Posted on 01/02/2007 9:25:56 PM PST by TBP
No, he is not. He is a member of the Constitution party and ran (and was elected) on teh Constitution ticket.
That makes you smarter? It surely doesn't.
not on the last ticket he was not..
IIRC several things happened. The Board of Directors voted Weyrich out as chairman for starters. This meant he lost control of what shows were aired. Instead of being a premium Conservative network it became the mouth piece network for Moderate Republicans and Liberals. If you'll remember for example Armstrong Williams had a show called The Right Side. It was pretty decent but all of the sudden it was being co-hosted by Ellen Ratner. Bob Beckell also had many appearances on the network. More and more of the moderate GOP started showing up as well. Soon the network wasn't about Conservatism anymore but rather a mouth piece for the GOP namely the moderate/liberal GOP.
This seems to happen to almost ALL Conservative groups, orgs, message boards, etc. Along come the moderate Party Think or else crowd and down the tubes they go. It would be interesting to note though that persons like Fox News Major Garrett hosted shows on N.E.T. as did Judicial Watch Tom Finton. There were many good persons on there like Janet Parshall, Tom Jippin, Lisa Dean, Mike Reagan, John Lofton, Brad Keena, Bill Lind did "The Origins of Political Correctness". Plus a lot more others.
I think Weyrich was forced out because he was stepping on big GOP toes by exposing their selling us out. It was Weyrich who first sounded the alarms the newly elected GOP was doing so and he went after Trent Lott.
But if you wanted to know what all the GOP had they had the guts could have used against Bill Clinton it was there as well. Bob Barr was a regular guest as were a couple other House Managers.
What happened to the original N.E.T. was sad but it was a typical what threatens the GOP Liberals they take over type of deal. Like I said I've seen it happen almost every place a grass roots non party political venue where people can debate they take it over. Then it becomes a party based cheerleading venue and little more. Dissent is either not allowed or as much as possible silenced. But that's just IMO :>}
The framework is already there. It's called the Republican party. We all need to work together if we're going to stop the Democrats.
To: SJackson
Darn right. Only a Communist would suggest that we need to limit the government to its Constitutional functions. You're obviously an America-hating Marxist if you think that.
You're probably a jihadist too.
And the proof is clear: you criticized the GOP, the RINOs, and President Bush.
257 posted on 01/10/2007 3:53:21 PM CST by TBP
The restore America to a judicial and governing system bases on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They will continue to grant asylum to practitioners of other faiths.
I do not believe that victory is even the goal for the CP. If it were, many of these CP candidates would already be holding office if they had run as Republicans.
I do not believe that and insist that you support your claim with proof.
Considering that I know Chuck Baldwin, and have met Alan Keyes and Howard Phillips, I am one inch shy of calling you a bald faced liar.
As it is, I'm just asking you to prove your claim.
I'd like to withdraw my previous statement and just call you a liar until you can prove otherwise.
Constitution Party National Platform
http://www.cptexas.org/platform.shtml#Sancity%20of%20Life
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.
And you're gonna do this by electing Democrats? Good luck.
Not by electing Democrats or Republicans. Because theres nothing in the Constitution about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, nor is there anything about grant asylum to practitioners of other faiths. As repulsive as it must be to some, we actually allow Jews, Muslims, Hindus, athiests, a whole bunch of people to actually be Americans. Because there's nothing in the Constitution about the topic, at least nothing supporting the CP position.
If I wanted a theocracy, an immediate withdrawl from the WOT, terror is a criminal activity after all, and Iraq and the recovery of our sovereign land in Panama, I'd consider the CP, but I don't want any of those things, so they're off my list.
Then Google was wrong, as usual. He's Constitution.
If you don't understand satire, that's not my fault.
Several Constitution Party state affiliates left the national party in 2006 because it had compromised on the sanctity of life. That is the fact.
Ah, but I do vote, but I just took a pass on that one. Are you one of those Republicans that would vote for a communist, homosexual drug addict if he/she was a Republican?
Absolutely. I prefer the Republican Party because they have the best selection of communists, gays and drug addicts. Some felons too.
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.