The CP on Ron Paul staying Republican

Super Tuesday is behind us, and for many there were no surprises.

The GOP presidential candidates who stood for the Constitution, individual liberty, and a sound economy, were marginalized by the national media and the party machine.

But the machine no longer has a monopoly, and the countless millions who share our passion for liberty and limited government don’t need to play by its rules and choose between supporting John McCain or staying home on Election Day.

There is a party that embraces their vision and whose presidential candidate will be on the ballot in November. That party is the Constitution Party.

Ron Paul’s message to his supporters on Friday, February 8 confirms that the likelihood of a brokered convention is greatly diminished, that he will NOT run a Third Party campaign in 2008 and that he will remain in the GOP to focus on his re-election to Congress.

We owe Dr. Paul a very great debt of gratitude for all he has done to revive and energize interest in freedom and our US Constitution, and also for making clear his plans for the remainder of 2008.

For those who put their heart and soul into supporting Ron Paul’s presidential campaign we all have the challenge to make sure that there is a constitutional choice for president on the ballot in all 50 states this November!

The results of the primaries make it clear that the Republican Party really stands for big government, less freedom and an end to national sovereignty.

No wonder they pulled out all the stops to marginalize Ron Paul. But there was something they didn’t count on and couldn’t control ­ his supporters could not be silenced. From coast to coast they shook the foundations of the main stream media and conventional wisdom.

Dr. Paul woke a sleeping giant in the form of millions of Americans, whose passion, energy and determination is simply too strong to go silent. The principles expressed by Dr. Paul and embraced by his supporters are the bedrock of what made America great, and those principles are embodied in the Constitution Party platform.

A party dedicated to securing our borders, eliminating the IRS, and a return to a sound monetary system. A party committed to stopping the national ID card, protecting privacy and liberty, preserving gun rights and protecting the unborn. A party opposed to unconstitutional trade agreements and undeclared wars.

Unlike the Republican Party which rejected Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, the Constitution Party embraces much of the philosophy and principles that they articulated. Any candidate of their stature and history would be welcomed in the Constitution Party.

We are confident that many hardworking Americans, like those who made the Ron Paul Revolution the phenomenon it is, recognize that the battle has just started and the place to continue those heroic efforts is with millions of likeminded people in the Constitution Party.

We invite you to Join Now and work with us to Restore the American Dream.

Yours for Liberty,

James N. Clymer,
Constitution Party National Chairman

57 Responses to “The CP on Ron Paul staying Republican”

  1. Jim Says:

    Although, I appreciate the invitation, and while I may take it up at some point, since Ron Paul is STILL running my support and efforts are for him.

  2. enrique Says:

    I have been active in the LP for some time now and I also got very excited about the Ron Paul campaign. I saw this as a great opportunity to promote constitutional ideals and libertarianism. I also saw this as an opportunity to identify and bring a lot of new people into the LP.

    I have been met with absolutely no interest. There is no interest from anyone to get involved in the LP or anything other than the GOP. And let me say that these folks are every bit as dedicated to freedom than people I’ve met in the LP. We all want the same thing - they just have no interest in the LP for whatever reason (I can think of many…).

    Anyway, wondering what other people have found.

  3. Logistics Says:

    The march to take back Washington begins here…

    BUSES… we are going to need lots and lots of buses, and a website to co-ordinate buses from every state for anyone wanting to goto the rally. Our ability to bring people to this event will drive fear into our opposition. Any celebrity types that you can get will be a huge boost, and celebritys willing to perform at the event in particular. The blimp is a must. We will need at least one big stage and at least one huge tent. Also, we have to get porta-toilets setup around the national mall. Plan to come a day or two in advance. Parking is available at the many metro(light rail) stations throughout the DC area, and the national mall is a short metro ride away.

    Advise people to bring:

    -food & water for 3 days


    -poncho/umbrella & towel


    -white shirt or sash

    -toilet paper

    -pepper spray (DC is a rough town), but NO WEAPONS.

    -flashlite & extra batteries

    -map of DC


    -Love of Liberty

  4. L.Step Says:

    I used to vote Libertarian… after several elections in which I was part of the usual 1% I concluded that my vote really didn’t mahke a difference. I am still a Libertarian, but I will go with Ron Paul insofar as he has a steady following of about 7% or more of the Republican voters. It is quite possible that events in either the military or economic spheres will suddenly reverse the thinking of the present Republican neo-cons and tend them toward RP conservativism. Being a third party is to be marginalized, with its advocates playing no further role in either major party. Paul might be marginalized but he is not in a marginal party. The Libertarians have, I imagine, given all their support and have encouraged all their members to vote for Ron Paul? Otherwise noting will change in Washington—fake conservative McCain or fake liberal Obama.

  5. George Donnelly Says:

    I find it entirely irrational and self-deceptive to think that Ron-Paulians are going to take over the GOP or even have any significant impact.

    When Ron Paul theoretically had a shot at the GOP nomination I was right in there with many many other people promoting him and donating money.

    That time has now passed. You have seen how the GOP and its allies shut him out and laughed at him.

    Sure we got some pretty 2nd place finishes in a few small states. So what? Second place is entirely worthless.

    We will not change the GOP from within! Any space we gain will come with soul-corrupting compromises. In the end you will be doing the dirty work of the people we are fighting against and under the RP banner. It will make a mockery of everything we have fought for.

    IIRC the CP wants religion to have a firm standing in politics. This is wrong and is antithetical to liberty.

    The Libertarian Party is most liberty-oriented party around. I’m going with them. I don’t care if I am the only person voting LP in the whole universe - at least I will be right and not a compromiser of basic values. I don’t care if third parties are “marginalized” - at least I will not have marginalized my own primary principles.

  6. Ronald Monroe Says:

    I agree with Jim, I also am convinced that a large number of Americans who believe in the constitution as our for-fathers intended it to be will continue the struggle that Ron Paul ignited in the Republican Primary’s.

    The Constitution Party Convention in Kansas City Missouri on April 23-26. .
    We invite you to Join us Now and work with us to Restore the American Dream.

  7. THarms Says:

    The Constitution Party is a bunch of Dominion Reconstructionists. They are not even remotely related to the constitutionalism advocated by Ron Paul. They aren’t even in the same universe as the libertarians. The CP fantasizes the the founders of the U.S. were all fundamentalist Christians (even though the “fundamentals” weren’t outlined until the 1800s and ignore the facts the most of the founders were deists, not Christians). What the Reconstructionists want is to rewrite the Constitution to implement Mosaic law of the Old Testament that will allow them to stone adulterers, homosexuals, and bad children. They are the “Christian” Taliban. Ron Paul has never had anything to do with them and never will.

  8. Matt Kerbouchard Says:

    All the parties that are reaching out to RP supporters are a joke to the average RP supporter.
    For starters we don’t care that much for parties. Thousands upon thousands of had had to register for the republican party to support our man. More are signing up each day that have no clear idea what the Republican party is.

    For the sake of clarity….WE ARE FOLLOWING THE MAN FOR HIS MESSAGE!

    He could have been running for the….We like to eat spam party….and we still would have found him because of his message.

    I will be very honest with you and it will seem rude. Ditch your party whatever it may be, and take your blinders off, close your mouth, and LISTEN TO THE MESSAGE. RON PAUL IS THE PARTY.

    If you shut up and listen to the message you will agree that a vote for anyone other than Ron Paul borders on criminal and you should pay dearly for your crime. And you can rest assured that you will.

  9. Tom Bryant Says:

    We’ve recruited a few Ron Paul activists to join the LP here in Michigan.

  10. Cody Quirk Says:

    IIRC the CP wants religion to have a firm standing in politics. This is wrong and is antithetical to liberty.

    =Sorry but you must be taking about another political party; the CP supports the Constitution 100%, which includes the first amendment and that paragraph in article 6.

  11. Cody Quirk Says:

    THarms, the said people are NOT in the CP at all.

    Granted, we may have one of two people that may be convention delegates that are not in conformity with the CP’s message of religious liberty, but the CP is not what you described.

    BTW, Ron Paul has spoken at CP meetings plenty of times, including at the Nevada Party’s state convention back in 2006, so I guess you better reconsider that last statement.

  12. enrique Says:

    I’ve struggled with this question for a while now. The only point of a political party is to win elections and put people with certain principles in positions of power. And if you look at the electoral success of minor parties in the US within the last 30 years or so, it is abysmal. Victories are scant and never sustained.

    This is not to say that it is not right to have the parties and unite people with like causes. However, if we want to influence the political landscape of our counties, states, and country - would we be better off running as Rs and Ds?

    Has Ron Paul, who won as a Republican 3 times to congress, changed his views to match the positions within the GOP? I don’t think so. So maybe it is better when you’ve decided to be really active in a campaign you should give yourself an advantage and run with the parties that have made the rules.

    Isn’t it better to win and move the direction of your community in a good direction even if the ‘label’ doesn’t fit than get a label that fits and leave yourself unelectable?

  13. Andy Says:

    “Unlike the Republican Party which rejected Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, the Constitution Party embraces much of the philosophy and principles that they articulated. Any candidate of their stature and history would be welcomed in the Constitution Party.”

    Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter??! They don’t seem that close to the Constitution Party. Tancredo and Hunter are in favor of unconstitutional wars of aggression, the Patriot Act, and torture. Also, Tancredo endorsed that weasel Mitt Romney!

    And for that matter, Ron Paul is pro-free trade (although he does not support managed trade agreements like NAFTA, GATT, etc…), anti-War on Drugs, and favors legalized gambling, none of which is really in-line with the Constitution Party either.

  14. Clayton Says:

    It is simple really. Ron Paul supporters should devote all of their effort in reforming the republican party back to it’s more libertarian and conservative roots.

    On voting day in general elections, vote CP for president and possibly other offices.

    Work to change the republican party, but don’t give them your vote until they are acceptable. As they lose election after election, seeing that a coalition of 5-10% of the vote is going to CP or LP, they will get their act together.

    Also, we need to run against every single incumbent in the country. Did you see in Ron’s last video that he has people coming up in congress and pleading with him to do something about his supporters running against them? They ain’t seen nothing yet.

  15. George Donnelly Says:

    If you liked RP’s message, the LP is your party. His message is their message.

    While remaining aloof from party politics may make you seem more independent-minded, working together with similar-minded folks is the only way to reach any political goal.

    The CP very plainly states that marriage only be between a man and a woman. This is religious and is antithetical to liberty.


    Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:


    3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;

  16. Kevin Thompson Says:

    I believe Chuck Baldwin would make a better President than Ron Paul.

  17. enrique Says:

    You mention that Ron Paul supporters should devote their effort to reform the GOP. I agree that that may be a useful enterprise. Perhaps the LP and CP would become minor league pools for good candidates to percolate up and challenge the ‘status quo’ Republicans.

    The question then would be how to network within the GOP. Is the Republican Liberty Caucus a good place or should a new network be formed? I agree that we need to challenge all of the awful incumbent Republicans again and again.

    Also, working within the Democratic party would be important as well for areas where the GOP has scant support. I have no idea if they have something like the RLC though to use as a launchpad.

  18. Craig Says:

    I’ve been a Libertarian Party member since ‘88. I voted for Ron Paul then and re-registered Republican to vote for him in the primary, but the message is what’s important, not just Ron Paul. I commend him and thank him for his service to the cause of liberty, but his philosophy is almost verbatim to the two time LP Presidential candidate Harry Browne and very similar to the Constitutional scholar Michael Badnarik. But, he has chosen to take the major party influence route, and it’s been effective in that he’s exposed many people to the ideals of liberty that would not be at all receptive to a third party, because let’s face facts, the MSM does affect people’s perceptionss.

  19. Jose C. Says:

    “IIRC the CP wants religion to have a firm standing in politics. This is wrong and is antithetical to liberty.”

    There was once a time many years ago where religion was a part of public government life. How could it be otherwise since God was a part of public daily life. For example George Washington during the dark days at Valley Forge was inspired by a private celebrating Hanukah. Or George Washington finding encouragement by praying to God. Or George Washington giving thanks to God in his Thanksgiving proclamation by saying:”Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor . . .”

    It seams some take the words “separation of church and state” to mean God can not be mentioned in public life. Religion can not be practiced publicly. Cities can not have a Christmas Tree (it has to be a winter tree), the Pledge of Alligence can not be recited because the word “God” is part of it. The Boy Scouts can not deny membership to those that do not share their belief in God. Where does all this stop?

    The Constitution Party wants God acknowledged as part of our daily life. What is wrong with this? Why should non-believers be upset at this?

    Just setting the record strait!

  20. JR Says:

    Dear THarms,

    Certainly there are pockets of Reconstructionist influence in the CP. But out west, the influence of Mormonism predominates. In my neck of the woods, Catholics constitute about 50% of the membership, with a Protestant contingent making up vitually all of the rest, of which Reconstructionists are but a minor subset, and we have officially endoresed practicing Jews as candidates for public office.

    Those who wish-ill will toward the CP for encouraging biblical principles as basis of the moral ligitimacy of law find it easy to take outlandish statements by certain members in an effort to color the beliefs of the whole party (not unlike remarks made by “truthers” are used to color the beliefs of all Ron Paul supporters).

    I think you will find that the Reconstruction influence of the founding CP members has given way to more mainstream views on legal positivism, and that such influence will continue to moderate with party growth.

  21. Roscoe Says:

    Ron Paul failed to get more than the 5% or so of the population that already understood his ideals. This will be a long fight as people are not going to be converted/convinced by one slim jim or door hanger. The ideals RP represents must be continually presented at the grassroots level.
    This educational effort must precede electoral success, though electoral campaigns can help with the educational effort. So many Americans treat electioneering as “noise” and filter it out. They have to see the libertarian viewpoint in their local paper and local media every day, as it applies to many different local issues, for it to become a common and accepted viewpoint. Then the next Ron Paul starts pulling 10%, and the next 15%, etc. until the tipping point is reached.

  22. Kevin Thompson Says:

    “Ron Paul failed to get more than the 5% or so of the population that already understood his ideals.”

    I think the problem is Ron Paul was competing in GOP primaries. Let’s face it - the views of Ron Paul are no longer the views of the GOP. Therefore, in GOP primaries, Ron Paul does not do well.

    However, I think in a general elecction, Ron Paul would do much better. It is a shame he is staying within the Republican Party.

  23. John Killian Says:

    Who is likely to be the Presidential nominee of the Constitution Party?

  24. SovereignMN Says:

    George Donnelly said: “The CP very plainly states that marriage only be between a man and a woman. This is religious and is antithetical to liberty.”

    There is a big difference between saying what something is/is not and what the government can/should do. Marriage IS between a man/woman. Calling 2 men “married” is like a kosher pig. Just because you call it something doesn’t make it so.


    Straight from the CP Platform: “We are opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage.”

  25. George Donnelly Says:

    SovereignMN: if CP is against making the marriage thing a political issue then why is it one of their core 7 principles (see the front page of their website)?

    They’re a political party so when they make it a core principle and say it is “divinely instituted” they are treading on the separation of church and state.

    what you or I or they think is divinely instituted (commanded by God) has no place in politics.

    Next step along that continuum is legislating morality and we all know where that has gotten us.

    Please. The CP is NOT compatible with the values of freedom-loving individualists.

  26. SovereignMN Says:

    George: “Next step along that continuum is legislating morality and we all know where that has gotten us.”

    All legislation is morality. A decision as trivial to erect a stop sign at an intersection is someone’s morality saying “It’s better to force all individuals to stop, whether they want to or not, for the good of public safety”

  27. Red Phillips Says:

    Andy, I am not comfortable with the casual mention of Hunter or Tancredo either. The CP needs to be very clear that it is a non-interventionist party, not just a party that is more conservative by degree than the GOP.

  28. gravel kucinich paul nader Says:

    barack obama mike huckabee vs machine

    huckabee obama:
    we understand your disgust.
    subversion of democracy.

    know this:
    gravel kucinich paul nader
    will fight any ticket
    with clinton or mccain on it.

    your eyes & ears are open…

    Mike Gravel Dennis Kucinich Dr Ron Paul Ralph Nader
    united by truth elicit fear smear blacklist.

    Too many lies,
    democracy rising democracy now.
    Rage against the machine.

    Honesty compassion intelligence guts.

    No more extortion blackmail bribery division.
    Divided we fall.

  29. Trent Hill Says:

    “Who is likely to be the Presidential nominee of the Constitution Party?”

    Rev. Killian,

    The strongest candidates right now are Rev. Chuck Baldwin, Sen. Bob Smith, or Judge Roy Moore. You’re probably familiar with Roy Moore.

  30. Red Phillips Says:

    JR, I am not a Reconstructionist, but I think it is important to make a point. For a Christian the proper relationship between Church and state should be first and foremost a theological question, not a political or philosophical or situational one. Once the theology is decided (or not decided) then you move on to the politics, philosophy, etc. If, for example, the Bible said “Thou shall attempt to establish a theocracy” then Christians would be duty bound to attempt that regardless of what the Constitution said or the particular situation they found themselves in, would they not? So Reconstructionism is either good theology or bad theology or some combination of both. That is the grounds on which it should be debated and either rejected or supported or both/neither. It is not sound to reject the theological position of Reconstructionism on the basis of it being unconstitutional or “un-American” or because it is “icky” or it threatens to taint the Party or whatever. A Christian should recognize that as putting the cart before the horse, but many do not because I see this backwards logic all the time. The tendency of Americans to conflate the American way with the God ordained way has been noted before. One Pope noted it and called it the heresy of Americanism.

    My own opinion is that the Bible is not explicit about what the proper relationship between Church and state should be, and I think this is intentional. This allows Christians to better follow the wise advice of “when in Rome, do as the Romans do.” So it is proper to consider the Constitution, American history, the intent of the Founders, etc. when deciding these matters. But on the other hand, neither does the Bible enshrine “separation of Church and state.” In fact, in the course of Church history, it is a rather novel idea. Pluralism, religious tolerance, etc. are not Holy Writ.

  31. Sean Scallon Says:

    Ron Paul supporters realize, as does Paul himself, that making a non-major party run this year might set off some fireworks, in the end it avails them nothing. You may get 8% percent, assuming that Paul’s name recognition can overcome the perceptions people have about the LP or CP, but what does that 8% percent build for the future on the NATIONAL level? That’s what they’re focused on.

    Again, the LP and CP and Green can have a niche role for forcing change from the bottum up (where do you think all these anti-smoking ordinances come from? The Greens!) but they cannot compete on a national basis. In a way Judge Moore has already done this as well by putting the 10 Commandments on his courthous walls and having monument of it built for the Alabama Supreme Court.

    When you change things from the bottum up, then you can change or influence the national parties. Remember the old addage, take over a few precincts and you’ve won a town. Take over a few towns and you’ve won a state senate district. Take over a few of these and you have a Congressional District. Take over a few of these and you have a state. Take over some states and then you have the country.

  32. Andy Says:

    “I think the problem is Ron Paul was competing in GOP primaries. Let’s face it - the views of Ron Paul are no longer the views of the GOP. Therefore, in GOP primaries, Ron Paul does not do well.

    However, I think in a general elecction, Ron Paul would do much better. It is a shame he is staying within the Republican Party.”

    I agree with you here. Ron got about as many votes from Republicans as he could get, plus he brought in many from the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party as well as many independents and people who were formerly non-voters.

    What is being left out of the equation is that there are a lot of people out there who are potential Ron Paul supporters that did not vote in the GOP primary and many of these people are not even paying close attention to the Presidential race yet. Many people don’t tune in to politics until it is close to the Presidential election.

    Another factor is that there are a lot of people who are potential Ron Paul supporters that are turned off by the Republican label. If Ron ran as a minor party or independent candidate these people would be more likely to support him.

    I think that Ron Paul running as an independent or Libertarian Party candidate could get several million votes, quite possibly over 10 million.

  33. John AKA highwaytoserfdom Says:

    It appears that McCain needs to get a clarification on Article II section 1 Clause 5.. It seems to me that McCain is not a eligible to be president. They would have to ratify the constitution.. It is the same thing Arnold would have to get done.. McCain should just drop out.. He can also not be Vice President… They would have to overturn a couple of cases…

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 - 703 (1898); cf. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308, 312 (1961), the most recent case in its holding and language rejects it. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).

  34. Tannim Says:

    If the CP has Moore as a candidate, then that says it all. That man makes McCain look rational.

    For McCain, check out 8 USC 1403(a), adopted when he was 16. He was “declared” legislatively to be a citizen. That means the Panamanchurian Candidate was naturalized.

  35. Derek Says:

    Sean Scallon: I agree with you. I suggest that those of us with Paul should focus on creating a libertarian wing in both the Republican and Democratic parties. Also, to reach out to libertarian independents that may not agree with all of Paul’s platforms but the main issues. Then, once there’s enough leverage in the parties (say 25% of the voters), break off and create a new party including the current Libertarian Party, libertarian independents, libertarian Democrats and libertarian Republicans.

  36. Jason Says:

    well if you look at how America(ns) react we get 8 years of something democratic and we get sick and go republican, we get 8 years of neocons and we get sick and go back to the Clintons and Obamas of the world….

    I say another 4-8 years of this country going to hell in a hand bag with the economy with our upcoming war with Iran, Venezuela, Pakistan and everyone else…and what Derek said is right on the money….

    Let people continue the Ron Paul Revolution for the next 4 years can you imagine how much money the man would have if we keep donating at regular intervals, keep the meet up? Keep the ball rolling, Don’t let the snow ball sit in the sun and melt away keep it rolling keep the ball rolling…

    Keep reaching out to Republicans and Democrats and than yes….
    Everyone break away and go Libertarian ….Boo Yeah…

    Seriously I went to Indonesia and they have 30 plus parties..!
    Islamic, Communist, Christian Democrat you name it!
    in Indonesia!
    and America keeps saying here’s Chocolate and Vanilla, well a two party system is only one party away from Totalitarianism….
    oops did I say that

  37. Rhys Says:

    Thank you, but we kindly ask the CP to join the Republican Party and become Ron Paul Republicans in our growing caucus.

  38. Cody Quirk Says:

    The RLC has had little success in Congress.
    The current political system must be altered. There should no longer be only two political parties in Washington.

  39. Randy Says:

    What the freedom movement needs now is a unification of the Libertarian and the Constitutional Parties into one political party. a name change for the Libertarian Party is in order. Maybe the Constitutional Freedom Party???
    If both parties would consent and work together in a new one party, they would in time as the GOP is seen by more and more for what it is, not what it says it is come to rival the GOP.
    Such a party could be viable if the platform was broad enough to support the essentitals of the freedom movement.
    Ron Paul could be the one man who could bring both sides together if he choses to do so.

  40. George Donnelly Says:

    > All legislation is morality.

    In a sense perhaps but there is a big difference between legislating about private consensual relationships between adults and legislating to support the natural, inalienable rights of man.

    LP supports the latter, not the former.

    CP supports both, which is why it is not a good fit for RP supporters.

    LP is a fiscal conservative, liberal social policy party.

    CP is a fiscal conservative, conservative social policy party. CP is just another kind of Republican.

    > It seems to me that McCain is not a eligible to be president.

    of course he is. both his parents were us citizens. he was born on a us military base. he is a natural citizen, end of story.

    > I suggest that those of us with Paul should focus on creating a libertarian wing in both the Republican and Democratic parties.

    So we should split up our support even further? Just find the party that most resonates with your views and join them. Honor your own beliefs first and not some complex electoral strategy.

    > Let people continue the Ron Paul Revolution for the next 4 years can you imagine how much money the man would have if we keep donating at regular intervals,

    Donations have already fallen off. A lot of people really stretched their time and money budgets to give all that they did. If they won’t continue at the same level when his chances for the nomination are nearly nil, why would they continue at that level when there is no election on?

    Also, money alone is not going to win the battle.

  41. Ronald Monroe Says:

    The Constitution Party is a nationwide party in existence for 15 years, they have a national organization, a strong local presence in many states, and offer national candidates. Is the Constitution Party a perfect party? NO! But they stand for what the GOP used to stand for, without apology.

  42. JeffnDallas Says:

    And I hope you all will join the “Ron Paul Remnant” in Washington D.C. when the march date is secured.

    We all march under the same flag and banner, at least where the Ron Paul Republicans, CP’s, Libertarians and free-thinking Democrats are concerned (hope I didn’t leave anyone out…lol).

    Let’s send Washington a very VISUAL and AUDIBLE message when we turn out for this march!

  43. Red Phillips Says:

    Mr. Monroe, I agree that conservatives should migrate to the CP instead of trying to form a new conservative party, but, with all due respect, the Republican Party, the Party of Lincoln, has never stood for the Constitution.

  44. Russ H Says:

    To all Dr. Paul Supporters;

    Give up your votes and go with another party? WHAT!! ARE YOU NUTS I will not waste a vote. Dr. Paul took the time and woke us up…I will write him in in November. The rest of the candidates are the wasted votes.

  45. Fred C. Says:

    Russ: If Ron Paul isn’t asking for his write-ins to be counted, they might not be. It’s also possible that even if he does want them counted, they might not be. Write-ins are even more marginalized than third parties - they’re left for last, only counted under circumstance, and even then they’re often ignored. Look at how Philadelphia routinely ignores write-in votes. Look at how a write-in for mayor of San Diego actually won, but didn’t get into office because some voters didn’t know there was more to writing-in a person than just writing their name (Donna Frye).

    Who’s wasting their vote?

  46. Dave Williams Says:

    “The Constitution Party wants God acknowledged as part of our daily life. What is wrong with this? Why should non-believers be upset at this?”

    As a ‘non-believer’, I believe that you have the right to believe what ever mythology, bedtime story, fairytale you want to believe. I just don’t want your belief system to be part of the common government and neither did the founding fathers… Your belief system would strive to subjugate those who do not wish to accept your personal beliefs as it already does and has.

    You might think that a nation of ‘godless non-believers’ are dysfunctional. I direct your attention to Japan…a wonderful prosperous nation of 120 million people who enjoy more freedom on a daily basis than I do as an American (because of your god and the Marxists, tyranny from both sides). I don’t see any Japanese Americans pushing Shintoism down our throats on a daily basis…so why should we acknowledge your god on a daily basis.

  47. Dave Williams Says:

    I posted the following on another thread;

    “WAR supports all Americans rights to personal freedoms, including ones right to his/her sexual preferences…

    The big government/anti-personal freedom movements in this country must be stopped! I may not agree with someone else’s beliefs but it is none of my business what other citizens believe/do if it’s not hurting someone else.

    We must work towards a fiscally responsible smaller government, a strong military to defend our country only in the event of attack by a ‘real enemy’ and more personal/business freedoms.

    Ultra-CONS should stay away from the LP…”

    If you are a CP or are considering becoming a CP, good for you, but to have a platform that promotes a particular religious belief is just not inline with LIBERTY.

  48. Dan Morris Says:

    ‘Separation of Church and State’

    Seems to be a big mis-understanding of ‘Separation of Church and State’. It is not in the Constitution. It was in a personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson. It’s meaning has been totally turned arond. He did not mean that religion could not be in government, but that the government wouldn’t have a State Church, as was the Church of England.

  49. Dave Williams Says:

    Hahahaha…Ok Dan, point taken.

    But answer this; Which god(s) do we allow to be included in our government? Remember, this is a country comprised of descendants of all the worlds religions. Are we going to put it to a vote and count out the populace ‘who really don’t mater’ because they’re different than the ‘true believers’. This entire debate about religion being part of the government is frankly, ridiculous. It should be a government for all of the people, not just a few of the people.

    I’ll never forget the comments of a former friend to my wife who is an immigrant and is of a different religion than he…”If you don’t want to be like us you need to go back to where you came from.” I can’t believe an American said that! How obtuse can this country be? Very, just look at GW and his now replacement, JM.

    That is what kills me about Evangelicals & Muslims…”If you’re not one of us, you will not go to heaven.” So that means Japan…a wonderful prosperous nation of 120 million people, are doomed to the lake of fire…”Yes Dave, because they’re not like us.” You people need your heads examined. I’ll have no part of a god who would not accept an extraordinary culture as the Japanese into a place of sanctuary, but would rather condemn them to death…

  50. Fred C. Says:

    Go ahead and build your Shinto monument at the city park Dave, I won’t stop you.

  51. Dan Morris Says:

    Dave, I am just trying to clear up a mis-conception. I do happen to be a Christian, but I have recently joined the LP. I can’t vote for McCain, or for a Democrat. I have been a Republican for years, but can’t support their big gov’t., big spending, Globalist(SPP) crap anymore.

    I am surprised that third parties, from what I am seeing, don’t work together better for the chance to change the 2 party system. For example, I would vote for Ron Paul as a third party candidate, whether it was the CP, or LP, etc.
    In November, I will vote for a thirdparty candidate, if my state(IA) has one on the ballot. I will vote LP, if possible, but will then vote for CP, etc. I hope that there are enough disgruntled Rep. and Dem. to do the same, and make a difference.
    I am also retired Navy, and I still think Ron Paul is the only candidate that can save our country from spending itself into oblivian. He is definitely our best hope to save our Constitution, and prevent it from being superceded by one from the NAU.

  52. John Crosley Says:

    My issue with the LP is that their candidates are usually not pro-life. I am for Life and Liberty. Protecting the rights of the unborn is important. I think this is the reason the LP hasn’t become an immediate option for RP supporters to turn to.

  53. alpan Says:

    Ron Paul is getting my vote even if I have to write him in on election day. I am very suspicious of the Libertarian Party on two particular counts: Selling off our natural resources to pay the national debt and open borders. The movement sounds like a trojan horse to me. What’s being done with open borders to Europeans (even in their indiginous homelands) would be called ethnic cleansing if done to any other group. What good are gun rights, and personal liberties once you become a demographic voting minority in your own country to be out-voted?

    Imagine if ten burglars broke into your home - would you deed them the house? I want someone who supports the United States as a sovereign nation; not someone who wants to make my vote spit in the ocean with no say over who may enter my country and wants to export our industrial base and our jobs overseas. The LP is shilling for the same neo-con hucksters who’ve given us the political sham and economic train wreck we have right now. That was why I stopped supporting the LP.

  54. George Donnelly Says:

    > Protecting the rights of the unborn is important.

    Only living persons have rights. Unborn == not alive (by definition).

    Now i know abortion is a tough issue and that where life starts is a tricky question, however your use of the words ‘unborn’ and ‘rights’ together strikes me as an oxymoron.

    alpan: The LP is about liberty, complete liberty, and not just liberty when it doesn’t cause you discomfort or inconvenience. If you can’t handle that then maybe you should be a Democrat or a Socialist so the nanny-state protectionist economy-managers can ensure you don’t get your toes stepped on.

  55. alpan Says:

    “The LP is about liberty, complete liberty, and not just liberty when it doesn’t cause you discomfort or inconvenience…”


    I am not a collectivist of any stripe, but I do feel that with liberty comes responsibility - otherwise what you have is license. I think the United States was a good idea and whether we want to admit it or not, it was based on the ideology of Christian whites (our founding fathers); none of whom could ever be elected today. Our unique American experiment with liberty was an extension of that heritage and no other.

    When the European is gone or reduced to a politically insignificant minority, we will be a ship without a rudder and an anarchy of nations within a state. I don’t look forward to that day. In the short-term we’ll get authoritarian control and in the long term a civil war. I think we have more than enough cultural diversity and should keep intact a Euro-centric culture with a constitutional government - and yes, with a European majority.

  56. George Donnelly Says:

    Your focus on race/ethnicity is inherently collectivist, I’m afraid, alpan.

    > I do feel that with liberty comes responsibility

    liberty comes with birth and nothing else. Liberty is a natural condition.

  57. alpan Says:

    We cannot have liberty without a land to be free in. We cannot have a land to be free in if we sell it off from under our feet. You won’t be free for long with a leftist, elititist media propagandizing the masses into collectivism and fomenting racial hate. So unfortunately by your philosophy it appears to me you’ve come full circle (it’s called “importing the revolution” if you’ve ever read Karl Marx). Our liberty will be short-lived once we are out-voted by any culture that does not believe in American style liberty. It is a grandios assumption to believe those immigrants will all be libertarians; many more will bring with them the same statist philosophy they originally ran away from because they know of nothing else.

Leave a Reply