WND: Gilchrist Considering Presidential Bid

It appears that Minuteman founder and former Congressional candidate Jim Gilchrist is giving some consideration to a Presidential bid, likely as the nominee of the Constitution Party. From WorldNetDaily...

Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, is considering a run for president in 2008 representing the Constitution Party.

Gilchrist has just returned from Florida where he met with the party’s national committee.

Chairman James Clymer told WorldNetDaily the party was excited about the possibility of Gilchrist as its marquis candidate.

“Yes, indeed, we are interested,” Clymer said. “Gilchrist spoke to us last weekend in Tampa and our people asked Jim then if he would be the candidate. We think it would be wonderful if Jim Gilchrist would seriously consider being our presidential candidate.”

Gilchrist told WND the only candidate he would support as the Republican Party presidential nominee in 2008 was Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.

“If John McCain enters the race for president,” Gilchrist said. “I will definitely run. John McCain should have forfeited his right to run for president on the Republican Party the moment he put his name on immigration legislation with Sen. Ted Kennedy.”

Gilchrist and the Constitution Party both agree on the need to secure the southern border with Mexico. Commenting on the street demonstrations planned for tomorrow, Gilchrist said they are nothing more than “a declaration that we are no longer a nation governed by the rule of law, but that we are being ruled by mob rule.”

Asked whether he felt President Bush’s “guest worker” program or the administration’s “pathway to citizenship” were reasonable compromises, Gilchrist reacted sharply: “The Republican Party is going to pay a huge price for pandering to what they think is going to be an illegal-alien vote and for their reckless disregard for the rule of law. The Republican Party has sold out our sovereignty.”

Gilchrist told WND that he thought his third-party candidacy could be viable, noting “the country is ready for a third-party candidate, just like the country was ready for Ross Perot in 1992.”

Gilchrist was harshly critical of Bush’s leadership on the immigration issue.

“The president should resign,” Gilchrist asserted. “The Congress should begin impeachment proceedings if President Bush will not resign. President Bush has shown he is incompetent to handle his job. It amounts to dereliction of duty that President Bush has left our border with Mexico wide open while supposedly he is fighting a war on terror.”

Asked if he thought the recent arrests by the Department of Homeland Security cracking down on companies who hire illegal aliens was effective, Gilchrist dismissed the administration’s efforts.

“It’s nothing more than a show,” Gilchrist argued. “DHS just served up another ‘photo op.’”

“The political fix is on,” Gilchrist warned. “The president thinks he has a compromise that the Republican leadership and the Democratic leadership can ram through Congress, but it’s going to end up being jammed down the throats of the 300 million people the president is supposed to be preserving, protecting and defending.”

Gilchrist dismissed President Bush’s attempt to get “comprehensive immigration reform” passed by Congress before the August recess. “Any law the Bush administration supports,” Gilchrist predicted, “will be just like all the other immigration laws - a sellout. The administration plans to forget about the enforcement parts as soon as President Bush can shake hands with Ted Kennedy, right after he signs the law into effect. It’s all a wink-wink game the Republicans have started playing with the Democrats. Both parties are really just the same. Neither party wants to secure or border with Mexico.”

How about “guest workers”?

“The ‘guest worker’ program, or whatever the PR guys at the White House decide to call it,” Gilchrist answered, “will be nothing more than an amnesty. We’re going to wave the magic wand and 30 million illegal aliens will somehow become citizens, despite the fact that they march under the Mexican flag and make up their own national anthem in Spanish. Pretty soon there will be 50 million illegal aliens here. Who knows? As far as George Bush and Sen. Ted Kennedy are concerned, the more the merrier.”

The Constitution Party supported Gilchrist in 2005, when he ran as an independent for Congress after Rep. Chris Cox, R-Calif., resigned to become chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Committee. Gilchrist received 25.5 percent of the vote in the general election, losing to Republican John Campbell. At that time, Clymer put out a strong statement supporting Gilchrist’s candidacy. According to Dec. 15 party press release:

Jim Clymer, chairman of the Constitution Party, believes that a major change is in order. Both the House and the Senate have been thoroughly corrupted by influence-peddling for decades, Clymer said. But the solution is not to run the Democrats to power or to elect a more ethical Republican majority. The solution, according to Clymer, is to jettison the two major parties altogether and to start afresh with principle-based leadership.

In 1992, Howard Philips left the Republican Party to found the U.S. Taxpayers Party and ran as the party’s presidential candidate. In 1995, the party became the fifth political party to be recognized by the Federal Election Commission as a national political party. In 1999, the party changed its name to the Constitution Party.

During the Nixon administration, Philips headed two federal agencies, serving last as the director of the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity.

A third-party candidate could represent a viable challenge to the Democrats in 2008.

A recent Rasmussen poll indicated disillusionment over President Bush’s immigration policy could lead to a tie, with 31 percent of voters going for the Democratic Party presidential candidate, 31 percent going for a third-party independent arguing to build a wall on the border, and 21 percent for the Republican candidate.

Gilchrist, a Marine veteran with 13 months combat experience in Vietnam, presents himself in an unassuming fashion.

“I’m just an average Joe citizen,” Gilchrist told WND. “What we’ve proved is that an average Joe citizen can come out of nowhere and not only create the Minuteman Project, but can also run for president. I want to bring common sense and rule of law back into our national dialogue.”

27 Responses to “WND: Gilchrist Considering Presidential Bid”

  1. RCAIP Says:

    See,
    even without the extremists in the CP, we can still possibly win big in 2008!

  2. Citizens For A Better Veterans Home Says:

    Broad based coalition, broad based coalition!
    Citizens For A Better Veterans Home endorsed /endorses Minute Men and Gilchrist and joins a broad based coalition, including some Liberals, Progressives, Lefties, and (gasp!) Libertarians in asking: “What is it that you do not under stand about ILLEGAL aliens?”

  3. Jonathan Grubbs Says:

    RCAIP, you haven’t responded to my post on the previous thread yet:

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/04/28/constitution-party-in-serious-trouble/#comment-6585

  4. NewFederalist Says:

    I don’t mean to start anything but does his stance on abortion (whatever that may be) make him acceptable to a broad cross section of Constitutionalists?

  5. Gary Odom Says:

    Jim Gilchrist is pro-life; but more important, he is, like he says, an “average Joe,” yet knowing him personally from working in his campaign for Congress, I can attest to the fact that he has great charisma. Also, he cares about the problems that confront the average
    American. He is a man of great courage and remarkable instinct about what is right and what should be done to further what is right. Anyone who underestimates Jim Gilchrist has never met him!

    He is a man millions of Americans will rally around in 2008! So much for the demise of the Constitution Party!

  6. Joey Dauben Says:

    This is great news for third party politics. Now if the CP could get on the ballot in Texas, what a great match it would be for Gilchrist to have the line with GOP gubernatorial second-place finisher (and CP activist) Larry Kilgore.

    Gilchrist/Kilgore.

    That would be cool.

  7. Freelancer Says:

    Kilgore is bad news. He sounds like a theocrat. Gilchrist wouldn’t be so bad. Although I think he would probably make a better congressman than a president.

  8. RCAIP Says:

    Like the reply, John?

  9. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Good. A high-profile candidate like Gilchrist on a big stage would expose a lot of ugliness in American politics.

    No surprise that Gilchrist appeals to “lefties” and so-called liberals. He’s an authoritarian statist. There’s not much difference between Stalin and Hitler; nor between Hillary Clinton and Gilchrist.

    Once reformed, the CP should begin calling itself the “Conservative Socialist Party,” or perhaps, “The American Nazi Party”—or is that one already taken?

    A Gilchrist nomination could very likely lead to a Democratic White House, which studies have shown, leads to small government. So I hope that Gilchrist does indeed run.

  10. Gary Odom Says:

    You couldn’t be more wrong about Jim Gilchrist. If you mean he believes in the rule of law under the Constitution, as strictly construed to protect the rights and freedoms of the individual, as opposed to anarchy and intimidation then and only then maybe you are right.

    Do you mean to say that securing our border is socialist or Nazi (which is it self a redundancy)??

    I worked in Gilchrist’s Congressional campaign. The First Amendment does not have a greater friend. And anyone who is personally familiar with Jim Gilchrist would simply laugh at your insinuation-through the Nazi epithet you made-that he is either racist or anti-semitic. If you knew the truth AND were a person of good will, which I’m doubting by the tone of your message, you would be ashamed of yourself.

    And if the Democrats win the White House-how can that possibly be any worse than what we have right now. In fact, some Republicans in Congress might actually find the backbone to oppose some of the garbage they are letting the Bush Administration get away with. I do wish somebody occupying the White House would lead to small (less powerful and intrusive government) but I doubt that we are going to see it from the Republicans or Democrats.

  11. Jim 101 Says:

    Although Jim lost his bid for Congress, I’d prefer to see him try again instead of going for President.

    We place to much emphasis on the office of the presidency, when it is really Congress that weilds the power, and are much closer to the pulse of the people. We need to get more Constitutionally dedicated lawmakers like Gilchrist in Congress to start turning this country around, before we can ever win the top office. The chances of a third party candidate running and winning the executive branch is slim to none. The globalist elites now sadly run that office, and unless you bow at their altar, you have no chance of becoming the democratic or republican candidate, let alone be serious third party challenger. They will ruin you.

    Put Gilchrist together with the likes of Tancredo, Paul, Rohrabacher, JD Hayworth and a few other brave souls in Congress, and watch this country turn around…

  12. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Quoth Gary Odom:

    “If you mean he believes in the rule of law under the Constitution, as strictly construed to protect the rights and freedoms of the individual”

    If he did, he wouldn’t be running on the ticket of an anti-freedom, anti-American theocratic party just because that party has grabbed control of a name to which its platform does not entitle it.

    Tom Knapp

  13. undercover_anarchist Says:

    I concur with Mr. Knapp.

    “Securing the border” meaning, keeping brown people out, is quite socialist. As I quipped recently, “those who think immigrants take ‘our’ jobs, who think they are entitled to a job, should move to a centrally-planned socialist state that guarantees remunerative employment. The only problem is, all such states have closed borders similar to what the xenophobes would have us have.”

    Jim Gilchrist’s ancestors were illegal immigrants. They came here for opportunity just as immigrants today do. The difference: Gilchrist’s ancestors were white, and therefore no questions were asked.

    The CP represents innerbred, unedcuated, national socialist rednecks who compete with immigrants for jobs. Naturally, they would want to use the power of the state to restrict that competition. But don’t call the harnessing of state power anything other than what it is: Socialism.

  14. Chris Campbell Says:

    undercover_anarchist Says:

    May 2nd, 2006 at 2:38 pm
    Good. A high-profile candidate like Gilchrist on a big stage would expose a lot of ugliness in American politics.

    No surprise that Gilchrist appeals to “lefties” and so-called liberals. He’s an authoritarian statist. There’s not much difference between Stalin and Hitler; nor between Hillary Clinton and Gilchrist.

    Once reformed, the CP should begin calling itself the “Conservative Socialist Party,” or perhaps, “The American Nazi Party”—or is that one already taken?

    A Gilchrist nomination could very likely lead to a Democratic White House, which studies have shown, leads to small government. So I hope that Gilchrist does indeed run.

    Gilchrist is neither a socialist nor a Nazi. He is a true gentleman and I was priveledged to meet him in Tampa. Truly an ignorant thing to say “anarchist”

    FDR was a Dem, not exactly a smaller Govt at all!

  15. Chris Campbell Says:

    BTW-

    I could not access the audio from the heritage party site.

    IF anyone has a video/audio MP# site or a CD, would love to have a copy of it!

  16. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Campbell… Like most innerbred CP members, you probably haven’t read an academic study that would challenge your preconcived notions. In fact, you should be celebrated for making your way out of the sheep pen long enough to engage in discussion on this blog. Kudos! But the fact remains that various studies have confirmed what at first would seem counterintuitive—that government grows slower under Democratic administrations. Why? Because Republicans will actually oppose Democratic spending bills. When the Republicans are in charge, there is no one to safeguard the treasury.

    Sure, bring up FDR. Undoubtedly, your grandpappy voted for him, if he was able to pass the literacy test, that is. He secured upwards of 90% of the vote all over the south, and yet now the south is suddenly for “small government.” Or could it be that as late as the 1940’s, the mongrels of the south still resented the Civil War and voted Dem because it was the “white man’s party” and now they vote for the Repubs for the same reason (as LBJ predicted)?

    Yet there are the truly prescient ones like yourself, who see through the GOP’s “faux” racist agenda, and realize that a new party, the CP, is needed to really stand up for the rights of the downtrodden white man. Good for you!

  17. Jonathan Grubbs Says:

    Here are some quotes from Jim Gilchrist:

    “Uh…I’m a Reagan Republican, uhh… umm…thank you. I could not run as a Republican due to the law that says you can not change parties for one year prior to an election. The Governor conveniently made that election 49 days out. I was stuck in the uhh…um…no I can’t say stuck…I was umm…forced to run under the independent ticket.” (John & Ken Show Candidate Forum, 10-3-05)

    “I’m for taxing the ultra-rich more,” he said. “Estate tax? Bring that thing back.” - Jim Gilchrist quoted in OC Register, 6/20/05

    -Interview with Hugh Hewitt, 11-3-05
    Hewitt: How about same sex marriage? Do you support that?
    Gilchrist: What two consenting adults want to do with their lives is between them, their conscience, their God. As far as legislating it into a legal marriage, no, it has no reason to be interfering with our Constitution…
    Hewitt: Domestic partnership okay with you?
    Gilchrist: Pardon?
    Hewitt: Is domestic partnership law okay with you?
    Gilchrist: That’s two consenting adults. Who cares?

    Source: http://www.thetruthaboutgilchrist.com/

  18. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Interesting, Mr. Grubb.

  19. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Civilian border patrol starts caravan
    By Peter Prengaman
    Associated Press

    LOS ANGELES - Leaders of the Minuteman Project began a cross-country trek Wednesday amid screaming matches about whether illegal immigrants are taking jobs from blacks or should be embraced as fellow minorities looking for a better life.

    The caravan to Capitol Hill departed from a park in a heavily black Los Angeles neighborhood as part of a push by the civilian border patrol group to attract more blacks as members.

    ``If we are going to be giving preference to anybody . . . preference should go to the American-African community that has suffered more than anybody,’’ Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist told a crowd of 40 supporters that included about 10 blacks.

    Gilchrist had to yell the remarks over a dozen mostly black protesters who chanted ``Minutemen go home!’’ and ``KKK go home!’’

    Gilchrist repeatedly stopped his speech to address the protesters, telling them, ``Ours is not a racial cause. It’s a rule-of-law cause.’’

    As Gilchrist spoke, supporters and opponents engaged in a heated debate.

    ``Hispanics are taking away our jobs,’’ said Angela Broussard, 38, a black playwright. ``They are moving into our neighborhoods, so now where are we going to go?’’

    Morris Griffin held a sign rejecting a measure passed by the House that would make it a felony to be in this country illegally and penalize people who aid undocumented immigrants.

    ``Don’t pit the blacks against the browns, like they do in the jails and schools,’’ Griffin told Broussard.

    When the chants and arguments persisted, Gilchrist stepped up his rhetoric toward someone urging the group to go home.

    ``Minutemen, stand your ground,’’ he said. ``Do not fire unless fired upon. And if it’s a war he wants, then let it begin here.’’

    Gilchrist then boarded an RV with ``Minnie’’ written across the side in small blue letters that was followed from the park by two other RVs and a few cars.

    Organizers hoped the Los Angeles to Washington, D.C., trip will help counter marches staged around the nation Monday by more than 1 million people demanding amnesty for some 11 million illegal immigrants.

    The Minuteman Project wants to garner support for its get-tough border stance and pressure federal lawmakers considering immigration reform. They also intend to mobilize voters and recruit members along the way.

    According to the Minutemen Web site, the caravan is scheduled to stop in President Bush’s vacation haven of Crawford, Texas, as well as Phoenix; Albuquerque, N.M.; Abilene, Texas; Little Rock, Ark.; Memphis and Nashville, Tenn.; Birmingham, Ala.; Atlanta; Richmond, Va.; Greensboro, N.C.; and Washington.

  20. undercover_anarchist Says:

    What I find most interesting about this article is how the black playwrite complained about “Hispanics” taking “OUR” jobs.

    a) Are illegal immigrants really competing in the theatre industry, making it difficult for native-born or particularly black playwrites to find work? I find this hard to believe.

    b) The presumption here is that “we” have jobs that belong to “us.” i.e. we deserve jobs, or are guaranteed jobs as a right—we don’t have to compete for jobs, especially not with people who are willing to work harder than us. WHAT IS THIS, FRANCE? Here is a letter to the editor that I recently had published in my local newspaper:

    To the Editor:

    In a recent debate with 19 other college students, I was the only pro-immigration voice. The message from my peers: “We don’t want to compete with people who are willing to work harder than us. We deserve jobs - they’re our jobs.” The sense of entitlement was enough to make me think I had been teleported to a French classroom.

    Immigration opponents are typically blind nationalists, undaunted by facts. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to share some. Economists from the University of California, Davis conducted a study that determined the real incomes of native-born American workers are 2 percent higher today than they would have been without immigration since 1980. Harvard economist George Borjas disagrees. He says that incomes are only 0.1 percent higher. But no serious study by any economist suggests that native-born U.S. workers are worse off because of immigration.

    There are those who say that immigrants come to the U.S. for welfare benefits. This simply isn’t true. According to the Labor Department, the jobless rate for all foreign-born American residents - legal or illegal - is just 4.6 percent. The jobless rate for native-born workers is 13 percent higher, at 5.2 percent.

    Keep in mind that the average foreign-born worker has just 9.4 years of education. Who benefits from closed borders? Only high school dropouts are in direct competition with most immigrants, and with dropout rates declining, we need more immigrants to fill low-skilled jobs.

    Other demographic shifts will profoundly affect the immigration debate in years to come. The National Restaurant Association says that the portion of teenage workers in the U.S. will be flat for the next decade, and we all know that the population is getting older. We desperately need more immigration to support our failing Social Security system.

    But what if the immigration issue just fizzles away? Fifteen years ago, gang violence looked to dominate the remainder of the millennium, but the epidemic quickly dissipated. Economist Steven Levitt argues that this was due to the passage of Roe v. Wade - fewer children were born to mothers who didn’t want them. A similar wave of family planning has reduced the once massive Mexican family size so that it is comparable to America’s. With fewer children, Mexican parents can afford better education for their progeny. Most educated Mexicans are deciding to stay in Mexico. Good for them. There is little place for them in a country like ours that celebrates socialism and disdains freedom.

  21. Chris Campbell Says:

    Jonathan Grubbs Says:

    May 5th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
    Here are some quotes from Jim Gilchrist:

    “Uh…I’m a Reagan Republican, uhh… umm…thank you. I could not run as a Republican due to the law that says you can not change parties for one year prior to an election. The Governor conveniently made that election 49 days out. I was stuck in the uhh…um…no I can’t say stuck…I was umm…forced to run under the independent ticket.” (John & Ken Show Candidate Forum, 10-3-05)

    “I’m for taxing the ultra-rich more,” he said. “Estate tax? Bring that thing back.” - Jim Gilchrist quoted in OC Register, 6/20/05

    -Interview with Hugh Hewitt, 11-3-05
    Hewitt: How about same sex marriage? Do you support that?
    Gilchrist: What two consenting adults want to do with their lives is between them, their conscience, their God. As far as legislating it into a legal marriage, no, it has no reason to be interfering with our Constitution…
    Hewitt: Domestic partnership okay with you?
    Gilchrist: Pardon?
    Hewitt: Is domestic partnership law okay with you?
    Gilchrist: That’s two consenting adults. Who cares?

    Source: http://www.thetruthaboutgilchrist.com/

    When you oppose the NWO, they smear you with sites like the one above and misqoute you- read Orwell.

    Anyone that cannot see the impact-financially and in crime- from wide open borders is truly asleep.

    THis issue will only help elect CP candidates that will do something about the issue, not hte Dems, Repubs or even are sometimes allies LP.

  22. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Campbell: Once again, you are wrong on so many accounts.

    1) Orwell was a socialist. Then again, so are you, so I guess the quote is appropriate enough.

    2) The only real NWO is the defunct pro wrestling crew, but I guess someone who believes in resurrection, angels and demons is predisposed to watching homoerotic faux-sport and believing in paranoid conspiracy theories.

    3) Economists have shown that the only people who have failed to benefit from increased immigration are unskilled workers/ high-school dropouts: i.e., the average CP member. Even taking into account additional burdens in the form of welfare (which is very minimal) and education, the average American worker is 2% better off than if there had been no immigration since 1980. Immigration = less expensive goods and services + a growing economy. I know that the CP wants to usher in a pseduo-Amish soceity and ban women at soccer matches, but this is not the goal for the rest of us.

    Any policy that benefits hardworkers and the educated at the expense of the lazy and lamebrained is one that the CP will oppose.

    Message to all CP Socialists: You do not own my money, my property, or my rectum. I do. If I invite an immigrant laborer from Mexico to work for my business, this is no concern of yours. If you don’t like it, too bad.

  23. Chris Campbell Says:

    ) Orwell was a socialist. Then again, so are you, so I guess the quote is appropriate enough.

    you obviously have no idea what one isthey want the GOvt to control all industry, policy, etc. Read Rerum Novarum and the other encyclicals noted previously. No Catholic, no Christian in general is a socialist-it is anthema to Christianity.

    ) The only real NWO is the defunct pro wrestling crew, but I guess someone who believes in resurrection, angels and demons is predisposed to watching homoerotic faux-sport and believing in paranoid conspiracy theories.

    -just like the devil’s greatest feat is to convince man he does not exist. THe proof is sooo evident now only an uneducated one like you sees it not. Read Dennis Cuddy’s articles. He has the qualifications to boot. No one is paranoid that sees proof. I was a cop, I should know. I do not watch wrestling much, but due to your past glorification of Homo sex, you should know I gather.

    ) Economists have shown that the only people who have failed to benefit from increased immigration are unskilled workers/ high-school dropouts: i.e., the average CP member. Even taking into account additional burdens in the form of welfare (which is very minimal) and education, the average American worker is 2% better off than if there had been no immigration since 1980. Immigration = less expensive goods and services + a growing economy. I know that the CP wants to usher in a pseduo-Amish soceity and ban women at soccer matches, but this is not the goal for the rest of us.

    we are several trillion in debt and are sinking fast under fake money and spending. The numbers are not refutable at all, then again, you live in the fantasy world where every day is bright shinning and just plain swellkinda like an episode of the West Wing or the movie The American President. The CP has no position on the Amish, nor do we care what society you wish to live in. Welfare, as opposed to the Christian view of economics and world view, costs each of us greatly. Look at the facts. Most CP’ers I have met are above average in education, if you care. I have a 4-yr degreee and if I can crawl out from under the debt of welfare socialism, would work toward my Masters.

    Any policy that benefits hardworkers and the educated at the expense of the lazy and lamebrained is one that the CP will oppose.

    since we oppose the National income tax, Govt regulation in almost everything and opposed to the Fed Reserve, most of what the worker would bring home would stay in his/her pocket. No Govt, which from your posts, is the ultimate over 50% income now taken in one form or another. We wnat to eliminate 85% of Govt-this would then put most of the $$$ back to you-to spend as you sihs, on wrestling or that sodomite “virtues” you expound on.

    Message to all CP Socialists: You do not own my money, my property, or my rectum. I do. If I invite an immigrant laborer from Mexico to work for my business, this is no concern of yours. If you don’t like it, too bad.

    again, but not reading our platform and understanding the most basic, foggiest fig of a notion about socialism, you again show the results of public education and poor self knowledge. IF you invite someone into this country, by common sense and the Constitutionyes, it is the Govt’s job to know who is in the nation. Most crimes, esp in western states are done by illegals. We need to know who is her eand what there intentions are-seeing is how many Hispanics-and Middle Easterner-are coming here new to Islam and full of hate. A suitcase nuke would change your mind.

    you may want to listen to this interview with a Hispanic. They talk about terrorist groups infiltrating our nation and the workers they dupe to be used and threatened.

    http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/050506moreno.htm

    Your money IS YOUR MONEY, that is the view of the CP. I have no further reason to digress into your potty issues nor your mental illness in that. Your property likewise IS YOUR PROPERTY, that is what we are saying. Period.

    Finally, you say if we don’t like it too bad-when you are trying to force your ways on us-this is a Fascist statement

    BTW- Nazi’s were National Socialists, key word on the second-they were little different then Communists-a little more favorable to business and social life.

    Socialism:

    Socialism is a political philosophy advocating an economic system in which the means of production are owned and controlled collectively. This control may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers’ councils or community councils, or it may be indirect, exercised on behalf of the people through the State. A primary concern of socialism (and, according to some, its defining feature) is social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole.[1][2]

    In Marxist theory, socialism is the transitional stage between capitalism and communism, in which “the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat” and the stateless, classless society of communism has not yet been achieved.

    Socialists hold that capitalism is an illegitimate economic system that serves the interests of the wealthy and exploits the majority of the population. As such, they wish to replace it completely or at least make substantial modifications to it, in order to create a more just society that would reward hard work, guarantee a certain basic standard of living, and extend economic and cultural opportunities to all.[3]

    the rest:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

  24. Chris Campbell Says:

    I have no idea why certain words/sentences are crossed out-not me

    For future debates, good luck with yourself anarchist-I have not the time to try to help save the nation and the casue of Christ on you. Don’t be a dupe, read and question.

    I never to continue to argue with unstable men (Jas 1:7-8;).

    “Therefore let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double minded man is inconstant in all his ways.”

    Proverbs 10:21:

    The lips of the just teach many: but they that are ignorant, shall die in the want of understanding.

    Psalms 9:18:

    The wicked shall be turned into hell, all the nations that forget God.

  25. undercover_anarchist Says:

    It’s really cute that you honestly think I don’t know what socialism is. I use the term to deride the CP and to draw parallels to the big government statism of legitiate socialists, and the big government statism of the CP. You then cite Bible quotations as if they are going to have any weight with me.

    Orwell was a legitimate socialist.

    Many of the early socialists, particularly in America, were Christians.

    The most hilarious thing in your argument is that YOU not having a say over what I do is fascism. The thought that I might do something without the government’s permission, and if you don’t like it, too bad, is considered fascism? That’s kind of like the CP’s assertion that in order to protect the 1st amendment, we must ban free speech.

    My only point in persisting in these arguments is to make it clear: There are many others like me within the ranks of the LP. THERE CAN BE NO COMMON GROUND BETWEEN THE LIBERTARIAN AND “CONSTITUTION” PARTIES. We love liberty and oppose the state. You, despite your protestations, hate freedom and seek to—like the Communists you claim to disdain—harness the power of the state to impose your bigoted world views. We love peace, prosperity, and freedom. You love control. While I respect your right to hold misguided beliefs, I do not respect your beliefs anymore than I respect those of the Communist, in fact, I respect them less. The fact remains that people like you are far too often lumped in with people like me, when in fact, we are polar opposites. I feel that I and others have made that clear, at least on this little tiny patch of cyberspace in the blogosphere, and thus, my arguments have not been made in vein. If god exists, may you and your kind burn in hell for the pain you would impose on those who do not share your mindless superstitions.

  26. RCAIP Says:

    UA, you forget something-

    Orwell started out as a socialist, but then later rebuked socialism in his life.

    read his works, do they seem pro-socialist? in fact Orwell was very anti-toltalitarian in his books ‘Animal Farm’ and ‘1984’.

    Yes, socialism and toltalitarianism and communism basically is the same thing, only socialism is ‘watered-down’ communism.
    Or course fascism and even National Socialism are very similar to marixism itself= collectivism, government control, suppression of religion (yes even the Nazis were very big on suppressing the Christian Churches in Germany, besides the Jews), and yet if you represent a belief in no-government, then why go to bat with anything on the Left side of the political spectrum?

    Obviously your just as ignorant as any KKK redneck, you speak more like a communist then you do a philosophical anarchist, or are you really undercover as one?

    And thanks to you, you show people why anarchism can’t work, especially with what comes out of your mouth.

  27. Not Born Last Night Says:

    What Gilchrist really is.

    He is frighteningly slick. After some due-diligence sleuth work, I discovered the following:

    Tancredo supports all the various Minuteman and anti-illegal immigration groups. These “groups” conceal their true agendas behind the slogans of “Legal Immigration, Enforce Our Laws, etc.” These sound reasonable enough at first, but when one delves deeper into the “movements,” he/she discovers something incredibly disturbing.

    These groups have been founded by conspiracy theorists.

    From what I have seen, what motivates the groups is not so much unlawful immigration. It is the “secretive” New World Order “elitists.” They seem convinced that the US is in dire peril (by 2010 mind you) from some faceless corporations, the Rockefellers, Illuminati(?) some with ties even to space aliens, etc. “The Globalists” are their true and sworn enemy.

    According to them, the evil Globalists intend to usurp the Constitution and are prosecuting a plan to do so by enabling the large number of unlawful immigrants to “occupy” the US. The Globalists intend to merge the US, Mexico, and Canada via SPP (Security Prosperity Partnership) into the “North American Union.” There will be no borders, and US citizens will ultimately lose all civil rights. Our destiny is to be enslaved by the Globalists. The Supreme Court will have no authority or say in the matter and neither shall Congress.

    Bush and Cheney are puppets used at-will by the tyrants. Both are traitors, but so is Kerry, Gore, and Clinton. (The group is non-partisan.) Our entire govt. is in collusion except for the few noble whistle-blowers such as Tancredo and Gilchrist. Some even believe that 9/11 was a US govt plot designed to justify our invasion of the Mid-East. (Orchestrated by the elitists, BTW)

    This is not fiction. I have not the ability or imagination. SOS, MM, etc. are highly suspicious of “outsiders” believing that they could be covert agents with some nefarious intent.

    I believe it to be a waste of time in attempting rationale debate. Superficially, the causes sound reasonable enough, but they fail the due-diligence test. Economic factors, social conditions, poor management and leadership in Mexico have nothing to do with unlawful immigrants. Nor does the drug demand in the US have anything to do with drug suppliers. The global view of the US has no bearing on our border policies, and apparently, neither does the limitations of Presidential Powers.

    The ONLY reasonable explanation for the illegals here is that Bush is implementing his NWO plan before our very noses. The media is controlled, except for alternative media apparently.

    The SOS group has received national attention but have been unable to capitalize on it. The MM orgs have done better due to a more sophisticated and managed message, but the original founder, Gilchrist, has some unusual beliefs. For a former accountant, his columns to not add-up.

    As for Tancredo, the GOP has more than dropped him. Bush will not acknowledge him, and for good reason. Tancredo received a deferment for military service in Vietnam due to mental illness. His anxiety disorder is one that typically worsens with age, and it could be a secondary symptom of some other neurosis or psychosis.

    Tancredo presents well, however; there exists “functional psychotics.” This man is one to be concerned with. He maintains a near cult-like following and actively encourages his followers of conspiracism.

Leave a Reply