http://constitutionparty.com RSS feeds for Constitution Party 60 http://constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/58/Sweet-Land-of-Liberty--or--It-Cant-Happen-Here.aspx#Comments 0 http://constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=58 http://constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=58&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/58/Sweet-Land-of-Liberty--or--It-Cant-Happen-Here.aspx by Jack McLain Constitution Party of Florida We sing and speak of our "Sweet land of liberty" and "Let freedom ring," while daily this sweet liberty is being taken from us and many seem scarcely to notice, much less to show opposition. It seems that so long as shameful events have not happened to us or our families, or as long as these events are infrequent, that we can easily forget them. We write this Part II to remind Americans that somehow we must take a stand to put a stop to government sponsored killing, as well as imprisonment, of our citizens for undue causes. As reported in Viewpoint last week, 26-year-old Marine Jose Guerena of Tucson, Arizona, who served two tours in Iraq, father of two, resting in his bed after a 12-hour night shift in a mine, was awakened by his wife at 9:30 am when men appeared at the window pointing a gun at her. Jose reached for his gun, but after a brief knock at the door, a SWAT team broke down the door and, seeing Jose with a gun (the safety of which was still on), fired 71 rounds at him, 60 bullets striking Guerena. Sponsoring a rally in Tucson opposing this tragic event, Oath Keepers’ Stewart Rhodes stated that Guerena had no criminal record, and that, "The only justification given by the Sheriff’s spokesman for using SWAT to serve the warrant was that it was a search warrant in a narcotic conspiracy investigation (with three other homes searched in the same neighborhood), and that this is their policy when the home-owner may be armed." Further, Rhodes wrote, "This policy of using SWAT to serve mere search warrants on people with no violent criminal history will lead to more deaths of veterans and other trained American gun owners...We must take a stand...and that stand must be a firm one...Many street criminals now impersonate police when they do home invasions...a receipe for disaster and death every time...an apparent home invasion. What would you have done? You will die for simply defending your home!" Friends, we are in a battle to preserve our God-given rights, the very rights assured us in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Notice the terms "secure" and "unreasonable." Americans are no longer "secure" when a team of armed men can crash down the door of their home. This certainly constitutes an "unreasonable" search regardless of whether or not a search warrant was issued. To murder a man with multiple bullets who had not even fired one shot, is a shameful act performed in the name of a government gone out of control. Should this happen in our American Republic?! Only if Americans let it happen!!! There are questions that must be answered satisfactorily to the family of Jose Guerena and to all Americans: 1. Is it necessary to use a team of fully armed men simply to deliver a search warrant to a homeowner who has no criminal record? 2. Is it necessary to point a threatening gun at a fearful unarmed mother at her window? 3. Is it necessary to tear down the door of a homeowner who did not immediately respond? 4. Is it necessary to use a non-criminal for target practice (a barbarian act) simply because he had a gun in his hand to protect his home from unknown men? 5. Would it not be sufficient to simply immobolize such a person with one non-lethal shot rather than to kill him? 6. Would it not seem true that such a team of officers live not only in fear, but also pride themselves in gunning down victims who have not been proven dangerous? What kind of men would perform such acts? 7. Are Americans now considered guilty before having an opportunity to be proven innocent? 8. Are innocent Americans to live in fear not only of increased criminal assaults, but also from deadly assaults by uniformed "protectors of the people?" 9. Do members of such a SWAT team ever consider for a moment the terrible trauma that would linger in the lives of a wife, mother, and children after multiple shots were fired in their home at husband and father? 10. Is a man’s home no longer his "castle?" Have we already gone the way of many totalitarian countries in the world? 11. Will truth prevail in the investigation of this terrible tragedy, or will there be a cover-up of the facts and attending black-out or bias of the media? Our Plea: Please do not simply read such facts as above and Part I (6/7/11) and not consider seriously what is happening in our beloved country---and that it could happen to your family! Please consider WHAT CAN I DO? to turn our country to righteousness and truth before it is too late and we have no freedom even to speak out against evil. Prayer is extremely important, but we must also put feet to our prayers. The Constitution Party of Florida, as affiliated with the Constitution Party national, is dedicated to that purpose. We take a steadfast stand for God and Country---www.cpflorida.com "And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not" (Galatians 6:9). Webmaster Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:26:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:58 http://constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/59/Why-the-Constitution-Party-is-Not-Endorsing-Ron-Paul-For-2012.aspx#Comments 0 http://constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=59 http://constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=59&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/59/Why-the-Constitution-Party-is-Not-Endorsing-Ron-Paul-For-2012.aspx by Randall Stufflebeam and Audrey Queckboerner MidWest Regional Chairman and Indiana State Party Chairman Recently a question was asked of our Party why we were not endorsing Ron Paul for his 2012 Presidential bid. The following is our response written by the State Chairman of the Constitution Party of Indiana, Audrey Queckboerner and our Midwest Regional Chairman, Randy Stufflebeam: Point One – No amount of help from the Constitution Party will result in the Republican nomination of Ron Paul for president. I’m unsure how familiar you are with what the Republican Party did to Ron Paul and his supporters in the last primary season. I (Audrey) was not one who was watching from the outside through the glass, but I was personally on the inside as a state delegate for Ron Paul and saw first hand how the Republican Party used every tactic possible to keep Ron from being their nominee. They changed their own state party rules three days before the convention so that we could not nominate from the floor. They disregarded Roberts Rules of Order and were very rude to us. (The complete story of our experience can be found on my page under my notes section). This happened in 14 other states and that doesn’t include the Nevada state convention which they completely shut down by turning off the lights and locking the doors before the convention even began or Missouri where they denied delegates their credentials because they discovered they were on Ron Paul meetup sites and supported his nomination. They stopped at nothing to stop his nomination. Even at the National Convention when Boehner asked if there were any other nominees besides McCain you could clearly hear 2 or 3 delegates call out Ron Paul’s name and Boehner blatantly disregarded the nominations from the floor, banged his gavel and announced McCain as the winner. This is what they had planned all along. Now what makes you think they will not pull out all the stops once again to stop his nomination? I can tell you right now that the Indiana State Party rules have never been changed back, so delegates are still unable to nominate national delegates in their caucuses. Even if the Constitution Party went all out to endorse and totally support Ron Paul, the fact remains he is running as a Republican. As demonstrated above, it is those who control the Republican Party who will keep Ron Paul from being nominated. In 2008, many (probably most) in the Constitution Party endorsed and supported Ron Paul with their time and money. Remember that Ron Paul is running as a Republican and it was the corrupt Republican Party that denied him the nomination and they will be even better equipped to stop him this time around. Although, Ron Paul gave a bland endorsement of Chuck Baldwin for President, it didn’t matter because everyone had spent all their money and time on Ron Paul and had nothing left for Chuck Baldwin. Take Illinois for instance. They have to get 25,000 uncontestable signatures to get on the ballot. They were promised money to help them get ballot access for Chuck Baldwin’s candidacy. However, because of the support of Ron Paul, there was no money in the coffers to help, and Ron Paul sure didn’t release any of the money that Constitution Party members had donated to his campaign. He didn’t even do anything to encourage his supporters to spend their time and money to get Baldwin on state ballots. Even if the Constitution Party endorsed Ron Paul for President and dumped its entire treasury into Ron Paul’s Campaign and managed to persuade every one of its supporters to throw all their efforts and finances, forgoing ever other candidacy and focused everything on getting the nomination of Ron Paul, at the end of the day, the corrupt Republican Party would still reject Ron Paul. Point Two – The need for an alternative when Republicans fail to nominate Ron Paul Wouldn’t you agree that if Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination there should be a place for all his supporters to go? What happens if the Republicans elect someone who is the antithesis to Ron Paul? Where are Paul’s supporters to go? If the Constitution Party spends all its time and effort to nominate Ron Paul and he doesn’t win, then what? Just like in 2008, we’ll have nothing left to provide an alternative. In terms of ship building, we wouldn’t even be able to provide a raft for people to go to because we will have failed to get ballot access in crucial states and will have lost ballot access in states where the CP is ballot qualified because we will have not provided a presidential candidate. If there is to be a legitimate alternative to the Republican nominee in the Constitution Party, we have to be putting every resource at our disposal into that effort. Waiting to see if Ron Paul receives the nomination in 2012 would be equally devastating because there are some states that don’t even hold their caucuses until August. By then, it would be too late and the opportunity to get an alternate party candidate will have been lost. The Constitution Party must be about building a great ship for people to jump to when they discover that corruption has once again reigned supreme in the Republican Party. Point Three – Ballot Access and a Great Candidate of our own Unlike the two major parties, third parties have a far greater and in most cases daunting challenge in getting ballot access. Republicans and Democrats take ballot access for granted because it is so easy for them to achieve. In Indiana, it takes over 34,000 signatures to get on the ballot. If we supported Ron Paul and did not concentrate on getting signatures for the Constitution Party, it would be impossible to do so later. In fact, in order to get signatures, we have to declare a presidential candidate. As a Republican, it would be impossible for Ron Paul to sign on as the Constitution Party’s Presidential candidate in Indiana. It would be ludicrous for us to say we are supporting Ron Paul and trying to get another Presidential candidate on the ballot. Of course this conversation would be unnecessary if Ron Paul decided to run as a Constitution Party candidate, but he has made it quite clear he has no intention of running as a Constitution Party or a Libertarian Party candidate. Further, it is our intention to run a candidate who is every bit as good as Ron Paul or even “constitutionally” better. Point Four – The Constitution Party is not merely a ideological advocacy group. The Constitution Party is a Partisan Political Party that NOMINATES candidates for election. Endorsing a candidate for president of another party would seriously damage the credibility of the Constitution Party. So why would we be a political party if all we are going to do is act like a PAC, endorsing candidates from every other party because we can’t find one of our own? Point Five – Breaking the Two-Party-Duopoly By supporting Ron Paul, we would be asking our supporters to vote in the Republican Primaries and “declare” themselves as Republicans, or in some states, they would have to register Republican, thereby asking people to betray their political convictions for the sake of expediency. The Constitution Party is NOT about building other parties. The Constitution Party believes it is time to break the two-party-duopoly. With 52% of the Republicans saying they are willing to vote for third Party candidates and over 45% of the Republicans saying that they are dissatisfied with the presidential choices that have been put forward so far, it’s going to be even more difficult in 2012 than it was in 2008 to elect a principled nominee such as Dr. Paul. The Republican Party has done much to destroy this nation and cares nothing about Constitutional Government. Ron Paul would do better to understand that and run in a party that supports his Constitutional views. Webmaster Tue, 07 Jun 2011 23:27:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:59 http://constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/60/Obama-in-a-Dream-World.aspx#Comments 0 http://constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=60 http://constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=60&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/60/Obama-in-a-Dream-World.aspx by Patrick J. Buchanan Obama in a Dream World At the G-8 summit in Deauville, France, the news was dramatic, delivered by Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Barack Obama. To sustain the Arab Spring, America, Europe and Japan will provide $40 billion in fresh foreign aid for Arab nations that take the democratic path. The $40 billion breaks down thus: $10 billion from the G-8, $10 billion from the Gulf Arabs, and $20 billion from the World Bank and the international development banks. Now, as Gulf petrodollars come from U.S. consumers of gas and oil, and we are to be the largest contributor of direct aid, and we are the largest contributor to the World Bank and the development banks, U.S. taxpayers have just been put on the hook for untold billions. Yet that $40 billion over three years is pocket change compared to what Hillary Clinton promised at the Copenhagen summit. In December 2009, a year that millions of Americans lost their jobs and homes, Clinton pledged $20 billion annually as the U.S. share of a $100-billion-a-year transfer of wealth to help Third World nations cope with global warning. The U.S. contribution would start under Obama and rise to $20 billion annually by 2020, when the First World would begin transferring $1 trillion dollars every decade to the developing world. Ethiopia’s prime minister, Meles Zenawi, who announced the plan, indicated Africa’s disappointment at its meagerness. But, in return for a seat at the table managing the money, he graciously accepted. Am I missing something? Was not 2009 a tough year for America? Was it not the first of three in which we ran a deficit of 10 percent of our gross domestic product? Are we not talking of cutting Medicare and Social Security for seniors who have chipped in to those programs all their working lives to secure their retirement years? Cities are cutting education. States are slashing pensions. The Pentagon is killing weapons systems. And Barack Obama is ladling out fresh foreign aid. The Europeans, too — are they living in the real world? Greece hangs on a precipice, with Europeans debating whether Athens should be allowed to default, which would blow a hole through banks all across Europe. Portugal and Ireland could follow. In the worst case, Spain and Italy fail, entailing a terminal crisis of the EU. In Athens, anarchists have taken to the streets. Huge protests have erupted in Spain and Britain. How long can the austerity continue among the big debtor nations before social cohesion collapses? Across the continent, populist parties of the right are rising that seek to retrieve the sovereignty surrendered to transnational institutions by their globalist elites. Yet Sarkozy and Obama are talking about new foreign aid. The Wall Street Journal banner June 1 read: “Housing Imperils Recovery: Home Prices Sink to 2002 Levels; Consumer Confidence Falls as Pessimism Grows.” The lead ran thus: “House prices have sunk to 2002 prices, effectively wiping out almost a decade’s worth of home equity across the U.S. and imperiling the fragile economic recovery as Americans confront the falling value of their biggest investment.” That day, the Dow fell 280 points. And the June 2 Journal banner read: “Economic Outlook Darkens: Markets Stumble as Factories, Hiring Slow Down; Biggest Drop in Stocks in a Year.” Nearly one-fourth of American homeowners live in houses that are underwater, worth less than the mortgages on them. The index of consumer confidence fell last month from 66 percent to 60.8 percent. Only 38,000 private-sector jobs were created in May. The manufacturing boomlet seems to have stalled. Some 422,000 American workers filed for unemployment benefits in May. Talk of the “double-dip recession” is now pandemic. Yet a U.S. government $14.3 trillion in debt, running a third straight deficit of $1.4 trillion, is talking of sending billions in aid to Arab regimes where the deposed despots looted the place. Nor is America any longer exempt from the anarchic violence plaguing Europe. Over Memorial Day, when millions happily took off for the beach for that first taste of summer, they found trouble. The Drudge Report headlines the day after Memorial Day tell the story: “Miami ‘War Zone’ During Urban Weekend,” “Poet … Gunned Down in Front of Miami Poetry Club,” “Violent Crime Explodes in Myrtle During Black Bike Week; 8-hour Hell,” “Rib Fest at Rochester Beach Turns Rowdy,” “Riot on Long Island,” “Urban Melee in Charlotte,” “Unruly Crowd Shuts Down Nashville Water Park,” “Dozens of Gang Bangers” at Chicago beach. This is not the peaceful, prosperous America of 1947, with half the world’s production, that could cobble together Marshall Plans and ship wealth abroad to rebuild nations devastated by World War II. Today, America is herself in need of repair and rebuilding. Yet her leaders are living in yesterday. Webmaster Mon, 06 Jun 2011 23:34:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:60