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.
----------------------
Peroutka’s 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."
Absolutely wrong. The Islamists hate us for who we are, and withdrawal is not an option. Vigourous pursuit of the war against the terrorists is the only option - I would respect the CP more if they said that America needed to be even harder in its response, not this nonsense.
Regards, Ivan
I can only assume they made it up. There is no legal basis. We would simply abrogate the treaty and go to war with Panama. But it's red meat for some. Which is why it's in the platform.
And do I really have to point out that something is wrong when "constitutionalists" endorse the Jeffersonian position as THE correct constitutional interpretation when Jefferson did not even help write it while loose constructionist and central banking advocate Alexander Hamilton did???
When the all volunteer force objectives failed to meet the goal with male volunteers, each military branch was forced to accept volunteers from the only other available pool of potential volunteers, women.
They already selected female volunteers prior to the ending of the draft.
accepting women into roles that had previously been male dominated led to the feminization of the military.
That's not what happened. At the time the draft ended, women already were permitted to volunteer for the exact same specialties as they were during the draft. In other words, the all volunteer force did not open any new specialities for women.
Crediting Pat Schroeder for the change gives her undo importance.
Credit DACOWITS if you want. That was the reason you saw more MOS's opened to women, not military need. I saw that personally.
And even taking into account the increased presence of women, which I largely oppose, I'd still much rather have been in an all volunteer force than one made up of draftees. And I wage 90% of the guys who are serving now would say the exact same thing. You don't want to be there, I don't want you there. It's that simple.
Women have always been "exposed to combat." It's just that they have never been trained and armed to protect themselves before.
I believe that the major problem is the variable standards for physical abilities and skills that are artificially set up in order to supposedly make women "equal" to men in the military.
While medical and support services may have different requirements, dedicated combat troops need to be teams, with similar requirements among the members.
Driving off a cliff at 100 mph is really funny! Laugh for the day! And, it is quite true. They probably need to slow down to about 55 mph. Good analogy, considering they ARE breaking the law...
Apparently, they, also, deplore, correct, punctuation.
The Constitution party holds no interest from me.
True, but their positions are laughable without going there.
If you ask me, cutting off all foreign aid (including aid to Israel) would probably help Israel better than the current policy of using aid as a marionette string to get Israel to progressively surrender to the Palestinians.
And do I really have to point out that something is wrong when "constitutionalists" endorse the Jeffersonian position as THE correct constitutional interpretation when Jefferson did not even help write it while loose constructionist and central banking advocate Alexander Hamilton did???
Extremely selective use of facts there. First of all, the "Jeffersonian" position also happens to be the Madisonian position, and Madison had far more to do with the writing of the Constitution than Hamilton did. Even Jefferson himself, though he wasn't present at the convention, had a large influence. His "Notes on the State of Virginia" contained a very sound statement of principles about the constitutional pitfalls to avoid (which Virginia had already experienced), and that was an important contribution to the development of the U.S. Constitution.
Finally, the Hamiltonian doctrine, conveniently enough, didn't actually appear until after the Constitution was ratified. Neither in his Federalist writings that urged ratification, nor in his addresses to the New York ratifying convention, did he give any hint that a national bank might be provided by the document. It was only afterwards that he "discovered" this.
It all sounds fair if you're an American, of course. But we are something of a minority. And these positions are not strongly held even in this country. ---"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well put. -- And it should be emphasized that this empirical position is held by the powers that be in both parties.
We are giving massive amounts of power to politicians that are convinced that anyone who objects to the way they use that power -- "is a dupe or a terrorist or a drug trafficker or a communist or a subversive peacenik or a Nazi".
Interesting times.
There is no "failed policy" for me to recognize. Crackpot evaluations and Leftist LIES do not make for failure. Removing the Party of Treason from power removes the greatest force for failure that the nation faces.
Nor is there anything untenable about America's position. So far we have barely touched our potential power.
Such lack of insight must mean you actually believe what is passed out by the Treason Media.
Women being 'exposed' to combat and being in combat are two different things.
A women in a rear line medical unit is far less likely to be exposed to danger then a woman in a helicopter or supply convoy.
The fact is that women are not held to the same physical requirements men are, nor should they be.
Moreover, in combat, unit cohesion is crucial, and no woman is going to be 'one of the guys'.
Ultimately, the fact is that men are to protect women, not let them do their fighting for them.
Isn't it great when we say the same thing?
You bet.. Be prepared to see some real perks enjoying the WH in 09.
Hadn't seen you or ftD online for a long time. Nice to see some names from the old days on my screen.
Nice to see you too..
And yep, the old names seem to be coming, and going, - a lot lately..
-- But that's really nothing new for FR.
Thank you.
Good to hear from you also.
Yup, out of Iraq, now, the oceans will protect us. Why digging ourselves into a deeper hole than the neocons have already gotten us into.
Nice to see you observing the agit-prop on the pro-War for Empire Internet site known oxymoronically as Free Republic.com, aka Censored Republic.com, lapdogs of Bush and Cheney.
WTF are you talking about? Are you on drugs? If not don't you think you ought to look into them?
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.