I’d like to initiate a thread here where we can post information about candidates for President, VP, Congress and Govenour who we feel are dedicated to sustaining the US Constitution. The best of the bunch, to my awareness, is incumbent Congressman Ron Paul of TX. I use him as a "bench mark". I think Alan Keyes had teh best of intentions 4 years ago. Incidentally, due to gerrymandering he has been stuck with a district that is predominantly democrat. I learned this from a letter Congressman Paul sent out to previous contributors to his election campaign funds. I fear he may not be re-elected. Last election Newt Gingrich traveled to TX and campaigned for Ron Paul’s republican challenger. To be expected, I guess. I would like to identify such candidates not so much because I think our effort will make much of a difference, but rather because in supporting them, or “talking them up” will enable us to call attention to the current state of affairs and hopefully rally others to our cause. Hope to hear from lots of you.
Here is a start.
"We are socialist addicts; let's get some help for our problem -- first from God, and then from each other. America needs a chaplain president for this recovery to take place. That is why I am running for President of the United States ( www.allan2004.com). That is my message. I will be the Alcoholics Anonymous equivalent to say "no" when citizens cry for more government; and I will begin turning the spigot off of existing government entitlement programs. We must stop turning to the government bottle for everything that ails us. Rather, we need to acknowledge our addiction, turn our lives over to God's care, and turn to each other as benevolent citizens for support, and begin take responsibility for ourselves."
From Sterling Allen. Maybe some of you folks know of him.
Check out http://www.peroutka2004.com/home.html to read about a presidential candidate who seems to want to uphold the US Constitution.
Just a reminder to users of the forums. There are many different kinds of religions represented here and tolerance for all of them is a must. Any posts derogatory of anyone's faith will be removed.
This message is in reference to the poster whose offensive posts have been deleted.
It's time to start checking out candidates of the Libertarian Party, the Independent American Party, and the American Independent Party of CA
www.lp.org
www.usaip.org
www.aipca.org
ONLY ONE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE OPPOSES SAME-SEX UNIONS
By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
March 23, 2004
Traditional, Biblical marriage is under an all out assault in America, and unfortunately, there is virtually no difference between the two major parties in the effort to preserve it. Both President G.W. Bush and Democrat John Kerry would stand back and allow militant homosexuals and their supporters destroy the institution of marriage in this country.
Kerry says he opposes homosexual marriage but supports "civil unions." Bush says the same thing. Bush is also on record as saying he believes that states should have the power to define marriage. Then again, Bush also supports giving the federal government power to define marriage by supporting a constitutional amendment on the subject.
Both Kerry and Bush seem to be woefully ignorant of the fact that marriage has already been defined---by God! Furthermore, more than 300 years of American history and more than 2,000 years of Western Civilization provide eloquent testimony to the rightness and sanctity of monogamous, heterosexual marriage. And this has been accomplished without governmental interference of any kind. Yet, all of a sudden, both Kerry and Bush want to put marriage under the control of government.
Once again, big government politicians are attempting to seize a God-ordained institution and place it under the authority of Caesar. This time it is the most basic institution of all: marriage. It appears that neither Republicans nor Democrats will be happy until government controls virtually every iota of every area of our lives, even those that are exclusively the property of The Almighty.
Therefore, if people desire a presidential candidate who truly understands the sanctity of marriage and the limitation of government to meddle with it, there is only one choice: Constitution Party Presidential Candidate, Michael Peroutka. He is the only candidate for president who truly opposes same-sex unions and who also opposes government's usurpation of God's authority over marriage.
In his acceptance speech he said, "No institution in America is under greater attack than the God-created, God-ordained family. Increasingly, we are told by tyrannical, out of control courts, and others, that marriage is in the eye of the beholder, that marriage is whatever people want it to be.
"But this is a lie!
"Marriage is defined by God alone. And He has defined it. He says it is to be only between a man and a woman. Period. And Godly marriage does not need the approval of any civil government.
"Let me here declare that I oppose homosexual marriage and civil unions, even as I oppose the hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies which President Bush and the Democrats in Congress have supported to promote 'safe sodomy' and underwrite the infrastructure of the homosexual movement."
It is time that pro-family, pro-life, and pro-constitution people understand that neither the Democrat nor Republican Parties represent them in Washington, D.C. They also need to understand that they do have a choice: the Constitution Party. Its Party's nominees will be on the ballot in some 40 states, and they will be faithful to truly represent America's founding principles.
Conservatives don't have to vote for the lesser of two evils. In fact, to do so will only result in the continuation of the demise of our republic. This is the time in history when principled conservatives need to shake off the compromise and indolence of the Republican and Democrat Parties and truly vote their convictions, because neither a Bush nor Kerry White House will do anything to reverse our country's moral and constitutional collapse.
This hole gay marriage thing is a smoke screen. Marriage or no marriage it's what God thinks about it, and not for us to judge IMO. I believe the real deal is about lowering our standard of living and smashing the morality of this nation to control us more effectively via our more baser instincts. You have to look at it the prospective that 50% of marriages end in devorce. For what? Because they don't feel loved anymore? A contract with God is a contract. Who is really getting hurt is children. Without being shown real love and kindness they won't have any to give. That's the real horror of the future. Women who go to work and let someone else raise their child is no good. In many cases, not all, it's about getting the "stuff" and living the "good life". The concept of right and wrong is being changed.
The Libertarian Party has nominated Michael Badnarik, a Texas computer programmer who also teaches courses in constitutional law, as its presidential candidate
Many Ways To Skin A Cat
by Charlotte Iserbyt
Our family is asking friends and acquaintances to "vote Constitution Party (Peroutka), vote your conscience, elections are not horse races". I follow that up with:
"Splitting the vote is probably the best thing to do to keep Bush from winning. The faster things deteriorate in this country (Kerry will definitely move us faster to dictatorship, with his far left social agenda) the more chance there is that Americans will wake up and become active in saving this great country of ours. I recall over the years that every time the controlled conservative Republican won, Republicans across the country went to sleep, felt secure, and the United States moved further down the road to unconstitutional world government. Eisenhower gave us first agreements with the USSR in 1958 during the peak of the Cold War; Nixon gave us communist regional government and opening to Communist China; Reagan finalized the Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) education restructuring agenda, gave us fascist/socialist public/private partnerships, and signed the U.S.-Soviet education agreements, which included the Soviet school- to- work Pavlovian outcome/performance-based system; and we know too well what freedom-destroying things Bush Sr. and Jr. have done, supporting all of the above, in addition to reaffirming the Arms Control and Disarmament Act of 1962, rejoining UNESCO, and continuing sovereignty- destroying immigration and free trade policies.
We probably need a major jolt or jolts during a Kerry administration which will awaken the millions of good Americans who have been conditioned by the two major (controlled) parties and the controlled media to "vote for the lesser of two evils." As long as Bush gets back in, these good people will remain paralyzed and will continue, for no good reason, to berate "us" who attack Bush and his policies. When Clinton was President, I had no problem getting on some major conservative radio talk shows since I was allowed to attack Clinton's education and world government policies. Once Bush got in, those good talk show guys whispered in my ear that they had received word from on high not to have any "Bush-bashers" on their shows.
The former editor of Human Events, Tom Winter, told me in the early eighties that Human Events' number of subscribers always took a major dive when a Republican was elected President since conservatives went back to sleep, assuming the future of the nation was in good hands. That tells the story in a nutshell.
I hope the above views will encourage good Americans to work hard to elect Peroutka for President, thus splitting the vote and destroying any chance of Bush being elected.
The election of far-left Kerry and his appointment of a far-left Cabinet, will hopefully rejuvenate the efforts of good Americans to return this nation to its constitutional and Godly principles.
There are many ways to skin a cat.
http://www.rense.com/general53/cat.htm
I like Charlotte's stategy about putting Kerry in to motivate conservatives. However, I don't agree that Kerry would move us faster toward a dictatorship. This excerpt from The New American says it well.
The New American / July 13, 1992 (p. 29)
"The lessons of recent U.S. history confirm...that the chief threats to liberty (big government and one-world internationalism) have flourished most with Republican presidents in the White House. Hoover Institution researcher Gale Moore analyzed this phenomenon in an article which appeared in the Boston Herald for May 21, 1981. After noting the contrast between Ronald Reagan's conservative rhetoric and his liberal performance as governor of California, Moore expressed doubt (subsequently justified) that reductions in federal regulations and non-defense spending, as Reagan promised, would actually occur.
Moore counseled that "a voter who wants a liberal policy should vote Republican; conversely, if he yearns for a conservative policy, he should cast his ballot for a Democrat." Comparing four full Republican and four full Democratic terms since World War II, he pointed out that "Republicans increased real non-defense spending 60 percent faster than Democrats; the GOP added to social welfare programs 14 percent more generously than did the party which trumpets its concern for the poor and elderly; and under Republican presidents the pages of the Federal Register, a poor index of regulation but the only one available, ballooned 46 percent faster than during their competitor's terms.""
In talking to my Republican friends, I sometimes suggest the following.
With every passing year, the Republican Party moves further to the Left. They do this to grab as much of the "moderate" and "liberal" votes as they can. They get away with this because they know most "conservatives" will still vote Republican anyhow, believing they have no choice. (To vote third party is to throw away your vote, or will put a democrat in the Whitehouse, etc. etc.
To this end, I suggest that if we continue to vote Republican even as they move left, then they will continue to do so. What is there incentive not to continue in that direction? But voting for a liberal Republican is a vote for the party to continue moving left.
Voting for a Constitutional Conservative (such as Peroutka) does at least two things. First, it sends a message to the Republican Party that the march towards Socialism may gain them some supporters, but it will also cost them some. If the cost is too great, it is an incentive to not follow that path.
Second, it allows you to sleep well at night, knowing that you did not vote for evil, lesser or greater.
I doubt the Republican Party can be saved at the rate they are going. But if one thinks voting Republican is going to save the nation, then they need to consider that they are *really* contributing to their corruption by their unshakable loyalty.
Feedback is welcome :-)
Jeffery
I agree. Why vote for Skull and Bones #1 or Skull and Bones #2, that is globalist #1 or globalist #2, [Bush and Kerry] when you have better choices? Even if everything is a rigged game, meaning that the globalists intend for one of their own to win, no matter what, you'll still sleep better at night, just knowing that you aren't on the globalist team if you cast your vote for a non-globalist. Your conscience will be clear and a clear conscience is a rare, priceless treasure.
Constitution Party—The Real Alternative
"The Constitution Party really does not play by the same laws of political science as the two big parties must. The elephants offer empire and corporate favors. The donkeys offer monthly checks and the abolition of moral discipline."
http://www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest17.htm
Michael Badnarik
The Libertarian Candidate for President
By Norma Sherry
I've been interviewing all of the candidates from the local Sheriff to the national candidates on my television show, The Norma Sherry Show. On August 6th, my guest was Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate for president.
A soft-spoken, confident, man, Michael Badnarik, began his one-man mission to become the Libertarian candidate for President last February. Since then, he has traveled to 15 states, visiting towns and communities and in the effort, he covered 25,000 miles with just a driver and his little Kia. Supporters put him up in their homes, often fed him, donated some money so he could continue his journey, and fulfill his vision for the Libertarian Party.
On May 30, 2004, at the Libertarian National Convention in Dallas, Texas, Michael Badnarik out-witted, out-debated his two opponents, and won the nomination as the Libertarian candidate for the presidency of the United States. He now flies instead of drives with his Kia driver of months before as he speaks to groups across the country. His days begin early, very early and end late into the night. On one day before we met, he put in a twelve-hour day of meeting, greeting, and interviewing, beginning with three or more radio interviews, which he gave over the telephone, and while they drove to their first presentation. His day ended similarly. One thing for certain: Michael Badnarik is a serious contender.
He's an effective spokesman, passionate in his belief that our Constitution reigns as the supreme document of our republic. Libertarian's, in case you were unaware, are strict Constitutionalists. They also believe in the very worthwhile dogma of "personal responsibility". And they fervently believe in the Second Amendment: The right for every citizen to bear arms. A Libertarian running for a Florida House of Representative seat, explained Libertarian to me as, "A Republican who doesn't believe in tariffs."
I will admit, listening to Mr. Badnarik and reading his position papers, much of what he has to say is very appealing. But, the single most alluring quality of this candidate is his unbeguiling, forthright, honesty. His answers to my questions were straightforward and direct. For instance, when I asked him what he thought of the U.S. Patriot Act, he responded without a moment's hesitation that it was the single most reprehensible document ever signed into law. He went on to say that if he is elected president, he will repeal it.
Regarding same-sex marriage, he said, there should be no law that restricts two individuals who love one another from marrying. Furthermore, we should not deny same-sex couples all of the benefits that marriage ensures. He would also repeal NAFTA and WTO. He said, "The managed trade that we see today, where politically connected corporations and favored nations get special deals, is anything but free."
He went on to express that, "Although free trade is a blessing, managed bureaucratic trade is not. It is a dangerous misconception to think of the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and other international quasi-governmental structures as free trade organizations. They rely on thousands of pages of confusing regulations and corrupt agreements between multinational corporations and oppressive governments. True free trade - the kind that fosters peace - does not depend on such organizations and rules, but is actually hindered by them. Managed trade - the kind that fosters resentment and poverty - is all that these organizations have so far delivered."
I asked him what he thought about legalizing medical marijuana. His answer wasn't in the usual cautionary political correctness or no-answer we've become so frustratingly familiar with -- no, once again, he spoke his mind and it was clear the topic was one that angered him. "The decision to ingest, smoke, or consume any drug should be up to the individual, under the advice of his or her physician, when appropriate." He went on to say, "On a fundamental level, Libertarians believe that it is the unalienable and constitutional right of individuals to medicate themselves and choose for themselves what to put into their bodies, as long as they live up to the consequences of their actions. The federal government has no proper say in the matter, and state governments violate the rights of the people in their own attempts to enforce morality."
Finally, I asked him what he would have done if he had been our president after 911. Immediately, he responded by stating that he would have sought the true enemy. He would not have invaded Iraq; a country that at one time had WMD and chemicals of warfare thanks predominately to the United States.
As president, Mr. Badnarik plans to slash pharmaceutical prices by reducing, what he refers to as, "excessive FDA regulation". He feels the stringent long-term testing of drugs before they become available to the populace is not only financially costly, but costly in the lives that could have been saved had the drug or drugs been available. According to Mr. Badnarik, "We could slash pharmaceutical prices overnight by ending these regulations." When I asked him if removing these regulations and safeguards, would effectively make the consumer or patient pharmaceutical guinea pigs? He rapid-fired, "no, it would not."
On every topic, and I raised quite a few, Mr. Badnarik never stumbled, never voiced a faux pas our present president is so infamous for, and he never stammered for the lack of an answer, nor did he carefully couch his comments. He was candid and direct. Clearly, he felt his points -- and the Libertarian beliefs -- are the correct way to address issues. Absent from our dialogue was any fear that his words might dissuade voters from voting for him. I have to admit, it made me yearn for more representatives who speak so straightforward with such decisiveness and clarity of thought and intent. I may not have always agreed with his strategies or his beliefs, but I did find him most engaging, thought provoking, and a stimulating conversationalist.
According to Mr. Badnarik, the Libertarian Party is the largest third party we have; larger than all the other third parties put together. Yet, they have to fight to be on the ballot, to be included in the debates, to find funding, and to get their word out in the mainstream press. In our search for the finest candidates - true representative government - it would behoove us all to hear every candidate's point of view. Then, and only then, can we truly make a decision. With any luck at all, that decision wouldn't have to be based on the lesser of two evils.
****************
© Norma Sherry 2004
Norma Sherry is co-founder of TogetherForeverChanging.org, an organization devoted to educating, stimulating, and igniting personal responsibility particularly with regards to our diminishing civil liberties. She is also an award-winning writer/producer and host of television program, The Norma Sherry Show, on WQXT-TV, Florida.
The Brief Against Bush
There is a law against misrepresentation. Prominent local attorney John Perrailt makes his case against the President's policies and urges voters to NOT vote for liars in November. Perrault analyzes the legal consequences of deceit - about WMD, Al Qaeda and Iraq. See
http://seacoastnh.com/Today/Editor_at_Large/The_Brief_Against_Bush/
'Big-Brother' government too controlling for professor
For students who feel that neither George W. Bush nor Sen. John Kerry deserves a punch on their ballot, Bob Eckhardt says he feels the same. That's why Eckhardt, a professor in the kinesiology department, says he will not be voting for the Democrats or Republicans in this year's election. He's voting for Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian presidential candidate. Eckhardt said that after being a registered Republican for 38 years, he switched his party choice to Libertarian about three years ago. He made the decision after realizing that both the Democratic and Republican parties were moving in the direction to support more government control. He called the that shift "chillingly Orwellian."
More at http://www.infowars.net/Pages/Oct_04/181004_Big_bro.html
IMPORTANT DEADLINES LOOMING
By: Devvy Kidd
October 17, 2005
Posted by Ralph Hughes with Comments at end
NewsWithViews.com
"Dan Scott. Barely a week ago I heard you rail for two hours about independence. Mr. Hardwick, how many times have I heard you speak of freedom at my father's table? Half the men in this church, including you father, and you, Reverend, are as ardent patriots as I. Will you now, when you are needed most, stop at only words? Is that the sort of men you are? I ask only that you act upon the beliefs of which you have so strongly spoken and in which you so strongly believe." -- 17 year old Ann, from the movie, The Patriot
There is a rage blowing across this republic. Americans have had it with the ACLU, destructive trade treaties and states that continue to cry poor while mismanaging hundreds of billions of dollars. The gross negligence by governors and state legislatures of the four border states has allowed the uncontrolled, unchecked invasion of roughly 12-15 million criminals and terrorists crossing over into America the past two decades. Let's not forget that these female criminals who smuggle themselves across the border are also having babies. According to this recent study, "We estimated that 280,000 children were born to illegal alien mothers in 2002, accounting for nearly one out of ten of all births in the United States." And, "Because immigrant fertility differs so much by education, immigrants now account for more than one in three births to mothers without a high school diploma." We should also remember these words by Augustin Cebada, information minister of Brown Berets, militant para-military soldiers of Aztlan shouting at U.S. citizens at an Independence Day rally in Los Angeles:
"... Brown Berets, we're here today to show L.A., show the minority people here, the Anglo-Saxons, that we are here, the majority, we're here to stay. We do the work in this city, we take care of the spoiled brat children ... We're here in Westwood ... to show white Anglo-Saxon Protestant L.A., the few of you who remain, that we are the majority, and we claim this land as ours, it's always been ours, and we're still here, and none of the talk about deporting. If anyone's going to be deported, it's going to be you! ... Get out! We are the future. You're old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you – leave like beaten rats. You old white people, it is your duty to die. Right now, we're already controlling those elections, whether it's by violence or nonviolence. Through love of having children we're going to take over."
Congress continues to allow the ACLU to fleece the pockets of we the people by refusing to abolish unconstitutional legislation that allows them to get paid by you and me to destroy the foundations of this republic. Despite massive petitions, phone calls and e-mails, these "conservatives" in Congress who hold the majority have done nothing to over turn the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976. This Act means mega bucks for the American Communist Lawyers Union.
The opposition to S. 1145 is massive, but I can tell you the counterfeit senate is going to pass it anyway and very soon. This legislation is unconstitutional, but the House of Representatives didn't care because they passed it anyway; the counterfeit senate will do the same and new world order facilitator, George Bush, Jr., will sign it into "law." Congress has simply become a body of tyrants.
The list is endless and it isn't going to get any better either at the state or federal level until we the people get deadly serious about a non violent revolution. As I have said so many times, if we truly to be a government of, by and for the people, then the people themselves must take back government at all levels. The only way that is going to happen is for the millions of Americans who see this republic and our Constitution hanging by a very slim thread, make the sacrifice to run for public office at all levels in every state of the Union. If you can't run, then get out there work to constitutional candidates get elected by working for their campaigns.
We are the wind, but we cannot become a force without making the sacrifice of putting our lives on hold and clean the communists, fascists, socialists (liberals) and phony conservatives out of public office at every level. Our laws, rules and regulations are made by city councils, county boards of supervisors, members of the 50 state legislatures and Congress. Local school boards and water districts make rules and regulations.
The enforcers of these millions of laws are the courts at all levels, district attorneys and sheriffs. All elected officials.
Do we want to stop the lesbians and homosexuals on school boards, in Congress and in our legislatures who are advancing their toxic agenda at an alarming rate? Lesbians and sodomites do not reproduce. There is no homosexual or lesbian gene passed on because there isn't one. These sexual perverts with their deviant preferences have and continue to fight hard to get access to the schools so they can troll for their next victims. GLSEN, which stands for Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, has been going all out in its efforts to establish homosexual clubs on all school campuses. Think your child will be safe from these perverts? Not only are they are risk from physical molestation, recruiting means brainwashing kids into believing they "might" be "gay" and should come out of the closet and step into a moral sewer.
The only way we're going to stop the complete destruction of this republic to clean house, period. All the rest is just talk. While it is difficult to get rid of any member of Congress, it's not impossible. Do you know how many incumbents go unchallenged? Too many. Yes, it does cost money to run, but where there's a will there's a way. Back in 1983, Linda Smith won a seat in Congress using the write in method! She had tens of thousands of families who became "Linda's Army" who volunteered, worked hard and got this woman elected on a write in. That is determination and people sacrificing their time and financial resources when they want something bad enough.
Phil Hart, author of Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any? and a strict constitutionalist, carefully picked his time and ran for a seat in the Idaho State Legislature. He ran unopposed last year and he won. We need thousands because the state legislatures are going to have to fight off the national ID (it isn't too late on that one and it will go to court), force a Seventeenth Amendment showdown and stand up for the Tenth Amendment once and for all. We also need to get rid of all these career politicians in the state legislatures with the promise that you will work to start wiping these thousands of unconstitutional and useless laws off the books. We need every newly elected state rep or state senator to reconstitute the state militias as mandated by the Second Amendment. We must get this done because our very existence is going to depend on it being in place when push comes to shove and for natural disasters.
The people must get involved in the political process at every level. Complaining about the serious problems plaguing America isn't going to solve them. The only solution is that Americans themselves have to get involved in the political process at every level and remove bad politicians and public servants. You can serve on a city council, county board of supers, become a mayor, sit on the water board, school board, become a mover and shaker. You can do it. If you don't, the communists, socialists and Fascists, regardless of what party they claim (it's how they vote) will remain in office and the destruction will continue. Becoming part of the solution is one of the greatest gifts you can give to your children and those precious grand babies.
There are talented constitutional attorneys all over this country who work for public advocacy groups, i.e., Thomas More Law Center and hundreds of others. They are in private practice now, but America needs them to make the sacrifice to run for superior and district court judges and district attorneys in every state. I suggested this in an earlier column and one attorney wrote back and said the only problem is that if you run against a judge and lose, you still have to practice in front of that judge. Okay, with all due respect to this nice man who mailed me, does that mean we simply give up? Does that mean no attorney should run against a judge because he's afraid of losing his case next time he tries one in front of that judge if he doesn't beat him in an election? So, you just throw in the towel without trying? If you lose and your winning opponent remains a judge and rules against your case, that's what appellate courts are for. But, my God, man, you don't just walk away without a fight! That's how slaves are made. Where would we be if that was the position taken by those who fought to birth this republic?
As I have urged in other columns, if you are serious about getting rid of career politicians destroying this country at all levels, we have got to get rid of the Motor Voter Law of 1993 which is allowing millions of criminals (illegal aliens and felons) to vote. Vote fraud is rampant. I urge all Americans: Attend every city council and county board of supervisors meeting. Demand paper ballots, hand counted in front of the general public and get rid of these easily rigged machines. If your elected officials refuse, tell them they will be the target of a recall, and if you don't have recall, make it clear to them they're gone in '06. The 2006 elections is it. This will be our last hope to get individuals elected who can and will get the job done in saving this republic.
I continue to stress we desperately need those who qualify to run for county sheriff. We need to get all these bad judges off the bench and oust sheriffs who will not stand up to the feds. We can't do anything about the federal judges or the U.S. Supreme Court until we clean out Congress and put strict constitutionalists in who have the guts to do what needs to be done.
Veterans and retired Americans: Your country needs you with all your years of experience, courage and talent. There is no more time for fun and games. If you can't run for office, please help constitutional candidates in your area get elected.
We are the people of this government and now the people must put their actions where their mouths are and begin the process of running for office. Freedom is not a spectator sport. I have prepared a detailed document (here) on how to run for public office at all levels. If we don't try, the evil doers win by default. I'm serious when I say so many incumbents are unopposed or no one even runs for an office! Check with your election officials to get current information on incumbents. Look at all these open seats at every level that are either unopposed or no one has registered as a candidate! What an opportunity.
The clock is ticking. There is a one year residency requirement and filing date for Congress and state legislatures. It may vary from state to state a little here and there, but that one year date is approaching. The election in November 2006 is just over one year from now. If you are going to run, you've got to get registered NOW or miss the one opportunity to make the difference. People are fed up and are looking for individuals with answers. Jim Gilchrist, Minuteman Civil Defense Corps founder is running for Congress on the American Independent Party ticket. He just forced a run off against a favored Republican by tapping into angry voters on illegal immigration. This is super fine and there is a very good chance he will win.
As I have written in my last two columns, big trouble is coming. Bush's lapdogs are running trial balloons for declaring martial law under any convenient pretext along with his desire to get rid of posse comitatus. The economy is tanking and unfortunately, it's going to get worse. Here is more trouble finally being exposed: Oil: There is no Plan B which carries this interesting quote: “The oil crisis is very, very near. World War III has started. It has already affected every single citizen of the Middle East. Soon, it will spill over to affect every citizen of the world.” Ali Samsam Bakhtiari, Vice President of the National Iranian Oil Company.
Second, Run over: Delphi may cost GM $11B. Many know the old saying that when GM goes, so too will the economy. Pension funds are at great risk as they are with corporations filing bankruptcy and with risky investments using pension funds..
Third: Scandal-hit Refco shuts second arm in a week. What does this mean? According to one of the very savvy financial gurus, Jim Sinclair:
"Refco’s position as the largest independent derivative dealer with billions of dollars in customers’ money, declared a moratorium on withdrawing assets or funds today. That’s analogous to a run on the bank with your once friendly banker slamming the front door in your face. This is a very serious situation, not so much because of the run but rather because the missing money has been replaced. What makes this aspect of the situation so serious - and why Refco must be rescued - is because it is the principle of many over-the-counter, unregulated, unfounded, unlisted and non-Clearing House guaranteed derivatives. If Refco folds up its tent, then the financial world folds. You can take that to a real bank.
"Every time you rescue a financial entity, you pour more fuel on the fire that will ultimately consume the dollar. We are so battered by economic misconduct and flagrant abuses in the business world these days that there are few if any rescue options for what is approaching in the financial world. Even with “stabilization” activities in world dollar markets today, the US dollar did not make the desired technical breakout but in fact closed on its low – portending perhaps what’s in store for tomorrow."
More details on this horrendous event: "Regulator limits trading at Refco as broker shuts securities arm" by Jill Treanor, October 15, 2005, The Guardian. "US regulators last night took action against Refco, one of the world's largest derivatives brokers, as the repercussions of its chief executive being charged with fraud continued to reverberate across Wall Street. In a step that reflected the severity of the situation, the securities and exchange commission placed trading restrictions on the business, limiting Refco Securities and Refco Clearing from making transactions over a certain size for 20 business days....In less than a week the brokerage firm has been transformed from being one of Wall Street's most successful firms to one fighting for survival after its chief executive, Phillip Bennett, was charged with defrauding investors by using a hedge fund to hide $430m (£250m) of debts."
Won't you take the time to read the How to run for public office at all levels, make your decision and get your campaign going? Those drop dead dates for registering as a candidate at all different levels of government are coming up soon. Don't wait and miss the chance to make a difference. America needs you.
"For what is liberty but the unhampered translation of will into act?" – Dante Alighieri (1265-1320) Italian poet
© 2005 Devvy Kidd - All Rights Reserved
My (RWH) excuses for not running for office or getting actively involved in seeking out and supporting candidates who will "befriend" the US Constitution include:
1. Limited mental capacity
2. Insufficient understanding of the US Constitution and government
3. Lack of financial backing
4. Low retirement income requiring a post-retirement job
5. Unpopular convictions on adherence to constitutional principles, illegal immigration, public education, and firearms laws and restrictions, among other things
6. Belief that if others don't care, why should I, and that it's too late anyway to do anything else but prepare for the merger of the USA with Canada and Mexico, and eventually into larger political, economic and military unions, including the New World Order that President Bush (41) advised us about nearly 15 years ago
7. Conviction that a country that would put the likes of Bill Clinton into the presidency, especially the second time, and will do nothing more that grumble about "things" does not deserve my sweat
8. Realization that most people think "all is well" and we will eventually somehow be guided to peace and prosperity by divine intervention without any effort on our part
9. Inclination to tell it as I see it
10. Reputaton for being a political "screw ball", especially among people who should be more dedicated to the support and sustaining of the US Constitution than they are
Been awfully quiet here lately. Everybody OK?
There has been a bit of scuttlebutt here and there about Mitt Romney running for President in 2008. He has, as Governor of Massachusetts, demonstrated a socialist leaning in pushing for manditory health/medical insurance (pay up or else) which would unconstitutionally force taxpayers to pay for insurance for those unable to pay for it. And his apparent position on abortion is not where I would expect it of him either.
You Utah folks especially ought to be concerned about your state's Governor, Jon Huntsman Jr. It seems he has gotten on the Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for president in 2008 bandwagon. I consider McCain a strong globalist with ambitions to gain access to the inner circle of the PTB in order to become part of the decision-making process that shapes our world. So I fear Huntsman Jr. is also a globalist, and trying to position himself to be high up in global government when it comes to pass. As many or all of you probably know, Huntsman is a member of one of Utah's most prominent Mormon families. His father, billionaire philanthropist Jon Huntsman Sr., had been a leading contributor to Romney's Commonwealth PAC and said he would like to see Romney seek the presidency. The younger Huntsman, who was ambassador to Singapore before his election in 2004, is friendly with Romney and had served as an informal adviser to him on foreign policy matters, according to published reports.
It looks like the presidential candidates that will be "presented" to us will be McCain, Hillary, Giuliani, and maybe Romney and Condi. What a sorry lot. But after Americans elected Bill Clinton to a second term, I pretty much gave up on this country. Not that any other is any better.
At least one of our group here shows more action than talk by running for elected office. Gary Van Horn is running for the Utah Senate from District 24. He states: "I believe that Utah's present Representatives in the Congress and our two U.S. Senators are not honoring their oaths of office to protect and defend the Constitution. They are actually helping to overthrow the constitutional government of the United States." www.vanhornforsenate.com
Let's wish hm well.
What with the 2008 presidential candidates or hopefuls already starting to make their pitches, I think we ought to start discussing our favourite and unfavourite candidates.
My favourite to date is Ron Paul. Thinking back over what I've read about and by Ron Paul, I have compiled a list of things he would do, or try to do:
He would oppose the establishment of the North American Union, which has already been agreed upon by President Bush, President Fox and then Prime Minister Martin.
He would work to extricate the U.S. from the various trade agreements (e.g., CAFTA, NAFTA) which will continue to permanently lower the amount of available jobs and wage structure for future generations of Americans.
He has frequently objected to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and considers America’s entry into those wars unconstitutional as well as immoral and would demand that Congress accept its responsibility for declaring the wars or remove American forces from those countries.
He has always opposed U.S. membership in the U.N., and would strive to get the U.S. out of the U.N. and get the U.N. out of the U.S.
He would push for a flat tax on income and elimination of certain other taxes such as the inheritance tax.
He would strive to reign in the abuses of the IRS and abandon the fiat currency which has plunged the true worth of the dollar to new international lows.
He would try to stop American tax dollars from being used to support illegal migrant health care, education, social security and unemployment insurance.
He would resist the adoption of the Amero as our new currency because we would have to equalize our dollar with the Mexican Peso and the Canadian Dollar
He would do his best to eliminate the Federal Reserve System and such practices as fractional reserve banking which is responsible for the theft of untold amounts of money from the American people..
He would resist the private takeover of the internet.
He would oppose the elimination of the alternative health care industry under CODEX.
He favours returning to paper ballots in order to ensure the integrity of our elections.
He would endeavour to halt further increases in social welfare and oppose renewal of such programs as they expire.
He would at least drastically reduce foreign aid, especially to countries unfriendly to the U.S.
He would enforce laws prohibiting transfer of militarily sensitive technology to avowed enemies like Russia and China, and their allies.
Have I missed any bases.
My second favourite would be Mitt Romney, although at this point I would sooner write in Ron Paul or go for a Constitution Party candidate. The Massachusetts compulsory health care program which Romney proposed and pushed thru is socialist and intrusive inviolating constitutional principles. His criticism of the Boy Scouts of America for refusing to permit gays to be scout masters, his reported promotion of homosexual propaganda in Massachusetts schools through the "Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth", and funding this bureaucracy of social engineering instead of eliminating it, and his reported advocation of governmental recognition of homosexual adoption rights, domestic partnerships and homosexual civil unions have put me off him.
Did you all read or hear the bit about Romney, the only Mormon of the 4 Republican front runners, including Gingrich, McCain and Giuliani, being the only one who's had just one wife?
We've contacted the Ron Paul Presidential Exploratory Committee asking how we can help set up either an exploratory office or a campaign office here in Utah. No response as yet. Mitt Romney has way too many negatives that conflict big time with normal, traditional American public Christian values and US Constitution values, let alone any "Mormon" values.
Here's the e-mail address (with website location included in it) for Ron Paul's Presidential Exploratory Committee in case anybody else from Utah wants to contact him and encourage him to keep going forward in his plans for 2008! You're sure about Huntsman Sr. supporting Mitt Romney, right? Doesn't seem to fit with what he's said and done in the past--sorry to hear that, if it's true.
mail@RonPaulExplore.com
I didn't know Huntsman was promoting Romney, although it does not surprise me. We live in downtown SLC, and the TV news has let nothing slip about Mitt's negative actions (by our standards) that I mentioned above, and I expect he will have many cheerleaders and fans here in Utah. They seem to think his candidacy will be good for the LDS Church, and I believe many will support him for that reason alone. I'd like to know of any reliable report that Huntsman is supporting Romney. If I learn of it, I will write a personal letter to Huntsman and, using the above reasons, suggest he lend support to Ron Paul instead.
I didn't know Huntsman was promoting Romney, although it does not surprise me. We live in downtown SLC, and the TV news has let nothing slip about Mitt's negative actions (by our standards) that I mentioned above, and I expect he will have many cheerleaders and fans here in Utah. They seem to think his candidacy will be good for the LDS Church, and I believe many will support him for that reason alone. I'd like to know of any reliable report that Huntsman is supporting Romney. If I learn of it, I will write a personal letter to Huntsman and, using the above reasons, suggest he lend support to Ron Paul instead.
We're confused. So does the above July 24, 2006 posting mean that Huntsman Sr. is supporting Mitt Romney or not? Being a "contributor to Romney's Commonwealth PAC" sounds as though he's supporting Mitt Romney--yes or no?
------------------------------------------------
Here's what was said on the above July 24, 2006>>>
Huntsman is a member of one of Utah's most prominent Mormon families. His father, billionaire philanthropist Jon Huntsman Sr., had been a leading contributor to Romney's Commonwealth PAC and said he would like to see Romney seek the presidency.
-------------------------------------------------
Hoping we have misunderstood, but it sure sounds like that's what is being said...so whoever posted the July 24, 2006 posting--is that what you are saying, and do you have proof?
Re. that 24 July post, I',m looking for something more recent and blatant than that, like a recent announcement of a substantial Huntsman donation to the Romney campaign. It would not likely be worth my bother to try to source that report I mentioned in my 24 July post. I never really expected Mitt Romney would try to go up against the Republican heavyweights, but then I never expected Ron Paul would either.
Ron Paul's Presidential Exploratory Committee just answered our e-mail offer to help them by telling us to visit their newly constructed website and join them there with our ideas. The website looks good! Appears that he's building a foundation first, and using gospel/constitutional principles to do it with. www.RonPaulExplore.com
Since you already mentioned writing a letter to Huntsman Sr. to persuade him towards supporting Ron Paul if the media reported he favored Romney, why not follow through on that great idea now anyway? The best that could happen is that he will learn there are fellow Utahans who are not "sheeple", who have discernment, and are supporting another, better choice of candidate; the worst that could happen is that you may learn who he does/does not support. Let us know the results, ok?
I plan on writing just such a letter to Huntsman when I have more reliably reported evidence of his support of Romney. And I hope to involve others in the same effort.
Good, count us in for sure. Why wait? Let's make contact now so he knows we're all out here. After all, Governor Jon has publicly come out for McCain (instead of Mitt), so for whatever reasons he did that (and we tend to believe the globalist posturing, but we remain open to more hopeful reasons), that gives church members "permission" to check out other candidates, wouldn't it???
Ron Paul got quite a grand reception in New Hampshire last weekend. We thought it was the general public, but it was mostly, we're guessing, the Libertarian group who've moved their Free State Movement to New Hampshire, but every bit of exposure helps. Even though we didn't see it on national news, the Internet covered it at www.striketheroot.com Ron came out swingin'--no wonder the Gadiantons fear this loose cannon being heard by the general public! Loved it!! :-)
Does anybody have a cited reference of Mitt Romney not allowing the Boy Scouts of America to participate in the 2002 Olympics because they don't allow homosexuals in their organization, as mentioned above? It's one thing for Mitt to have personal opinions that he flip flops on that are along those same lines, plus many others, but to go up against the Lord's program for the Aaronic Priesthood is quite another thing! This is blasphemy, and needs to be publicized if we can cite a public reference, preferably in print. As one person has said, Mitt is either lying to the Lord or lying to the public, either way, he's just one more of the same thing that's already in there--meet the new boss, same as the old boss type of thing. How dare he call himself a "Mormon" as his political "gimmick" for attention when there's such huge holes in his "platform" that don't even come close to LDS doctrines. Since Mitt has 2 of Bush's former campaign workers, which was shown on TV last week, we think that means Mitt is becoming an "insider" to the Powers That Be, or at the very least, a wannabe insider who's going to be used by the PTB as a useful idiot to further their own agenda, whether it's going to be the "globalist religion" or not, by creating public sympathy/opinions in favor of Mitt's version of "Mormonism" to start the tearing down of Christianity, it's too early to tell how many ways they can use him in their agenda. Sure would be nice to capture national news with Utah being more in favor of Ron Paul's gospel/constitutional values than for Mitt Romney's lack thereof!!
Best I can do so far in documenting Mitt's political indescretions:
Excerpts from an article by David M. Bresnahan an award-winning investigative journalist and author who lives in Utah and was formerly with WorldNetDaily.: http://www.massnews.com/2002_editions/06_June/061802_mn_romney.shtml
"Romney is a master politician and public relations expert. He was asked to speak to a luncheon gathering of LDS public relations people who were preparing more than a year in advance of the Olympic Games for handling the anticipated requests for information they expected would come from the media of the world. Romney spoke about his public relations manipulations during his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign against Sen. Ted Kennedy.
"Romney was candid about the methods he and his staff used to shape the views and thinking of the people, but he was defeated by his own faux pas and by the master manipulator, Kennedy. When he finished his presentation he excused himself from lunch and departed. The next speaker was Elder Henry B. Eyring of the LDS Church Twelve Apostles.
"Eyring made it clear, in a very nice way, that the methods described by Romney were not the methods to be used by the LDS Church Olympic volunteers gathered in the room. He wanted to be sure those present were not thinking that Romney was delivering a message on how the Church should manipulate the media of the world. Indeed, those volunteers, and many hundreds more, ultimately served the needs of 1,333 members of the world media who came to the News Resource Center of the Church during the 2002 Winter Olympics. That was done without using the tricks described by Romney to manipulate the press and the public."
"Romney has been carefully trying to dance around the many statements he has made regarding the issues of abortion and homosexual leaders of the Boy Scouts. His comments have often changed based on the audience of the moment.
"What he cannot escape are the responses he made on those issues at an October 25, 1994 candidate debate between himself and Kennedy. He was clear and to the point. His answers were surprising, considering that he has been a prominent leader within the LDS Church in Massachusetts and he has been on the Board of Directors of the Boy Scouts of America.
"Romney said that he is in favor of homosexual leaders for the Boy Scouts, and he believes every woman should have a right to chose whether or not to have an abortion."
Excerpts from article by Selwin Duke:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Duke/selwyn50.htm
"Then, Brian Camenker points out the following in The Mitt Romney Deception:
- "Romney's campaign distributed pro-gay rights campaign literature during Boston's 'Gay Pride' events," issuing pink fliers stating, "Mitt and Kerry [running mate Kerry Healey] wish you a great Pride weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference."
- Romney advocated governmental recognition of homosexual adoption rights, domestic partnerships and homosexual civil unions.
- Romney opposed the Boy Scouts' policy prohibiting homosexuals from serving as scoutmasters and prevented the organization from participating publicly in the 2002 Olympics.
- The Boston Globe wrote in 2005, "Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents - including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights."
- Romney promoted homosexual propaganda in Massachusetts schools through the "Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth," funding this bureaucracy of social engineering instead of eliminating it."
"Equally damning, though, is that in a very ominous way he can be compared to yet another infamous poseur, Hillary Clinton. On April 12, 2006, Romney signed a bill into law that creates a universal health system intrusive enough to be the envy of socialists everywhere. The plan mandates that every Ma. resident must obtain health insurance by July 1, 2007, or face a fine that could exceed 1,200 dollars a year. Of course, this scheme includes the creation of a new bureaucracy, one that will, using Big Brother's infinite wisdom, determine how much you can afford to pay. Wow, thanks for the help, Mitt. Or, is it "Vinny the Chin"? I mean, this sounds like an offer you just can't refuse.
"To justify his socialist brainchild, Romney uses the argument that it is no different from requiring people to carry car insurance. Ah, speciousness, thy name is Romney. Mr. Governor, you can choose not to own a car. Everyone must have a body."
BINGO! That's exactly what we needed to help get the word out -- cited references in print! Thank you!!!! The BSA is saying, as of 2 days ago, before I got these cited references, that they didn't know what I was talking about, that the BSA was allowed to participate fully at the Olympics in doing all kinds of volunteer work behind the scenes, and that they didn't get to hand out any awards but after all, that was never expected anyway, and that Romney was on the National BSA Executive Board at the time, so they just didn't know what I was talking about. Obviously, since the SLC BSA was quoted in Dec. 2000 as it being a very "discouraging" thing not to be allowed to participate at all, and then the 2002 report states they did participate, but out of sight from public and press but never allowed in uniform (cleaning up after the games and putting/taking down security fences), that something/somebody put enough pressure on Romney to "give in" a little and allow the BSA to at least be there, out of sight/out of mind. Very obviously manipulated and orchestrated for "future" political purposes only since Romney is VERY clear where he stands regarding BSA policies against gays--obviously the SLC BSA didn't want to be implicated in any way and gave a safe answer--once you read the cited articles, then "behind the scenes" makes more sense in their very careful answer 2 days ago. But, that's what we were after--something in print, especially since it's been printed long enough ago to not be declared biased writing, in order to be passed along with our own personal, anti-Romney campaign, allowing the receivers to be their own judge. Now, on the June 2002 Massnews.com article "Romney - Hero or Bum? Romney 'cover-the-road' Politician", it says that you can go to investigativejournal.com to read more articles by the local Utah guy, David B., and that website says the domain is up for sale, and an e-mail to David came back undeliverable, so anybody who knows how to reach the local journalist, David Bresnahan, let us know, ok? Thanks again for the cited references--the Massresistance.com article by Brian Camenker is VERY well documented--includes Romney statements to the press in several different newspapers over several years, and the Newswithviews.com article by Duke puts a current face on it all---it's now factual instead of mere opinions and rumors that "sheeple" can blow off. We just e-mailed the above articles to everybody on our e-mail address book for starters, and we just faxed a Letter to the Editor today for the local SLC newspaper--shall see IF it gets in and how much is "edited" out!
:-)