Constitution Party Courts Ron Paul as Candidate

Old Glory Radio ^ | 01/16/08 | Old Glory Media

[locke22]

EUREKA Ca: 01/167/08 Old Glory Media - Mary Starrett, Communications Director of the Constitution Party, announced today, in conjunction with her radio interview with Old Glory Radio 16 Jan 08, that the Constitution Party has drafted a resolution encouraging current Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul to run as the Constitution Party candidate for President in the 2008 Election.

[napscoordinator]

He is getting 5 percent in the results. I don’t think we can afford to lose five percent this election.

[Mr. Jeeves]

He is not wanted in today’s GOP.

Not many Americans are, it seems. ;)

[deport]

Draft Paul........

And deny that pepetual candidate Keyes the slot and mess up his 3rd party run.... I guess he develop his own party “Renew Keyes” or something like that....

[AmericanInTokyo]

If he tries for it, I think a TRUE CONSERVATIVE with credentials should challenge him for that Constitution Party nomination, I am sure he or she could take care of Paul in no time flat, if organized and name-brand, with experience and a national following. Some names come to mind.

[Designer]

"I don’t think we can afford to lose five percent this election."

You don't have to.

There is an easy way to get all of the Paul supporters on your side.

[Designer]

"TRUE CONSERVATIVE...Some names come to mind."

Name away.

[napscoordinator]

How is that?

[deport]

He is getting 5 percent in the results. I don’t think we can afford to lose five percent this election.

---

Currently Paul is getting 6.90% of the total votes cast. I guess it depends upon what groups they are coming from as to whether they can afford to be lost or not. I’m not convinced that his supporters in very large number are Republican voters generally if at all.

1,224,778 votes cast, 84,554 votes to Paul = 6.9%

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R.phtml

[Designer]

There is an easy way to get all of the Paul supporters on your side.

"How is that?"

Nominate Ron Paul.

He is the only "true conservative" in the race, so he would get ALL the conservative votes.

As the Republican nominee, he would also get ALL the Republican votes.

He would also get MOST of the "Reagan democrats" (remember them?).

He would also get a few cross-over leftists who are for liberty (they don't like the Patriot Act).

Heck, he might even get votes from people who just haven't voted because they are so sick and tired of all the BS in politics!

BTW: he would win.

[napscoordinator]

Nominate Ron Paul

I can’t get behind Ron Paul during a war. If it was peace time maybe but he is way too radical to me.

[napscoordinator]

That could really hurt the Republican nominee big time.

[locke22]

You are correct that people won't bother to take the time to read....however, Attached here is the link to the archive I did of the radio interview with Mary Starrett, Comm Dir of the Constitution Party last night. I went right down the list of what they stand for with her. Starrett Interview I am baffeled somewhat at the mis information being posted on this thread about them. Frankly, they, the CP, sound more Republican than .....the Republicans. Protect the borders, respect the family, fiscally responsible, stop nation building etc.

[Dead Corpse]

Move over...

[raygun]

Oh, really?

Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation of people. Whereas Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of The United States ... Whereas that renewing our knowledge of, and faith in God through Holy Scriptures can strengthen us as a nation and a people. Now therefore be it resolved ... that the President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a national "Year of the Bible" in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures. - 1983 - Oct. 4, 1982, Joint Resolution of Congress.

Gee, I wonder where they got that idea from?

a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles…is absolutely necessary to preserve the advantages of liberty and to maintain a free government. The people…have a right to require of their law-givers and magistrates an exact and constant observance of them. - Benjamin Franklin, September 1776, in Charles Warren, A Frequent Recurrence to Fundamental Principles, The Journal of the Foundation for American Christian Education 2 (1990) pg 101.

What "frequent recurrence to fundamental principles" could he possibly be talking about? Jefferson said:

God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.

Concerning the above quote, Senator Byrd (1918 -1966) is quoted having said that Jefferson's forgoing words were "a forceful and explicit warning that to remove God from this country will destroy it."

The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country. - Calvin Coolidge

Then there's this State Supreme court opinion:

The morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of other religions. In people whose manners are refined, and whose morals have been elevated and inspired with a more enlarged benevolence, it is by means of the Christian religion.

Whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government, because it tends to corrupt the morals of the people, and to destroy good order. - People v. Ruggles 8 Johns. R. 290 N.Y. 1811

The House Judiciary Committe weighed in on the matter:

"Religion must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity; the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions." - House Judiciary Committee, 1854

In an opinion that quoted 87 precedents in a 16 page document SCOTUS once upon a time determined that:

The happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality...

Religion, morality, and knowledge are necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind...

Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian. These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation... This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation... we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth... These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. - Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, The United States Supreme Court, 143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226 (1892)

"We are a Christian people...according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledge with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God." - United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605 (1931)

"We are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being...When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. We cannot read into the Bill of Rights a philosophy of hostility to religion." - Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 307 313 (1952)

In Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) the following prayer to be said aloud by each class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of each school day was deemed to violate the First Amendment: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country."

In Abington School Dist. V. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), the opinion was rendered that "The State may not establish a 'religion of secularism' in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe." Nevertheless, and that notwithstanding, school-directed recital of the Lord's Prayer and reading of Bible passages were banned in that they were part of "devotional exercises" in public schools.

In Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), the Supreme Court invoked the thought police by ruling that observance of "daily moments of silence" from public schools when students were encouraged to pray during the silent periods was un-Constitutional.

In Santa fe independent school District v. Doe, certiorari to the United States court of appeals for the fifth circuit No. 99-62. Argued March 29, 2000--Decided June 19, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court banned student-led pre-game prayers at public high school football games.

For the majority Justice John Paul Stevens wrote:

School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.

Since 1962, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," the Founding Fathers intended that no act of government (including public schools) should favor any one religion over others. Once one publicly mentions (or officially permits one to even think about in public) God, Jesus, or anything even remotely "Biblical," you have pushed the constitutional envelope and embarked onto the slippery slope of "favoring" one practice of religion over all others.

It may very well be that the only way to not favor one religion over others, is to not favor any religion at all; and that means off with the burkha. Not to mention foregoing:

"Oyez, Oyez, Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United States and the Honorable Court.

How dare these arrogant jurists impose thier brand of religion upon atheists, agnostics and pagans? The audacity of them. What hypocrits.

Also, the stone above the head of the Chief Justice engraved with the Ten Commandments with the great American eagle protecting them. Underneath are the following words regarding Moses who is holding the Ten Commandments: "Lawgiver of the Israelites, His Mosaic Law, which is based on the tablets of Hebraic Law, or the Ten Commandments, determined the criminal code and liturgical law." will have to be removed (as Judge Moore was forced to do).

In his First Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln said:

The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

At the time the context of Lincoln's quote was respecting Dred Scott, the infamous decision that created a constitutional right to own slaves, but I'm wondering if that may vaguely have applicability to something completely different nowadays.

Nah.

I can't wait until the religious foundations of this country are completely destroyed. Look at the progress that society has made since the early 60's. There is an unmistakeable and drastic improvement of all aspects of the quality of life across the board since those dark days. Without doubt over the course of the next 50 years this nation truly will become that "Shining City Upon the Hill" envisioned by its Founders once it is wholly unfettered by any religious based moral shackles whatsoever.

[cva66snipe]

I find it amusing that so many CP followers are disgusted by this active pursuit of Ron Paul.

I'l not disgusted. If he was the CP pick I'd likely vote for him. I'm not a Code Pink either. The CP also asked another congressman to consider running and that was John {Jimmy} Duncan R-TN I could vote for him as well.

[ksen]

Well in SC, Paul’s Republican credentials were challenged.

If they are going to challenge Paul's Republican credentials they better be challenging Rudy's, Mitt's, Huck's, and McCain's as well. Otherwise their challenge is nothing but cheap electioneering.

[deport]

That could really hurt the Republican nominee big time.

---

I guess it could if that was his true support coming from only Republican voters. My guess is that a major portion of those voters supporting Paul wouldn’t vote Republican normally or wouldn’t show up to vote if Paul isn’t on the ticket.

Speculation on my part of course but we’ll see see how Paul reacts should they extend the offer to him. He’s drawn a boat load of opponents this primary in CD 14. I’m hoping one can be a viable contender and maybe knock him out.

[cva66snipe]

They won't read it on the website, and even if you post parts of it here, they still won't read it. Or they will argue each point into the ground separately without actually understanding anything they have read.

I've voted with the Constitution Party since the 2000 POTUS Election. It's founder Howard Phillips is a real good man and the GOP owes him a lot of thanks for some major wins. But I doubt they understand the how come and why of that as well. But nobody wants to discuss the CP Platform after it was linked :>} Better for a person to read it for themselves than to rely on a GOP Party Shill to try and say what the CP stands for.

[ksen]

Like most third parties and fringe groups, the CP are more about separating suckers from their disposable income than internal discipline.

How's that internal discipline thing working in the GOP over the last few years?

[Designer]

"I can’t get behind Ron Paul during a war. If it was peace time maybe but he is way too radical to me."

So conservative is too "radical"?

This "War on Terror" is not like any ordinary war.

Time was, there was a clearly-defined enemy, and everybody knew that we must defeat the enemy to win.

Now we see that there is no clearly defined enemy, nor any clearly-defined objective, other than to make them stop killing folks, and most Americans don't even realize that this is another unwinnable conflict undertaken in the name of the United Nations, and that we will never actually "win" anything, other than the "responsibility" to maintain a military presence in the Middle East indefinitely.

GWB said, before he was elected, that he was against "nation-building".

Now our brave and capable military personnel are nation-building in a place that is ambivalent, at best, toward any new nation for themselves, and without a continual effort on our part will simply allow it to be taken over by the next leftist leader that comes along.

You and yours will help elect our next leftist leader too, and the cycle will continue.