Libertarian Party vs Constitution Party: An Analysis

The following was posted to the LP website back in 2008. I found it to be an interesting comparison of both parties. 
posted by Andrew Davis on Sep 22, 2008

We often get emails at Libertarian Party headquarters asking what exactly are the differences between the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party.  The confusion is understandable, especially for party outsiders who are just beginning to look at either as a new political home.

On the surface, the LP and the CP appear to be quite similar.  The very name of the Constitution Party appeals to the libertarian-leaning voter looking for a political party dedicated towards returning to a government strictly bound by the Constitution–as the Libertarian Party wishes for also.  Additionally, the LP and the CP are very close on issues like foreign policy, Second Amendment rights, economic policy and health care.

However, beyond their initial similarities on the surface, a more in-depth look at the two parties shows profound differences in both platform and ideology.

The most acute difference between the two parties, and one that will explain much of the content in this article, can be found in the preambles of the two parties.

Constitution Party:

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

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

 

Libertarian Party:

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

From the get-go, the differences of the two parties are quite obvious.  At its very roots, the Constitution Party is unabashedly a party of Christian philosophy and spirituality, where as the Libertarian Party remains much more secular in its composition and values.

The best example of this can be found in objectives of the CP and LP, which are “to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations” and “to build [a world] where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power,” respectively.

Though the Constitution Party has a very real and intense dedication to Constitutional provisions–made clear by the fact that they support many of their platform planks with citations from both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence–their raison d’etre is to essentially establish a “Christian” nation, and somehow maintain religious tolerance (though this latter portion is never explained).

Take for instance the CP’s views on gambling: “Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country.”  To their credit, the CP does not say that government should outlaw this behavior although their rhetoric strongly suggests they’d like to see it abolished.  Instead, the Constitution Party calls for government to refrain from officially participating in gambling–for apparent moral reasons–by eliminating lotteries and ceasing to subsidize “Indian casinos in the name of economic development.”

Other issues like pornography (“Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God…We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy”) and the judiciary (“We particularly support all the legislation which would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government) diverge quite distinctly from the LP philosophy.

However, the biggest difference between the two parties, and one that is the best manifestation of the diametric difference of philosophies on the role of government in society, relates to the issue of gay rights.

The Constitution Party, in pursuit of their goal to “restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations,” takes a very different approach towards homosexuality than that of the Libertarian Party.  The platform of the CP states that “the law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman,” and “no government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted.”

The CP also does not believe the government should recognize civil unions for gay couples.

While Libertarians hold many different views on the issue of gay marriage, with some believing marriage, both straight and gay, should not be an issue for government and others believing that gay marriage should be recognized so long as straight marriage is recognized–Libertarians believe “government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.”

One might remember the saying in grade-school geometry that “all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.”  Well, the same can be said of libertarians and Constitution Party members.  Many Constitution Party members are libertarians, in some way, shape or form.  However, there are very few Libertarians–if any at all–that would comfortably identify themselves as ascribing to the Constitution Party platform.

There is a simple explanation for this: Christian members of the Libertarian Party recognize that the basis of their religion is the idea of free will and volition, and that their morality does not need to be reinforced or supported by government laws or coercion.  The Constitution Party, for whatever reason, finds that government should be a model for morality–that is, Christian morality–and all semblances of behavior and lifestyles contrary to this behavioral model should be eliminated through “Constitutional” government methods, with the end goal of establishing a Christian nation.

Perhaps the Constitution Party has more optimism for the functionality of a quasi-theocracy in regards to respect for the Constitution and the freedom to live, but seeing the corruption of the “Christian right” in the Republican Party, their optimism seems far too romanticized.  While it is in the Christian ideology that followers of this faith should be testaments to the power of the message and should evangelize to all people of the earth, none (at least those who believe in a libertarian-element to the religion) believe this call to evangelize can be replaced by a call to legislate.

This, indeed, is the tragic fallacy of most Christians in politics, and one that poisons the Constitution Party’s platform.

For a party that believes so strongly in the Constitution and preserving its authority, it is puzzling that the CP takes the position that God’s law is supreme to Constitutional authority in the government.  Many Christians, including myself, do believe that God’s law always is supreme to the law of man when the two conflict; however, the difference is that this belief is made at a personal level, and would not expect the same to apply to government.

In order for the authority of the Constitution to remain intact, there can be nothing in government that undermines its supremacy.  It was this very problem that sparked the beginnings of the American Revolution.  When the British Constitution no longer was supreme, and parliament could pass laws that trumped the laws of this (unwritten) Constitution, the authority of that document was destroyed.

This is one logical incongruity that the Constitution Party fails to answer when it comes to both religious freedom and the people’s right to be free in their lives from government.  The problem is only amplified by the Constitution Party’s lack of positions on privacy issues as it relates to how citizens live their lives.

It should be said that there is some grounds for what the Constitution Party believes that can be traced back to the founding of the nation.  The role of religion and government together were widely discussed; however, the general conclusion of our founding fathers may be best encapsulated in this quotation from James Madison:

The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.

In order for a society to be free, and a religion to remain uncorrupt, there must be a distinct separation between the two.  While it is a mistake on one side to believe that our politicians must divorce themselves of all their religious and moral beliefs before taking office, it is another to suggest that our political leaders should use their own personal precept of morality as a template for laws that apply to an entire nation.

Thomas Jefferson said that truth would stand on its own regardless of whether it has the support of the government.  Therefore, there is no need for the government to define and establish what this truth is.

The Libertarian Party wants a world where all individual are free to live their lives in peace, without interference from the government or their fellow man.  This entails a tolerance of many other lifestyles, though not approval or acceptance (a key distinction), because it will be recognized that nobody should dictate anything else through law but freedom.  Should society turn into a Christian society through this freedom, then so be it.  It will at least be done through the volition and consent of all others.

There would be no element of coercion, and that is what any true Constitutionalist should strive to achieve.

Author’s Note: I would like to emphasize that this is not an attempt to distort or misconstrue any belief or position of the Constitution Party.  I have tried my best to remain objective and present their positions exactly how I believe the Party to stand based upon their platform and messaging.  This article is simply to illustrate the ideological differences between two political parties that are often associated together.  Comments on this article can be sent to Andrew.davis@lp.org.

668 thoughts on “Libertarian Party vs Constitution Party: An Analysis

  1. Miro

    Very interesting.
    I want to say I received something similar, via snail mail, from both the Constitution Party and Libertarian Party years ago. One sent a booklet explaining themselves and the other a more detailed than average letter.

    Regardless, I think the two parties do have very key differences, but at the same time possess certain wings that can be similar enough to the point you run into this overlap.

  2. NewFederalist

    What’s past is past. Better to focus on not going down that rabbit hole again.

  3. Rob

    Here is the major difference.

    The Libertarian Party can easily rely on 400,000 votes in most presidential elections and can clear 500,000 with big name candidates like Barr (as bad as he was) and Johnson who pulled over 1.2 million votes.

    The Constitution Party can’t break 200,000 votes in a presidential election even with a longterm congressman as their nominee. Yes, the lack of California ballot access hurts. But 2012 was a major setback for the CP especially after surprisingly plucky showings in 1996, 2004 and 2008. I generally concede the CP did worse in 2000 because of Pat Buchanan being on the ballot and I suspect some votes that would have ended up going to Phillips went to Buchanan.

    The LP might be on a treadmill but the CP is going backwards.

  4. Jill Pyeatt

    This is an excellent find, Krzysztof. Finding something historical like this can bring our current state into an interesting focus.

    As far as a movement at the 2014 convention to back off the 2008 ticket, I wouldn’t expect that, and I don’t think it’s appropriate. That’s in the past and disrespecting our candidates, even though they disrespected us, doesn’t seem right. Starchild brought this up recently, BTW, and no one else on the current LNC thought it was a good idea.

  5. Fanny May

    @3-4 Starchild has said he plans on trying to pass a motion to repudiate the 2008 ticket at the next convention.

  6. Andy

    “Well, the same can be said of libertarians and Constitution Party members. Many Constitution Party members are libertarians, in some way, shape or form.”

    I have met some people in the Constitution Party who are basically libertarians. I’ve even had a few of them tell me that they are libertarians. I’d describe them as pro-life minarchist constitutionalist libertarians.

    Of course there are others in the Constitution Party who are more conservative than libertarian.

    “However, there are very few Libertarians–if any at all–that would comfortably identify themselves as ascribing to the Constitution Party platform.”

    There are Libertarians who are constitutionalists, but it is true that I’ve never heard any Libertarian ascribe to the Constitution Party’s platform.

  7. Andy

    “Fanny May // Mar 26, 2013 at 11:29 am

    @3-4 Starchild has said he plans on trying to pass a motion to repudiate the 2008 ticket at the next convention.”

    Good. I totally agree with him and I in fact may have been the one to give him this idea as I presented this idea in a comment post on this website a while ago, and he responded favorably to it.

    I think that the LP ought to make an official statement repudiating the Bob Barr / Wayne Root ticket, since both have turned out to be traitors to the Libertarian Party and to the cause of libertarianism in general. The party lost a lot of credibility by nominating this ticket in the first place, so putting out a statement officially repudiating this ticket would held the LP get some of its “street cred” back.

  8. Andy

    Jill Pyeatt: “As far as a movement at the 2014 convention to back off the 2008 ticket, I wouldn’t expect that, and I don’t think it’s appropriate.”

    I think that there ought to be penalties for treason, and yes, I’d say that they committed treason against the LP and the cause of libertarianism. Repudiating the ticket would send a message, not only to them, but also to anyone else ought there who has got similar plans in mind.

  9. Andy

    “Rob // Mar 26, 2013 at 10:59 am

    Here is the major difference.

    The Libertarian Party can easily rely on 400,000 votes in most presidential elections and can clear 500,000 with big name candidates like Barr (as bad as he was) and Johnson who pulled over 1.2 million votes.”

    I don’t think these vote totals were necessarily because Bob Barr and Gary Johnson were “big names” (they were not really that big of names in terms of being house hold words). Ed Clark was certainly not considered to be a “big name,” yet he got a higher percent of the vote than either Bob Barr or Gary Johnson, and he received a higher number of votes than Barr (yes, I know he had David Koch as a running mate, but David Koch was not nearly as well known (or wealthy) than as he is now, and on top of this, although the Koch brothers are extremely wealthy, it is not like they are Hollywood celebrities or something like that).

    I think that there are other factors which determine vote totals, such as competition between other minor party and independent candidates. Harry Browne likely would have received a lot more votes than he did if it had not been for Ross Perot and Ralph Nader in the race in 1996, and for Ralph Nader (and 2000 was the height of Nadermania) and Pat Buchanan in the race in 2000. Gary Johnson would likely have received less votes if Americans Elect had not folded, and had succeeded in their goal of recruiting a high profile candidate to run on their ticket.

  10. Andy

    “but also to anyone else ought there who has got similar plans in mind.”

    Should read, “but also to anyone else out there who has got similar plans in mind.”

  11. Dennis

    My assessment:

    The Libertarian Party is an ideological entity, one that currently reflects a growing segment of the American electorate. The Constitution Party only appeals to a niche market. I am not judging either’s platforms here, simply stating that paleo-conservative ideas are not in as high demand now as they were forty, fifty or sixty years ago, when libertarianism wasn’t “mainstream.”

  12. Dave Terry

    Andy (10) “I think that the LP ought to make an official statement repudiating the Bob Barr / Wayne Root ticket, since both have turned out to be traitors to the Libertarian Party and to the cause of libertarianism in general.”

    We COULD simply excommunicate them!

    Come on Andy, this is a “political” party NOT a group of religious ZEALOTS!

    As for restoring LP “street cred” the best tactic would be to forget the whole dismal affair.

    Do the Republicans keep Herbert Hoover on stage by reliving its past fiascos??

    Philosophy is eternal. Politics is whats on the front page or on “Good Morning America”!!!

    The party lost a lot of credibility by nominating this ticket in the first place, so putting out a statement officially repudiating this ticket would held the LP get some of its “street cred” back.

  13. Freddy Got Fingered

    If the Republicans somehow screwed up and nominated Hillary Clinton for President and another Democrat for VP, I would not be surprised if they publicly apologized for it later.

  14. Kevin Knedler

    Sure, let’s go to Columbus Ohio in 2014 and talk about something that happened 6 years ago. Every minute we talk about that is the same minute we can’t spend on looking to the FUTURE. Good Golly. I would wager that 60% of the Ohio delegation would have NO clue what its about. We have had a major influx of new members who could care less about 2008. They think about the future, they think about the LP branding, they want action that moves us forward. 49 other states can do as they wish, but Ohio looks forward not backwards. And we are only the 4th largest LP affiliate in the country and growing. Whatever.

  15. Kevin Knedler

    Frankly, the CP is the GOP with a conservative view on right-wing steroids when looking at social and personal issues. Can you imagine the CP in charge of our personal lives? The Government needs to get out of the business of being the moral police. Otherwise, they best get ready to hire a big police force to mandate personal behavior at all levels.

  16. Jill Pyeatt

    I’m with Kevin. Forward movement seems the healthiest way to proceed in many of the LP’s matters.

  17. Steve Scheetz

    Libertarianism can be summed up as “your life, your way.”

    We ALSO have this thing against the use of force or fraud as a means to an end. This would include using government to influence people’s behavior.

    Libertarians give people credit for having morality. We are not interested in working on things that would damage freedom and force people to pay for it via tax dollars.

    We have no problem with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Zoroasterists, etc. Believe what you wish, live your life the way you wish, and allow all others to live / worship as they wish.

    I have worked with Constitutional Party members, and generally, they are decent people. They can keep their philosophy as they wish, I believe that Libertarianism is a better solution, and I am hopeful that we will win, eventually!

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  18. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    Kevin, weren’t you a supporter of Wayne Allyn Root (WAR)? If that is the case, I can see why you want to move past this issue. The fact that Big Government neocon statists captured the LP ticket in 2008 is a point of shame and a dark stain on the LP’s history and reputation. NOT repudiating them would give the wrong impression that “sure, we sold out for votes, didn’t get any, but we might try this again”. After reading IPR’s “Snubgate” coverage, I am only more convinced the ticket must be completely disavowed.

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/09/snubgate-a-recap-of-iprs-coverage-concerning-bob-barrs-no-show-and-the-subsequent-fall-out/

    If, after reading that, you don’t agree with me, I’m at a loss for words.

    I commend Starchild for his effort and hope he is successful. The ticket needs to be officially repudiated, so the LP can regain all the credibility it lost in Denver in May 2008. When you have two candidates as bad as Barr and Root, it should be a no-brainer.

  19. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    Also, I take issue with characterizing the CP as “the GOP on right-wing steroids”. Yes, the CP is very socially conservative, and their infusion of Christianity into so much of their platform certainly repels me, but that’s not the only thing that defines the party. They are pro-civil liberties, non-interventionist, and unlike the GOP mainstream, do not subscribe to crony capitalism and Keynesianism.

  20. Jill Pyeatt

    Krzysztof, there are some valid reasons to distance ourselves from the 2008 ticket, and I could be talked into supporting some kind of press release or statement doing so. My problem is with staying too close to negative feelings, though. A good example would be the conversation on the James Burns Nevada thread regarding Oregon. The bad blood in the Oregon LP apparently has gone on for decades. It is very complicated, and this latest brouhaha concerning the blow-up in March through May in 2011 has resulted in very expensive and time-consuming litigation. Whoever “Hypocrisy Police” is seems utterly mired in what happened two years ago and most people agree both the Wagner and Reeves factions were at fault to some degree. What will the litigation ultimately prove? Who knows? It just seems to me that accepting a loss and moving forward might have been healthier for all concerned. I am, however, an outsider, and therefore have nothing at stake, so that’s just my opinion. I’ve learned through my personal relationships, though, that it’s just healthier to accept losses and move forward. At least, that’s what works for me.

  21. Sam Kress

    The CP is like the far right of the Republican Party on social issues, but they are (for the most part) a lot better than most Republicans on foreign policy issues and better than most Republicans on most of the economic issues also.

  22. Green_Liberal

    The Constitution Party preamble is straight-up dishonest.

    In the Constitution and the 1st Amendment it says there shall be no religious test or requirement for office, and that “there shall be no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

    George Washington:
    “I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country
    George Washington, 1789, Papers, Presidential Series, 4:274

    John Adams writes:
    “The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that anypersons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses…. “A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” [1787-1788]; from Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the America Experiment and a Free Society, New York: George Braziller, 1965, p. 258

    Jefferson:

    “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

    If anything, Jefferson was hostile towards orthodox Christianity. See
    http://capecodhistory.us/quotes/separation.htm

    Benjamin Franklin puts it concisely:

    “I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it.”
    “Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion”, Nov. 20, 1728

    James Madison:

    “Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”

    “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.”

  23. Kevin Knedler

    K.L. Yes to your question. But there is a lot you don’t know. And I frequently had heated discussions with him on his branding and commentary in the media. I could go on, but won’t since it’s water over the bridge for me. I look forward, but indeed remember the past.

  24. Kevin Knedler

    Darn, nobody caught it. LOL. Water over the dam. Just having fun with this.

  25. NewFederalist

    Once again let’s focus on the differences between the LP and the CP and goddamn each others souls to the black fires of hell instead instead of finding common ground and working against the real enemy. The same can be said of the differences with the Greens. Let’s just continue to hate each other with such passion that there is no energy left to battle the real enemy. What a waste of time!

  26. Shave the Whales!

    N. F.

    The point was to distinguish the LP because Ron Paul had endorsed Chuck Baldwin. Some LP and Ron Paul supporters were going over to Chuck Baldwin, so this was an attempt by the LP national headquarters to cut their losses.

  27. NewFederalist

    ALL the negative comments. The LP and the CP (and the GP) should NOT be fighting each other. The real enemy is the government party (you know, the Demorepublicrats). Battling one another is very counter productive for minor parties.

  28. ATBAFT

    Sure, let’s go back and pick apart every presidential candidate’s platform. Didn’t Hospers return to the GOP? Clark – many found him too wishy-washy. MacBride? Bergland? I’m sure 2014’s purists can find a reason to repudiate each and every one of our candidates.
    Why I can’t find any reason to hold a convention in 2014 if it isn’t devoted to rooting out and repudiating every candidate who doesn’t agree 100% with ME.

  29. Jacques Roquefort

    Third parties do need to draw a contrast between each other, not just with Democrats and Republicans. There is a certain percentage who just want to vote against the establishment, but the devil as always is in the details. Third parties have to stand for an ideology. If you don’t stand for something you will fall for anything. There have been some attempts to create a third party with no ideology, uniting all opposition to establishment parties, perhaps the best known have been Americans Elect and the Reform Party, but these have all failed thus far.

  30. Dennis

    The Libertarian Party should re-nominate Barr in 2016 specifically so they can embarrass him by rescinding the endorsement and banishing him forever!

    Or…

    We could all just acknowledge it was a poor presidential campaign and move forward into the midterm elections next year?

  31. Sam Kress

    I believe acknowledging that it was a poor presidential campaign is what we are discussing. At this time there is no such official acknowledgement.

  32. Dennis

    By ” acknowledging that it was a poor presidential campaign” I didn’t mean an official decree of any kind on behalf of the LP.

  33. Andy

    Dave Terry said: “We COULD simply excommunicate them!

    Come on Andy, this is a ‘political’ party NOT a group of religious ZEALOTS!

    As for restoring LP ‘street cred’ the best tactic would be to forget the whole dismal affair.”

    The Barr / Root ticket did a lot of damage to the Libertarian Party, and I think that we are still feeling that damage today, even though both of them are gone.

    Officially repudiating that ticket would send a message to them that we know what they did to our party, and we don’t like it, and it would also send a message to anyone out there who is thinking about infiltrating and hijacking the party.

    It would be poetic justice if Barr and Root live out the rest of their days kind of like how Benedict Arnold did, in that after betraying the American colonists, who moved to England, but he apparently never really fit in there and ended up dying a lonely man.

    I think that this quote from Samuel Adams applies to Bob Barr and Wayne Root:

    “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

  34. Andy

    “Dennis // Mar 26, 2013 at 5:42 pm

    Also, who is the LP’s leadership to say convention delegates were wrong in 2008?”

    Let’s put it up to a vote at the 2014 National Convention in Columbus, OH and we will see how many delegates at the 2014 National Convention think that a majority of the delegates at the 2008 National Convention were wrong.

  35. Andy

    “30 Shave the Whales! // Mar 26, 2013 at 3:32 pm

    N. F.

    The point was to distinguish the LP because Ron Paul had endorsed Chuck Baldwin. Some LP and Ron Paul supporters were going over to Chuck Baldwin, so this was an attempt by the LP national headquarters to cut their losses.”

    Ron :Paul only endorsed Chuck Baldwin after Bob Barr no showed the forum he put on for minor party and independent candidates – after Barr had said that he was going to be there – and after Barr had basically pushed him into doing it. Also, Chuck Baldwin had endorsed Ron Paul for the Republican primary, and he frankly displayed a lot more honor and class than Barr did.

  36. Andy

    “Jill Pyeatt // Mar 26, 2013 at 2:16 pm

    Krzysztof, there are some valid reasons to distance ourselves from the 2008 ticket, and I could be talked into supporting some kind of press release or statement doing so. My problem is with staying too close to negative feelings, though.”

    I can see where you are coming from here, Jill. It is easier to just sweep it under the rug and hope that people forget about it. I just get ticketed off every time I think about what these two charlatans did to the LP, the rotten icing on the rotten cake being when they both endorsed Mitt Romney for President.

  37. Andy

    Krzysztof said: “They are pro-civil liberties,”

    A lot of them are not pro-civil liberties when it comes to some things that are not “politically correct,” like gambling, pornography, and prostitution.

    “do not subscribe to crony capitalism”

    A lot of them favor protectionist tariffs which is not really free market.

  38. Andy

    “but they are (for the most part) a lot better than most Republicans on foreign policy issues and better than most Republicans on most of the economic issues also.”

    The Constitution Party is much better than the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party too for that matter. I have a generally favorable opinion of the Constitution Party, and I see the Constitution Party more as friendly competition to the Libertarian Party as opposed to enemies like the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are. Most of the Constitution Party people whom I’ve met are decent folk, with the exception of Virgil Goode, who ripped off several people who worked on petition drives to get him on the ballot (myself included).

  39. Andy

    “NewFederalist // Mar 26, 2013 at 6:33 pm

    Rand Paul endorsed Romney as well.”

    Yeah, I know, but Rand was not a member of the Libertarian Party, much less a former LP candidate for President or Vice President, or a former or sitting member of the Libertarian National Committee. Also, Rand was not going around proclaiming himself as a libertarian, he was actually running away from the word. I was not really happy with Rand when he did that, but him doing that was not nearly as bad as Bob Barr (and note that Barr endorsed Newt Gingrich during the Republican primary) and Wayne Root doing it.

    Also, endorsing Mitt Romney was not the only offense from Barr and Root. There were a bunch more from both of them. It was basically their final “FU” to the LP.

  40. NewFederalist

    I don’t disagree that Barr and Root were bad news for the LP. I just believe it is time to forget about them and move on (without repeating the same mistakes).

  41. Steven R Linnabary

    Will there be a movement at the 2014 LP convention to repudiate the 2008 ticket? Both neocons have since rejoined the GOP, and that ticket is a bad stain on the LP’s reputation.

    And a WORSE stain will be on the LP if we even entertain such an idea in front of CSPAN cameras in Columbus next year.

    There is no doubt that the ’08 ticket was far and away the least libertarian ideologically the LP has ever run. Even the Root supporters admit this (usually gleefully). But there is little to be gained for the LP by publicly repudiating this mistake.

    The best response by Libertarian activists is to learn from our mistakes and put this behind us and move forward. And forget about “publicly repudiating” our missteps.

    PEACE

  42. Dave Terry

    KL (21) “If, after reading that, you don’t agree with me, I’m at a loss for words.

    LOL! YOU, out of words? ROFL! ha ha ha ha ha ha!

  43. Andy

    “NewFederalist // Mar 26, 2013 at 6:48 pm

    I don’t disagree that Barr and Root were bad news for the LP. I just believe it is time to forget about them and move on (without repeating the same mistakes).

    Will the same mistake be more likely to be repeated if the Barr / Root fiasco is swept under the rug and forgotten?

  44. Andy

    Steven R. Linnabury said: “And a WORSE stain will be on the LP if we even entertain such an idea in front of CSPAN cameras in Columbus next year.”

    Would it really be such a bad stain to have a resolution brought forward to repudiate the Barr / Root ticket?

    I can certainly understand why some people just want to bury this and move on, but this is what Democrats and Republicans do, they bury their mistakes, or even pretend like their mistakes and failures were successes. Aren’t Libertarians supposed to be better than this?

    Yeah, maybe we should bury it and move on, however, acknowledge a past mistake is a major step on the road to recovery, and it could also mean that this mistake will be less likely to be repeated in the future.

  45. Dave Terry

    StW(29)> “I thought it was water under the bridge?

    “You cannot step twice into the same river” Heraclitus

    StW (30)>”The point was to distinguish the LP because Ron Paul had endorsed Chuck Baldwin.

    I guess that means that the LP should have banned Ron Paul, instead of inviting him to run on our ticke.

  46. Andy

    Dave Terry said: “I guess that means that the LP should have banned Ron Paul, instead of inviting him to run on our ticket.”

    Uuuggghhh! First off, Chuck Baldwin is far more libertarian than Mitt Romney, or Bob Barr for that matter. Second of all, Ron Paul only endorsed him after Bob Barr pushed him to by being an ass.

  47. Dave Terry

    Andy (41)> “The Barr / Root ticket did a lot of damage to the Libertarian Party

    How much damage could they have done. The very next election our candidates received more votes than had ever been received by Libertarians.

    And comparing them to Benedict Arnold is absurd. How many Americans died as a result of Bob Barr’s “treason”?

    You also overlook the fact that the folks who Arnold betrayed WON THE WAR! What can
    the LP do to punish them. They are both perfectly happen back in the GOP.

  48. Dave Terry

    Let’s NOT forget that it was John Hospers who endorsed George Bush over our own candidate.

    Yet, I believe, I was the only one who stood and booooed, when he was eulogized at the last convention.

  49. Andy

    “Dave Terry // Mar 26, 2013 at 7:57 pm

    Let’s NOT forget that it was John Hospers who endorsed George Bush over our own candidate.”

    Yeah, this was disgraceful, but at least Hospers could have claimed being old and senial. What are the excuses from Bob Barr and Wayne Root?

  50. Andy

    “Dave Terry // Mar 26, 2013 at 7:52 pm

    Andy (41)> ‘The Barr / Root ticket did a lot of damage to the Libertarian Party’

    How much damage could they have done. The very next election our candidates received more votes than had ever been received by Libertarians.”

    I’d say that Barr / Root did a lot of damage to the LP by turning off a bunch of potential supporters. I think that the LP was in a good position in 2008 to receive a lot more votes than the party got, and that the LP could have beaten Ralph Nader that year, but all of this potential was flushed down the toilet when the party nominated Barr / Root.

    Yeah, the LP Presidential ticket did a lot better in 2012 (although they did not break the 1980 record in terms of percent of the vote), but I think that 2012 would have been even better if it had not been for the damage that Barr / Root did to the party.

    “And comparing them to Benedict Arnold is absurd. How many Americans died as a result of Bob Barr’s ‘treason’?”

    I don’t know that anyone died, but it was still an act of betrayal that happened during the struggle for liberty. I think that the comparison is valid.

    “You also overlook the fact that the folks who Arnold betrayed WON THE WAR! What can
    the LP do to punish them. They are both perfectly happen back in the GOP.”

    The LP could fire back with a statement that says we know what we did, we don’t like it, and we are putting it on the record that what both of them did sucked.

  51. paulie

    The Constitution Party is much better than the Republican Party

    On many issues, yes. But on some social issues it is worse than any other party (at least any other party that has been on any significant number of state ballots in recent years).

  52. Kevin Knedler

    # 50 is ONCE again, wise beyond his years–that be Mr. Steven Linnabary. He’s one of the senior Ohio members (in years with LP) and he should know. This will be the first national convention in Ohio in 40 years by the way.

  53. paulie

    How much damage could they have done.

    That would require us to know what would have happened otherwise. The LP had a lot of breakout potential in 2008.

  54. Kevin Knedler

    # 60 Paulie is correct on his observations also. The CP and LP can agree on economic issues, but I am very skeptical about social issues. As my journey in the LP continues, I more clearly understand the threats to our personal liberty and personal decision-making processes.

  55. LPOhio Sidelines

    Some of you naysayers need to come to Ohio and see the positives of the LP –just don’t screw it up for the rest of us that live here.

  56. Andy

    “paulie // Mar 26, 2013 at 8:14 pm

    ‘The Constitution Party is much better than the Republican Party’

    On many issues, yes. But on some social issues it is worse than any other party (at least any other party that has been on any significant number of state ballots in recent years).”

    I totally disagree. The Constitution Party is better than the Republican Party by any standard.

    They may be worse than some other parties that are on the ballot in a lot of states on some social issues (and I’m not including the LP in this discussion), but going on an issue for issue basis, I’d take the Constitution Party over the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and the Green Party. The Green Party may be better than the Constitution Party on a very tiny number of issues, but for the most part, the CP is better than the GP in my opinion (and keep in mind that their are Greens who want to ban gambling because they think that poor people will waste all of their money on it). Also, the Constitution Party does have a small “l” libertarian contingent among its ranks. They are pro-life minarchist constitutionalist libertarians. Not everyone in the CP fits this description, but I’m just pointing out that they have a libertarian wing.

    I’d rank the political parties who generally get on enough ballots to have a chance to win a Presidential election like this:

    1) Libertarian Party

    2) Constitution Party

    3) Green Party

    (and then way below, tied for fourth place)

    4) The Republicrat and Demoblican Parties.

  57. Andy

    “63 Kevin Knedler // Mar 26, 2013 at 8:28 pm

    # 60 Paulie is correct on his observations also. The CP and LP can agree on economic issues, but I am very skeptical about social issues.”

    I think that the LP is overall better than the Constitution Party, but I’m comparing the Constitution Party to all of the other parties out there.

  58. Andy

    “Dennis // Mar 26, 2013 at 8:49 pm

    I feel like if your willing to support the Constitution Party, Bob Barr wouldn’t look all that bad….”

    First off, this only illustrates your ignorance by making a statement like this, because Bob Barr is worse than the Constitution Party.

    Second of all, just for you and anyone else who is not paying attention, I support and am a long time member of the Libertarian Party. I just gave “props” to the Constitution Party for being better than most of the other political parties out there besides the LP.

  59. Robert Capozzi

    I take it that “better” means “Andy agrees with the the CP as a whole more” than say Bob Barr, correct?

    I believe that actions speak louder than words, so I have no idea if CPers are “better” or “worse” than Rs or Ds. Like the LP, the CP has chosen to be an inconsequential fringe player.

  60. Sam Kress

    But on some social issues it is worse than any other party (at least any other party that has been on any significant number of state ballots in recent years).”

    I totally disagree. The Constitution Party is better than the Republican Party by any standard.

    They may be worse than some other parties that are on the ballot in a lot of states on some social issues

    So you totally disagree, but agree at the same time (or at least “may” agree, as if this was in doubt)?

  61. Dave Terry

    The one common characteristic of all of you guys who rate the political parties is that you read the menu from right to left.

    Regardless of the dish the PRICE is what matters

    ergo; you ignore the wide variations of opinions and qualities of the individual candidates and judge them by the price, errr, I mean lable.

    NOT WISE, GUYS!

  62. Dave Terry

    Andy (68) ” I just gave “props” to the Constitution Party for being better than most of the other political parties out there besides the LP.’

    Irrelevant! Every vote the CP gets is a vote LOST
    to the LP.

  63. From Der Sidelines

    The LP is at least trying to grow their tree of Liberty.

    The CP’s tree is infested with termites and Dutch Elm Disease.

    It is impossible for the CP to call them constitutionalists on one hand and call for censorship and the joining of church and state (implicitly) on the other.

  64. Andy

    “Dave Terry // Mar 26, 2013 at 10:07 pm

    Andy (68) ‘I just gave ‘props’ to the Constitution Party for being better than most of the other political parties out there besides the LP.’

    Irrelevant! Every vote the CP gets is a vote LOST
    to the LP.”

    Who in the hell said that I was advocating voting for the Constitution Party? I did not say any such thing. I advocate voting for the Libertarian Party (except in rare exceptions where the party nominates somebody like Bob Barr). I was just giving the Constitution Party some credit for generally being better than most of the other political parties out there besides the Libertarian Party.

  65. Andy

    “74 paulie // Mar 26, 2013 at 10:53 pm

    I rank the Greens as better than the CP. But that’s not a new discussion with us.”

    I think that you are going for image over reality. just because you like the image of a hipster Green over some “fuddy duddy” Constitution Party supporter.

    If you go on an issue for issue basis, the Constitution Party wins. I’ve gone through both of their platforms and done this before. Do I have to do it again?

    Here are a few issues:

    Gun rights: Constitution Party is strongly in favor of the right to keep and bear arms.

    The Green Party is wishy washy on this issue. Yeah, a few Greens are for the right to keep and bear arms, but others in their party are not, and some will only partially support it with a bunch of restrictions.

    Everyone I’ve ever encountered from the Constitution Party is a strong defender of the right to keep and bear arms, and this is one of the most important issues that there is.

    The Federal Reserve System: The Constitution Party wants to abolish the Federal Reserve System and advocates gold and silver be used for payment of debts.

    The Green Party is wishy washy on this issue as well. I’ve heard some Greens say that they favor nationalizing the Federal Reserve, and that they favor Congress being able to create money. I think that others in the Green Party don’t even really understand this issue.

    This is one of the most important issues that there is, and the Constitution Party is dedicated to ending the Federal Reserve System.

    The welfare state: The Constitution Party wants to end the welfare state (although I did hear one of their members one time advocating for Social Security, but I don’t think that this person represented the views of most of their party). The Constitution Party favors eliminating Marxist wealth redistribution schemes, and favors getting the government out of healthcare. The Constitution Party also favors ending government bailouts to corporations and corporate welfare in general (unless you want to consider the protectist tariffs that some of them support to be a form of welfare, but in spite of this, they are still better on the issue of ending corporate welfare than most parties).

    The Green Party favors the welfare state. They think that the government should take money from some people and “redistribute” it in ways that they think will help the poor. They think that government run healthcare is a good idea (although some of them do not agree with the Obamacare version of it).

    I just pointed out 3 major issues where the Constitution Party is better than the Green Party. I could go on with more.

    I know what Paul is doing here, and he’s going for style over substance. He may bring up some superficial and/or minor issues where the Green Party is better, but none of this trumps the right to keep and bear arms, or the huge mess that the welfare state causes.

    Now this does NOT mean that I don’t think that the Green Party has any good issues, because there are areas where I agree with them, and like Constitution Party people, I think that Green Party people are good folk. I’ve got more respect for the typical Green than I’ve got for the typical Democrat or Republican.

    Some Libertarians may say, “Well how could you like the Greens better than the Republicans, at least the Republicans espouse some free market principles, and at least they stand up for gun rights.” The problem with the Republican Party is that it is so corrupt, that they lie so frequently, you never know what to believe. Sure, they may SAY some things that indicate that they are for cutting government sometimes, but they do the opposite of what they say so frequently that they’ve proven themselves to be untrustworthy. Sometimes Republicans may vote in favor of freedom if a Democrat is proposing a bill to take freedom away, but if a Republican pushes a bill that is going to take freedom away, even if it is similar or the same as a bill proposed by a Democrat, the majority of Republicans will happily vote for it. Often times it is the Republicans are pushing legislation to take away more freedom, and sometimes it is the Democrats voting to stop them (but of course the Democrats don’t have any principles either).

    There is a libertarian contingent in the Republican Party, represented by the “Ron Paul Republican” faction, but they are a tiny minority in the party that is overshadowed by the war mongers, the police state worshippers, and the big government sell outs.

    So yeah, I consider the Republican Party to be worse than the Green Party.

  66. Andy

    “Erik Viker // Mar 26, 2013 at 10:30 pm

    The ironically-named Constitution Party is a theocratic organization and therefore anathema to citizen liberty.”

    Some of their members are less theocratic than others, but still, there are certainly areas where I disagree with the Constitution Party.

    I favor eliminating all victimless crimes, and I think that gambling, drugs, prostitution, and pornography should be legal (unless of course a person is being forced to engage in prostitution or pornography against their will).

    I also consider all taxation to be theft, and ideally, I’d like to see all taxation ended (I said ideally, because I don’t know if it will ever happen). Libertarians, or at least hardcore Libertarians, are the only ones that call all forms of taxation what it really is, theft.

    I think that we’d have a more libertarian society if the Constitution were actually followed, so I support it from that stand point, but I don’t think that the Constitution is perfect, and I actually want more freedom than what the Constitution “allows,” because the Constitution still authorizes a coercive government, and it has obviously failed to restrain the government. Part of this is obviously because we have a public which has not bothered to educate itself about what the Constitution says, and is either too lazy, or too cowardly to demand that the Constitution be followed, but another part of it is that there were flaws in the concept from the beginning. The Constitution is not really even a valid contract because nobody living today even signed it. Sure, government officials take an oath to uphold and defend it, but nobody who has studied the document and is honest about things really believes that they actually do this on anything close to a consistent basis. The system was flawed from the beginning, and some have even alleged that this was done on purpose.

  67. Robert Capozzi

    a: Part of this is obviously because we have a public which has not bothered to educate itself about what the Constitution says, and is either too lazy, or too cowardly to demand that the Constitution be followed, but another part of it is that there were flaws in the concept from the beginning. The Constitution is not really even a valid contract because nobody living today even signed it.

    me: I’m confused. If the C is not a “valid contract,” why would one bother to “educate” him or herself about something that’s “invalid”?

    And then there’s the scary interpretation of the C that some “constitutionalists” advocate. If someone wanted to “educate” themselves about an “invalid contract” and the “educators” claim things that are not there (e.g., the power of a state to secede to maintain slavery,) I suspect that’s such a turn-off that the curious will be – and are – repelled.

  68. paulie

    I think that you are going for image over reality.

    Nope, it’s based on issues. I don’t feel like getting into a long discussion about it yet again.

    You seem to think that everyone has to agree with your prioritization of which issues are important. Not the case.

    For example, and this is only one example of many, the most important right that a person has in any society is the right to leave. You may not think it’s important and you may point out that a lot of LP members are against migration freedom now, and that the LP position has been watered down over the years. Or that some Greens are against migration freedom.

    But. It’s a very important issue to me. I’ve exercised it myself. I may need to exercise it again. Logically, there is no right to leave without a right to enter somewhere else. We can’t ask for a right that we don’t grant others.

    The CP makes this a top issue, and they are completely on the wrong side of it. Greens are generally, with a few exceptions, good on this issue.

    This is not meant to be an opening to debate this issue yet again. Or to suggest that this is anywhere close to being the only issue that makes me prefer the Greens to the CP. It’s not. I’ve written about it in some detail before, but I don’t remember where and I’m not going to do it again.

    It’s substance, not style. And it’s not a discussion I will waste time on.

  69. Andy

    “Dave Terry // Mar 26, 2013 at 10:03 pm

    The one common characteristic of all of you guys who rate the political parties is that you read the menu from right to left.

    Regardless of the dish the PRICE is what matters

    ergo; you ignore the wide variations of opinions and qualities of the individual candidates and judge them by the price, errr, I mean lable.

    NOT WISE, GUYS!”

    You obviously are not paying much attention to what I am saying. I’ve already acknowledged that in every political party there exists are range of views within the context of whatever the party is. Also, I know that within every party there could be dishonest and/or dysfunctional people who do not adhere to the stated principles of said party, and who got involved for some other reason, be they plants who are intentionally trying to sabotage said party, or opportunists who are looking for a way to make a buck or to use said party for ballot access so they can push their own agenda or satisfy their own egos, or they could just be a person who has got mental problems.

    So when I say rating a political party, I am going with their stated positions, as well as the general trends of their membership, as well as what their members have done when elected to office. Now when it comes to minor parties like the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and the Constitution Party, there is not as much of a record to go on from elected officials as their is with the Democrats and Republicans, because these parties have not elected as many people to office as the Democrats and Republicans have, but these parties have elected some people to office, so there is at least some track record on which to base judgments.

  70. Dave Terry

    Paulie (80)
    “, the most important right that a person has in any society is the right to leave.

    I agree that it is a VERY important right (even if not the MOST important) The problem arises when it conflicts with it’s corollary right, NOT to LEAVE.0

    Europeans had the right to leave their homes in
    oppressive conditions, but did they have the right to force the native Americans to leave theirs.

    The same is true of those European Jews who
    invaded Palestine and forced thousands of Arabs to leave their homes.

    I’ve yet to read of an American forced to flee his home as a result of illegal aliens in this country.

  71. Dave Terry

    Andy (81)
    “You obviously are not paying much attention to what I am saying.”

    Andy, I wasn’t referring to just you. But obviously, I believe that RATHER than preaching to libertarians about the relative virtues of the Green vs Constitution Parties, you all should be preaching to th Greens and the CP the relative virtues of the Libertarian Party.

  72. S. Walton Kress

    Yes, the right to leave is *the* most important right people have. The right to not leave is also important, but less so.

    The Constitution Party has many members, and even presidential candidates, that vacillate or are on the wrong side of: foreign policy (interventionist), domestic civil liberties corollaries (war on terror), drug war, mixing church and state, gay rights, women’s rights, sexual freedom, religious freedom…among other things.

    Not all CP members, not even most CP members or the CP platform on some of these issues – but I couldn’t imagine the Greens running a presidential candidate who is not anti-war, not anti war on terror, not anti mixing church and state, not pro women’s right to choose, not pro gay rights, or a hardcore drug warrior, among other things. CP can and has.

    There are many issues on which an LP member can consider the Greens to be better than the CP and some LP members consider those to be the more important issues. It is ignorant to claim all libertarians have to line up more with the CP than with the Greens on the issues.

  73. Andy

    “Dave Terry // Mar 27, 2013 at 10:26 am

    Andy (81)
    ‘You obviously are not paying much attention to what I am saying.’

    Andy, I wasn’t referring to just you. But obviously, I believe that RATHER than preaching to libertarians about the relative virtues of the Green vs Constitution Parties, you all should be preaching to th Greens and the CP the relative virtues of the Libertarian Party.”

    I’ve already done a lot of that, just as I’ve done a lot of Libertarian Party preaching to Democrats, Republicans, independents, and non-voters.

    While this site is not a Libertarian Party website, but rather a site about minor parties and independents in general, it seems that the greatest number of posters here are Libertarians, probably because the Libertarian Party is the largest minor party in terms of membership, and also because there are a lot of Libertarians who tend to be internet surfers. Given that the largest number of posters on this site are Libertarians, I’d say that there is a lot of Libertarian preaching that goes on here.

  74. Sam Kress

    There are some Greens who are a lot more free market oriented than their party platform is, just like there are some CPers who are less theocratic/more libertarian than their party as a whole is.

  75. Andy

    I posted the links to the Constitution Party’s platform and the Green Party’s platform above. Go through each party’s platform and see which one has more cringe worthy material (from a libertarian perspective).

    Here are just a few things from the Green Party’s platform that make me want to cringe:

    They favor reparations for black chattel slavery. Could you imagine what a mess this would be to figure out? How many blacks have mixed ancestory, as in they are part white or part Native American, or part something else? How many whites are there that can trace back and find a black ancestor or a Native American ancestor or something else? Studies indicate a lot on both sides. So you’d have a lot of people “owing” themselves reparations. Also, how many whites had ancestors who came to this country after black chattel slavery had been abolished, or who had ancestors who did not own any black slaves? There were actually freed blacks who owned black slaves back during the days of slavery. How many blacks alive today have ancestors that were freed blacks who owned black slaves? Also, what about the slave traders? And for that matter, what about the black slave traders in Africa, who sold other black Africans into slavery? Also, what about other races who have ancestors who were slaves? There were actually white chattel slaves in America at one time. Are the ancestors of white chattel slaves owed reparations? How much should people get who receive reparations, and who should have to pay them? What about black people who immigrated to America after slavery had been abolished? Should they be entitled to reparations? How about people who had ancestors who were slaves in other countries, should they seek reparations? The word slave comes from the Slavic people of Europe, who were slaves at one time, so should Slavic people be entitled to reparations? What about years of Affirmative Action and welfare state programs, should these be counted as reparations payments?

    The fact of the matter is that nobody is alive today from the chattel slavery era in American history. Forcing people today to pay reparations would be a HUGE mess.

    The Green Party favors rent control. Hey, what about the right of property owners to determine how much they want to ask for rent, and how about letting the market decide what people are willing to pay for rent in what areas? Oh no, the government should force people to rent out their own property at rates which the government determines, the free market be damned!

    This is from the Green Party’s platform:

    “k. Under the agency of the United Nations, we demand that our government renew and initiate government funding and support for family planning, contraception, and abortion in all countries that request it”

    I’m not even going to get into the debate over whether or not abortion is the initiation of force or not, but even if one believes that abortion is OK, surely they should oppose the government funding abortion, because government funding of abortion means that tax payers who oppose abortion are being forced to subsidize abortion through their taxes, and as if this was not bad enough, the Greens think that American tax payers should not only be put on the hook to pay for abortions here in the USA, but also in any country around the world that requests it through the United Nations. Wow! Some nerve!

    This is from the Green Party platform:

    “f. All workers, temporary or permanent, must be paid a living wage.”

    How in the hell do they determine what a “living wage” is, and why should they force anyone to pay any particular rate? If a person puts out a certain rate for a job, shouldn’t it be up to potential workers as to whether or not they want to work for that rate? The Greens think that the government should arbitrarily come up with a rate that is a “living wage” and then force anyone who employees people to pay that rate.

    Here’s more from the Green Party platform:

    “1. Single-Payer Health Care

    Enact a universal, comprehensive, national single-payer health plan that will provide the following with no increase in cost:

    a. A publicly funded health care insurance program, administered at the state and local levels, with comprehensive lifetime benefits, including dental, vision, mental health care, substance abuse treatment, medication coverage, and hospice and long-term care;”

    So they want government run healthcare. I mean, the government is doing such a “wonderful” job running education and the Post Office, why not put them in charge of healthcare as well? Hey, it “worked” in the Soviet Union.

    More from the Green Party’s platform:

    “c. Increased funding for the arts appropriate to their essential social role at local, state and federal levels of government.”

    So the tax payers should be forced to fund the arts. How about let artists put out their art and if people want to fund it they can do so voluntarily out of their own pockets?

    Still more from the Green Party platform:

    “9. Regulate and limit the legal conversion of existing affordable housing into hotels, motels and short-term vacation rentals and establish and enforce laws to prevent illegal conversions. ”

    So the Green Party thinks that the government should decide whether or not the owner of a building should be able to rent that building out as a hotel/motel/short-term vacation rental, or to have it as rent controlled “affordable housing” apartments. Maybe they will think I’m heartless for saying this, but shouldn’t the owner of the building and the market demand for housing vs. the market demand for hotels/motels/short term vacation rentals determine the use of the building, and shouldn’t this decision be made by the person or persons who invested their money into said building(s)?

    I could go on here, but the point is that I see a lot of stuff that I disagree with in the Green Party’s platform.

    Now in all fairness, there are some things with which I do agree, and here is one big issue where I think that the Greens are generally better than the Constitution Party, and this is on the War on Drugs.

    This is from the Green Party’s platform:

    “Greens call for an end to the ‘war on drugs’, legalization of drugs and for treating drug abuse as a health issue. The ‘war on drugs’ has been an ill conceived program that has wasted billions of dollars misdirecting law enforcement resources away from apprehending and prosecuting violent criminals, while crowding our prisons with non-violent drug offenders and disproportionately criminalizing youth of color.”

    This is from the Constitution Party’s platform:

    “The 10th Amendment states:
    ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’

    The 4th Amendment states:
    ‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’

    The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.

    At the same time, we will take care to prevent violations of the Constitutional and civil rights of American citizens. Searches without probable cause and seizures without due process must be prohibited, and the presumption of innocence must be preserved.”

    There actually are a few people in the Constitution Party who do not support the War on Drugs, even at a state level (although they believe that each state should decide on the issue), but for the most part, the Constitution Party supports some aspect of the War on Drugs, and they try to play both sides of the issue, by on the one hand saying that it is OK for states to fight the war on drugs, but on the other hand they should do so without violating the 4th amendment. They also say that the federal government should restrict the flow of drugs into the country.

  76. Andy

    “Sam Kress // Mar 27, 2013 at 11:49 am

    There are some Greens who are a lot more free market oriented than their party platform is, just like there are some CPers who are less theocratic/more libertarian than their party as a whole is.”

    I’ve already covered this. Yes, I know that there is a range of beliefs in every political party. I’m talking about general trends here, and the general trend for the Green Party is that they favor government socialism over the free market.

  77. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    #75 – Church and state are always, and will always be, joined implicitly since there is no such thing as a human being who does not have a belief in God; inclusive of agnostics and atheists. Hence every decision they do in government will be influenced by their religious belief(s).

    Those who screech for ” separation of church and state ” simply want the Christian foundations of our nation replaced by their own humanist/anti-Christian religion.

    The CP does not call for censorship and follows the Constitution and the Christian religious foundations of our nation which allowed all religions to worship as they wish. It is such foundations which allow Hindus, Buddists, Muslims, and even Satanists to worship their respective dieties; an ability which you won’t find in, for example, Saudi Arabia. – a true theocratic nation as compared to an imaginary one which it is falsely claimed that the CP desires.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the party which supports the principles upon which our nation was founded.

  78. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    #73 – This is a ludicrous statement as the CP supports the fundamental liberties found in our founding documents.

    All political parties are in fact ” theocratic organizations ” as they will express the predominant religious perspectives/beliefs of their collective members.

    The CP fights for citizen liberties and their defense in virtually countless ways.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the party fighting to defend the principles upon which our nation was founded

  79. Freddy Got Fingered

    All political parties are in fact ” theocratic organizations ”

    Are you on crack?

    ” separation of church and state ” simply want the Christian foundations of our nation replaced by their own humanist/anti-Christian religion.

    Completely false. Many people of all kinds of different religious views, including quite a few Christians, want separation of state and church; and this included many of the founders of the US, which is not to hold them up as any kind of perfect people, they had their flaws too – some elements of mixing church and state being one for some of them.

  80. Freddy Got Fingered

    Go through each party’s platform and see which one has more cringe worthy material (from a libertarian perspective).

    Platforms are usually shaped by a tiny number of platform aficianados in each party. In the Constitution and Green Parties, since their conventions are smaller than the LP’s, it is a smaller group that shapes the platforms. In the Green Party there are a number of Marxist sect members who work through the GP because they can get ballot access a lot easier that way than qualifying their own tiny parties . They have a highly disproportionate influence on the Green Party platform.

    That being said, there is plenty that is cringe worthy in the Constitution Party platform:

    *The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the
    blessing of our Lord
    and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the
    Universe and of these United States.

    *This great nation was founded, not by religionists,
    but by Christians;
    not on religions but on a foundation of Christian principles and values.

    *The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence
    to its Biblical foundations

    *The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted
    in Biblical law,

    *We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all huma
    n beings from
    fertilization to natural death, without exception.
    The first duty of the law
    is to protect innocent life, created in the image o
    f God. No government
    may legalize the taking of life without justificati
    on. Legalizing the
    termination of innocent life of the born or unborn,
    whether by abortion,
    infanticide, euthanasia or suicide, is a direct vio
    lation of their
    unalienable right to life. As to matters of rape an
    d incest, we find it
    unconscionable to take the life of an innocent chil
    d for the crimes of his
    father.

    Continued in next comment.

  81. Andy

    I don’t care for the religious stuff in the Constitution Party’s platform either, however, most of it does not call for any legislation, other than the stuff about abortion, and this is an issue where even Libertarians are divided.

    This is not to say that there is not any cringe worthy things in the Constitution Party’s platform, but I found more cringe worthy things in the Green Party’s platform than in the Constitution Party’s platform.

    Also, the Constitution Party actually does have a libertarian contingent among its ranks. They are pro-life minarchist libertarians. I’ve met a few of them who have identified themselves to me as libertarians.

    Are there any libertarians in the Green Party? Not any of which I’m aware. Sure, some Greens may lean more libertarian than others, but I don’t know of any that are as libertarian as is the libertarian wing of the Constitution Party.

  82. Freddy Got Fingered

    *We also oppose the distribution and use of all
    abortifacients, and the funding and legalization of
    bio-research
    involving human embryonic or pre-embryonic cells.
    In office, we shall only appoint to the federal
    judiciary, and to other
    positions of federal authority, qualified individuals who publicly
    acknowledge and commit themselves to the legal personhood of the
    pre-born child. In addition, we will do all that is
    within our power to
    encourage federal, state, and local government officials to protect the
    sanctity of the life of the pre-born through legisl
    ation, executive action,
    and judicial enforcement of the law of the land.

    * although a Supreme Court opinion is
    binding on the parties to the controversy as to the
    particulars of the
    case, it is not a political rule for the nation.

    *Roe v. Wade is an
    illegitimate usurpation of authority, contrary to the law of the nation’s
    Charter and Constitution. It must be resisted by all civil government
    officials, federal, state, and local, and by all branches of the
    government – legislative, executive and judicial.
    We affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate
    jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of abortion…

    *We favor more vigorous efforts in both domestic and
    foreign markets to
    protect the interests of owners in their copyrights
    and patents.

    * We favor the right of states and localities to execute criminals

    *It is a primary obligation of the federal governmen
    t to provide for the
    common defense, and to be vigilant regarding potent
    ial threats,
    prospective capabilities, and perceived intentions
    of potential enemies.
    We oppose unilateral disarmament and dismemberment
    of America’s
    defense infrastructure. That which is hastily torn
    down will not be easily
    rebuilt

    *We call for the deployment of a fully-
    operational strategic defense system as soon as possible

    *Because of the radical feminization of the military
    over the past two decades, it must be recognized that these
    “advances” undermine the integrity, morale, and performance of our
    military organizations

    *Under no circumstances should we have unilaterally
    surrendered our
    military base rights in Panama. The sovereign right
    of the United States
    to the United States territory of the Canal Zone has been jeopardized
    by treaties between the United States and Panama. Inasmuch as the
    United States bought both the sovereignty and the grant ownership of
    the ten-mile-wide Canal Zone, we propose that the government of the
    United States restore and protect its sovereign right and exclusive jurisdiction of the Canal Zone in perpetuity and re
    negotiate the treaties
    with Panama by which the ownership of the canal was
    surrendered to
    Panama

    , Congress and the Pre
    sident should take
    advantage of Panama Canal treaty provisions to nego
    tiate the return of
    a U.S. military presence at the Isthmus of Panama.
    At a time when the
    U.S. Navy is one-third its former size, it is essen
    tial that rapid transit of
    U.S. military vessels between the Atlantic and Paci
    fic Oceans be
    assured.

    More in next comment….

  83. Freddy Got Fingered

    Are there any libertarians in the Green Party?

    Quite a few. Back to the cringe worthy CP platform:

    * The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to
    restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support
    legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into
    the United States from
    foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies
    including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should
    be considered

  84. Freddy Got Fingered

    Super cringe worthy:

    All teaching is related to basic assumptions about
    God and man.
    Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious
    faith.

  85. Freddy Got Fingered

    Cringe worthy CP continues:

    *we are commanded to be fruitful and multiply, and to replenish the earth and develop it (e.g., to turn deserts into farms and wastelands into groves).

    *We reject, however, the argument of the perceived threat of man-made global warming which has been refuted by a large number of scientists.

    *No civil government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations, as affirmed by the 10th amendment, delegating to the people as our founders understood the family as necessary to the general welfare.

    We affirm the importance of Biblical scripture in the founders’ intent as eloquently stated by Noah Webster: “The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitution and laws… All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts in the Bible.”

    The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We are opposed to any judicial ruling or amending the U.S. Constitution or any state constitution re-defining marriage with any definition other than the Biblical standard.

    *We reject the notion that homosexuals, transgenders or those who are sexually deviant are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior. We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through any courts or legislatures. We stand against so-called “sexual orientation” and “hate crime” statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior or stifle public opposition to its expression. We oppose government funding of “partner” benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual or civil unions.

    *We affirm the value of the father and the mother in the home, and we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples.

  86. Freddy Got Fingered

    *Gambling increases crimes, destroys families, grows governmental bureaucracies, exploits those who are addicted and leaches the economic prosperity out of our communities.. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling such as lotteries, casinos or subsidization of Native American casinos. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states.

    *We affirm the integrity of the international borders of the United States and the Constitutional authority and duty of the federal government to guard and to protect those borders, including the regulation of the numbers and of the qualifications of immigrants into the country.

    Each year approximately one million legal immigrants and almost as many illegal aliens enter the United States. These immigrants – including illegal aliens – have been made eligible for various kinds of public assistance, including housing, education, Social Security, and legal services. This unconstitutional drain on the federal Treasury is having a severe and adverse impact on our economy, increasing the cost of government at federal, state, and local levels, adding to the tax burden, and stressing the fabric of society. The mass importation of people with low standards of living threatens the wage structure of the American worker and the labor balance in our country.

    We oppose the abuse of the H-1B and L-1 visa provisions of the immigration act which are displacing American workers with foreign.

    We favor a moratorium on immigration to the United States, except in extreme hardship cases or in other individual special circumstances, until the availability of all federal subsidies and assistance be discontinued, and proper security procedures have been instituted to protect against terrorist infiltration.

    We also insist that every individual group and/or private agency which requests the admission of an immigrant to the U.S., on whatever basis, be required to commit legally to provide housing and sustenance for such immigrants, bear full responsibility for the economic independence of the immigrants, and post appropriate bonds to seal such covenants.

    The Constitution Party demands that the federal government restore immigration policies based on the practice that potential immigrants will be disqualified from admission to the U.S. if, on the grounds of health, criminality, morals, or financial dependence, they would impose an improper burden on the United States, any state, or any citizen of the United States.

    We oppose the provision of welfare subsidies and other taxpayer-supported benefits to illegal aliens, and reject the practice of bestowing U.S. citizenship on children born to illegal alien parents while in this country.

    We oppose any extension of amnesty to illegal aliens. We call for the use of U.S. troops to protect the states against invasion.

  87. Freddy Got Fingered

    * Congress must exert the power it possesses to prohibit all federal courts from hearing cases which Congress deems to be outside federal jurisdiction pursuant to Article III, § 2 of the Constitution.

    We particularly support all the legislation which would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

    We commend Former Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court for his defense of the display of the Ten Commandments, and condemn those who persecuted him and removed him from office for his morally and legally just stand.

    * Pornography, obscenity and sexually oriented businesses are a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony. This results in emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities.

    Due to a lack of prosecution, the sexually oriented business industry has proliferated, aggravating the problems of child pornography, human trafficking and sexually transmitted diseases. This is decreasing our safety by increasing crime rates, specifically rape and molestation in additional to the loss of dignity belonging to all human beings.

    We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing all laws against obscenity.

    We call on all levels of government to protect and promote that which is truly free speech while vigorously defending and enforcing laws that protect us from the proliferation of the pornography and sexually oriented business industries because they are proven to be toxic to community standards, lower property values and increase crime.

    While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that government plays a vital role in protecting all citizens, particularly our most vulnerable, women and children, from exploitation.

  88. Freddy Got Fingered

    “We call upon all branches of government to cease their attacks on the religious liberties of the people and the states, regardless of the forum in which these liberties are exercised.”

    By this they mean that government schools, government courts and so on should be used to preach their religion. Somehow I don’t think they want to confer that same right on other religions, no matter what they say about freedom of religion elsewhere. A Muslim teacher, Satanist judge or atheist prison guard would not be empowered to push their religion in the way they want to empower Christians in these positions to do.

  89. Dave Terry

    Don J. Grundmann, (91)
    “there is no such thing as a human being who does not have a belief in God; inclusive of agnostics and atheists.”

    The absolute greatest price of free speech is having to read moronic bullshit like the above and the later comment by FGG (98)

  90. Freddy Got Fingered

    * Tariffs are not only a constitutional source of revenue, but, wisely administered, are an aid to preservation of the national economy. Since the adoption of the 1934 Trade Agreements Act, the United States government has engaged in a free trade policy which has destroyed or endangered important segments of our domestic agriculture and industry, undercut the wages of our working men and women, and totally destroyed or shipped abroad the jobs of hundreds of thousands of workers. This free trade policy is being used to foster socialism in America through welfare and subsidy programs.

    We oppose all international trade agreements which have the effect of diminishing America’s economic self-sufficiency and of exporting jobs, the loss of which impoverishes American families, undermines American communities, and diminishes America’s capacity for economic self-reliance, and the provision of national defense.

  91. Freddy Got Fingered

    * Tariffs are not only a constitutional source of revenue, but, wisely administered, are an aid to preservation of the national economy. Since the adoption of the 1934 Trade Agreements Act, the United States government has engaged in a free trade policy which has destroyed or endangered important segments of our domestic agriculture and industry, undercut the wages of our working men and women, and totally destroyed or shipped abroad the jobs of hundreds of thousands of workers. This free trade policy is being used to foster socialism in America through welfare and subsidy programs.

    We oppose all international trade agreements which have the effect of diminishing America’s economic self-sufficiency and of exporting jobs, the loss of which impoverishes American families, undermines American communities, and diminishes America’s capacity for economic self-reliance, and the provision of national defense.

    {That’s probably enough cringe worthiness for several life times already…]

  92. Dave Terry

    Sorry Freddie,

    I mistakenly thought that those were YOUR thoughts, not just quotation.

    It would HELP if you used ” marks” when you are quoting someone else.

  93. Dave Terry

    Has anyone in the Constitution Party ever read the
    Treaty of Tripoli (1796) which state CLEARLY:

    “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

  94. Freddy Got Fingered

    I don’t care for the religious stuff in the Constitution Party’s platform either, however, most of it does not call for any legislation, other than the stuff about abortion,

    That is simply untrue. Read the excerpts from their platform that I posted.

  95. Dave Terry

    The overwhelming majority of Constitution Party members are “born again” Christians. Clearly this “second” trip down the birth canal does strange things to the brain.

    This explains a lot about the C.P. Platform! :>)

  96. paulie

    I posted the links to the Constitution Party’s platform and the Green Party’s platform above. Go through each party’s platform and see which one has more cringe worthy material (from a libertarian perspective).

    CP is more cringe worthy than GP.

    I would rank the broad issue categories – foreign policy, social issues, and economic policies – in that order of importance, very roughly corresponding to “life, liberty and property.” “Life” as I use it here is more a reference to war, not to “life” as CPers use the term, which to me is more under “liberty”.

    Of the three, Greens are pretty solid on the first two and most important categories, with the exception of some (not all) Greens on the gun issue. They are for the most part pretty bad on economic issues, but I’ve met some Greens who are not.

    The CP is for the most part decent on foreign policy, but they are open to candidates who waiver on those issues, unlike the Greens. They suck on most social issues, which trump economic issues for me. They are good on many economic issues, but there again they are protectionists.

    Two of their top issues are immigration and abortion, and I don’t line up with them on either of those.

    Of the two, I like the Greens better.

    Not all libertarians have the same issue priorities, so I understand why some like the CP more than the Greens, but I am more in line with Greens than Constitutionalists.

  97. Green_Liberal

    I’m pretty biased because I agree with most if not all of the GP positions that Andy finds cringe-worthy. However, I would think that even a right-libertarian would find the preamble to the CP platforum utterly disingenuous and a flat-out distortion of history. If a party can’t even be honest in its preamble–that has to be a red flag.

  98. Nicholas Sarwark

    The Constitution Party is slightly superior to the Rs and Ds because they actually have principles, erroneous as they may be.

    The Libertarian Party is better because it’s a bigger tent by nature and more accepting, since the principles we hew to are those of individual freedom.

    As to formally rejecting the 2008 ticket, I’m with Knedler. It sucked, but no reason to draw attention to it. Hindsight is 20/20; better to learn from the past and make better choices in the future than to highlight the mistakes.

  99. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Mr. Terry – Your comment attempting to show that a treaty occurring at the cessation of a military conflict with the Barbary Coast pirates, Muslims one and all, trumps all of the previous CHRISTIAN history of the nation is an oh so typical attempt by the anti-Christian forces within our nation to present their fantasy that the nation popped out of a vacumn with nothing before it; a political equivalent of the Big Bang theory.

    From the original settlers ( Mayflower, et. al. ) through the Pilgrims, Puritans, pastors who were at the core of the Revolution, and countless other examples Christianity, and most especially its core principles, was the religion upon which this nation was founded.

    To imagine and claim otherwise simply illustrates the foaming-at-the-mouth hatred of Christianity by the humanists/anti-Christians of our day as Christianity, the real one and not any fake substitute, is the last barrier to the establishment of the One World Government/New World Order so desperately sought by the enemies of humanity.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California, the last political party standing in defense of the founding principles of the nation

  100. Mark Axinn

    Why would we repudiate our 2008 ticket? Barr and Root were duly elected by the Convention nominees and I, for one, did my utmost to make sure they were on the ballot in my state and got as many votes as possible.

    We have conventions and vote for whomever we prefer (I voted for Mary Ruwart six times in Denver), but once the selection is made, then the right thing to do is to support the nominee or sit it out, not to piss in public after the fact.

    Of course Kevin is right that nothing is gained and a lot of time wasted focusing on what happened seven years ago. He is wrong however that Ohio is going to stay the fourth largest state in the LP; I intend to surpass those football-watching casserole-eaters if it’s the last thing I do!!!!

  101. David

    Ron Paul never endorced Baldwin. Paul said he would vote for Baldwin after Bob Barr screwed up.

  102. Brian Holtz

    Any repudiation of the 2008 ticket should be based purely on the nominees’ actions during the campaign. Repudiating the actions/choices of ex-nominees is a separate question.

    There are a lot of former LP leaders whose post-leadership actions could be repudiated — and a lot of them were LP radicals.

    In 1989, Murray Rothbard abandoned the LP and by 1992 was back in the GOP supporting Pat Buchanan for President. Rothbard’s lieutenant Bill Evers, an anarchist who helped Rothbard rewrite the LP platform in the 1970’s, ended up as an advisor to George W. Bush, and worked in Iraq in the occupation government before taking a position in the federal Department of Education. The entire leadership of the Rothbard-era Radical Caucus — Rothbard, Evers, Garris, Raimondo, Costello, Hunter, Rockwell — all abandoned the LP for the GOP and/or its candidates.

  103. Dave Terry

    Mr. Grundmann; American history is NOT a card game. There are no suits and no “trump cards”.

    Your allusion to ” all of the previous CHRISTIAN history of the nation” is pure fiction and wishful thinking.

    There IS no history of the United States as a “Christian nation” The treaty quoted above IS, next to the Constitution, the ONLY official statement of the American government, vis-a-vis, the position of “religion” in the new nation of the United State of America.

    The rest is ALL supposition on your part. The simple fact is RELIGION was totally incidental in the establishment of this country.

  104. Andy

    “Green_Liberal // Mar 27, 2013 at 5:48 pm

    I’m pretty biased because I agree with most if not all of the GP positions that Andy finds cringe-worthy. However, I would think that even a right-libertarian would find the preamble to the CP platforum utterly disingenuous and a flat-out distortion of history.”

    I don’t consider myself to be a left or right Libertarian, just a Libertarian. I do not care for the Constitution Party’s preamble, however, this is more of a superficial thing, because their preamble does not really specify any legislation that they are calling for, unless the part about abortion is a part of their preamble, and even there, this is an issue where Libertarians are divided because one can argue that abortion is an act of aggression.

    So even though I don’t care for the Constitution Party’s preamble, I find the Green Party’s platform planks that I mentioned above to be more offensive, because those platform planks calls for actual legislation.

    There are however some Constitution Party platform planks which I do find offensive, such as this one, which I believes violates freedom of speech and expression:

    “Preamble of the US Constitution:

    ‘We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…’

    Samuel Adams said: ‘While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdues; but once they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.’

    Pornography, obscenity and sexually oriented businesses are a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony. This results in emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities.

    Due to a lack of prosecution, the sexually oriented business industry has proliferated, aggravating the problems of child pornography, human trafficking and sexually transmitted diseases. This is decreasing our safety by increasing crime rates, specifically rape and molestation in additional to the loss of dignity belonging to all human beings.

    We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing all laws against obscenity.

    We call on all levels of government to protect and promote that which is truly free speech while vigorously defending and enforcing laws that protect us from the proliferation of the pornography and sexually oriented business industries because they are proven to be toxic to community standards, lower property values and increase crime.

    While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that government plays a vital role in protecting all citizens, particularly our most vulnerable, women and children, from exploitation.”

    This is what I call conservative political correctness. A lot of people, conservatives in particular, complain about liberal/left wing political correctness, but conservatives have their own forms of political correctness, and this is an example of it.

    I support freedom of speech and free expression, including the right to say or do things that others find offensive. I don’t want a nanny state that tells people what they can read, listen to, watch, or say.

  105. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Mr. Terry – I have forgotten the name of the Lexington minister who after delivering his sermon took off his clerical vestments to reveal his colonial officers uniform beneath. He followed this action with a call to his parishioners to fight for freedom; which they and many other Christians did in the battles to follow.

    If your willing stupidity were not so sad, sick, and (especially ) ominous it would be a good parlor joke or, better yet, another example which could be shown on ” Jay Walking ” ( with Jay Leno ) of the abject and staggering stupidity which Americans can be afflicted with.

    Why do you think the Pilgrims crossed the Atlantic?? To celebrate their ” Satanic ” religion? Only a total moron would make your above statement OR someone who, according to their OWN religion, must disavow history, gravity, the color of the sky ( no, it is not pink, it is blue ), or anything else in order to construct their own fantasy world in order to escape or attempt to defeat reality.

    I just finished writing a letter where I referred to there being worse things than death. Thanks for reminding me what one of them is.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the last party that believes in reality and not in fantasy and the last party that believes in and teaches the REAL history of our nation

  106. Jill Pyeatt

    Freddy, thanks for posting the info from the Constitution party. I have always been fairly sympathetic to them, mainly because I like Chuck Baldwin. Much of what I read tonight, though, I can’t agree with at all (like the “feminization of the military”). I sure hope the Libertarian Party works out, because I don’t think I’d last a minute in any other party.

  107. Andy

    Paulie said: “CP is more cringe worthy than GP.”

    I know the real reason you are saying this, and it is because you are going for style over substance. You think that hipster Green Party types are “cooler” than your image of Constitution Party people being a bunch of old, white, mostly male “fuddy duddies.” If somebody went on an issue by issue basis, and did not tell you what they were doing, maybe even broke the questions up over a long period of time, never telling you why they were asking you the questions, like a blind survey, you’d probably agree with the Constitution Party on more issues than the Green Party. You just don’t want to hear this because you think that you won’t look as “cool” because you’ll be going against the hipster and hippie Greens and in agreeing more with the “fuddy duddy” boring old people from the Constitution Party.

    The fact of the matter is that if you fairly weight the issues, gun rights is one of the most important, and one could make a strong case that it is THE most important issue. The Constitution Party is much strong on the right to keep and bear arms than the Green Party is. If you don’t have guns, you can’t shoot any government agents. If you can’t shoot any government agents then you can’t revolt. So you’d actually retain the ability to revolt against the Constitution Party more so than against the Greens, because the Constitution Party is better on gun rights.

    The Constitution Party at least bases their platform on something which limits government power. Do they have flaws? Sure, but the Greens base their platform around a bunch of Marxist/socialist ideas, with some leftist “PC” feel good stuff thrown in. Yeah, they have a few good issues, but it is mixed with a lot of dreadful economic policies, and some big government nanny statism.

    “The CP is for the most part decent on foreign policy, but they are open to candidates who waiver on those issues, unlike the Greens.”

    This is not true. The Greens have nominated candidates who favor intervening in foreign affairs if the United Nations approve it, and the Greens seem to be favorable to the United Nations, while the Constitution Party wants to get the US out of the UN. Also, the Constitution Party REJECTED Alan Keyes as a candidate, in large part because his support of the war in Iraq. They did nominate Virgil Goode, who as a congressman voted for the war in Iraq, but in order to get their nomination Virgil Goode had to do a mea culpa on the war in Iraq, as well as the Patriot Act (although he probably faked it just to get the nomination). The Libertarian Party is pretty much an anti-war of aggression party, but it has nominated some pro-war candidates, like Bob Barr and Wayne Root (both of whom waffled and played both sides of the issue, but I don’t think that ever was truly committed to the anti-war side).

    Now I’m not saying that the Green Party is a pro-war party, because they are certainly not pro-war like the Democrats or Republicans are. I’m just pointing out that I don’t think that they really have an edge over the Constitution Party on this issue.

    “They suck on most social issues, which trump economic issues for me.”

    This is not really true. They are good on gun rights, certainly much more solid than the Greens. They are also good on the right to protest, as in protesting wars or protesting abortion clinics or protesting in favor of gun rights, etc… They also oppose the military draft. They oppose adding extra penalties to crimes by calling them “hate crimes,” unlike the leftist “PC” nanny statist Greens. They oppose Affirmative Action, unlike the Greens. They oppose the government school system, unlike the Greens.

    “They are good on many economic issues, but there again they are protectionists.”

    The Greens are not in favor of free trade either, and they are pretty much worse across the board on most other economic issues.

    The Constitution Party opposes Social Security Numbers, and wants to get the government out of Social Security (this is in their platform). The Social Security program is bad from an economic standpoint, and it is also bad from a privacy stand point, as the government uses Social Security Numbers to track and trace people. The Green Party supports Social Security. I know how much you hate Social Security Numbers.

    The Green Party is better than the Constitution Party on SOME social issues, but there are others where they are the same, or in some cases, worse.

    As I said above, the Greens are better overall on the war on drugs, but they are worse on so many other issues that I don’t think that this makes up for it.

    The Constitution Party favors states rights, and while I do not agree with this when it comes to violating people’s rights at a state level, at least this leaves room for the states to have some policies which could be more pro-freedom than the federal government. Such as, the Constitution Party tends to frown upon drugs and gambling, but if some states vote to legalize them the Constitution Party would not interfere with that under their states rights decentralist view (unless they violate their platform, but this could be said of any party).

    Now I happen to agree more with the Greens on the issue of gay marriage, in that I think that gays should be able to enter voluntary relationships and define them as marriages if they so desire. I also think that state marriage licenses should be abolished, but whether it is licenses or not, I think that gays should be able to do whatever they want as long as they are not infringing on the rights of others, and I do not consider them getting married to be infringing on anyone’s rights.

    There are some other “radical” social freedoms where I’m not so sure that the Greens come down on the side of liberty, and neither does the Constitution Party. Like gambling. I think that people should have the right to gamble with their own money. Are the Greens really in favor of legalized gambling? I’ve run into a lot of leftist “PC” types that don’t think that gambling should be legal because they believe that poor people will waste all of their money on it. This is an issue where leftist “PC” types and religious conservatives agree. There are some leftists who are libertines who are for legalizing gambling, and there are other leftist who want to legalize it so it can be taxed, but there are also the ones who want it to be illegal for the reason I already mentioned.

    I’m not sure if this is in the Constitution Party’s platform or not, but I’ve heard from several people in the Constitution Party that they favor fully informing jurors or their right to nullify laws. This is a HUGE issue, because it means that if you disagree with a law that they pass, you can vote to not convict people in a jury trial. If this belief is widely held in their party then this is a major plus for them.

    Where does the Green Party stand on fully informing jurors of their right to nullify laws? I don’t think that I’ve ever heard a Green comment on this.

    Now I actually hate to sound like I’m picking on the Greens. I did see some other things in their platform that I agree with that I did not mention here. Maybe I should go through their entire platform and comment on where I agree and where I disagree.

    I could do the same with the Constitution Party, but scanning through each platform I saw more things that I disagree with in the Green Party’s platform than in the Constitution Party’s platform.

  108. Andy

    Paulie said: ““They suck on most social issues, which trump economic issues for me.”

    Hey, how about the part of their platform which calls for reparations to be paid to black people for slavery? Do you think that you should have to pay, considering that your family immigrated to this country in 1980?

    Do you see the huge mess that this would cause if this was actually passed? How would they possibly determine who was owed what (see the questions I listed above about this)? Also, why stop there, why not go through history and say that anyone who had ancestors that were ever oppressed by anyone anywhere is owed reparations?

    How about wealthy black people (wealth figures from Celebrity Net Worth), like Oprah Winfrey (worth $2.7 billion), Michael Jordan (worth $500 million), Magic Johnson (worth $500 million), Sean “Puffy” Combs (worth $475 million), Jay Z (worth $450 million), Bill Cosby (worth $350 million), Dr. Dre (worth $260 million), .50 Cent (worth $250 million), Will Smith (worth $200 million), and Denzel Washington (worth $140 million)? Should poor and middle class white people have to pay them reparations? How about Asian Americans? I’m not aware of any Asian Americans having owned black slaves, but should they have to pay reparations anyway?

    I can see this policy causing MAJOR problems if it was ever enacted. It would probably cause a backlash with an increase in racism.

    What do you think of this part of the Green Party’s platform?

  109. Andy

    “Brian Holtz // Mar 27, 2013 at 8:44 pm

    Any repudiation of the 2008 ticket should be based purely on the nominees’ actions during the campaign. Repudiating the actions/choices of ex-nominees is a separate question.

    There are a lot of former LP leaders whose post-leadership actions could be repudiated — and a lot of them were LP radicals.

    In 1989, Murray Rothbard abandoned the LP and by 1992 was back in the GOP supporting Pat Buchanan for President”

    This does NOT compare to what Barr and Root did. Murray Rothbard was a life long hardcore libertarian activist. Yeah, I know that Murray was backing Pat Buchanan for President in the Republican primaries in 1992, but this was AFTER the original plan for Ron Paul to run in the 1992 Republican primaries fell through, and while Pat Buchanan was not a libertarian, he was not really a “tow the party line” establishment Republican. Rothbard had hoped that with Buchanan that libertarians could form an alliance with paleoconservatives to topple the Republican establishment. I personally consider Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romeny to be worse than Buchanan (I’m not saying that Buchanan is great, but that Gingrich and Romney are worse), and Barr endorsed Gingrich and then Romney, and Root endorsed Romney.

    Also, there was a lot more at play here than just the endorsements. Look at the history of both Barr and Root. I don’t see how anyone claiming to be a Libertarian could possibly put the life work of Murry Rothbard up against Bob Barr and Wayne Root and act like they are on the same level. Rothbard was one of the most prolific libertarian writers ever. His work is still influencing people today. It appears to me that Barr and Root ran an “operation” against the Libertarian Party. Their campaign was a joke and they made several anti-libertarian statements, before, during, and after the campaign. All of Root’s media appearances produced what for the Libertarian Party? Not much of anything. Compare his media appearances to those of Harry Browne’s, or Ron Paul’s for that matter? Harry Browne and Ron Paul (even while running as a Republican), brought a lot of people to the libertarian cause. Did Root bring in anyone? How about Barr? I have yet to meet one Bob Barr or Wayne Root Libertarian. The Barr / Root ticket actually turned many people away. Hey, and who can forget about Bob Barr helping deposed Haitian dictator Jeane-Cluade “Baby Doc” Duvalier bring his message of “hope” to the people of Haiti? Yeah, this is what libertarians do, hang around with desposed dictators and help them deliver messages of hope. LOL!

  110. Steve M

    anyone who is voting constitution party candidates isn’t voting democan/republicrat pro-war machine party.

  111. Steve M

    The 2008 Libertarian Party efforts were a disaster…. the 2012 Libertarian Party efforts were much more promising. Can we get some good state wide candidates in 2014? I would love to chip into a fund that paid people like Richard Winger to put forth a list of 2014 state offices that Libertarians could run for that would help with ballot access for 2016.

  112. Andy

    One thing I would like to add here, is that I generally enjoy talking to both Constitution Party people and Green Party people more than I enjoy talking to the average, mainstream, run-of-the-mill, indoctrinated Democrat or Republican.

  113. Andy

    “Steve M // Mar 27, 2013 at 11:59 pm

    The 2008 Libertarian Party efforts were a disaster…. the 2012 Libertarian Party efforts were much more promising. Can we get some good state wide candidates in 2014? I would love to chip into a fund that paid people like Richard Winger to put forth a list of 2014 state offices that Libertarians could run for that would help with ballot access for 2016.”

    This has been mentioned here before, but since you asked the question, the Libertarian Party of Arkansas is going to try to get back on the ballot for 2014. If they can get a candidate for Governor on the ballot, and if that candidate can get 3% of the vote (which is an attainable goal), then they will not have to petition for ballot access for 2016.

    The Libertarian Party of Arkansas is taking this challenge up on their own, as in no help from the Libertarian National Committee as most states that do not have ballot access get during Presidential election years, but it will still take help from Libertarians around the country to make this happen.

    Here is the link to make a donation:

    http://lpar.org/ballotaccess2014/

    It should be pointed out that the Libertarian Party of Arkansas is coming out of their best election year ever, and that the Libertarian Party of Arkansas is one of the LP’s fastest growing state affiliates. They ran more candidates than they have ever run in their history in 2012, and Gary Johnson received his fourth highest percent of the vote in Arkansas. The Libertarian Party also elected their first candidate ever to a partisan office, and they also elected somebody to a non-partisan office.

    Arkansas has a lot of districts where one of the major parties is weak, and the Green Party in Arkansas has been able to take advantage of this by electing candidates to the state legislature on two occasions in recent years. The Libertarian Party has a chance to do the same thing, that is if the party can get on the ballot.

    The Libertarian Party of Arkansas can either rest on their laurels until the next Presidential election in 2016, or they can keep working to build their party and do something in 2014. They have decided to do something rather than do nothing.

  114. Dennis

    “You think that hipster Green Party types are ‘cooler’ than your image of Constitution Party people being a bunch of old, white, mostly male ‘fuddy duddies.'”

    I don’t know about everyone else, but I am definitely tired of poseur Paulie’s constant pro-hipster ravings.

    I mean, how many times has he walked Pabst Blue Ribbon into one of these threads! And his constant accusations of irony! Jeez.

    Paulie’s scene kid phase was bad enough and now we have to deal with this!?

  115. Dennis

    “How about wealthy black people?”

    Of the people you listed, I would have no problem paying reparations to Jay Z, if for no other reason than he rapped about Peter Gatien which earned my respect.

    “Me and my operation/
    running New York nightscene/
    with one eye closed/
    like Peter Gatien.”

  116. Andy

    “Dennis // Mar 28, 2013 at 12:56 am

    ‘You think that hipster Green Party types are ‘cooler’ than your image of Constitution Party people being a bunch of old, white, mostly male ‘fuddy duddies.’’

    I don’t know about everyone else, but I am definitely tired of poseur Paulie’s constant pro-hipster ravings.

    I mean, how many times has he walked Pabst Blue Ribbon into one of these threads! And his constant accusations of irony! Jeez.

    Paulie’s scene kid phase was bad enough and now we have to deal with this!?”

    LOL!!! Seriously though, I think that Paul is giving in to style over substance. It seems to me like he wants to look “cool” and fit in with the hipsters and hippies who tend to gravitate to the Green Party over the old “fuddy duddy” types whom he sees gravitating toward the Constitution Party. So this wanting to fit in at the bars and coffee shops and health food stores and places near college campuses clouds his judgment.

  117. Andy

    Dennis said: “Of the people you listed, I would have no problem paying reparations to Jay Z,”

    Jay Z may have 99 problems, but money ain’t one since he’s got a net worth of $450 million.

  118. Dave Terry

    Mr. Grundmann, I believe the pastors name was Jonas Clark and yes, he and many parishioners did fight bravely for independence from the crown.

    A fact, which has no bearing whatsoever on the ludicrous point you are trying to make. Who do you think they were fighting. Weren’t the Redcoats ALSO Christians for the most part?

    The British King’s actual title was George the Third, BY THE GRACE OF GOD, King of Great Britain and Ireland and DEFENDER OF THE FAITH.

    What faith was he supposed to be defending?

    You asked, “Why do you think the Pilgrims crossed the Atlantic?? To celebrate their ” Satanic ” religion?

    LOL! They left because they didn’t want to worship the same brand of Christianity of their European counterparts. And immediately after arriving they began to set up dogmas and rituals
    the OTHER Christians didn’t want to worship.
    The Massachusetts Puritans forced Roger Williams and his Christians to leave and found Rhode Island.

    Your great Christian pilgrams didn’t treat other Christians any better than Jews or Muslims

    You REALLY need to go back to school so that you and your CP fanatics can, as you say; ” teach the REAL history of our nation and your
    intellectually vapid superstitions.

  119. paulie

    LOL @ Grundmann vs Terry – those two deserve each other. I hope they have a nice loooooooong conversation.

    Speaking of looooooong I did not have time to read (much less answer point by point) Andy’s comments. However I skimmed them. Apparently he still thinks that I prefer GP to CP on style not substance, even when I explicitly said otherwise and explained exactly why I like the GP better on substance, as did Freddy while quoting the CP platform at length.

    We have had this discussion before. I have read the GP and CP platforms and know many people from both of those parties. The Greens are less cringeworthy to me. Not to say there is any shortage of cringeworthiness in either one, but the CP is worse.

    Andy just has a problem getting that not all Libertarians have the same issue priorities as he does. Oh well.

  120. Thomas L. Knapp

    @117, @124,

    I think the idea of “repudiation” is probably the wrong way of looking at it.

    Think of it in terms of the parable of the frog and the scorpion or the old lady and the snake. Barr, Root, Johnson and Gray are what they are, and they were what they are before they were nominated.

    Rather than repudiating them as individuals or candidates, the LP should consider apologizing for its own lack of due diligence in choosing its nominees.

  121. paulie

    As for reparations, they are not just a “black and white” issue (sorry).

    In principle, I can understand how the long history of slavery and Jim Crow worked to transfer a great deal of wealth produced by African-Americans to European-Americans or whatever term you prefer for either group, that a lot of systemic racism still exists today, and that the role of that wealth transfer in socioeconomic dynamics is a continuing problem today, so there’s a case to be made for reparations. In practice, it’s a bad idea for all the reasons Andy points out.

    So, yes, that is among the many issues in the Green Party platform I don’t agree on.

    However, on balance I find the CP to be worse than the GP.

    However again, I agree with Steve M that

    anyone who is voting constitution party candidates isn’t voting democan/republicrat pro-war machine party.

  122. Green_Liberal

    The details of any reparations are tricky because they could only come about via a process of negotiation as well as truth and reconciliation.

    I think if you look at the history of racism and exploitation in the United States, then it’s hard to see how there can be justice without some kind of reparations. The truth of ongoing government complicity in racial segregration and exploitation is alot uglier than what is taught in the schools.

    It is true that discussion of reparations could lead to instability because some people wouldn’t be satisfied and would use reparations as a tactical base for additional demands. However, if reparations are done right (ie via a T&R commission), they could go along way towards establishing some justice and harmony in this fractured society.

  123. Robert Capozzi

    a 124: I don’t see how anyone claiming to be a Libertarian could possibly put the life work of Murry Rothbard up against Bob Barr and Wayne Root and act like they are on the same level. Rothbard was one of the most prolific libertarian writers ever. His work is still influencing people today.

    137 tk: Rather than repudiating them as individuals or candidates, the LP should consider apologizing for its own lack of due diligence in choosing its nominees.

    me: Both are “true enough” statements. MNR was certainly prolific, and certainly continues to be influential. The question is: Is his influence helpful or harmful? My answer, on balance, is HARMFUL, as comes across as one very confused thinker.

    So, yes, TK, there is a strong case that the LP should end its denial that this seminal thinker’s ideas have created a mess, and to clean up the mess by shrugging MNR’s confused thinking embedded in L thought.

    It’s impossible to say who did more qualitative damage to the L brand…Rothbard, Barr or Root. The Rs, however, survived Nixon, but they continue to suffer from dysfunctional intellectual premises.

    Strike the root! “Root” just went away! 😉

  124. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy @ 134,

    “Jay Z may have 99 problems, but money ain’t one since he’s got a net worth of $450 million.”

    Well, it’s not a question of whether or not he needs reparations. It’s a question of whether or not he’s owed reparations.

  125. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    #139 – Among many other reasons that ” reparations ” would and will fail is for the simple reason that they will NEVER be enough. No matter what formula is possibly developed which produces ” X ” amount of money for Joe Blow citizen the sure as gravity complaint will be ” BUT it’s not enough for all of the collective suffering of myself and my ancestors. It just shows how the white people are trying to put one over on us by pretending to pay reparations and then giving us this piss poor ” X ” amount.” And if ” X ” is then increased to ” 2X ” or ” 10X ” or ” 100X ” the same complaint will be heard.

    Bottom Line – no amount of money will ever buy ” justice and/or harmony.” People will find and/or produce justice and harmony through a change in their character and nothing else.

    And in regard to the ” history of racism ” in our nation –

    When is the most vicious racist organization in the history of the nation, one which has killed literally millions of black citizens ( far more than the Klan ever dreamed of ” accomplishing ” – see here blackgenocide.org ), going to be stopped; minimally from being funded in their actions by the government? I refer of course to Planned Parenthood whose founder, Margaret Sanger, declared blacks to be ” human weeds.”

    The Constitution Party declares – don’t pay blacks reparations, just stop killing them.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the only party working to stop the genocide of the black populace

  126. Freddy Got Fingered

    Yeah, Margaret Sanger was racist, but there is nothing racist about Planned Parenthood anymore.

  127. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp // Mar 28, 2013 at 10:02 am

    Andy @ 134,

    ‘Jay Z may have 99 problems, but money ain’t one since he’s got a net worth of $450 million.’

    Well, it’s not a question of whether or not he needs reparations. It’s a question of whether or not he’s owed reparations.”

    I’d say that he’s “owed” reparations just as much as everyone else who had ancestors who were oppressed at some point in the course of history. People have been doing bad things to other people throughout the course of history, so everyone likely has ancestors that were oppressed at some point, so going by this “logic” behind the reparations movement, everyone owes everyone reparations.

  128. Freddy Got Fingered

    The logic is that the US government owes them for its part in the oppression. You can argue with that logic, but that’s what it is.

  129. Andy

    Paulie said: “However again, I agree with Steve M that

    ‘anyone who is voting constitution party candidates isn’t voting democan/republicrat pro-war machine party.'”

    Yes, I would agree with this statement, and I’d add that voting for the Green Party, or most other minor party or independent candidates is usually better than voting for the typical Republican or Democrat (of course I generally advocate voting for Libertarian Party candidates).

  130. Dave Terry

    Don J. Grundmann, (143)
    “Constitution Party of California; the only party working to stop the genocide of the black populace

    And sll those black women are dragged kicking and screaming to the clinic and forced to endure this procedure. Shame on us!

    Are we to infer then, that when Asian women go to a hospital or an abortion clinic, they they are also engaging in the genocide of the yellow race?

    I guess the only FAIR thing for us white-folk to do is have MORE abortions of white zygotes to compensate for the loss of black and yellow zygotes.

    Saint Don has spoken.

  131. Thomas L. Knapp

    And @ 145,

    Oh, I agree with you on reparations. I was just pointing out that it is a matter of what’s owed or not owed to someone, not what that someone does or doesn’t need.

    If I run into Bill Gates’s car, he doesn’t “need” me to pay to get it fixed. He can afford it. But that doesn’t mean I don’t owe it to him.

    With respect to reparations, as time goes on it gets more and more difficult to determine who has been damaged and how badly, as well as who is culpable and for how much. At some point,the problem becomes insoluble and it’s time to stop arguing about it and move on.

  132. Wes Wagner

    TK @149

    Not to mention that corruption of blood was outlawed in the constitution for a reason. Likewise there are reasons under american law children are not held accountable for their parent’s debts.

    (I think the latter will become even more clear politically soon…)

  133. Erik Viker

    David @116, you are incorrect, unless you needed to see the words “I endorse” to recognize an endorsement. Republican Ron Paul stated “I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.” It seemed very endorsy to me.

  134. Dave Terry

    FWIW, Please be advised that the “David” @ 116 is NOT Dave Terry

    However, one should note that Ron Paul did not say he “supported” Baldwin, until after he was snubbed by Mr. Barr & Co.

  135. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    Paulie I don’t understand how on earth you find the CP to be worse than the GP. The CP supports free markets, is pro-gun, non-interventionist, pro-civil liberties. The Green Party is a bunch of big government statist. The only thing I like about them is a lot of Greens support Palestinian solidarity and are against the rogue Israel state and its pervasive and destructive lobby here in the US (this is my impression at least). The CP has a lot of Bible thumping religious zealots who somehow find a way to justify Israel because of some biblical bullshit or whatever.

  136. paulie

    The CP supports free markets,

    Not when it comes to (im)migration or international trade or porn.

    is pro-gun, non-interventionist,

    Not all of them are non-interventionist.

    pro-civil liberties.

    Not for gays, or porn, or drugs when it comes to states/local (as well as importation), etc., etc.

    The Green Party is a bunch of big government statist.

    They are generally good on peace and civil liberties issues.

    CP is big government, just on different issues than Greens. Greens are
    non-interventionist and pro civil liberties (far more so than CP). Many are pro-gun rights and some are even for free markets.

  137. Andy

    Paulie said: “Not all of them are non-interventionist.”

    The same can be said of the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party too for that matter.

    The Constitution Party’s official platform is non-interventionist, and I think that most of their membership adheres to this.

    “They are generally good on peace and civil liberties issues.”

    Do you consider gun rights to be a civil liberties issue? The Constitution Party is better than the Green Party here.

    Also, what about Affirmative Action, which is government mandated hiring? The Green Party supports it and the Constitution Party opposes it.

    “Many are pro-gun rights and some are even for free markets.”

    I’d say that less of them are pro-gun rights than in the Constitution Party, and that overall, they are less free market than the Constitution Party (yes, I know there are some issues where they tend to be more free market, but I’m talking about across the board).

  138. Andy

    Krzysztof Lesiak said: “The CP has a lot of Bible thumping religious zealots who somehow find a way to justify Israel because of some biblical bullshit or whatever.”

    I’m not aware of a majority of the Constitution Party’s membership holding this view.

  139. Dave Terry

    Andy (156)

    You ARE kidding, RIGHT???

    T he Preamble to the Constitution Party Platform;

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

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

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

  140. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    I would vote for the Constitution Party over the Green Party any day. I did like Cynthia McKinney but that is cuz she was courageous in Congress, was for 9/11 truth and opposed the Israhelli lobby and supported Palestine. Were she the candidate in 2012 I would have definitively supported her over Virgil Goode, the in “MOOOOOOOHAMHEAD we trust” dumbass.

  141. Dave Terry

    That’s OK, KL, we’ll make allowances for you. After all you did pass down that birth canal twice!

  142. Andy

    “157 Dave Terry // Mar 28, 2013 at 9:38 pm

    Andy (156)

    You ARE kidding, RIGHT???

    T he Preamble to the Constitution Party Platform;”

    Uuuugggghhhh!!!! You don’t pay very close attention, Dave Terry. I already know that the Constitution Party has a lot of Christians. What I was talking about, was that I’m not aware of them being supportive of the pro-Israel lobby, or supporting US aid for Israel in general. I seem to recall Chuck Baldwin being slandered by the SPLC, and I believe the ADL as well.

  143. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    Yes I am a huge Chuck Baldwin fan and I would have voted for him were I old enough. Ignore my comment about the CP and Israel. The fact that there seem to be a bunch of neocons here in the Illinois CP doesn’t mean the national party is like that. CP Vice chair Randy Stufflebeam is from this state and I’ll support him if he ever runs for political office again. In 2014 I’ll vote for LP candidates first but if there is a CP on the ballot for a race the LP is not I will certainly vote for that candidate. The IL CP is gaining momentum here (already over 1.1k likes on Facebook) and Stufflebeam has personally told me he will do everything he can to get a CP slate for all 7 statewide offices in Illinois.

  144. paulie

    “Not all of them are non-interventionist.”

    The same can be said of the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party too for that matter.

    Maybe there are some warmonger Greens, but I haven’t met any that I can recall.

    “They are generally good on peace and civil liberties issues.”

    Do you consider gun rights to be a civil liberties issue? The Constitution Party is better than the Green Party here.

    That’s why I said generally. Yes, gun rights are a civil liberties issue, and yes the CP is better than the GP on that one (although the GP is split on this issue), but overall the Greens are better on both peace and civil liberties issues than the Constitutionalists.

    I’d say that less of them are pro-gun rights than in the Constitution Party, and that overall, they are less free market than the Constitution Party (yes, I know there are some issues where they tend to be more free market, but I’m talking about across the board).

    Correct.

    After all you did pass down that birth canal twice!

    Chris is Catholic. I don’t think “born again” is part of their theology. At least, I heard no mention of it when I attended Catholic services with my ex in New York.

    Were she the candidate in 2012 I would have definitively supported her over Virgil Goode, the in “MOOOOOOOHAMHEAD we trust” dumbass.

    Yes, although I would rank Gary Johnson ahead of both of them.

    That’s a good video, Brian. I don’t think I’ve seen it before.

    Yes, and I remember it from when it came out.

  145. Kevin Knedler

    so the CP supports “free markets”. Does that include two openly GAY adults trying to get married and purchasing a government marriage license.

  146. paulie

    I don’t think a government license is a free market. But reading the CP platform plank quoted above, they are not just against gay marriage, but against gay rights in general.

  147. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    Brian I watched that video and it is a good compilation, to be quite honest. However, you also attacked Ernie Hancock, a really great candidate for chair. The fact is you can’t stomach 9/11 truth or anything “radical” which is why is why I presume you are part of the Reform Caucus. I’ll say this much; Chuck Baldwin was more of a libertarian than CIA Bob Barr ever was or will be. Go ahead, crucify me for saying that.

  148. Danzel Douglas

    The points about Chuck Baldwin are accurate. If Ernie Hancock is going to say Baldwin is a good hardcore libertarian that is a fair question of his understanding of the term libertarian in light of these views expressed by Rev. Baldwin.

  149. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    As for Catholicism, I am a practicing Catholic, and there isn’t any of that born again BS. I appreciate the Church for it’s pro-life stance, and being anti-war. However, if you read Catholic social teachings, you’ll see that essentially what the Church advocates is corporatism in the economic sphere. This makes no sense because free market capitalism is the only system that can help the poor (whom Pope Francis I places such a high priority on) and is the most just and moral. I recommend reading, for those interested, Tom Woods’s book about the church and the free market (as a Catholic, he defends the free market from that standpoint). A Catholic cardinal from South America (who was in the top 10 in contention for pope this year) even wrote the forward to his book.

    It will be fun to meet Tom Woods at the IL LP convention in September.

  150. Andy

    Paulie said: “Maybe there are some warmonger Greens, but I haven’t met any that I can recall. ”

    There have been Greens who have favored foreign intervention if it is authorized by the United Nations (and note that the Constitution Party vehemently opposes the United Nations).

    The Libertarian Party’s hands are not completely clean here as you know, as some Libertarians have “strayed from the ranch” on the issue of foreign intervention, even though the LP platform and the majority of LP members oppose it.

  151. Andy

    Krzysztof Lesiak said: “I’ll say this much; Chuck Baldwin was more of a libertarian than CIA Bob Barr ever was or will be. Go ahead, crucify me for saying that.”

    I agree. I don’t think that Bob Barr was ever really a libertarian. I think that he pulled a con on the Libertarian Party (or at least on enough people who were at the LP National Convention in 2008 to capture the Presidential nomination). What was his motivation for pulling this con? It may have been that he saw it as an opportunity to make money, or to feed his own ego, or maybe it was to intentionally sabotage the Libertarian Party, or maybe all three.

    Chuck Baldwin has never claimed to be a libertarian, but even so, I’d say that he’s more libertarian than Bob Barr, and I’d trust him over Bob Barr as well.

  152. Sam Kress

    Libertarians are supposed to be 50/50 left and right, so it should come as no surprise that some Libertarians think the Greens are better than the CP and vice versa.

  153. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    #144 – Blackgenocide.org documents the continued racism of Planned Parenthood from its Margaret Sanger beginning to this day/moment.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman California Constitution Party; the only party fighting the racism, genocide, and corruption of Planned Parenthood and the Abortion/Race Science/Eugenics Industry.

  154. Sam Kress

    Yeah, and it’s bogus nonsense. The stuff about Sanger is true. Planned Parenthood today not so much.

  155. Mark Seidenberg

    Sam Kress

    Do not be fooled by Dr. Don Grundmann, he is not with a political party. He is with an entity that is not a political party. This entity on February 10, 2013 had only 304 electors in California. Through September 2, 2008, Dr.
    Grundmann was a member of the State Central
    Committee of the American Independent Party.
    Prior to that date then AIP Chairman Ed Noonan removed Dr. Grundmann as a state area director of the AIP. Patrick Colglazier replace
    Dr. Grundmann as the Alameda County Chairman of the AIP. Further Mr. Lake was elected to fill the seat on the State Central Committee of the AIP that Don Grundmann held.

    I was informed that the CP replaced Dr. Grundmann also as its purported chairman at a
    convention in Bakerfield, CA in February , 2013.

    Can anyone confirm that Don Grundmann hold any office in the Constitution Party of California.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
    American Independent Party of California and
    Chairman, Orange County Central Committee
    of the American Independent Party
    On September 2, 2008, Dr. Grundmann

  156. Mark Seidenberg

    Please disregard the last line of the above, viz.,
    “On September 2, 2008, Dr. Grundmann” was a
    typing error.

  157. Andy

    “Mark Seidenberg // Mar 29, 2013 at 4:04 pm

    Sam Kress

    Do not be fooled by Dr. Don Grundmann, he is not with a political party. He is with an entity that is not a political party.”

    This is because you and a few cronies hijacked the American Independent Party – which had been the California affiliate of the Constitution Party. Don is a part of the Constitution Party, but due to the difficult ballot access laws in California, the Constitution Party does not have ballot access in that state.

  158. Dave Terry

    kL (169) “As for Catholicism, I am a practicing Catholic, and there isn’t any of that born again BS.

    Did you fail your catechisms? This statement only demonstrates how little many ‘nominal’ Catholics understand about their own religion.

    http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Sac_Baptism.htm

    “The Sacrament of Baptism is often called “The door of the Church,” because it is the first of the seven sacraments not only in time (since most Catholics receive it as infants) but in priority, since the reception of the other sacraments depends on it.”

    “Christ Himself ordered His disciples to preach the Gospel to all nations and to baptize those who accept the message of the Gospel. In His encounter with Nicodemus (John 3:1-21), Christ made it clear that baptism was necessary for salvation: “Amen, amen I say to thee,UNLESS
    A MAN BE BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” For Catholics, the sacrament is not a mere formality; it is the very mark of a Christian, because it brings us into new life in Christ.”

    “For Catholics, the sacrament is not a mere formality; it is the very mark of a Christian, because it brings us into new life in Christ.”

  159. Andy

    “Sam Kress // Mar 29, 2013 at 2:32 pm

    Libertarians are supposed to be 50/50 left and right, so it should come as no surprise that some Libertarians think the Greens are better than the CP and vice versa.”

    I don’t think that the Constitution Party is better because they are on the right and the Greens are on the left, but rather because the Greens are further off course from being libertarian on more issues than the Constitution Party is.

  160. Sam Kress

    They’re not. You just prioritize issues where libertarians and conservatives tend to agree more. Other libertarians have different priorities.

  161. Dave Terry

    Sam Kress (178) “Your internecine battles are tiresome and boring.”

    LOL! It took you 177 posts to figure THAT out???

  162. Sam Kress

    No, I was referring to Seidenberg vs. Grundmann. Seidenberg did not bring that up until @175.

  163. Dave Terry

    Andy (181) “I don’t think that the Constitution Party is better because they are on the right and the Greens are on the left, but rather because the Greens are further off course from being libertarian on more issues than the Constitution Party is.

    Andy is like the pilot landing in San Francisco;
    five degrees too far left would land him in the San Francisco Bay, so he opts for just TWO degrees too far right and lands in the Pacific Ocean!

  164. Dave Terry

    Sam Kress (184)
    “No, I was referring to Seidenberg vs. Grundmann. Seidenberg did not bring that up until @175.

    Personally, I’m glad Mr. Seidenberg posted. It makes sense; Grundmann is a loose canon, even for the AIP/CP

  165. Andy

    “Sam Kress // Mar 29, 2013 at 4:22 pm

    They’re not. You just prioritize issues where libertarians and conservatives tend to agree more. Other libertarians have different priorities.”

    Yeah they are, go through each platform and count the number of platform planks where the Green Party is not in line with individual freedom vs. the number of times the Constitution Party is not in line with individual freedom. I’ve done this and the Greens are further off course.

    Also, if you weight issues, the Constitution Party still comes out ahead. Gun rights should be weighted with a 10 on a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being the most important and 1 being the least important). The Constitution Party is very strong on this issue

    I’d also weight getting rid of the Federal Reserve System and fiat currency as an issue that should be given a 10. The Constitution Party is very strong on this issue as well.

    Now the Constitution Party is not as good (from a libertarian perspective) on the war on drugs, however, they are not quite as bad on this issue as a lot of libertarians may think. They are big on states rights, which means that if a state voted to legalize marijuana or any other drugs, that a Constitution Party federal government would not interfere with it. Their platform does indicate that their federal government would work to keep drugs out of the country, however, if drugs were produced within a state which legalized it they would not interfere. Now it is true that a lot of them would want to make it illegal at the state level too, however, it is not likely that any political party will get everything they want at both the national level as well as in every state. I would rate this as an important issue that should be weighted with a 10, and yes, the Constitution Party gets a lower grade here, but not quite as low as some would think.

    Another important thing to point out is that I’ve heard from several Constitution Party members that they do support fully informing juries of their right to nullify laws. I don’t know if this is a party of their official platform or not (I should check on this), but the fact that some of them support this is quite important, because this means that there’d be a chance to nullify laws from the jury box that the Constitution Party passes if one disagrees with them.

    Where does the Green Party stand on jury nullification? I’ve never ever heard of a Green addressing this issue.

    There actually is a libertarian wing of the Constitution Party. They are pro-life minarchist libertarians. Does the Green Party have a libertarian wing? Not really.

  166. Sam Kress

    Yeah they are, go through each platform and count the number of platform planks where the Green Party is not in line with individual freedom vs. the number of times the Constitution Party is not in line with individual freedom

    Been there, done that, and I disagree with you.

    Also, if you weight issues, the Constitution Party still comes out ahead.

    Not all Libertarians weight the issues the same way you do. Many of us prioritize the issues where we agree with the Greens and disagree with the Constitution Party a lot more than you do.

    Does the Green Party have a libertarian wing?

    Yes.

  167. Steven R Linnabary

    Where does the Green Party stand on jury nullification? I’ve never ever heard of a Green addressing this issue.

    The Green Party has endorsed jury nullification by resolution at several of their national conventions.

    I think every opposition party has either passed a resolution in favor of nullification or has it in their platform. Though I admit I have not looked it up in 10-15 years since I was active with FIJA. Parties that have come on the scene since then I do not know what their stance is.

    Jury nullification has even been endorsed by a few democrat and republican state and/or county organizations.

    PEACE

  168. Andy

    “Sam Kress // Mar 29, 2013 at 4:22 pm

    They’re not. You just prioritize issues where libertarians and conservatives tend to agree more.”

    This is NOT true at all. I consider ending the war on drugs to be a high priority issue. The same thing with ending US military imperialism (something that the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and the Constitution Party agree on). I have actually spent a LOT of time spreading the Libertarian message to people on the left and I’ve gotten some of them to come over to the Libertarian side. I also think that for too many years that the Libertarian Party has focused too much of its outreach efforts to the right, and I’ve long favored a more balanced outreach approach that would spend more time reaching out to those on the left, as well as independents and non-voters.

    My comments about the Green Party being further off course from liberty on more issues than the Constitution Party is NOT because I favor right wingers/conservatives, it is because I’ve analyzed both parties platforms. actions, and members for a number of years, and I’ve come to this conclusion after a fair analysis.

    The Greens have some good things going for them, I just think that on balance that the Constitution Party has more good things going for them. I think that it comes down to the fact that the Constitution Party is based on the US Constitution, which is not a perfect document, but it does place restrictions on government power. I don’t necessarily agree with 100% of the people in the Constitution Party with how they interpret the Constitution, but I do think that they get it right most of the time. I don’t always agree with how they want to apply the Constitution, such as I do not agree with them when they say they want to increase tariffs to enact protectionism. I also do not agree with them when they call for restricting individual liberty at a state level (and note that each state has a constitution which each state government is supposed to follow), but even here this is preferable to restricting freedom at a national level. So it’s not like they are perfect, but I’m just comparing them on balance with the Green Party.

    The Green Party is based on a bunch of socialist ideas, with a bunch of feel good stuff thrown in the mix, some of which is good, and some of which is not so good.

  169. Andy

    Steven R. Linnabury said: “The Green Party has endorsed jury nullification by resolution at several of their national conventions.”

    I’m glad to read this. So if both the Green Party and the Constitution Party favor jury nullification, this means that BOTH of their agendas can be rejected from the jury box.

    I already thought that both parties were better than the average Democrat or Republican, but if they both support the concept of fully informing juries of their right to nullify laws, then I can say this even more so.

  170. Andy

    “190 Sam Kress // Mar 29, 2013 at 5:08 pm

    ‘Yeah they are, go through each platform and count the number of platform planks where the Green Party is not in line with individual freedom vs. the number of times the Constitution Party is not in line with individual freedom’

    Been there, done that, and I disagree with you. ”

    Is Sam Kress a real name for the real person posting this?

  171. Sam Kress

    @191 Thanks!

    And BTW many LP members consider gay rights, immigration rights, womens rights, free international trade, freedom of sexual expression and freedom of and from religion (including at the local level) to be highly important issues. Just because Andy thinks these issues are less important does not mean all libertarians have to agree with him.

  172. Sam Kress

    @194 What difference does that make? I think my arguments should be judged on their merits rather than who I am. It may or may not be my real name; none of your business as far as I am concerned.

  173. Andy

    Here are some freedoms that I’d enjoy under a Constitution Party administration:

    I could own and carry a gun without having to get a permit.

    I would not have to pay income tax because they would eliminate the income tax, and their national party has already rejected the Fair Tax as well as a flat tax. They do favor tariffs, duties, and excise taxes which are in the Constitution and are already being collected, but they also favor large cuts in government spending.

    I would enjoy no longer being asked for a Social Security Number, because the Constitution Party wants to eliminate the Social Security program.

    I would enjoy no longer having the value of my dollars depreciate due to the Federal Reserve System inflating the currency, because the Constitution Party would eliminate the Federal Reserve System and fiat currency and return to the gold & silver standard.

    These are just a few things.

    Tell me. Libertarian Party members out there, which freedoms would you enjoy more under a Green Party administration than the ones I listed above?

  174. Andy

    Sam Kress said: “free international trade, ”

    The Green Party OPPOSES free trade.

  175. paulie

    See @195 for a few examples, although I’m not so sure about freedom of international trade, I think Greens tend to be against that also.

  176. Andy

    Sam Kress said: “womens rights,”

    Which women’s rights is it that the Constitution Party is going to take away that the Green Party is not going to take away?

    The only thing that I can think of is abortion, and this begs the question of, what about the rights of the fetus (or unborn baby)?

    I know that there are some women who are members of the Constitution Party. Why would they join an organization that wants to take away their rights?

  177. paulie

    The only thing that I can think of is abortion, and this begs the question of, what about the rights of the fetus (or unborn baby)?

    It doesn’t beg any question for the majority of libertarians who don’t believe that a fetus is a human being with rights.

  178. Andy

    Sam Kress said: ‘Does the Green Party have a libertarian wing?’

    Yes.”

    Where are these libertarians in the Green Party? I’ve met a lot of people in a lot of parties, both in person and over the internet, and I’ve never met one person from the Green Party that was a libertarian.

    I have met Constitution Party people that have told me that they are libertarians, but they are not in the Libertarian Party because the Libertarian Party has not taken a 100% anti-abortion stance.

  179. paulie

    Where are these libertarians in the Green Party? I’ve met a lot of people in a lot of parties, both in person and over the internet, and I’ve never met one person from the Green Party that was a libertarian.

    I’ve met quite a few.

  180. Andy

    “paulie // Mar 29, 2013 at 5:41 pm

    ‘The only thing that I can think of is abortion, and this begs the question of, what about the rights of the fetus (or unborn baby)?’

    It doesn’t beg any question for the majority of libertarians who don’t believe that a fetus is a human being with rights.”

    If one really believes this (not even getting into the debate), what about other rights for women, such as their right to not pay income tax, or their right to not have to use a Social Security Number or to have to pay Social Security taxes? What about a women’s right to own a building, and decide for themselves whether or not they want to rent it out, and for how much they want to ask for rent, or as to whether or not the building should be a hotel/motel or an apartment building? Does the Green Party support any of these freedoms for women, or just their “right” to kill their fetuses?

  181. Andy

    Paulie said: “I’ve met quite a few.”

    I’ve met Greens who lean libertarian on some issues, but I’ve never met one who favored both a high degree of economic liberty and civil liberties (which is what a libertarian is), and I’ve NEVER met one who self identified as a libertarian.

    I have met Greens who say something like, “Yeah, I like how Libertarians stand against the war on drugs and the war on Iraq, but I don’t agree with them on national healtchcare and Social Security.”

  182. paulie

    @205 That’s besides the point. Many Libertarians believe this is an important right, just as many Greens do. The CP is dead set against it.

    Those other rights are not particular to women.

    However, I would note that the CP wants state and local governments to be free to enforce the Christian religion, which teaches that women are supposed to be obedient to their husbands, and that has policy implications. See US laws on divorce, spousal abuse and spousal rape (among other things) until recent decades.

  183. NewFederalist

    Andy has really been carrying the mail here for what I believe are the “silent majority” of libertarians. By that I mean libertarians who believe that at this point in time economic issues are far more important than social issues. For that reason I believe he is correct in his assessment that the CP is a better alternative than the GP in the absence of the LP.

  184. Sam Kress

    Actually, I think it’s the other way around. Polls show that half or more of LP votes come from people who identify more with the left than the right, yet it is only the Libertarians that agree more with the right that we usually hear from.

  185. Andy

    “paulie // Mar 29, 2013 at 5:52 pm

    @205 That’s besides the point. Many Libertarians believe this is an important right, just as many Greens do.”

    I think that anyone who favors that over issues like income tax, Social Security, and the Federal Reserve System is stupid and irrational.

    “Those other rights are not particular to women.”

    Is abortion really that particular to women? I mean, what about the fetus? The fetus could be a male? Also, what about the male who did the impregnating? Sure, some of them may not give a damn, but there are cases where the guy actually wants to keep the baby and the woman does not. Does the guy’s opinion not matter, or does it only matter when it comes to paying out money?

  186. Andy

    How about a women’s right to carry a gun, which is a great defense against rapists? The Constitution Party supports that, and the Green Party is not nearly as strong on this issue.

  187. paulie

    I think that anyone who favors that over issues like income tax, Social Security, and the Federal Reserve System is stupid and irrational.

    That’s your opinion. Many people disagree.

    Is abortion really that particular to women?

    Women are the ones that have to be pregnant, so yes.

    I mean, what about the fetus?

    If you don’t agree that a fetus is a person with rights that is irrelevant.

    Also, what about the male who did the impregnating?

    It’s a lot less burdensome to do the impregnating than to carry a fetus to term.

    You’re arguing the issue, which is besides the point. Many (L)ibertarians disagree with you, consider it to be a womens’ rights issue, and an important one. The question here is not who is correct. The question is whether that is a position a lot of LP members hold, and it is.

  188. paulie

    How about a women’s right to carry a gun, which is a great defense against rapists?

    Not an issue peculiar to women. You can try to sneak as many conservative-libertarian issues as you want in this way and it does not help your case at all. All you are demonstrating is that some LP members who think we are closer to the CP than the GP can’t accept that there are other LP members with different issue priorities from them.

    It’s a tired argument and a waste of time. Not all LPers agree with you. Simple and plain. No amount of carrying on will change this fact.

  189. Andy

    “NewFederalist // Mar 29, 2013 at 5:56 pm

    Andy has really been carrying the mail here for what I believe are the ‘silent majority’ of libertarians. By that I mean libertarians who believe that at this point in time economic issues are far more important than social issues. For that reason I believe he is correct in his assessment that the CP is a better alternative than the GP in the absence of the LP.”

    I think that civil liberties are very important, and the Constitution Party is not completely bad on civil liberties. I don’t believe that overall they are better than the Libertarian Party on civil liberties, and I even think that there are a few civil liberties where the Green Party is better than they are, however, there are other civil liberties issues where the Constitution Party is as good as or better than the Green Party.

    Such as:

    The right to keep and bear arms.

    Opposition to the military draft.

    Opposition to the Patriot Act.

    Opposition to domestic spying.

    Opposition to the Department of Homeland Security.

  190. paulie

    Yep, and there’s a lot of times I’ve found myself agreeing with Greens on economic matters having to do with ending corporate subsidies, ending corporate personhood, ending bailouts, ending noncontractual limited liability, the military-industrial complex, the police-prison-industrial complex, legalizing industrial hemp, and so on.

  191. Andy

    I’ve heard a lot of Greens and leftist type act like the Scandinavian countries are some kind of socialist paradise. Here’s a video where Stephan Molyneux debunks this myth:

  192. Andy

    “paulie // Mar 29, 2013 at 6:18 pm

    Yep, and there’s a lot of times I’ve found myself agreeing with Greens on economic matters having to do with ending corporate subsidies, ending corporate personhood, ending bailouts, ending noncontractual limited liability, the military-industrial complex, the police-prison-industrial complex, legalizing industrial hemp, and so on.”

    People in the Constitution Party agrees with those same issues.

  193. paulie

    And I’ve heard a lot of CPers talk as if the US in the 1950s or in the 18th and 19th centuries was some kind of paradise, ignoring all the problems with race, slavery, women’s rights (not just abortion), rights of religious and sexual minorities, and so on.

  194. paulie

    @218 I hear Greens making an issue out of many of those things far more than CP and, unfortunately, often more than LP as well.

  195. Dave Terry

    Paulie (204) ” I’ve never met one person from the Green Party that was a libertarian.

    This MAY be the biggest difference between the two, relative to libertarians; The Greens are honest enough NOT to pretend to be libertarian.

  196. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Regarding Mark Seidenberg of #175 above he is a literal and moral criminal as I have documented at TheCorruptionOfAlanKeyes.blogspot.com.

    Seidenberg was one of 3 criminals who conspired to file fake documents; i.e.; the crime of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud; with the Secretary of State office to seize control of the American Independent Party. He did this as an agent for his collective handlers/controllers of the Southern Poverty Law Center ( SPLC ), Anti-Defamation League ( ADL ), and the Republican Party ( specifically its ” moderate ” branch ).

    He is a total and utterly corrupt liar and traitor to the nation in addition to his moral and literal criminality.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the continuance of the 3rd party conservative message in California after the takeover of the AIP by the SPLC

  197. Sam Kress

    @221 Dumbass, that was a quote. Learn to read maybe? Closing your quotes would be nice too.

  198. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    #174 – One of the greatest benefits of Social Engineering by the Plantation Masters of the nation is that they can commit crimes against humanity and have their drones run interference for them by dismissing and ignoring any evidence.

    The end result? Planned Parenthood can continue its attack against humanity, and most specifically against minorities ( those considered to be genetically inferior ), with little opposition. In fact they can not only be protected by their drones but be funded by the government as a reward for their genocide.

    Orwells 1984 has been with us for many years and ” newspeak ” has many users such as you Mr. Kress.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the last and only party working to stop the racist genocide of Planned Parenthood against the black community

  199. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    ” who don’t believe that a fetus is a human being with rights.”

    Response : Dred Scott – Welcome to 2013. Blacks were the ” niggers ” of his time. The unborn are the ” niggers ” of our time.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the only party fighting for the humanity of the unborn

  200. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Paulie – I have never heard any CPer call for support of your #207 comment regarding ” enforcing the Christian religion.”

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the party working to restore the Christian foundational values of our nation

  201. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Mr. Kress – While Christian values are infinitely superior to others, for example ( in my opinion yours, we have never called for ” enforcing ” them on others. When they are currently ” enforced ” it is through the general public recognition of their superiority as with ” Thou shalt not kill ” or ” Thou shalt not steal,” just 2 examples of Christian values being the foundation upon which our nation was built.

    Certainly our nation could and would prosper immensely and fantastically collectively and singularly by the return of Christian values as the predominant paradigm upon which our nation would function in comparison to our current slavery to humanist/anti-Christian/anti-human values.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the party working for the prosperity and freedom of all people

  202. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    I disagree with Don on some issues. For example, I don’t understand his obsession with homosexuality. The sky won’t fall and anarchy won’t erupt on the streets just because gays get married.

    That being said, I understand his frustration with the neocons hijacking of the California AIP. For TWO straight elections in a row, the CP has not been able to get the AIP ballot line due to a bunch of Alan Keyes supporting zeolots. These fuckers need to be thrown out, and the AIP needs to be returned to it’s rightful home, the Constitution Party. America’s Party is a bunch of neocon dumbfucks who can only get ballot access in 3 states and should just go back to their home, the Republican Party.

  203. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Krzysztof – You can find a reason for my ” obsession ” with homosexuality at CandleCrusade.org.

    The legalization of homosexual marriage will not shatter our nation NOW but it will doom the nation to a slow and permanent death where at minimally 20 but at most 40 years our nation will be shattered.

    This will occur, via the acceleration of the Social Engineering which has brought us to the edge of the cliff we are currently on, because of the death of our culture as Christian values are increasingly eliminated and replaced with their anti-Christian opposites.

    For example – if homosexual marriage is legalized – in 40 years at the most ( by approximately 2050 to 2055 ) what we now know as child molestation will be completely legalized. This, as I show/document at CandleCrusade.org, is the true ultimate goal behind the push to legalize homosexual marriage. The resultant complete shattering of the children of the nation from this process, which will already have virtually annihilated them by the time of the ” achievement ” of this goal of the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement, will guarantee a psychotic populace that will have no chance of survival. This process has already been started by the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement with its early beginnings to be found at B4U-ACT.org.

    John Adams stated that our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. A morally broken/shattered nation – one that calls homosexuality ” normal;” i.e.; calls males pretending to be females and the reverse ” normal;’ is a dead culture and a culture of death.

    The moral death of men and women = the death of the nation.

    There is zero – no – possibility of such a culture being able to continue our nation in any way whatsoever.

    It is very simple. Moral death = national death.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the last party working to stop the moral death of our nation

  204. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Mr. Kress – It is a common-as-sand Social Engineering argument of the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement which you are using; a statement which just shows what an utter fool that you are. I note that your source is that used by the Plantation Masters of the nation to tell their drones – like you – what to think and how to think.

    In reality, as I will finally document in a book which I am writing, there is no such thing as a man who will support homosexuality. It is only supported by males; inferior men; i.e.; just like you.

    You are a perfect, and current, example of the shattered populace which will result from the Social Engineering of our citizens to produce the desired result of morally shattered inferior men and women.

    A nation of Sam Kresses will be morally and literally dead – just like you except that, like any zombie, your body is still walking around with nothing inside.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the last party fighting to stop the moral death of our nation

  205. Sam Kress

    For those who don’t follow links:

    (CBS News) Do homophobic people actually fear their own unconscious feelings? A new study suggests that people who repress their own sexual attraction to the same sex are more likely to express hostility towards gays.

    “In many cases these are people who are at war with themselves and they are turning this internal conflict outward,” study co-author Dr. Richard Ryan, professor of psychology at the University of Rochester, said in a university written statement.

    In four separate experiments conducted in the U.S. and in Germany, each involving an average of 160 college students, researchers attempted to measure any differences between what people say about their sexual orientation and how they actually react. Their findings are published in the April issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

    For one experiment, researchers used word and picture tests to subliminally prime participants with either the word “me” or “others,” and then asking them to place the words and images into “gay” or “straight” categories. A second experiment had participants browse same-sex or opposite-sex photos to test implicit – or unconscious – same-sex attraction. Other experiments measured participants’ levels of homophobia through questionnaires or asked about participants’ upbringings and their parents’ perspectives.

    All together, the study showed that participants with parents accepting of homosexuality were more open and aware of their implicit sexual orientation, while those with authoritative parents were more likely to deny their implicit sexual orientation. The researchers found participants who said they were heterosexual but revealed different reactions on their implicit tests were more likely to act with hostility toward gay people.

    “In a predominately heterosexual society, ‘know thyself’ can be a challenge for many gay individuals. But in controlling and homophobic homes, embracing a minority sexual orientation can be terrifying,” study co-author Dr. Netta Weinstein, lecturer at the University of Essex, said in the statement. These people risk losing the love and approval of their parents if they admit to same-sex attraction, Weinstein said – so it’s easier for them to deny or repress that part of themselves.

    The researchers say their study is the first to show the role both parenting and sexual orientation play in the formation of the intense and visceral fear that is homophobia.

    “Sometimes people are threatened by gays and lesbians because they are fearing their own impulses, in a sense they ‘doth protest too much,'” Ryan told LiveScience. “In addition, it appears that sometimes those who would oppress others have been oppressed themselves, and we can have some compassion for them too, they may be unaccepting of others because they cannot be accepting of themselves.”

    These studies may also shed some light on gay hate crimes, according to the researchers. People in denial of their sexual orientation often perceive threats from homosexuals and are therefore more disposed to lash out at them, the researchers said. They mention the 1998 murder of Matthew Shephard and the 2011 shooting of Larry King as possible examples.

    The findings may also explain surprising cases in which prominently anti-gay activists are caught engaging in same-sex relations, such as when evangelical preacher Ted Haggard was caught in a 2006 sex scandal, the authors said.

    “We laugh at or make fun of such blatant hypocrisy, but in a real way, these people may often themselves be victims of repression and experience exaggerated feelings of threat,” Ryan said in the statement. “Homophobia is not a laughing matter.”

  206. Mark Seidenberg

    Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes, clearly stated what I
    believe and a reason I voted for him in 2008 for
    POTUS.

    He asseverated: “It is in principle impossible for
    homosexuals to procreate. Therefore, they cannot marry. It is a simple logical syllogism and
    one can wish all one might, but pigs don’t fly and we can’t change the course of nature.”

    The vast majority of the active electors in the American Independent Party of California agree
    with view of Dr. Alan Keyes. That is the reason
    Keyes supporters control the leadership of AIP.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
    American Independent Party of California and
    Chairman, Orange County Central Committee,
    American Independent Party

  207. Jill Pyeatt

    I don’t know who Sam Kress is, who seems relatively new to IPR, but I like him!

  208. Sam Kress

    So old people and infertile couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry either? Will a fertility test be required for marriage? How idiotic!

    I have a better idea. Let’s get Seidenberg, Grudmann, Terry and Stevens all married to each other, lock them all in their honeymoon suite (with no internet access) and throw away the key.

    And we’ll all live happier ever after!

  209. Jill Pyeatt

    Yeah, and it’s not like Dr. Grundmann is a life-long bachelor or anything..oh, wait…

  210. Jill Pyeatt

    I didn’t marry until I was fifty-three, which was too old to have children. Hmmm, I guess I shoul have stayed an old maid, then , huh, Grundmann?

  211. Sam Kress

    Thanks Jill.

    That was Seidenberg, not Grundmann BTW. I know they can be hard to tell apart much of the time 🙂

  212. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    Alan Keyes sucks. He’s a neocon who rightly got OVERWHELMINGLY rejected by the Constitution Party in 2008 at its national convention. He’s a Big Goverment Statist because he wants WAR and wants to shred our civil liberties with the Partiot Act and what not.

    It is my sincere hope that America’s Party dissolves as quickly as possible, and that the rightful people who SHOULD be in charge of the AIP take it back.

  213. Andy

    ““NewFederalist // Mar 29, 2013 at 5:56 pm

    Andy has really been carrying the mail here for what I believe are the ‘silent majority’ of libertarians. By that I mean libertarians who believe that at this point in time economic issues are far more important than social issues.”

    One more point here. I do think that civil liberties are very important, however, in a lot of aspects the most important issue is taxation, well, that along with government controlled (and yes, I know all about the Federal Reserve being private, but Congress has given it governmental powers, so it is basically merged with the government in a public-private partnership, which is really fascism) fiat currency and legal tender laws.

    Why do I say that those are the most important issues? Because this is how government’s control us. If you eliminated taxation, as well as the government’s ability to create money and force people to use it, government would collapse. So without taxes and the government’s ability to create money and force people to use it, you would not have to worry about government violating anyone’s civil liberties, because the government would collapse.

    If I could push a magic button, and enact one reform, it would be to abolish all taxes and government fiat currency, and to have the public recognize taxation for what it really is, theft, and fiat currency for what it really is, counterfeiting.

    If this was done, there would not be what is known as government to infringe on people’s civil liberties, because there would not be enough money available to anyone to hire enough thug enforcers (which are now known as police officers, military, and government bureaucrats) to enforce the edicts of any megalmaniacs (which are what the majority of politicians are) out there. If anyone tried to “collect taxes” the public would recognize them for what they really were, thieves, and the group doing it would be considered to be a gang of thugs or mobsters (which is the early stages of government). If enough people resist, then we could have a peaceful and prosperous society. If the majority of people succumb to the thugs who do the bidding of authoritarian control freak megalomaniacs then we will eventually end up with government again, and eventually get back to where we are today. Coercive government exists because a lot of the public has either been conned into accepting it by the sociopaths/megalomaniacs, or because they do not have the will to resist the sociopaths/megalomaniacs.

    So this is why ultimately, taxation and control of money are the most important issues.

  214. Andy

    “Krzysztof Lesiak // Mar 29, 2013 at 11:56 pm

    Alan Keyes sucks. He’s a neocon who rightly got OVERWHELMINGLY rejected by the Constitution Party in 2008 at its national convention. He’s a Big Goverment Statist because he wants WAR and wants to shred our civil liberties with the Partiot Act and what not.”

    Yeah, the delegates in attendance at the Constitution Party’s National Convention in 2008 showed more principle by rejecting the more well known and “mainstream” Alan Keyes and nominating Chuck Baldwin, as compared to the majority of delegates at the 2008 Libertarian Party National Convention did by nominating Bob Barr.

    Now in 2012 the Constitution Party strayed from principle by nominating Virgil Goode, and I think that was a mistake for them.

  215. Sam Kress

    Yep, a drug war prohibitionist. At least the Greens don’t nominate people like that.

  216. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    I agree about Virgil Goode, Andy. Interestingly enough, if it weren’t for Don Grundmann, Goode would not have won a majority on the first ballot and it would have gone to a second ballot…then it would have been entirely feasible that Darrell Castle would have won the nomination then (Robby Wells’s supporters would have probably gone to him). Thanks Don for giving us “MOOOOOOOOOHHHHAAAAAAAMHED we trust” Goode, the guy who voted for the Partiot Act (multiple times), FISA, foreign aid, Iraq War (and for the surge) and who is also islamophobic to the point of actually being ridiculously hilarious. lol 😉

  217. Sam Kress

    More reasons why GP > CP, they would never nominate someone who supports such things.

  218. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    @248

    Chuck Baldwin was actually against the War on Drugs in the 2008 election. I agree though, that Goode is a total Drug Warrior. Had I been able to vote I would have TOTALLY voted for Gary Johnson over him. And this is despite the fact that GJ is pro-choice. That just shows you how much not a fan of Goode I am.

  219. Sam Kress

    So not every single CP nominee is a total drug warrior, crazed Islamophobe or questionably reformed warmonger. But some of them are. None of the Greens.

  220. Andy

    “Mark Seidenberg // Mar 29, 2013 at 11:18 pm

    Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes, clearly stated what I
    believe and a reason I voted for him in 2008 for
    POTUS.

    He asseverated: ‘It is in principle impossible for
    homosexuals to procreate. Therefore, they cannot marry. It is a simple logical syllogism and
    one can wish all one might, but pigs don’t fly and we can’t change the course of nature.’

    The vast majority of the active electors in the American Independent Party of California agree
    with view of Dr. Alan Keyes. That is the reason
    Keyes supporters control the leadership of AIP.”

    Oh come off it, this is complete bunk. Even if one agrees with this statement on marriage (WHICH I DO NOT, but then again, I’m NOT a member of the AIP or the Constitution Party, nor have I ever been), the fact of the matter is that this is a belief that is held by a lot of people in the Constitution Party, so this was NOT a valid reason to vote for Alan Keyes, nor was it a valid reason for the AIP to break away from the Constitution Party. I think that you are being disingenuous here.

    The reason that most Constitution Party delegates did not vote for Alan Keyes was because he was pro-war in Iraq, pro-United Nations, and pro-Patriot Act (and other domestic police state measures enacted to supposedly “fight the war on terror”). All of these things violated the Constitution Party’s platform, and this is why a majority of delegates at their 2008 National Convention did not vote for him.

    Alan Keyes did not even run in 2012, so what was the excuse that time, and what is the excuse now?

    It appears to me that this has been an intentional act of sabotage. I wonder if they are getting paid off by somebody, or if there is some other motivation for it.

  221. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    Gary Johnson, though, intially before his nomination at the LP convention, made some shockingly pro “humanitarian war” (WTF?!) statements. So this is my opinion: in 2016 nominate someone from the Radical Caucus like Mary Ruwart or Lee Wrights. While Fair Tax Gary Johnson was a decent libertarian, I don’t think he was 100% genuine- there was definitively at least some pandering to get the Ron Paul vote. Nominating a radical in 2016 would be a good sign to the base and a world as a whole the the party believes in its message.

  222. Andy

    “Krzysztof Lesiak // Mar 30, 2013 at 12:12 am

    @248

    Chuck Baldwin was actually against the War on Drugs in the 2008 election. I agree though, that Goode is a total Drug Warrior. Had I been able to vote I would have TOTALLY voted for Gary Johnson over him. And this is despite the fact that GJ is pro-choice.”

    Gary Johnson is NOT completely pro-choice on abortion. He signed a bill as Governor of New Mexico that BANNED late term abortions. He also favored parental notification if a minor wanted to get an abortion.

    Gary Johnson’s position as a candidate for President was that abortion should be decided on at the state level, which is the same position as Ron Paul.

  223. Sam Kress

    ” which is the same position as Ron Paul.”

    Not exactly. Ron Paul advanced the “Sanctity of Life” Act.

  224. Andy

    Krzysztof Lesiak said: “So this is my opinion: in 2016 nominate someone from the Radical Caucus like Mary Ruwart or Lee Wrights. ”

    I really hope some better candidates emerge by the time the Libertarian Party’s 2016 National Convention comes around. I really have not been happy with the Presidential candidate selection since 2004.

  225. Andy

    “Sam Kress // Mar 30, 2013 at 12:26 am

    ‘ which is the same position as Ron Paul.’

    Not exactly. Ron Paul advanced the ‘Sanctity of Life’ Act.”

    I was only referring to the part which I specifically stated, which was about abortion being decided on at the state level by each state.

  226. Andy

    The bottom line, is that Gary Johnson is NOT as “pro-choice” on abortion as some people are making him out to be.

  227. Andy

    A guy that I’d really like to see run for President in 2016, and who I’d love to see end up as the Libertarian Party’s candidate is Andrew Napolitano.

    Andrew Napolitano is pro-life, but this has nothing to do with why I want to see him run.

    I want to see him run for the following reasons;

    1) He has a solid grasp on libertarian philosophy, and he’s well informed about history, economics, and current events.

    2) He is pretty well known. He’s been on national television a bunch of times, and has written several books.

    3) He’s a good public speaker. I really liked his “What if?” segments.

    4) He appears to be a man of good character.

    Some people have already started Draft Andrew Napolitano for President campaigns. I really hope he decides to run.

  228. Andy

    “Krzysztof Lesiak // Mar 30, 2013 at 12:39 am

    Aaron Russo should’ve won in 2004, just saying. Freedom to Fascism is a REALLY powerful documentary.”

    Oh yeah, a lot of people have said that, and that’s who I would have voted for if I had been there. I actually was thinking about going, but I decided not to go, partially because of money (not only the money I’d have spent going to the convention, but also money that I’d have lost from missing out on working for several days), and partially because I figured that he was going on win the nomination anyway. Well, it turned out that he could have used my vote, but then again, my one vote would not been enough for him to get the nomination.

    What happened was that the pro-Aaron Russo faction and the pro-Gary Johnson factions canceled each other out, so Michael Badnarik won as a compromise candidate.

    I actually liked all 3 of the main candidates for the nomination that year in Aaron Russo, Gary Nolan, and Michael Badnarik. The reason I ended up backing Russo was because I thought that he could have done the best job at getting the message out. I did back Michael Badnarik as the candidate after he received the nomination, and he was the last Libertarian Party candidate for President to whom I donated any money.

    “America: From Freedom To Fascism” is a film that woke a lot of people up. I don’t know if he would have made it if he had gotten the Presidential nomination. Idealistically, I’d have like to have seen him get the nomination and still come out with “America: From Freedom To Fascism”. He was actually supposed to come out with an “America: From Freedom To Fascism part 2,” but he got sick(er) and passed away before he had a chance to make it.

  229. Andy

    “Sam Kress // Mar 30, 2013 at 12:30 am

    Gary Johnson will be fine as a repeat candidate in 2016, though.”

    I’d prefer to see somebody else. Somebody who has not even run for the nomination before.

  230. Andy

    I really have a hard time coming up with a better Presidential candidate for 2016 than Andrew Napolitano.

  231. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    If I do join the LP (I’m very strongly leaning towards yes as long as Paulie pays for the first year lol) I’ll be sure to go to the 2016 convention then and vote for someone on par with Russo, Wrights, or Ruwart.

    Then again, by 2016, there’s a pretty good chance I’ll get sucked into the whole “Liberty movement taking over the GOP” campaign that will likely be riding on Rand’s coattails if he runs, so idk…

  232. Steven R Linnabary

    Where are these libertarians in the Green Party?

    I have found a few. Or at least those that espouse a flavor of anarchism that would make a Libertarian blush. And a few that just prefer “Consensus Decisionmaking” to Roberts Rules.

    Only a minority are what I would call “watermelon”, green on the outside but red on the inside. Sadly it is this group that is loudest and dominates consensus decision making.

    But overall, there is a tendency toward decentralism that a libertarian could find attractive.

    OTOH, my experience with the Constitution Party is that it is merely the political wing of the John Birch Society. I know that probably isn’t true across the country, but that is my experience in every encounter.

    PEACE

  233. Jill Pyeatt

    I could get behind Andrew Napolitano, also. Does anyone know if he’s be interested?

  234. Andy

    “270 Krzysztof Lesiak // Mar 30, 2013 at 12:57 am

    If I do join the LP (I’m very strongly leaning towards yes as long as Paulie pays for the first year lol) I’ll be sure to go to the 2016 convention then and vote for someone on par with Russo, Wrights, or Ruwart.

    Then again, by 2016, there’s a pretty good chance I’ll get sucked into the whole ‘Liberty movement taking over the GOP’ campaign that will likely be riding on Rand’s coattails if he runs, so idk…”

    If Rand or Napolitano or somebody else who is pro-liberty (and let’s NOT turn this discussion into a debate about Rand Paul, because I already know there are problems with him) runs in the Republican primary and you want to support them, it does not mean that you can’t be a member of the LP at the same time, nor does it preclude you from also supporting a candidate for the LP’s Presidential nomination as a back up in case whoever you are supporting for the Republican nomination does not get it, nor does it preclude you from being a delegate at the LP’s National Convention in 2016, and by the time the LP has its 2016 National Convention, most of the Republican primaries will already be over, so you’ll know at that point whether the pro-liberty candidate is going to win the Republican nomination or not.

    So my advice to you if this happens is to do both.

  235. Andy

    “Steven R Linnabary // Mar 30, 2013 at 12:57 am

    ‘Where are these libertarians in the Green Party?’

    I have found a few. Or at least those that espouse a flavor of anarchism that would make a Libertarian blush.”

    The “anarchists” that I’ve met on the left are not really anarchist, at least not as a libertarian would define the term. The leftist “anarchists” are more like communists. They’ve got some weird ideas. I debated one of them one time who didn’t think that anyone should own vehicles, and that people should just leave them out with keys in them and that anyone should be able to drive off with them, and then leave the keys so somebody else can drive off with it. They also did not think that anyone should own houses. They thought that people should just show up at whatever house and crash there, kind of like a revolving door of people showing up at random houses.

    It should be a clue if you start talking to somebody who says that they are an anarchist but who then says they want national healthcare, that they are not really an anarchist. I think that they are more like confused socialists/communists than they are anarchists.

    “Only a minority are what I would call ‘watermelon’, green on the outside but red on the inside. Sadly it is this group that is loudest and dominates consensus decision making.”

    I’ve talked to a lot of Greens, and although I have found common ground with a lot of them (as in issues where we agree), I’ve never talked to one who did not espouse some form of socialism.

    “OTOH, my experience with the Constitution Party is that it is merely the political wing of the John Birch Society. I know that probably isn’t true across the country, but that is my experience in every encounter.”

    Yeah, the Constitution Party has a lot in common with the John Birch Society, but I don’t really see that as being that bad of a thing. I’ll take a Bircher over a neo-con any day.

    And as I said above, there are some libertarians in the Constitution Party. The main reason that they are not in the Libertarian Party is due to the Libertarian Party’s refusal to add a 100% anti-abortion plank to its platform. Now I don’t think that these people are anarchist libertarians, because they are obviously supporting the Constitution, but I don’t think that one has to be an anarchist to be a libertarian.

  236. Andy

    “What happened was that the pro-Aaron Russo faction and the pro-Gary Johnson factions canceled each other out, so Michael Badnarik won as a compromise candidate. ”

    Whoops! I just noticed this error. I meant to say, “and the pro-Gary Nolan factions…”

  237. Andy

    “Sam Kress // Mar 30, 2013 at 12:14 am

    So not every single CP nominee is a total drug warrior, crazed Islamophobe or questionably reformed warmonger. But some of them are. None of the Greens.”

    I’ve already conceded that the Green Party is better than the Constitution Party – at least generally speaking – when it comes to the drug war. I don’t think that it is fair to act like Constitution Party people are warmongers or Islamophobes. The Constitution Party has opposed US military imperialism and the domestic police state on a consistent basis. I also wouldn’t dismiss them for nominating Virgil Goode, because the Libertarian Party nominated the Bob Barr / Wayne Root ticket, and people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

  238. Andy

    Sam Kress said: “None of the Greens.”

    The Green Party has all kinds of socialist ideas. A lot of them also support the United Nations. Yuck!

  239. Andy

    Krzysztof Lesiak said: “interestingly enough, if it weren’t for Don Grundmann, Goode would not have won a majority on the first ballot and it would have gone to a second ballot…then it would have been entirely feasible that Darrell Castle would have won the nomination then”

    I still think that Don Grundmann had the right to run, regardless of how it effected the outcome.

    Darrell Castle could have won if he had run a more active campaign. He didn’t, so he lost to the “celebrity” candidate. The Constitution Party was hoping that by nominating a former Congressman that it would automatically lead to greater success. They were wrong.

    I met Darrell Castle in Nashville, TN back in 2008. He impressed me as being a good candidate. I asked him flat out about where he stood on the war on drugs. He told me that he’s against it. I then asked him if he thought that the war on drugs should be waged at the state level. He said no. He said that the reason that he did not join the Libertarian Party is because the Libertarian Party won’t add a 100% anti-abortion stance to its platform, but that otherwise he likes the Libertarian Party and would have joined if the Constitution Party did not exist. He’s also a Ron Paul supporter.

  240. Andy

    Here’s another example of why Andrew Napolitano would be a great candidate for President. A judge in Florida recently added extra penalties to a young woman who was flippant to this judge in court. The judge in question is an authoritarian asshole, and Andrew Napolitano calls him out for it. Check out the clip:

  241. Andy

    “paulie // Mar 29, 2013 at 6:14 pm

    ‘How about a women’s right to carry a gun, which is a great defense against rapists?’

    Not an issue peculiar to women. You can try to sneak as many conservative-libertarian issues as you want in this way and it does not help your case at all. All you are demonstrating is that some LP members who think we are closer to the CP than the GP can’t accept that there are other LP members with different issue priorities from them. ”

    This is complete bullshit. There is really no such thing as women’s rights, or gay rights, or black rights, or straight white male rights for that matter. There are ONLY RIGHTS.

    “Women’s rights” is code for abortion. People should just say abortion rather than coming up with euphemisms.

    Going by this “logic,” all of the women out there who oppose abortion must oppose “women’s rights.” LOL!

  242. Andy

    “Women are the ones that have to be pregnant, so yes.”

    There’s an invention called birth control. Also, unless somebody raped them, they engaged in the act that made them pregnant by choice.

    Also, the man is forced to pay if the woman keeps the child (even if the woman won’t let him see the child if he wants to), so the fact that the man can be forced to pay tells me that he should have some say in the matter.

    “‘I mean, what about the fetus?’

    If you don’t agree that a fetus is a person with rights that is irrelevant.”

    This is like the argument that people used to defend slavery. They said that blacks were not the same as whites, so therefore blacks didn’t have any rights.

  243. Andy

    I still have not heard from any Libertarians who think that the Green Party is better than the Constitution Party as to what freedoms they would personally enjoy under the Green Party administration that compare to these freedoms the freedoms that I’m going to repost above that I’d enjoy under a Constitution Party administration. Here it is again:

    “Andy // Mar 29, 2013 at 5:34 pm

    Here are some freedoms that I’d enjoy under a Constitution Party administration:

    I could own and carry a gun without having to get a permit.

    I would not have to pay income tax because they would eliminate the income tax, and their national party has already rejected the Fair Tax as well as a flat tax. They do favor tariffs, duties, and excise taxes which are in the Constitution and are already being collected, but they also favor large cuts in government spending.

    I would enjoy no longer being asked for a Social Security Number, because the Constitution Party wants to eliminate the Social Security program.

    I would enjoy no longer having the value of my dollars depreciate due to the Federal Reserve System inflating the currency, because the Constitution Party would eliminate the Federal Reserve System and fiat currency and return to the gold & silver standard.

    These are just a few things.

    Tell me. Libertarian Party members out there, which freedoms would you enjoy more under a Green Party administration than the ones I listed above?”

  244. George Phillies

    I shall happily support former LPNH Secretary Avens O’Brien explain why the Libertarian Party is right and the Constitution Party is even worse than the Democrats or Republicans:

    “Ill protect my right to choice with my right to a gun, so keep your laws off my uterus if you value your own right to life”

  245. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    FYI, Grundmann withdrew from the presidential contest last minute at the 2008 convention, and cast all 3 of his California votes for Goode. Had he not, like I said already, it would have gone to a second ballot, where anything could have feasibly happened.

  246. paulie

    Tell me. Libertarian Party members out there, which freedoms would you enjoy more under a Green Party administration than the ones I listed above?

    The answer was already posted above. You just don’t think those freedoms are all that important. Well, some of us disagree.

    There’s an invention called birth control. Also, unless somebody raped them, they engaged in the act that made them pregnant by choice.

    Well, rape does happen, and coerced sex that for one reason or another does not get reported as rape. And birth control is not always effective.

    Also, the man is forced to pay if the woman keeps the child

    Only some of the time. Many men don’t pay. And being pregnant for 9 months is a much bigger imposition than maybe helping pay.

    “If you don’t agree that a fetus is a person with rights that is irrelevant.”

    This is like the argument that people used to defend slavery. They said that blacks were not the same as whites, so therefore blacks didn’t have any rights.

    These arguments are only similar if you believe that a fetus is a person. Otherwise, it is the anti-abortion rights argument which is more like a defense of slavery, because it makes women slaves to being pregnant.

  247. paulie

    I’ve already conceded that the Green Party is better than the Constitution Party – at least generally speaking – when it comes to the drug war.

    And yet you still repeat the canard that there are no freedoms we would have more of with the Greens in office than the CP? How ridiculous.

    I don’t think that it is fair to act like Constitution Party people are warmongers or Islamophobes.

    Some of them are, and they nominated an open Islamophobe for President. Also, Howard Phillips wasn’t exactly a non-interventionist either.

    I also wouldn’t dismiss them for nominating Virgil Goode, because the Libertarian Party nominated the Bob Barr / Wayne Root ticket, and people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

    Barr got better on the drug war when he was LP, or at least pretended to. Goode did not even pretend. Goode did get somewhat better on foreign policy, but I question his sincerity on that. I think he may have been coached to say what he needed to say to get the nomination, having learned a lesson from Keyes.

    Greens are pretty solid on these issues, as well as religious freedom (including freedom from religion and including at the local level), sexual freedom, and migration freedom. These freedoms are very important to many libertarians. The CP is not good on these issues.

  248. paulie

    If Rand or Napolitano or somebody else who is pro-liberty (and let’s NOT turn this discussion into a debate about Rand Paul, because I already know there are problems with him) runs in the Republican primary and you want to support them, it does not mean that you can’t be a member of the LP at the same time, nor does it preclude you from also supporting a candidate for the LP’s Presidential nomination as a back up in case whoever you are supporting for the Republican nomination does not get it, nor does it preclude you from being a delegate at the LP’s National Convention in 2016, and by the time the LP has its 2016 National Convention, most of the Republican primaries will already be over, so you’ll know at that point whether the pro-liberty candidate is going to win the Republican nomination or not.

    Correct.

    Also, there’s no chance in hell that the Republicans will nominate even a remotely pro-liberty candidate.

  249. paulie

    I’d prefer to see somebody else. Somebody who has not even run for the nomination before.

    I’d like to see Johnson run again. I think he’ll do much better next time, and I think he was the best candidate since Browne.

    This was the first time since Browne that a candidate that I ended up voting for at the convention got the nomination and the first time since then that I worked on the campaign. However, in this case, unlike with Browne, I was undecided until almost the last minute.

    What was great about Johnson was that he emphasized the issues where the LP agrees with the left a lot, plus his mainstream credentials did make a good talking point with a larger audience, and he handled Ron Paul supporters a lot better than Barr did. On the negative side was the “fair” tax, the fact that he only evolved on some of the peace and “war on terror” issues during the course of the campaign, the fact that his old positions were still on his website and were never replaced, and the fact that the campaign came together so last minute – literally in the last week or two was when a lot of support that we should have been building on months earlier materialized.

    All of these problems can be solved with a second run, although his support for the “fair” tax is least likely to be solved, he seems to have dug in on that one after some early indications he may be open to changing his mind.

    But overall I think the pluses outweigh the minuses, and I have a hard time believing we’ll get a better candidate next time.

    In 2008 I supported Kubby for the nomination, and Ruwart after he was out. Barr was too right wing, giving praise to Jesse Helms and what not. In 2004 I supported Russo for the nomination; Badnarik ended up being less marginalized than I expected, but he was still marginalized to a great extent due to his lack of mainstream credentials. The party was somewhat bigger then and was able to boost him up more than we could boost another candidate now.

  250. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Relative to comment #239 by Mark Seidenberg the reason that Alan Keyes supporters control the AIP is because they filed fake documents with the California Secretary of State office to accomplish their crime of fraud.

    The unfortunate fact is that Alan Keyes is the most successful mole within the conservative movement as he is an agent of those who are totally opposed to conservative and Christian principles upon which our nation was both founded and most properly functions.

    As with Seidenberg, Keyes is a dedicated spy within the conservative movement who works to strategically place himself where he can inflict the most damage on the movement while still maintaining the surface, and totally fake, illusion/cover that he is a supporter of conservative and Christian principles.

    In reality the current Robinson Crime Syndicate which controls the AIP is in total philosophical and religious agreement with their true controllers – the Southern Poverty Law Center. Hence while Seidenberg proclaims AIP opposition to homosexual marriage he, and his Crime Syndicate, is in fact diligently working behind the scenes to sabotage any opposition to it.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California, the true 3rd party conservative. constitutional message bearer in California

  251. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    The use of the term ” homophobia ” by Mr. Kress in #238 above simply illustrates how easy it is for the Plantation Master controllers of our nation to Socially Engineer a docile populace ( made so via the public school system ) to do anything desired of them by their Masters.

    ” Homophobia ” does not exist. It is a Social Engineering/marketing/ public relations term which is used as a weapon in the war between Christian and anti-Christian ( like Mr. Kress ) forces for the victory of life or death in our world.

    The success of Social Engineering, how very easy it is to program the sheep/former people of our nation, shows how the death forces of Mr. Kress are winning in their war against humanity.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California, the only party fighting against the Social Engineering of our nation

  252. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Jill – Of course you will like Mr. Kress. He supports evil just as you do.

    Don J. Grundmann., D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the last party fighting against the anti-Christian forces which are attacking our Republic

  253. Jill Pyeatt

    “Homophobia” does exist, Don. Deny it if you wish, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

  254. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Jill – Spoken like a true drone.

    By the way – what about your own ” normalphobia?”

    Or your ” manphobia;” i.e.; fear and distain of, in addition to contempt for, men.

    Or the ” heterophobia ” of Mr.s Kress and Terry?

    Or the ” Christianphobia ” of yourself, Kress, Terry, Paulie and oodles of others on threads at this site?

    The nation would be a lot better, and its children fantastically safer, if you were all cured of your own ” phobias.”

    But I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to occur. Snowballs don’t melt in the Antarctica hearts, not to mention deadened souls, which you all have.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the only party fighting to protect the English language and to stop ( Just Say NO!!! to ) Social Engineering

  255. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Andy – Relative to your comments in #253 above I must retranslate your usage of ” disingenuous ” to the more proper word – lying.

    And, yes, people were ” paid off ” to attack the AIP in addition to there being other ” motivations;” i.e.; to kill the 3rd party conservative movement in the nation.

    That is why there was an alliance of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Anti-Defamation, League, and the Republican Party ( ” moderates ” branch ) who worked through their agents of Alan Keyes ( the gang leader ), Tom Hoefling ( his lieutenant ), Mark Robinson ( the current crime syndicate leader ), Mark Seidenberg ( the ” moneybags,” most inner mole, and connection to the SPLC and ADL ), and Ed Noonan ( a needed idiot for the plan to work ), to kill the AIP by filing their fake documents with the state.

    I have documented their crime at TheCorruptionOfAlanKeyes.blogspot.com

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the last non-corrupt party in politics

  256. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    ” … slaves to being pregnant.”

    Response – Well, Paulie, there are actually a lot of ” ethicists ” ( like ” Dr. ” Peter Singer at Harvard ) who agree with you but they also take your idea to its logical conclusion. After all, what if the child is born and the female still doesn’t want it? Should she then be a ” slave to pregnancy ” or, worse yet, a ” slave to birth?” What about her ” rights ” then?

    I am sure that you, being the great humanitarian that you are, will defend her ” right ” to not be a slave by just throwing the kid in the trash no matter how old it may be. Otherwise you could possibly be slightly possibly be accused of the distant horrible possibility of – gasp – being ” Christian; i.e.; actually putting value to the life of the singular person.

    I am sure though that sure a horrible fate will not find you no matter how hard it may look.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California, the last party fighting for the defense of the life of each person

  257. paulie

    ” … slaves to being pregnant.”

    Response – Well, Paulie, there are actually a lot of ” ethicists ” ( like ” Dr. ” Peter Singer at Harvard ) who agree with you

    I stated nothing of my own opinions.

    being ” Christian; i.e.; actually putting value to the life of the singular person

    Two very different things. And I have nothing against Christians, although I think a lot of people call themselves that based on very questionable premises. I do oppose mixing Christianity or any other religion with government.

    After all, what if the child is born and the female still doesn’t want it?

    Adoption. You may have heard of it?

  258. Andy

    “George Phillies // Mar 30, 2013 at 8:40 am

    I shall happily support former LPNH Secretary Avens O’Brien explain why the Libertarian Party is right and the Constitution Party is even worse than the Democrats or Republicans:

    ‘Ill protect my right to choice with my right to a gun, so keep your laws off my uterus if you value your own right to life.'”

    Oh this is completely absurd. I just do not respect this statement that the Constitution Party is worse that the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. I really don’t see how any Libertarian Party member could make a statement that is so ridiculous. I’m really astounded at how completely irrational this is.

    There are areas where I do not agree with the Constitution Party, but even so, I know that my differences with them are small compared to my differences with the Democrats and the Republicans. I’m talking about the mainstream Democrats or Republicans, not the exceptions within those parties who are pro-liberty, or even marginally pro-liberty. The core of the Democratic and Republican parties is completely corrupt, and I’d say evil as well. I have more respect for the Constitution Party, the Green Party, and most other minor parties, than I do for the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

    Also, even when it comes to abortion, if a person is convinced that this is OK, and they do not like the fact that the Constitution Party wants to outlaw it, keep in mind that Don, as well as a lot of other Constitution Party members have also COME OUT IN FAVOR OF FULLY INFORMING JURIES OF THEIR RIGHT TO NULLIFY LAWS. Given that a large percentage of the population supports legalized abortion, under a system of fully informed juries, it is not likely that anyone would actually serve any time in prison for abortion even if it were legal, because it would be very difficult to get a conviction if there were randomly selected, fully informed juries. Don and everyone that is heavily involved in the pro-life movement would have to persuade a lot more people to their line of thinking on abortion before they could hope to get convictions on any kind of consistent basis.

    I recently read an exert about jury nullification from Vin Superynowicz’s book, “Send in the Waco Killers,” which is posted as a sample from the book on Amazon.com (I do not own a copy of the book). He crunches the numbers to show how much public support a law has to have in order to get convictions on any kind of consistent basis under a system of randomly selected fully informed jurors. It came out that if a law has something like under 92% popular support, that it is extremely difficult to convict anyone for anything. This is why the establishment is so afraid of the general public finding out about jury nullification.

    Here’s a link to the book on Amazon.com. Click the picture of the book to read the exert (if you want to skip to the part of the exert about jury nullification you’ll have to scroll down a few pages after you open the book):

    http://www.amazon.com/Send-Waco-Killers-Movement-1993-1998/dp/0967025907/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1364683667&sr=1-1&keywords=send+in+the+waco+killers

  259. Andy

    “under a system of fully informed juries, it is not likely that anyone would actually serve any time in prison for abortion even if it were legal, ”

    Whoops, I meant to say, “under a system of fully informed juries, it is not likely that anyone would actually serve any time in prison for abortion even if it were illegal….”

  260. Andy

    “paulie // Mar 30, 2013 at 11:04 am

    ‘I’d prefer to see somebody else. Somebody who has not even run for the nomination before.’

    I’d like to see Johnson run again. I think he’ll do much better next time, and I think he was the best candidate since Browne.”

    I’d really prefer it if some other candidate emerged. While I do think that the Gary Johnson campaign did do something things well (such as, the advertisements were well done, but unfortunately not many people saw them), I think that Johnson is too much of a “Nerf” Libertarian. I really do not like his support for the Fair Tax, and this is not the only example of being a “Nerf” Libertarian.

    The Gary Johnson campaign was certainly better than the Bob Barr campaign, and there was a lot of improvement in the vote total this time, but everyone should also keep in mind four important facts when analyzing Gary Johnson’s 2012 vote total:

    1) Percent of the vote is the most important thing, and Gary Johnson came in with a little bit lower percent of the vote than Ed Clark got in 1980.

    2) Gary Johnson did not have to compete against any minor party or independent candidates that were as well known and well funded as he was, so there was no John Anderson, no Ross Perot, no Ralph Nader, and no Pat Buchanan to siphon attention and votes away from him. If American Elect had succeeded in securing a high profile candidate to run for President instead of folding their operation, it is quite likely that Gary Johnson would have received less votes than what he got.

    3) Gary Johnson benefited from Ron Paul’s campaigns in 2007-2008 and 2011-2012 increasing the popularity of libertarian ideas as well as the popularity of the word libertarian. While Ron did not officially endorse Gary Johnson, he practically endorsed him by saying that he thought that Gary Johnson was “wonderful,” and rumor is that Ron Paul actually voted for Gary Johnson in the general election. Unlike Bob Barr, Gary Johnson did not really do anything to alienate Ron Paul supporters, and Johnson’s speech at Paulfest was quite good, so Gary Johnson did end up picking up a good number of votes from Ron Paul supporters (not all of them, but a lot more than Bob Barr got).

    4) Gary Johnson ran in the age of the internet, and while the internet has been around for the last several election cycles, there are a lot more people on it now, and the quality of the internet has gotten much better than it was in earlier years. The internet is a cheap way to reach a lot of people, and past Libertarian Party candidates either did not have the internet, or they had it, but not as many people were on it, and the ability to watch videos on line either did not exist yet, or was not as good as it is today.

    I did not support Gary Johnson for the nomination, and I was frankly so dissatisfied with the choices for the nomination at the Libertarian Party National Convention, that I decided to cast a write in vote as a way of protesting the selection of candidates at the convention. I did end up casting a ballot for Jim Burns for Vice President, and maybe I should have voted for him for President, but I decided not to because I don’t believe that he ran anything resembling a real campaign for the nomination.

    Having said this, I actually did end up somewhat supporting Gary Johnson after he got the nomination. What do I mean by somewhat supporting him? I did not donate any money to his campaign (note that I did donate money to Harry Browne, Michael Badnarik, and Ron Paul), but I did do some volunteer work for his campaign, although I did not do as much volunteer work as I would have done had I enthusiastically supported it. The volunteer work that I did was that I handed out a lot of Gary Johnson campaign material while petitioning to get him on the ballot in Alabama (which I did NOT have to do), plus I posted Gary Johnson material on internet forums and I sent it out to people in emails, plus I passively endorsed him. What I mean by passively endorsing him was that instead of enthusiastically endorsing him like I did with Harry Browne, Michael Badnarik, and Ron Paul, where I strongly urged people to vote for them, my endorsement of voting for Gary Johnson was more along the lines of, “If you decide to vote in the 2012 election, then you might as well vote for Gary Johnson, because he’s better than the other candidates who will appear on your ballot.” While this is a lot less than I did for Harry Browne, Michael Badnarik, and Ron Paul, this is a lot more than I did for Bob Barr. I gave Barr a chance to swing me over to his side even a little bit post nomination, and he failed to do this, so I did not hand out any campaign material for him, I did not put up any yard signs for him, I did not post anything favorable about him on-line, I did not donate any money to his campaign, and I did not even passively endorse his campaign.

    I think that Harry Browne was the best candidate for President since I’ve been in the Libertarian Party, which is since 1996. I think that Harry Browne would have done much better had he been alive and running in the political climate of 2008 and 2012 instead of 1996 and 2000.

    I also prefer Michael Badnarik over Gary Johnson, even though I will concede that the Gary Johnson campaign had a slicker presentation than the Michael Badnarik campaign (although it is possible that the Badnarik campaign could have come up with a slicker presentation if they had had more money). I think that Michael Badnarik came along four years too early. If Badnarik had rum for President in 2008 instead of 2004 I think that he would have done a lot better. Why? Because I think that he would have gotten a lot of support from people who were energized by Ron Paul’s campaign in 2007-2008. Really, what messed up Michael Badnarik’s chances in 2008 was his well intended, but poorly executed campaign for US House in Texas in 2006. Badnarik had already expressed interest in running for President again in 2008, but after his campaign for US House in 2006 flopped he decided not to run for President. That was a shame, because he took some really bad campaign advice from the people that he hired to run his campaign for US House, and frankly, he took a chance on running for US House, because if he ended up not getting an impressive vote total (even if he did not win), then it was apparent that it would kill his chances of running for President in 2008. If that campaign for US House had been run better, or if had not even run for US House at all, he could have been a strong contender for the 2008 Presidential nomination, and if he would have gotten it, history would have changed for the Libertarian Party, and I think that the party would be in a better situation right now.

    If, or when, the fit hits the shan in this country, I’d much rather have a guy like Michael Badnarik watching my back than a guy like Gary Johnson.

    Anyway, I really hope that some better candidates emerge for the Libertarian Party’s 2016 Presidential nomination. I thought that the field was weak in 2008, and even weaker in 2012.

  261. Andy

    “I’d really prefer it if some other candidate emerged. While I do think that the Gary Johnson campaign did do something things well ”

    Whoops, should read, “I’d really prefer it is some other candidates emerged. While I do think that the Gary Johnson campaign did do some things well…”

  262. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    Don, I still would like you to explain why the hell you thought Virgil Goode was a better choice for the CP than Darrell Castle? Because of your vote (Goode admitted this) this pathetic neocon was able to win on the first ballot.

  263. Andy

    “Krzysztof Lesiak // Mar 30, 2013 at 7:01 pm

    Don, I still would like you to explain why the hell you thought Virgil Goode was a better choice for the CP than Darrell Castle? Because of your vote (Goode admitted this) this pathetic neocon was able to win on the first ballot.”

    Who did Don vote for at the Constitution Party’s 2012 National Convention? I thought that Don was one of the candidates for President, so I assume that he voted for himself. Is this correct?

  264. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    He was, apparently, a candidate, but for some reason he voted for Goode instead. Goode even acknowledged Don in front of CSPAN cameras for it.

    Skip to 6:02 in this video to hear it:

  265. Andy

    “Krzysztof Lesiak // Mar 30, 2013 at 7:20 pm

    He was, apparently, a candidate, but for some reason he voted for Goode instead. Goode even acknowledged Don in front of CSPAN cameras for it”

    Don, what is your explanation for this? Did you really believe that Virgil Goode was a good candidate, and that he’d bring more publicity and votes for the party, or what?

    If you do believe that he was a good candidate, do you still believe this? Why or why not?

  266. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    Sure Don, to be honest, I’m curious as to your vote on the matter. My preference was Darrell Castle in the race, and I’ll be quite honest- where he the CP nominee, I probably would have supported him in the general election.

    You can email me at: clesiak522@gmail.com

    Thanks

  267. Andy

    Don, your vote at the convention is public record. Why the secrecy about your reason for voting this way? Why not just let everyone know rather than keeping it a secret?

    If you don’t want to get too specific, you could say something, “I had a dispute with Darrell Castle.” or, “I thought that Virgil Goode could take the Constitution Party to a higher level.” or something like that.

    I just don’t get the secrecy.

  268. Jill Pyeatt

    Don @ 297: Just curious: How many unwanted children who were born anyway have you adopted?

    Still waiting for an answer.

    None? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

  269. Starchild

    Tom Knapp @137 makes a good suggestion which I endorse — instead of a resolution “repudiating” the 2008 Libertarian presidential ticket of Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root, better that our resolution apologize for our mistake as a party in nominating them.

    Such an apology will rightly be seen as a kind of repudiation anyway, but instead of focusing blame on individuals who are no longer affiliated with us, will rightly own up to our own responsibility for nominating them. The apology need not have a vindictive or retributive tone, but simply be an honest assessment of where we went wrong and why, recognizing the need to acknowledge for the record that we made some bad choices.

    I believe the public will see the Libertarian Party taking this action unilaterally as a refreshing exception to the rule that institutions rarely apologize for major decisions unless outside pressures force them to do so. It will show our integrity and willingness to admit when we’ve screwed up. When has a political party ever formally acknowledged making a poor choice in selecting a presidential ticket?

    Of course the reluctance of institutions to admit mistakes (reflected in the doubts expressed in this thread even by some Barr/Root critics) means that even a calmly-worded apology will almost certainly be controversial and passage is far from guaranteed.

    But simply having the conversation about whether to adopt a resolution apologizing for 2008 will be beneficial, regardless of whether it ends up being adopted or not. Not that the recognition that we win to some degree even if we lose should slacken our determination to put the LP on record with a correct and healthy perspective on what happened five years ago! Doing so would send an important signal that we have closed an unfortunate chapter in our history and turned a corner. It will make a recurrence of such a mistake in the future less likely, partly by putting future candidates on notice that they are not assured of a positive Libertarian legacy once having been chosen to represent the party, if their actions do not merit one.

    Often in the course of history it is falsely assumed that everybody understands something was a mistake, and that there is little need for further analysis, acknowledgement, or education about the facts of where and how things went wrong, or why they were wrong.

    Take for instance the example of Russia. In 1989, people in Russia and the other subjugated Soviet states threw off seven decades of horrific communist rule. There was widespread antipathy toward communism, and the once all-powerful Communist Party was relegated to a minor-party status from which it has never recovered.

    And yet who today is the most admired historical figure in Russia? It may well be none other than Josef Stalin, the bloodiest and most brutal dictator of the communist era and one of the worst mass murderers in history!

    How on earth could this have happened? Part of the answer is that the increasingly authoritarian regime of ex-KGB honcho Putin has been making a deliberate attempt to rehabilitate Stalin. This effort has been made more viable by the failure to take advantage of the window of anti-authoritarian sentiment that existed in the wake of the U.S.S.R.’s collapse to set the record straight by exposing Stalinist era crimes and educating the public about them.

    Here are some excerpts from a 2009 article ( http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1949500,00.html#ixzz2P4bfDBy1 ) in Time magazine (bold emphasis added):

    “Just in time for the 130th anniversary of his birth on Dec. 21, the state-run polling agency VTsIOM released a survey showing that despite the millions of Soviet citizens who fell victim to purges, starvation and summary executions under Stalin’s regime, 54% of Russians now have a high opinion of his leadership qualities. And when asked about his personal attributes, 50% of respondents said they viewed them as average or above average — up from 45% when the same survey was conducted in 2000.

    “This is no historical accident. The Russian government has been sending clear signals in recent years that Stalin’s achievements must be revered — despite the ‘mistakes,’ as officials often put it, that were made during his time in power. During Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s annual call-in TV show earlier this month, which included several staged questions aimed at sending the public a message, Putin warned Russians against making any ‘overall judgment’ against Stalin. To prove his point, he cited the forced collectivization of agriculture, a process that historians say caused millions of deaths from starvation in the 1920s and ’30s, when Stalin was general secretary of the Communist party. ‘It’s true, there was no peasantry left after that,’ Putin said. ‘Everything that happened in this sphere did not have any positive effect on the villages. But after all we did get industrialization.’…

    “What’s behind the move by the government to rehabilitate Stalin’s image in the eyes of the public? Some opposition politicians believe it’s tied to the United Russia party’s efforts to solidify its power. ‘The state is hinting that Stalin’s tactics are also part of its arsenal for controlling the country,’ says Sergei Mitrokhin, the leader of the opposition Yabloko party. The widespread sympathy toward Stalin, he adds, is also a result of the lingering impact of Soviet propaganda, which the Russian government never tried to erase from the public consciousness after communism fell. ‘All countries emerging from totalitarianism and evolving into a normal form of government carried out a long and difficult program of reforms and re-education, of coming to grips with the past,’ he says. ‘Germany is still carrying out de-Nazification, while we never even began this process.'”

    The point of quoting the paragraphs above is not to compare Barr or Root with Stalin; that would be ludicrous. The point is that the lessons of history, if not widely acknowledged and taught, can be very quickly forgotten. Even the most reviled and villainous figures, if they once enjoyed a central place in a community or organization’s narrative, may be “rehabilitated” by future leader(s) whose own agendas are served by having them seen in a more positive light, unless steps have been taken to make such propaganda unlikely to find fertile ground.

    In the case of the Libertarian Party, passing a resolution apologizing to the American people for advertising Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root to them as champions of freedom worthy of carrying the libertarian banner would be a sort of insurance policy against the kind of future distortions and false perceptions that Russia’s post-Soviet experience clearly shows are possible.

    As the significant level of support for current dictator Putin himself among the Russian populace perhaps illustrates, such distortions and false perceptions are not just “water under the bridge”. They can do serious harm to the cause of freedom going forward.

  270. Jill Pyeatt

    Of course, we can always taunt the Republicans for having to take them back: “Neener, neener, neener…”

    APRIL FOOLS!

  271. Andy

    “Jill Pyeatt // Mar 30, 2013 at 8:28 pm

    Don @ 297: Just curious: How many unwanted children who were born anyway have you adopted?

    Still waiting for an answer.

    None? Yeah, that’s what I thought.”

    Jill, regardless of whether or not Don has adopted any children, I think that it is important to point out that more people would be able to adopt children, or to donate money to orphanages, if the income tax were eliminated, and if other taxes were reduced or eliminated, and if the Federal Reserve System and fiat currency were eliminated, and if the government stopped wasted so much money on unconstitutional programs. If this were the situation, I think that the economy would be much stronger, and that people would be less likely to want to give up children, or to have abortions. Part of the reason that people get pushed into this situation in the first place is because government policies have done so much damage to the economy and therefore destroyed a lot of jobs and business opportunities that would otherwise exist.

  272. paulie

    @315 That is actually a very good point. Thanks!

    Your short novel about Johnson wasn’t as good. I’d read the whole thing and respond, but I’d be here all night doing that.

  273. Andy

    Starchild brings up good points in post #312. Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

  274. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    That pie looks really good.

    Starchild, I thought you brought up an excellent point. Good luck with that resolution. After some thought, I think you are right. A resoltion to apologize might be better, and like you said, it will force the party that preaches personal responsibility to accept responsibility for nominating a neocon-unlibertarian like ticket in 2008.

  275. Andy

    “Krzysztof Lesiak // Mar 30, 2013 at 9:05 pm

    That pie looks really good.”

    I was thinking the exact same thing! Yum, yum! LOL!

  276. Jill Pyeatt

    You make some excellent points in 315, Andy. Our corrupt system encourages babies to be born who shouldn’t be born, also. We’ve all heard stories of women who continue to have children so they’ll get a higher monthly payment from our government, and it’s sure hard to think that doesn’t go on. So, someone like me has less children because I waited to darn long to marry because I was trying to get my career going, and someone else gets to have more babies with the taxes I pay with that career. Pretty screwed up system all around.

  277. Andy

    “Jill Pyeatt // Mar 30, 2013 at 9:18 pm

    You make some excellent points in 315, Andy. Our corrupt system encourages babies to be born who shouldn’t be born, also. We’ve all heard stories of women who continue to have children so they’ll get a higher monthly payment from iour government, and it’s sure hard to think that doesn’t go one. So, someone like me has less children because I weaited to darn long to marry because I was trying to get my career going, and someone else gets to have more babies with the taxes I pay with that career. Pretty screwed up system all all around.”

    Yes, it is a screwed up system that we live in and it has caused all kinds of distortions in the market that would not exist if we lived in a more sane system.

  278. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Jill – Relative to your #311 comment I cannot count the number of times that death lovers, such as you, have asked myself and other pro-lifers the same question. And I ” know the drill ” from having experienced it sooo many times.

    If we say none then the death lover puffs their chest out with their imagined victory as they crow with delight.

    If we say one then they sneer – Oh. Is that all????

    If we say two then they start to shut up.

    If we say more then they change the subject ( as they always, being the inherent cowards that they are, do when they are cornered ).

    In fact my lack of adopting any children does not invalidate my battle to save them from a death of shredding mutilation in any way. Of course you, as a death person/lover want to invalidate/smear/slander my fight but in fact the very question itself shows far more about you than my answer does. For the reality is the following – no REAL Christian would EVER ask such a pro-death question of anyone else. ONLY death people – death lovers – ask such a question of anyone. So while your boutique/fake Christianity may sell to the ignorant or those who are unaware of the fraud behind it you can be assured that I know the real truth behind the scam that you are running; the one that you are attempting to fool even yourself with.

    The battle to save humanity and – especially – women ( since they are more proportionally attacked via abortion than men ) is done by countless people, inclusive of those who do not, for any and/or various reasons, have children themselves. They fight for children because they take very seriously ( far more than you could ever dream of ) the Biblical and Christian injunction to place value, protection, and meaning upon the singular human life. Of course such appreciation of human life also involves its protection from many other attacks such as from being mentally, emotionally, and physically molested by the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement of our current times – a Movement for which you are an open cheerleader.

    So I am actually glad that you wrote the question as today ( as I write this ) is Easter – the day in which the Savior died for our sins. He died so that you could be ( no matter how much it is sneered at on this site ) ” reborn;” i.e.; you can be saved from the love of death which you now have and your alliance with the Enemy of God. Of course such a happy event will mean that you are no longer a supporter of and/or cheerleader for sin; inclusive of the love of death known as abortion or the soul pathology of homosexuality in which the afflicted give their allegiance to the Enemy of God as compared to their Creator and Savior.

    So today is a good day for you to reaffirm such a true allegiance. But I am not going to hold my breath regarding this because my own belief is that you value your image and ego far more than the Creator and Savior. It is far more important to and for you to ” look good ” to your fellow parrots that to actually open your eyes and realize, much less confess, that you have been both an overt and covert supporter of evil for many many years.

    So your choice – a fresh beginning as a follower of our Savior or just another day when you can flip Him ” the bird ” and go on your merry way.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the only party fighting to defend the Christian foundations of our nation

  279. Jill Pyeatt

    I’m not pro-abortion, Don. I raised the child I found myself pregnant with. I asked you the question because I sincerely wanted to know if you care about the lives of children after they’re born.

    The Jesus I love asks me not to judge. Have a blessed Easter.

  280. Andy

    Don J. Grundmann said: “Of course such appreciation of human life also involves its protection from many other attacks such as from being mentally, emotionally, and physically molested by the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement of our current times – a Movement for which you are an open cheerleader. ”

    Don, I don’t think that Jill or any other Libertarian that I know favor child molestation. I certainly do not favor this. Saying that gay people should have individual rights is not the same thing as endorsing child molestation or rape or anything like that.

  281. Robert Capozzi

    Andy, unfortunately, DJG gives every indication of seeing things that are not there. He has constructed a narrative, for which he invents facts to support his proposition.

    Compassion seems the only appropriate response.

  282. Thomas L. Knapp

    @326,

    “[Grundmann] has constructed a narrative, for which he invents facts to support his proposition.”

    After which he claims to have “documented” those “facts,” but his definition of “I have documented those facts” is “I have made the same assertions elsewhere.”

  283. Dave Terry

    Lezniak (233) “For example, I don’t understand his obsession with homosexuality. The sky won’t fall and anarchy won’t erupt on the streets just because gays get married.”

    But, ‘it’s in the book”!! IT MUST BE RIGHT!
    According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “”To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”

    To Don Grundmann, HIS truth is self-evident!
    A priori, to the max!

    It is not for you to understand, but to obey. To those who understand, no

  284. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Jill – Another common-as-sand claim of those who are pro-death is that the pro-life movement only cares abut children until the moment when they are born and not after.

    Of course this, as with all other pro-death claims, is an outright lie as it is ONLY the pro-life movement which funds unwed mothers homes, adoption facilities, food banks, water purification projects, medical programs, economic development programs, and countless other initiatives to support children throughout their life after their birth. In contrast the pro-death movement will give out condoms and tell their targets to use them for food.

    So your crocodile tears ” sincerity ” is simply another classic pro-death claim/argument which was preceded by yet another pro-death classic – ” I’m not pro-abortion;” a claim that ALL death people whom I have ever meant will spew out with the ludicrousness of it shown clearly by their actions and statements.

    Hence I encourage you – come out of the closet. Be PROUD and just admit your support of the mutilation shredding death of children via abortion just as you can admit the logical extension of your agreement with the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement that they are ” born that way;” that child molestors are hence indeed simply following their ” sexual orientation ” and doing what is, for them, ” natural.”

    Find the courage of your REAL convictions and don’t hide anymore. Be a true leader of the forces of pro-death and pro-degeneracy.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the last party fighting the pro-death and pro-degeneracy forces of the nation

  285. Dave Terry

    Grundmann is PARTIALLY correct that the U.S is “based” on the Christian Religion, in that the Christian religion is based on several Pagan precursors.

    Easter is named for the Babylonian goddess Ishtar, and is a pagan holiday – nowhere does the Bible tell us to celebrate something called ‘Easter’. The early Christians, and indeed the American Pilgrim Fathers, never celebrated Easter, and would have recognized its pagan origins. How utterly foul that the central tenet of the Christian faith, the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, should be celebrated by a feast which carries the name of a pagan deity.

    ‘Easter’ with its association with eggs and rabbits (pagan symbols of fertility) started in ancient Babylon, in more ways than one.

    Ishtar (aka Semiramis), a Babylonian ‘goddess’ gave birth to a son named Tammuz, after her ‘spouse, Nimrod died. Ishtar claimed Tammuz was a reincarnation of Nimrod. She also claimed it was a virgin birth.

    Tammuz was killed by a wild boar, but supposedly came to life again and his supposed resurrection was celebrated each spring. The ancient people had to mourn Tammuz’ death each spring and then celebrate his resurrection, and they believed that ‘goddess’ Ishtar would then bless them with good crops and fertility.

    The ancient Israelites, soon took up the worship of Baal, Ishtar and Tammuz. Ishtar is theQueen of Heaven referred to in Jeremiah 7:18. Also, according to Ezekial 8:14, the women of Israel were “weeping for Tammuz”.

    Clearly the”Essene” Jews brought the idea of a “savior” conceived by immaculate conception” back with them. see: http://www.examiner.com/article/jesus-was-an-essene-jew

    May you all enjoy the day, whether you call it Ishtar, Easter, or Passover.

  286. Robert Capozzi

    tk 327, yes, this confusion about “facts” vs. “assertions” indicates a severely dysfunctional mind. The dysfunction is amped up with the rabid vitriol that comes along with it, as if he makes his case more compelling with his sharp condemnations.

    Jesus was onto something when he said, “Forgive them for they know not what they do.”

    I remain puzzled by those who protest loudly to their “Christian” beliefs and yet seem to blatantly miss the most important teachings…”judge not” comes to mind.

  287. Andy

    “Don J. Grundmann, D.C. // Mar 31, 2013 at 12:38 pm

    Jill – Another common-as-sand claim of those who are pro-death is that the pro-life movement only cares abut children until the moment when they are born and not after.

    Of course this, as with all other pro-death claims, is an outright lie as it is ONLY the pro-life movement which funds unwed mothers homes, adoption facilities, food banks, water purification projects, medical programs, economic development programs, and countless other initiatives to support children throughout their life after their birth. In contrast the pro-death movement will give out condoms and tell their targets to use them for food.”

    Don, think about how much more easier it would be for the pro-life movement to provide funding for all of these things is we had a more libertarian society where the government was not taking and squandering so much of our money, and lowering the value of our currency, and destroying so many jobs and business opportunities. Under such as scenario, the there’d be a lot more funding available for more of these charitable projects that you described, plus the economy would be a lot stronger, so there’d likely be a lot less people in need of charity. These factors would lead to a lot less women wanting to get abortions.

  288. Andy

    Don Grundmann said: “just as you can admit the logical extension of your agreement with the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement that they are ‘ born that way;’ that child molestors are hence indeed simply following their ‘sexual orientation ‘ and doing what is, for them, ‘natural.'”

    Don, there is a big difference between consenting adults engaging in sexual activities, and child molestation or rape. Do you not understand the difference?

    Also, what exactly is your plan for homosexuals? Do you have a “Final Solution to the Homosexual Problem” or what?

    Do you favor arresting people who are gay and putting them in prison camps? Do you favor exterminating them? Are you in favor of some kind of program to force them to stop being gay?

    The libertarian view is not necessarily “supporting” gays, but rather saying that each individuals should be free to engage in voluntary activities just as long as they do not initiate force and fraud against others. Different libertarians have different personal views on gays, but no libertarian thinks that they’ve got the right to impose their personal views on to others who are not initiating force or fraud against others.

  289. Dave Terry

    Grundmann (323)
    “If we say none then the death lover puffs their chest out with their imagined victory as they crow with delight.

    AS WE SHOULD! We have obviously confronted a cringing hypocrite! He ONLY cares about life, if HE isn’t responsible for it!

    “If we say one then they sneer – Oh. Is that all????”

    AS AGAIN! WE SHOULD! We have clearly confronted a weak kneed do gooder. More adept at dictating to others than taking responsibility himself!

    If we say two then they start to shut up.

    SOME of us do, thinking we may have stumbled on to a RARE and genuine humanitarian.

    MOST of us wonder WHY he thinks that this small contribution atones for his penchant for authoritarianism.

    If we say more then they change the subject ( as they always, being the inherent cowards that they are, do when they are cornered ).

    THIS is a LIE! MANY of us STILL argue that IF you are convince that you are dealing with the death of honest to goodness human babies, you MUST step up and save them, even at cost you your own family.

    AFTER ALL, isn’t YOUR God the one who claimed to be sacrificing HIS own son for the sake of humanity? Can any decent Christian do any less. If NOT, are they REALLY Christians?

  290. paulie

    urbandictionary.com:

    Jesus

    Man who was nailed to a plank for saying how nice it would be if everyone was nice to each other. Had his message misinterpreted by millions who now think it is their job to persecute certain groups of people.

    Happy Easter everyone!

  291. Dave Terry

    KL (303) “Don, I still would like you to explain why the hell you thought Virgil Goode was a better choice for the CP than Darrell Castle? Because of your vote (Goode admitted this) this pathetic neocon was able to win on the first ballot.

    IF this is REALLY a concern of yours, WHY would you even consider joining the Libertarian Party?

    IF this is REALLY a concern of yours, PLEASE
    DON’T JOIN the Libertarian Party!!!!!

  292. Andy

    Dave Terry: “IF this is REALLY a concern of yours, PLEASE
    DON’T JOIN the Libertarian Party!!!!!”

    Maybe he wants to see all the party’s nominate the best candidates possible from his point of view. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

    This is not that different from Libertarians wishing that the Republican Party had nominated Ron Paul or Gary Johnson for President instead of Mitt Romney.

  293. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Jill #324 and Capozzi #332 – Yet another of the Social Engineering attacks of the pro-death and pro-degeneracy forces involves their also common-as-sand claim when confronted with their evil – You’re not supposed to judge!!!

    Of course we must ALL ” judge ” in determining simply good from evil if nothing else. The person who comes to your door. Is he a salesman or a robber? If you ” judge ” him to be a robber is that hence sin? Such an idea is of course utterly silly and stupid but it is a standard argument of those supporting evil as just one of their attempts to disarm those who would challenge and stop them from their evil.

    Secondarily there is also ” righteous;” i.e.; right; judgement; which the Bible endorses.

    So whenever I hear the flapping of jaws about ” judging ” I know that there goes yet another drone or active supporter of evil working to run interference and protection for its growth and victory over humanity.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairmann Constitution Party of California; the last party actively working to stop evil

  294. Thomas L. Knapp

    My latest theory is that “Don J. Grundmann” is actually an ELIZA script that was installed on a machine which was then dropped in a sewer for ten years before getting the IPR comments RSS feed linked to it.

  295. Jill Pyeatt

    He’s just amazing. The huge assumptions he makes about people because of a comment they make or question they ask is astonishing. I vary from thinking it’s absolutely hilarious to thinking it’s just about the saddest thing I’ve ever seen. What a shame Don Grundmann has so little ability to understand humans and their true complicated natures.

  296. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Andy @ #325 – ” Saying that gay people should have individual rights…..

    A) Andy – There is no such thing as a ” gay ” person. There are homosexuals. There are sodomites. There are no ” gays.”

    ” Gay ” is a Social Engineering/marketing/public relations term to sanitize the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement. It is a weapon being used in the war against our society, culture, and nation by the anti-Christian/humanity forces attacking the nation. In this war language is used as a weapon of attack.

    An article in the San Francisco Chronicle included a lament from the pervert community that the professional child molesting organization known as NAMBLA ( whose motto is ” sex before 8 or it’s too late “) simply suffered from very bad public relations and marketing.

    The Homosexual/Sodomy Movement intends to solve their problem of public disapproval of child molesting by getting GOOD public relations and marketing. This is known as ” Social Engineering ” – and it is working ( for them ) fantastically well.

    In homosexual culture ” gay ” stands for “G”oing “A”fter “Y”outh.

    B) Homosexuals already have individual rights just like we all do via the Bill of Rights. No one is taking away their individual rights.

    C) Supposedly gaining their ” individual rights ” is NOT the objective of the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement. As I describe/document at CandleCrusade.org the legalization of pervert marriage is only a stepping stone to their far far far bigger goal. It is NOT an end in itself.

    Singular perverts may object to child molestation but for the Movement as a whole it is their ultimate objective. As I document at CandleCrusade.org the Movement claims that homosexuals can NEVER – I repeat NEVER – be ” free ” until children are ” free;” i.e.; that they can have sex with anyone at anytime at any age and for any reason.

    I take them very seriously on their desire to be ” free.”

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party; the only party fighting the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement

  297. Robert Capozzi

    341 DG: Of course we must ALL ” judge ” in determining simply good from evil if nothing else.

    me: No, that’s discernment, not “judging.”

    I’m channeling Jesus right now, so pay attention, Dr. G. “It’s none of your damn business, Child of God, if consenting adults do things that you don’t approve of. If the thought of what they do makes you queasy, then that’s on YOU, dude. The Golden Rule is not optional, and it applies to thought as well as action. Get that.”

  298. Andy

    Don Grundmann said: “A) Andy – There is no such thing as a ‘gay’ person. There are homosexuals. There are sodomites. There are no ‘gays.'”

    OK, whatever you want to call them, but the questions remain the same.

  299. Dave Terry

    Grundmann (292)
    “” Homophobia ” does not exist. It is a Social Engineering/marketing/ public relations term which is used as a weapon in the war between Christian and anti-Christian

    “Thou shalt not bare false witness!. It’s in the book
    Grundmann! Don’t you know you’ll go to hell for lying, same as stealing!

  300. Dave Terry

    There is no such thing as a ‘gay’ person. There are homosexuals. There are sodomites. There are no ‘gays.’”

    What a dumb shit! There are no sodomites! Sodom
    doesn’t exist anymore There are no Gamorrahites either. “Gay” is just a figure of speech!,

  301. Andy

    Don Grundmann said: “The Homosexual/Sodomy Movement intends to solve their problem of public disapproval of child molesting by getting GOOD public relations and marketing. This is known as ‘ Social Engineering ‘ – and it is working ( for them ) fantastically well. ”

    Going from consenting adult to child molesting/rape seems like a big jump to me, one that nobody that I know would approve.

    Once again Don, what are you driving at here? What is your “Final Solution” to what you perceive to be the homosexual problem?

  302. Thomas L. Knapp

    DJG @ 344,

    “In the homosexual culture of my fevered imagination, ‘ gay’ stands for ‘G’oing ‘A’fter ‘Y’outh. And later when I make this claim again, I’ll also claim to have ‘documented’ it by stating it here.”

    There, fixed that for ya.

  303. paulie

    Maybe he wants to see all the party’s nominate the best candidates possible from his point of view. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

    Agreed!

  304. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Andy – A) I did not develop a United Nations Rights of Children Treaty that includes that they have ” full sexual rights;” an event that I document at CandleCrusade. The UN did that. Of course Jill, Knapp, Terry, etc. ( the usual suspects ) will claim that I made it up – even when the UN itself did this and it has been documented. Hence above and beyond the psychosis of those who outright deny reality in order to, in this case, protect their own crusades against humanity a question is -WHY? Why has the UN done this?

    B) The Chicago school district recently announced that effective 2014 they will start their sex education courses in kindergarten instead of the 5th grade as they currently do. They will also teach the children – kindergarteners – ” gender identity ” and ” sexual expression.” To kindergarteners. Why? Why would anyone do that?

    C) The only reason for the actions of A) and B) above, in addition to countless other attacks upon children by the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement, is to emotionally/mentally break/shatter children at the earliest possible age. When they are ” softened up ” via mental and emotional molestation they can be more easily physically molested; an action which the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement ( Sex before 8 or its too late ) knows there is little chance that they can recover from

    D) Many homosexuals have recovered from their affliction via reparative therapy and other methods. That is why the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement is working to ban such help because they expose the lie that perverts are ” born that way.”

    E) What perverts do in their own private moments is their problem. The true issue is warping public policy to teach that homosexuality, an emotional pathology, is minimally equal to heterosexuality and then teaching that to children. THAT is the issue.

    F) The only solution to the death of the nation from the advance of homosexuality is, since homosexuality involves the death of the soul, a spiritual one. Citizens must rise up to protect their children. Unfortunately that will not happen. As illustrated on this site and in countless areas throughout our culture Social Engineering is winning as our men and women, those who would defend children, are reduced to males and females, those who will betray them to their molestors.

    That is why our nation is dying and why it will die.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the last party fighting to stop the death of America

  305. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    paulie @ #336 – When evil people, perverts and their supporters in this instance, are challenged they cry out that they are persecuted. Of course when they attack and persecute others that is perfectly OK.

    Jesus was the vehicle which the Creator gave us to deliver us from bondage/slavery/death to sin; like the sin of promoting the evil of homosexuality.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the last party fighting the evil attacking our society, culture, nation, families, and children

  306. Jill Pyeatt

    Yeah, homosexuals have been “cured” like Marie Osmond’s son was “cured”–by jumping out of a window.

  307. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Unfortunately, if this story is accurate, Marie Osmonds son apparently followed a path which many others have taken – they chose death over obeying their conscience which was confronting them regarding their soul affliction.

    It is true and original conscience – the message from God that we are in error and must repent of our sin – that works to heal us from our soul wounds and which we run from to justify our soul pollution. That is the entire reason behind the ” Pride Parades ” of the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement – to drown out and eliminate the shame which true and original conscience brings to the afflicted regarding their actions and perversion.

    It is unfortunate that her son chose to take his life rather than being ” reborn ” through being healed from his affliction. For too many evil has such a vise grip on their soul that they cannot see and/or do not want recovery from their affliction. They find death preferential to having their soul cleansed of its infection.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party; the last party working to stop the soul death of America

  308. paulie

    LOL

    paulie // Apr 1, 2013 at 1:07 pm

    Would Grundmann Comes Out of the Closet be a legitimate story?

    359 Don J. Grundmann, D.C. // Apr 1, 2013 at 1:57 pm

    Unfortunately, if this story is accurate,…

  309. Dave Terry

    KL (339)
    “What’s wrong with me not wanting the CP to nominate a neocon?

    IF, you intend to STAY in the C.P. nothing:
    IF, on the other hand, you are considering joining the L.P. it is of not concern of yours and makes OUR job easier.

    Andy (340)
    “This is not that different from Libertarians wishing that the Republican Party had nominated Ron Paul or Gary Johnson for President instead of Mitt Romney.

    Libertarians worrying about WHO the GOP nominates is just more mental-masturbation.

    There is NO way a genuine or even quasi libertarian will win the Republican nomination.

    I was personally, quite active in the R.P campaign, here in my area, during the primary;
    NOT because I expected R.P. to win, but to simply interact with more ‘libertarian’ leaning individuals, with the hope I could wean them away from the GOP.

  310. Green Party

    Depression is not evil. Marie’s son was adopted, which may or may not cause someone confusion as to why their birth parents couldn’t or wouldn’t raise them. Compounded by , I have read the young man was bullied, he did not kill himself because his soul was not clean. Please don’t project your own issues on people you don’t know. Or for that matter understand.

  311. Jill Pyeatt

    Don, in case you’re interested, we have a lot of fun with you here on IPR because of your almost cartoon-like obviously canned responses, but I really think you are a very pathetic man who pretends to have compassion, but does not. For someone to take his life indicates to me that he is in agony because he is simply unable to change the way he was born (he had been through one of those religious change programs). I feel great sorrow for this individual and I am angry at people like you who make him feel like there’s something wrong with him. That makes you a monster, in my view, not the children with gender and identity issues you call monsters.

    I know you now have one of your pre-written responses for one of the categories you’ve put me in, but whatever. I really don’t care what you say about me. But don’t pretend you care about the human race because I believe you only care about the itty – bitty select few who believe exactly the way you do.

  312. Dave Terry

    Gruntmann (353)
    “That is why our nation is dying and why it will die.”

    YOUR nation is dying and the sooner the better!

    Three cheers for the free republic of the United States of America!

  313. paulie

    Jill,

    I think Don is hurting too. He needs our compassion as well. One day, maybe he’ll come to terms with his natural urges.

  314. Dave Terry

    (359) “It is unfortunate that her son chose to take his life rather than being ” reborn ” through being healed from his affliction.

    (363) ” I feel great sorrow for this individual and I am angry at people like you who make him feel like there’s something wrong with him.

    Let’s be fair about this, Jill, Don can’t help himself, He was “reborn” that way. Going through that birth canal the second time, REALLY does strange things to the brain! :>)

  315. paulie

    Don, in case you’re interested, we have a lot of fun with you here on IPR

    So no one has answered, would a story that Grundmann came out of the closet be taking it too far?

  316. Dave Terry

    Paulie (368)

    Have you considered the possibility that Grundmann CAN’T come out of the closet. One of the major causes of violent hatred of Gays is the fact that the self loathing of some gay men is turned outward to ward other gays. It is a psychological self-defense mechanism.

  317. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Jill @ #363 – I AGAIN challenge you on the following – IF homosexuals are ” born that way ” and IF you agree with that idea ( as you claim to in #363 above ) then, logically, you must agree with the declaration of the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement which is found at their website of B4U-ACT.org – that child molestors are really ” born that way,” that that condition is their ” sexual orientation,” and hence that what they do is ” natural ” for them.

    Do you agree with the claim of the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement that child molestors are ” born that way ” – Yes or No?

    Do you agree with the claim that their desires to molest children are due to their sexual orientation; an ” orientation ” that they are ” born with?” – Yes or No?

    Please don’t give me your usual canned and pathetic response.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chaorman Constitution Party of California; the party working to protect the children of our nation

  318. Jill Pyeatt

    Don, you’re missing a major point I’ve been trying to make: people aren’t this simple, that you can always slot into a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’. We are complex individuals. We can’t be compartmentalized based on a comment here or a question there. You really don’t get it, do you?

    Nor will you, apparently.

  319. Jill Pyeatt

    “Choosing to be gay” is really an idiotic concept. If someone chooses someone of their own gender. they’re homosexual. Straight people don’t choose people of their own gender.

    Duh.

  320. paulie

    Many people are bisexual to some extent or other, whether they act on it or not. It’s more socially accepted for women, I think.

  321. Catholic Trotskyist

    Don’s information about what’s happening in the Chicago public school system is disturbing, I have to say.

  322. Catholic Trotskyist

    At least in this discussion we’ve gotten some good ideas about the differences between libertarians and constitutionalists, with some arguing about the Green Party thrown in. Since I don’t believe that economic liberty is workable, and I’m pro-life, I’d likely be happy with some sort of mix between the Green and Constitution parties.

  323. Jill Pyeatt

    I really find it hard to believe that the Chicago school system is doing what Don is saying they’re going to do. He’s been saying all kinds of things about public schools now that I know aren’t true, so I’ll read what he says and immediately disregard it.

  324. Mark Seidenberg

    Andy to post #304.

    I can not answer your question about what Don Grundmann did about voting in 2012 Convention
    of the Constitution Party. However I can tell you
    what he did at the CP Convention in 2008 at Kansas City, because I was the elected head of the California delegation to that 2008 Convention.

    We took a vote of the delegates from California
    as to POTUS. At the time, 80% of the California
    Delegation were for Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes.
    The remaining 20% were split between Chuck
    Bauldwin, Jerome Course, and one vote for Don
    Grundmann. The one vote was Don Grundmann
    voting for himself. When Dr. Grundmann could
    not come up with a second from the California
    Delegation, he did not vote for himself he voted
    for Chuck Bauldwin.

    Andy, what happened in the 2012 convention with the California Delegation as to the vote?
    Also what happened since the 2013 Bakerfield
    CP Convention, because I was informed that
    Don Grundmann was removed as the CP Chairman at that Convention, so how did he
    become the Chairman of the CP again?

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
    American Independent Party of California

  325. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Andy – Mark Seidenberg. # 386 above, is doing exactly what he ALWAYS does – lie.

    In Kansas City I asked all of my supporters to vote for Chuck Baldwin. I did this when I realized the corruption involved with, and behind, Alan Keyes and I was fearful that his corruption would carry the day. I did not realize until after the vote that Keyes had no chance from the start as the delegates decisively ( by 3 to 1 ) rejected him. Yet I am still very happy that I asked my supporters to vote for Chuck as I was able to add to the rejection of the corruption of Keyes and his fellow traitors such as Seidenberg; who himself was a Republican, SPLC, and ADL mole within the party and working for its destruction from the first second he encountered us.

    While the attempt of Keyes, as an agent of the Republican Party himself, to destroy the party by gaining the nomination was thwarted at that time he continued the attack by having his agents, inclusive of Seidenberg, file fake documents with the California Secretary of State ( which I have documented at TheCorruptionOfAlanKeyes.blogspot.com ) and unfortunately this crime was successful and has lead to our current time where the AIP is run by the Robinson Crime Syndicate inclusive of the moral and literal criminal Seidenberg himself.

    Seidenberg lists himself as the ” Vice-Chairman ” of the AIP; an office which he would not have except for his crime of filing fake documents with the state. He is in fact the ” Chairman ” as he is both the ” moneybags ” of the party’; i.e.; their connection to the army of Republican lawyers who attacked the party in addition to his SPLC and ADL controllers; and the controller of the current fake Chairman. Pastor Wiley Drake.

    While Drake fancies himself as the Chairman he has simply been placed into the position as ” window dressing ” to give credibility to the Robinson Crime Syndicate; the real controllers of the party as compared to Drake who is their their sock puppet. While Drake could possibly have attained the Chairmanship of the party via a legitimate vote the only reason he is currently listed as Chairman is due to the criminal acts of the Robinson Crime Syndicate in filing fake documents with the state.

    Think of Michael Corleone appointing the Pope to be Chairman of his olive or any other businesses as an attempt to cover up and sanitize his criminality and criminal empire.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the continuance of the 3rd party conservative/constitutional message in California after the takeover and collapse of the AIP by the SPLC, ADL, and Republican Robinson Crime Syndicate

  326. Shave the Whales!

    “At the time, 80% of the California
    Delegation were for Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes.”

    You mean proxy votes which you controlled from people who were not there.

  327. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Jill @ # 385 – Of course you will disregard anything that I say because I blow apart your support of the evil of homosexuality; something you will refuse to hear and/or challenge no matter how much evidence shows the reality of the degeneracy and corruption of the Homosexuality/Sodomy Movement.

    You will ALWAYS automatically dismiss ANY evidence because to admit its truth, even in the tiniest amount, would expose and blow apart your ego house of cards about being tolerant, Christian, and all of the other fake qualities which you hide behind to avoid exposure and the detonation of your ego.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the only party working to bring truth to the citizens of our state and nation

    P.S. – Your #374 response/cowardice above is a perfect illustration of exactly what I write of above and, unfortunately, it is only one of many.

  328. Andy

    “Don J. Grundmann, D.C. // Apr 2, 2013 at 11:36 am

    Jill @ # 385 – Of course you will disregard anything that I say because I blow apart your support of the evil of homosexuality; something you will refuse to hear and/or challenge no matter how much evidence shows the reality of the degeneracy and corruption of the Homosexuality/Sodomy Movement.”

    Don, I can’t speak for Jill personally, but I can make a statement about Libertarians in general about this issue, and that is that it is not so much that Libertarians “support” homosexuality (different Libertarians have different opinions about it), it is that Libertarians believe that individuals have a right to live their lives as they see fit so long as they do not initiate acts of force and fraud against others. The real issue here is supporting individual freedom, regardless of whether it comes to sexual preference, what food to eat, where to invest one’s own money, etc…

    Now if it comes to rape or child molestation, this is a different issue, and that is not something that Libertarians support, but consenting adults engaging in consensual acts is none of anyone’s business except for those involved.

  329. Ray Jones

    I can make a statement about Libertarians in general about this issue, and that is that it is not so much that Libertarians “support” homosexuality (different Libertarians have different opinions about it), it is that Libertarians believe that individuals have a right to live their lives as they see fit so long as they do not initiate acts of force and fraud against others.

    Grundmann can’t tell the difference. For him the distinction does not compute.

    Now if it comes to rape or child molestation, this is a different issue, and that is not something that Libertarians support, but consenting adults engaging in consensual acts is none of anyone’s business except for those involved.

    Again apparently Grundmann can’t tell the difference. Thus conversing with him is a waste of time.

    The problem with the Constitution Party is that they share his positions on social issues and want to put their views into law with the full force of government.

  330. Andy

    Ray Jones said” Again apparently Grundmann can’t tell the difference. Thus conversing with him is a waste of time.”

    There actually are issues where Libertarians agree with Don Grundmann, and I do commend Don Grundmann for his good work battling the income tax/Social Security Administration/Federal Reserve System scam.

    “The problem with the Constitution Party is that they share his positions on social issues and want to put their views into law with the full force of government.”

    This is true, however, the same thing can be said about the Green Party, as well as every other party besides the Libertarian Party, as in every other party wants to use force (ie-the government) to cram their views down people’s throats. The only agenda that the Libertarian Party has is to set people free so they can make their own decisions in life, just so long as though decisions do not initiate coercive acts of violence, theft, or destruction of property.

  331. Ray Jones

    If social issues such as gay rights (literally – they want to prosecute people for sodomy, not just ban gay marriage), freedom *from* religion, sexual freedom (gays are not the only people who engage in “sodomy,” but you can also add prostitution, pornography, etc), women’s rights (not just abortion – although abortion rights are important to many women – but also equal rights for women which the Christian Dominionists like the CP oppose … they want to turn the clock back to the 1950s when spousal rape and abuse were swept under the rug and judges routinely ordered women seeking divorces from abusive marriages to return to their husbands) and the like are key issues for a person, like they are for many libertarians and Libertarians, the CP is the worst party on those issues out of any party on more than a small handful of state ballots.

    They have a mixed record on the “war on drugs,” rights for religious minorities, belligerent rhetoric against mainland China, etc.

  332. Ray Jones

    There actually are issues where Libertarians agree with Don Grundmann

    Yes, but that’s besides the point.

    “The problem with the Constitution Party is that they share his positions on social issues and want to put their views into law with the full force of government.”

    This is true, however, the same thing can be said about the Green Party

    Green Party is better on social issues, worse on economic issues. Depends on what matters most to you.

  333. Jill Pyeatt

    I usually ignore Grundmann, because I know I won’t influenece his thinking, and he certainly won’t change mine by one iota ever. I really find him to be an individual to feel sorry for. Sometimes I get so mad though, that he pretends he cares about children and people, that I can’t help myself. Other times his rigidity and the huge assumptions he makes about people just make me laugh.

  334. Ray Jones

    Also immigration rights – say you want to hire workers, or have family abroad that you are trying to bring to the US, or are in an internatonal relationship, among other things…CP would take away your rights through a moratorium on immigration.

    And if you are an undocumented person in the US, even if you were here almost all your life, they would round you up and deport you. They would even extend this to people born in the US if their parents immigrated without regime permission. This would also cause chaos for many employers and “mixed” families.

    The notion that the CP would not take away any rights that many libertarians believe are vital, or that some libertarians can’t find these to be the most important issues, is completely bogus.

  335. Jill Pyeatt

    Very good comments about immigration in 398, Ray. It’s a very complicated issue, but one most Libertarians view with compassion, I think.

  336. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Shave @ #390 – I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am simply putting out the facts; be it at Candle.Crusade.org, blackgenocide.org. or exposing B4U-ACT.org, or via any other site and/or information.

    The truth is there for you to do with as you wish. You can ignore it like Jill, Knapp, Terry, and other such drones or you can choose to be informed and learn something.

    It is hence not my responsibility to convince you of anything. It is rather your choice if you want to believe and support lies or follow truth.

    It all boils down to your religious belief(s) – do you choose to follow/love the Creator and learn truth or do you choose to follow/love the Enemy of God and learn, believe in, and support lies and evil?

    It is your independent choice.

    Jill, Jones, et. al. have made theirs.

    What is yours?

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the party which gives its allegiance to truth no matter the outcome

  337. Shave the Whales!

    Very good comments about immigration in 398, Ray. It’s a very complicated issue, but one most Libertarians view with compassion, I think.

    Not enough. There are way too many LP members who want a CP-style immigration policy, or something closer to it.

    The official party plank is as of now not terrible, but it has been watered down substantially from past platforms. Also, unfortunately, the World’s Smallest Political Quiz no longer includes that issue.

  338. Shave the Whales!

    Grundmann,

    As Knapp has pointed out, your “facts”…aren’t, and your “documentation” is just unsupported assertion. Once again you fail.

  339. Dave Terry

    C.T. (382)
    “Since I don’t believe that economic liberty is workable, and I’m pro-life, I’d likely be happy with some sort of mix between the Green and Constitution parties.”

    I SEE, So you want the worst of both worlds.

    Have you ever noticed that when Communism seemed to be taking over the world, it was the Catholic countries that were “converted” first.

    There really isn’t much difference in giving all moral authority to a pontiff or to a commissar!
    ……Or to a fuehrer!

  340. Shave the Whales!

    Well, at least CT is antiwar.

    And Catholic countries were taken over after some Orthodox Christian countries as well as some predominantly Muslim republics in Central Asia and the Caucasus (not independent nations then but they are now and had been in the past).

    After WWII, some majority Catholic countries were taken over as well as some non-Christian nations (China, North Korea..)

    So, it wasn’t anything particular to Catholicism, except maybe where those countries were located.

  341. Dave Terry

    “There actually are issues where Libertarians agree with Don Grundmann.”

    Besides, water is wet; what might that be?

  342. paulie

    Economic issues primarily. He’s probably not bad on foreign policy either. He may well even be good on some civil liberties issues related to the “war on terror.”

  343. Dave Terry

    (404) “So, it wasn’t anything particular to Catholicism, except maybe where those countries were located.

    Actually, it IS particular to those societies that are inherently AUTHORITARIAN! Of course, that would include the “ORTHODOXIES in both Christian & Muslim varieties.

    Those nations who succumbed to Marxist-Communism were without exception those countries that had little of no experience with self-rule or democratic prinicples.

  344. paulie

    …” = Close quotes. Make it your friend.

    Orthodox, Catholic, Muslim and East Asian nations all went communist. Which religions/societies do you believe are not authoritarian?

    East Germany, Estonia, and Latvia are nations with more Protestants than any other religious group that were taken over by Communists.

  345. Andy

    Ray Jones said: “Green Party is better on social issues, worse on economic issues. Depends on what matters most to you.”

    The Green Party is not better on all social issues. Yes, they are better on some, but not all. There are some social issues where the Constitution Party is just as good, if not better, than the Green Party.

    Also, as I have pointed out above, there actually is a libertarian wing in the Constitution Party. The main reason that they are not in the LP is that they want a party that is 100% pro-life.

    Having said this, yes, I disagree with some of the stances taken by a lot of people in the Constitution Party on some issues. I don’t care for the social conservative nanny statism. I also don’t like the protectionist tariffs. My point is that is overall, I’d say that I generally favor them over the Green Party, and I favor both the Constitution Party and the Green Party over mainstream Republicans and Democrats.

  346. Andy

    “paulie // Apr 2, 2013 at 6:16 pm

    Economic issues primarily. He’s probably not bad on foreign policy either. He may well even be good on some civil liberties issues related to the ‘war on terror.'”

    He’s also good on gun rights.

  347. Shave the Whales!

    This thread is getting very repetitive and boring. Put it to sleep already.

  348. Dave Terry

    Andy (409)
    Ray Jones said: “Green Party is better on social issues, worse on economic issues. Depends on what matters most to you.”

    Over 400 comments into this string and the majority of posters, including Andy, don’t have a clue WHAT libertarianism IS!

    “Freedom is one ball of wax!” They DON’t exist in a vacuum. If one accept the false dichotomy and chooses “economic” freedom over “personal” freedom, or vice versa, one simply doesn’t understand the totality of freedom.

    This basic understanding is the fundamental foundation of the libertarian philosophy.

  349. Shave the Whales!

    Different libertarians can care more about one or the other. For the 100th time. This is old. Kill it. Kill it now!

  350. Dave Terry

    No one is forcing you to participate in this farce.
    If you don’t like what you are reading, don’t read it.
    If you don’t like what you are hearing turn it off!

    THAT is what freedom is all about!!!

    And NO! Different libertarians cannot arbitrarily ignore violations of liberty in one realm and rant about violations in another.

    It’s bad philosophy and even worse logic!

  351. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Shave @ #402 – As just one example from CandleCrusade.org ( out of many ) I document the United Nations move for the sexual rights of children.

    I did not do this. The U.N. did. I did not even document it first. Someone else documented the ” work ” of the U.N. and I used their documentation.

    And then you come along and say that it is all ” unsupported assertion.”

    Amazing.

    You simply belong to the same ” journalism school ” as Knapp, Jill, Terry, Kress, paulie, and so many ( too many ) others.

    If you disagree with it then it doesn’t exist, no matter how documented it is. And in this case even if the United Nations writes the documents.

    So facts, documentation, whatever. If you disagree with it then you simply declare that it doesn’t exist.

    Intellectual dishonesty on a titanic scale. Yet another symptom of the death of our nation.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the last party fighting against intellectual dishonesty

  352. Andy

    “Dave Terry // Apr 2, 2013 at 9:53 pm

    Andy (409)
    Ray Jones said: ‘Green Party is better on social issues, worse on economic issues. Depends on what matters most to you.’

    Over 400 comments into this string and the majority of posters, including Andy, don’t have a clue WHAT libertarianism IS!”

    I already KNOW this, Dave Terry! Are you f’ing dense?

    I’ve been in the Libertarian Party since 1996. I’m a hardcore Libertarian.

    I was merely comparing other political parties by degree, as in which one is worse than others. You do understand that there are different degrees. Let’s say Ralph Nader, Barrack Obama, and Pol Pot. I’d say that Ralph Nader is the least toxic of the three, followed by Barrack Obama, then followed by Pol Pot as the most toxic.

    If you can’t grasp this, then there must be something wrong with you.

  353. Andy

    “Don J. Grundmann, D.C. // Apr 2, 2013 at 10:29 pm

    Shave @ #402 – As just one example from CandleCrusade.org ( out of many ) I document the United Nations move for the sexual rights of children.”

    This may well be true, but what has this got to do with anything. Libertarians do not support the United Nations.

    Libertarians believe that homosexuals should be free, but this does not mean that they should be free to rape or to molest children. Once again, this is about consenting adults.

  354. Andy

    Don, what legislation or actions do you propose to stop this “homosexual problem” about which you are concerned?

  355. Dave Terry

    Grundmann (417)

    You simply belong to the same ” journalism school ” as Knapp, Jill, Terry, Kress, paulie, and so many ( too many ) others.

    I have not made ANY comments regarding THIS particular subject matter (CandleCrusade)
    etc. It would appear that from YOUR perspective anyone who opposes you on ONE subject, MUST oppose you on ALL subjects.

    A form of paranoia that is exclusive only to meglomaniacs

  356. Jill Pyeatt

    DT @ 141: “I have not made ANY comments regarding THIS particular subject matter (CandleCrusade)
    etc. It would appear that from YOUR perspective anyone who opposes you on ONE subject, MUST oppose you on ALL subjects.”

    That’s EXACTLY Grundmann’s Shtick. He’s only 2-dimensional himself, so he assumes everyone else is. The whole tirade toward me this weekend is basically because I asked him if he’s adopted any unwanted children. Of course, in Grundmann’s fantasy worldm that makes me a lover of abortion. enthusiastice teacher of children about homosexuality, sodomy, and all those other things.

    Any disbelief of his views, and you’re immediately compartmentalized into one of Grundmann’s fantasy characters. Welcome to his world.

  357. paulie

    Different libertarians cannot arbitrarily ignore violations of liberty in one realm and rant about violations in another.

    Prioritizing some issues over others is not nearly the same thing as ignoring violations of liberty. Everyone has some issues they are most passionate about or on which they spend more of their time and energy.

  358. paulie

    It would appear that from YOUR perspective anyone who opposes you on ONE subject, MUST oppose you on ALL subjects.

    A form of paranoia that is exclusive only to meglomaniacs

    Dave Terry gets this one right!

  359. Dave Terry

    Andy (418)
    ” I was merely comparing other political parties by degree, as in which one is worse than others. You do understand that there are different degrees. Let’s say Ralph Nader, Barrack Obama, and Pol Pot. I’d say that Ralph Nader is the least toxic of the three, followed by Barrack Obama, then followed by Pol Pot as the most toxic.”

    Nader and Obama are NOT different from Pol Pot in “degree”. They are totally different in “substance” or “kind”!

    If Pol Pot should be compared to or against ANY persons, it should be Hitler and Stalin.

    If you can’t grasp this, then there must be something wrong with you.

    If you REALLY are a “hard-core” Libertarian,
    you ought to be comparing, Rader, Obama and
    Romney with Gary Johnson.

  360. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Andy @ #419 : Andy – I was using this as an example of something factual which, because they disagree with it, Knapp, Jill, et. al. will say it is NOT factual and/or that it simply doesn’t exist no matter how documented it is.

    It is their way to avoid facing the corruption of their ideas and belief systems.

    In regard to # 420, as I have documented at CandleCrusade.org, pervert marriage is not the end goal of the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement but is instead the key stepping stone to be able to enter all of the public schools of the nation and mentally molest the children with the idea that homosexuality is equal ( later to be changed to superior ) to heterosexuality.

    The objective is to ” soften up ” the children; i.e.; begin the process of shattering them mentally, emotionally, and spiritually; so that physical molestation will be that much easier to accomplish. That is why they want to start teaching sex education in kindergarten as in the Chicago schools plan; a plan which will then expand throughout the entire nation.

    As I partially related in a previous post and elaborated on more at CandleCrusade the ultimate objective is to totally reverse all child molestation laws in our culture and society so that what we know of today as child molestation, and the cultural context in which we consider it to be minimally bad and actually much worse, will, in 40/50 years at the most via Social Engineering, be completely reversed so that it is not only an accepted but celebrated practice throughout our culture, society, and nation.

    The Homosexual/Sodomy Movement has openly written that, as one example, the child molestor should be given a seat at the head of the table at Thanksgiving dinner because of the special ” love ” which only they, and not the parents, can give to the child.

    It is ideas like this and many others which will be Socially Engineered into our culture and society; a process which, as it develops, will have the full support of political parties such as the Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, and Rino Republicans. This support will be predicated on their membership endorsing any and all such cultural changes lest they be accused of being ” homophobic,” ” haters,” ” bigots,” etc.

    The ground work for this collapse of our culture, society, and nation is now being planted/prepared by both the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement via websites such as B4U-ACT.org and singular persons such as Jill, Terry, Kress, Knapp, etc. who run interference for the Movement and give it the ground support and public defense which it needs in order to build the strength needed to commit the crimes against humanity which it wishes to do.

    So essentially when and if pervert marriage is legalized the nation will be unofficially dead. It will only be a matter of time before what I write of above is implemented with the resultant shattering, destruction, and death of millions of children much less our nation itself.

    If you take the pure water foundation of our nation and drop the turd of homosexual marriage into it it will then only be a matter of time until the entire water supply is poisoned. That is the hope/plan of the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement and its supporters.

    And when they achieve their goal(s) nothing else – NOTHING; such as the money, 2nd Amendment, jobs, or anything else – will matter and this because a morally dead and psychotic citizenry will be incapable of continuing the nation. We will be, far more than we are even now, slaves – physical slaves because we will have first made ourselves soul slaves.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the last party fighting against child molestation

  361. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Jill – You never answered my questions at #373.

    Why don’t you ” enter this world ” and do so.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the party that doesn’t find it ” complicated ” to oppose child molestation

  362. Andy

    Dave Terry said: “If you REALLY are a “hard-core” Libertarian,
    you ought to be comparing, Rader, Obama and
    Romney with Gary Johnson.”

    If you are really a hardcore Libertarian, you would not consider Gary Johnson to be the best example of a Libertarian standard bearer. Gary Johnson is NOT a hardcore Libertarian. He’s a moderate Libertarian, or Libertarian Lite, or a Nerf Libertarian, at best.

  363. Thomas L. Knapp

    @428,

    “I was using this as an example of something factual which, because they disagree with it, Knapp, Jill, et. al. will say it is NOT factual and/or that it simply doesn’t exist no matter how documented it is.”

    Well, this is an interesting case. The UN document that you, um, “document” at candlecrusade.org does not in any way call for “sexual rights for children.” In fact, it calls for harsh sanctions against organizations that sexually assault children.

    You go on from there to make assertions that you do not in fact “document” (e.g. “The International Planned Parenthood Federation are now advocating the ‘right’ to consent to sex acts become a plank the platform of the United Nations ‘Rights of the Child’ Treaty”) but that I have no reason to doubt and do not claim “do not exist” or “are not factual.”

    My impression is that organizations like Planned Parenthood are in fact very active in attempting to “expand access to” abortion by lobbying the UN and other political entities to treat it DIFFERENTLY than other medical procedures. If a kid breaks her leg, a hospital has to get parental consent before setting it and putting a cast on it; but Planned Parenthood wants that not to be a requirement for abortion which, regardless of its moral status, is a fairly major medical procedure.

    But of course Grundmann will ignore all of the above, since it doesn’t fit in with his fantasy that anyone who doesn’t swallow every claim he makes obviously disagrees with everything he says, and is obviously a satanic conspirator.

  364. Andy

    “Don J. Grundmann, D.C. // Apr 3, 2013 at 11:54 am

    Andy @ #419 : Andy – I was using this as an example of something factual which, because they disagree with it, Knapp, Jill, et. al. will say it is NOT factual and/or that it simply doesn’t exist no matter how documented it is.

    It is their way to avoid facing the corruption of their ideas and belief systems.”

    Don, I indicated above that it would not surprise me if you were right about the United Nations pushing something like. Libertarians do NOT support the United Nations.

    “In regard to # 420, as I have documented at CandleCrusade.org, pervert marriage is not the end goal of the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement but is instead the key stepping stone to be able to enter all of the public schools of the nation and mentally molest the children with the idea that homosexuality is equal ( later to be changed to superior ) to heterosexuality.”

    Libertarians also oppose the government school system.

    “The objective is to ‘soften up’ the children; i.e.; begin the process of shattering them mentally, emotionally, and spiritually; so that physical molestation will be that much easier to accomplish. That is why they want to start teaching sex education in kindergarten as in the Chicago schools plan; a plan which will then expand throughout the entire nation.”

    Libertarians make a distinction between voluntary activities between consenting adults, and coercive activities, as in activities where people are pushed into something against their will.

    So once again, even though it is not “politically correct” to a lot of conservatives, Libertarians advocate that homosexuals should be free to engage in voluntary activities between consenting adults, however, they should not be free to engage in rape or child molestation.

    Do you understand the difference?

  365. Andy

    Also, what legislation do you propose to solve these problems which you perceive from the “homosexual movement”? I mean, what is your solution here?

  366. Robert Capozzi

    a 433: Libertarians do NOT support the United Nations.

    me: Many, possibly most, L don’t. In the grand scheme of things, I myself don’t have a problem with an ongoing convention of diplomats talking things over. That seems benign enough to me.

  367. Robert Capozzi

    more…

    But, if the day comes when the globe is stateless, then a UN would be unnecessary.

  368. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Smith @ 430 – I answered Andy at 353F) and below.

    Andy @ 434 – Any legislation which would ban homosexual marriage or ban the promotion of homosexuality in the public school system would be a solution to the problem(s) which will occur.

    Unfortunately a Socially Engineered and very docile populace will, and does, not have the will to fight to save the children of the nation from the molestation of all different manners which I describe above.

    The men, now reduced to males ( their inferior state of existence not life ), of our nation have been spiritually/morally castrated sufficiently that, unlike previous eras, they will not fight to defend the children nor the future of our nation. They will rather; as noted throughout our society, ( sick ) culture, and threads at this website; be the cheerleaders for the attackers of our children.

    As the men die the nation dies.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the party working to save men from being reduced to males

  369. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Andy in #433 – One of my major points in these discussions is that the differences you refer to in your last full paragraph of the post are being deliberately erased.

    If pervert marriage is legalized –

    Child molestation WILL be legalized. You can find the beginning of the process at B4U-ACT.org – a website Knapp, Jill, et.al. will say does not exist.

    Age of consent laws WILL be changed; i.e.; lowered.

    Social/cultural disapproval of child molestation WILL be eliminated. After all – presenting here the view of the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement – what is wrong with molesting children? I can list hundreds of their arguments but to use just one modified from its current use in support of pervert marriage – Children should have full ” civil rights ” ( this is also currently being argued for by the United Nations ). Such ” rights ” should include their FULL ” sexual rights.” Are you going to deny them their ” civil rights?” Are you going to deny them their ” sexual expression?” If so then you must be a homophobic bigot since you will be trying to deny them their ” freedom.”

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the last party fighting to protect the children of our nation

  370. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi // Apr 3, 2013 at 2:30 pm

    ‘a 433: Libertarians do NOT support the United Nations.’

    me: Many, possibly most, L don’t. In the grand scheme of things, I myself don’t have a problem with an ongoing convention of diplomats talking things over. That seems benign enough to me.”

    The United Nations is more than just a bunch of diplomats talking things over. They push an anti-liberty agenda, and they also receive taxpayer funding, which means that they receive funding via coercive means.

    The majority of Libertarians oppose the United Nations. Robert Capozzi’s view of the United Nations is not reflective of the views of most Libertarians, and this is an example of how there is a range of differences within all groups.

  371. Andy

    “Don J. Grundmann, D.C. // Apr 3, 2013 at 2:32 pm

    Smith @ 430 – I answered Andy at 353F) and below.

    Andy @ 434 – Any legislation which would ban homosexual marriage or ban the promotion of homosexuality in the public school system would be a solution to the problem(s) which will occur.”

    Would you agree or disagree that government should not be in the business of licensing marriage in the first place, whether people are straight or homosexual?

    If the government was not in the business of licensing marriage, marriage would still exist, as marriage predates government licensing of marriage by a long time.

    Given this fact, Libertarians would like to eliminate state licensing of marriage, yet this does not mean that marriage would disappear, but rather, it would mean that people would continue to get married, but rather than having the government involved, it would merely be an agreement between individuals, and/or individuals and their church.

    So let’s say that Libertarians got elected, and one of the things they did was to eliminate state licensing of marriage. Do you think that homosexuals should be prohibited by law from entering voluntary relationships and defining them as marriages (and remember, this is WITHOUT a state marriage license, because they no longer exist for anyone under this scenario)? Do you advocate the use of force to prevent homosexuals from forming voluntary relationships?

    “Child molestation WILL be legalized. You can find the beginning of the process at B4U-ACT.org – a website Knapp, Jill, et.al. will say does not exist.

    Social/cultural disapproval of child molestation WILL be eliminated.”

    I don’t know any Libertarians that thinks that child molestation is OK. I don’t have any children myself, but if I did I damn sure would not think that it is OK for them to be molested. I know Libertarians who do have children, and I don’t know any of them who think that child molestation is OK.

  372. Robert Capozzi

    a: The United Nations is more than just a bunch of diplomats talking things over. They push an anti-liberty agenda, and they also receive taxpayer funding, which means that they receive funding via coercive means.

    me: Right, agreed. Just as I – for the time being – am OK with a USG, including its (hopefully ever decreasing) use of coercive taxation to keep and maintain a semblance of domestic tranquility, I am OK with a tiny sliver of taxpayer funds going to diplomatic endeavors, which the UN is supposed to be.

    In practice, just as I believe the USG is too damn big, I also believe the UN is too damn big. I definitely prefer diplomacy to war. If as part of reversing the size and scope of the USG it withdrew from the UN due to the latter’s dysfunction, I’d be OK with that, too. I would think a State Department function is reasonably necessary, though. On the lessarchist path that I advocate, there are cabinet-level departments and other agencies I would wind-down or even abolish, too.

  373. Murray Hill

    This whole thread is much like a horribly botched partial birth abortion.

    There’s really not nearly as much in common between libertarian Libertarians and the right wing authoritarianism of the misnamed Constitution Party as many people think.

  374. Dave Terry

    Andy (431)
    “If you are really a hardcore Libertarian, you would not consider Gary Johnson to be the best example of a Libertarian standard bearer. Gary Johnson is NOT a hardcore Libertarian. He’s a moderate Libertarian, or Libertarian Lite, or a Nerf Libertarian, at best.”

    I consider Gary Johnson an “incremental” Libertarian, which in effect WOULD make him the best “Standard Bearer” in an election.

    I concede that there are others, who ARE more ‘hardcore” or “radical” than Gary, but just as YOU indicated in your comparison of Nader and Obama, simply have no chance of being elected.

    After the convention has decided WHO the LP nominee is to be, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, he WILL be the MOST Libertarian Candidate yet available, so my POINT is validated that it is a waste of time and energy to debate the relative virtues of the Green, Constitution or ANY OTHER nominee!

  375. Murray Hill

    Yes, like a botched partial birth abortion, the mutilated horrifying mutant offspring somehow survives despite all logic…..

  376. Thomas L. Knapp

    @440,

    “B4U-ACT.org – a website Knapp, Jill, et.al. will say does not exist.”

    Well, for once you got something right:

    – Cox Internet: “Sorry, the website b4u-act.org cannot be found”

    Domain tools: b4u-act.org available, never registered before, no whois record available.

  377. Andy

    “Dave Terry // Apr 3, 2013 at 5:36 pm

    Andy (431)
    ‘If you are really a hardcore Libertarian, you would not consider Gary Johnson to be the best example of a Libertarian standard bearer. Gary Johnson is NOT a hardcore Libertarian. He’s a moderate Libertarian, or Libertarian Lite, or a Nerf Libertarian, at best.’

    I consider Gary Johnson an “incremental” Libertarian, which in effect WOULD make him the best ‘Standard Bearer’ in an election.”

    I do not consider Gary Johnson to be an incremental Libertarian on all issues, because I do not consider the Fair Tax plan which he promotes to be an incremental step toward more liberty.

    Gary Johnson was (is) a standard bearer for the Libertarian Party since he won the Libertarian Party’s nomination for President, but this does NOT make him a standard bearer for hardcore libertarian philosophy.

  378. Andy

    Dave Terry said: “After the convention has decided WHO the LP nominee is to be, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, he WILL be the MOST Libertarian Candidate yet available, so my POINT is validated that it is a waste of time and energy to debate the relative virtues of the Green, Constitution or ANY OTHER nominee!”

    This is not necessarily true. Back in 2008 the Boston Tea Party put Charles Jay on the ballot in Florida, Tennessee, and Colorado, and he was more libertarian than Bob Barr (and I think that the truth is that Bob Barr is not really libertarian at all). Now you may point out that Charles Jay was not on enough ballots to have even a theoretical chance at winning the election, but the fact of the matter is that he was on the ballot in some states, and he was more libertarian than Bob Barr.

  379. Andy

    Here’s a statement that may ruffle some feathers, and that is that I think that Chuck Baldwin is more libertarian than Bob Barr. Now I’m not saying that Chuck Baldwin is some kind of hardcore libertarian, but I’m saying that he’s more libertarian than Bob Barr, who was nothing more than a Republican establishment opportunist who manage to con enough Libertarians into giving him the party’s nomination.

    If, or when, “the fit hits the shan” in this country, I’m much rather have Chuck Baldwin by my side watching my back than Bob Barr. Barr would probably be helping to round up dissidents to put them in FEMA camps.

  380. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    I agree with Andy. Baldwin was much better than Barr. And significantly more libertarian. I kinda regret supporting Nader in 2008 instead of Baldwin, who was also on the Illinois ballot.

  381. NewFederalist

    It would be tough to disagree with Andy about Baldwin and Barr and where they stand in the libertarian universe. As I have said before, I would have voted for Baldwin in 2008 but he wasn’t on the ballot in PA. Since write-in votes here are rarely tallied, I voted for Barr but not proudly.

  382. Andy

    Yeah, Brian Holtz posted that video here a long time ago. Maybe some new people here have not seen it, but it was just reposted recently on another thread.

    The point here was comparing Chuck Baldwin to Bob Barr. Chuck Baldwin endorsed Ron Paul for President, twice. Bob Barr endorsed Newt Gingrich, and then Mitt Romney. Chuck Baldwin favors fully informing juries of their right to nullify laws. Bob Barr opposes fully informing juries of their right to nullify laws. Chuck Baldwin favors eliminating the CIA. Bob Barr supports the CIA, and is for former (?) CIA employee. Chuck Baldwin supports re-opening the 9/11 investigation. Bob Barr avoided the issue. Chuck Baldwin consistently opposed the Patriot and the war in Iraq. Bob Barr voted for both, but then later claimed that he flip-flopped on these issues. Chuck Baldwin frequently speaks out against the Republican establishment. Bob Barr sucks up to the Republican establishment.

  383. Andy

    “NewFederalist // Apr 3, 2013 at 6:25 pm

    It would be tough to disagree with Andy about Baldwin and Barr and where they stand in the libertarian universe. As I have said before, I would have voted for Baldwin in 2008 but he wasn’t on the ballot in PA. Since write-in votes here are rarely tallied, I voted for Barr but not proudly.”

    I was a registered voter in California at that time. Chuck Baldwin was not on my ballot due to some Alan Keyes supporters hijacking the then Constitution Party’s affiliate in California, the American Independent Party, and placing Alan Keyes on the ballot instead. So I did not even have the choice to vote for Chuck Baldwin unless I wanted to vote for him as a write in candidate. I decided to cast a write in vote for Ron Paul instead. I did vote for whatever other Libertarian Party candidates were on my ballot for that election, although I remember there not being as many of them as there had been in prior elections where I voted in California.

  384. Andy

    “Murray Hill // Apr 3, 2013 at 6:41 pm

    And yet he still said all of the things which he says in that video.”

    And yet he is still better than Bob Barr.

    Why do I get the feeling that Murray Hill is somebody posting under a fake name?

  385. Murray Hill

    Chuck Baldwin’s statements in the video are the opposite of what a libertarian is.

  386. Murray Hill

    I’m not too sure which one is worse between him and Barr. I guess that may depend on which issues you think matter the most, which is different for every person.

  387. Robert Capozzi

    A, I’m not sure what you’re sharing the results of the Andometer readings on Barr v. Baldwin proves, exactly. As historical footnotes, Barr and Baldwin’s histories are what they are, and what you interpret them to be.

    Why this “moral” ranking? What purpose does it serve?

    If you voted Baldwin in 08, if you feel good about doing so, wonderful! I feel good about voting for Barr, as he was the best choice IMO on the ballot. I don’t give a rat’s ass what he’s done since then, IPOF. He does what he does on his brief jaunt on this mortal coil…why should I care?

    Bring it home, Andy. Tell us the why, not just the what.

  388. Robert Capozzi

    more…

    Didn’t the StormFront guy, Don Black, also endorse Ron Paul 2x, btw?

  389. Brian Holtz

    Being more anti-establishment or more pro-conspiracy-theory is not the same as being more libertarian.

    The video @452 shows how un-libertarian Baldwin was in his 2008 campaign. Barr’s 2008 campaign was indisputably more libertarian than Baldwin’s, and was arguably more libertarian than Ron Paul’s was. Decide for yourself after reading the quotes at http://libertarianmajority.net/2008 and watching these Paul/Barr clips:

  390. Dave Terry

    (438) Mr Grundmann IS, without doubt, the MOST dishonest person, I’ve run across on this or any other list.

    1.”If(homosexual) marriage is legalized – Child molestation WILL be legalized.

    Where did you learn this? DID GOD tell you in a dream or did he speak to to from a flaming bush?

    “You can find the beginning of the process at B4U-ACT.org – a website Knapp, Jill, et.al. will say does not exist.”

    2. You continue to MISS-type the URL so that it can’t be found and THEN call people liars because it wasn’t where you said it would be.

    3. B4UAct.org is NOT as Mr. Crundmann asserts a plot to legalize pedophilia, but to provide psychological and social support to enable those afflicted with a pre-dispositon to ‘pedophilia to deal with it it a non-destructive and legal way.

    “B4U-ACT is a unique collaborative effort between minor-attracted people and mental health professionals to promote communication and understanding between the two groups. Our goal is unique and unprecedented: to make effective and compassionate mental health care available to individuals who self-identify as minor-attracted and who are seeking assistance in dealing with issues in their lives that are challenging to them. We want to give them hope for productive and fulfilling lives, rather than waiting for a crisis to occur.”

    “We recognize that like all people, individuals who are attracted to minors sometimes want mental health services to deal with issues unrelated to their sexuality, but they are reluctant to seek help because they feel they cannot be completely honest as a result of their sexual feelings. Some minor-attracted people seek services to help them deal with issues that result from society’s negative reactions to their sexual feelings. Others seek assistance and support in finding satisfying lives and relationships while living within the law. We believe that in all these cases, clients should have access to compassionate and confidential services that meet their needs and that help them feel safe to talk openly about their sexual feelings.”

    4. “Age of consent laws WILL be changed; i.e.; lowered.

    Another bald-faced lie.

    5. ” I can list hundreds of their arguments.”

    REALLY? I challenge you to name three!

  391. Jill Pyeatt

    DT @ 463: ” Mr Grundmann IS, without doubt, the MOST dishonest person, I’ve run across on this or any other list.”

    Either that, or he’s stark-raving mad. It’s possible, of course, that he’s both.

    I’ll also say he’s the saddest person I’ve ever run across. What a horrible way to live your life, believing that most people you meet are involved in a heinous plot to destroy mankind.

  392. Jill Pyeatt

    I’m also sooo tired of people trying to pretend that pedophilia and homosexuality are the same thing. That is horribly dishonest and destructive, as well.

  393. Murray Hill

    I vote for both, but that was side splittingly funny considering the source.

  394. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    Brian Holtz, I’m a “conspiracy theorist”. 9/11 was an inside job. I listen to Alex Jones frequently. Israel is a rogue state. The Israel lobby has a disproportionate influence over US foreign policy. The Bilderbergers exist, and they must be stopped.

    I consider myself to be a libertarian.

    Come at me.

    Also, your assertion that Barr was more libertarian than Baldwin is bullshit. I’ve seen your videos. I’m still not convinced. I think Chuck Baldwin was the most libertarian leaning candidate in the history of the CP’s presidential nominations. My guess is you supported Barr and WAR. They are indefensible after how the joined the GOP again, endorsed Romney, and repudiated Ron Paul.

  395. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    @465

    Agreed. You’d be surprised how many people in Poland, in the right-wing, and even the allegedly classical liberal movement there hold that view. And how many Catholics too.

    That said, I’d rather Don focus on taking back the AIP from the neocons than raging against the gays. I really don’t get the obsession with them. I hope that’s not a mainline view in the CP. Then again… it might be.

  396. Andy

    “Krzysztof Lesiak // Apr 3, 2013 at 10:40 pm

    Brian Holtz, I’m a “conspiracy theorist”. 9/11 was an inside job. I listen to Alex Jones frequently. Israel is a rogue state. The Israel lobby has a disproportionate influence over US foreign policy. The Bilderbergers exist, and they must be stopped. ”

    Instead of conspiracy theorist, I prefer a person who recognizes reality. The fact of the matter is that governments engage in conspiracies on a regular basis. I’ve personally experienced government officials engaging in conspiracies. Such as when I was illegally arrested in Maryland for gathering petition signatures in front of a public library. Both of the cops and the librarian conspired against me, and all three lied about what happened in the incident report. Fortunately somebody connected with one of the petitions for which I was gathering signatures for knew somebody at the ACLU, and so they got the ACLU to take my case (it is usually difficult to get the ACLU to take on a case, due to them having limited resources), and the case was thrown out. However, the fact of the matter is that two police officers and a librarian violated my rights (and the rights of everyone involved with the petition, and the rights of the voters in Maryland who wanted these petitions to make the ballot), LIED about what happened, and then tried to have me railroaded by the justice system (in addition to the around 8 hours that I spent locked in the county jail, they put false charges on me where I could have been fined by several thousand dollars, and could have spent time in prison). This is just one small example of government officials conspiring together.

    Anyone who does not think that governments do not engage in conspiracies is an IDIOT. If not an outright MORON, then a person who is very naive. Either that or they are government plant. I’ve long suspected the Libertarian Party is infiltrated. It is already a documented fact that government agents have infiltrated other organizations. What makes anyone think that the Libertarian Party is immune to this?

    If anything, I’d be surprised if there are not plants in the Libertarian Party as well as the greater liberty movement.

  397. Andy

    Remember at the 2008 Libertarian Party National Convention in Denver in 2008 that Jim Duensing and his family rented out a room and hosted a 9/11 Truth forum. I put out the challenge everyone in the Libertarian Party who buys into the official government story about 9/11 to show up and debate the issue. We even had some experts from the 9/11 Truth Movement lined up to debate them. I suggested that we video record the debate and post it to on-line. Guess what? None of the so called “Libertarians” who spout the official government line about 9/11 had the balls to show up. The fact that they did not accept this debate challenge shows that they are INTELLECTUAL COWARDS (and yes, some of these people post on this forum).

    Shall we work on lining up a debate for the 2014 National Convention in Columbus, OH, which of course will be recorded and put on YouTube, or are you all going to CHICKEN OUT again?

  398. Andy

    “Krzysztof Lesiak // Apr 3, 2013 at 11:20 pm

    WAR and Barr are probably the most prominent infiltr”

    They are two of the more well known suspects.

  399. Jill Pyeatt

    “If anything, I’d be surprised if there are not plants in the Libertarian Party as well as the greater liberty movement.”

    I think we should assume there are infiltrators among us.

  400. Andy

    Think about how easy it would be for a plant to infiltrate the Libertarian Party. Show up at some meetings. Pretend to be a Libertarian. Then run for a seat on the LNC or to be on a state executive committee or run for state chair or county chair. It would only take a few people in a few places to F the party up. They probably report back to their handlers at the CIA, FBI, NSA, or wherever, “Hey, keep an eye on this guy, he’s dangerous.” LOL!

    Plants could run as Libertarian Party candidates and purposely run a screwed up or lackluster campaign, or try to make the party bad in some way. A plant may not even hold a position in the party, but rather just show up at meetings and act as an informant or provocateur.

    But seriously, if somebody wanted to it would be really easy to infiltrate the Libertarian Party, or any other pro-liberty organization.

    Is the Libertarian Party infiltrated? I can not say for sure, but I would not be surprised if it is and if it has been for a long time.

  401. Murray Hill

    Did you hear that they are about to make tinfoil illegal?! It’s true. Better run out and stock up before it’s too late! Plus, what about all the tinfoil the government is buying lately? What’s up with that? When tinfoil is outlawed only outlaws will have tinfoil!

  402. Andy

    “Krzysztof Lesiak // Apr 3, 2013 at 11:29 pm

    Yeah Andy, try it for 2014. Maybe they’ll show up this time.”

    I put out this challenges for several conventions, and nobody has ever accepted it. Some of these people have been in attendance at these conventions as well, and they were in fact in Denver when the Duensing’s hosted that 9/11 Truth forum. They knew that it was going on, they were just too cowardly to walk in and debate (note that there were video cameras there, so the debate could have been posted on-line like I suggested).

    The mark of an intellectual coward or a liar is somebody who runs away from debate.

  403. Andy

    “Murray Hill // Apr 3, 2013 at 6:46 pm

    Chuck Baldwin’s statements in the video are the opposite of what a libertarian is.”

    Nobody – including Chuck Baldwin himself – is saying that Chuck Baldwin is a libertarian. The comparison here is between Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr, and I think that Chuck Baldwin is more libertarian than Bob Barr, just like I think that Ralph Nader is more libertarian than Barrack Obama, which does not mean that I think that Ralph Nader is a libertarian.

    Is this concept really so difficult to grasp?

    “458 Murray Hill // Apr 3, 2013 at 6:47 pm

    I’m not too sure which one is worse between him and Barr. I guess that may depend on which issues you think matter the most, which is different for every person.”

    You really are not sure. Wow. Let’s see here, Chuck Baldwin is in favor of FULLY INFORMING JURIES ABOUT THEIR RIGHT TO NULLIFY LAWS, while Bob Barr came out AGAINST fully informing juries about their right to nullify laws. Chuck Baldwin endorsed Ron Paul for President, while Bob Barr endorsed those great champions for freedom (sarcasm intended), Newt Gingrich, and later, Mitt Romney for President.

    Need I say more? I hope not.

  404. Murray Hill

    Yelling and repetition does not make your case any stronger. You just have different issues you consider more important than some other libertarians, so to you it seems Baldwin is better than Barr. Holtz comes to the opposite conclusion, and I’m looking at them and really can’t tell which one is worse. You don’t need to say any more, because all you are likely to say is once again how everyone has to agree that the issues you personally think are the most important need to be the most important for everyone else too. Not a very convincing argument.

  405. Andy

    “Murray Hill // Apr 3, 2013 at 11:55 pm

    Yelling and repetition does not make your case any stronger. You just have different issues you consider more important than some other libertarians, so to you it seems Baldwin is better than Barr.”

    I think that Bob Barr was a phony and probably a plant as well.

    Once again, Chuck Baldwin endorsed Ron Paul. Bob Barr said that Libertarians should vote for Newt Gingrich, and then after Newt was eliminated he endorsed Mitt Romney.

    Which is more libertarian, endorsing Ron Paul, or endorsing Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney?

  406. Andy

    Watch the video I posted above where Jesse Ventura talks about how he was questioned by the CIA after he was elected Governor or Minnesota. He said that these CIA agents basically looked like a cross section of America, as in they looked like regular people whom you’d never suspect were working for the CIA. They are embedded into every state in all walks of life.

    Jesse talks about how the CIA agents said that they were monitoring the election, and how they were surprised that he won. Why would the CIA be monitoring the election, and why would they care who gets elected Governor?

    Since the CIA was interested in that election, you expect that they have zero interest in the Libertarian Party? I doubt it.

    There are probably some kind of agents who have infiltrated, or at least monitor, just about every minor party or political movement which the government sees as a threat to its power.

  407. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Jill @ #465 – My beginning in learning about and fighting the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement came when I was told that child molestors were marching in the San Francisco homosexual ” Pride Parade.” I did not believe it but grabbed a camera and went to prove or disprove the claim. I subsequently filmed NAMBLA, the national child organization of child molestors, in that parade and numerous others; about 5 in total before I stopped filming them.

    No other community organization; the Italians, the Irish, Buddists, Hispanics, Eskimos, or anybody else; has child molestors marching in their ” Pride;” i.e.; what their community showcases and is ” proud ” of; Parade(s).

    Pedophilia is an integral sub-section of homosexuality. It was at the NAMBLA website where I found their quote ( it used to be on their homepage ) that the homosexual movement can NEVER be ” free ” until children are ” free;” i.e.; that they can have sex with anyone at anytime and for any reason and at ANY age.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the last party fighting to protect children from molestation of any type; physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual

  408. Andy

    Bob Barr not only endorsed Newt Gringrich, he said that Libertarians should vote for him. I shit you not.

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/27/bob-barr-libertarians-should-vote-for-gingrich/

    So tell me fellow Libertarians, after reading this, did you run out and vote for this great champion of individual freedom, Newt Gingrich, in the Republican primaries?

    If you did not, then why not? I mean after all, Bob Barr was a former Libertarian Party candidate for President, and a former member of the Libertarian National Committee. Surely, with credentials like this he is a man that Libertarians should take seriously.

    I imagine that after this endorsement from the great Libertarian activist, Bob Barr, that Jill, Paulie, and a bunch of other dedicated Libertarian Party members who post here must have grabbed their checkbooks and written out checks to Newt Gingrich for President. Then they must have gotten Newt Gringrich for President buttons, yard signs, bumper stickers, pamphlets, fliers, etc… They must have told all that would listen something like, “Vote for Newt Gringrich! This is the man who should be President. Newt really knows how to get things done. Bob Barr says you should vote for him, and by golly, if Bob Barr says to do it, it must be the right thing to do.”

    Hey, maybe the LNC should invited Newt Gingrich to speak at the Libertarian National Convention in Columbus next year. Maybe he should be the key note speaker. Heck, why stop there, give Newt a seat on the LNC and then let’s give him our Presidential nomination for 2016. Remember, Bob Barr said that we should all vote for him, and Bob Barr is a sincere Libertarian who has served on the LNC and been our party’s candidate for President, so if he says that we should all vote for Newt Gingrich, then we honor his request, because good ole Bob Barr would never steer us wrong.

  409. Andy

    “Don J. Grundmann, D.C. // Apr 4, 2013 at 12:59 am

    Jill @ #465 – My beginning in learning about and fighting the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement came when I was told that child molestors were marching in the San Francisco homosexual ” Pride Parade.” I did not believe it but grabbed a camera and went to prove or disprove the claim. I subsequently filmed NAMBLA, the national child organization of child molestors, in that parade and numerous others; about 5 in total before I stopped filming them.”

    Just because they marched in that parade does not automatically mean that everyone else there was also a child molester.

  410. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    # 469 – … ” I really don’t get the obsession with them.”….

    Krzysztof – You have to look at the ” big picture.”

    Our nation was founded by men, real men, who had a Christian philosophical base upon which they built our nation. They hence had a Christian culture which resulted from their religious beliefs/foundation. It was these religious foundations which formed the basis of our individual liberties; something which no other culture could have developed.

    The Christian culture which these men were built on was based on many vital issues inclusive of the need to protect children from sexual perversion, sickness, and degeneracy such as represented by homosexuality. They recognized that the moral health of children was their true core strength and to protect that core evils and degeneracies such as homosexuality had to be contained and stopped because of their inherent desire/drive to attack children as part of their array of perversions.

    If you remove that Christian based culture and replace it with a culture based on the religions of humanism, atheism, etc.; i.e.; on an anti-Christian culture; then it will not be possible to restore much less continue our nation. We will lose all of our freedoms and become slaves far more than we are even now as our culture becomes more and more anti-Christian.

    Homosexuality is simply a symptom of collapsing; i.e.; psychotic; males; where males are spiritually, psychologically, mentally, and emotionally retarded/collapsed men.

    A nation of feminized men; i.e.; males; can not possibly continue much less restore or advance our nation in any way.

    Christian men created a Christian nation and gave us the freedoms which generations have prospered under. Part of their heritage was to protect children from evil(s) such as homosexuality which has always been understood as a soul sickness within the afflicted person.

    An anti-Christian nation, inclusive of not only not protecting our children but actually sacrificing them to those who would attack them, will give us slavery for generations to come.

    Homosexuality, a cancer of the soul, is simply a symptom of the soul death of both men and our nation as a whole.

    If you don’t cure the cancer then all other issues are irrelevant since the patient/nation will die. No other problem facing the nation can be solved by a psychotic populace that promotes the soul death of the men, and the children, of the nation.

    My ” obsession ” is hence to save the lives and souls of countless children for generations to come.

    Save the children and you save the nation. Sacrifice the children and the nation dies. It is very simple.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the last party fighting to stop the death of the nation

  411. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Andy @ # 489 – It means that the community supports what they do. No, they are not all molestors but the community provides support, protection, and endorsement to their actions.

    Italians, Irish, etc. would never allow child molestors to march in their ” Pride ” parades. ONLY the homosexual community allows, endorses, and promotes this.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the last party fighting against child molestation

    P.S. – NAMBLA has chapters in cities throughout the nation – L.A., New York, Miami, Seattle, and many others. They produce their own bi-monthly magazine by molestors and for molestors. No other community has such degeneracy in it, nor would allow it, nor would endorse it, nor would have ” Pride ” in it.

  412. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Jill – You will believe me when you get to Hell for doing what you are doing.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the last party fighting to protect the children of the nation

  413. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi // Apr 3, 2013 at 7:22 pm

    more…

    Didn’t the StormFront guy, Don Black, also endorse Ron Paul 2x, btw?”

    I believe so, but so what? There are actually very good reasons for racists to vote for libertarians, just as there are good reasons for non-racists to vote for libertarians.

    Why can this be? Because libertarians want to set people free to live their own lives. A libertarian society would be one where people are free to associate with or not associate with whomever they desire. Nobody will try to cram an agenda down your throat. People will get to keep their money and spend it how they see fit, not how some politician or bureaucrat wants to spend it.

    If a person is a racist, a libertarian will not try to force other races upon them, and they would be free to break off from the rest of society and form their own gated community, or even secede from the rest of the country, if they wanted to do so, just as long as they did not initiate force or fraud in the process. If a person likes, or at least does not mind, people from other races, then they would be free to associate with them as much as they want in a libertarian society.

    Is Don Black a libertarian? Probably not. He likely just saw Ron Paul as the candidate who’d cut off aid to Israel and who’d end Affirmative Action. From his perspective, Ron Paul was probably the least toxic of the well known candidates.

  414. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “If you voted Baldwin in 08, if you feel good about doing so, wonderful!”

    I did not vote for Chuck Baldwin. I cast a write in vote for Ron Paul.

    “I feel good about voting for Barr, as he was the best choice IMO on the ballot.”

    I think that it would have been better if you had cast a write in vote or voted for nobody in the Presidential race than it was to vote for Bob Barr.

    “I don’t give a rat’s ass what he’s done since then, IPOF. He does what he does on his brief jaunt on this mortal coil…why should I care?”

    Because he was a lousy candidate who had a piss poor campaign which turned off a lot of potential supporters and he hurt the Libertarian Party credibility and reputation.

    What he has done post campaign is to further damage the LP’s credibility and reputation, and the final “FU” was his endorsement of Gingrich and then Romney.

    How do you think that it makes the LP look to have its prior standard bearer endorsing Newt Gingrich and then Mitt Romney in the next election? Not good.

    Bring it home, Andy. Tell us the why, not just the what.

  415. Robert Capozzi

    a495: I think that it would have been better if you had cast a write in vote or voted for nobody in the Presidential race than it was to vote for Bob Barr…. Because he was a lousy candidate who had a piss poor campaign which turned off a lot of potential supporters and he hurt the Libertarian Party credibility and reputation.

    me: Thank you for your counsel, Andy, but I disagree. Since voting is a symbolic act, I have no problem stating that, in retrospect, all things considered my vote for Barr felt right to me, and it still does. What he’s done since then I don’t support (although I note that on DOMA he came in my direction post-election). He was a credible candidate in ’08, he was articulate, and he did the best he could. I would say the same thing about my vote for Ron Paul in ’88.

    Paul ’88 was a disaster on some levels. Phillies would have had a field day doing forensic FEC accounting on THAT effort! He went on to cozy up to haters – at least by inference – with his newsletters.

    Yet, I also have no regrets about my ’88 vote, either. Pols are human, just like you, just like me. We all make mistakes. Even saints make mistakes!

    This seems pretty self-evident to me, but then again I could be mistaken! Have you ever made a mistake, Andy?

    Oh, yes, while I consider voting a symbolic act, part of my symbolism is to vote in a way that is likely to be counted. I might write-in John Mackey or Drew Carey or John Stossel or myself as people who I agree more with, but, for me, that is like standing in the park on a soapbox.

    It’s a waste of time…for me.

  416. Mark Seidenberg

    Save the Whales at post 388.

    No that is incorrect. Proxy votes were included.
    It was the total vote of the Califoria Delegation,
    both proxy and present delegates were included
    in the total. All delegates present and by proxy
    of the California Delegation were given equal
    rights in voting at the 2008 Constitution Party
    convention by me as the head of the
    American Independent Party of California delegation to the CP convention in Kansas City
    in 2008.

    Therefore, 80% of all delegates from California
    cast there votes for Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes
    for POTUS. Unlike Florida which had a majority
    unit rule that cast all it delegation vote for Dr.
    Chuck Baldwin, we chose to let the California
    Delegates have equal voting rights.

    I recall that both Jim and Rayna King cast there
    vote for Dr. Alan Keyes at the 2008 convention
    in Kansas City by proxy. Markham Robinson
    held their proxy.

    It was Dr. Don Grundmann that cast the lone vote for himself as POTUS in the first voting round within the California Delegation in Kansas City convention of CP 2008. Dr. Grundmann had no other support on the
    delegation other than hinself, because his
    mother did not qualify as a delgate to that
    that convention in 2008.

    If fact AIP Chairman Ed Noonan removed Dr. Grundmann from the office of Area Director
    early in 2008.

    At post # 387, we have Dr. Grundmann claim
    that he “asked (in Kansas City) all of my supporters to vote for Chuck Baldwin”. Dr. Grundmann had no “support” within the delegation from California for the nomination
    for POTUS other than himself. Therefore, we
    now have an admission from Dr. Grundmann that he talks to himself and not just the wall.

    Dr. Grundmann stated in the same post that I was a Republican. However, I was not a Republican when the Convention of 2008 came
    about. I was a “recovering Republican” who joined the American Independent Party of California early 2004. I joined the AIP at the
    request of my long time friend William Shearer.

    I was not a mole for the GOP, SPLC, ADL, or any
    other acronym that Dr. Don Grundmann stated
    in his postings since 2008 on this website or others. I do not speak on “fake telephones” either. I have never filed “fake documents” with
    the California Secretary of State. I have not attended “fake meetings” in real or “fake addresses” or on “fake telephones”. I also see
    no point in using a “fake telephone” with “fake
    people” in attendance, because one can not have
    a real quorum.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
    American Independent Party of California, &
    Chairman, Orange County Central Committee,
    American Independent Party

  417. paulie

    Proxy votes were included.
    It was the total vote of the Califoria Delegation,
    both proxy and present delegates were included
    in the total. All delegates present and by proxy
    of the California Delegation were given equal
    rights in voting at the 2008 Constitution Party
    convention by me as the head of the
    American Independent Party of California delegation to the CP convention in Kansas City
    in 2008.

    Therefore, 80% of all delegates from California
    cast there votes for Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes

    And how many of those 80% were there in person?

    When you are saying someone is incorrect it helps if you don’t follow it up by restating exactly what they said in different words.

  418. Andy

    Still think that the idea that the government would send infiltrators into the Libertarian Party (or other minor parties)? Well check this out. A Fusion Center Director in Arkansas admits that they spy on Americans whom they consider to have “anti-government” views. If they’d spy on us, is it really a stretch to think that they may send in infiltrators as well?

    Fusion Center Director: We don’t spy on all Americans, just anti-government Americans

  419. Andy

    “Andy // Apr 4, 2013 at 1:20 pm

    Still think that the idea that the government would send infiltrators into the Libertarian Party (or other minor parties)? ”

    Should read: “Andy // Apr 4, 2013 at 1:20 pm

    Still think that the idea that the government would send infiltrators into the Libertarian Party (or other minor parties) sounds crazy?”

  420. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Regarding # 496 : Andy – I agree with many of Jeffersons statements but I do get a good laugh out of the website name of NoBeliefs. and especially the tag line – for free thinkers!! What a joke!! Anti-Christians, atheists, and the whole lot always pride themselves and preen their feathers on how they are ” independent thinkers ” while they are promoting their own religion and then they turn around and promote total idiocy like evolution.

    They simply do what every ” independent thinker ” does – parrot back and forth between each other of how smart they are, how compassionate they are, how thoughtful they are, yada, yada, yada. This is how frauds like ” global warming/climate change ” continue and are essentially the base of any Social Engineering plan of the Plantation Masters of our nation – give it to the ” free thinkers ” and let it take off as the last thing that they will do is what they claim that they do.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the last party that has TRUE ” free thinkers ” and promotes the development of REAL ” free thinkers “

  421. Mark Seidenberg

    Paulie,

    As I recall the first round of voting in the California Delegation in Kansas City each delegate present was asked who they were
    voting for. They were also asked to present
    the proxies and how they were told to cast
    there votes for POTUS.

    We did not create a tally sheet showing if the
    vote was by proxy or present, because the proxies
    forms showed the voting delegate cast the vote
    by proxy.

    Paulie, why should one care if the vote is by present delegates or by proxies? William Shearer
    always had more proxies that present delegates
    at all conventions of the AIP since its founding in 1967. Sometime he cast his proxies other times he just kept them on his person and did
    not vote them.

    I do recall that when Don Grundmann was asked
    by me how do you cast your vote for POTUS he
    said himself Don Grundmann. I then asked him to present his proxies to me and inform me how they voted for POTUS. He said he had not have PROXIES and he did not need them, because he
    won the primary election in California and therefore, the entire delegation had to cast there
    vote for him as one unit.

    I informed Dr. Grundmann that was not the rules of either the Convention nor the rules as
    voted by the delegation or the Elections Code
    Code of the State of California. At this point
    Dr. Grundmann went into a tantrum! He began
    yelling “BACKSTABBERS”, “I WON THE PRIMARY”, “KNIFE IN MY BACK, “. Then he
    quotes Matthew 26:15 in a rage, viz., “What will
    ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you?
    And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.”

    At that point two of the California delegates raised their arms over the heads as if they were
    attending highly emotional evangelistic service
    and one said “Amen”! Dr. Grundmann then began to pout. He then walked away in a huff.
    Then he returned and told me to vote for Dr.
    Chuck Baldwin.

    As you can tell, I was not a supporter of Don Grundmann, so I therefore was not one of the
    multitudinous delegates that Dr. Grundmann
    got to switch from the first tally to vote for Dr. Chuck Baldwin. In fact the only switch in voting
    came from Dr. Grundmann to Dr. Chuck Baldwin. It still left 80 % of the California Delegation voting for Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes for POTUS. The remaining 20 % of the
    vote was for either Chuck Baldwin or Jerome Corsi.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
    American Independent Party of California

  422. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Mark @ # 499 – Your crimes have been documented at TheCorruptionOfAlanKeyes.blogspot.com. This is your legacy ( what everyone will know about you both now and in the future ) – to be exposed as and known as a moral and literal criminal, a coward, a liar, and a traitor to the nation.

    And as I document at the site, you had NO quorum on your fake phone call of 6-25-08 upon which you constructed the fake documents which Noonan and Robinson filed with the SOS office. 5 out of 17 is most definately NOT a quorum but since you are a criminal, liar, coward, and traitor you could care less.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the continuation of the 3rd party conservative/constitutional message in California after the takeover of the AIP by the SPLC, the ADL, and the Republican Party

  423. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Mark – I do get a certain satisfaction out of your continuing lies ( as if you could ever be capable of doing anything else ) as your post # 504 shows how you just pull a total fantasy out of your head in your continuing attempts to divert attention from your total corruption.

    You can ” give it up.” You will, always and forever, be known as and remembered as a coward, liar, traitor, and moral and literal criminal. That is not going to change. Not now. Not ever. Your corruption has been exposed for all to see – permanently.

    But thanks for a good laugh and the enjoyment of seeing you become ever more unhinged.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California, the party exposing the moral and literal criminality of the Robinson Crime Syndicate which controls the American Independent Party

  424. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Well for all of you clowns/rodents/moral retards who run to the defense of the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement at every opportunity or claim that everything that I document doesn’t exist I have the following for you –

    Nancy Allen’s ” Guide to Gay Sex ” – an article to be found at HenryMakow.com.

    It documents ( nearly ) everything which I have been saying with an appropriate emphasis that the attack of the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement on children is their prime goal – their ” North Star.”

    It is an excellent article and you can save your following commentaries that ” it doesn’t exist ” and all of the other yammering which you all do to deny the reality of the corruption which you totally endorse.

    Remember what this article exposes – this attack/war upon children, this drive to totally destroy them, is completely supported by YOU ( Jill, Kress, Terry and all of the other rodents who support the same corruption; inclusive of the total lie and attack against God of the ” born that way ” claim ). YOU are the gasoline which this attack runs on. When children are attacked by the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement war machine they can thank all of you God-forsaken cowards.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the party fighting the American part of the international/world wide war to defend children from mass attack via the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement

  425. Mark Seidenberg

    For the current bid of 11 cents you could have your own “fake phone”. Please note the following:

    There one can see a “fake phone” a la Don Grundmann.

  426. paulie

    Paulie, why should one care if the vote is by present delegates or by proxies?

    Because one would not know whether all those people whose proxy votes you held would have actually voted that way if they had been there.

    As far as I know and have been told from others you were the only one of the “80%” who was physically there.

  427. paulie

    @507 Some article on some website I never heard of is supposed to justify why you want to take rights away from consenting adults? No way. You keep bringing up this crap about how they are going to go after the kids. Well, there is nothing implicit in any kind of consenting adult relationship about going after kids. You keep squirming and avoiding this, so conversation with you is useless.

  428. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    paulie – A) I am not keeping any rights away from consenting adults as they can do what they want to do right now. I am not ” squirming and avoiding ” anything.

    B) ” This crap,” as you call it, is simply more documentation of the accuracy of what I state. You dismiss the entire article based on ” some website that I have never heard of.” That is an extremely lame excuse ( yet another variation of/on ” it doesn’t exist ) for you and you are no slouch when it comes to lame excuses.

    C) The Homosexual/Sodomy Movement is implicitly, and quite openly, coming after the children of our nation and many others.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the party that pisses people off when it exposes their moral corruption

  429. paulie

    they can do what they want to do right now.

    There’s still government discrimination in many respects, but leaving that issue aside, your party and as far as I know you has an agenda of taking those existing rights away and prosecuting people for “sodomy”.

  430. Jill Pyeatt

    Don, have you convinced even one person here? You simply don’t have a convincing case. Vilify me all you want. You have not provided proof to me or, apparently, many of the people on this site, that there is a direct link between homosexuality and pedophilia, and that both are the result of an insidious plot.

  431. Norton XIII, Gratia Dei EotUS

    “you can save your following commentaries that ‘ it doesn’t exist'”

    Oh, it exists, all right. But all it is is:

    a) A list of unusual sexual practices none of which are exclusive to homosexuals; and

    b) a claim that an “anti-bullying” program will do something that the document it links to doesn’t reference, along with another claim that it provides no evidence for at all.

    In other words, it “documents” the “homosexual agenda” in much the same way, and with about the same level of believability, as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion “documents” the “Jewish agenda.”

  432. Jill Pyeatt

    The nerve of the man telling me I’ll got to hell based on some comments I’ve made here, none of which anyone else would likely find fault with. The man is truly nuts.

  433. Sam Kress

    He is blaspheming according to the religion he claims to adhere to. Judgment on who goes to hell or heaven is reserved for God, not for any human to know, according to the Bible. Usurping this judgment is blasphemy per that belief system.

  434. Jill Pyeatt

    I know the New Testament better than the Old Testament, but I understand it the way you do, Sam.

    I’ll also remind everyone that Don Grundmann calls children with gender or sexuality issues “monsters”. That says enough to me about his character right there.

  435. Sam Kress

    Lest we forget the Constitution Party Platform says

    “…We reject the notion that homosexuals, transgenders or those who are sexually deviant are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior.

    That means that not only do they want to outlaw LGBT marriage and civil unions as well as adoption of children by LGBTs, but they actually want to go back to the bad old days (not that long ago) of prosecuting people for so called sodomy.

  436. Dave Terry

    Grundmann (493)

    Jill – You will believe me when you get to Hell for doing what you are doing.

    And won’t YOU be surprise to see her, when YOU get there!

  437. Sam Kress

    If there’s a hell, Grundmann and Terry could keep each other company for all of time. I can think of no worse punishment.

  438. Jill Pyeatt

    LOL Dave, I was thinking of a similar response…except I don’t expect to go there–

  439. Andy

    Sam Kress said: “That means that not only do they want to outlaw LGBT marriage and civil unions as well as adoption of children by LGBTs, but they actually want to go back to the bad old days (not that long ago) of prosecuting people for so called sodomy.”

    I do not agree with the Constitution Party on this issue, but at least they are keeping it to a local issue rather than a national issue. I do not agree with anyone’s rights being trampled upon locally either, however, if it is left as a local issue it is possible that not all local jurisdictions would enact this anti-freedom legislation. It is worse to have a national government enacting anti-freedom legislation because then the only way to get away from it is to leave the country.

    Also, I don’t know whether or not everyone in the Constitution Party is an advocate of fully informing juries of their right to nullify laws, but Don has said that he is in favor of this, and I know that a lot of other people in the Constitution Party are in favor of fully informed juries as well, so it is possible that even if a local jurisdiction passes a law like what is suggested above, that it could be nullified by a local jury.

  440. Dave Terry

    JP (523)
    “…except I don’t expect to go there–

    Well then, I guess he’ll REALLY be surprised :>)

  441. paulie

    If there’s a hell, Grundmann and Terry could keep each other company for all of time. I can think of no worse punishment.

    Oh man! I better start being good *shiver*

  442. Dave Terry

    Sam Kress (522)

    We will set you right between us, so you don’t miss one minute of our ‘dialogue’!!!

  443. Dave Terry

    Sure! Why not? Is God going to sentence you to ANOTHER eternity in Hell? :>)

  444. Dave Terry

    S.K (532)

    532 comments and still counting.
    This string is about as close to eternal life that ANY
    of use will ever experience!

    BTW, Sam; I distinctly remember stomping on Don’s toes AND Paulie’s tootsies, but when did I piss YOU off? I guess you are just not THAT memorable. :>)

  445. Sam Kress

    Reminds me of a song

    “…hell…is a place on earth..”

    As for pissing people off, you have a talent for it just from reading your comments alone.

  446. Dave Terry

    aaah shucks, Sam. Thanks a lot! Only a few of us have managed to reach this place in the estimates of our fellowman: Socrates, Dante, Tom Paine, Mark Twain,,,,: I’m honored to add my name to the list.

    BTW: Actually, Hell is a city in Michigan.

  447. paulie

    532 comments and still counting.
    This string is about as close to eternal life that ANY
    of use will ever experience!

    It’s like the gift that keeps on giving.

  448. Dave Terry

    paulie (538)
    “It’s like the gift that keeps on giving.”

    Well, like the “book” says: “It is better to give than to receive.” You’re welcome!

  449. Sam Kress

    ” Only a few of us have managed to reach this place in the estimates of our fellowman: ..”

    Yeah. Like the girl in 5th grade that always had her hand up whose voice sounded like nails on chalk board. My first mother in law that was 90% of the reason for my divorce. The kid in my college dorm who kept thinking it was funny to piss in the kitchen coffee. My bipolar cheating whore of an ex-girlfriend. The neighbor who loves to blast his stereo at 3 AM. His dog that always shits in our yard. That hemorrhoid of a boss I used to have. My co-worker that was always kissing up to him. There’s a few special people like that. And you are so very special too!

  450. Jill Pyeatt

    So, I think I’m going to have to change my handle here to Jill AKA Minnie Pyeatt.

  451. Dave Terry

    Sam says; “Yeah. Like the girl in 5th grade that always had her hand up whose voice sounded like nails on chalk board.

    So it’s HER fault that she knew the answers when
    you didn’t!

    >”My first mother in law that was 90% of the reason for my divorce.”

    So, she had you figured out and told your wife?

    > “The kid in my college dorm who kept thinking it was funny to piss in the kitchen coffee.”

    So, why did he always pick YOUR cup to piss in?

    > “My bipolar cheating whore of an ex-girlfriend.

    So, you are “unlucky in love” by lucky in what ever comes in a distant second?

    >”The neighbor who loves to blast his stereo at 3 AM.”

    “So you live in a cheap apartment with VERY thin walls”

    >”His dog that always shits in our yard.

    So, you share yards with dog?

    >”That hemorrhoid of a boss I used to have. ”

    So your boss got rid of you and You got rid a a hemorrhoid; Count your blessings!

    >”My co-worker that was always kissing up to him.”

    I see, your ex-boss liked him better than you?
    Is that REALLY a surprise?

    There’s a few special people like that. And you are so very special too!

    Thanks, I try really hard, unlike some people I might mention.

    Well Sam, it MUST be your magnetic personality that attracts all the best people. It CERTAINLY isn’t your wit OR WISDOM!

  452. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    #513 – Jill – There is no amount of ” proof ” which can ever exist which will ” convince ” you, or any other supporting rodent on or off of this list, of anything other than endorsing and promoting the Homsexual/Sodomy Movement in every possible way. If you turned the corner and found a whole school yard of Socially Engineered children doing as they wish to indoctrinate them to do in Canadian schools as per the Makow article ( with our own schools being equally sick ) – literally eating shit – you would pass it off as ” normal ” and proclaim, as only a very sick person would, that ” God made them that way.”

    You see Jill you will earn your way to Hell by – A) claiming that God made homosexuals; a slanderous lie against our Creator by claiming that He created evil; and B) then claiming that you are a Christian when no REAL Christian would ever do A).

    As I mentioned in an earlier post the children are indeed ” mini-monsters ” because they are being trained to attack and destroy their fellow children in and by spreading the soul infection which they are afflicted with.

    But the far greater monsters are their trainers and supporters – you and all of the others who could fight for them but instead betray them and stab them in the back by teaching them to betray their fellow children in order to preserve the glory of your precious fake ego; i.e.; the sick fantasy that you are tolerant, loving, and all those other qualities which are the reverse of your perverse Dorian Gray inner self. An inner self which is willing to betray children to the sickest pathologies imaginable for the payback ” buzz ” of having the pleasure of seeing them, speaking of the boys here who are the greater and ultimate targets of the attack on children, degrade themselves.

    So it is not I have that has ” the nerve ” but you for you to spit in the face of the Creator of the Universe by proclaiming that He creates evil and then proclaim that you are a follower of Him.

    You will be well deserving of a very hot spot for eternity for betraying both the Creator and his precious creation.

    ” Whosoever harms one of these children it would be better for him ( you and all of your supporting rats both on and off this list ) if a millstone were tied around his neck.”

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the only party working to protect the children of the nation from their moral destruction and physical molestation by fighting and exposing their attackers

  453. Sam Kress

    #543

    Great job – wrong assumption/conclusion in every single example. But would one expect any less from you?

  454. Dave Terry

    Mark Twain wrote ” Truth is stranger than fiction”
    but clearly Mark Twain NEVER read the rantings and ravings of Don Grundmann.

    Thankfully, reality cannot possibly be any more perverse than the mind of this self-appointed voice of God!

  455. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    paulie @ # 512 – I intend, as does the Constitution Party as a whole, to protect, for homosexuals, all of the rights which our Founding Fathers enumerated for them via the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. No person will have special rights relative to another.

    I do wish to see a return to the criminalization of sodomy and its prosecution. In addition to the public health problems; i.e.; ingestion of feces as per the Makow article; the legalization of sodomy is an automatic and severe downgrading of our culture which automatically will lead to only more perverse sicknesses as time progresses; i.e.; the legalization of incest, child molestion, and bestiality for a start; these being bad enough in and of themselves.

    Don J. Grundmann. D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the only party working to protect women and children by upholding the moral standards of our nation

  456. Sam Kress

    I wonder if Grundmann has ever been professionally diagnosed by a psychiatrist?

  457. Sam Kress

    “I do wish to see a return to the criminalization of sodomy and its prosecution.”

    Thanks for finally admitting it instead of the song and dance about molesting kids. So now we can all acknowledge that you don’t believe in equal rights for consenting adults and people’s right to own their own bodies. What an amazing fascist scum turd you are. If your gang ever comes to power, and if there’s any justice in the world, you’ll get arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned under that very statute. But then again maybe that would be more like paradise for you.

  458. Jill Pyeatt

    “the legalization of sodomy is an automatic and severe downgrading of our culture which automatically will lead to only more perverse sicknesses as time progresses; i.e.; the legalization of incest, child molestion, and bestiality for a start”

    Another totally unsubstantianted leap in reasoning.

  459. Jill Pyeatt

    Psssst….do you think anyone has told Don that some heterosexual couples engage in anal sex?

    And Don, did your mother teach you to speak to women the way you speak to me? Calling me a “rodent”?

    Could that possibly be why you’ve never married?

  460. Sam Kress

    “Psssst….do you think anyone has told Don that some heterosexual couples engage in anal sex?”

    It’s even worse than that. “Sodomy” also includes oral sex. The vast majority of couples, whether gay, straight, lesbian or whatever, have oral sex, and we can all be arrested and imprisoned for it if Don has his way (so to speak). Whereupon they can go from having consensual sex to having non-consensual sex. All to satisfy Don’s fantasies about eating feces, child molestation, incest, bestiality, etc.

  461. Dave Terry

    Jill (552)
    “And Don, did your mother teach you to speak to women the way you speak to me? Calling me a “rodent”?”

    Maybe he meant that as a compliment, since only humans have sex for fun. Rodents and other “lower” species ONLY have sex for the purpose of procreation (just like the Bible says)

    “Could that possibly be why you’ve never married?

    Now THAT’S illuminating! Maybe he just doesn’t LIKE women…………..interesting.

    Let’s NOT forget the “crime’ of ‘onanism’.

  462. NewFederalist

    “Psssst….do you think anyone has told Don that some heterosexual couples engage in anal sex?”

    Didn’t you mean annual sex? 😉

  463. Jill AKA Minnie Pyeatt

    Very funny, NF. I have no idea what you’re talking about, of course.

  464. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Jill @ #552 – To partially paraphrase Senator Bentson of long ago – Jill, I know women and you are no woman. But you are a female.

    Just because you show up with body parts does not mean that you are a woman, the same for a man.

    Being a woman is a spiritual condition and, relative to these discussions, as just one example a woman, a REAL woman, would/will never ever support, endorse, or promote homosexuality. There are multiple reasons for this starting with women like, relate to, endorse, promote, support, etc. men, REAL men and not imitation men pretending to be women; i.e.; males and/or outright homosexuals. They know that such persons are inherently soul deranged and that only ” bad news ” can result from interacting with them.

    Women will want a man, a REAL Man, and will, far more importantly, want to protect not only ALL children but men ( in this example ) from being attacked by those who wish to harm them and hence to create broken men ( males ); as with the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement.

    Women hence value and protect men as they grow with the knowledge that the resulting real men will protect them in addition to being true husbands and fathers upon whom real families and our nation itself can have a rock solid foundation.

    Women will, via a universal protection instinct regarding children, fight to the death to protect them not only physically but even, and especially, spiritually; i.e.; they will protect the souls of children from being attacked and killed.

    In complete contrast, females, among their many and virtually countless character sicknesses, are more than willing to sacrifice children to anything which serves their interest; either personally via abortion or to a larger ” purpose ” such as simply protecting their own ego ( like someone we know ) or as part of the feminist attack against men which cultivates, enjoys, and promotes their degradation and degeneracy for the pure satisfaction of seeing them degrade themselves. It is a spiritual phenomenon which we can see accelerating throughout our sickened culture and nation – females who have had their protective instincts regarding children minimally neutralized if not totally shattered.

    The end result? An army of females who are only too happy to see even the youngest children of kindergarten age indoctrinated into acceptance of homosexuality – a monstrous and horrific social phenomenon which would have been considered impossible before our nation was sickened by the war of anti-Christian forces to shatter the morality of the nation.

    Women – protectors of children, morality, and the morality of children.

    Females – betrayers of children, morality, and the morality of children

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the party that celebrates women, helps females to become them, and works to protect the morality ( soul ) of children

  465. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    # 556 – Caiden Cowger – Now here is a young man of courage. Here is a real and true INDEPENDENT THINKER!!

    He hasn’t been Socially Engineered. He is not going to ” brown nose ” and endorse the sickness of others so that he will be accepted by them. He will not bow down to ” political correctness.” He will not bow down before evil. He will fight to save his nation.

    I don’t know his age but he is developing into a true and real man. Certainly he is far far more of a man than many of the rodents on this list who will attack him.

    He is a true fighter for children and for humanity. Very very impressive.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the party for men and that helps males to become them

  466. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    He’s a 14 year old piece of shit who’s raised by a bunch of West Virginia hillbilly zealots in the spirit of some notable West Virginia radicals like Ku Klux Klan member Robert Byrd.

    Caiden is literally one of the big motivating factors that led me to finally support marriage equality. That little fucker is so annoying and brainwashed.

  467. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Krzysztof – Homosexuality is not the same as skin color. It is not genetic. You can’t change your skin color but you can change from being homosexual.

    By supporting ” marriage equality ” you are supporting the death of the culture and hence the nation as I describe in numerous previous posts.

    Our nation was founded by normal; I.e.; heterosexual people. It could not, and would not, have been founded upon ” marriage equality.”

    Everything which Caiden said is true. He speaks of, and supports morality; something which ” marriage equality ” seeks to destroy.

    But you’ll have plenty of company betraying the nation. It is ” cool ” to do so at this time.

    If you want to find ” zealots ” you will find them all in the ” marriage equality ” movement.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the last party fighting to save the nation

    P.S. – Can you explain why he was ” brainwashed?”

    P.S. – I sent you an e-mail in response to your earlier question but it was returned to me.

  468. Cody Quirk

    Don, has it ever occurred to you that you might be hurting the CP more then helping it by your divisive rhetoric here?

    I might be Pro-Life and also believe that traditional marriage should be maintained and that homosexuality is a biblical sin- yet I do not share your far-out, hyper dogmatic viewpoints and ideology, at all. And it’s your arguments that is hurting the constitutionalist cause and driving potential members of our party away with your counter-productive arguments.

    In fact with how homophobic you are, you are only making the exact people that you despise and rail against look like the good guys and you, the bad guy; you’re alienating yourself when you shoot your mouth off here.

    You need to tone it down, Don.

  469. Cody Quirk

    BTW, I’m also forwarding your comments here to the leaders of the CP as well.

  470. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Cody – A) Please describe what is ” far out ” and/or hyperdogmatic viewpoint and ideology.” B) Please describe a ” counter-productive argument.”

    If you haven’t noticed I am opposing a monstrous attack against the children ( the ultimate targets ) of our nation. Would you ” tone it down?” Would you have no opposition to, for example, sex education classes, including ” gender identity,” being taught to kindergarteners? If you opposed such classes would you ” look like a bad guy?” If you oppose any attack against children, or even any evil at all, are you ” shooting your mouth off?” If you oppose any attack against children, or even any evil at all, are you ” alienating yourself?” Can you compromise with evil? Can you compromise with people who are actively planning to sexualize children at the earliest possible ages? Do you believe that sex education should start in kindergarten? If not are you therefore ” homophobic?”

    Lastly Cody, and I would have thought that you already knew at least this, there is no such thing as ” homophobia.”

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the last party fighting to defend the children of the nation

  471. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    Yes homphobia exists Don. When people get executed just for being gay in places like Iran, don’t tell me that’s just perfectly okay. It’s blowing up homosexuality to being bigger than it really is. I’m Catholic, so while I don’t necessarily support homosexuality per se, I certainly do tolerate it, given that it’s existed since forever and will continue to exist. I have two pretty good friends who are gay. And I could honestly care less what their orientation is. I judge people on the content of their character, not stupid bullshit. Also, I basically have lost all my reasons to oppose marriage equality. But my end goal is a government not involved in the marriage business altogether.

  472. Andy

    “Don J. Grundmann, D.C. // Apr 5, 2013 at 12:48 am

    paulie @ # 512 – I intend, as does the Constitution Party as a whole, to protect, for homosexuals, all of the rights which our Founding Fathers enumerated for them via the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. No person will have special rights relative to another.

    I do wish to see a return to the criminalization of sodomy and its prosecution.”

    Don, how do you propose to do this without violating the 4th amendment? Are you in favor of putting cameras in people’s bed rooms?

  473. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Andy – Just as prohibiting abortion does not stop abortion criminalizing sodomy will not stop it. No cameras were ever proposed when it was criminalized. But that is not the point. The point is that when it is criminalized, as with abortion, it is discouraged. Legalization of it encourages it and, more importantly ( and disastrously ) gives cultural approval to it.

    It is this cultural approval which leads to all of the following negative results which occur.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the only party working to save the culture of our Republic

  474. Andy

    “Don J. Grundmann, D.C. // Apr 5, 2013 at 11:51 pm

    Andy – Just as prohibiting abortion does not stop abortion criminalizing sodomy will not stop it. No cameras were ever proposed when it was criminalized. But that is not the point. The point is that when it is criminalized, as with abortion, it is discouraged. Legalization of it encourages it and, more importantly ( and disastrously ) gives cultural approval to it.”

    Unless a person is raped, you are talking about an act that people enter into voluntarily. If both parties entered into the act voluntarily, who is the victim? Also, what damages did the victim suffer?

  475. Dave Terry

    KL (563)
    “Caiden Cowger is a man of courage”
    > Holy living fuck. Someone please sign me up as a Libertarian Party member NOW<

    What State do you live in?

  476. Dave Terry

    Half my post didn’t print through.

    My comment AFTER “Hlf” was; Is anyone giving odds of whether this unfortunate young man has EVER gotten laid?

  477. Dave Terry

    Grndman (565)
    “P.S. – Can you explain why he was ” brainwashed?”

    You are asking the wrong people, dummy.

    The How and the Why can ONLY be answered by his freakn, freaky parents.

  478. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Krzysztof – People are killed for many reasons in Iran, and in many other places, inclusive for just being Christian.

    As I have stated and describe at CandleCrusade.org, homosexual marriage is not an end in itself. It is a stepping stone for the accomplishment of something else; a great evil.

    Why do you think our nation is in ever increasing danger? Answer – because our culture is deteriorating; a process which produces people ever more unable to keep our nation at even a static level, much less advance.

    Legalization of “marriage equality ” will ” put the pedal to the metal ” of cultural deterioration. As I mentioned in a previous post, our nation will last for perhaps 40-50 years at the most before its total destruction.

    And as last questions to you – As a Catholic, do you think that we can tell God to go to hell, by approving homosexual marriage, and the nation will not pay the price? Do you think that we can dismiss God from our nation and go on our merry way? Do you believe that our nation was not aided by God in its birth and growth to the greatest nation in the world? Did we do it all by ourselves and without God?

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the party which rejects the Religion of Humanism as a basis for our nation

  479. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Andy – There is a greater point. Do we have an ability to control and/or ban our worst human practices?

    As a connected point the word ” libertine ” is related to Libertarian. The most famous libertine was Marquis de Sade who advocated bestiality and many other practices inclusive of incest.

    Do we have the right to stop incest? After all it can be said that it is practiced by 2 ” consenting adults?” And why should we stop child molestation? After all we call it ” molestation ” but the molestor calls it ” love.” Who is right? Aren’t we violating the rights of the guy we call a ” molestor?” And how do we KNOW that the child is harmed? Isn’t it only our religious bigotry that IMAGINES the child is harmed? If we only IMAGINE the child is harmed then what is the harm of the molestor ” loving ” the child?” Aren’t we harming both him and the child by applying ” stereotypes ” to their interaction?

    So the point Andy is – once you overturn societal norms – which are for the protection of women and children in the majority of cases – where do you stop?

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the last party working to defend the foundations of the nation

    P.S. – In San Francisco there is a movement for naked people, all males for now, to go wherever they want without clothes. Well if they are naked then who is a ” victim ” and what damages do they suffer? Do we have the right to stop people from being naked whenever and wherever they want?

    In San Francisco they sued for that right and lost – for now. But shouldn’t they be able to go naked anywhere?

    There is also public sex at many events in San Francisco. They talked about putting up a tent for people to have sex in but dropped the idea.

    So, as a logical extension of the these ideas, why shouldn’t a pervert be able to be naked and perform sodomy anywhere and at any time? Aren’t he and his partner ” consenting adults ” and if so then aren’t their rights being denied if someone tries to stop them from performing sodomy at any location and or any time such as in the library or even in the middle of the street? Where is the ” victim ” in such an event? Why can’t they perform sodomy at a baseball game at a ballpark or stadium? What right, especially if there is no ” victim,” would anyone have to violate their rights and attempt to stop them?

  480. Alan Pyeatt

    “Jill, I know women and you are no woman. But you are a female.”

    I thought IPR had done away with insufferable, insulting, hypocritical pieces of shit when Cohen was banned. But here’s DG to prove me wrong.

    A wise man once said, “It is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” This would be good advice for you to take, Grundmann. But of course, fools aren’t very good at taking advice.

    I’m sorry that your mother didn’t teach you any manners. But it’s totally on you that you act in such a cowardly manner, insulting women from behind the safety of a computer screen. That’s such a disgustingly cowardly thing to do that I can’t even put into words how low my opinion of such a creature is. Suffice it to say that the scum in a cesspool earns more respect.

    One has to wonder what your goal is. Surely it can’t be spreading the gospel, or bringing people to Christ. If anything, you’re driving people away from it.

    Why would anyone want to be associated with a hypocrite who claims to advocate Christian values, but sits in judgment of others? Didn’t Christ teach us to judge not, lest we be also judged? Someone who claims to follow God, but obviously hates a significant part of mankind. But God loves ALL his children, even those who do not obey Him. It is not your place to presume to know how God should deal with His children, and putting yourself in His place is blasphemy.

    You say that your party supports Constitutional values, but then you try to force your interpretation of God’s word on everyone in this country, if not the entire world. If you would actually read the U.S. Constitution, you might see that the First Amendment was intended to guarantee freedom of religion to all of us. So no, despite your self-righteous rhetoric, you are actually working to PREVENT the Constitution from being implemented. What do we call someone whose practice is different from what they preach? I call that person a hypocrite, and I thank whatever Supreme Being exists in the universe that I never fell for the Constitution Party’s line. Chances are there are other people on this website who also support the Constitution, and also find your arguments more repugnant than compelling.

    I don’t read IPR much any more, because I don’t like to waste my time on malevolent drivel like yours. But I’ve seen enough of your posts to know that you accuse homosexual people and gay-tolerant people of spreading pedophilia. What do you base that ridiculous, stereotypical opinion on? It surely can’t be the Bible. Because if you had actually bothered to read Genesis 19:8, you would know that Lot – the heterosexual hero of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah – actually offered up his two daughters to the people of Sodom. And that despite their wickedness, the evil Sodomites still had the good sense to refuse to gang-rape them. But you have deluded yourself into thinking that you know God’s will, and His children, better than the Bible itself. Pathetic.

    What a brave man, insulting women from behind a computer screen. If you were on fire, I wouldn’t waste my piss to put it out.

    Of course, we have to consider the possibility that you don’t really believe any of the things you say. Maybe you’re just a two-faced, lying, statist mole, trying to divide the liberty movement by stirring up shit. That’s a very plausible scenario, since all of the other Constitution Party members I know are very nice people. None of them seem to feel the need to spew hatred and venomous, poisonous judgment all over creation. If that’s the case, then take everything I said above and double it.

  481. Andy

    “Don J. Grundmann, D.C. // Apr 6, 2013 at 12:32 am

    Andy – There is a greater point. Do we have an ability to control and/or ban our worst human practices? ”

    Don, when you get into classifying things where there is no victim, and where there are no damages, as “crimes,” you start to head down a very slippery slope to where we are today. This supposedly “free” country now has the dubious distinction of having the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world. This is because people are being prosecuted for victimless crimes, primarily in the War on Drugs, but there are plenty of other people being arrested for other victimless crimes as well.

    This leads to people being arrested for engaging in free speech, or being arrested for violating a gun control law.

    I was in Birmingham, Alabama several months ago and there was a restaurant there that I frequented that happened to be across the street from Planned Parenthood Center (which I assume was an abortion clinic, or at least a place where women were referred to getting abortions). While standing on the sidewalk near the restaurant I noticed a sign that basically said that it was illegal to do any protesting or demonstrating on those sidewalks (the signs were near the restaurant and also on the sidewalks that ran parallel to the Planned Parenthood Clinic). The only place I saw these signs was near the Planned Parenthood Clinic, so it seemed pretty obvious to me that this was to keep anti-abortion protesters away. This seemed pretty outrageous to me, because that’s a clear violation of the 1st amendment. We are supposed to have a right to free speech, and the US Supreme Court has ruled that public sidewalks are fair game for free speech activities. I would hope that all libertarians, regardless of where they stand on the issue of abortion, would agree that people should have the right to stand on public sidewalks and peacefully protest abortion clinics.

    You see, if the government can take away the right of anti-abortion activists to engage in peaceful public protesting, then they can also take away the rights of people to protest wars, or to engage in other free speech activities, such as gathering petition signatures for ballot access on public sidewalks.

    I’m really uncomfortable with classifying anything that does not have a victim as a crime.

    Don mentioned people running around naked in public, or engaging in sex acts in public. Who is going to do this? Anyone who does this probably has mental problems. Does this really have to be against the law? I mean come on Don, is the only think stopping you from ripping all of your clothes off and running around the streets naked, and engaging in sexual acts in public, the fact that it is illegal? How many people are there that would really do something like this? Outside of a few odd balls, I don’t think that these are things that the majority of people are going to do regardless of whether there are laws against it or not. Most people do not want to be publicly ridiculed and ostracized, and this is enough to stop most people from engaging in such behavior.

    “And why should we stop child molestation? After all we call it ‘ molestation ‘ but the molestor calls it ‘love.’ Who is right?”

    Child molestation has an indentifiable victim, the child, and the child who is a victim of child molestation does suffer damages, as they suffer from emotional damage which can last a lifetime, plus there can be physical damage as well. A child is not old enough to give informed consent. and children who have been molested do in fact suffer from it. So child molestation is a crime.

    “There is also public sex at many events in San Francisco. They talked about putting up a tent for people to have sex in but dropped the idea.”

    If we had a libertarian society, people could move into areas with like minded people who agree by contract to live under certain rules. If you want to live in a place where there are other conservative Christians where the contract to live in this community prohibited activities like you mentioned above, you’d be free to do that, and it others wanted to live in a community that allowed such acts as mentioned above, they’d be allowed to do that as well.

  482. Andy

    Don Grundmann said: “{Legalization of ‘marriage equality ‘ will ‘ put the pedal to the metal ‘ of cultural deterioration.”

    Don, isn’t the REAL issue here the fact that the government has gotten itself into the business of licensing marriage, and that the government should not be in the business of licensing marriage?

    Why should anyone – be they hetro-sexual or homosexual – have to go to the government to get a license in order to get married?

    Don, do you think that the government should be in the business of licensing marriages?

    Marriage is an agreement between two individuals. The individuals may want to get their church involved, and perhaps they may want to have a ceremony in front of friends and family, but there is no reason to involve the government, and marriage existed long before the government stuck its nose into it.

    The REAL solution here is to abolish state marriage licenses. If gays want to voluntarily form relationships and define those relationships as marriages, they should be able to do it. If people like Don do not want to recognize those marriages as being legitimate, they’ve certainly got this right, however, they do not have the right to initiate force or fraud against gays who define their relationships as marriages.

  483. Green Party

    Because ssi is a government run service and IRS. Also government run…allows married couples deductions and compensation, that is why they the government is involved in the legalistic (marriage) side. Should the government stop with the benefits given toward marriage perhaps many would opt to not marry except in a religious or civil way.

  484. Andy

    “Green Party // Apr 6, 2013 at 5:31 pm

    Because ssi is a government run service and IRS. Also government run…allows married couples deductions and compensation, that is why they the government is involved in the legalistic (marriage) side. Should the government stop with the benefits given toward marriage perhaps many would opt to not marry except in a religious or civil way.”

    The Social Security program and the IRS should both be abolished. Also, state licensing of marriage started in the 1800’s, before there was a Social Security Administration or an income tax.

    So once again, the REAL issue here is why is the government licensing marriage in the first place?

  485. Green Party

    Andy, I am afraid that so many people are bad at saving money, they rely on ss. Some as their sole income. Complicated issue, I wish the AMerican society would learn to not be reliant on the system, but from figures I have heard, many baby boomers have less than 10k in savings for retirement. Sigh

  486. Mark Seidenberg

    Paulie post # 509

    You stated [As far as I know and have been told from others you were the only one of the “80 %”
    there].

    What you were told was disinformation.

    The State Delegates could have adopted a unit
    rule like Florida and several other states at that
    2008 CP Convention in Kansas City it did not.
    California Delegates voted there wishes at that
    convention. Even Don Grundmann had the right
    to vote for himself. He had no other support and
    did not carry a proxy from his mommy in Kansas
    City.

    I was the person that cast the vote for the entire
    California Delegation to the CP Convention in
    2008.

    The majority of all delegates present were for Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes and Dr. Keyes got
    80% of the total vote within the California Delegation.

    Even Jim and Rayna King voted for Dr. Alan Keyes by their proxies at that time. Markham
    Robinson held their proxies.

    Bottom line not one California delegate stated
    they wanted to vote for Don Grundmann, because they knew him very well. Things got
    so bad with Dr. Grundmann, Mr. Ed Noonan
    [California State Chairman of the AIP] removed
    Don Grundmann as an Area Director of the State
    AIP. By September 3, 2008, Dr. Don Grundmann had no office with the American
    Independent Party of California or with the
    Alameda County Central Committee of the
    AIP. I was informed that Dr. Grundmann held
    no office within that County Central Committee
    by that County’s Chairman, viz., Mr. Patrick Colglazier of Fremont, CA.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
    American Independent Party of California and
    Chairman, Orange County Central Committee
    of the American Independent Party.

    P.S. I have never used a “fake phone”!

  487. NewFederalist

    “Btw. Marriage is more than sex (I should know after 30 years). Grin”

    Well I’ll be a blue nosed gopher!

  488. Cody Quirk

    “Cody – A) Please describe what is ” far out ” and/or hyperdogmatic viewpoint and ideology.” B) Please describe a ” counter-productive argument.””

    = Just reading your constant attacks and smears against those on the opposing viewpoint on here is enough for everyone to see you behaving in a uncivil, vile, and childish manner in your arguments- therefore making yourself and your cause look negative in a way that actually helps and makes those individuals and subjects that you rail against look good and sympathetic- I know that if I didn’t have my own beliefs and was politically uneducated, and started reading the comments here myself, I would’ve thought you to be a complete @sshole.

    “If you haven’t noticed I am opposing a monstrous attack against the children ( the ultimate targets ) of our nation.”

    = Yeah and you’re going about it the wrong way; are you actually helping the cause to protect traditional marriage and moral, traditional values in government and American society by using insults, waging personal attacks, and bleat in a “hellfire & brimstone” manner to those who might be in opposition to our ideology, yet are more civil in their tone and even sympathetic to some of our political ideology even?
    No, Don, you’re only pissing off people and hurting our cause. In fact if American constitutionalism ever becomes extinct in politics here, it will be because people like you who wouldn’t adjust their tactics & arguments in a ever changing world and society and continued to vehemently attack-attack-attack in vain and further isolate yourself and your cause.

    “Would you ” tone it down?” Would you have no opposition to, for example, sex education classes, including ” gender identity,” being taught to kindergarteners?”

    = And by conducting personal attacks and waging insults at others on here and elsewhere- how exactly are you helping to make sure legislation like that doesn’t become law in your state?
    But then again, you live in a state that’s politically beyond hope for constitutionalists and even libertarians, so you’re wasting your time still living in California in the first place.
    But unlike you, Don, we Independent Americans here don’t go around shooting our mouths off and attacking people where we would politically isolate ourselves and get nothing done.
    Instead, we play nice and do citizen lobbying work in our legislature and get along with those constitutionalist-oriented State Senators & Assemblymen that help create or help pass good legislation- and even work with some Democratic legislators that might see eye-to-eye with us on some topics and/or legislation that we both oppose, or support.
    You see, we’re actually practical and civil in our efforts, which are successful most of the time- and yet we still maintain our principles at the same instant.
    Maybe if you followed such an example and ‘tone it down’, you might accomplish something in politics.

    “If you opposed such classes would you ” look like a bad guy?””

    = Only if I behaved like you and shot my mouth off here and elsewhere, along with attacking whoever didn’t agree with me 100%.

    “If you oppose any attack against children, or even any evil at all, are you ” shooting your mouth off?””

    = I know you have been.

    “If you oppose any attack against children, or even any evil at all, are you ” alienating yourself?””

    = Only if I go about it the way you do.

    “Can you compromise with evil?”

    = Believe it or not Don- by toning it down and learning to pick your battles and work with whoever will help get your goal accomplished, you’re not ‘compromising with evil’ at all.
    Did you actually know that in the first place?

    “Can you compromise with people who are actively planning to sexualize children at the earliest possible ages? Do you believe that sex education should start in kindergarten? If not are you therefore ” homophobic?””

    = Can you actually learn how to function like an adult and be practical in your political approach, especially on here? And also not become a divisive liability to one’s political party that you are to the CP already?

    “Lastly Cody, and I would have thought that you already knew at least this, there is no such thing as ” homophobia.””

    = Yeah, I beg to differ.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California; the last party fighting to defend the children of the nation

    = Chairman of the California CP?
    There’s a serious problem with that…

    YOU’RE NOT THE STATE CHAIRMAN OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION PARTY ANYMORE! NATHAN JOHNSON IS!

    I AM CALLING YOU OUT!

    YOU HAVE BEEN LYING ABOUT YOUR POSITION WITH THE CP ALL ALONG! YOU WERE ALREADY VOTED OUT OF YOUR FORMER POSITION WITH THE CALIFORNIA CP!

    I just got an email back from the CP National Chairman, Frank Fluckiger, stating such and that the leaders of the CP consider you a problem to begin with!
    HOW DARE YOU LIE DON! Do you not have any scruples or integrity?!

    Shame on you sir! You have tarnished your own reputation, and the reputation of the Constitution Party here!

  489. Cody Quirk

    That’s right! Don Grundmann has been lying to you all about still being the State Chairman of the California CP- while going on the attack in the name of a political party that voted to remove him from his position some time ago!

    What the hell is the matter with you Don?! You blatantly lied about still being the California CP State Chair while also ruining the party’s image with the counter-productive crap spewing out of your mouth!

    SHAME ON YOU!

  490. Mark Seidenberg

    Cody Quirk,

    I was informed of the February, 2013, Convention also. However, the CP has two problems. !st. The California Secretary of State
    asseverates that Dr. Don Grundmann is the
    State Chairman of the Constitution Party of California. 2nd the CP website states that
    Dr. Don Grundmann is the contact for the
    CP in California.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
    American Independent Party of California &
    Chairman, Orange County Central Committee
    of the AIP

  491. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    Yo Don Grundmann, let me get this straight bro:

    You are spreading your homophobic bigotry on here. You are making the Constitution Party look really bad. And you are blatantly LYING about being the chairman of the Constitution Party of California??

    SHAME ON YOU!

    Also, please email me why you chose to vote for that neocon Virgil Goode. My email is clesiak522@gmail.com.

  492. Mark Seidenberg

    Cody Quirk

    When and how was Mr. Johnson removed as CP
    State Chairman of California and how did Dr.
    Don Grundmann get into that office again after
    that February, 2013 convention?

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
    American Independent Party of California &
    Chairman, Orange County Central Committee
    of the American Independent Party

  493. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    Also Don, if you had any decency, you would apologize immediately to Jill for what you said to her, as well as her and the other people whom you called “rodents.” It’s so easy to understand why you’ve NEVER been married (I’m sure you’ve never had sex either). You are a scoundrel, plain and simple.

    You’re such a great fucking Christian as well. lol keep on spreading the word of God by calling people you disagree with you the things you call them. I’m glad you’re NO LONGER the chairman of the California CP.

  494. Alan Pyeatt

    Cody Quirk @ 590: Thanks for reminding us that most CP members are reasonable, sane people who know how to talk to others!

    It does not surprise me that in addition to his other faults, DG bears false witness about his position in the CP. And in my world, the CP gets to decide for itself who its officers are, not the Secretary of State.

    Mark’s right though; the website does show DG as the California contact.

  495. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    Someone get the Secretary of State to update the website ASAP. They probably haven’t updated cuz they don’t care about third parties at all.

  496. Mark Seidenberg

    Krzysztof Lesiak

    The SOS website is: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/political-parties/atttempting-to-qualify.htm

    The Secretary of State updates twice a week that
    website. Secretary of State Debra Bowen “likes”
    Don Grundmann representing the CP, maybe
    because she is a “Democrat”.

    The question is why Frank Fluckiger keeps Don
    Grundmann on the National CP website!?
    (interobang)

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
    American Independent Party of California

  497. Robert Capozzi

    578 DG: In San Francisco there is a movement for naked people, all males for now, to go wherever they want without clothes. Well if they are naked then who is a ” victim ” and what damages do they suffer? Do we have the right to stop people from being naked whenever and wherever they want?

    me: Good question. Like where one totes guns, this is a property rights question. The public has the right to say what an individual can tote on public property and whether an individual can walk down the street disrobed. If the city of SF says one can stroll down Market Street buck named with a nothing but a rifle on one’s back, I say the residents of SF are empowered to allow that. Or disallow that.

  498. Pingback: Constitution Party National Chairman Confirms: Don Grundmann is No Longer Chairman of California CP | Independent Political Report: Third Party News

  499. Jill Pyeatt

    Perhaps Mr. Fluckinger would like to see how Dr. Grundmann represents the CP in CA (this thread would be a good example), and perhaps could write to Debra Bowen and correct her.

    I’ll go so far as to say the Don not only make members of the CP look bad, he makes Christianity look bad to those who might not know he isn’t exhibiting Christian behavior.

  500. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    I agree with you Jill. I am sure that Frank will be willing to do that. He seems like a nice fellow who really cares for his party. He was the prime reason why the Utah CP was founded and became one of the most active state affiliates.

  501. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    Jill I am starting an organization called Libertarians for Palestine – In response to the group on Facebook called Libertarians In Support of Israel.

    https://www.facebook.com/LibertariansForPalestine

    I will be writing a press release for it, explaining motive and the such. I will be writing in the third person, but since it’s pretty much about me…. will you be able to post it as an article once I finish writing it? Would be much appreciated 🙂

  502. Andy

    “Krzysztof Lesiak // Apr 6, 2013 at 11:41 pm

    Jill I am starting an organization called Libertarians for Palestine – In response to the group on Facebook called Libertarians In Support of Israel.

    https://www.facebook.com/LibertariansForPalestine

    I will be writing a press release for it, explaining motive and the such. I will be writing in the third person, but since it’s pretty much about me…. will you be able to post it as an article once I finish writing it? Would be much appreciated :)”

    How about, “Libertarians for Staying the Hell Out of This Conflict (and every other conflict from around the world”?

  503. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    Andy, this is what was posted on Libertarians for Israel’s page:

    Just as libertarians in the U.S. support a strong national defense of our own country, pro-Israel libertarians also support Israel’s right to defend herself against attack.

    The same libertarians defending Israel’s right to self-defense can simultaneously defend a non-interventionist foreign policy. There is no contradiction.

    Libertarians in the U.S. who support Israel do not support U.S. foreign aid for Israel (although many believe that the U.S. should help Israel with arms technology development), believing instead that private aid would be more than enough to defend Israel against its enemies.

    Libertarians support Israel because:
    1) nations, just like individuals, must have the right to defend themselves when faced with attack.

    2) no free economy, no free speech and press, no independent courts, no sound contract laws, and no individual or property rights will exist if Israel is wiped off the map;

    3) Israel is the only democracy in the region, with free and fair elections;

    4) Israel treats its citizens equally. Arabs have representation in the Knesset and gays and women can live without fear only in Israel; and

    5) Libertarians want a peaceful world, not an Islam-focused dictatorship running the Middle East.

    If you agree, join us here as we mobilize against anti-Israel (and some anti-Semitic) extremists in the liberty movement.

    I VEHEMENTLY support Palestine and oppose the Zionist Israeli lobby. That’s why I must counter that Libertarians for Israel group with a new group, explaining even though we support non-interventionism, privately, we support freedom for Palestine, and oppose the Israeli lobby and it’s powerful influence in the US.

    While I’m at it, everybody please read this amazing book, an eye opener:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy

    And this Murray Rothbard article, entitled “War Guilt in the Middle East”:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard217.html

  504. Jill Pyeatt

    Sure, Krzysztof, I’ll be happy to post it. Send it to stone@altrionet.com.

    I’m fairly certain that Libertarians for Israel is a site
    run by Bruce Cohen. Some IPR readers here undoubtedly remember him.

  505. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    It might be, but I am not sure. I don’t think I was on IPR when he was posting…I’d love to see some of his comments on a thread, if they still exist though (since I hear he got banned) 🙂

    Also, thanks. I will write it up, and send you the link sometime tomorrow.

  506. Cody Quirk

    I have the same questions as you do, Mark, though the sarcasm isn’t necessary.

    Don should not have been kept listed on the CP’s website after Nathan was voted in. Somebody forgot to add in the changes, perhaps?

  507. Jill Pyeatt

    I don’t think Bruce Cohen was banned from commenting, but he was from writing. As quick as Grundmann is to call people “rodents” and other names for simply disagreeing with him, Cohen labeled anyone as being anti-Semitic for no reason. He did other bizarre things, though. He told the IPR writers that Alan’s and my daughter had married Ron Paul’s son (Alan and I only got married in 2009, and we don’t have a daughter).

  508. Mark Seidenberg

    Jill Pyeatt

    I do not understand post 616 in several ways.
    How is one banned from writing? Who is Alan?
    Is Ron Paul’s son “married” at the same time
    to your daughter and a daughter of someone
    named Alan? Or are they different marriages at
    different times?

    I do not think you understand Dr. Don Grundmann, he thinks that all these posting come from one source, viz., a RODENT named
    “Mark Seidenberg”, he thinks that all posting
    comes from me, I just use different names.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
    American Independent Party of California

  509. Jill Pyeatt

    Mark, Don calls me “rodent” over and over again, at least ten times in comments. I do not believe he thinks all these postings are from you at all, Mark. Why are you trying to cover for him?

    Bruce Cohen was allowed to post articles here. We call them “writing” articles. Bruce was abusive to many of us, paticularly me, so he was not allowed to write here any more. He eventually stopped commenting as well.

    Alan is my husband. We’ve only been married 3 1/2 years and have no children. We also won’t be having children, since I’m near my 58th birthday. Bruce oddly said that we had a daughter who was married to Ron Paul’s son. Obviously, it wasn’t true and was a strange thing to say.

    What I don’t understand about Don Grundmann is how he can be so consistently hateful and still call himself “Christian”. He doesn’t fool me.

  510. Mark Seidenberg

    Jill Pyeatt

    My guess you have not read that many of Dr, Don
    Grundmann’s comments since 2008, viz. last five
    years. I do not know how many times he called
    me a rodent, however it must be more than a hundred. I think Grundmann thinks almost all
    the posting are from me. Cody Quirk should comment here as to how many time he told Dr.
    Don Grundmann not all the posting are from me.

    Your comments about Bruce Cohen seems wrong. I first meet Mr. Cohen in 2005 when he
    was running for House of Representatives in Orange County. I recall seeing Mr. Cohen only
    one time since 2005. However, it is hard for me
    to believe what you state about him.

    I am not trying to cover for Dr. Don Grundmann.
    One major problem is Dr. Don Grundmann does
    have 1st and 14th amendment rights.

    Charles Deemer is the one that was covering for
    Dr. Don Grundmann, not I. It was Charles Deemer that got the ruling in CALIFORNIA JUSTICE COMMITTEE et al v, DEBRA BOWEN,
    in the United States District Court in CV12-3956
    PA (AGR).

    That court order did away with the 135 day requirement under Election Code Section 5004.
    I note CC/ROV Memorandum # 10262a issued
    by the office of the California Secretary of State.

    My question is if Don Grundmann did a filing on
    March 25, 2012, how could he removed circa January 9, 2013.

    Also who gave Frank Fluckiger the authority to
    remove Dr. Don Grundmann from office. Therefore, will someone post the by-laws of the
    Constitution Party of California as adopted circa
    August 9, 2010 as amended.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
    American Independent Party of California

  511. Mark Seidenberg

    I most be getting tired. could you please correct
    the post and place Mark Seidenberg as the author. Thanks,

    Mark Seidenberg

  512. Jill Pyeatt

    I believe that is Mark Seidenberg who has just poste d the comment in 620. However, you posted it under my name. Since I didn’t write the comment, I’m going to delete it. I’ll give you a few minutes to copy it and re-post it under your name, but it’s too confusing to keep it looking as if I wrote the comment.

  513. Jill Pyeatt

    I can’t correct the name of the poster. Just copy it and re-post it uner your name, and I’ll delete 620.

  514. Jill Pyeatt

    I absolutely do not believe that Don thinks all the postings are from you. Even though I think a lot of his comments are pre-written, he’s pulling them out in response to the different things that we say. He speaks differently to me than Dave Terry, for example, because our writing styles are different. I’ll repeat it again, because I think it’s an important point: Don does not think he’s simply talking to you.

    I don’t care if you disbelieve me about Bruce Cohen. Whatever.

    Of course Don has first and 14th amendment rights. No one is telling him he isn’t free to say what he wants. That doesn’t mean he isn’t going to have results from what he says however. If he says nasty things that have no basis in fact, we’re going to respond accordingly.

    I suggest, Mark, that you go back to maybe comment number 100 or so and start reading this thread. You don’t seem to have a firm grip of how this thread has been going. If you did, I think you’d be distancing yourself from that sick and twisted man.

  515. Andy

    Krzysztof Lesiak: “I VEHEMENTLY support Palestine and oppose the Zionist Israeli lobby.”

    I’m well aware of the Zionist lobby, and I oppose them as well, however, this does not necessarily mean that I’m a “fan” of the Arabs/Muslims either. There are a lot of examples of both sides being anti-liberty on a lot of issues.

    Why should Americans have to take a “side” in this conflict, or for that matter, even care about it? The entire things strikes me as being on the irrational side.

    This kind of reminds me of when I was in public school, there was a class (I think it was on world cultures or something like that) where the teacher gave us an assignment where we had to pick a side in the Israel vs. Palestine. I did not know very much about the conflict and I did not even know what a libertarian was back then, and the only things that I knew about the US Constitution was the half ass, watered down stuff they taught in school. Even so, I did not like this assignment, because I did not really know who to chose in the conflict, and for that matter, I really didn’t care that much about it either. I thought that the assignment was unfair, and I did not even want to do it, however, not wanting to fail the class, after sitting there and thinking about it for a while going back and forth, I ended up arguing the pro-Israel side. Why? Well, the reason was kind of stupid, and that was that I thought that Jews were more like Americans than Palestinians were. Also, I was raised in the Catholic religion, and they talked about how Jesus was a Jew, so if it was good enough for Jesus, it must be OK. So I basically threw something together that regurgitated some of the talking points I heard just so I could pass the class. Even after it was over I remember feeling like that assignment was unfair. Really, schools ought to be sued for pulling crap like that. This would be another reason to home school your kids, or put them in private tutoring where the curriculum is not so controlled.

    This particular class was yet another example of how the “education” system in this country indoctrinates people. I remember the teacher pushing the United Nations, and I remember there being a Model United Nations Club that they encouraged the students to join. Like I said, I did not know anything about libertarian, or the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution (beyond the half ass, watered down school lessons on it), or anything else about the United Nations beyond what I heard in school and on TV, but I thought that the Model UN Club was lame, not so much for political reasons, but more so because it sounded lame to me. I never really liked school (which does not mean that I did not like learning, I just did not like school), so why would I want to hang around school even longer and argue issues for countries that were about things that I didn’t care much about or even think that it was my business for which to argue? I remember people who I’d refer to as “Activity Kids” who got involved in a lot of school activities being involved with it, but that was about it, as I don’t think that most of the kids had any interest in it.

    The teacher mentioned above did announce a school trip to visit the United Nations in New York City, and a lot of kids were interested in that, not because most of them gave a rat’s ass about the United Nations, but rather because it was an excuse to get out of classes and to take a trip to New York City. I remember being interested in going to New York City because I’d never been there before (I had been to New York before, and had even lived there for maybe a year and a half (give or take a little (I lived in several states before the age of 18))), but I was in what is known as “upstate” New York and I had never been in or near New York City), however, even though I liked the idea of getting out of school for the trip and visiting the “Big Apple” for the first time, I dreaded the idea of having to sit on a bus with this teacher and some of the kids from the class on a long bus ride. I thought something like, “I can barely stand being around these people in school, why would I want to sit crammed in with them on a long bus trip?” (This may sound kind of harsh, but keep in mind that I moved several times to different states and/or to different school districts, so I was not really from there, so I did not really have any friends that were going on the trip, plus I thought the teacher was a bit of a douche (although I had other teachers that were worse on the asshole scale), and even though I did not know much about politics, it seemed like they were trying to cram an agenda down my throat.) So I never ended up asking my parents to sign the permission slip to go on the trip, so I was one of the few people that did not go. I remember sitting there in school that day (which always felt like being in prison to me) and not having to do anything that day, which was cool to me.:) I sat there and caught up on homework and then just read a book. It was a nice, relaxing day as I recall.:)

    I never heard anything about libertarian the entire time I was in school. I do remember a couple of times when teachers brought in sample ballots and taped them to the chalk board. I remember being the only kid in the class to really look over the sample ballots, and I actually do remember seeing Ron Paul’s name on the ballot with some weird party that started with the letter “L” next to his name. I remember never having heard of Ron Paul before, but the name stuck with me because I thought the name was unusual, like, “This guy has two first names.” The only thing I remember about the party with Ron Paul’s name next to it was that it started with the letter “L” and it was something like Libertarian or Liberalarian or something like that. I had seen the name of the weird party that started with the letter “L” on sample ballot from a previous election, but I could not remember the names of any of the candidates, I just remember some weird party that started with the letter “L.”

    Years later after I stumbled upon the Libertarian Party by seeing the LP National Convention on C-SPAN and seeing Harry Browne give an eloquent presentation on what a Libertarian is, I was like, “This is what I am! This is that that party that I’d seen on sample ballots but I did not know what it was. Damn! I wish somebody would have explained this to me earlier, I would have supported this back then if somebody had taken the time to explain it to me.”

    After I saw Harry Browne and the Libertarian Party on C-SPAN (on 4th of July weekend, which I thought was appropriate) I called the 800 number and I got some party literature and some Harry Browne material, and I promptly joined the party as a dues paying member. I then read Harry Browne’s book, “Why Government Doesn’t Work,” and after this, I read the entire Declaration of Independence and US Constitution, something which we never did when I was in school. Yeah, they “taught” it, but a lot of it was glossed over, and I specifically remember teachers saying that the Constitution was a “living document” that could be reinterpreted with the times. After reading Harry Browne’s campaign book and literature, and then reading the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution I saw how far off course this country was from its limited government base. I remember thinking, “Wow, so most of what the government does today is unconstitutional, and our government today is just as bad – if not worse – than the one that the Founding Fathers revolted against. No wonder they didn’t teach us this stuff in school!” I then remember rediscovering Ron Paul (I was like, “Hey, that’s that guy with two first names! I remember him.”), and I started reading his columns, and I started researching a lot of stuff on-line and reading other books. After I found out what the United Nations really is, a socialist world government organization that eats up US taxpayers money, I looked back on that Model United Nations club and the United Nations trip from the school I attended with greater disgust.

    I remember seeing one of Alex Jones earlier videos, “America: Destroyed By Design” (it came out in the late ’90’s, but I did not see it until around 2003), where during a part of it he visited a Model UN meeting and interviewed some of the kids there to show the indoctrination that was occurring.

  516. Andy

    Here’s something a lot of people will find interesting here, and that is that I actually did some volunteer work for Don Grundmann several years ago. NOW BEFORE ANY FELLOW LIBERTARIAN PARTY MEMBERS THROW A SHIT FIT, OR TAKE THIS OUT OF CONTEXT, HEAR ME OUT BY READING HOW THIS HAPPENED BELOW.

    I was petitioning in Ventura County in California back in 2004. There were several statewide petitions going on at the time, and I was in front of a grocery store when I ran into this guy whom I’d met at some “tax protester” meetings. I attended a We The People Foundation meeting that was held in Orange County where I met Bob Schulz, former IRS agent Joe Bannister, and Peymon Mottahedeh. I also attended an event in 2003 where G. Edward Griffin spoke at somebody’s house in La Canada-Flintridge, plus I had started going to the meetings of this group called The Granda Forum which met in San Fernando Valley (it was kind of a truth seeker/”conspiracy theory” type of group, and they’d have different speakers on different topics every month). I can’t remember which meeting it was, I think it was probably the We The People one in Orange County though, but I found out about this “tax protester” or “tax honesty” group that met in Ventura County, so I went to a few of their meetings. They met at some hotel, I think it was in Thousand Oaks, but it could have been the city of Ventura or somewhere else (it was not in Simi Valley though). Anyway, I ran into the guy who ran the meetings while being out in the field gathering signatures and he stopped and signed my petitions, then we got to talking and he told me that he had a bunch of flyers and other hands outs in his car, and he asked me if I’d hand them out to people. I said sure, so he came back with several thouand We The People Foundation ( http://www.givemeliberty.org ) flyers, plus a bunch of copies of the news paper ads that We The People Foundation had run, plus some general information news papers about We The People Foundation, plus another flyer that had a little picture of former IRS agent Joe Bannister on the top, and then it had some general information on it about why the income tax and the Federal Reserve System was a sham, and then it had some recommended websites and books at the bottom of the flyer, and although I did not notice this at first, at the very bottom of this flyer it said something like, “Don Grundmann: American Independent Party candidate for US Senate”. I did not know who Don Grundmann was, but I was already familiar with the American Independent Party, and I knew that they were at the time affiliated with the Constitution Party (which I already knew about). I had already been a Libertarian Party for member for several years at this point, but since the information on the flyer was good I decided to hand out the flyers anyway (I did vote for the Libertarian Party candidate for US Senate in California in 2004, who was Jim Gray, who in 2012 became the party’s VP candidate).

    So yeah, in addition to handing out several thousand We The People Foundation flyers and newspapers, I also handed out a lot of those Don Grundmann flyers, or as I would more accurately describe as anti-income tax and ant-Federal Reserve System flyers that had something about this Don Grundmann guy at the bottom of the page. I’d guesstimate that there were around 1,000 of these. I handed most of them out in California, but I remember having a few left over that I handed out in some other states.

    I did not know anything about Don Grundmann’s anti-gay/homosexual crusade back then. It just seemed like a cool, anti-income tax/anti-Federal Reserve System flyer to me. I remember he had several books and websites recommended on the flyer, all of them having to do with the income tax and Federal Reserve scam.

  517. Andy

    “I was petitioning in Ventura County in California back in 2004. There were several statewide petitions going on at the time, and I was in front of a grocery store when I ran into this guy whom I’d met at some ‘tax protester’ meetings.”

    Point of clarification: this particular grocery store was in Simi Valley (which is in Ventura County), but the “tax protester” meetings were in another part of Ventura County.

  518. Jill Pyeatt

    Most of us evolve in our political journey (Krzysztof has evolved in front of our very eyes!), so it’s possible Don wasn’t so vigilant about his pet issue back then. Your story does explain why you’ve continued the discussion with him, where the rest of us have given up. Mark Seidenberg doesn’t believe what I said about Bruce Cohen and his anti-Semitism witch-hunts because he met him in the 2004 or so. By most accounts, Bruce was a decent if quirky activist then. His political evolvement has taken an unpleasant turn like Grundmann’s has.

    I think it’s so strange for Mark Seidenberg to show up and tell us that he thinks all this time Don thought he was talking to him (Seidenberg) and not an assortnment of IPR readers. This is perhaps the most bizarre turn of all on this meandering thread.

  519. Dave Terry

    Seidenberg (620)
    “One major problem is Dr. Don Grundmann does
    have 1st and 14th amendment rights.

    No THAT is NOT a problem.

    The problem is that Grundmann abuses his lst and l4th amendment rights by arguing in favor of curtailing the lst and l4th amendment rights of OTHERS!

  520. Dave Terry

    There are NO ONE in the Libertarian movement whom I disrespect MORE than Bruce Cohen. His knee-jerk Zionist diatribes are legend. He has even referred other Jews as “self-hating Jews” for not supporting the nationalism and discrimination of Israel.

    The ONLY other example of this trait, is when white supremacists refer to non-bigoted whites as “Race Traitors”.

  521. Dave Terry

    Andy (626)
    “Why should Americans have to take a “side” in this conflict, or for that matter, even care about it? The entire things strikes me as being on the irrational side.”

    Unless you’ve been on another planet for the past 60 years THAT is a moot question. The U.S. government has been taking a pro-Israel stance from the beginning. So those of us who are both sane and conscientious must take opposing positions so that we are NOT held responsible for the injustices that abound in Palestine.

    > ” however, this does not necessarily mean that I’m a “fan” of the Arabs/Muslims either.

    Don’t confuse those Palestinians who have been forced out of their homes and their country and have been simply defending themselves with the Islamist taking advantage of this situation for their own motives.

    Palestine liberation is ONE issue. Islamic Jihad is yet a TOTALLY different one.

  522. Andy

    Dave Terry said: “Unless you’ve been on another planet for the past 60 years THAT is a moot question. The U.S. government has been taking a pro-Israel stance from the beginning. So those of us who are both sane and conscientious must take opposing positions so that we are NOT held responsible for the injustices that abound in Palestine.”

    I was making a point about why should Americans being pushed into taking sides in disputes in foreign lands.

    “Don’t confuse those Palestinians who have been forced out of their homes and their country and have been simply defending themselves with the Islamist taking advantage of this situation for their own motives.”

    Yeah, I know that the issue is somewhat like Europeans driving Native Americans off of lands where they were living and then sticking them on reservations.

  523. Andy

    “I was making a point about why should Americans being pushed into taking sides in disputes in foreign lands.”

    Should read: “I was making a point about why should Americans be pushed into taking sides in disputes in foreign lands.”

  524. Sam Kress

    “= Just reading your constant attacks and smears against those on the opposing viewpoint on here is enough for everyone to see you behaving in a uncivil, vile, and childish manner in your arguments- therefore making yourself and your cause look negative in a way that actually helps and makes those individuals and subjects that you rail against look good and sympathetic- I know that if I didn’t have my own beliefs and was politically uneducated, and started reading the comments here myself, I would’ve thought you to be a complete @sshole.”

    I haven’t read the rest of the comments yet, but has anyone considered the possibility that Mr. Grundmann’s whole public persona is conscious, rather than merely unconscious, satire?

    From all indications Mr. Grundmann is a gay man himself and I have even heard a few people say that he acts like a stereotypical “flaming” homosexual. His profession may even be a front for him to find partners or even for being a sex worker, although it may not be.

    Would anyone be surprised if it came out that Mr. Grundmann engages in at least some, if not all, of the sexual practices he rails against?

    Could it be that, rather than being someone in denial about his sexuality (whether he practices it or not), he is purposely making fun of homophobes by pretending to be the most ridiculously extreme homophobe ever?

    Is Grundmann the protestor, political quacktivist and online personality just a piece of performance art and street theater by a brilliant militant homosexual?

    I don’t think it’s impossible, although on the other hand maybe not….he may really just be very much in denial about his sexual orientation and/or practices.

  525. Jill Pyeatt

    It’s a good time to let this thread die. I joked about it, but I was pretty shocked to be called “rodent” and damned to hell at the same time. I’m not used to being spoken to like that.

    I’d be surprised if we’re really done with Grundmann, though. Hopefully I’ll use self -control and ignore him like I usually do.

  526. Andy

    I think that this is one of the longest threads in IPR history. Has this thread made the top 5 or 10 in terms of number of replies?

  527. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    The longest thread in IPR history is over 1,000 comments. One of the Angela Keaton threads was over 700.

    Let’s make a push, we’re less than 400 away from victory 🙂

  528. paulie

    Let’s make a push, we’re less than 400 away from victory

    I’ll just revive my thousand plus comment thread then 🙂

  529. Dave Terry

    And here I thought that there might REALLY be a chance to see something with an eternal life.

    Ah Shucks!

  530. Dave Terry

    And when Dave Terry sees Seidenberg and Grundmann at the bar, he says; “Mr. Seidenberg, you will have to leave your monkey outside!”

  531. Dave Terry

    Hey Paulie, you make a pretty good “straight man” when you are NOT trying to hog the spot light! :>)

  532. Andy

    “647 Dave Terry // Apr 9, 2013 at 11:37 pm

    And when Dave Terry sees Seidenberg and Grundmann at the bar, he says; ‘Mr. Seidenberg, you will have to leave your monkey outside!'”

    Uh oh, somebody might think that this is meant as a racial slur.

  533. Jill Pyeatt

    In this case, no, since they’re all white guys.

    If Grundmann can call us “rodents”, I won’t cry too much if he gets upset being called a “monkey”.

  534. Andy

    Jill Pyeatt // Apr 10, 2013 at 12:44 am

    In this case, no, since they’re all white guys.

    If Grundmann can call us ‘rodents’, I won’t cry too much if he gets upset being called a ‘monkey’.”

    First of all, who says that a white guy can’t be called something like this (like an albino gorilla or something like that)?

    Second of all, Seidenberg’s “monkey” could have been a reference to Alan Keyes. I’m not saying that it was, just that somebody could have jumped to that conclusion.

  535. Bruce Kent

    Hey Paulie, you make a pretty good “straight man”

    Almost like an overweight Jewish version of Rock Hudson. Very convincing “straight” performance!


    when you are NOT trying to hog the spot light! :>)

    And in what century did this last occur?

    Second of all, Seidenberg’s “monkey” could have been a reference to Alan Keyes.

    Would that make Seidenberg …Alan Keyes’ pet pig? ROFLHITLER

  536. Dave Terry

    Andy (652)
    ” Seidenberg’s “monkey” could have been a reference to Alan Keyes.

    This would be possible, ONLY if Paulie had written;
    “Don Grundmann, Mark Seindenberg and Alan Keyes walk into a bar…”

    In which case the punch line would be:
    Mr. Keyes, will your body guard and chauffeur be joining you for drinks?

  537. Pingback: Email Exchange Between CCTUC Chairman Cody Quirk And Don Grundmann | Independent Political Report: Third Party News

  538. Dave Terry

    Andy @ 652: “First of all, who says that a white guy can’t be called something like this (like an albino gorilla or something like that)?”

    Andy, you didn’t do well in biology did you?
    Monkeys have tails, Gorillas do NOT!

    ” Second of all, Seidenberg’s “monkey” could have been a reference to Alan Keyes. I’m not saying that it was, just that somebody could have jumped to that conclusion.”

    Whereas Alan Keyes WAS’NT in the bar, the ONLY “somebody” who would make that mistake is YOU!

    OR was Keyes sitting in the ‘back of the bar”?

  539. Dave Terry

    kl @ 656;
    “Oh God, this thread.

    Krzysztof, You CAN delete this string from your inbox

    God.

    PS. Didn’t I send a saint or someone to teach your people how to spell Kristoff.

    :>) God :>)

  540. Jeff Whitworth

    I thought this was INDEPENDENT reporting? The author makes quite a leap of faith when inferring that because the Constitution Party believes in returning to biblical roots of our Constitution, which by the way resulted in a Constitution which protects ALL RELIGIONS AND VIEWPOINTS. Not a “Christian nation”, as you inferred once again without any supporting evidence. If you want to write a piece saying Libertarian is more free and the CP is somehow aimed at making a Christian state, that’s fine. But don’t call it an honest comparison of the platforms, because that is not what you have put forth. Bottom line…CP objects to government funded abortion, legalizing drugs, and a legal system that decays the family. We all want our liberty back, and none of us wants a state religion or a religious state. But don’t mischaracterize an opposing party for political reasons…especially one with which Libertarians have much in common.

  541. Pingback: EPISODE 622: Constitution Party vs. Libertarian Party – The Dan Clements Show

  542. Pingback: episode 623: Constitution Party vs. Libertarian Party part duex! – The Dan Clements Show

  543. George Dance

    “Pingback: EPISODE 622: Constitution Party vs. Libertarian Party – The Dan Clements Show
    Pingback: episode 623: Constitution Party vs. Libertarian Party part duex! – The Dan Clements Show”

    I love the way they frame this:

    “Can we have freedom and liberty the way that libertarians want, without government, or does government have a legitimate, albeit limited role in America? These are fundamental questions that need to be addressed!!!”

  544. Steve Johnson

    The Constitution Party damaged itself when Ron Paul ran for President by suggesting to its members to become Republicans in order to support him. It isn’t always easy to get people to change their party affiliation, but many did for Ron Paul, and not all have come back.

    As for the overt Christianity of the platform, yes we are a Christian Party but welcome all religions to the freedom which was set up based on the Bible. These sentiments, of course, apply directly to State and Local Government, but it is understood that the Federal Government holds to the U.S. Constitution.

Leave a Reply

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