The following is the text of an email from Constitution Party National Chairman Frank Fluckiger, sent out to CP supporters and members today:
The Constitution Party calls “upon the President,
and Congress, to terminate United States membership
in the United Nations, and its subsidiary organizations,
and terminate U.S. participation in all so-called
U.N. peace keeping operations …”
Dear Friend of Liberty:
That is from our national platform, and is based on the advice of our Founding Fathers. It was John Quincy Adams who reminded future generations of patriots that America “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.”
The battle to re-gain the sovereignty of the United States is being fought on a variety of fronts. American workers are undermined by one-sided trade pacts, membership in NATO has resulted in putting our combat personnel at risk in places where we simply do not belong, and Washington’s meddling in Middle East affairs has caused us nothing but trouble … and a lot of taxpayer dollars.
It is the U.S. entanglement with the United Nations, however, that forms the center of the fight. Whether it is a global gun grab, advocating abortion-on-demand policies, supporting radical environmental regulations, or its drive for a central command of the world’s armies, the U.N. is our chief adversary.
That’s why I urge you to support HR 75, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2013, introduced by Congressman Paul Broun Jr.of Georgia. The legislation reads in part:
“The President shall terminate all membership by the United States in the United Nations, and in any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations. The United States Mission to the United Nations [shall be] closed. Any remaining functions of such office shall not be carried out.”
Like it or not, and whether he knows it or not, Mr. Broun has introduced a Constitution Party platform plank in Congress.
I wish I could say that our success rests on distribution of membership forms or even the party platform. Effective political action is requires more. We must reach out to fellow Constitutionalists and show them by our actionsthat we are hard-working, knowledgeable, and focused on key issues. By building issue coalitions and working with allies, we will bring in members. That’s politics 101.
I recommend three action items. First contact your own member of Congress and urge them to co-sponsor the bill. In doing so, let them know you are a member of the Constitution Party and this legislation is bi-partisan in nature. Second, contact fellow members of the Constitution Party as a follow-up to this message to ensure we are all part of the legislative action on Capitol Hill. Finally, contact friends and allies outside your party network and tell them to support the bill—send the link to our platform and have them review the section addressing the U.N. Let’s make sure this is part of our Constitution Party-building activities.
As always, my gratitude for your financial investments, your devotion to the issues that define us as Constitutionalists, and the work you do to build our party.
Sincerely,
Frank Fluckiger
Looks at drugs laws. They are not supported by a large percentage of the public, especially when it comes to laws against marijuana. The government can still convict people under drug laws, but the only reason they are able to do this is because they stack the juries by eliminating independent thinkers during Voir Dire, and they also do not inform people of their right to nullify laws (most Americans have no idea that they have the power of jury nullification). If not for Voir Dire, and if not for the government not telling jurors about the power of jury nullification, the drug war would have to be called off, because it would be too difficult for the government to convict anyone.
If you want to convict people for murder for carrying out abortions you are going to have a hard time doing it unless over 90% of the public agrees with you, unless you resort to stacking juries via Voir Dire and not informing them of their right to nullify the law.
“Don J. Grundmann, D.C. // Mar 1, 2013 at 11:31 pm
Andy – If people are tried and/or convicted by the demise of Roe v Wade will not be of primary importance. Just changing the law will change the culture as the law will return to promoting life instead of death.
The passage of Roe automatically promoted the death culture and religion because it encoded that religious belief into the law of the land. It is the most classic example of changing culture by FIRST changing a law.
The presense of Roe as ( so-called ) law automatically gives an endorsement to the death religion as the ruling philosophy of the nation. It hence, by its very presense, teaches the children that the shredding, mutilating, and Cuisinarting; i.e.; putting them down the garbage disposal; of children is acceptable and normal. ”
Don, to a certain extent, you don’t need to change the law. There are already laws on the book against murder. What you want to do is to have those laws apply to abortion.
As for overturning Roe vs. Wade, that would take another Supreme Court ruling. That would be a very difficult thing to achieve.
Let’s say that you did manage to change the law, or change the application of the law. It seems to me that if you did it and there was still a large percentage of the public that was pro-abortion, that you’ve still have a hard time getting a conviction if at the same time this nation returned to having juries that were truly selected in a random fashion and were fully informed of their right to nullify the law.
I will say that having something in the law that says that abortion is illegal could have the effect of changing some people’s minds, but I’d bet that it would not change everyone’s mind. So if jury nullification were common knowledge, I still think that you could have a tough time convicting people for carrying out abortions unless you had over 90% of the public in agreement with you that abortion should be illegal.
DG @ 169: “You choose to be that way.”
This is absolutely the stupidest thing anyone says about gay people. If a man has a choice between a woman and a man to be with, and he chooses the man…it’s because he’s homosexual. Straight people don’t choose their same gender.
Duh!
johnO #163 – ” Love they neighbor and all that.”
John et al – When your father ” loves ” you he chastizes and stops you – Don’t run into the street. Don’t jump off the roof!! It is wrong to lie!!. If your friends TRULY ( instead of fake ) ” love ” you they say – John, don’t get drunk. John, step away from the bar. Bottom Line – they tell you the truth.
Showing ” love ” to those afflicted by homosexuality means telling them the truth – You were NOT ” born that way. You choose to be that way.
Hence we can either give fake/worldly ” love;” i.e.; lie to people; OR show them TRUE ” love:” i.e.; the truth; with no regard or care for how ” offended ” they may be.
Don J, Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California – the party which loves citizens by telling them the truth
Andy – If people are tried and/or convicted by the demise of Roe v Wade will not be of primary importance. Just changing the law will change the culture as the law will return to promoting life instead of death.
The passage of Roe automatically promoted the death culture and religion because it encoded that religious belief into the law of the land. It is the most classic example of changing culture by FIRST changing a law.
The presense of Roe as ( so-called ) law automatically gives an endorsement to the death religion as the ruling philosophy of the nation. It hence, by its very presense, teaches the children that the shredding, mutilating, and Cuisinarting; i.e.; putting them down the garbage disposal; of children is acceptable and normal.
That is why Paulie is wrong in #161 above.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California, the only party which is totally in defense of unborn children, the most helpless and defenseless and under attack of all of our citizens; i.e.; the only party fighting against the REAL ” War Against Women “
“159 Don J. Grundmann, D.C. // Mar 1, 2013 at 9:39 pm
Andy – A) As a belated reply to your question in #136 I fully support jury nullification and fully informed juries along with the organization working to educate citizens regarding these issues; FIJA – the Fully Informed Jury Association.
I believe that the Constitution Party as a whole, inclusive of its national officers and state organizations, supports these same ideas.”
Don, I’m glad to see that you support fully informing juries of their right to nullify laws. I consider this to be one of the most important issues that there is. The government has been able to railroad millions of people in court by staking the juries with people who mindlessly do whatever the judge says and by not informing them of their right to nullify laws.
So here’s a follow up question:
How would you expect to convict anyone for abortion when polls indicate that are large percentage of Americans (somewhere between 37%-50%) of Americans think that abortion should be legal?
If 12 jurors are chosen at random, chances are high that even if the area where the jurors are being chosen from has 37% of the people who favor legal abortion, that there’d end up being at least one pro-abortion person on the jury, and remember, it only takes on juror to hang a jury, Sure, the prosecuting attorney could try to change this person’s mind on abortion, but if they are committed to the idea of abortion being legal, and if they are informed of their right to nullify they law, you could have a hung jury. And then what if you end up with 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 pro-abortion people on the jury? The statistics show that unless a law has support of over 90% of the population, it is very difficult to get a conviction if a jury is chosen at random and informed of their right to nullify the law.
So I think that unless you can sway a lot more of the public in the pro-life direction that you’d have a difficult time convicting anyone for abortion.
Not what Dr. Grundmann was preaching.
“Love thy neighbor and all that.”
What’s the “all that”?
Too complicated?
Jesus loved the prostitutes and lepers and the outcasts in his day. They were not shunned by him. Love thy neighbor and all that.
Grundmann believes we should mix his version of Christianity and the state, so he doesn’t want to be on the same team with them either.
It doesn’t.
Laws always either follow cultural changes, or the fail (e.g. prohibition).
to Andy @134
I was taken aback by Dr. Grundmann’s comment that only certain Christians are ok. I know, like you, people who are Pro-Life but are atheist, agnostic, hindu, buddhist etc etc and even the sexuality issue Pro_life Gays, Lesbians, Bi-sexual etc etc. So, all these folks either go to main 2 Parties, LP, smaller Pro-Life parties that are not overtly Christian or stay on the sidelines. I’m not sure if there is a Right-to-Life party for everybody.
-Also Dr.Grundmann attacked Mr. Phillies pretty hard because Mr. Phillies is Pro-Choice. People are allowed to have opinions. This is not the old East Germany.
-I think Mr. Lesiak should look more closely at the CP of Dr. Grundmann. It’s not as inclusive but more narrow minded in my opinion. I do think they have a right to run in every district though. People should have many choices to choose from.
Andy – A) As a belated reply to your question in #136 I fully support jury nullification and fully informed juries along with the organization working to educate citizens regarding these issues; FIJA – the Fully Informed Jury Association.
I believe that the Constitution Party as a whole, inclusive of its national officers and state organizations, supports these same ideas.
B) Relative to your comment in #118, Susan Smith was simply taking the religion of ( so-called ) ” pro-choice ” to its logical conclusion.
Pro-choice/abortion/death supporters have for many years promoted the idea that we should have the ability to kill children months after their birth if they are deemed to be inconvenient or for any other reason; see here Peter Singer, a ( again so-called ) ” ethicist,” and John(?) Watson, the co-founder with Crick of the structure of DNA, among many others and inclusive of ” scientists ” publishing articles last year in support of the idea.
Their lack of ability to advance this death idea has resulted from their inability to overcome the natural revulsion which still lingers in our populace regarding such a monstrous proposal. The success of the legalization of pervert marriage with its automatic destruction of the morals of the nation combined with the continuance and expansion of the Social Engineering program/attack of the Plantation Masters against our nation will solve that ” problem ” which our genetic ” Superiors ” ( see here Margaret Sanger and Race Science/Eugenics ) still have.
C) In regard to changing the culture in order to change the laws regarding abortion I present that the opposite must occur; i.e.; changing the law will change the culture. I base this on the following –
1) The Abortion Industry ( see here the memoirs of Bernard Nathanson, a foaming-at-the-mouth abortion lover/supporter who changed to become pro-life ) manufactured multiple lies ( such as the number of ” coathanger ” deaths by females ) to promote their case in Roe v Wade as they felt that they could not win soon enough, if at all, via cultural change and so instead lied to get their death laws enacted. It was the enacted laws which changed our culture; via help provided by The Matrix/media via Social Engineering; to be fantastically more accepting of the child mutilation and shredding which we call abortion.
2) The Homosexual/Sodomy Movement is currently using the same tactic. Realizing that they cannot win cultural battles if at all; notwithstanding recent cultural victories which have occurred simply as a result of the continued Socially Engineering of our society, culture, and nation; they have worked to exploit our corrupt judicial system ( see here the attack against the passage of Prop. 8 in California ) to gain what they could not otherwise achieve. Their plan then takes those corruptly attained judicial rulings/victories and turns around to attack the citizens and force them to accept their perversion/soul infection along with enhancing their Social Engineering attacks ( reference here the Chicago sex education classes for kindergarteners as just one example among countless ).
As can be illustrated by multiple posts on this site; the utter moral corruption of political parties like the Democrats, Greens, Libertarians ( only slightly less ), and Republicans ( via their ” moderate ” division ); the moral collapse of our public schools, and the collapse of the Christian church as providing any opposition to the forces of the Death Religion which are attacking our nation and the Bottom Line result is that we are a dying nation.
There are far more people ( former humans whose numbers are increasing ) who believe in and love the Religion of Death than those who will believe in and fight for the Religion of Life; i.e.; Christianity.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California, the last political party openly supporting and fighting for the moral foundations of our nation.
It’s not 50/50. Most people are in the middle. 50/50 suggests that everyone is on one side or the other.
I would agree that there is a roughly balanced spectrum of opinion on the issue. It may lean slightly more to one side, and maybe there’s been a shift in opinion lately (something I never heard before), but most people are still not at one extreme or the other.
“paulie // Mar 1, 2013 at 2:39 pm
‘I have heard similar data from other polls, as in that the pro-life position was gaining ground.’
News to me. As far as I know there hasn’t been much change in opinion on this in decades.”
Even if that were true, there has never been a general consensus among the public on the issue of abortion. It was around 50/50 for a long time.
Has he been online since then? Maybe he just hasn’t gotten to it yet?
I have not seen an answer from Don Grundmann yet in regard to my questions to him about jury nullification. I’d be curious to see what he’s got to say about that.
News to me. As far as I know there hasn’t been much change in opinion on this in decades.
Paulie said: “paulie // Mar 1, 2013 at 2:34 pm
I could probably find something indicating the opposite conclusions if I did a search.”
I could do more searches for polls, but I have heard similar data from other polls, as in that the pro-life position was gaining ground.
What caused me to search for the poll is that George Phillies made it sound like all women were in favor of abortion, and this is clearly not true, and it is not even close to being true.
Hmmm. What if they can’t afford to get around, or have health or other issues that make it hard to go long distances? What if all the counties around them are the same way? What if the Sheriff just got elected and was just starting to enforce such a policy? What if they don’t know who the Sheriff is?
Paulie said: “Also, subjecting someone to a criminal trial – possibly holding them in jail until they are found not guilty as well – turns someone’s life upside down. It’s not some little thing where they are just found not guilty and go on with their life like nothing happened. Many people lose their jobs, families and friends because they are tried for crimes, even when they are found not guilty.”
Well then they’d be pretty damn stupid to have engage in the practice of abortion in a county where a sheriff has been elected who applies laws against murder to abortionists. Wouldn’t it be easier to go to a county that elects a sheriff that does not apply laws against murder to abortionists? DUH!!!!!!
I could probably find something indicating the opposite conclusions if I did a search.
Paulie said: “Andy quotes a poll from lifenews. I haven’t read the article, but I would question the methodology – sample selection, question wording, and so on. ”
The poll I quoted was NOT conducted by Lifenews or any pro-life group. They reported something that was from CNN.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Deism_in_the_United_States
In the United States, Enlightenment philosophy (which itself was heavily inspired by deist ideals) played a major role in creating the principle of religious freedom, expressed in Thomas Jefferson’s letters and included in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. American Founding Fathers, or Framers of the Constitution, who were especially noted for being influenced by such philosophy include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, and Hugh Williamson. Their political speeches show distinct deistic influence.
Other notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly deist. These include James Madison, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen,[51] and Thomas Paine (who published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism throughout the USA and Europe).
A major contributor was Elihu Palmer (1764–1806), who wrote the “Bible” of American deism in his Principles of Nature (1801) and attempted to organize deism by forming the “Deistical Society of New York”.
In the United States there is controversy over whether the Founding Fathers were Christians, deists, or something in between.[52][53] Particularly heated is the debate over the beliefs of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington.[54][55][56]
Benjamin Franklin wrote in his autobiography, “Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle’s lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist. My arguments perverted some others, particularly Collins and Ralph; but each of them having afterwards wrong’d me greatly without the least compunction, and recollecting Keith’s conduct towards me (who was another freethinker) and my own towards Vernon and Miss Read, which at times gave me great trouble, I began to suspect that this doctrine, tho’ it might be true, was not very useful.”[57][58] Franklin also wrote that “the Deity sometimes interferes by his particular Providence, and sets aside the Events which would otherwise have been produc’d in the Course of Nature, or by the Free Agency of Man.[59] He later stated, in the Constitutional Convention, that “the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God governs in the affairs of men.”[60]
For his part, Thomas Jefferson is perhaps one of the Founding Fathers with the most outspoken of Deist tendencies, though he is not known to have called himself a deist, generally referring to himself as a Unitarian. In particular, his treatment of the Biblical gospels which he titled The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, but which subsequently became more commonly known as the Jefferson Bible, exhibits a strong deist tendency of stripping away all supernatural and dogmatic references from the Christ story. However, Frazer, following the lead of Sydney Ahlstrom, characterizes Jefferson as not a Deist but a “theistic rationalist”, because Jefferson believed in God’s continuing activity in human affairs.[61][62] Frazer cites Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, where he wrote, “I tremble” at the thought that “God is just,” and he warned of eventual “supernatural influence” to abolish the scourge of slavery.[63][64]
Jill – The Homosexual/Sodomy Movement is simply announcing where they are going; i.e.; in 2 years they will be teaching ” gender identity ” and ” sexual expression.” The report stated that the current ( old ) standards started sex education in the 5th grade. So you call tell what the priorities of the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement really are. It is simply not good enough to start sex education in the 5th grade. NO, NO, NO. we have to start sex education at the same time ( at best ) and ideally before the children can even read or add numbers.
And consider this – How do you teach sex education to even 5th graders? How do you transmit that information to a KINDERGARTENER?? How do you teach ” gender identity ” and ” sexual expression ” to a KINDERGARTENER????
Answer – It is only a matter of time ( when and not if, and among all of the other ” creative ” techniques which they will use ) the children receive flash cards – this is a dog. Can you spell dog? This is a penis. Can you spell penis?
Certainly the teachers unions will have no problem finding members willing to do such monstrous ” teaching ” as while there will be singular teachers who object the union leaders ( dedicated followers one and all of the Enemy of God ) will be more than happy to ” teach ” such ” progressive ideas.” It will be easy for them to do since their primary mission is not education but Social Engineering.
So no Jill, they are not currently teaching sodomy. But it is only a matter of time until they do.
And the reason for that – which I will elaborate on later – is that you, and Paulie, and George, and Tom Knapp, and all of the other moral freaks will have ” tilled the garden ” so that such monstrous ” crops ” grow. You ( and yes you have millions of other freaks as company so I am picking on you at the moment as a more open example among the millions of other moral drones ) have provided the ” water ” in which these sick Chicago monsters, and all of the other ghouls across the nation, ” swim.”
As in Nazi Germany or Stalins Russia or Maos China, when people don’t stand up to monsters then the monsters win. And the monsters win because many citizens support and cheer on the monsters so that they do win. If they didn’t have enough support they would not win.
Bottom Line – Sodomy will be taught to kindergarteners in Chicago and all across the nation courtesy of millions of moral freaks inclusive of those who defend the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement at this website.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California – the only party, and representing the only people ( REAL human beings ), which will oppose teaching sodomy to children
B.S.
Pretty universal to (almost) all religions as well as ethical humanists.
Paulie – The unique religious views ” of Christianity are the foundational basis of the laws of our nation and they have formed the basis of our national and state laws and legal system from the beginning of our nation – until now. You can start with ” thou shalt not kill ” as the most fundamental and go on from there.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California – the last political party which will defend the ( Christian ) Constitutional foundations of our nation
Grundmann seems to believe that “… the fact that pro-life is a Christian perspective” and should be law. This is of course nonsense – people of all religions, and none, hold varying views on abortion, and no religion should be allowed to legislate their unique religious views.
Andy quotes a poll from lifenews. I haven’t read the article, but I would question the methodology – sample selection, question wording, and so on.
Also, subjecting someone to a criminal trial – possibly holding them in jail until they are found not guilty as well – turns someone’s life upside down. It’s not some little thing where they are just found not guilty and go on with their life like nothing happened. Many people lose their jobs, families and friends because they are tried for crimes, even when they are found not guilty.
As far as sodomy being taught to kidnergardners, as Don says above, I don’t believe that at all, even in the town of Chicago. I’d have to see some curriculum or films that do that to believe it’s done. I’m from a fmily of teachers, including my mother who taught kidnergarten most of her life. As dysfuntional as the public schools are, I really doubt that they’re teaching anything even close to sodomy. Puh-leez.
Thomas Kapp said: “Of course, when randomly picking a jury you just really don’t know what views you are going to get, but I’d say that a ‘median representative’ random jury to try someone for carrying out an abortion would have one juror who wanted to give the defendant lethal injection, one juror who wanted to give the defendant a medal, and ten jurors whose views would converge toward guilty or not guilty based on the circumstances.”
Yeah, I would agree with this. Another factor would be the area from which the jury is being pulled, but even so, I’ve found that there is enough diversity of opinion in this country to where you can still find some very conservative people who live in areas that are predominantly liberal, and very liberal people who live in areas that are predominantly conservative.
“Thomas L. Knapp // Mar 1, 2013 at 9:20 am
And @ 139,
As Brian Holtz wrote extensively on a few years ago, it’s even more complicated than a straight-line “should abortion be illegal or illegal?” poll will indicate.
A lot of people will respond that abortion should be illegal — but then say that it should be legal under this or that circumstance (ranging from life of the mother to health of the mother to rape, to incest, etc.).
A lot of people will respond that abortion should be legal — but then say that it should be illegal under this or that circumstance (ranging from partial-birth to late term to use for sex selection, etc.).”
I don’t know if you read the link I posted, but this is covered, at least somewhat, in the article.
There is an exception where some people who oppose abortion make this exception in cases of rape or in cases where the life of the mother is at risk due to the pregnancy. According to the survey, this changes things a little bit, but even with these exceptions, the survey still says that a majority of Americans (including women) are opposed to abortion being legal.
And @ 139,
As Brian Holtz wrote extensively on a few years ago, it’s even more complicated than a straight-line “should abortion be illegal or illegal?” poll will indicate.
A lot of people will respond that abortion should be illegal — but then say that it should be legal under this or that circumstance (ranging from life of the mother to health of the mother to rape, to incest, etc.).
A lot of people will respond that abortion should be legal — but then say that it should be illegal under this or that circumstance (ranging from partial-birth to late term to use for sex selection, etc.).
Once these various circumstances start getting trotted into the questions, it turns out that there are very small percentages of Americans who favor abortion being either legal or illegal under any and all circumstances, and those percentages get even smaller when slippery slope stuff (taxpayer subsidy at the pro-abortion end, building a police state to track women’s menstrual cycles at the other) gets put into the mix.
Of course, when randomly picking a jury you just really don’t know what views you are going to get, but I’d say that a “median representative” random jury to try someone for carrying out an abortion would have one juror who wanted to give the defendant lethal injection, one juror who wanted to give the defendant a medal, and ten jurors whose views would converge toward guilty or not guilty based on the circumstances.
I just did a search to find surveys on what percent of the public wants abortion to be illegal. This CNN poll came up in the search:
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/09/15/cnn-poll-62-want-all-or-most-abortions-made-illegal/
I don’t know how accurate their poll is, but according to their poll, 62% of Americans think that abortion should be illegal (at least in most cases). The poll also indicated that 60% of American women think that abortion should be illegal. 60% constitutes a majority of women, which flies in the face of what George Phillies said above.
If this survey is accurate, which I suspect that it may be at least fairly accurate since I’ve seen other surveys with similar results, it would seem that public opinion may indeed be shifting in a pro-life direction. However, it should be pointed out that if around 37-40% of the public thinks that abortion should be legal, that is more than enough to make it very difficult to get a jury conviction if somebody was going to be prosecuted for carrying out an abortion. Once again, it only takes 1 out or 12 jurors to hang a jury, so if there were randomly selected juries that were informed of their right of nullification, odds are high that at least one out of 12 jurors would be pro-abortion, and chances are that there’d be 3 or 4 pro-abortion jurors.
Still, this survey indicates that public opinion on abortion may be shifting in Don’s direction, but people like Don still have a lot of the public that they need to convince before they can get some more noticeable changes.
Don J. Grundmann said: “While I was writing comment #129 above they announced on the evening news that Chicago schools would ( within 2 years ) start teaching SEX EDUCATION IN KINDERGARTEN!!! And their emphasis will be on ( drum roll please ) – GENDER IDENTITY AND SEXUAL EXPRESSION!!!
TO KINDERGARTENERS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did all of you G—D— a-holes get that? Aren’t you sooooo proud now that KINDERGARTENERS are going to be taught sex education?
Yes, I am pissed off royally but I know that you will all be cheering. And it is indeed virtually inevitable.”
Don, isn’t the real issue here government control over education?
When the government forces people to pay taxes to fund schools which are run by the government, and when there are compulsory attendance laws to forces parents to send their children to school, should you really be surprised when things pop up in curriculum at schools which some people find to be objectionable, or when schools enact other policies which some people find to be objectionable?
The real issue here is not what should or should not be taught in public schools, but rather, why should public schools exist in the first place? Some would say that without government run schools, the general public would be uneducated. This is a laughable position, because if government schools did not exist, the demand for education would not go away. If the government schools ceased to exist and the taxes that fund them were repealed, people could purchase the education that they want in the open market.
Some people will say that others will not be able to afford an education and they will get left behind without government run schools. This assumes that the government schools are providing a great value right now. I’d say that the evidence is that the exact opposite is true. Government schools are overpriced and they provide a poor education, and government involvement in education has had a detrimental effect on private schools as well since they exist in a market where people are forced to fund their competition through taxes, and where they are under government mandates, and where many of their teachers were also trained at government schools. Government involvement in education has also had a detrimental effect on higher education as well, because it has greatly inflated the cost of attending colleges and universities. Most of the kids in government schools are not really learning that much anyway, certainly not enough to justify the cost of the schools.
If you research the history of public education, you will find that the public schools were not really set up to produce people who were well educated and who could engage in critical thinking, but rather, their primary purpose was to create a more obedient population who would go on to work for the government or for a big corporation.
So we should really not be surprised that public schools are inefficient. We should not be surprised that public schools deliver poor education. We should not be surprised when public schools teach material on enact policies which some find to be objectionable. We should not be surprised that the cost of attending a college or university has become so inflated that there is a major student debt bubble right now, and that many of these students who are facing these debts can not find decent paying work.
The real issue here is not what is being taught in the government schools, but rather, when are we as a county going to get the government out of the education business?
Here is an example of public opinion changing on an issue.
Chattel slavery was accepted as being OK at one time in history. Sure, some opposed it, but they were a minority. Gradually, the percentage of the public who accepted chattel slavery as being OK started to drop. So then chattel slavery became acceptable as long as the slaves were of a different race. Public opinion started to shift on this as well (and note that jury nullification played a role in this in American history, as the early adopter states which had outlawed chattel slavery had trials where runaway slaves from slave states had been captured, and were facing return to said slave states under fugitive slave laws, but there were cases where juries nullified the fugitive slave laws by refusing to convict them). Chattel slavery was eventually ended in this country and in most of the rest of the world, and is frowned upon today as a cruel and barbaric practice by an overwhelming majority of the public. If a person today suggested bringing back chattel slavery, they’d be looked at as some kind of wacko or psychopath. If a person practiced chattel slavery in the USA today and got caught, they’d have little chance (almost no chance) of finding a jury that would not convict them.
The reason that chattel slavery ended is because public opinion on the issue shifted to where a super-majority of people found it to be unacceptable.
This is why strong pro-lifers like Don should shift their focus to changing the hearts and minds of the public on this issue if they really want to be successful. Running to the government to change the enforcement of the law is not going to work unless you change the hearts and minds of enough of the public to where a super-majority supports your position.
Question for Don Grundmann:
Do you favor randomly selected juries that are fully informed of their right to judge not only the facts of a case, but also the validity of the law – and application of the law – itself?
I assume that as a member of the Constitution Party, that you do favor jury trials, right?
I don’t know if everyone in the Constitution Party favors the right of jury nullification or not, but I have spoken to a few people in the Constitution Party about this subject who have told me that they do favor the right of jury nullification.
“George Phillies // Mar 1, 2013 at 12:06 am
@125 And I thought some of Eric Dondero’s political opinions were a bit much. Your proposals are absurd. It is no wonder that the Libertarian Party has so much difficulty recruiting women if they think we support ideas like @125.”
Ok, so we have it on record now, George Philiies OPPOSES fully informed juries, and he also favors a strong federal government over decentralization, because this is all of which I’m favoring.
Prosecution of murder is a LOCAL issue, not a federal issue. So I am saying that localities should decided whether or not to prosecute people under murder statutes at the local level. Some localities may decide to prosecute, others may not.
If any locality decides to prosecute, then it would be up to a randomly selected fully informed jury as to whether or not to convict them. Some juries may chose to convict, others may not.
It is actually very difficult to get convictions if less than 90% of the public supports a law under a system of randomly selected fully informed juries. Given this fact, your pro-abortion side would actually be favored. Why? Because roughly 50% of the population thinks that abortion should be legal (maybe 51% or 52%).
Also, if any county elected a sheriff and District Attorney who were strong pro-lifers, abortion clinics would move out of that county. Given that the nation is so divided over the issue of abortion, I think that even if some counties elected pro-lifers, there’d be plenty of other counties that would elect pro-abortion people to office.
So as long as abortions took place in counties that elected pro-abortion people to law enforcement offices, there probably would not be anyone arrested for murder for engaging in abortions, unless they were foolish enough to do it in a county that elected pro-lifers as local law enforcers.
Even in the rare instances of anyone getting arrested for abortion, it would still be difficult to get a conviction, because it only takes one out of 12 jurors to hang a jury, and statistically speaking, even if a majority of people in a county were pro-life, it say only 25% or 30% of the people in a county were pro-abortion, statistics indicate that if the jury was truly randomly selected, there’s a good chance that there would be at least one pro-abortion person on the jury, and under this system, it would be required for juries to be fully informed of their right to judge not only the facts in the case, but the validity of the law – and application of the law – itself. The right of jury nullification would be common knowledge under the system for which I am proposing.
This is why I said that if strong pro-lifers like Don really want to change things in the country, they need to work on changing the hearts and minds of the public through persuasion that abortion is wrong. If strong pro-lifers like Don can swing public opinion on the issue then the demand for abortions would decrease greatly, and if any abortions still took place it would be more likely for juries to convict the offending parties than it would be if abortion went to jury trials right now.
Anyone who does not understand what I’m talking about here does not grasp the concepts of decentralization of power and jury nullification.
What I am proposing here is NOT really pro-life or pro-choice, but rather, how things would work under decentralization with fully informed juries.
Also, George Phillies automatically assumes that all women are pro-abortion. This is not true. Many women are pro-lifers.
“133 johnO // Mar 1, 2013 at 6:10 am
Hmmm, few Pro-Life Hindus, atheists, agnostics,Lesbians,etc. I doubt it.”
I don’t know about pro-life Hindus or Lesbians, but I have met pro-life atheists and agnostics.
Hmmm, few Pro-Life Hindus, atheists, agnostics,Lesbians,etc. I doubt it.
DG: ” As a secondary practical understanding of the political situation there are, relatively, very few pro-life homosexuals; this being due to the fact that pro-life is a Christian perspective and homosexuality is an anti-Christian perspective; i.e.; religion. Homosexuals, as with ( so-called ) ” feminists, ” understand that, for the survival of their denial ( that which protects their ego from the shattering, and liberating, truth that they are soul sick ) they must attack and destroy REAL, as compared to fake, Christianity in any manifestation; either in reality and/or symbolically. Hence they are more than happy to support abortion as it kills their enemies both literally and, especially, symbolically.”
So sez you. That’s YOUR view. I am also a Christian, and I say what you’re saying is a bunch of hogwash. I will pray that you will receive some enlightenment and tolerance from our creator, who made homosexuals just like He made you and me.
I’ve discussed this with you before, and I’m not going to continue. I have nothing more to say to a man who calls God’s children “monsters”.
to johnO regarding #117 : John -There are many reasons for which anyone afflicted by the soul poison of homosexuality may choose to or not to vote for a candidate of the Constitution Party.
In regard to this question I would say that the importance of the matter is as follows – 1) soul, 2) life, 3) political perspective. I would hence urge them to seek the healing Grace of their Creator that He may deliver them from the soul poison which manifests as their homosexual affliction. Being saved from eternal damnation, which will come to them via their rebellion against the Creator, is far more important than any political idea. This is so even if the Constitution Party, via its political perspectives, is blessed enough to be a part of the stimulus needed to awaken the afflicted to their need for salvation.
As a secondary practical understanding of the political situation there are, relatively, very few pro-life homosexuals; this being due to the fact that pro-life is a Christian perspective and homosexuality is an anti-Christian perspective; i.e.; religion. Homosexuals, as with ( so-called ) ” feminists, ” understand that, for the survival of their denial ( that which protects their ego from the shattering, and liberating, truth that they are soul sick ) they must attack and destroy REAL, as compared to fake, Christianity in any manifestation; either in reality and/or symbolically. Hence they are more than happy to support abortion as it kills their enemies both literally and, especially, symbolically.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California – the last party opposing both the literal ( via abortion ) and symbolic ( via abortion and attack by the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement ) death of children
Well here is good news for Paulie, Jill, George and all of the ( putting it very, and far too, nicely ) morally challenged people who participate at this site –
While I was writing comment #129 above they announced on the evening news that Chicago schools would ( within 2 years ) start teaching SEX EDUCATION IN KINDERGARTEN!!! And their emphasis will be on ( drum roll please ) – GENDER IDENTITY AND SEXUAL EXPRESSION!!!
TO KINDERGARTENERS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did all of you G—D— a-holes get that? Aren’t you sooooo proud now that KINDERGARTENERS are going to be taught sex education?
Yes, I am pissed off royally but I know that you will all be cheering. And it is indeed virtually inevitable. Our nation is dying. As John Adams said – the Constitution was made for a moral people. Well when you have immoral; i.e.; sick; people ruling – people ( actually they are not even human anymore ) who will support TEACHING SODOMY TO KINDERGARTENERS – then your nation is dead.
It is in fact a zombie nation. Just like its dead citizens it is dead but too stupid to know it.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California, the last moral party left at the death of the Republic of the United States of America and the last ( actually the only ) party which will oppose teaching sodomy to kindergarteners
Mr. Phillies – George, George, George!!! Regarding the ” clutch of wrong ideas ” can you actually DEFEND your ideas rather than just talking about how right they are?????
As I have shown in multiple spots above I can blow titanic sized holes in your rowboat sized ideas. Yet you persist in parroting your intellectual dishonesty ( to put a nice spin on it ) –
A) It is easily demonstrable that the theory ( actually claimed as fact by its religious believers, such as you ) of evolution, even and especially narrowing it down to man evolving from dirt and water via time, is mathematically impossible. Can you FINALLY challenge this or will you follow the Al Gore playbook of simply ignoring the Titanic and continuing to row your dingy; i.e.; acting and/or actually being oblivious?
B) Ditto with so-called ” Global Warming.” You can actually make money for whatever cause you wish ( if not just your own pocket ) if you can only disprove the science in the book ” Climategate ” by Brian Sussman.
That should be easy to do for an expert such as yourself. Right???
So are you a REAL scientist or are you the current equivalent( like Al Gore ) of Professor Irwin Corey – Why it’s obvious!!! You don’t have enough hougicney in your tilopnopy!!
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constituion Party of California – the party of REAL science and using that REAL science to benefit, and not attack, America and humanity as a whole
“Trutherism” is conservative? How so? It seems to cut across the political spectrum, as far as I can tell.
I’ll grant the other ideas you mention tend to be more prevalent on the right.
As far as I know Andy is not anti-evolutionist or religious, but he does tend to hold those other views.
As for myself, I mostly don’t, other than my problems with the official government approved 9/11 conspiracy theory.
@125 And I thought some of Eric Dondero’s political opinions were a bit much. Your proposals are absurd. It is no wonder that the Libertarian Party has so much difficulty recruiting women if they think we support ideas like @125.
Having said that, there is a very large scientific research area on safety of medicinals.
With respect to gullible believers of lame stream media, the real rpoblems are the conservatives and CIABN (Conservatives In All But Name), the people who rather uniformly have adopted the same clutch of wrong ideas, notably global warming denial, trutherism, birtherism, anti-evolutionism, antiabortionism, opposition to gay marriage, and readers should be able to fill in more.
On these matters, I have far mroe respect tor Dr Grunmann, who is honest and straightforward about being a conservative with a solid set of conservative beliefs, than I do for Libertarians in Name Only who believe all those things.
Yeah…I’m not too sure a war over abortion would be a great idea.
But then again, I think in a society free from the shackles of monopoly government and its red tape we would have already had artificial wombs, and there would be a lot less unwanted pregnancies for many reasons.
Paulie: “So in other words, abortion would be made effectively illegal, because it would be open hunting season on anyone who provides one?”
Maybe to an extent. I remember you saying this several years ago.
It would not necessarily be illegal, but there may be some hardcore pro-lifers who’d take it upon themselves to go after abortion doctors vigilante style. If caught, their fate would be up to the jury.
The same with those who chose to get abortions. If they do it in a county with an anti-abortion sheriff, the sheriff could arrest them and charge them with murder. Then their fate would be tied to a jury.
Actually, what I am describing is what we could have right now in this country if the 10th amendment were actually being of followed, and if we had fully informed juries.
Under such a system I would think that abortion doctors and women seeking abortions would not operate in counties that had anti-abortion sheriffs. Pro-life groups would focus on getting sheriffs elected who’d arrest abortionists. I supposed they’d also work to get anti-abortion District Attorneys in office as well.
People who support abortion would work to get sheriffs and DA’s put in office who were favorable to those seeking abortions.
So what you’d probably end up with is some vigilante pro-lifers going after abortionists. Since we’d have a libertarian society, the abortionists could carry guns and hire body guards. There could be some nasty confrontations from time to time, which could make for a good movie.
Oh well. Different strokes for different folks, I guess…
I wonder if Dr. Grundmann wouldn’t want Pro-Life Hindus, Pro-Life atheists, Pro-Life agnostics, Pro-Life Buddhists, etc to NOT vote for the CP as well. Very strange all these Pro-Life folks NOT welcome in Dr. Grundmann’s CP.
Yeah, sounds pretty exaggerated to me, too.
I really have issues with calling transgender children monsters. In fact, I have such a problem with it that everything Don Grandmann has to say is invalidated to me. I don’t believe any children are monsters.
I agree with Paulie that nakedness from either gender shouldn’t be such a big deal.
Also, I have a son who has finished the public school system in 2011 (although I suppose we can consider UCLA a public school, which is where he is now.) I was a very involved mom; I knew most of the kids he went to school with and many of the parents. What Don refers to in the schools is utter nonsense. I don’t believe Don had a child in school, so he’s certainly not speaking from experience.
So in other words, abortion would be made effectively illegal, because it would be open hunting season on anyone who provides one?
I haven’t raised any kids, but if I did, they would not be taught that the human body is something to be ashamed of. They would probably see naked people of both genders all throughout their lives, of all ages. Of course, that’s assuming that it would be up to me; it’s more likely that their (hypothetical) mother might have a say in that.
The whole hangup we have in this culture that kids should not see nudity is a relatively recent and localized phenomenon in global and historical terms. Throughout most of human history, and in most of the world today, kids grew up seeing other kids (boys and girls) naked, grew up watching farm animals as well as their parents having sex, etc.
I can even (barely) remember when my parents and I lived in one room in Russia, so as you might imagine they did not have any privacy. I really don’t see it as monstrous or horrible. Omygosh, little girls might see a penis and their whole world will end? Kids have a natural and healthy curiosity about each other’s bodies and guess what – most of them have seen one, even long before they have sex.
If anything, it’s much more monstrous to force a little boy who self-identifies as a girl to be in an all-boys locker room.
It’s something that would subject any kid to a lot of ridicule from their peers…boys aren’t going to subject themselves to that just so they can see girls naked.
Also, as I’m sure you know, there are GLBT kids, so having unisex locker rooms does not keep kids from changing in front of other kids who are sexually attracted to them.
To Andy
I’m scared of eye-for-eye. Makes us too close to Saudi Arabia+Iran. Chopping hands off for stealing,stoning adulterers etc.
johnO said: “To Andy, Do you think a women who had an abortion be given the death penalty because she has stopped a beating heart? Should Ms. Lewinsky(who stated she had abortions) get the death penalty?”
I don’t know, it would be interesting to see what outcome a jury came up with if such a case went to trial.
Some could view it to being similar to a woman who murders their children, like that Susan Smith (I think that was her name) woman in South Carolina several years back that locked her kids in a car and then pushed the car in to a lake and they drowned. I think that she had some kind of cock & bull story, like that some black guy did it, but then it later came out that she did it. Did she receive the death penalty? I would think that she must have at least gotten life in prison.
I have a question for Dr. Grundmann. Should Pro-Life Lesbians, Pro-Life Gays, Pro-Life Bi-sexuals, Pro-Life Transgenders NOT vote for the CP because of their sexuality even though they agree with your position on Abortion?
-To Andy, Do you think a women who had an abortion be given the death penalty because she has stopped a beating heart? Should Ms. Lewinsky(who stated she had abortions) get the death penalty?
Paulie said: “Overall, so long as a significant portion of the population believes abortion is not murder, passing laws won’t end it or even necessarily reduce it, it will just create a black market.
Abortion opponents should focus on changing public opinion and the culture first, and the law last.”
Yes, this is along the lines of what 1996 and 2000 Libertarian Party candidate for President Harry Browne advocated. He thought that abortion was wrong, but he didn’t think that running to the government to change the law was the correct way to go. He suggested that anti-abortion activists focus on changing the hearts and minds of people on the issue through persuasion, and that they also raise money to help out single moms and to help orphanages and to help facilitate adoptions.
As I stated above, if there were fair jury trials against both people who commit abortion as well as though who commit violence against abortion doctors, I think that the public is so divided on this issue that either side could have trouble getting convictions (and once again, by fair jury trials I mean ones where the jury was actually chosen at random and people were not eliminated through an unfair Voir Dire process, and where every juror was informed about their right of nullification).
Paulie said: “{Regarding lifeboat ethics, the counter-argument is that when someone boarded a ship, plane etc., they were a living person with rights, and there is thus an implicit contract to get them off the vehicle alive (status quo ante – the state they were previously in). But, status quo ante for a fetus is not being alive.”
The counter-argument to this is that by consenting to engage in a sex act that can result in procreation, the woman invited the fetus into the womb. Even if birth control was used, everyone knows that birth control does not always work. The risk was taken going into it.
A counter-argument to this is what about a birth resulting from rape? I think that there is a better argument for “early ejection” of the fetus in cases of rape, however, some would argue that a life is a life, and the fact that it was the result of rape does not take away from that.
If there were a rape exception (which I can see some logic for, since there was no consent in the action which resulted in the fetus), then one consequence is that it could result in more women lying about being raped so they can get abortions.
I think that the localized approach that I suggested above with jury trials made up of randomly selected jurors who are fully informed of their rights as jurors may be the best way to settle the issue. Then each side in the debate can use the art of persuasion to try to win people over to their line of thinking. If one side gains an edge of the other side then there will be a higher conviction rate for their opposition.
Nor do I.
NF @ 112: Some of the smartest people I know don’t question things, including a brother of mine. I just don’t get it.
George is a progressive, Jill. not a libertarian. He buys into a lot of crappola that the “state” is selling.
As for George Phillies’ comment at 8, I ran across this article about vaccines. I’m sure the site called “Vactruth” has an agenda, but it does list several articles as their source at the end of the article.
http://vactruth.com/2013/02/26/rebels-shooting-vaccine-workers/
Don… I really enjoyed your post at 107.
Paulie – I just went to the B4U-ACT website where the motto is ” living in truth and dignity.”
This is the real objective of the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement and will be implimented immediately after pervert marriage is legalized.
Englsh translation from the site ( translated from ” Obamish ” into ” old fashioned ” English –
” Minor attracted person ” means child molestor.
” Intergenerational sex ” means molesting children.
As you can see for yourself at the site, ” scientific studies ” are already being conducted so the the ” bigotry, ” hatred,” ” homophobia,” yada, yada, yada of normal people will be changed ( via Social Engineering ) to total acceptance of child molestation; i.e.; any tyoe of sex withany child at any age and for any reason. It will be yet another ” new normal.”
This is the ” world as a brighter place ” that the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement is referring to.
And of course only ” homophobes ” would oppose ” intergenerational sex.”
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California, the LAST political party that will stand in defense of children and against their molestation.
As for the other part of your comment –
I note that in all California schools there is the following mechanism in place – If I am a high school ( for now and soon to be in ALL other schools ) student I can go to school and say – I feel like a girl today. Based on my ” feeling,” actually it is called my ” gender expression,” I can then use the girls bathrooms whenever I like AND I can take a shower in the girls lockerroom whenever I like.
If anyone challenges me and says – Hey, you’re a guy. Get out of here!! – THEY have just descriminated against ME. I can then sue them for violating my civil rights and they will be ” reeducated “( socially engineered ) by the school powers that be so they will no longer ” discriminate ” against me.
The monstrous ” laws ” which allow this sickness to occur will soon be initiated across the nation. They are in place ( having already been or currently being passed ) yet are being held back from implimentation at this moment by the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement as the resultant bad publicity would hamper the legalization of pervert marriage.
As an addition to this sick occurance the boy claiming to be a girl does NOT need to have surgery first before he exposes his genitals to the girls in the bathroom or lockerroom. The explanation for this is that since surgery costs so much it is discriminatory to force someone to first have the surgery before they ” express themself.”
Question(s) –
1) Is it ” homophobic ” for a father to not want his daughter to be exposed to male ( of any age ) genitals in her bath or locker rooms? Is the father ” old-fashioned ” if he objects? Is he ” bigoted?” Is he a ” hater?” Are they only objecting because they ” fear change?”
2) Is ” the world a brighter place ” when a boy, or even an older male of whatever age, claiming to be a ” transgender ” ( actually a self-mutilator ) exposes himself to girls in their bath and/or locker rooms?
3) Does the Libertarian Party consider parents who object to such behavior; i.e; boys or older males exposing their genitals to girls; to be ” homophobic?” Are they being ” bigoted?” Are they REALLY ” haters?” Do parents only object because they ” fear change?”
The very idea of such monstrous behavior being not just tolerated but ACTALLY PROMOTED!! by politicians and even WHOLE POLITICAL PARTIES!! would have been considered as ” Twilight Zone ” material and totally impossible just a few years ago. Fast forward through the death of our nation and what was once unthinkable is now considered as “the new normal.”
The behavior described above is only the very smallest beginning of the ” change ” which normal people will be told they must embrace, support, and promote lest they be smeared as ” haters,” ” bigots,” ” homophobic,” and people who ” fear change.”
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California, the party which is the LAST outpost of sanity in any political party both in California and across the nation; & the last party standing in defense of traditional; i.e.; sane; moral values; and against the war of perversion/sickness which is attacking our children.
P.S. – As I write this I was listening to the radio in the background and ABC news was mentioning a case where the parents of the pervert ( a boy in the hypothetical but all too real above example ) complained that the school which is trying to protect girls from their teenage pervert is actually ” discriminating ” against their little monster.
P.S. – Paulie – Would you even protect your own daughter(s) from such monsters???
Paulie – Thank you for your comment in #93.
Don Grundmann
Brian and Jose have a good suggestion. I would support a change to that language. It is far less muddled and confusing than what we have now.
Regarding lifeboat ethics, the counter-argument is that when someone boarded a ship, plane etc., they were a living person with rights, and there is thus an implicit contract to get them off the vehicle alive (status quo ante – the state they were previously in). But, status quo ante for a fetus is not being alive.
I could get into additional levels of counter-arguments.
Overall, so long as a significant portion of the population believes abortion is not murder, passing laws won’t end it or even necessarily reduce it, it will just create a black market.
Abortion opponents should focus on changing public opinion and the culture first, and the law last. Instead, most of them have taken to the idea that a change in the law can precede a change in public attitudes and behavior. That theory has never worked for any of the other things that have been banned (but remained popular and accepted) that I can think of.
“From Der Sidelines // Feb 27, 2013 at 1:01 am
Even simpler:
Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one, don’t deny others the same choice, and don’t have any government pay for it under any circumstances.
Cuts right through the bullshit and flower prose and avoids letting Holtz out of his cage.”
It’s really not that simple if one believes that life begins at conception. If one is of that point of view, what you are saying is like saying, “Don’t like murder? Then don’t murder anyone, but don’t deny others the right to murder people.”
How about this? Have abortion decided on at the local level. If a local sheriff arrests an abortion doctor and charges them with murder, have it go to a jury trial. Fully inform the jury of their right to judge not only the facts of the case, but also the validity of the law (or in this case, the application of the law) itself. The same could go for people who decide to murder (or beat up) abortion doctors. They get a jury trial and their defense is that they were stopping a mass murderer.
Given the divide on abortion in this country I think that either side could have a difficult time getting a jury conviction, especially if the juries were really chosen at random and were informed of their right of nullification.
Under this system, it would either end up that it would be too difficult to convict anybody under murder laws for carrying out an abortion, or being an abortion doctor would become a dangerous profession.
Really, to consistently enforce any law under a system where juries were really chosen at random and where they were informed of their right to nullify the law, the law would have to have a lot of popular support. The less popular the law is, the more difficult it would be to get convictions.
There are a lot of unpopular laws being enforced right now, but the government still has a high conviction rate because juries are stacked by voir dire to weed out people who are independent thinkers, and juries are not told of their right to nullify laws, thus further decreasing the likelihood of anyone voting in opposition to the law.
Even simpler:
Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one, don’t deny others the same choice, and don’t have any government pay for it under any circumstances.
Cuts right through the bullshit and flower prose and avoids letting Holtz out of his cage.
@102 What about this:
Recognizing that when human life begins is a sensitive issue on which Libertarians can disagree in good faith, we believe government should not restrict, subsidize, encourage, or dictate the decision to begin or ends one pregnancy.
1.4. Procreation Abortion
Recognizing that when human rights begin abortion is a sensitive issue on which Libertarians can disagree in good faith and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should not restrict, subsidize, or dictate the decision to begin or end one’s pregnancy.
@84 The California central valley and vicinity, which is where I met Dr Grundmann, is very definitely not similar to San Francisco, not at all.
Don J. Grundmann said: “but I am quite happy to care for my mother. She just turned 90 a few days ago, pedals a bicycle everyday day, and ( via myself ) receives extremely superior health care which, upon reflection, she could and would not receive virtually anywhere else in the nation. So I am quite happy to aid her in any way possible and especially to do so in a way that she can thrive as few others of her age are able to do.”
I think that it is quite honorable that Don is helping to take care of his mother.
“Hey, you should not throw that person would because doing so you will cause their death.”
Should read: “Hey, you should not throw that person out until after the plane lands – or the ship docks – because if you throw them out now it will result in their death.”
“{72 johnO // Feb 26, 2013 at 4:17 pm
Andy,
Thus if someone has/had an abortion (like Ms. Lewinsky) because they have stopped a beating heart their heart should be terminated also? Hmm, that sounds like the state forcing someone to give birth.”
Going by what you are saying, it would be OK for a pilot to throw a passenger out of an airplane during mid flight, or a captain of a ship to throw a passenger out in the middle of the ocean, and then if somebody says, “Hey, you should not throw that person would because doing so you will cause their death.” you replied, “You are infringing on my rights by forcing me to land the plane – or dock the ship – with this passenger in it.”
Throwing a person out of a moving plane, train, automobile, or ship is likely to result in their death, and if a person does this to a passenger, they will likely be prosecuted for murder.
I don’t think the argument you put forth stands up to rational scrutiny. If life begins at conception, and if a women ejects the fetus and the fetus dies as a result of the ejection, then it is like throwing a person out of a moving plane, train, automobile, or ship. So under this line of thinking, the fetus would have to removed in a manner that does not result in death, just as a pilot would have to land the plane before throwing somebody out, or a driver would have to pull over before throwing somebody out, or a train would have to stop before throwing somebody out, or a ship would have to dock before throwing somebody out.
You are better off arguing that life does not begin at conception or that a fetus should not have any rights, because the argument you put forth here does not hold up to rational scrutiny.
“Of course quoting a Bible verse is guaranteed to gain yet another sneer from you as is the very idea of following instructions from God”
How about this one here?
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
I can see where a humor impaired person might take our kidding around that way.
DG @ 92: ” the sneers of you and Jill at the idea of caring for parents are the ” new normal ” ”
Now you’re making things up. Please don’t.
As for the other part of your comment…
Actually, Don, all kidding aside, kudos for taking care of your mom, and I hope she lives many more healthy years.
I have a penchant for making wisecracks, but I wouldn’t truly sneer at that, and knowing Jill she wouldn’t either.
Paulie – Of course you can be expected to sneer at the idea but I am quite happy to care for my mother. She just turned 90 a few days ago, pedals a bicycle everyday day, and ( via myself ) receives extremely superior health care which, upon reflection, she could and would not receive virtually anywhere else in the nation. So I am quite happy to aid her in any way possible and especially to do so in a way that she can thrive as few others of her age are able to do.
” Honor thy father and they mother that it may be well with thee and thou mayest live long on the earth.” Of course quoting a Bible verse is guaranteed to gain yet another sneer from you as is the very idea of following instructions from God which I honor and thank for creating me as compared to your preference of telling Him to go to hell.
In the founding years of the nation caring for parents would have been considered as natural as breathing. But of course that was when we were a Christian nation.
In our current post-Christian culture and society the sneers of you and Jill at the idea of caring for parents are the ” new normal ” as are other previously unthinkable ideas such as indoctrinating elementary school students into homosexuality via having LGBTQ clubs in their schools ( as is currently happening at my alma mater ).
The death of the United States Republic is occurring on many different fronts but the leading point of the spear tip stabbing our nation in the back is the death of our Christian culture and its replacement by its anti-Christian opponent with the breakdown of the nuclear family, willingness to throw our elderly into the trash can, and sacrificing our children to homosexual perversion being just 3 of the all too numerous signs of a culture and society which embraces the love of death as its new ruling religion.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the party which, without apology, supports and defends the nuclear and normal family of a man and a woman, the children of our nation, and our Christian foundations
??Wow?? Paulie that’s &@#$ weird. As NF said!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycho_(film)
That’s just plain weird!
I don’t know whether they live together, but I’ve heard that they have a very close relationship, more than what most people consider to be normal. Maybe they live together.
I’m not sure how old Don Grundmann is. I think middle aged, maybe 4os or 50s, give or take a decade?
As of the last time I heard anything about it she was alive; if she died since then I haven’t received the news. Presumably she’s a real live person and not Don Grundmann in a wig and dress 🙂
@86
Good points. War is not Pro-Life at all. It’s ultimate death.
Paulie,
Dr. Grundmann lives with his mother? How old is he? Is she alive? Or, gulp , is she dead?
JohnO @ 79: I’m a Libertarian woman, and I don’t object to changing the wording of the platform, as Paulie suggested. I believe that it is such a personal issue that I don’t even wish to think about it or discuss it, howwever. My experience with the issue among Libertarians is that it’s about 50/50 pro-birth, pro-choice.
I research using “pro-life” as a description only for people who are truly pro-life, in that they oppose war and the inevitable loss of civilians that occurs. A pro-life person values ALL human life, even those whop live in different countries.
Paulie @ 84: Priceless comment! I’m glad to have you back.
I think the CP is hardline on Abortion no deviations. Banned.
Yep.
On a side note why does Dr. Grundmann stay in CA? That state totally against his beliefs. He should move to Kansas, Utah, Montana, or Missouri. Head scratcher.
Ever watch Hitchcock’s Psycho?
“MOTHER!”
I think the CP is hardline on Abortion no deviations. Banned. Dr. Grundmann above comments kind’ve trash the LP and Mr. Phillies. Cynthia Davis says no abortions of any kind and well Mrs. Dugger has 19 children(I’m not sure if she can produce anymore age?). The R’s I agree with you paulie they want the votes not the voters and try to stay Pro-Life/Pro-Choice. The Greens, D’s and Socialists all seem to want to force the taxpayer to pick-up the tab for Abortions. May not be absolute of course but to join the CP, as Mr. Grundmann said above, banned always.
-On a side note why does Dr. Grundmann stay in CA? That state totally against his beliefs. He should move to Kansas, Utah, Montana, or Missouri. Head scratcher.
Of course, the same is true outside the LP as well.
Ok.
Much like LP men, they are not unanimous on the issue.
paulie what does LP women think of your platform change? Or, proposed change of Abortion. That would be an interesting question/debate.
The language is a bit confusing. I would get rid of the opening clause
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides,
Of course people hold good faith views on all sides. This is true of any issue in the public square.
Combined with the last part ( leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration) this creates the misunderstanding among some people that the question we leave to each person for their conscientious consideration is whether abortion should be legal.
But, if that was the case, the middle part would read “we believe that THE LP should be kept out of the matter,” and that’s not what it says.
It would be less confusing to say something like
“We believe that government should be kept out of the abortion decision, leaving the question to each woman faced with that decision for her conscientious consideration.”
That may not be the best possible phrasing, but it would be less confusing than the way it’s phrased now.
Common sense position.
http://www.lp.org/platform
1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
@73
Ok, I like that answer.(The official LP position).
Also, I knew many people on the left (IE in favor of civil liberties, anti-war, and for a bigger government when it comes to social programs) who are anti-New World Order/managed trade/global government. It’s not necessarily just a far right position.
It depends on which Libertarian you talk to.
The official LP position.
I was amused at Phillies’ lumping together any questioning of the media as an extreme right-wing conspiracy.
Some truthers are far right, others are far left, some are libertarian, some are (you name it)…
Andy,
Thus if someone has/had an abortion (like Ms. Lewinsky) because they have stopped a beating heart their heart should be terminated also? Hmm, that sounds like the state forcing someone to give birth. So, logic would say Ms. Lewinsky terminated her fetus/baby ergo she should be terminated. Eye-for-Eye. That is biblical . That is closer to CP no deviations. It is true that some atheists are Pro-Life and wouldn’t be comfortable in CP than LP but how do you force Ms. Lewinsky to give birth? Or any women unless the state arrests her once pregnant and puts her in jail. That is not freedom to me and way to much “force”. I do agree the question of the soul/beating heart when a cell is dividing and
life after conception is a compelling argument. However, force has to come into the picture to give birth. So, the only way to “save”every baby/fetus is for the state to get involved in every pregnancy. I don’t even think Pro-Life women like Mrs. Dugger or Cynthia Davis would want the state involved in their pregnancy.
“Jill Pyeatt // Feb 26, 2013 at 2:56 pm
I was amused at Phillies’ lumping together any questioning of the media as an extreme right-wing conspiracy. Many right-wingers won’t question the Swiss-Cheese version–AKA the official story–of 9-11 because it implicates St Dubya and St Cheney.”
It depends on what kind of right winger about whom you are speaking. The mainstream Republican “right wingers” believed whatever Bush and Cheney told them to believe. The kind of conservatives who question the official government story about 9/11 are mostly paleo-conservatives, and most of them are not in the Republican Party. You’ll be more likely to find them in the Constitution Party or some other party, or in no political party, than you are to find them in the Republican Party.
“johnO // Feb 26, 2013 at 2:53 pm
The LP doesn’t believe in ‘forcing people’ to have/or not an abortion.”
It depends on which Libertarian you talk to. Some Libertarians view abortion as murder, which is an act of aggression, so therefore they argue that stopping an abortion or going after a person who carries out an abortion is like stopping a murder from taking place, or going after a murderer.
The real divide is the question of when does life begin, and when do individual rights begin.
I was amused at Phillies’ lumping together any questioning of the media as an extreme right-wing conspiracy. Many right-wingers won’t question the Swiss-Cheese version–AKA the official story–of 9-11 because it implicates St Dubya and St Cheney.
The LP doesn’t believe in “forcing people” to have/or not an abortion. LP isn’t for forcing people to get pregnant. LP isn’t for forcing people to have intercourse. Again, the key word is FORCE. LP is opposed to forcing people to do things against their will. Other parties have said they’ll force you to pay more taxes, force one not to drink a certain size soda, force one not to have trans fat, force one not to drink, force one to marry so-and-so etc. Mr. Lesiak says LP is for abortion, not so, it’s against force. LP is against forcing the taxpayer to pay for this decision. The CP will ban it outright. This would be ok for Mrs. Dugger who gave birth to 19 children (1 lost to miscarriage) but not ok to Ms. Lewinsky who had intercourse (more than 1 time) and had abortions (by her own account). The CP would force Ms. Lewinsky to give birth. The LP, on the otherhand didn’t/wouldn’t force Mrs Dugger to have 19 abortions? Key word is “force” and only the LP has stated to let individual have freedom without forcing individual to do something against their will.
“Krzysztof Lesiak // Feb 26, 2013 at 8:36 am
I agree about 9/11. There should be a new inquiry into it. As the saying goes, ‘truth does not fear investigation.’ I remember the LP had a resolution introduced at the 2006 (I think?) national convention that called for a new 9/11 investigation. Sadly, it did not pass.”
I did not attend the 2006 LP National Convention in Portland, but I did follow it online, and I do not recall there being any motion to have a real investigation into 9/11. There was a motion to call for the impeachment of George W. Bush which unfortunately got voted down (there were too many people there who were afraid of offending mainstream Republicans), but I’m not aware of an investigate 9/11 motion from that convention.
Myself and a couple of other LP members did attempt to get a motion passed at the 2010 LP National Convention in St. Louis to investigate 9/11, but unfortunately it got shot down and did not even make it so far for as to have all of the delegates vote on it.
I really think that it is a shame that such a disturbing number of Libertarian Party members have been so cowardly and naive, and in some cases, even hostile, when it comes to investigating 9/11. This is not true of the entire party or movement, but it is true for a lot of the people who show up at LP Conventions, and they are the ones who get to vote on such things, and they are also the ones who vote for who gets to be on the LNC.
I think that it is shameful that the national LP never passed an impeach George W. Bush resolution (especially since it passed one to impeach Bill Clinton back in the 1990’s), and I think that it is equally shameful that the national LP has never passed a resolution to question the official government story about 9/11 and to call for a new investigation.
This is a big part of why I started Libertarians for 9/11 Truth:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertariansfor911Truth/
People who question the official government story about 9/11 are already skeptical of government, and the are already anti-war of aggression and anti-police state, so these factors make them a prime target for recruitment into the Libertarian Party / movement. A lot of them are already a part of the libertarian movement, it is just that not a lot of them have joined the Libertarian Party (which is not to say that there are not a lot of 9/11 Truthers in the LP, because there are a good number of them, but I’m referring to the number of people who “woke up” and got active because of 9/11). Why? I’d say look to the Impeach Bush resolution getting voted down in 2006 and the Investigate 9/11 resolution not even making it far enough to get to a floor vote in 2010 as examples.
“Krzysztof Lesiak // Feb 26, 2013 at 12:26 pm
Don, I agree with you. And the fact the most in the LP support abortion is the main reason I’ll never be able to get a membership card. ”
There is no requirement that to join the LP you’ve got to be in favor of abortion.
“Krzysztof Lesiak // Feb 26, 2013 at 12:26 pm
Don, I agree with you. And the fact the most in the LP support abortion is the main reason I’ll never be able to get a membership card.”
I don’t have an exact breakdown, but there are actually a lot more people in the Libertarian Party who oppose abortion than a lot of people realize.
Ask the black guy in this video whom Ron Paul helped back in the early 1970’s if Ron Paul is a bigot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4
Jill Pyeatt: “I don’t believe Dr. Paul is a racist now, so I won’t get too upset about stuff that happened 20 years ago.”
Jill, I don’t think that Ron Paul was a racist back then either. Some guy named James B. Powell was hired as a part of a revolving staff of writers for one of Ron Paul’s newsletters and he mouthed off and made some non=PC comments in a few issues. Ben Swamm correctly points out that Ron Paul put out newsletters for many years, but it was just a small handful of issues that contained the offending passages in question. Ron Paul is a busy guy and he delegates a lot of work to other people. Chances our that he did not even read those newsletters in question himself until well after they were out. I really think that this is much ado about nothing.
I think the LP position on Abortion is the state should not be involved in a individual decision. I don’t think they would be in favor of forcing the taxpayer to pay for the procedure (like the D’s, Greens, and variety of Socialist parties). Key word is “force”. CP has stated, as Mr. Grundmann stated, will ban all abortions, no deviations. Now what Mr. Grundmann says about Mr. Phillies I’m not sure he believes in “forcing” someone to have abortions. I may be wrong. The other issues about LP, Ron Paul, “rebel south” is folks who believed in apartheid were once “Democrats”. They now have no natural home and may like Ron Paul’s “let the states run own lives” or “states rights”. If I’m right they started to follow Goldwater in the 1960’s. Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul would probably not be welcomed to the new fascist party “American Freedom Party”. They DO believe in Apartheid. On a side note Farrakhan, and “New Black Panther Party” want whites, blacks, asian, etc. to not be together and get their own land in America. Farrakhan wants Chicago Gang members to protect own turf from “others”. So, each group of peoples has bad apples or bananas.
Don, I agree with you. And the fact the most in the LP support abortion is the main reason I’ll never be able to get a membership card. That is why I wish the CP luck. I just hope they can get their act together after the whole Virgil Goode fiasco.
Since the discussion is on racism and has been initiated by the ohhhhhhh soooooooo smart Mr. Phillies then let’s discuss the most racist organization in the history of the nation, one which has been funded even to this second to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars by the government, and which has killed literally millions of its preferential targets ( far more than the KKK could ever dream of ), those being non-white and of greater preference to them blacks citizens in particular.
Of course I am speaking of Planned Parenthood whose founder, Margaret Sanger, was a key part of the Eugenics ( race science ) Movement who declared that blacks are ” human weeds.” The spectacular ” success ” of Planned Parenthood in attacking their enemies, while hiding behind the skirts of women with the surface cover story of ” helping ” them which has morphed via marketing and public relations to that they are now a ” health clinic,” has resulted in the decimation of the family structure of the black community; a happy result for the caucasian liberals who funded, and continue to do so to this moment, the effort so that ” they ” could be kept in their place on the national and even global plantation by their genetically superior ( as seen by themselves ) massas.
The result to this moment is that ALL major parties of the nation – Democrat. Green, Libertarian, and even the Republicans via their ” moderate ” division ) – , EXCEPT for the Constitution Party, happily and proudly run interference for, and give support to, the most racist organization in the history of the nation.
Bottom Line – Not only are literally millions of women killed; i.e.; via 1/2 of all abortions; but the main target, the black community, of the most organized racist campaign in the history of the world has been, and continues to this moment to be, decimated by their greatest enemies who pretend to be their friends in order to get close enough to put the knife in their back.
Add in countless ” Uncle and Aunt Toms;” blacks who will betray their own people in return for the scraps which fall from their massas tables ( see here Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and too many others ); along with continuing oodles of white liberals( Hello, Mr. Phillies ) who are more than willing to kill as many children as possible to burnish their anti-Christian credentials and the result is an A) killing machine that is virtually unstoppable, and a B) black community that will ( intentionally by the actions of its caucasian attackers ) never recover to be anything but a relative outhouse on the Global Plantation.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California, the ONLY California party which will expose and fight the most vicious racists in the history of the nation, and the ONLY party which will stand in defense of the black community.
I agree about 9/11. There should be a new inquiry into it. As the saying goes, “truth does not fear investigation.” I remember the LP had a resolution introduced at the 2006 (I think?) national convention that called for a new 9/11 investigation. Sadly, it did not pass.
As for birtherism, I don’t know anything about it. There may or may not be some truth to it.
Is Ron Paul a racist?
Only he knows.
Nobody else CAN know, because the one thing we can know with absolute certainty about Ron Paul is that he’s an accomplished liar.
With respect to the newsletters, the stuff went out under his byline, in a newsletter with his name on it, to his personal and political profit, and he publicly affirmed personal authorship and defended the material in 1996 before disclaiming authorship and denouncing the material in 1997.
That’s sort of similar to how he operated in Congress.
When he’s in a room full of libertarians with their checkbooks, he’s against any government spending not enumerated in the Constitution. When he’s in a room full of Texas shrimpers with their checkbooks, he’s in favor of the $X million earmark he just stuck in the federal budget to have the University of Texas conduct studies to improve their catches.
When he’s in a room full of libertarians with their checkbooks, he’s a constitutionalist who thinks government should stay out of marriage. When he’s in a room full of conservatives with their checkbooks, he’s the author of a bill that attempts to nullify the Constitution’s full faith and credit and equal protection clauses (without the necessary 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislators) to combat the Queer Menace.
Paul is a liar. Or, to put it a different way, Paul is a politician. He’s just an innovative politician in that he discovered a gullible fundraising niche to exploit.
do not smite them
A preview function would be useful here.
If readers are wondering why there are so few African-Americans in the Libertarian Party, they need look no farther than the people who think that Confederate Flags are not overtly racist, and the other Libertarians who do done verbally smite them for their outrageous claims.
With respect to the causes of the Civil War, the War of the Slaveholder’s Rebellion, I refer readers to Potter’s The Impending Crisis or to Freylinghausen’s multi-volume series “The Road to…” You could, of course, also read the Secession resolutions and the supporting resolutions passed by the states that seceded. The original documents are quite unambiguous, so you should have no trouble maintaining that they mean the exact opposite of what they say.
The amusing part of this was that the Lincoln against whom the slaveholders revolted seems to have existed more in the minds of the slaveholders than anywhere else. However, like Presidents Bush and Obama, he had been so demonized by his opponents that their behavior was not entirely in touch with the more modest reality.
Ron Paul’s newsletters are unambiguously racist in fair parts. If he had evolved, he would surely have said so, and that simply is not what happened. In fact, he claimed that his words were being taken out of context, which is somewhat not the same as saying he had changed his mind.
If you want to find people who believe whatever the media tell them, you have to look no farther than the people who consistently believe all of the ultraright nonsense of various sorts, so that they rather consistently believe all of the same list of crackpot nonsense.
Andy says: “If there are more people in the LP who agree with Mr. Phillies…”
I doubt that there are many Libertarians who share all of Dr. Phillies’ beliefs. I don’t know anyone who believes what the media tells us, as, clearly, George does. I don’t concern myself much with the birther stuff, mainly because I don’t think it will accomplish anything. I also don’t spend much time arguing against global warming because I think there’s some truth in it, although I also think there’s more UNTRUE about it. I think healthy skepticsm is appropriate for everything we’re told. I know we’ve been lied to about 9/11, for example, so if they’ll lie about that, who knows what else they’re lying about?
I wish the Ron Paul writings had not gone out 20 years ago that have led to the racist labels. They did, though, and Dr. Paul should have distanced himself from them earlier and more strongly. But jeez, healthy people evolve as they go through life. I don’t believe Dr. Paul is a racist now, so I won’t get too upset about stuff that happened 20 years ago.
And BTW, Confederate flags are NOT racist. Please read The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Tom Woods… oh wait he’s probably a racist too. Everybody is a racist. lol. But back to the “Civil War”. It was not about slavery, Lincoln was well known for his racist comments, and he wanted to deport all blacks to Africa. It was about state’s rights and an oppressive, tyrannical BIG government telling the South what they could and could not do and denying them their right to a FREE MARKET ECONOMY free of tariffs… where they could freely trade with European nations. It was the War for Southern Independence and the War of Northern Aggression. Guess what Mr. Phillies, the Constitution essentially was just a stronger compact of states that the Articles of Confederation were and it DID give states the right to peacefully leave the Union should the government turn oppressive and violate their liberties without ceasing. The Constitution must also be racist, then, for allowing for state’s rights.
“Seriously, RON PAUL is the REASON 16 year olds like me are into politics and HE is the one who led me to first research the LP, way back when I was, say 10 or so.”
Ron Paul is the reason that a lot of people have gotten involved in pro-liberty activism. Even when he has run as a Republican, Ron Paul still brings more people into the Libertarian Party and movement than just about anyone else. The expression, “Dr. Paul cured my apathy.” rings true with a lot of people.
“If there are more people in the LP who agree with Mr. Phillies…”
The majority of Libertarian Party members do not agree with George Phillies’ views on Ron Paul. If Ron Paul had shown up at either the LP National Convention in 2008 or 2012 and declared that he was a candidate for the LP’s Presidential nomination, he would have easily won it, I’d say with 90% or higher of the vote, probably 95%, maybe even higher than that.
Thankfully, there’s the CP still. And I hope they never have someone saying things like this about Ron Paul… and they probably won’t. I wish them luck. These two parties would be nascent were it not for Ron Paul people.
“Ron Paul is a racist.”
– George Phillies
OH MY GOD. CONGRATULATIONS. You have outdone the con artists at Faux News. I need to frame that quote. I wish you had gotten the LP chair, oh yeah, with that kinda attitude in the public sphere… I can only begin to speculate how well Gary Johnson would have done. 😉
Seriously, kidding aside, not even REPUBLICANS (!!!!!!) call Ron Paul a racist!!! Those are COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED claims, he did not write his newsletter and his entire life philosophy contradicts it! If there are more people in the LP who agree with Mr. Phillies… I am really going to consider the Republican Party route. Hell, I am campaign manager for a GOP candidate…and I have never heard a Republican slander the Good Doc like that! Obviously, if someone who hates Ron Paul that much gets into LP leadership… let’s just say they will shoot themselves in the foot.
Sorry, but I cannot let someone commit character assassination against my hero and role model. I mean Faux News does it all the time… but I thought someone who allegedly wants to grow the LP would not post that in a public forum for the world to see.
Again, I did not wish to attack Mr. Phillies personally, I just could not let that accussation sit there without a response. Seriously, RON PAUL is the REASON 16 year olds like me are into politics and HE is the one who led me to first research the LP, way back when I was, say 10 or so.
Andy @ #45 – ” for all who are willing to look at the evidence ” is the phrase which instantly eliminates Mr. Phillies. His above response to my challenges are met with ” read;” a response which confirms my ability to fortell the future; i.e; the cowardly non-response/deflection to off the topic which is ALWAYS the response of the promoters of the religions of global warming, evolution, abortion, and all of the other anti-human ” nonsense ” which they continuously promote and prattle about.
Mr. Phillies will always, as in the Star Trek series, instantly call for ” shields up!! ” to protect his ego from all of the contradictory, and real, evidence which will blow holes in his fantasies and expose the pablum which he spouts out for the foolishness that it is.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California – the party which knows the facts and can ( and will ) back them up ( unlike some others who we know )
P.S. – Mr. Phillies : In regard to ” read;” I have. As I note in the books which I have used for reference above. Obviously ” read ” is not a term which you can truthfully use in reference to yourself.
Yup, tell those D’s and R’s to stop loving the UN. Not going to happen.
George HW Bush calls for a New World Order during his State of the Union speech on September 11th, 1990, 11 years before the September 11th, 2001 attack, or more accurately, false flag attack:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfVVmE4BAww
George HW Bush talks about the New World Order and the United Nations:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g
“George Phillies // Feb 25, 2013 at 8:16 pm
@13 ‘I thought the LP wanted to get out of the UN too? So is Ron Paul also a “lunatic and conspiracy theorist for wanting to get out of this globalist organization?’
You got that one right.
UN etc etc etc is a far right wing conspiracy theory from 50 or 60 years ago, and it was crazy then, too.”
It is not a “far right wing conspiracy theory,” it is a a fact and this is all clearly documented for all who are willing to look at the evidence.
Just because this is something that some people who are on the “far right wing” have talked about it does not mean that it is not true.
Some people on the “far left wing” have talked about how the military industrial complex has pushed our country into wars so they can profit from them, and they’ve also talked about how the war on drugs has lead to more people in prison, particularly people who have a lower income and/or who are black. Should these things be labeled as “nutty left wing conspiracy theories” just because some people on the left wing have talked about these things? I’d say not because both are true.
The United Nations is also a completely anti-libertarian organization. No true libertarian supports the UN.
“George Phillies // Feb 25, 2013 at 8:07 pm
As for his daddy, he is a racist, and racists are not Libertarians. We need go farther than his denunciations of illegal immigrants and his TV ad in his campaign showing the swarthy heavy-set fellow swimming across the border. ”
Uggggg! You are still pushing this crap. The Ron Paul newsletter controversy was put to rest a while ago by investigative journalist Ben Swamm. I posted his two reports about it here are while ago. The news letters articles in question were written by a guy named James B. Powell. The news outlets that did the hit pieces on Ron Paul over this knew this the entire time, but the concealed it because their purpose was to slam Ron Paul, not to engage in rational thought or honest journalism.
As for immigration, I’ve also posted some of Ron’s actual immigration votes from Congress where he voted to INCREASE visas for foreign workers and where he voted against putting a fence on the border.
Furthermore, I recall the George Phillies for President website said that you can’t have open borders and a welfare state(which is a point that Ron Paul has also made) , and that since that the USA predominantly had immigrants from Europe in the past, but that the “huddled masses of Europe” were “breathing free now” so it was we need a more restrictive immigration policy now, because you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.
You must think that everyone forgot that you said this. I should check and see if it is still on one of those archive sites.
@41 There is a bit of a difference between a 20 story building and a secret plot to destroy the Federal government and replace it with a world government. I realize that you find this distinction to be very subtle.
Popcorn?
“UN etc etc etc is a far right wing conspiracy theory from 50 or 60 years ago, and it was crazy then, too.”
So is that big building in New York a hologram, or did they just put fake signs up on an apartment complex?
Ahh, Mr. Grundmann you wanted a debate with Mr. Phillies he’s here now have your debate with him? Hmm.
@13 “I thought the LP wanted to get out of the UN too? So is Ron Paul also a “lunatic and conspiracy theorist for wanting to get out of this globalist organization?”
You got that one right.
UN etc etc etc is a far right wing conspiracy theory from 50 or 60 years ago, and it was crazy then, too.
@19 Calling Rand Paul a Libertarian is an overt slander. He has been extremely emphatic about denying this, and his core stands are not Libertarian.
As for his daddy, he is a racist, and racists are not Libertarians. We need go farther than his denunciations of illegal immigrants and his TV ad in his campaign showing the swarthy heavy-set fellow swimming across the border. The ad ran in New Hampshire, where the immigrants are French-Canadians. That’s the race card. And here is Paul removing all possible doubt of where he stands
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39801_Video-_Ron_Paul_Gives_Speech_on_Civil_War_in_Front_of_Giant_Confederate_Flag
cheering for the folks who fought a war for the right to rape their 11 year old boy slaves, as they did, regularly.
I think George Phillies is LP not CP. CP is Pro-Life and LP platform is Pro-Choice (even though most libertarians don’t think taxpayers should pay for procedure). So, I think Mr. Phillies wouldn’t agree with CP platform. I don’t want to speak for him and I’m not sure if he’s religious or not(may be atheist) but the above attack on him is strange. He just doesn’t agree with the view of the CP on Abortion.
Read Mr Grundman, and learn just how totally off the wall the American Christian Right is. Actually, I wish his party the best. The more characters it collects, the less likely it will be for the Republican fascists to be able to inflict their candidates upon our country.
@23 No, there is not such data. We need go no farther than smallpox vaccination, as a result of which we do not have epidemics that slaughter people and leave many of the rest scarred for life, immunization against mumps which means that large numbers of people neither die nor or left sterile, etc. With respect to the alleged connections between immunizations and autism, well, Quebec years ago ended the use of mercury; their autism rate went up. The original paper claiming the link has, by nine of the ten original authors, been retracted as overtly fraudulent, based on information that they had not known when they published.
Just a note of just because,
Darwin is “Natural Selection”
Herbert Spencer is “Survival of the fittest”
Ramble on
Mr. Phillies – As a continued response to your nonsense I note the following – The coming together of sperm and egg forms a new human being. This is a biological effect equivalent to the existence of gravity; i.e; it cannot be challenged EXCEPT by a religious, not biological, argument – ” It’s ONLY a ” blob of tissue;” it’s not REALLY human!, etc.
Hence the argument over abortion is ALWAYS a relgious argument; i.e.; the inherent God-given value of the singular life – known as pro-life, or the pro-death/abortion argument in favor of ” survival of the fittest ” where any value of a human life can be arbitrarily denied/revoked at any time and for any, or no, reason.
You are simply expressing your religious belief(s) in your above screed.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California, the party which believes in the inherent God-given value of human life and does not believe, promote, or support in any way the Darwinian anti-human religious gospel of ” survival of the fittest.”
@11 – it was indeed meant for publication and posting; the problem was your version was only in draft form … Frank sent it out by mistake to a few people. We’ve fixed the problem so it won’t happen again. Thanks for letting me know.
@12 – LOL, this ain’t the New York Times vs. Judith Miller … it was a flub, easily explained, and aired in the open. No inner chamber secrets were revealed (although if you read the CP letter backward, eliminating every other “L,” it’s an exposé of a cloven of witches working at the UN)
This could be interesting!
Mr. Phillies – Since you put out the challenge I must answer it regarding ” anti-evolutionists.”
Go to evolution-facts.org. You will there find the documentation ( and much more ) behind the book ” Science vs Evolution;” a book which utterly destroys the lie of evolution in all of its various manifestions.
As just one example – the smallest protein in the human body consists of approximately 20 amino acids. These amino acids must be precisely ordered for the protein to work. The question is – what is the mathematical possibility of the amino acids randomly assembling, via the ” roll-the-dice ” idea of evolution, so that the protein will be properly assembled? Answer – it is mathematically impossible for such an event – the formation of just ONE protein – to have occurred.
Similarly – Please explain how ONE, JUST ONE, cell – including outer cell membrane, inner nuclear membrane, DNA in the nucleus, and all of the fantastic structures between the outer and nuclear membranes inclusive of the mitochondria ( fantastic structures in and of themselves ), + BEING SELF-REPLICATING – could happen via ” evolution?”
Of course your standard argument(s) will be that – A) it occurs via water + dirt + time; and/or B) all the ” scientists ” agree that ( A ) is how it happened.
And then you procede to pat yourself on the back and preen your feathers as you, laughingly for me, call yourself a ” scientist.”
Fact – The development of a SINGLE CELL, much less the entire human body, via evolution, is totally and utterly mathematically impossible.
But of course that will not matter to you for one second as, since you are self-proclaimed smarter than God, you will go right on parrotting your own ” nonsense ” and proclaiming it to be ” science.”
In a real debate regarding the issue you would be utterly annhilated. But you of all people have demonstrated that you will never allow any pesky facts to get in the way of your religion or, especially, your ego.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California, the party that knows the difference between real science and fake science
George @ #8 – Mr. Phillies : Since you claim that it is ” nonsense ” to oppose the fraud of so-called ” Global Warming/Climate Change ” then I offer the following challenge which I know that you will not accept – Brian Sussman has written a book called ” Climategate ” in which he destroys, via REAL science, the lie of GW/CC. The Constitution Party of California will give $10,000 to the first person who can disprove the science which Mr. Sussman uses. Hence it will be an easy way for you to stop flapping your jaws and prove what you claim.
I know that you will not accept this challenge because – A) Supporters of the GW/CC lie ( like you ) will NEVER debate as they know that such an event would totally expose what a complete fraud and lie which their ” The Sky is Falling!! The Sky is Falling!! ” fairy tale is; and B) they ALWAYS call those who expose their lie ” deniers ” without 1) ever showing how the opposers science is wrong or 2) ever showing how their own fake science is correct.
So, for you as for all other supporters of ” The Sky is Falling!!,” REAL science be dammed and you will just keep parroting your drivel; i.e.; your religious belief since GW/CC is in fact a religion and is not based on science; of Doom! Doom! Doom!! – unless we shut down all industry and impoverish the nation permanently in order to ” save the earth.”
Anyway I have put the challenge out there. Now you can just follow the usual pattern which I have described above.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California, the party of REAL science and proud of it
P.S. – The GW/CC crowd is embarrassed by the record snowstorms across the nation and so is now screeching that the storms fit into their fairy tale; i.e.; ” Climate Change ” will produce heavier snowfalls that contain less water!?!? Truly astounding – not only that they could fart out such outrageous foolishness but, especially, that the Matrix/media continues to openly Socially Engineer the public to nod yes when told to agree that DOOM is coming via the fairy tale.
Of course the worst part is that supposedly, or at least self-proclaimed ( hint-hint ), ” educated people ” can keep proclaiming how true GW/CC is despite the Mt. Everest amount of evidence exposing it as fraudulent.
Hopefully Bill Slantz and the LP can attract those that would’ve voted CP in Missouri 8th. Social issues may be a sticking point but how else attack the D+R’s? The district voted for Rep Emerson (R) in past so LP has some work to do.
“Jill Pyeatt // Feb 25, 2013 at 2:32 pm
Andy at 20: Very well said!”
Thanks.
One more I should have added is that the vast majority of people really think it makes a difference whether or not the mainstream Democrat or mainstream Republican gets elected (former LP member Wayne Root is apparently one of these people since he really thought it would make a difference if Romney got elected instead of Obama).
@ 21
Yes the CP does have ballot access in Missouri.
No the CP is not strong throughout the entire state. They do recruit for some races, but they did not have a full slate of candidates this 2012 election. They failed to run a US senate candidate which did hurt their credibility due to the rumor that past CP candidates ran under RP flag in 2012. It was also rumored that they failed to run because of a deal with the RP. Nothing came forward as proof, other than the void of a candidate in November.
Cynthia Davis ran as a CP candidate because she had been told she was not welcome under the RP flag. She would’ve had an entire party fighting her every step of the primary. She had been termed out of state postings and had drawn bad publicity for the starve the children into productive adults campaign.
George @8 …
You did very well, other than with the UN.
The US should withdraw from the UN. Yes, it would die a slow death without the US – and a good thing.
Andy @20 and Jill @24.. they just believe what they are told, unfortunately.
Andy at 20: Very well said!
George Phillies said: “The UN boogieman is coming to eat your guns…more far far right wing conspiracy lunacy nonsense,. up there with the birthers, the truthers, the anti-vaccinationists, the anthropogenic global warming deniers, the GMO cancer quacks, the anti-evolutionists, the antiabortionists, and the anti-contraceptionists.”
Wow, that’s a whole lot of topics that you’re writing off. Since you’re a scientist (physics is a science, right?), I’m surprised at both the anti-vaccine and the anti-GMO foods comments. Especially re: vaccines, I believe there’s a lot of data proving that vaccines do a lot of harm along with any good they might do.
“George Phillies // Feb 24, 2013 at 7:17 pm
The UN boogieman is coming to eat your guns…more far far right wing conspiracy lunacy nonsense,.”
Oh yeah, it’s just a crazy conspiracy theory that the UN opposes the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. They’ve got no interest in taking guns away from people. Yeah, right….
http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/
@17
It’s sad that CP could run Cynthia Davis for Lt. Gov. and a slate-ful of candidates in previous election cycle and cannot find one candidate in a special election? They do have ballot access in that state I believe? Instead worry about the UN? Really! Build up the base from bottom guys/gals. This district should be competitive for CP, a conservative district.
-Yes, LP is showing that they will fight against the D+R Leviathan. Good news for voters in Missouri 8th.
“The vast majority of people find those theories way out there.”
The vast majority of people think that everyone should pay income taxes and that if they don’t society is going to fall to pieces. The vast majority of people believe that the military really fights for our freedom. The vast majority of people think that roads would not exist without government. The vast majority of people think that it is the job of the President to manage the economy. The vast majority of people do not know what the Federal Reserve System is. The vast majority of people could not name all 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. The vast majority of people have never read the entire Declaration of Independence or US Constitution.
The vast majority of people are uninformed and believe all kinds of stupid and irrational things.
“As for abortion, the following libertarians are pro-life: Ron Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Lew Rockwell, Jack Hunter, FA Hayek, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Michael Badnarik, Thomas Massie, Luwig von Mises, and Tom Woods, to name a few.”
Note that as Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson signed a bill BANNING late term abortions, and also note that he favored parental notification if a minor wanted to get an abortion.
Harry Browne was also pro-life, but he did not think that the federal government should have any role in the issue. He thought that anti-abortion activists would be better off trying to change the hearts and minds immediately pro-abortion people through persuasion rather than running to the government.
“Krzysztof Lesiak // Feb 25, 2013 at 10:16 am
@8
I thought the LP wanted to get out of the UN too? ”
The Libertarian Party does favor withdrawing from the United Nations.
@7
From what I understand, the CP is not running anyone in the Missouri 8th. They seem to support anyone that is close to a certain win. “Place Name here” Repukian.
On a brighter note, Bill Slantz is running as the Libertarian.
I don’t know much about Badnarik’s position on abortion. However I thought that he was pro-life since I remember reading comments hailing Gary Johnson for being the first genuinely pro-choice LP POTUS nominee in a while.
KL @ 13,
“As for abortion, the following libertarians are pro-life … Michael Badnarik”
Six months before the 2004 LP national convention, Badnarik’s answer to abortion questions was that since he could not be certain when personhood began, he had to be pro-life from conception.
At the 2004 LP national convention, a print edition of the “Free Liberal” newspaper was distributed with an interview in which Badnarik put the line of personhood at electrical brain activity, prior to which he wouldn’t recommend prohibition.
And by August of 2004, his campaign’s position paper on abortion was being re-written to reflect his endorsement of the LP’s pro-choice plank.
Has he changed his mind since then? If so, how many times?
Wow that’s a long comment. I had no idea I had that much to say hahaha
@8
I thought the LP wanted to get out of the UN too? So is Ron Paul also a “lunatic and conspiracy theorist for wanting to get out of this globalist organization? I mean, does the LP support a one world government, which the UN is essentially a precursor for. I have seen a LOT of LP candidates talk about getting out of the UN. I guess they are are “right wing conspiracy lunatics.” Lol 😉
And I can understand your opposition to trutherism and birtherism. The vast majority of people find those theories way out there. However, how is mandatory, forced vaccination a libertarian principle? What right does the government have to tell me what I can do with my body? Also, I thought the LP never supported the quack science known as “global warming”, and I always believed they were against carbon taxes and Agenda 21. And GMOs are VERY bad!! This is widely been acknowledged even by European governments in countries like Poland, that have banned the use of them. Anti-evolutionism, whatever. As for abortion, the following libertarians are pro-life: Ron Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Lew Rockwell, Jack Hunter, FA Hayek, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Michael Badnarik, Thomas Massie, Luwig von Mises, and Tom Woods, to name a few. There is a group called Libertarians for Life, do wish to expel them from your party then? If memory serves me right the abortion issue has always been the most controversial during platform plank debates during past LP conventions. I think it was always the one to receive the most votes regarding actually eliminating the plank from the platform.
And if you start by saying how Ron Paul is a “Christian Dominionist religous zealot” and “not a libertarian”… well let’s just say I hope to God the LP does not start promoting your viewpoint. You should be thanking Dr. Paul for how he has made libertarianism so immensely popular in this country, and how he was no doubt exposed so many to the concept. I mean your party’s BASE is Ron Paul supporters, if you alienate them… good luck trying to get any traction, and they will just start graviting towards the GOP and trying to reform it. Case in point, if the LP were as close minded as you…I think it would be a lot smaller. I don’t want to offend in any way, I just want to point these things out, because I think they are important and should be mulled over.
Sorry for taking such an argumentative stance. Lol I am just bored here at school and I needed to find something to entertain myself with. 🙂
Krzysztof,
Be careful. As a reporter, you have no obligation to divulge your sources to party functionaries, and in some cases you may have a moral obligation not to.
The Constitution Party is a public political organization. If they aren’t capable of securing their internal communications, that’s their problem, not yours.
Peter, Frank Fluckiger emailed it to me. I assumed it was sent to all CP supporters/members at large. I didn’t know it was something that was not meant for publication.
@ 9
we have solved the leak – system error.
Mr. Lesiak:
Please contact me regarding this letter. I’d like to know how you got a copy of it since it has not been sent and you have no authorization to use it.
Peter Gemma
Nat’l Exec Comm member
Constitution Party
[email protected]
The UN boogieman is coming to eat your guns…more far far right wing conspiracy lunacy nonsense,. up there with the birthers, the truthers, the anti-vaccinationists, the anthropogenic global warming deniers, the GMO cancer quacks, the anti-evolutionists, the antiabortionists, and the anti-contraceptionists.
CP should worry more about finding a candidate for Missouri special election. Getting a bit late now.
Or at the very least an issue that takes up a very disproportionate amount of discussion and effort relative to the amount of harm it causes.
This is really an insignificant thing that is overblown.
If this Bill passes, next we can rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
I guess it’s good to stay occupied while drowning in a sea of debt.
The LP Platform used to call for the elimination of US membership in the UN as recently as 2006.
The LP Platform still does, albeit vaguely in sections 3.1 & 3.3.
http://www.lp.org/platform
PEACE
Paul Broun is running for the Senate in 2014. Seems like he would be a great friend for Rand, maybe he could be like another Mike Lee.
As far as the LP is concerned, I concur. They should publicly support this.
One would hope that the LP would get on board with this effort as well.