Constitution Party Launches New Website

Email ^ | February 19, 2004 | Alison Potter

[jgrubbs]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Contact: Alison Potter, Constitution Party National Committee 717-790-1993, email: hq@constitutionparty.com

Constitution Party Launches New Website

Lancaster, PA February 19, 2004 - The Constitution Party's new, upgraded website, www.constitutionparty.com, is being launched today.

The Constitution Party is the only political party that stands on the principles of the American founding. It is 100% pro-life, against same-sex "marriage", so-called free trade, pro-gun, pro-10th amendment, pro-American sovereignty, anti-globalist, and against illegal immigration.

The Constitution Party was founded in 1992 under the name U.S. Taxpayers Party and is now the 3rd largest party in the country in terms of voter registration. It has run candidates for the presidency and various lesser offices every year since its founding. It achieved ballot access for its presidential candidate in 21 states in 1992, 39 states in 1996, and 41 states in 2000.

National Party Chairman Jim Clymer said "The Constitution Party is a haven and a fortress for conservatives who have discerned how the Republican establishment has betrayed conservative principles over and over again and will continue to do so. It is also a beacon of hope for old-style Democrats and independents who are pro-national defense, anti-abortion, and strongly opposed to the de-industrialization of America.

In this election year the Constitution Party will be running candidates for the presidency, the U.S. Congress, and state and local offices.

The Constitution Party believes that this is the year many Americans will be persuaded that their vote is the currency of their conscience and that they must vote for what they truly believe, rather than wasting their vote on the "lesser of two evils".

The time for "business-as-usual" is over. The two major parties are irreparably compromised, morally, and philosophically, and Americans must reject their policies and any other course that ensures our country's continuing decline and eventual ruin.

CONTACT INFORMATION: Alison Potter 717-390-1993 Constitution Party http://www.constitutionparty.com

###

[The_Eaglet]

Wow. They still can't win any elections, so they have to brag about putting up a new website. Color me unimpressed.

Actually their candidates have won election in a few local races since 2000.

[Types_with_Fist]

If I vote for Bush in my state, and Bush doesn't win the state--and that state's electoral votes go to the competition--does this mean I "threw away my vote"?

[The_Eaglet]

A vote for a liberal or moderate is a vote for a liberal or moderate, regardless of what party label they wear.

Good point. Just because a candidate has an (R) attached to his name does not make necessarily make him conservative.

[jgrubbs]

Wait until there's a viable 3rd party at the federal level before trying.

I am working to try to help the Constitution Party become a viable 3rd party. The last 3rd party cadidate to win Presidential election was Lincoln.

Nationally, Lincoln was elected by a good-sized margin in the Electoral College. However, in the popular vote he received 39.82 percent, with Douglas getting 29.46 percent. Breckinridge tallied 18.09 percent and Bell got 12.61 percent.

[The_Eaglet]

Kumba-Ya! Stupid liberal.

Could you please at least form a sentence so we could understand the point you are trying to make?

It appears that you are engaging in a verbal attack, but I think that you would know better than to do that here. If something else was your intention, please clarify.

[jgrubbs]

If I vote for Bush in my state, and Bush doesn't win the state--and that state's electoral votes go to the competition--does this mean I "threw away my vote"?

The only time I consider someone throwing away their vote is when they vote for someone that doesn't stand for what they believe in. If you believe in what the liberal Democrats believe in vote for them, if you believe in what the "compassionate conservative" Republicans believe in vote for them, if you believe in the US Constitution, then vote for the candidate who will honor, protect and defend the US Constitution regardless of his/her party affiliation.

Both partisan Republicans and partisan Democrats have gotten so hungry for power, they have forgotten the US Constitution and the reasons why they are supposed to be in power.

[The_Eaglet]

if you believe in the US Constitution, then vote for the candidate who will honor, protect and defend the US Constitution regardless of his/her party affiliation.

I agree. I am praying that other concerned Americans take this approach, too.

Both partisan Republicans and partisan Democrats have gotten so hungry for power, they have forgotten the US Constitution and the reasons why they are supposed to be in power.

Good point.

[Dane]

What is the present Constitutional party's candidate soultion for what is happening in San Francisco.

An answer that Bush is not doing enough is void.

I would like to hear a plan and not bashing Bush, if it is possible with your guys.

I have a feeling that there will be silence with my question.

[carenot]

If I feel ok with the vote in my heart, then to heck with what anyone else here or any place thinks. I will vote my conscience, not a party or a person.

I have voted for who I thought would make the best President from the time I could vote.

I see no difference in between the Rs and Ds.

[The_Eaglet]

An answer that Bush is not doing enough is void.

I agree, because this issue is a matter of California law and Bush is under no obligation to be involved.

I haven't seen a statement from Peroutka on this yet.

[Dane]

I agree, because this issue is a matter of California law and Bush is under no obligation to be involved

Jgrubbs time for you to trash Eaglet, the way you trash Bush.

[jgrubbs]

What is the present Constitutional party's candidate soultion for what is happening in San Francisco. An answer that Bush is not doing enough is void.

I have a feeling that there will be silence with my question.

Being that I'm not Michael Peroutka, I can't answer for him, I would suggest that you conact him and ask him your questions. I'm sure he would be more than happy to answer. He has answered all of my quesitons every time, I have called him. You can find his contact information online at http://www.peroutka2004.com/

[The_Eaglet]

I have voted for who I thought would make the best President from the time I could vote.

Please remember to vote in November! America would be in better shape if more voters took this simple approach combined with some personal effort to research the available candidates.

I see no difference in between the Rs and Ds

I see some, but sometimes certain Republicans are alarmingly similar to Democrats in their performance if not in ideals.

[jgrubbs]

I never trashed Bush for not doing anything in CA, I just posted Bush's current posistions on homosexuality on a different thread.

[The_Eaglet]

Jgrubbs time for you to trash Eaglet, the way you trash Bush.

Does jgrubbs trash Bush, or is he raising concern about how Bush, through his positions and policies, trashes conservative principles or Constitutional limits of federal scope?

[The_Eaglet]

I never trashed Bush for not doing anything in CA, I just posted Bush's current posistions on homosexuality on a different thread.

Could we have a link, please? :)

[Dane]

I never trashed Bush for not doing anything in CA, I just posted Bush's current posistions on homosexuality on a different thread

A question that you never answered on that thread, what part of Bush's many statements saying that marriage should be between a man and a woman don't you understand.

[Types_with_Fist]

Thank you. My sentiments exactly. Actually, I use this question whenever I ponder voting for a "third party," and I'm told, "you'll be throwing your vote away." My question is a good one, I think, to this argument, considering that whoever wins a state also wins all of that state's electoral votes. That being the case--on whichever "major party's" behalf the "throwing your vote away" argument is made--it seems to me that all but one candidate's supporters have "thrown their votes away."

That also being the case, my first questions begats others: "If my state goes 50%-29% against Bush, does that mean the GOP is not "viable"? How many votes are required--by whomever--for a particular party's nominee to be "viable"? What does this percieved "viability" have to do with voting my conscience? Should I vote for somebody BECAUSE they are more likely to win? Also, if I decide against voting for Bush (not that I'm doing so, mind you)--or for any "major candidate"--does this make me a "Rat, Leftist troll?"

Just curious. Not trying to start anything here...:-)

[Beenliedto]

Voting 3rd party for presidential elections now truly is tossing your vote away. Wait until there's a viable 3rd party at the federal level before trying.

So how is there to be one if we refuse to vote for one?