Frank Fluckiger – Chairman, National Executive Committee
 | I have been watching our new website being built — every time I visit the “sneak peek” page, I’m reminded how the Constitution Party is different from any other political party — in principle and practice. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution asserts: “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.” |
| I have been watching our new website being built — every time I visit the “sneak peek” page, I’m reminded how the Constitution Party is different from any other political party — in principle and practice. | |
The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution asserts:
“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.”
Our party platform clearly supports that idea:
“We pledge to be faithful to this constitutional requirement and to work methodically to restore to the States and to the people their rightful control over legislative, judicial, executive, and regulatory functions which are not constitutionally delegated to the federal government. We stand opposed to any regionalization of governments, at any level, which results in removal of decision-making powers from the people.”
Although the Second Amendment to the Constitution clearly states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringe,
”its meaning and application are under attack. Our party platform plainly states: “We oppose attempts to prohibit ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens, and stand against all laws which would require the registration of guns or ammunition. We call for the rescinding of all executive orders, the prohibition of any future executive orders, and the prohibition of treaty ratification which would in any way limit the right to keep and bear arms.”
In looking at our platform as posted on our new website, I have a new determination to get our message out to Americans:
• There are millions of pro-lifers who are tired of the Republican Party’s inconsistencies.
• There are millions of blue collar workers whose jobs are being sold by the Democrats in so-called “Free Trade” deals.
• There are millions of faith-based voters who are angry that there is no political resistance to the “gay marriage” lobby.
How can we reach them? Internet advertising has proven to be a God-send for the Constitution Party. We already have 2,000+ new people posting on our webpage, making links to our articles, etc. just from a few ads placed recently.
Now we have a new user-friendly website ready to launch — maybe in a week or ten days. It’s attractive, informative, and a symbol of our professionalism when it comes to political action.
It’s up to you to get it on line. We simply are running short of funds needed for the final steps necessary to publish it. That’s why I’m asking you for an immediate — urgent — donation of $25, $35, $50 or more. The sooner it is on line, the faster we will grow. You will be the first to get the link when it’s ready to launch.
In the meantime, please be generous. I’d like to hear from you in the next few days so we can plan on how and when we can complete the job.
Millions of Americans are waiting to see and hear real alternatives to politics-as-usual. We have the answers to their questions. We just need a “sign” that will attract them to our party. That bright billboard will be our new website. Please respond to this serious request: you will soon see how your investment of $20, $30, $40 or even $100 is helping the Constitution Party.
Should be a fun read 🙂
Last week, the National IAP decided to let this recent incident in Utah die down and not make a big deal out of it in order to let the media coverage of it die down. Yet they will be issuing a brief statement this week and I will put out a personal editorial on the matter in a few days.
I’ll be happy to post a rebuttal, as I’m sure a few of the other writers will.
I understand that now Cody. Thanks for clearing it up. After-all this is America and people still think it is lawful to pretend to be someone else (the IAP imposters) just to cause trouble. My campaign will not be affected by this and my damage control usually covers the doubters… Besides, I don’t need the doubting nut jobs anyway.
Let’s see if IPR and the SL Tribune actually does their jobs and publishes the replies.
There can be nothing more harmful to the CP than to keep Goode connected to them in any way. I have proven beyond a doubt that Goode’s voting record is worst than Pres. Obama’s intentions for the USA and our freedoms… At least Pres Obama doesn’t lie or hide his intentions!
Paulie is right about Goode- and believe me, the National CP still hasn’t shed the it’s theocratic image much.
John, you are taking about a bunch of pamphlets that was NOT officially approved by the National IAP, and were greatly distorted by a reporter with the Salt Lake Tribune that is likely biased against anything LDS or Right-wing, and perhaps are even attempting to be used by those that want to sabotage our ballot access efforts in Utah.
FYI, the IAP will be addressing the matter in the next day or too, and IPR is welcome to publish our rebuttal.
Goode is still on their national committee.
Karen, would you be so kind as to contact me so we may discuss how the CP changed from 2012 up to today? If they are in fact, back to Constitutional principles and will apologize for Virgil Goode and that scandal… America will see a new CP after-all.
I am trying to do damage control from the far rightwing IAP connecting to my ballot access in Arizona and people will not hear from me for a while either.
OK then. You may answer any time you wish, or never.
Karen, as National Communications Director, has been busy updating the new website, sending out national emails, working on media releases, keeping our social media sites active, etc. She appreciates your comments and has seen them, but…back to work…
Well, we never know, maybe she is just taking her time to get back here.
For a CP member like Karen to run away from the debate here shows poorly on the CP; if a third party is going to become a serious force in American politics, then it must excel, or at least have a reasonable media relations outreach and also be cautious in their behavior when in the public spotlight; if it doesn’t and behaves in a clannish manner where party members chose to run away from a serious debate, or do things in the public spotlight that reflect poorly on them- then such a party will get nowhere in politics.
IMO, while several state affiliates of the CP will continue to thrive and even prosper in politics for some time to come, for the National CP itself- that is in serious doubt at this moment.
We seem to have lost Karen…Karen, you still reading?
Of course Paulie; those examples I posted are indeed only the tip of the iceberg.
Glad we agree.
Nor do I Paulie… Goode is the worst thing that could have happened to the CP.
Hilarious, even.
“It’s up to you to get it on line. We simply are running short of funds needed for the final steps necessary to publish it. That’s why I’m asking you for an immediate — urgent — donation of $25, $35, $50 or more. The sooner it is on line, the faster we will grow.”
Funny how they are raising money for this, yet they still have not paid the petition circulators who got stiffed on Constitution Party petition drives last year.
Did he used to pay his bills too?
I know somebody who used to work for Goode. He said he always been a conservative, but was fairly reasonable (bear in mind my friend is a statist, so reasonable has a very different meaning from ours), but over time & as he started switching affiliations he became crazier & more obsessed with immigration & social issues.
Goode is an old style dixiecrat. They used to be Democrats decades ago, now most of them are Republicans but it took a long time for them all to make the switch. I don’t think his views have changed all that much, if at all, through all his party switches.
And bear in mind that I don’t like his politics and really dislike him personally.
The “cross” with the CP and any other ‘party’ is simply the CP’s need for being like the GOP as the same old crappy dead end story and the Democrats as thesame old crappy dead end story because it appears to be “”whatever makes them feel good for the moment.”” (like a junkie without a favorite vice).
They brought in Virgil Goode who was a Democrat, then a Republican, then an Independent and finally a CP er.
It’s difficult to find anyone who is truly one or the other and that’s why I threw ‘junkie’ in the mix… It covers everything else but really does not infer being a drug addict.
Yes. What I’ve yet to see is how they are a cross of Democrats and anything. To be a cross of Democrats and X they have to have some aspects of being aligned with Democrats that are not aspects of (whatever that other thing is). I have not see the evidence for this.
They are not aligned with Democrats as far as I can tell. Once again, ‘the commas’ come into play IE: Read this slowly if you need to.
Let me explain for those who like to pull apart a statement and use it out of context…
“Today” (this day forward but not as in ‘yesterday’)- “they” (the CP)- “swayed even further to some peculiar direction” (away from what the US Taxpayers Party *Arizona Tax Payer Party* was, when we originally changed the name before Phillips went and played Mr. Grandstander at the Liberty Bell)- “that is nether Constitutionally based, nor American based.” (The modern CP has become a far right religious sect/party)- “It has become a religious sect of outside voters and those who are a cross between Libertarians, GOP, Democrats and junkies.”
Key is “cross between” meaning includes the following…
Libertarians: At heart simply want to be left alone.
GOP: Same old crappy dead end story.
Democrats: Same old crappy dead end story.
Junkies: They thrive on whatever makes them feel good for the moment.
The CP has become a very exclusive brand of a religious sect pretending to be Constitutionally bound individuals when in fact, they are anti-Constitutional by the very fact that they are NOT individuals but a group of “join my religion or else” people. They lost it when they brought in the 100% corrupted Virgil Goode as their candidate for President in 2012 and pretended to have him chosen by the states as a nominee when no one liked him and no one trusted him… But then again, he did pay off the CP top people with his defense contractor bribe money.
That pretty much sums up the entire comment I made about the modern CP.
There are many, many other examples posted in IPR articles and comments over the years and elsewhere.
“The Constitution Party does not believe that religious views should be mandated.”
Oh really?
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/05/flashback-jim-clymer-the-constitution-party-remains-true-to-the-life-issue/
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/08/riley-j-hood-the-incorporated-church-the-worst-of-both-worlds/
http://www.constitutionpartyva.com/survey.html
Too bad your statement isn’t accurate, Karen.
“• There are millions of pro-lifers who are tired of the Republican Party’s inconsistencies.”
And yet they’re not willing to go to the extreme on the issue that many in the CP want their party to go- especially when it comes to forcing the unpopular Personhood Amendment in conservative states that overwhelmingly reject them in referendum.
“I’m reminded how the Constitution Party is different from any other political party — in principle and practice.”
Sorry, but while some of it’s state affiliates match up to this, the National CP itself doesn’t; their national committee meeting in Baltimore earlier this year was a good example of that.
I don’t think the CP is very aligned with the Democrats, but I could be wrong.
Paulie… I meant to type political junkies.
The current group (state level, Arizona) is not caught up in Constitutional issues but more or less politics. “Democrats and junkies” was pulled from context. We all know about these things called commas.
For background see this old comment thread
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/03/libertarian-party-vs-constitution-party-an-analysis/
“The Constitution Party does not believe that religious views should be mandated. ” Oh good! Then your party will stand up for the right of Episcopalians, Unitarians, Buddhists, and others to perform same-sex marriages, and encourage the government to treat them the same as they would any other religion’s marriages?
Better take a look at your party platform or any number of other things.
Nor to Christianity at all. Many were deists and explicitly said the government is not founded on the Christian religion.
The Constitution Party does not believe that religious views should be mandated. Most of us hold to the idea that the nation’s Founders were heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian thought and law but we are certainly not homogenous to any one particular sect of Christianity or another, certainly not in favor of a “state” church of any religious flavor.
Here is the url for the new website: constitutionparty.com. Everyone is free to visit and see what we believe in regards to the issues of the day.
Democrats and junkies?
That’s pretty much universally agreed on. It’s the idea that religious views can be mandated by government in various ways that many of us disagree with.
The CP today is not what it was when myself and others founded it in the late 80’s early 90’s before the Howard Phillips “grand entrance” (91) in front of the Liberty Bell. The entire platform changed that day to what can best be construed as an anti-Constitutional Party.
Yes, I was there in Arizona when we clubbed the Arizona Tax Payer (US Tax Payer) group to various names and CP stuck…
Today, they have swayed even further to some peculiar direction that is neither Constitutionally based, nor American based. It has become a religious sect of outside voters and those who are a cross between Libertarians, GOP, Democrats and junkies.
Regarding the non-establishment of religion: Most people forget the last 1/2 of the religious establishment clause of the 1st Amendment = “nor prohibit the free exercise thereof”. If a public park is truly public, then all religious groups, Christian or otherwise, should have equal access but no public funds should be paid to support one religion over another. Anyone not wanting to participate in an event or view a display also needs to either not attend or allow others the right to express their religious viewpoint as long as the public is not paying for it by force of taxes or if it violates the basic constitutional rights of others, nor disturbs the public peace. There is a balance to be maintained among religious and non-religious views, not an abstention from religion in favor of non-religion. Also the Constitution Party recognizes that there should be no religious litmus test for any public official, and that our rights come from a Higher Source than Man or Man’s government, as did ALL the Founding Fathers. We happen to refer to that source as God. Others do not.
As an optimist, I like to think of them as “liberty-curious” 🙂
Conservatarians: Big-government conservatives with an identity crisis.
http://radgeek.com/gt/2013/10/10/small-government-conservatism-facebook-macro-edition/
“There are millions of faith-based voters who are angry that there is no political resistance to the “gay marriage” lobby. ”
Because the “Congress shall make no law allowing homos to marry, that’s icky” amendment really is the most important part of the Constitution.
The non-establishmnt of religion may also be an issue.
Sounds like they care more about states rights vs individual rights under the 10th and 9th Amendments. One of the most important issues of our founders was property.