http://constitutionparty.com RSS feeds for Constitution Party 60 http://constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/63/Freedom-Fighters-and-Public-Sector-Unions.aspx#Comments 0 http://constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=63 http://constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=63&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/63/Freedom-Fighters-and-Public-Sector-Unions.aspx by Darrell Castle Constitution Party National Committee Vice-Chairman What do the people rioting in the Middle East and the people protesting reductions in public-sector union bargaining rights have in common? Not much, but the driving force behind each of them is similar, and that driving force is economic hardship. What we are likely seeing is the crumbling of a world economic order that has existed for decades if not for centuries. In the Middle East the order is one of military style-dictators or royal monarchs at the top, often installed and/or maintained by foreign powers. In the West, the order is one of an unsustainable welfare and public employment system. One interesting difference is that the protesters in the Middle East really are freedom fighters in that they are fighting to overthrow dictators and a way of life that has oppressed them for decades. In other words, they are seeking to tear down an unsustainable and unjust economic order. In Wisconsin and other American states, the public-sector unions are seeking to force the government that employs them to restore and maintain union bargaining rights and pay levels. In other words they are seeking to maintain an unsustainable and unjust economic order. Government employees form unions in order to bargain collectively with government representatives. These unions of government employees are called public-sector unions. The system that allows public-sector unions to organize and bargain collectively is unjust because the public unions exist at the expense of taxpayers who have little or no say in their hiring, firing, or contract negotiating. The public-sector unions are not the equivalent of private-sector unions at a factory or other place of employment who bargain collectively for better pay and working conditions. Those private employees have no ability or interest in lobbying their employers to constantly increase taxes for their benefit. The system that allows public-sector unions to form and exist is unsustainable because virtually every state is now technically bankrupt, as is the federal government. In the new budget proposed by President Obama on February 14, 2011, the federal government alone will spend 25.9 percent of America’s GDP or about 26 cents of every GDP dollar. That is a crushing burden of taxation on the American public which cannot be sustained. Even the relatively modest cuts proposed in Wisconsin are unacceptable to the public unions because their members don’t seem to grasp the fact that the old order is ending one way or the other. The modest cuts are designed to keep the system afloat for a short time and possibly push it ahead to the next administration, but it is going to take drastic changes in the entire system to prevent the catastrophic chaos that appears to be in our future. The reasoning behind the demands of public-sector unions is failed logic because by definition they are part of the government to which they object. They are, in reality, toadies of the ruling elite. This is not some poor group of under-paid, over-worked union employees in a cotton mill or factory chicken farm that is simply demanding a living wage. If those in public-sector unions object to government trying to sustain itself without destroying the taxpayers then let them join the private sector where bargaining rights are more solid. Behind the crises in the Middle East and the crisis in Wisconsin lie the policies of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve policy that it calls “quantitative easing” is causing the exploding prices of food and other commodities around the world. Flooding the world with dollars, as the Federal Reserve has done, lowers the dollar’s value relative to food and other commodities. When people live on a few dollars a day, if that, a 60 percent increase in the price of food is enough to send them into starvation. This increase in food prices is the driving force behind the Middle East revolution; therefore the Federal Reserve is responsible for it. How then can the crisis in Wisconsin and the crises in the Middle East be diffused before they spread and take more lives? Unfortunately for the public-sector unions, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has made it clear that bailouts are for banks, not people, and certainly not states. However, Middle Eastern governments have responded by giving money to what they call lower and middle class people. Saudi Arabia gave $37 billion to the Shiite minority and released some political prisoners. Middle Eastern people are sacrificing themselves to end an economic and political order that has oppressed them for decades. The public-sector unions are demonstrating in order to maintain an unsustainable economic system so that they might continue their way of life at taxpayer expense. That is the difference. Webmaster Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:48:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:63 http://constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/64/The-Spirit-Of-Partisan-Politics.aspx#Comments 0 http://constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=64 http://constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=64&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/64/The-Spirit-Of-Partisan-Politics.aspx by Robert W. Peck Chairman, Constitution Party of Washington The subject of partisan politics recently crossed my path – not just the fact that partisan politics exists (something we’re all well aware of), but rather the dangers that it holds, its subtle nature and the extent to which it has crept into our thought process. Having been politically active for nearly two decades now, more than half that time spent in positions of leadership in both my county, state and national party, it seems I would have already learned this lesson. Most of us are aware of President George Washington’s warning in his Farewell Address as to the danger of partisan politics. However, we have grown forgetful of that warning and are failing to perceive the effect that the spirit of partisan politics is having on our political landscape. Most of all, we are woefully unaware of the degree to which we ourselves have fallen prey to the mentality of partisan politics. I am certainly not against the use of a political party as an organization that serves as a vehicle for promoting certain principles and for supporting candidates for public office who uphold those principles. I’m the chairman of a political party and I am constantly encouraging people to join my party and participate in the political process by supporting candidates for office who uphold Constitutional principles and sound moral values. Nevertheless, after reading a recent article by Constitution Party National Committee Chairman, Jim Clymer, and revisiting President Washington’s Farewell Address, I see more clearly than ever the danger of partisan politics and the snare that it brings – a snare that I perceive has taken the majority of my fellow American’s captive. Human nature seems to be such that we quickly degenerate from looking to the principles that rallied us to a common cause, to looking instead to the organization that we have learned to mentally associate with that cause. We then proceed to follow that organization with a sort of blind loyalty akin to the support that we show for our favorite sports team. Why? Because it is easier to simply pick a team to cheer for than it is to stay apprised of and be ever vigilant to guard over principles. I see two pitfalls of partisan politics, one that besets those elected to public office and another that ensnares those of us who elect them. For those elected to public office, the danger is that they will carry their party loyalties into office with them. Once elected and having sworn the oath of office, a public official’s only loyalty should be to God, the United States Constitution, their state’s constitution if elected to a state office and to the people who they represent, to seek the good, the best interest of, their constituents as the Great Commandment of Love would dictate. Any party loyalty should come subsequent to these considerations and should have no effect on an elected official’s vote. The fact that most votes taken in Congress and in state legislatures around the country follow partisan lines tells me that we have succumbed to a partisan spirit that places party above principle. If the members of one party were all voting for good and the other for evil, it would be different. However, members of both of the establishment parties currently in power regularly vote to violate the Constitution they swore to uphold; they vote for big government that oppresses those who they profess to serve; they vote to heap debt on the backs of future generations which they should be duty bound by love to protect and seek the peace and prosperity of. Yet while the parties currently controlling our legislative bodies are clearly not divided along lines of pure good versus pure evil, their votes are more often than not divided by a strict party line. Those of us who elect these public officials are faring no better. Rather than critiquing every action of our representatives by a set standard of timeless principles, we have instead succumbed to the spirit of partisan politics as we mindlessly cheer for our favored team void of any honest, introspective scrutiny of our chosen political party on the basis of the principles that it adheres to – or fails to adhere to. We praise the Presidents of one party and deride those of another. Yet when scrutinized under the microscope of the supreme law of our land, the U.S. Constitution, we find that Presidents of both parties have voided their oath of office and violated our Constitution with nearly equal impunity. Yet we are daily reminded by the voices that represent our preferred political persuasion, that one is good and the other evil. For an object lesson in the spirit of partisan politics, turn on the radio and listen for a few days to so called ’conservative’ talk radio, then to the liberal ’progressive’ shows. Half the time they are accusing each other of the same things, and half the time they’re right. Most of what passes for political commentary is little more than school yard name calling dressed up in more intellectually sophisticated, college educated terms – and sometimes not – “Hillary is fat” or “George Bush talks funny.” We really haven’t progressed very far from the childhood taunt of “you’re ugly and your mommy dresses you funny.” The frightful thing is that we are letting this blind partisan loyalty, team spirit mentality, guide our thinking and our decision making and thereby, the future of our once great nation. I grieve for the disgrace that we bring upon our venerated first President by so wantonly disregarding his words of wisdom in warning against the spirit of partisan politics. For first hand evidence of this partisan spirit at work in today’s politics, please read Jim Clymer’s article, That Hope Which Springs Eternal. Then, whether you have already read George Washington’s farewell address or not, click here to reread that insightful portion of his address warning of the dangers of partisan politics. Then, once you have been refreshed with a new insight and appreciation for the dangers of the spirit of partisan politics, go share it with others! ______________________   If you agree with the content of this article, please forward, post and publish far and wide. If you don’t, who will? © Robert W. Peck Robert Peck lives in Spokane Valley, Washington where he owns and manages residential rental properties. He serves as the Chairman of the Constitution Party of Washington and as Western Area Co-Chairman for the Constitution Party National Committee.   Webmaster Mon, 14 Feb 2011 00:50:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:64 http://constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/65/Burning-for-Revolution.aspx#Comments 0 http://constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=65 http://constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=65&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/65/Burning-for-Revolution.aspx by Darrell Castle Constitution Party Vice-Chairman 2011 Egyptian protest – by Lihaas Mohamed Bouazizi was a 26 year old man who lived in a small town in Tunisia called Sidi Bouzid. According to family members, he supported his mother and six sisters with the US$140 per month he earned as a street vendor selling produce from a wheelbarrow-type cart. His dream was to someday buy a van for his produce and allow his sisters to go to university. Bouazizi did not have a license to sell from his cart, although the local police say that no license was needed. His sisters said that the police often harassed him and destroyed his produce because he could not or would not pay their bribes. His sisters accused the police of trying to extort money from him. On December 17, 2010, he contracted US$200 in debt to buy his merchandise to sell. He was then publicly humiliated when F. Hamdi, a 45 year old female official, slapped him in the face, spat at him, threw out his produce and confiscated his scales. The fact that she was female made the humiliation worse due to the customs and traditions under which he lived. He appealed to the governor’s office, but the governor refused to see him. He then told his mother that he was going to burn himself and he bought gasoline or paint thinner, sat down in front of a government building, doused himself and set himself on fire. He was transferred to several hospitals as the need for better trauma care overwhelmed the local hospitals, but he died 18 days later. More than 5,000 people attended his funeral, and the mayor of Paris announced that a place in Paris will be named after him. The protests and riots became so intense after Bouazizi’s death that the President of Tunisia, Ben Ali, fled the country, bringing down the Tunisian government after 23 years. Ben Ali tried first to go to Paris, but was refused entry. He eventually was accepted into Saudi Arabia and apparently resides there now. Since the death of Mohamed Bouazizi, many other people have burned themselves in protest in many countries. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt have had several cases of self-immolation. Protests have become widespread across the Middle East including Algeria, Egypt, Yemen, and Jordan. Some of us remember the TV images of Buddhist monks burning themselves in Vietnam as a form of religious protest. There was the public humiliation angle to what Bouazizi did, but his act had an economic angle as well. The poverty of the Tunisian people, the 30% unemployment rate, the rising food prices, along with the obvious official corruption, were enough for his act to serve as the match that burned down the Tunisian government. Now the Egyptian government looks to be on fire as well. Egypt – a nation of 85 million people – and 40% of them survive on less than US$1 dollar per day. It seems that one man really can make a difference when the conditions are ripe for him to do so. The world has never been so ripe as it now. Is this our future? Time will tell. Webmaster Thu, 10 Feb 2011 00:55:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:65