The Constitution Party

I endorse Chuck Baldwin for President of the United States

John Quincy Adams famously wrote: “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” I have tried to faithfully use that principle in political judgment.

Third party candidates have a long history in United States politics, however, there has not been an elected third-party candidate as president since 1860. Back then the reigning parties–Democratic Party and the Whig Party–were the only parties available. With the rise of Abraham Lincoln, the Republican Party ( a third party) finally took office. Lincoln led the country through its greatest and most despicable internal war. In many ways, he set an example that would be followed by modern day Republicans. Despite–in my opinion–Lincoln’s abuse of power, his example is a strong testimony to the power and origin of a third party system in the United States. In the 21st century, third parties have become overwhelming. These days anyone can start a party. Communist, socialist and even neo-nazi parties are part of the American democratic system. Fortunately, these parties are nothing but an iota in the great political scheme.

In light of this brief history, why is my family supporting a third-party candidate?  The first thing to say is that the Constitution Party is the largest growing third-party in the US. It was established to limit the Federal Government to its constitutional boundaries and to restore civil government to the principles our country was founded upon. It is a nationally recognized party.

Secondly, we are supporting Chuck Baldwin because he best represents our principles as a family. These principles are written in the US Constitution. This same constitution that has been trampled on for the last 40 years. This Republic has experienced more abuse in these last eight years than perhaps in the previous forty years combined. The presidency of George W. Bush has made the Constitution a forgotten document. The Patriot Act served as an example of how far American policies have strayed from the Constitution. It was in the process of discussing the Patriot Act that our current president uttered the famous lines: “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It’s just a g*damned piece of paper!”

The Republican Party, in my estimation, is not a completely lost cause. Once in a decade it presents a man like Dr. Ron Paul who believes so strongly in the Constitution that it makes him the oddball in a room of Republican candidates, when in reality, he is the true heir to the principles of our Founding Fathers. Despite Paul’s immense success nationally and financially, it was not enough to give him the preeminent seat at the Republican National Convention. In fact, they wouldn’t even allow him in. This in itself shows the distasteful state of the “Conservative Party.”

Make no mistake, I am under no illusion that the Constitution Party under Chuck Baldwin’s leadership has a chance to win this election. At this point in history–despite Ron Paul’s support of third parties–Chuck Baldwin or any of the major third parties in the US today (Constitution Party, Green Party or Libertarian Party) does not have the slightest chance of competing with the billions of either major American parties. But this is exactly what makes the choice of Chuck Baldwin so appealing. Let me explain. In a day where corruption, fraud, immoral behavior, lack of Constitutional understanding and radical interventionism prevail in the Republican Party, the time is ripe for Christian citizens to stand up for the only thing that makes us who we are: our Biblical principles.

If we do not begin to vote as Christian citizens, we are no better than the ignorant who vote because of race or because of the free government benefits. On the other hand, some are more principled and take the “lesser of two evils” argument to new heights. But the lesser of two evils is still evil. It is true that there is no perfect party or candidate, but imperfect is not the same as evil. Some are very fearful that an Obama presidency will make our dream of abolishing Roe v. Wade a distant possibility, but it is wise to remember that the Supreme Court judges were largely nominated by Republicans.

What began as a decent attempt to restore conservatism in Ronald Reagan has now declined to the big-government “conservatism” of our current president. If the trend continues, and if McCain is elected (a doubtful proposition), the elections of 2016 will feature a historic election with identical candidates. What some have already coined: Republicrats. For some of us who observe the political scene, this has theoretically occurred. All we need is an official ceremony, a marriage ceremony that is.

While Palin is an attractive candidate (pun intended), she is only a puppet in the hands of the neo-conservative mafia. Some may look to 2012 as a Palin administration. But we do not do evil that good may come, if good at all.

The radio stars and the Fox elite will continue to uphold their supposed commitment to conservative principles, but what they will really uphold is their hatred for the left and unswerving validation of whoever the Right selects, even if in the end he is only a better looking clone of his Democratic counterpart.

In the words of Oscar Harward: “If John McCain is a Conservative, I am an astronaut.” What am I supporting if I endorse McCain? I am supporting someone who believes in stem cell research, someone who believes that abortion is legitimate under certain situations like rape and incest (which consists of about 15,000 abortions a year), someone who continues to expand America’s wars, someone who refuses to shut down the unnecessary 700 US bases worldwide in countries that have no animosity towards the US, someone who does not even blink before allowing the government to bail out anormous corporations (even some Democrats had better sense), someone who embraces global warming as a fact, someone who was part of the McCain-Feingold legislation, which regulates the financing of political campaigns, someone who will embrace illegal immigration, someone who abandoned his first wife because she no longer fit the model profile. If he has enough character to endure five years of torture, why does he not have enough character to love his sick wife?

I am voting for Chuck Baldwin because he opposes everything McCain stands for. He is filled with integrity, committed to an orthodox Christian faith and endorsed by Ron Paul.

If some accuse my family of wasting our vote, then I shall ask: What are you gaining with yours?

An Authentic View of Life

It has certainly been a long time since I have promoted The Constitution Party. In fact, most Americans have not even heard of an alternative Party to the present two-party system. In the next few days I will be posting a host of links to our platform. To begin let me post in full our position on Life.

Sanctity of Life

The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God’s image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born.

To that end, the Constitution of the United States was ordained and established for “ourselves and our posterity.” Under no circumstances may the federal government fund or otherwise support any state or local government or any organization or entity, foreign or domestic, which advocates, encourages or participates in the practice of abortion. We also oppose the distribution and use of all abortifacients.

We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception. As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.

No government may legalize the taking of the unalienable right to life without justification, including the life of the pre-born; abortion may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government – legislative, judicial, or executive. The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body.

In addition, Article IV of the Constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government. Therefore, although a Supreme Court opinion is binding on the parties to the controversy as to the particulars of the case, it is not a political rule for the nation. Roe v. Wade is an illegitimate usurpation of authority, contrary to the law of the nation’s Charter and Constitution. It must be resisted by all civil government officials, federal, state, and local, and by all branches of the government – legislative, executive, and judicial.

We affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of abortion in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2.

In office, we shall only appoint to the federal judiciary, and to other positions of federal authority, qualified individuals who publicly acknowledge and commit themselves to the legal personhood of the pre-born child. In addition, we will do all that is within our power to encourage federal, state, and local government officials to protect the sanctity of the life of the pre-born through legislation, executive action, and judicial enforcement of the law of the land.

Further, we condemn the misuse of federal laws against pro-life demonstrators, and strongly urge the repeal of the FACE Acts as an unconstitutional expansion of federal power into areas reserved to the states or people by the Tenth Amendment.

In addition, we oppose the funding and legalization of bio-research involving human embryonic or pre-embryonic cells.

Finally, we also oppose all government “legalization” of euthanasia, infanticide and suicide.

Lofton takes on Abortionists…

Try defending abortion against John Lofton and this is what happens! Lofton has a gift for making ungodly thinking look moronic!

Read interview…

Constitutional Heroes and Foe

Howard Phillips writes: Eleven members of the U.S. House of Representatives courageously voted against President Bush’s $52 billion plus supplementary appropriation to deal with the problems arising from Hurricane Katrina.

The eleven Constitutional heroes were: Joe Barton (Texas), Jeff Flake (Arizona), Virginia Foxx (North Carolina), Scott Garrett (New Jersey), John Hostettler (Indiana), Steve King (Iowa), C. L. Otter (Idaho), Ron Paul (Texas), James Sensenbrenner (Wisconsin), Thomas Tancredo (Colorado), and Lynn Westmoreland (Georgia).

I sent each of them the following letter:

Dear Congressman: On behalf of The Conservative Caucus, please accept my congratulations and appreciation for your courageous vote against the $52 billion New Orleans funding package proposed by President Bush. You did what was right, and that you did so reflects credit on your discernment and integrity.

Bill Bonner observes:

We will spend “whatever it takes,” said George W. Bush of the New Orleans dry-out campaign. But where would ‘whatever it takes’ come from? The federal deficit hit a record of $412 billion last year. Republicanoes were delighted to report that the deficit was to fall this year to $331 billion, but along comes a rainy day and the nation is now spending another $2 billion per day it doesn’t have to help clean up the mess.It is an ill wind that blows no one good. There is no doubt that the storm was bad for the citizens of the Big Easy and American households generally; as well as the federal budget, the U.S. dollar and the American economy. But it is good for the empire. Now we have another ‘front’ at home, and another reason to spend money.

You may be a Constitutionalist if…

I know the election’s momentum is gone, however, if your ideas on politics are in a state of stasis, perhaps this will stir your political deprivation. In the past I have written rather sternly about why I think it would be a consistent decision for Christians to abandon the Republican Party and join the Constitution Party. So, for some of you who have never heard of the Constitution Party or have and are interested in learning about it, here are 30 propositions that may determine if you are a Constitutionalist. If you agree with all of them and still desire to remain in your party of choice, then at least you share the same principles we do.
This list is compiled from Chuck Baldwin.

1. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that elected
leaders should really obey the U.S. Constitution.

2. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that before
the United States invades and occupies another country,
Congress must first declare war.

3. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe the federal
government should live within its means, like everyone else
is forced to do.

4. You might be a Constitutionalist if you think that taking
away people’s liberties in the name of security is neither
patriotic nor does it make the country more secure.

5. You might be a Constitutionalist if you would like to see
politicians be forced to abide by the same laws they make
everyone else submit to. More

Reflections on the Election and the Future

It has surely been an surprising election. For most of us who believed this would prolong to the next month or so were proven wrong. At least we know that the nation has learned from Florida’s mistakes in 2000. President Bush has earned the respect of a nation and also for a good part of the world today. As I read Brazil’s news I noticed that even the Brazilian president was concerned about establishing better relationships with the US in  these next four years. While Arafat is spending his last few days on earth, we will once again see the Israeli and Palestine wars on the top of the news. Further, the Iraqi war will be another concern in these next four years for Bush. As for Bill Clinton’s chance of becoming the head of the UN in 2006, he better forget it about and start focusing on his wife’s campaign for the presidency in 2008. Speaking of which, consider the two candidates of the 2008 election (if all things continues as planned): former mayor Rudy Guliani and Hilary Clinton. One important issue to keep in mind is that Rudy as a Republican is more of a democrat on ethical issues than anything. Besides being pro-abortion, he is also pro-homosexual marriage. This puts the top two candidates in 2008 as largely anti-Christian. Maybe a third party may be an option for 2008… what do you think? As for Bush’s re-election, he has proven once again to be vastly conservative. All you have to do is see the map and be in awe of all the red states. However, since the Republican Party is so diverse, this means that the red states aren’t as red (conservative) as some would like to believe.

A couple of final remarks will help us to think ahead even to our next election. First, in the words of Matt Drudge, “this is a Bush Revolution.” Indeed Bush has received the greatest support in American history surpassing the big 50% margin. This time (unlike 2000) he left no doubt who would be the chief in command. Secondly, with this Revolution comes also the remarkable dominance of the Republican Party in the Senate (55 v. 44). Thirdly, I raise the obvious question, will Bush compromise even more with Democrats in order to bring together this divided nation (Kerry asked this of the president today in his 5 minute phone conversation as he conceded)?

Finally, as for the Constitution Party, we are still concerned that this nation is in danger because of the abortion clinics, consequently because of “Conservatives” funding abortion institutions. Further, we are concerned that the educational system of this nation is in utter ruin. It is a revealing fact when 50 million people vote for a candidate (John Kerry) who is so unethical in his ideas. The government educational system needs to be re-considered by Christian parents before they send their sons and daughters in a godless proselytizing system.  You cannot restore a nation to godly rule i parents send their children to ungoldy education.

We will not give up and we will not concede to those who wish to minimize the importance of God, Republic and Family, but we will always fight for a God honoring country that submits to the council and mandates of our Sovereign Lord Jesus Christ to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

Why Michael Anthony Peroutka; Georger Bush and Inclusivism

We still have three days and about 16 hours for the election and I cannot stress how important it is for us conservatives to think about who we are voting for. I have publicly endorsed Michael Peroutka for President for many reasons. Here are a few of them: 1) Peroutka is the only 100% Pro-Lifer in this campaign, 2) He is the only one who believes in the depravity of men (as I quoted a few weeks ago, Bush has stated that all men are basically good), 3) Peroutka considers the family a priority in his campaign, 4) The Constitution Party is against amnesty for illegal aliens, 5) Peroutka is determined to abandon the UN, 6) Unlike other candidates, he refuses to support the homosexual agenda by funding anti-family organizations.

These are only a few reasons why I endorse Micahel Peroutka as President. It appears that for some these issues are no longer important. It seems that “principles” have been altered for “popularity.” Listen, voting for Bush is not an evil act. I am not condemming anyone for doing so, but what I do condemn is the vague and shallow reasons for choosing a candidate. My point is that for us Christians, issues like ethics and Biblical integrity are fundamental.

Recently President Bush was interviewed by Charlie Gibson and these are the crucial Q&A sections of that interview I wanted you to read. If you desire to read the entirety of the interview, simply e-mail me and I will send it to you. Before you do read, here is a verse to consider… warning: It may sound too familiar, so read it carefully.
John 14:6: “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW CHARLES GIBSON, ABC NEWS

CG: Do we all worship the same God, Christian and Muslim?

GWB: I think we do.

CG: Do Christians and non-Christians and Muslims go to heaven in your mind?

GWB: Yes, they do. We have different routes of getting there…

You have three days to make up your mind.
Bush’s interview link

Back to Politics – answering a common objection

A few nights ago in a popular chat channel, we began a brief discussion on why we should vote based on principles rather than on the outcome. Many agreed that in essence voting for Bush would be voting for the lesser of two evils. I proposed that voting for the lesser of two evils is unbiblical and unethical in a Christian worldview. Further, I stressed that voting for a man who has clear Christian principles is the right choice for any believer. Of course, someone quickly responded by saying that in that case, we could put a prominent theologian (I won’t name who) as a write-in for this election. The argument is simple: Why not just get any Christian leader and write him in as a candidate for the presidency?

This is a valid argument and I propose a few observations contra this proposition. Hopefully, it will lead to further interactions. First, my primary concern is to find a leader that represents God’s truth when running for president. One thing to keep in mind is that only in America you have this distinct privilege. The truth is, only here is the possibility of that scenario even possible. Secondly, voting for a party that is Christian, in the Orthodox definition, is letting America know that there are other options out there besides the dominant two-party system. Thirdly, in order to be a Christian candidate one must be qualified. If this prominent Christian theologian or leader is qualified for a position of an office, and in turn is politically inclined and understands the issues facing our society today, then my response is a hearty encouragement to his candidacy. Of course, I assume we are all very aware that to become a candidate is quite a difficult task.

My position is favorable to as many Christians as possible running for the office. Can you imagine in 2008 at least two distinctly Christian parties committed to denouncing abortion once and for all? Further, can you imagine two Christian parties holding hands defending the same ethical issues? What kind of message would this send to America?

I am all in favor of having as many Christian parties as possible, but until that happens or until that prominent theologian (who by the way, usually makes horrible politicians, with the exception of Abraham kuyper) is up and running for office of the United States of America, I am voting for the Constitution Party.

The Constitution Party on the Family

Strong families are the essential building blocks of a strong, moral and just community. But America’s families today are under constant attack by federally funded programs that are dangerous and unconstitutional. Government schools are drugging and “dumbing-down” our children making them dependent and compliant.

The Constitution Party encourages faithful fathers and mothers to train their children to love God and serve others according to their own conscience and without the interference of unConstitutional federal programs

What Others Say: On Wasting your vote By Robert Bird

“True conservatives should jump while they still can.”

Conservatives (which is becoming an increasingly murky term) are almost unanimous, if they are honest, in their agreement that their cause is currently dead in the water. The reasons are complex, but a few might be possible to identify.

First of all, they have a president who is sometimes called “far-right” by his enemies, but which less-government citizens know better. This is a man who has never wielded his veto pen to stop runaway spending by a Congress controlled by his own party — spending that would make LBJ and his Great Society welfare state envious. This president has increased the power of the federal government with a tyrannical No Child Left Behind Act (it’s Ted Kennedy’s brainchild), where the feds are now a bull-in-the-china-shop in the area of one of the most hallowed premises of American democracy: local control of education.

This is a man who actually signed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act saying, “It’s probably unconstitutional,” creating the biggest threat of freedom of speech and press since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Someone must have forgotten to remind this president that his oath of office compels him to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” But, he instead abdicated his sacred duty and turned it over to the despotic gurus of the Supreme Court, a court still firmly in control by the liberal consensus by which both major parties subscribe.

He has increased the power of the police state while waging a war overseas, a war which arguably is wrong on both constitutional and moral grounds.

This guy’s a conservative?

Then we have Lisa Murkowski, a Republican with a decidedly liberal voting record during her tenure in the state Legislature, and who as a U.S. Senator voted in favor of a resolution accepting Roe v. Wade as “rightly decided.” Notwithstanding the local bishop’s weak excuses on her behalf, this is a Catholic pro-abortion politician.

So, now we come to Alaskan Republicans’ conundrum: Who the hell to vote for? Principled third-party candidates exist, but the stock answer is usually, “OK, I know that X is a better candidate, but they have no chance of winning. If I vote for them, it will only help the Democrats to win, and they’re worse. I can’t waste my vote.”

This is the conventional wisdom, to be sure, but it is wrong. Continuing to vote for wrong-headed Republicans is the real “wasted vote,” and I will attempt to demonstrate why.

Ask yourself, fellow conservatives, which is better: short-term gain versus long-term loss, or short-term loss versus long-term gain? Most people would admit that, however painful it might be, the latter option is the better.

Unless and until Republicans are punished for acting like socialist, more-government Democrats, we are going to continue being given the same sordid options. What the fake two-party system now offers us is this: The Democrats and Republicans are both speeding toward a cliff in pickup trucks, the Democrats at 110 mph and the Republicans at 55, with the voters riding in back. So, the “thoughtful” Republican voter jumps from the back of the Democratic pickup onto the Republican one, knowing full well that this option is only delaying the calamity that awaits on the horizon.

As for me, I’m going to jump the truck, bounce and roll a bit, pick myself up and walk in the opposite direction. And if the jump kills me, well, I’d rather be dead than fall down a cliff into the black pit of slavery.

There isn’t a conservative I know that doesn’t admit that if we all did this, two things would happen: Either the Republican truck would turn around and head the other direction, or a different car will come along and take us to where we want to go — to the freedom side of the cliff.

That is why I am voting for Jerry Sanders for the U.S. Senate and Michael A. Peroutka for president.

A long journey, my friends, begins with one simple jump from the pickup.