Sam Gallo, the Executive Director of the Conservative Party of the United States, sent out an email this afternoon. The Conservative Party of the US is not affilliated with the New York Conservative Party. The email is the first the national Conservative Party organization has sent out.
To our friends of the Conservative Party: The newly drafted national creed set forth below speaks with a one-hundred year voice of history.
For those wishing to review why it is presented by the Conservative Party, visit our affiliated website, Vote with EASE: http://www.votewithease.com/ Beyond that, we offer you this suggested tool to use to respond to the often asked question of a Conservative, “What do you believe.”The American CreedI believe that all people are created equal and they are endowed by their Creator with
certain irrevocable rights: Life from conception to natural death; Liberty to act according
to one’s will without threat from any authority; and the Pursuit of Happiness in any lawful
business or vocation not in conflict with the rights of others.I believe that Government is instituted by people to secure and protect their rights, and to
provide for the common good either by law or tradition, or both, and all rights other than
those powers specifically given to Government remain with the people.Offerred by the Conservative PartySam Gallo, Executive DirectorConservative Party
Interesting, Sam Gallo is located here in Baton Rouge, LA–where I am. Perhaps I’ll be able to get an interview if there is any interest in that.
Just found this site and the questions. Here are a few answers.
The Constitution Party say, “This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” We say this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian traditions.
We only declared our separation from the New York and New jersey parties as a matter of disclosure. They are not built on a national basis, we are. Frankly, I wish they would affiliate with the national Conservative Party. They get control positions with it.
We will win elections with good candidates who are in agreement with our platform, “to re-establish the limits and boundaries of Government as framed by the Founding Fathers of the United States of America. ”
On separation of church and state, that’s an easy one to answer. Government doesn’t not grant us rights, the people grant the government rights. And the people in giving government certain rights were careful to say that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion …or, prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The separation of church and state was a condition of the people not a condition of the government, then, now or ever. So, the “daylight” between church and state is for the people to decide, and the people want Judeo-Christian traditions preserved by its government.
“So what is this guy’s beef with the Constitution Party? Is this party more pragmatic? Is it interventionist? Is it less religious?”
No idea. He may be a Ron Pauler, he may not–I honestly dont know. He could also be an Alan Keyes-type “moderate interventionist”. He has money, I know that. He’s a small business owner and has two other people invovled in the leadership here in LA (A lawyer and a CPA I believe).
As for his strategy via other Conservative Parties, I think it is stupid. He ought to align himself with New York and New Jersey (despite not running candidates, they would have a mailing list ready and about 150 registered voters).
The New Jersey Conservative Party no longer runs candidates at all. Their last one was in 2005, a single candidate for legislature; before that it was a single candidate for US House, in 2004.
Chris,
Perhaps the NY parties early connections with neo-con Buckley would explain the distance. The man would seem more than modestly wise if those are his motives.
If I’m not wrong, on the surface at least he would seem to ground all of his views solely on the sanctity of human life, the person first, not the constitution or international boundries, or monetarist economics or some other such artificiality. If so, he has managed to escape the trap into which the Constitution and Libertarian Parties have fallen, the making of our founding documennt into a kind of divinely given tome, one on a par with the golden plates that Mormons allege were given to their founder, Joseph Smith, and that even though the two parties view the intent of the document in clearly dfferent ways. The man should be drawn out on this question of whether its the centrality of the person that grounds his vision.
I’m curious why he was in such a hurry to disassociate himself from the NY Conservative Party. Considering their well-established history, as well as that of the NJ party, it would be to the advantage of a new national party to be connected to that history, credibility, and experience.
My questions would be:
1. Are they going to associate with any existing parties?
2. What is their plan for winning offices?
3. What differentiates them from existing parties?
4. Do they believe in the separation of church and state? If they do, why do they use religion to justify much of their policy? Isn’t that a kind of breach of the separation?
5. In what way do they see voter fraud as a major issue? Does that include voter suppression and faulty machinery, or is it limited to individual voters committing fraud?
Libertarian Joseph: There is a local Conservative Party in NJ that runs lots of people for office.
Trent: If you are going to look this fellow up, perhaps you should collect questions from readers.
my conversion funny is a different one. I stumbled on the wikipedia entry, “libertarian.” I liked it. From there, I read about it, supported Ron Paul, and left my socialist roots behind. Yeah, that’s what I was before my conversion.
Anywho, I’m going to email this guy
HOWEVER, my grandma loathed Obama, she wanted McCain to win. She thinks he only wants to help black people. She loved Hillary
wonder*
I wonder if there are any other libertarians that have a similar background.
so it’s a onder how I ever became a libertarian. I have no small government roots
they’re pretty moderate. like, my grandma, for instance: pro-life, except when it’s life or death, or rape, but she’s not very conservative on fiscal issues. When she saw a struggling farmer on tv, she said, andI quote, “the state should help him.” That pretty much sums up my family. Emotionally driven, zero logic.
I never identified myself as a conservative. My family are blue dog democrats, but I do, however, agree with conservatives on many fiscal issues.
He said he wanted to start a party of the same name as this one. Never told me his name, though.
hmm I wonder if it’s the same guy that named me the NJ chairman. I knew a guy on ronpaulforums.com and he said I would be the NJ chairman.
Well I went to their page, and while I like the attempt to tone down the religiosity, their first post is just a bunch of nothing.
The Declaration is a completely secular document having nothing to do with a Christian God.
The nation owes more than thanks to three unlikely modern day patriots: professional poker player, musician, and retired attorney, Leo Donofrio; life long Democrat and former Pennsylvania assistant attorney general, Phil Berg; and Soviet emigree and attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz (she’s also a dentist).
While Mr. Donofrio painstakingly established the airtight case that BHO could not be an Article II “natural born citizen” (at BHO’s birth, dad was British/Kenyan, not American, citizen) Leo’s Stay of the 12/15/08 electoral college vote was denied by SCOTUS as procedurally unripe.
Nevertheless, since no congressman and senator objected on 1/8/09 to Congress’ count and certification of the electoral vote which would have turned resolution of Obama’s eligibility issue over to Congress — rendering moot the Berg and Taitz (Lightfoot) cases — Berg finally does achieve standing on the issue of actual harm, to be addressed at the Friday 1/9/09 SCOTUS Conference on Writ of Certiorari. Obama’s failure to submit evidence of his constitutional qualification for the 1/9/09 conference will mean he cannot thereafter challenge Berg’s request to enjoin the 1/8/09 Congressional electoral count and certification, albeit retroactive, scheduled for SCOTUS conference Friday 1/16/09. Moreover, Chief Justice Roberts has scheduled a full Court conference on the Lightfoot case Friday 1/23/09 in the event there needs to be a Constitutionally mandated action, the Inauguration itself, to enjoin retroactively.
Now that BHO is in checkmate and cannot be POTUS, he can be a patriot as well. He need not subject the nation to the expense and trauma of requiring SCOTUS to overrule his ‘Presidency’. BHO can and should voluntarily step down with Biden becoming Acting POTUS under the 20th Amendment, and under the agreement all potential claims by the Government for itself and on behalf of others against BHO are released.
So what is this guy’s beef with the Constitution Party? Is this party more pragmatic? Is it interventionist? Is it less religious?
Holy margin bleed, batman!