Posted on 04/11/2006 7:31:43 AM PDT by SJackson
Since third parties, specifically the Constitution Party, have become an issue
Constitution Party on Immigration
Constitution Party gains strength, could hurt Republicans
I thought it might be helpful to look at issues other than immigration. The entire platform is in post 1, since there are issues other than the WOT and immigration.
Terrorism and Personal Liberty
America is engaged in an undeclared war with an ill-defined enemy (terrorism), a war which threatens to be never ending, and which is being used to vastly expand government power, particularly that of the executive branch, at the expense of the individual liberties of the American people.
The "war on terrorism" is serving as an excuse for the government to spend beyond its income, expand the Federal bureaucracy, and socialize the nation through taxpayer bailouts of the airlines, subsidies to the giant insurance corporations, and other Federal programs.
We deplore and vigorously oppose legislation and executive action, that deprive the people of their rights secured under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments under the guise of "combating terrorism" or "protecting national security." Examples of such legislation are the National Security Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the proposed Domestic Securities Enhancement Act (colloquially known as "Patriot II").
The National Security Act is used by the federal government as a shroud to prevent the American people and our elected officials from knowing how much and where our tax dollars are spent from covert operations around the world. The National Security Act prevents the release of Executive Orders and Presidential Decision Directives, e.g., PDD 25, to the American people and our elected representatives. Not only are many of these used to thwart justice in the name of national security, but some of the operations under this act may threaten our very national sovereignty.
The USA PATRIOT Act permits arrests without warrants and secret detention without counsel, wiretaps without court supervision, searches and seizures without notification to the individual whose property is invaded, and a host of other violations of the legal safeguards our nation has historically developed according to principles descending from the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
Since we will no longer have a free nation while the federal government (or the governments of the several states, as the federal government may authorize) can violate our historic rights under such laws, we call for the rejection of all such laws and the ceasing of any such further proposals including the aforementioned Domestic Securities Enhancement Act.
The Constitution Party is unalterably opposed to the criminal acts of terrorists, and their organizations, as well as the governments which condone them. Individuals responsible for acts of terrorism must be punished for their crimes, including the infliction of capital punishment where appropriate. In responding to terrorism, however, the United States must avoid acts of retaliation abroad which destroy innocent human lives, creating enmity toward the United States and its people; and
In accord with the views of our Founding Fathers, we must disengage this nation from the international entanglements which generate foreign hatred of the United States, and are used as the excuse for terrorist attacks on America and its people. The 'war on terrorism" is not a proper excuse for perpetual U.S. occupation of foreign lands, military assaults on countries which have not injured us, or perpetual commitment of taxpayer dollars to finance foreign governments.
----------------------
Peroutkas Plan for Iraq
April 16, 2004
"I like President Bush personally. He is a sincere man. I respect his office. But, it is becoming painfully obvious that he has no plan to get our country out of the un-Constitutional, bloody, deadly, mess going on in Iraq. In fact, Mr. Bush and John Kerry both favor putting more troops into Iraq. In his recent press conference, Mr. Bush said our troops would be in Iraq 'as long as necessary,' 'for a while,' until Iraq is 'a free country.' He said Iraqis would provide their own security 'eventually.' I strongly disagree. As President, I would move immediately to withdraw all our troops from Iraq in a way that would provide for the safety of those Iraqis who worked with us during this illegal, wrong-headed war.
"I, like President Bush, hope that the Iraqi people, and all people, will be free from tyranny. But, unlike President Bush, I realize that, Constitutionally, as President, it would not be my job to use our military to spread 'freedom' everywhere in the world. Unlike President Bush, I, as President, would realize that I had been elected President of the United States, not President of the World.
"In 1821, John Quincy Adams said, of America:
'She goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.'
But, ignoring Adams' wise advice, President Bush, using our military, has gone abroad and destroyed the monster Saddam Hussein who posed no threat to the vital national security interests of our country. The result: We are bogged down in a bloody and expensive mess with no end in sight. If elected President, however, I would move immediately to end our involvement in Iraq. I am not one who believes that when you are in a hole you should not be in, you should keep digging. "
For God, Family and the Republic,
Michael A. Peroutka
----------------------
Peroutka says, "Article I.8 of the US Constitution does not grant to Congress the power of "nation-building." If I am elected President, no longer will these United States seek regime change nor the concept of spreading democracy through warfare, and the children within these United States will not be committed to engage in a war to `free' any people."
I agree with them, too!
Feminization of the military is the direct result of too many spineless, "know-nothing about the military" men being in position to make decisions. Has nothing to do with the all volunteer force.
Patsy Schroeder and her feminist NAG cohorts ran roughshod over a bunch of wimps in the Congress, the DoD and the Executive Department!
What else is one to do?
"America was founded on "Christian" principles."
Matthew 5.38-41
You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
Yes, I'm familiar with the eye for an eye concept. It's the basis of our tort system, which provides for monetary compensation for damages.
What is your point.
You have two issues. First an eye for an eye is rejected in the scripture quoted. Secondly, if the gospel of Jesus Christ is not based upon christian principle, then what?
My point? America didn't fight the revolutionary war while turning the other cheek to the brits. A foundation of the gospel of Christ as quoted by matthew is to love thy enemy as thyself and to turn the other cheek for him to smite thee yet again.
Fighting the revolutionary war was hardly the "christian" thing to do.
Perhaps there is a time where Jesus said his followers are permitted to stand up to and slaughter their enemies?
Too many mixed signals I guess.
One of our town councilmen recommends The America First Party www.americafirstparty.org
They endorsed Peroutka in 2004.
The constitution party is looking more serious. That is a pretty well thought out platform. Even if I disagree with some parts, anyone is going to disagree with some parts.. of any platform.(unless they wrote it)
I wish we had that voting system where you can vote for your first choice and tick off your second choice. So if your first choice isn't in the top two... then your second choice counts for that. With computerized voting its easy to implement.
I wouldn't say that they agree with Kerry and the Dems. I take their platform on defense that US forces should protect US soil and not be a nation-building force for the UN and the one-worlders. I agree with that point of view. Bring all US forces home. If anyone threatens our territory, we should take decisive action, which means destroying the enemy with such severity that no one would dare mess with us. We have the means to do that from within our own borders without deploying troops overseas for decades at a whack. We'd only have to do it once and no one would ever consider it again.
Let the French, the Iranians, Afghanistan, and Israel take care of their own business. Let's get out of the entanglements with foreign governments.
"Eye for an eye" is in fact the basis of the tort system, irrespective of the scripture quoted. Which I'm told doesn't reject it, rather rejects the extremes, as in actually taking an eye for an eye.
the revolutionary war was hardly the "christian" thing to do....Too many mixed signals I guess.
Perhaps the problem isn't mixed signals, rather attempting to base governing on scripture, as the CP attempts.
The palestinian authority used a version of that. One man, two votes. One vote for the candidate, one vote for the party.
Worked great in some minds.
Personally, I'd leave the electoral system alone for now.
No there is the indication that this bunch believes terrorism is a criminal problem not one which is fostered by political enemies.
US forces are not doing anything for the UN which is not already within our national interests. Kosovo is an exception but was Slick's gift to the Europeans. UN forces accomplish little unless the US has stabilized the situation beforehand.
Isolationism has never worked and will never work it just allows evil to grow until it is a huge problem. The last time isolationism had a major role in our foreign policy was the thirties and it allowed Hitler to become so powerful that it took tens of millions of lives to rectify the situation.
Blather about overwhelming attacks is nothing but that. Such things are never going to be the way we run foreign affairs since they are completely antithetical to America's nature. The mentality you demonstate sounds foolish and immature.
"Sovereign right" and "exclusive jurisdiction"? From where did we obtain that? Presumably, they're talking about U.S. rights as described in the original Panama Canal treaty. But if Panama had the right to surrender its sovereignity over part of its territory via a treaty, then we obviously had the same right to return that sovereignity to them via another treaty. Which is exactly what happened. Right or wrong, that's a done deal, and whatever legal right we had to stay there ended when we signed a new treaty.
So given the CP's emphasis on the rule of law and sovereignity, what is our legal basis for seizing that land again?
You have lost me on this one. While I do admit that I don't like the phrase "War on Terror" we are still at war. Several countries give aid to a large organized fascist group that has long worked to bring Sharia law to the world. Sitting within our own borders and waiting is not going to work. There are reasons why OPSEC was a way of life for our family before 9/11. People were trying to kill my sons who are in the military.
Yes, a platform to hit the hot buttons of single issue voters and form a "coalition". No cohension, neither plans nor ability to implement.
Your inability to address the issues is noted.
I think we agree, the CP would be a disaster on the WOT. And that's based on the "moderation" of their platform. If you want the radical side, click the link in 11 and see what one of their candidates writes for Al Jazeera.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.