|
A Worthy Vice Presidential Candidate |
 |
|
Wednesday, 01 August 2012 23:03 |
(Our last Viewpoint featured Presidential Candidate Virgil Goode).
When we think of some of the presidential and vice presidential material that Americans have suffered with over recent years, it is rather amazing that from among over 300 million citizens we could actually choose some of the least qualified to lead our Republic. Of course, we realize that certain leaders are foisted upon us by the “invisible government” of internationalists who also control the media and thoroughly indoctrinate the captivated public.
I thought of this matter of qualifications when I read the biographical information about our Constitution Party Vice Presidential candidate James (Jim) N. Clymer. Relatively few men in America could boast his dedication and accomplishments for the cause of righteousness and constitutional government in America spanning a lifetime of service.
Pennsylvania-born (1948) Jim Clymer resides in the college town where he graduated from Millersville (PA) University in 1972 with a B.S. in History (cum laude). He then earned a Juris Doctor degree from Washburn University School of Law, 1978 (cum laude), Topeka, Kansas. He was admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar in 1978 and has practiced law since that time with emphasis on estate and business planning, elder law, commercial real estate, and business organization and development. He heads the law firm Clymer, Musser and Conrad P.C. in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, which also has an extensive civil rights litigation practice with a focus on civil rights secured under the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Turn In Your Guns at Your Local Church |
|
|
Written by Chuck Baldwin
|
|
Tuesday, 03 July 2012 15:42 |
 Archived column: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/archives/4936
Last weekend, the Chicago Police Department collaborated with over 20 local churches in a giant effort to encourage Chicagoans “to get guns out of their homes.” WBBM News Radio has the story. “Using the lure of $100 gift cards, the Chicago Police Department is encouraging people to get guns out of their homes and turn them in this Saturday, during the annual gun turn-in program.”
The news report goes on to say, “he Police Department is partnering with 20 churches.
First Deputy Supt. Alfonza Wysinger says anyone who turns in a real gun will get a $100 gift card. Replicas and BB guns are worth $10.
“‘No questions asked,’ Wysinger said. ‘Just show up at the church, and hand over the weapons to the CPD officer that will be there, and get your $100 gift card. So we strongly suggest that people come out that have weapons lying around the house, or weapons, maybe, that they don’t necessarily want in their house. This is a chance to get some money for their weapon, and get another dangerous weapon on the street.’”
The report then lists 23 churches that are identified as participating in the gun turn-in event.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
The Supreme Court has Spoken |
|
|
Written by Darrell Castle
|
|
Friday, 29 June 2012 14:56 |
The Supreme Court has announced its ruling in regard to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act commonly known as Obamacare. My purpose in this article is to point out that those of us in the Constitution Party endeavor to return America to the rule of law as expressed in the US Constitution. That’s why we carry the name Constitution Party. We also seek to restore a concept fundamental to Western Civilization and that is the understanding between government and citizens that the law applies equally to all. The question for us then is where do we go from here in furtherance of our goals.
From a negative standpoint calling Obamacare the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is like calling a new intercontinental ballistic missile the Peacekeeper. The system this act purports to establish is certainly not affordable, at least not by those who will actually pay for it, and it doesn’t offer much patient protection either. The majority opinion takes some interesting twists and turns to arrive at who will pay. For example how do you justify a fine for being unwilling to buy health insurance—just redefine the fine into a tax and everything is OK.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Run As A Republican? |
|
|
Written by Robert W. Peck
|
|
Wednesday, 16 May 2012 00:00 |
It's filing week here in my home state of Washington – the week that candidates for public office go to their local courthouse, pay a filing fee and have their name placed on the ballot for the August primary election. This brings up the question of which party banner to file under. My state allows any candidate to associate themselves with the party of their choice. Different states have different laws governing how a person's name can appear on the ballot and be associated with a given political party. Nevertheless, every candidate in every state has to address the question of which party to associate themselves with, whether Republican, Democrat, Constitution Party, Libertarian, Progressive, or …
As a member of, and officer in the Constitution Party, I have recently been confronted with the phenomenon of conservative Republicans asking my party's candidates to run under their party's banner. In the beginning it was not so. At the first we were a non-entity, a non-factor that no one had heard of – “the what party? Is that kind of like political or something?” As our party and its strictly Constitutional views of liberty and limited government became better known, the reaction from conservatives was, “oh yes, we agree with your message, you're right, but you're taking votes away from Republicans and it is vital that conservatives win.” I think we were basically being asked to be an educational organization and a clearinghouse for the more conservative Republicans and to continue exerting Constitutional influence, but not to run candidates against any conservatives – which turned out to be anyone with an “R” after their name who was being opposed by someone with a “D” after their name.
But a new phenomenon is emerging – conservatives in the Republican Party are now approaching Constitution Party candidates and asking them to run as Republicans. What? can't they find any Constitutionists in their own party to run for office? Besides, I was under the impression that our candidates were no-name nothings that can't win. But now the same people who did not want our candidates to run do want them to run, just on a different party ticket. I guess that's kind of like the Catholic that wakes up one day, realizes he can't find a priest to turn to who isn't totally corrupt and recognizes that the best Christians he can find are protestants, so he decides to go out and start recruiting Baptists to enter the priesthood – what's with that?
So in light of the fact that Constitutionists are being approached to run as Republicans and that at least one friend recently asked for my thoughts on the matter, I find myself compelled to share my insights on the question of whether Constitutionists should run as Republicans. This is not just a topic for candidates for public office to consider. I believe the factors that need to be considered by the candidates are equally relevant to everyone who votes, supports candidates for office, or associates themselves with a political party.
GETTING ELECTED
The main argument that I've heard as to why Constitutionists should run as Republicans, is so that they can win. You see, “a third party can't win” (which is not actually true, but it is the dominant perception) and first and foremost “we have to win.” Now a third party candidate actually can win if people will vote for them, so what we are really saying here is that since Democrats and Republicans have won in the past, therefore they will win in the future, and therefore a third party cannot win, thus it is necessary to give our vote to either a Democrat or Republican in order to win. By following this circular logic, we ensure that a third party or independent candidate will not win and create a self fulfilling prophecy.
While I disagree with this logic, let me take it and run with it for a moment. If the reason to run as a Republican rather than on the Constitution Party ticket is that Republicans are more likely to win, then what about the fact that in recent years Democrats have been winning more often than Republicans? Should we not then encourage conservative candidates to run as Democrats so they will have a greater likelihood of winning?
While that last statement contains a bit of sarcasm, it nevertheless is the extension of this reasoning to its logical conclusion. If candidates are to be encouraged to choose a party affiliation on the basis of securing the greatest likelihood of winning, then there certainly are many localities, Congressional districts and even entire states where it is a waste of time to run as anything other than a Democrat.
Here in my state, I can't remember the last time a Republican won either the governorship or one of the U.S. Senate seats. Over the last couple of decades, hundreds of thousands of volunteer man-hours and untold millions of dollars in donations from conservative people have been wasted on candidates running as Republicans in races that only Democrats can win.
If we truly believe that Constitutionally-minded candidates should choose a party banner to run under on the basis of what is most likely to produce the votes necessary to win, then we should set up an organization to serve as a clearinghouse for Christian and Constitutional candidates who, once certified by the clearinghouse as being sufficiently Constitutional, would be instructed to run under the banner of whatever political party is shown to be most likely to win in their particular district or locality. For those who urge Constitution Party candidates to run as Republicans in order to win to not follow this strategy would demonstrate rank hypocrisy and show that their reason for requesting Constitutionists to run as Republicans is not born out of a strategy for winning as much as it is the spirit of inordinate party loyalty, as George Washington put it.
Besides the above considerations, we also have the fact that the Republican Party leadership is famous for throwing a ringer into the race whenever they see a real Constitutionist getting any traction, thus ensuring that candidate's elimination in the primary. This of course means that the real conservatives who supported the Constitutionally minded Republican in the primary now have nowhere to turn in the general election and are faced with a choice between a Democrat and a Republican establishment front-man who will be sure to maintain the status quo.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
