright and loyal. It's impossible for me to believe that Powell lied.

Perhaps Limbaugh and Hannity do a disservice to the GOP. Sperry fails to show that Bush is lying, but we know that Clinton lied under oath because he was convicted.

In the about us section of antiwar.com, they say this about themselves: "Our politics are libertarian..." So once again the Constitution Party uses other parties against the GOP. I should like to ask the members of the CP if they are just like Libertarians? If not, why do they rely on Libertarians?

[Edited for spelling and a final thought.]

 

When was President Clinton convicted?

 

In 1999.

I am not going to footnote this except to say that it happened to come from the British.

"A federal judge yesterday fined Bill Clinton over $90,000 (£57,000) for denying under oath that he had had sex with Monica Lewinsky, in an unprecedented penalty imposed on an incumbent US president.

"The fine was ordered by Judge Susan Webber Wright, three months after she found him guilty of contempt for giving false testimony in a sexual harassment case brought against him by a former Arkansas government employee, Paula Jones."

 

I am not a lawyer so maybe someone can answer this question - Is being fined for contempt of court the same thing as a conviction?

 

You mean like the GOP uses the Log Cabin Republicans and the Project for a New American Century(PNAC) to advance it's goals for bigger, less moral, and more globalistic government?

 

Fellers, don't go off the deep end!

On the Clinton case, the article says, "The fine was ordered by Judge Susan Webber Wright, three months after she found him guilty of contempt for giving false testimony..." So the fine was for being guilty of contempt by lying. The joke at the time was that the Judge charged Clinton a nickel for every lie. It used to be that being found guilty was being convicted.

The Libertarians are a spectrum. Matt Drudge, a Jew, supports Bush on Iraq, because he can read the handwriting on the wall. Sperry says that the war in Iraq was a mistake. How can anyone make sense of that party?

When the day is over, many Libertarians end up voting with the GOP. Here in Indianapolis, I have the misfortune to live in the Congressional district of the worst American in Congress: Julia Carson, Democrat socialist. The GOP cannot dent her landslide victories even with black Republicans. Therefore, her district has been written off and this year a Libertarian is running as a Republican sacrificial candidate. I plan to abstain in that race. There is no need for the Libertarian platform as drugs and prostitution are all but legal around here with our weak sister Marion County Sheriff.

Black Republican named Marvin Scott is running for the Senate against Evan Bayh. He, too, will lose the black vote, which is a block Democrat vote.

On the issue of the silly Log Cabin sodomites, perhaps the CP assigns sanity to sodomites although I doubt it. As for the PNAC, skull and bones, etc., I admit that I once belonged to the BOMC--but, Mr. Prosecutor, that was forty years ago. And after much difficulty, I escaped the clutches of the BOMC. I just don't buy conspiracy theories. Just because a man is a billionaire does not make him smart or nice.

 

The PNAC is not a conspiracy theory, it is a fact. Just look who signed it's founding document and where those people are today -
www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm .

 

I'll leave the Log Cabin Republicans to you to deal with, CMG, since you and they are supporting the same presidential candidate.

 

Lots of people support a particular candidate without ever signing on to the policy that that person represents. Personally, I don't know any homosexual Republicans as the homosexuals in Indianapolis are all Democrats as far as I know.

Nationally, I thought that Dole should have declined their contributions in 1996, but he didn't.

I have no idea how to deal with the sodomite community. My instinct is to give them the straight negative no to all of their demands. I think that Bush makes a mistake when he gives homosexuals patronage jobs.

Bush is a minority President. His re-election is unsure. He does not make the needed changes in the culture war, but I think that domestic issues will be secondary in November. This election will be over the war in Iraq in my opinion.

That brings me to the central weakness of the Constitution Party, which is the notion that the war is illegal (fiction to the federal government). What will the CP do? Will they finally admit that they want to cut and run? They have promised to cut off Israel. That could be the end of Israel.

 

The Congress never declared war on Iraq.

 

I think military aid can be sent to Israel based on the war on terror since Israel is fighting terrorism.

If that argument doesn't cut the mustard, then the other method to handle this would be to amend the federal constitution to allow taxpayer money to be sent to foreign governments.

 

Well, you see the problem anyway. If we call all aid to Israel military aid, then we can say that the Constitution Party is playing semantics deluxe. If we cut off aid while we try to amend the US Constitution, then we have cut off our noses to spite our faces. Where does it say in the US Constitution that the American people cannot send foreign aid? It gets a little absurd if we cannot send food and medicine to relieve disasters.

 

The Congress never declared war on Iraq. </font>[/QUOTE]This is nonsense. Here Mr. Peroutka is out to lunch--just as his idea that he could end abortion in one day with an executive order declaring the unborn child as a human being. They tried to challenge the Viet Nam war along the same lines and failed. The Congress acted properly and neither political party nor any member of the courts is going to agree with Mr. Peroutka that the current war is illegal.

Lets say that Mr. Peroutka wins. He will be on the ballot in perhaps forty states the CP says. Okay, but there are no Congressional candidates and no Senate candidates. If Peroutka wins, the GOP will have collapsed, and the Democrats will more than likely be in charge of the Congress again as they have been since 1932 except for Eisenhower and now. What makes the CP think that the Democrats are going to do what a Mr. Peroutka wants? And why shouldn't the GOP cooperate with the Democrats since most of the CP venom has been aimed at the GOP? I know that I would be writing Sen. Lugar to vote against the CP agenda based upon the style of harsh and accusatory campaign that the CP has been running on the BB.

 

You are asking the wrong question. Where in the federal constitution is Congress authorized to use the taxpayers' money to send foreign aid, food, or medicine? Here's a list - perhaps you can find such authority in Article I, Section 8, but I cannot:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.