The latest in the series of posts from members about how they came to join the Constitution Party, posted on the national party website’s front page (http://www.constitutionparty.com/):
Why I support the CP
I grew up in a conservative household that valued freedom. Of course we supported the Republican Party, assuming that they were the only conservative option. In 2004 I was proud to be able to vote for the first time. By that time, however, the Republican Party had lost some of its appeal. I had expected them to defend the Constitution, but they merely walked down the middle of the road. While expressing my frustration to a friend, he suggested I should look into the Constitution Party. Although skeptical at first, I started doing research on the CP and following its candidates. As a true conservative, I was delighted to find a party that has true American values and is willing to maintain the integrity to not waiver. I now consider myself a Constitutionalist and I know each one of my votes is a vote for freedom.
D. Dustin
think that paulie needs to know
that *personal experience* Doctor
Don [Grundmann] was much more
reasonable as early as 2004 ………
Wrong.
No, it is not.
Incorrect. There can certainly be right and wrong from a libertarian view. You are misinformed.
Sexual relations are a form of contract. Those who do not have the legal ability to contract, or the responsibilities of adulthood, also do not have the connected right/responsibility of sexual contract.
That makes child molestation an initiation of force/rights violation under libertarian theory.
While a very small fraction of libertarians disagree with this interpretation of libertarian theory, we all agree that adults do have the right to engage in all mutually concensual actions.
” And how would someone who complained about the molestation know that the child really didn’t need and wnat to be molested?
Children are not capable of making adult decisions. While the age at which children assume adult rights and responsibilities can vary somewhat, the general principle is not usually held in dispute.”
Response – Of course the only people who agree with this are religious bigots who practice ” Social Authoritarianism.” The result is that children lose their ” rights.” Right, Paulie?
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party
” If there was no ” coercion ” then the children of our nation could and would already be being molested as a common everyday occurance;
Nope, that would be coercion.”
Response – Paulie : Why? Isn’t that only your ” opinion?” And who are you to determine if your opinion is right especially since, from the Libertarian view, there is absolutely no such thing as right and/or wrong? The molestor will say that his rights are being violated and those who support molestation will say that the childs right to be molested has been violated. Are you going to violate all of those ” rights ” based ONLY on your ” opinion?” You are obviously a practitioner of ” Social Authoritarianism.”
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party
paulie // Mar 15, 2010 at 2:48 pm
“If the government was small enough that influencing it would not be worthwhile or productive, that problem would be solved.”
Lake: same with street drugs! Ya REALLY
wanna tamp down recreational medication ?????? Ya REALLY wanna ‘win’ the war on inebriates ?????????
Quit making the artificial profit margin so appealing that the First SEC Secretary/ wall street tycoon/ Ambassador to Britain and the father of the murdering Kennedy brothers made dollars hand over fist running rum from Canada!
Nope, that would be coercion.
Children are not capable of making adult decisions. While the age at which children assume adult rights and responsibilities can vary somewhat, the general principle is not usually held in dispute.
Wrong.
Children are also not generally given the right to contract, and adults are generally held responsible for supporting children until an age when they are commonly held to be responsible for supporting themselves.
I tend to think that age should be around the age of biological maturity, and that today’s society infantilizes teenagers, whereas throughout most of history they held jobs, got married and raised children. But that is a separate issue.
A reasonable argument can at least be made that today’s complex society requires a longer period of schooling, and that in return means that they have to be treated as children until a later age than in the past. I don’t really agree with that, as from what I have seen the government schools don’t even teach most people in 12 years what they used to teach in six.
But what you extrapolate is that the moral censors of your proposed church-state conglomerate are the only ones who should be treated as adults, and the rest of us should in effect be treated as children.
I disagree with that position.
Not if corporations face full liability. Pinkerton Guards emerged in an era when government shielded corporations from responsibility for their actions, such as in labor disputes. And, incidentally, an era of protectionism.
How do you see protectionism cutting down on business abuses in labor disputes?
If the government was small enough that influencing it would not be worthwhile or productive, that problem would be solved. In fact, it is the only way to solve that problem – look up “regulatory capture”
Monopolies would also generally not be able to form in the absence of government, except for “natural monopolies” (such as a new product or service that no one has thought of competing to deliver).
That and I could see Pinkertons reemerging back on the scene.
I’m not sure what you mean by fascistic in this case.
= Some companies can become like rabid monopolies on steriods and also start enfluencing the government in a negative way, and there would be no laws to stop their influence.
” Social authoritarianism is the idea that the nanny state can make us more moral by using initiation of coercion to dictate the concensual behavior of adults.”
Response – If there was no ” coercion ” then the children of our nation could and would already be being molested as a common everyday occurance; a situation which is exactly what the homosexual movement desires and wants for its ” freedom.” Because if there is no law ( social authoritarianism ) against child molestation then what is wrong with it? Anyone who would complain about it would OBVIOUSLY be a religious bigot. And if they objected then so what? That is simply their ” opinion ” and why would their opinion be more valuable than someone who supports the molestation? And how would someone who complained about the molestation know that the child really didn’t need and wnat to be molested? How would they know what was best for the child? What about the molestor? Maybe only he knows what is good for the child and is only trying to give the child what it really wants and needs. Right, Paulie? The homosexual community has already written that the old fashioned molestor should, instead of being put in jail, be given the head seat at the family dinner table since only he knows how to bring true love to the child. So those ” old-fashioned ” laws only get in the way of true ” freedom ” – right, Paulie?
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party
Don Lake – As you are the living proof of the John Wayne quote – ” Life is tough when you’re stupid ” – I ask the following question regarding evolution : How did one, JUST ONE, cell ” evolve?” There is no such thing as physical evolution. There IS physical ADAPTATION but NOT physical evolution. Life forms DO NOT evolve into other forms. There is NO evidence to back up the theory of Darwinian evolution. If you choose to believe in evolution it is simply because you are ( as with so many other things for you ) simply parrotting what you have been told.
Regarding Poli 101 it is you who jumped to the defense of perverts and their attacks upon children. I have simply ” called you out ” on this.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party
I’m not sure what you mean by fascistic in this case.
In fascist economics, certain businesses are favored by the government and become intertwined with the government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Economic_policies
Fascists advocated a new national class-based economic system, variously termed “national corporatism”, “national socialism” or “national syndicalism”.
Yet without having some standards and guidelines, some businesses can use the lack of rules to become… fascistic
I didn’t say it was the only thing that destroys jobs and standard of living.
Taxes of all sorts (not just tariffs, but tariffs certainly included) do that. So do regulations, which interfere the abilities of businesses to start, stay alive, prosper and expand.
Protectionism costs jobs, and destroys standard of living.
= yet we’re NOT a protectionist economy and yet we’re losing jobs and our standard of living is still going down the tubes.
http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/5258-tea-party-movement-too-libertarian-for-social-conservative-leaders
posted by Chris Moody
Social conservative leaders are worried that the Tea Party movement doesn’t care enough about abortion and gay marriage, Politico reports.
This appears to be a growing theme, ever since Mike Huckabee said that he skipped CPAC this year because it was “too libertarian” for him. In his most recent book, Huckabee wrote of a growing movement of what he called “faux-cons;” people who hold free market views on the economy, but don’t think the government should use its coercive powers to promote a “family values” social agenda.
Now, more prominent social conservatives are repeating a similar line. Here’s what some of them told Politico:
– “There’s a libertarian streak in the tea party movement that concerns me as a cultural conservative,” said Bryan Fischer, director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy at the American Family Association. “The tea party movement needs to insist that candidates believe in the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage.”
– “As far as I can tell [the tea party movement] has a politics that’s irreligious. I can’t see how some of my fellow conservatives identify with it,” said Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals.
There are probably good reasons why they’re so worried. The Tea Party movement has not based its activism on their top priorities, (do you see anything about gay marriage or abortion in their Contract From America?
http://www.thecontract.org/
) and the social conservatives fear they are losing their grip on the center-right.
If anything, this is an excellent opportunity for supporters of limited government to explain why increasing government coercion to propel conservative social ends is no different than using coercion to promote liberal ends. The government that has the power to help your cause is the same government that can promote the opposite agenda after you lose the next election. Better not to give them the power at all in the first place.
I mentioned this problem recently in a conversation with a social conservative. The person’s reply: “Well, that’s why you should always vote Republican.”
Sorry pal, it just doesn’t work like that.
Clearly, this is a fact of politics that social conservatives have yet to learn.
Protectionism costs jobs, and destroys standard of living.
Imagine trade barriers/restrictions between states, counties, cities, neighborhoods, blocks, households.
The smaller the unit to which your trade is restricted, the poorer you end up.
Any US economic success occurred despite, not because of, trade barriers.
Social authoritarianism is the idea that the nanny state can make us more moral by using initiation of coercion to dictate the concensual behavior of adults.
Reply to Don Grundmann // Mar 12, 2010:
per Mark Seidenberg – The truth of your corruption is decreed by a self appointed judge that hardly any one listens to.
June 8th, 2010, like Chuck Baldwin’s non appearance on the California ballot, can not come soon enuf or linger long enuf! But do not grieve for the world’s wackiest Chiropractor, he will surly have [ANOTHER] list of ranting and raving and excuses!
Doctor Goo Goo, whom Don Lake worked long and tirelessly for in 2004, do you believe in Genetics ????
Grundmann, do you believe in physical evolution ?????
Doctor Don, do you believe in standard medical care ?????
I am glad that Brazeale [documented liar on CP (fake) veterans group] and do nothing Chelene (spelled correctly via Citizens For A Better Veterans Home) Nightingale [the gal that ran Save Our State into the ground, before they canned her] do not need my help. They and you will surly not be getting it ………
Poli Sci #101, “Do not make any un- necessary enemies ……….”
Mark Seidenberg – The truth of your corruption and the lies which you neverendingly produce is found at TheCorruptionOfAlanKeyes.blogspot.com. I am waiting for a lawsuit from you, Mark Robinson, or Ed Noonan claiming defamation. When will it be coming? The answer is that it will not since you would lose and you know it. Every word on the site is true. I was going to write ” May God damn you for your evil ” but you are already dammed. Eternal damnation awaits you for your choice of, and love of, evil.
Don Lake – Chelene and Larry Brazeale don’t need the support of an idiot like you. ” Dodging biological science? Yet another of your inane, nitwit, and totally air head statements.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party
Not equivocal from my perspective:
Doctor Goo Goo’s general state of mind!
Grundmann’s offer to physically assault!
Grundmann’s illogic on homosexuality!
Grundmann’s dodging biological science!
Grundmann’s perspective on inert Chelene!
Grundmann’s selective memory!
He, No Nothing Nightingale, and Retired Fake Veterans Advocate MSgt sure do not have MY [California] support ………..
Mark, the ‘facts’ and events that you cited are still open to legal question and currently are in the courts, FYI.
Warning!
“THREE DATES DON” Grundmann is not (nor never has been) a Vice Chairman of the American Independent Party and the American Independent Party has never been a branch of the Constitution Party.
THREE DATES DON got this handle because he
false;y claimed he was elected at the AIP Convention in Los Angeles in June, 2008 on three different dates, viz., June 6, 2008; June 27, 2008; & June 28-29, 2008.
In 2008 the Convention of the American Independent Party took place in the Auditorium of the California Secretary of State Building in
Sacramento, CA on July 5, 2008. THREE DATES DON Grundmann was a Delegate to that
Convention and took the floor to make a speech.
THREE DATES DON Grundmann has held no office in the AIP since September 2, 2008.
I was the Chairman of the 2008 Convention of the AIP.
The affliation between the AIP and CP was ended on June 27, 2008, by the resolution of
affiation between the American Independent Party and the America’s Independent Party of
Fenton, Michigan.
Please note that the California Election Code
allows only the AIP State Central Committee
to affliate with another party. The delegates
to a AIP Convention can not.
The California Election Code requires the Chairman of the State Central Committee to
“call to order” AIP Conventions. Chairman
Edward C. Noonan, called to order the Sacramento, CA AIP Convention of July 5, 2008. Chairman Noonan called to order no
other convention in 2008.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
American Independent Party
Trent – There is a galactic difference between technological progress, as with refrigerators trumping ice trucks, and the economic warfare which so-called ” free trade ” produces and allows such as with the manipulation of currency differentials. As just one example our nation has been virtually stripped of its shoe industry with textiles very close behind. Fact – our nation grew to be the most powerful industrial nation in the world via the usage of tariffs to protect our domestic industry and citizens from economic warfare. In those times there was NO income tax and the nation consistently had so much money in government coffers that last minute spending bills had to be passed to eat up the surplus. If our shoes cost $10 and a foreign competitor floods our market with $1 shoes a $9 tariff equals the playing field and does not protect our domestic industry from being beaten by the QUALITY of the competition. The alternative is our current situation where manufacturing chases the lowest costs all the way to slave labor in China and our factories can be outsourced to Outer Mongolia; situations which produce satisfaction in free-traders as they care more about philosophical purity than the increasing joblessness and future loss through the decimation of our industry of our citizens. Chasing the lowest dollar does give consumers lower costs but is simply a cover for the progressive deterioration of their purchasing power via the mechanations of the FED to swindle our nation and people. The end result is that consumers can get lower prices at WalMart while their jobs take a hike over the border via NAFTA et al leaving a, as now, progressively impoverished and in debt beyond its eyeballs nation. The idea that we can maintain prosperity while losing our domestic industry ( of which literally millions more jobs are projected to be outsourced to India/China in the years ahead ) via becoming a service ( paper shuffling/speculation/casino gambling ) economy as compared to our former superiority as a capital goods producing economy ( coal mines, steel factories ) is charitably wrong and actually quite mad. The idea that we can forever exchange our green printed pieces of paper fresh off the printing press for goods actually produced in other nations will inevitably run into the brick wall of reality when our green paper depreciates to zero and our factories sit overseas leaving a nation of janitors, gardeners, and burger flippers behind. The question is – are we willing to defend our nation economically as we would militarily or will we be content to have a 3rd world nation of depreciated currency, empty factories, and mass continuous unemployment as long as we are ideologically pure in our economic theories despite their killing the nation in practice and reality?
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party
Cody,
Ice-deliverers went out of business, too, when refrigerators were created—are you going to get rid of your refrigerator?
I’ve been through two layoffs already, and a LOT of businesses in Carson have gone overseas.
-I’m finding it hard to NOT be a Protectionist!
Cody,
Don’t get behind economic protectionism–it’s pure unadulterated economic ignorance.
Besides, God-nuts are responsible for a lot of child diddling.
= Yet I hear some LP’ers want to repeal laws that prohibit child diddling.
And they certainly aren’t anarchists. I am willing to bet anarchists are less likely to be child-fuckers than your fascists.
= Looks like we can’t have a intelligent conversation here without using Leftist ad hominem attacks, lol.
=What morals or guidelines are to stop an anarchist from doing it with a child?
WTF does economic protectionism and the other BS have to do with rape and murder?
= as in rape of our domestic economy and murder of American jobs that get outsourced all because the big coperate fat cats want to be able to buy their son a private island.
What a choice! (BTW, what is the line?)
Besides, God-nuts are responsible for a lot of child diddling. And they certainly aren’t anarchists. I am willing to bet anarchists are less likely to be child-fuckers than your fascists.
WTF does economic protectionism and the other BS have to do with rape and murder?
Yes LB, that’s Freedom.
-otherwise we minus well have anarchy and no laws against pedolphilia, rape, murder, etc.
” yet the CP supports social authoritarianism ”
LibertarianBlue – Please define ” social authoritarianism.”
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party
P.S. – Under ” economic protectionism,” i.e.; tariffs to protect our domestic industry from being decimated via economic warfare known as so-called ” free trade,” our nation grew to be the most powerful economically on the face of the earth. Under the rule of so-called ” free trade ” our nation is now the greatest debtor nation in the history of the world. That’s freedom????
Remember, freedom isn’t free 🙂
You value freedom but yet the CP supports social authoritarianism and economic protectionism. Thats freedom??!!