A New Third Party is Forming – The Conservative American Party

This VDARE blog post by Allan Wall has the story.

Nelson Hultberg of Texas has formed a new political party called the Conservative American Party. Now I know what a lot of people are going to say – “A Third Party?” In recent years, third parties haven’t picked up much traction and people feel they are throwing their votes away by voting them. So they wind up voting for the Republican candidate and get people like Bush or McCain.

Nelson Hultberg is aware of the Third Party Problem. His proposal is to utilize a strategy like that of Ross Perot in 1992, in order to get the candidate (probably Ron Paul) into the televised general debates.

Hultberg’s proposed platform has four planks:

1. A 10% income tax rate for everybody.

2. An annual increase of the money supply at the same rate as growth of goods and services.

3. Radical Immigration Reform.

4. A Mind-our-own-Business foreign policy.

Hultberg’s website can be found here.

48 thoughts on “A New Third Party is Forming – The Conservative American Party

  1. Cody Quirk

    Seriously, we have ENOUGH third parties in America that aren’t going to get anywhere!

    If you’re conservative and had it with the GOP, then join the Constitution Party… Or if you’re otherwise inclined, then join the Libertarian Party.

    Same thing with anti-two party system Liberals- get involved with the Greens.

    Support the large existing third parties in America and build then up. Don’t cause even more division by doing this.

  2. Concerned Chuck and Hetro Harry

    “A 10% income tax rate for everybody.”

    The same percent God demands we tithe to his Chruch, excellent! Now if only we could just combine the two, our only tax would be our tithe. Joining church and state will save money, folks!

    “An annual increase of the money supply at the same rate as growth of goods and services.”

    Voodoo economics? Yeah, such thinking will land you in hell buster.

    “Radical Immigration Reform.”

    Radical is just another word for getting more abortions. Stop the murder, end radicalism!

    “A Mind-our-own-Business foreign policy.”

    This I can agree too! We need to be minding our business more all over the world! Huge Church-embassies around the world with armed missionaries ready to defend what’s ours no matter who’s government is there at the moment.

    Over-all this party is 50% Satanic and so it’s members will of course burn in the lake of fire with the feminists, queers, and libertarians. But the other half of ideas aren’t too bad. I will pray on if I should take them to promote on my radio show.

  3. Melty

    The Conservative American Party is so similar to the Constitution Party that the two really are pitted in competition.

  4. Robert Capozzi

    1 cq: Seriously, we have ENOUGH third parties in America that aren’t going to get anywhere!

    me: Not really. Most third parties are encrusted with narrow, often incomprehensible, ideological peculiarities. Centrists moderate third parties (aside from perhaps the Moderate Party, which appears to only be active in RI) are largely non-existent. That’s what Americans Elect is about, near as I can tell.

    One can imagine the Rs schisming into the country-club/corporate party and the Tea Party. The Tea Party wouldn’t need the CP, and probably wouldn’t have the baggage of the CP.

    The Ds seem pretty together, although the progressives seem a bit restless. Be careful what you wish for….

  5. Melty

    da more upstart parties da merrier
    let em split n merge n otherwise morph
    let em spin their web n see what flies they catch
    from out o that, some strong party or parties may well emerge

  6. Thomas L. Knapp

    I suspect this one will quickly founder on the immigration issue.

    The reference to “radical immigration reform” should read “reactionary Know-Nothing bullshit of the same type the two major parties deliver on demand, and that never works, so we have to insist that’s not what we meant.”

    But the problem is that the two major parties DO deliver it on demand — Berlin … er, El Paso … walls, universal conscription of employers as unpaid Stasi … er, “ICE” … agents, mass abductions and deportations, you name it.

    A minor party doesn’t become a major party by promising to deliver what the major parties are already delivering. Not even if it pretends they aren’t delivering it.

  7. paulie

    But the problem is that the two major parties DO deliver it on demand — Berlin … er, El Paso … walls, universal conscription of employers as unpaid Stasi … er, “ICE” … agents, mass abductions and deportations, you name it.

    True. However, since this hasn’t actually succeeded in achieving the goal of ethnic cleansing, there are still plenty of people who believe the Democrats and Republicans are not authoritarian enough on this issue.

  8. George Phillies

    There are a perfect adequate number of people who are not at all impressed by the approaches that have been taken to enforcing border security, so this party will have some supporters.

    The Constitution Party is the right wing religious moralizers, and does not over lap with these people a lot.

    The Grene Party is most notable for the matter that their national organization seems to have collapsed completely, so that there is no income or spending at all.

  9. Steven Wilson

    I have heard some soldiers from Jeff city and Columbia talk about the Modern Whig party. It seems to be a vet party for now, but I think it is interesting to see a rebirth.

    I also would like to see the unions organize a particular party to inform and vote block. Democrats are losing the battle with the pending Free trade agreements. I believe there are seven right now ready to be signed. A party of workers would educate about the benefit to K street about the impact of such a trade agreement.

    This new party of Texas might give birth to a whole new discussion about tax model. I have even heard some talk about a new “Reform” party within Missouri. I don’t know whether to laugh or puke. But I think it is wonderful people are in motion.

  10. johncjackson

    By #3 “Radical Immigration Reform” surely they mean making immigration easier and reforming/dismantling the big government programs that terrorize individuals for engaging in consensual market transactions, right?

  11. wolfefan

    “Utilizing a strategy like Ross Perot…” Does that mean nominating a multi-mega-millionaire who is willing to self-fund the campaign? From reading the linked post, I somehow think not…

  12. Pingback: A New Third Party is Forming – The Conservative American Party | ThirdPartyPolitics.us

  13. Trent Hill

    “There are a perfect adequate number of people who are not at all impressed by the approaches that have been taken to enforcing border security, so this party will have some supporters.

    The Constitution Party is the right wing religious moralizers, and does not over lap with these people a lot.”

    George should stick to offering erroneous comments about the Libertarian Party. Not because they are anymore accurate, but because then Tom Knapp goes through the trouble of correcting him, instead of it falling under someone else’s authority.

    There is considerable overlap between these immigration hawk types, George, and the CP. Indeed, the party in Arizona, California, and Texas is composed almost exclusively of these types–particularly California.

  14. Melty

    The “Ross Perot” bit’s supposed to mean Hultberg thinks getting into the debates is key, so he says ya gotta stand for something that’ll get at least 15% support in the polling.

    Conservation American Party’s xenophobic closed-borders like the Constitution Party is.

  15. RedPhillips Post author

    “However, since this hasn’t actually succeeded in achieving the goal of ethnic cleansing,”

    paulie, whites are being deliberately demographically displaced. There is an attempt at ethnic cleansing going on for sure, but it is in the other direction. It is the immigration restrictionist who are resisting the ethnic cleansing.

  16. George Phillies

    I quote the top part of the Constitution Party platform which I believe proves my case. These people may very well start raiding the Constitution Party for its state affiliates for reasons Red correctly states, above.


    Preamble

    The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

    This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

    The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

    The Constitution of these United States provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.

    The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are Constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.

    We affirm the principles of inherent individual rights upon which these United States of America were founded:

    That each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness;
    That the freedom to own, use, exchange, control, protect, and freely dispose of property is a natural, necessary and inseparable extension of the individual’s unalienable rights;
    That the legitimate function of government is to secure these rights through the preservation of domestic tranquility, the maintenance of a strong national defense, and the promotion of equal justice for all;
    That history makes clear that left unchecked, it is the nature of government to usurp the liberty of its citizens and eventually become a major violator of the people’s rights; and
    That, therefore, it is essential to bind government with the chains of the Constitution and carefully divide and jealously limit government powers to those assigned by the consent of the governed.

    [To top of page]

    Sanctity of Life

    The Declaration of Independence states:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.

    The Preamble of the Constitution states a purpose of the Constitution to be to:

    “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”.

    We declare the unalienable right of Life to be secured by our Constitution “to ourselves and our Posterity”. Our posterity includes children born and future generations yet unborn. Any legalization of the termination of innocent life of the born or unborn is a direct violation of our unalienable right to life.

    The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God’s image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born.

    To that end, the Constitution of these United States was ordained and established for “ourselves and our posterity.” Under no circumstances may the federal government fund or otherwise support any state or local government or any organization or entity, foreign or domestic, which advocates, encourages or participates in the practice of abortion. We also oppose the distribution and use of all abortifacients.

    We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception. As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.

    No government may legalize the taking of the unalienable right to life without justification, including the life of the pre-born; abortion may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government – legislative, judicial, or executive. The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body.

    In addition, Article IV of the Constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government. Therefore, although a Supreme Court opinion is binding on the parties to the controversy as to the particulars of the case, it is not a political rule for the nation. Roe v. Wade is an illegitimate usurpation of authority, contrary to the law of the nation’s Charter and Constitution. It must be resisted by all civil government officials, federal, state, and local, and by all branches of the government – legislative, executive, and judicial.

    We affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of abortion in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2.

    In office, we shall only appoint to the federal judiciary, and to other positions of federal authority, qualified individuals who publicly acknowledge and commit themselves to the legal personhood of the pre-born child. In addition, we will do all that is within our power to encourage federal, state, and local government officials to protect the sanctity of the life of the pre-born through legislation, executive action, and judicial enforcement of the law of the land.

    Further, we condemn the misuse of federal laws against pro-life demonstrators, and strongly urge the repeal of the FACE Acts as an unconstitutional expansion of federal power into areas reserved to the states or people by the Tenth Amendment.

    In addition, we oppose the funding and legalization of bio-research involving human embryonic or pre-embryonic cells.

    Finally, we also oppose all government “legalization” of euthanasia, infanticide and suicide.

  17. paulie

    Ethnic cleansing is a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.

    White flight has been a term that originated in the United States, starting in the mid-20th century, and applied to the large-scale migration of whites of various European ancestries from racially mixed urban regions to more racially homogeneous suburban or exurban regions. It was first seen as originating from fear and anxiety about increasing minority populations.

    See the difference?

  18. RedPhillips Post author

    “Are whites being forced to move against their will?”

    Well yes and no. No one is putting a gun to their head to move, but they resent the demographic transformation of their communities that they didn’t ask for. They are white flighting places where they have been demographically displaced. What do you think is happening with California and why they can’t pay their bills?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/255320/two-californias-victor-davis-hanson?page=1#

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/266444/ithe-economisti-explains-john-derbyshire

    Facts are stubborn things, as they say, and are under no obligation to conform themselves to libertarian individualist ideology.

  19. paulie

    No one is putting a gun to their head to move

    Hence, not ethnic cleansing.

    By contrast, deportationists want to put guns to millions of people’s heads and force them to move so as to “remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic .. group from certain geographic areas.”

    And that’s why I call it ethnic cleansing.

  20. Melty

    Yes, Consevative American is much like the Constitution Party minus the religious emphasis. What gets me about the CP is not the theocratic element (at least they’re straight forward about it), but the way their stated “mind-your-own-business foreign policy” is the first thing to go out the window. It seems like most candidates they field campaign as interventionists. No? Will the Conservative American Party field candidates, and if so, will they actually be noninterventionists?

  21. Melty

    Ain’t it strange how noninterventionists get called “isolationists” while the true isolationists are the closed-borders anti-foreigner folks?

  22. RedPhillips Post author

    Paulie, would celebrating the demographic demise of a people count?

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/11/03/916577/-An-Open-Letter-to-the-White-Right,-On-the-Occasion-of-Your-Recent,-Successful-Temper-Tantrum

    If whites were pouring into a brown country and rapidly moving to a majority, there would be outrage and everyone knows it. But if whites are displaced then that is fine and dandy because we all know that white people are inherently evil and deserve to be displaced. Any white people who objects to their displacement are guilty of a thought crime. The only good white people are self-loathers who don’t object.

  23. paulie

    Paulie, would celebrating the demographic demise of a people count?

    No. Not unless that celebration includes putting guns to millions of people’s heads and forcing them to move so as to “remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic .. group from certain geographic areas.”

    Forcing being the key word there.

  24. RedPhillips Post author

    Melty, what Constitution Party candidates are interventionists? I’m sure there might be outliers, but CP is firmly non-interventionist. Just ask Alan Keyes.

  25. RedPhillips Post author

    Paulie, does Mexico have immigration laws? In fact, they are much stricter than ours. Do they deport Americans that are there illegally? Do they deport Central Americans who are there illegally? Of course they do. So why is nobody decrying that? Because the only countries who are being asked to take in hordes of aliens is white western countries no matter how dense their population. At least you and other open borders libertarians are consistent. You want all countries to throw open their borders. But you have to be deliberately blind not to recognize the anti-white double standard of the pc libs. Open borders for white countries and ethnocentrism for everyone else.

  26. paulie

    So why is nobody decrying that?

    As the civil rights marchers said: “I am somebody.”

    I oppose enforced ethnocentrism, closed borders and double standards by all.

  27. RedPhillips Post author

    Darryl, I didn’t say anything about overpopulation. My point about population density is that low population density of white western countries can not be the excuse for why they alone are being asked to take in massive numbers of immigrants. The Netherlands are very densely populated, yet it is still supposed to take in mass numbers of immigrants like every other white western country.

  28. Melty

    @33 Red, ones whose websites I looked over runnung in Wisconsin were interventionist to my notion
    …maybe it’ll get better next time now that more folks’re figurin out war spendin gouges the economy at home

  29. Don Lake, FYI, not necessarily a unilateral endorsement

    Melty // Aug 1, 2011:
    “The Conservative American Party is so similar to the Constitution Party that the two really are pitted in competition ………” ——- Huh! The fall aways, er, ah, um, run aways from CP, California alone!

    paulie // Aug 1, 2011:
    “California and why they can’t pay their bills? ……… Excessive government.”

    ———– Oh like the legislature dictating the faulty ‘Whole Language’ reading program. Mandating the teaching of GLBT. Like that?

  30. RedPhillips

    Don, what I meant was that Alan Keyes was rejected as the CP nominee because he wasn’t a non-interventionist.

    Melty, I think a lot of CP candidates and supporters might still use “strong military” language and promote a foreign policy that sounds rhetorically Jacksonian (as opposed to Wilsonian neocon), but they are essentially non-interventionist when it comes to policy.

  31. Steven Wilson

    @42 rp

    The non-interventionist language game always make people sound like a coward. The only solution I know would work with a social contract is to have criteria set forth in the contract itself and make sure it was applied and punished.

    I don’t feel any one party has the full name of anti-war. The CP in Missouri had candidates that were pro military. The criteria for the use of that military is the main issue, which no one is eager to speak about.

    With operational bases all over the world and the precedent of invading without a declaration of war, telling a voting block you are anti-war is empty.

  32. Trent Hill

    Phillies cites the preamble to show how religiously centered the CP is. Duh. But he doesn’t actually support his point, which is that there isn’t much overlap between the religious CP and hardcore anti-immigration activists. Again, he should go back to talking nonsense about the LP, because he doesn’t know squat about the CP.

  33. Thomas L. Knapp

    Don @ 44,

    Just for the record, I no longer claim that the LP is the only, or even a, peace party.

    Peace and electoral politics are incompatible. You can have one or the other, but not both.

  34. Don Lake, FYI, not necessarily a unilateral endorsement

    But the Knappster DID say that, FOR YEARS and then denied such, and just may be owed some one whom used to live on Normandie Road, an apology, or at least a retraction.

    Mister Hill, standard George Phillies, steer manure! Been going on for years as he continues to hide behind his doctorate. For years. Bull shit plus cow poop!

    It is all Don Lake’s fault any way, always his fault. But the CP does have loads and loads of self inflected wounds.

  35. paulie

    ???? Oh like the legislature dictating the faulty ?Whole Language? reading program. Mandating the teaching of GLBT. Like that?

    While I don’t think government should operate schools any more than it should operate churches or industries, you are talking small potatoes. The overspending, overtaxing and overregulating by the California state government is truly epic in scale.

    Among other things:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9310_California_budget_crisis#Causes_of_budget_deficit

    A major source of the deficit has been the continuous growth in salaries and benefits of state employees during economic boom times, some of which were lobbied by trade unions. In 2009 more than 134,000 Bay Area public employees were reported by the Contra Costa Times to have earned annual base salaries in excess of $100,000[18]; however, many of these employees were local employees, not state employees. A database of public employee salaries was also made available by San Jose Mercury News[19]. As per the same source over 40,000 public employees in the Bay Area alone earned over $200,000 in 2009.

    In 2008 the daily news also reported six figure salaries of many public officials in LA [20]. The Sacramento Bee maintains an updated database of state worker salaries.[21]

    See also

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/01/libertarian-party-of-california-responds-to-gov-brown%E2%80%99s-state-of-the-state-address/

    for additional details.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *