SHOULD WE USE RONALD REAGAN AS THE YARDSTICK?

BY: DAN CLEMENTS

Speculation has been flying around about whom John McCain will pick as VP? And pundits have been saying that he needs to pick someone that is more like Ronald Reagan so he can capture more of the conservative Republican vote.
Even though Ronald Reagan was the first president I voted for, and he was the most conservative politician to come down the pike for a long time, we still should not compare our politicians today to any politician of the past. Why? Because the bar set by politicians keep changing. The Republican Party is no longer the home of true conservatives and Ronald Reagan would not recognize it today as the same party he fought for through the 70’s and into the 80’s. The reason I’m picking on the Republican Party and not the Democrat Party is, the Democrat Party left conservatism behind around Woodrow Wilson’s presidency and never looked back. The Republican Party for many years had touted that they where the home of conservatism and the ideas of smaller government.
This Presidential election cycle has shown the true nature of the Republican Party. In my short political life of 28 years, I have never seen a more liberal slate of politicians run for the supposed conservative Republican Party! The only ones who even came close to being conservative where, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Alan Keyes, and possibly Fred Thompson. Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and the presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain, are the most liberal Republicans I have ever seen. And you ask how I came to this conclusion? I have compared them the U.S. Constitution and the founding documents of this country and found them wanting (not the documents but the men). Ron Paul was the only one running that is the true conservative, because he used the U.S. Constitution as his standard and guide. But Ron Paul will not give up his standing in the Republican Party and run on a third party ticket, what a waste!
The Constitution Party picked its presidential nominee April 26th, Chuck Baldwin.
Here is the Wikipedia entry on Chuck Baldwin:
In 1980 and 1984, Baldwin worked in the Florida Moral Majority to carry the state for the Reagan-Bush electors. He claims to have played a major part in the registration of some fifty thousand Christian conservative voters. In 2000, however, he vacated the Republican Party on grounds that the Bush-Cheney ticket was too liberal.
In the 2004 presidential election, Baldwin was Michael Peroutka's running mate and candidate for Vice President of the United States on the Constitution Party ticket. The two ran on a platform of "God, Family, and the Republic." The Peroutka/Baldwin campaign publicly spoke out against abortion,[3] women in the military,[4] and the Iraq War.[5]
Baldwin considers Bush roughly equivalent to national Democrats. In 2006, he voted in favor of disaffiliating the Independent American Party of Nevada from the Constitution Party.[6]
Baldwin effectively endorsed U.S. Representative Ron Paul of Texas in the 2008 presidential election in a column on August 30, 2007, entitled "Conservative Republicans have only one choice",[7] having declared: "Let's cut to the chase: conservative Republicans have only one choice for President in 2008: Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Unlike the GOP frontrunners, Paul is the real deal." On December 19, 2007 he released a video officially endorsing Congressman Paul.[8]
Baldwin has written specifically against the candidacies of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mitt Romney, and Rudolph Giuliani. Prior to the death of the Reverend Falwell in 2007, Baldwin had criticized his old mentor for having supported official Republican nominees in general elections regardless of the candidates' positions on issues vital to conservatives. He decried Falwell's past affiliation with George W. Bush. Jonathan Falwell, Jerry Falwell's heir as pastor of Thomas Road Baptist Church, meanwhile, endorsed Mike Huckabee for the GOP nomination, another candidate that Baldwin strongly repudiated. Baldwin is known as a staunch opponent of what he calls the "new world order" and amnesty for illegal immigrants.
On December 7, 2007, Baldwin issued this statement in a column:
Unfortunately, it has been the Christian Right's blind support for President Bush in particular and the Republican Party in general that has precipitated a glaring and perhaps fatal defect: the Christian Right cannot, or will not, honestly face the real danger confronting these United States. The reason for this blindness is due, in part, to political partisanship or personal aggrandizement. Regardless, the Christian Right is currently devoid of genuine sagacity. On the whole, they fail to understand the issues that are critical to our nations--and their own--survival.[9]

By any measure of conservatism, Chuck Baldwin has it in abundance. When we use the U.S. Constitution as our yardstick, there is only one clear choice for POTUS that is Chuck Baldwin and his VP Darrel Castle. Please go and read the Constitution Party platform. Measure our party’s platform against the U.S. Constitution and see if we don’t measure up as a party and our nominees as individuals.
So this November when you go to the voting booth, don’t throw your vote away on the two big box party’s. Don’t vote because you are against something, or you are picking the lesser of two evils. Vote because you stand for the Constitution of the United States, and those who want to uphold it, and bring this country back to its constitutional roots!!!!!

Dan Clements is a member of the Constitution Party and the host of BACK TO BASIC a Christian/political internet talk show. You can listen to Dan live from 10am-1pm EST. M-F at www.constitutionalwarrior.com

DON’T BLAME THE SYSTEM!

BY: DAN CLEMENTS

There has been a lot in the news lately about the Democrat presidential primaries. With the nomination going the convention with no clear winner, it looks like it will be a hot time in the old convention. Let’s not forget about Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos, which encouraged Republican voters to switch parties to vote for Hillary Clinton, so as to prolong the Democrat primaries until convention time. A lot of liberal pundits are crying fowl!

But they see nothing wrong with the Lamestream media picking favorites in the Republican primaries and influencing voters. Grandma always said what’s good for the goose is good for the gander!

Liberal pundits or using this primary season to try to promote the National popular Vote. This is an attempt to do away with the Electoral College.

Wikipedia’s definition of the Electoral college is:

The United States Electoral College is a term used to describe the 538 ^[1] Presidential electors who meet every four years to cast the official votes for President and Vice President of the United States. The Constitution gives each state legislature the plenary power to choose the electors who shall represent its state in the Electoral College. Through this constitutional authority, each state legislature also has the power to determine how exactly the electors are to be chosen (including the legislature choosing the electors). Presently, every state legislature chooses to allow its electors to be popularly chosen (by a state-wide ballot for slates of electors, who have informally pledged themselves to support a particular Presidential candidate and a particular Vice Presidential candidate) on the day set forth by federal law for that purpose (i.e. Election Day). Presidential electors meet in their respective state capitol buildings—or in the case of Washington, D.C., in the District of Columbia—on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (per 3 U.S.C. § 7). The Electors never meet as a national body. At the 51 separate meetings, held on the same day, the electors cast the electoral votes. As such, the collective concept of the 51 groups is the technical definition of the college. The electoral college system, like the national convention, is an indirect element in the process of electing the president. The Constitution does not require the electors to vote as pledged, but 26 states and the District of Columbia have laws that require their electors to vote as pledged.^[2][3

Liberals have no problem using this system to determine a nominee, except when they think the system has been corrupted, (I.E. Operation Chaos). "We're just coming along and saying, 'Why not add up the votes of all 50 states and award the electoral votes to the 50-state winner?'" said Koza, chairman of National Popular Vote Inc. "I think that the candidate who gets the most votes should win the office."

The proposal is aimed at preventing a repeat of the 2000 election, when Al Gore got the most votes nationwide but George W. Bush put together enough victories in key states to win a majority in the Electoral College and capture the White House.

This kind of end run is necessary because the only way to get rid of the Electoral College entirely is via a constitutional amendment, which would be nearly impossible to pass. Enough small states benefit from the current system to block an amendment. The beauty of this approach is that each state is constitutionally allowed to allot its electoral votes as it sees fit.

These last few paragraphs were taken straight from the National Popular vote website. The liberals that support this are only showing there contempt for the U.S. Constitution. In other words, if you can’t do things the right way (I.E. the amendment process) then let’s do an end run around the U.S. Constitution.

The beauty that is the Electoral College is it’s protection of the individual state that doesn’t have as many people living in it from the over reaching more populated states. If we ever got rid of the Electoral College, less populated states would never see a presidential nominee ever again.

So don’t blame the system if you can’t win under the system. Primaries and general elections are for the candidates and the support system they have in place to win or loose. If it becomes a close race and there are recounts, don’t blame the system!

The U.S. Constitution was implemented to protect not only the individual from an overreaching government, but also to give a voice to those states who may be in the minority, populationaly speaking!

Dan Clements is a member of the Constitution Party and the host of BACK TO BASIC a Christian/political internet talk show. You can listen to Dan live from 10am-1pm EST.

M-F at www.constitutionalwarrior.com

THE SECOND AMENDMENT: TAKING IT OUT OF CONTEXT

By: Dan Clements

When reading anything, we must employ a hermeneutic. Usually we do this on the fly as we read. The most simple hermeneutic is who, what, when, where, why, and how. The one I use to study the Bible or an historical text is; lexical-syntactical, historical/cultural, contextual, theological (for my bible study), special literary methods. In order to be faithful to the word of God, I must read, study and understand Gods word the way God wants it understood. In order to do this I must have a logical method to employ so as not to misunderstand God’s word. We must look at the U.S. Constitution in the same way.

Our founding fathers laid out the Constitution while we were still under Articles of Confederation. We had a form of government that the founding fathers thought would not last long or provide for the safeguards that they sought to protect the people and the nation. So the republic was born.

In the preamble of the Constitution the first words are “We the People.” No where on earth and in no other time in history has a group of people come together with the Idea that the “people” were the supreme authority! That the power of government was granted by the people, and the people have the right and duty to control or change the government as they see fit under the constraints of the Constitution.

The ideas set forth in the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, and the Federalists Papers, were and still are foreign to most people and governments around the world. And unfortunately they are foreign to a lot of Americans. It saddens me that more Americans do not take the study of our founding documents more seriously. It is hard to say if the lack of understanding is intentional or just laziness on the part of the people.

Social/fascist, don’t like the U.S. Constitution, because it puts the power where it belongs, in the hands of the people. The LSF (liberal, socialist, fascist) in this country and that populate the higher echelons of the Democrat party and higher learning, think that the common citizens of this country are not smart enough to govern themselves, so they try to take away the every powers the U.S. Constitution protects, namely, THE BILL OF RIGHTS. We the People should never ever forget that we grant the U.S. government the privilege to govern us. And as a privilege, it can be taken back or changed.

The second amendment is one of the first amendments that need to go under fascism. The right of the people to defend themselves, their families and their possessions from individuals or governments is fundamental to freedom.

Here are some quotes from our founding fathers I found on guncite.com:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Did you read the words of two of our founding fathers? Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed. Sound familiar? Does this sound like the 1920’s and 30’s! This is what happened in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. The people were disarmed, and once this takes place, the last check and balance on the government is gone and freedom is soon to follow!

Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. The right to bear arms is an American birthright? You bet it is and much more. Mr. Coxe understood that governments are only as moral as the men and eventually woman, populating government and bureaucracies are. It seems to me that the LSF’s in this country forget that our military is made up of freedom loving volunteers, who understand the cost of freedom and how to hold onto it. For the LSF’s to think for one moment that the American fighting soldier would turn their weapons on freedom loving Americans, who are only exercising their God given right to defend themselves, they are sadly mistaken. Ever hear of unlawful orders? Soldiers take and oath; I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD. Do you read anywhere in that oath to protect and defend the government? No, it states the protection is of the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic! The U.S. Constitution sets up how the government shall govern. If at some point the government no longer governs according to the U.S. Constitution, we as American citizens can change that government back to it’s Constitutional foundations.

Too many people in this country have let the government do pretty much what it wants without regard to the Constitution. You can not make any laws that tries to take away the fundamental rights of the people, because the people are the supreme power that gives the authority to be governed and therefore the right to bear arms precedes government, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, that we as American citizens enjoy and will jealously defend.

The Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. I hope the UN is reading this article. They do not have any right to mandate or legislate from on high, any law that would diminish the capacity of the American citizen; to “keep and bear arms” it is our birthright and the last check and balance against a tyrannical government. So please when you read the U.S. Constitution, keep it in the context in which it was originally written, WE THE PEOPLE.

Dan Clements is a member of the Constitution Party and the host of BACK TO BASIC a Christian/political internet talk show. You can listen to Dan from 9am-Noont EST. M-F at www.constitutionalwarrior.com