We are a Political Party, not a Church

by Henry Braddock, Past State Chairman of the Constitution Party of Minnesota

It’s been over thirty years since Bill Shearer founded the American Independent Party of California. With several hundred thousand members, it remains the largest state affiliate of the Constitution Party nationally. One of the strengths of our Party is that it has leaders like Shearer. He volunteered to serve as national Chairman of the Constitution Party, a post he held for 3 years (1996-99) during the turbulent start-up years of the party. He has more practical experience in politics then anyone else in the party.

Shearer is the author of the quote that serves as the title for this article. He is wont to say it whenever he sees anyone getting carried away with enthusiasms for political salvation or deliverance from evil by our Party. “We’re a political party, not a church,” Bill will caution. He has had occasion to say it many times, because our party is prone to this error. At any national convention, you always find someone who is treating the Party as though it were a church. This can be suicidal for a political party, so it behooves us to hearken to Shearer’s admonition.

To join a church, you need to understand and accept its beliefs. A religious creed does not admit of exceptions. You either believe it or you don’t (this is not a theological article but, in passing, we can note that it is the gift of faith that allows one to believe in the revealed truths of God). Too often we see people in the Constitution Party who have brought to the party the predisposition of their faith, and to be prepared to excommunicate anyone who falters on any plank of the platform.


This kind of quest for ideological purity is antithetical to politics. As Howard Phillips likes to say, “We should let people vote for us for their own reasons.” In reality, people usually vote for a candidate (or a party) for one particular reason, not for a whole platform of reasons. People vote for you because they know you’re pro-life, and they’re pro-life, and that’s the number one item on their political agenda. Or they vote for you because they know you’re pro-abortion and they’re pro-abortion, and that’s the number one item on their agenda. The fact that they may not agree with you on other policies is irrelevant, because they agree with you on the issue that is most important to them.

Phillips’ point is that we get votes (and financial and other support) by allowing people to support whatever part of our platform they find appealing without requiring them to embrace our entire political philosophy. I’ve never met anyone who heartily endorsed every word of every plank in the party’s platform (except as a matter of “faith”). An enormous amount of work has gone into making of the CP platform. It reflects many a knock-down fight to forge language that accommodates many interests and is a wonderful example of political compromise without sacrifice of principle. Of course, the platform changes over time as we become more knowledgeable or sophisticated about what we’re doing and trying to achieve. There is nothing sacrosanct or holy about the platform. It’s just a working document to help guide us along the many paths of public policy. That someone might not agree with something in the platform is no grounds for hurling him into outer political darkness.

The confusion between party and church is seen whenever the question of coalitions and alliances arises. We are often inclined to treat this as we would a question of ecumenism in religion. Can we join forces with another religion? Many think that to do so would mean diluting our own beliefs in an unacceptable way. But to carry this sentiment into politics is to confuse politics and religion in a way detrimental to both. Politics requires compromise; it requires accommodation; it requires coalition. Without these, there is no politics. Howard Phillips again articulated the appropriate guideline. He has taught us that there are good compromises and bad compromises. A good compromise is one that moves you toward your objective. A bad compromise is one that moves you away from your objective.

For example, as a practical matter many of our political interests often would be served by electing a Libertarian to office. Because some Libertarians are not Christians, and because the Libertarian Party has no religious litmus test, there are some in the CP who would argue that we cannot support a Libertarian for office. This is confusing our party with a church. We might exclude from our religious company someone who did not embrace all our dogma, but to carry this criterion into politics is to preclude the possibility of success at the outset.

It’s important for us to establish our priorities, and to realize that we’re not going to accomplish all our objectives at once. We need to work on the most important things first. And to accomplish something important to us, we need to gain the support of people who share our desire for that important objective even though they may not agree with us on other objectives (indeed, they may completely disagree with us on other matters). This is the art of politics—finding those opportunities for coalitions and alliances where forces may be combined for a shared objective without consideration of other policy concerns beyond that primary one.

Does this mean we could support someone who was 100% pro-life even though he favored increasing income taxes? The political answer is: yes, if the life issue is our top priority; no, if taxation is our top priority. Would we be willing to pay higher taxes in exchange for a pro-life government and society? If the tax question is more important to you then the life question, then you would withhold support from the pro-life candidate who favored higher taxes. But if the life question was more important, then your interests would be well served by supporting the life candidate, even though his other policies might be inimical to your political philosophy.

Such political alliances and coalitions do not require that we abandon or dilute our political principles or modify our platform. They simply mean that we have established our priorities and we’re focusing on what’s most important to us at a particular moment. It’s a recognition that half a loaf is better than none, if it keeps moving us to our objective. It means we’re serious about accomplishing what we can, and not foregoing present gains for the (dubious) prospect of imminent total victory and the institution of our complete platform as universal policy.

“We’re a political party, not a Church.” The wisdom of Bill Shearer and Howard Phillips and other founders of our Party, a wisdom based both on years of practical political experience as well as lives devoted to truth and honor, is a deep well from which we all should draw freely. it can help guide us to the political success we covet, and help keep us from wandering endlessly in the political wilderness.

Thought Police Strike Again

Newest 'Hate Crime' Bill Violates Constitution: Attempts End-Run Around Free Speech

Lancaster, PA: The Constitution Party, the country's third largest political party in
terms of voter registration, warns Americans that the latest federal 'hate-crime' bill introduced
in the House of Representatives is a dangerous threat to Constitutionally protected rights.

H.R. 254, introduced by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, is another version of
proposed legislation passed by the House in 2005 and the Senate in 2004. Only strong
public outcry and a Republican controlled Congress kept this type of legislation from
becoming law. Now that Democrats are in charge there's a tough fight ahead to keep this
dangerous bill from passing. H.R. 254 would make certain types of speech a federal offense.
So-called 'hate crimes' legislation is dangerous for a number of reasons, not the least of
which is the blatant unconstitutionality of such laws. 'Hate crime' laws would allow federal
"thought police" to interfere in the law enforcement authority of states and localities -
something our founders were clear was NOT to be allowed.

H.R. 254 would require every state to pass and enforce 'anti-hate' laws. It would
outlaw stating a "bias" against certain 'federally protected' groups such as homosexuals.

Constitution Party National Chairman Jim Clymer warned "So-called 'hate crime'
laws could mean the Bible would be considered 'hate literature' and preaching from it would
be 'hate speech' because of references to religious teachings on homosexuality or other
behaviors. The Orwellian implications of these types of laws mean Bible-believing Christians
could become criminals simply because they spoke out about their beliefs."

Citing a 2004 case in Philadelphia, where 11 Christians were charged under a
'hate-crimes' statute for peacefully protesting at a gay rights rally, Mr. Clymer, a practicing
attorney, said "Law-abiding Americans became criminals because they exercised a right our
forebears fought and died for".

"By introducing the Anti-Defamation League's (ADL) federal 'hate crime' bill into
Congress for the second time, Rep. Jackson-Lee shows she's bound and determined to stifle
your First Amendment Rights no matter how many times she has to make a run at it", noted
Constitution Party Communication Director Mary Starrett who added: "The Constitution Party
condemns H.R. 254 as an affront to our liberty. Today, ADL-inspired 'thought crime' laws are
stripping nations of free speech.

"In Canada and many European countries, it is a crime to use the internet to
criticize 'federally protected' groups, such as homosexuals and Muslims. In England, two men
who called Islam 'wicked' were indicted under Britain's 'hate crime' law and now face seven
years in prison. Those horrors do not belong in America!"

Referring to the group behind this bill, Clymer noted: "Congresswoman
Jackson-Lee's H.R. 254 is being pushed by the same group, ADL, responsible for the British
law that says truth cannot be used as a defense in court. only the complaints by members of
specially protected groups who say their feelings have been hurt are being allowed. The
reality of what these types of laws are doing and have done to people across the world
should be a chilling reminder to Americans to oppose these laws while we still can" warned
Clymer.

Maine rejects REAL ID

Maine overwhelmingly rejected federal requirements for nationalidentification cards on Thursday, marking the first formal state opposition tocontroversial legislation scheduled to go in effect for Americans next year.Both chambers of the Maine legislature approved a resolution saying the stateflatly "refuses" to force its citizens to use driver's licenses that complywith digital ID standards, which were established under the 2005 RealID Act. It asks the U.S. Congress to repeal the law.The vote represents a political setback for the U.S. Department of HomelandSecurity and Republicans in Washington, D.C., which have argued thatnationalized ID cards for all Americans would help in the fight againstterrorists."I have faith that the Democrats in Congress will hear this from many statesand will find a way to repeal or amend this in the coming months," HouseMajority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat, said in a telephone interview afterthevote. "It's not only a huge federal mandate, but it's a huge mandate from thefederal government asking us to do something we don't have any interest indoing."The Real ID Act says that, starting around May 2008, Americans will need afederally approved ID card--a U.S. passport will also qualify--to travel on anairplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments or takeadvantage of nearly any government service. States will have to conduct checksoftheir citizens' identification papers, and driver's licenses likely will bereissued to comply with Homeland Security requirements.In addition, the national ID cards must be "machine-readable," with detailsleft up to Homeland Security, which hasn't yet released final regulations. Thatcould end up being a magnetic strip, an enhanced bar code or radio frequencyidentification (RFID) chips.The votes in Maine on the resolution were nonpartisan. It was approved by a34-to-0 vote in the state Senate and by a 137-to-4 vote in the House ofRepresentatives.Other states are debating similar measures. Bills pending in Georgia,Massachusetts, Montana and Washington state express varying degrees ofopposition tothe Real ID Act.Montana's is one of the strongest. The legislature held a hearing onWednesday on a bill that says "The state of Montana will not participate in theimplementation of the Real ID Act of 2005" and directs the state motor vehicledepartment "not to implement the provisions."Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Project, saidhe thinks Maine's vote will "break the logjam, and other states are going tofollow." (The American Civil Liberties Union has set up an anti-Real ID Website called Real Nightmare).Pingree, Maine's House majority leader, said the http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.01268:">Real ID Act(LOC version) wouldhave cost the state $185 million over five years and required every stateresident to visit the motor vehicle agency so that several forms ofidentification--including an original copy of the birth certificate and a SocialSecuritycard--would be uploaded into a federal database.Growing opposition to the law in the states could create a political picklefor the Bush administration. The White House has enthusiastically embraced theReal ID Act, saying it ("facilitates the strengthening by thestates of the standards for the security and integrity of drivers' licenses."But if a sufficient number of states follow Maine's lead, pressure wouldincrease on a Democratic Congress to relax the Real ID rules--or even rescindthementirely.A key Republican supporter of the Real ID Act said Thursday that the law wasjust as necessary now as when it was enacted as part of an $82 billionmilitary spending and tsunami relief bill. (Its backers say it follows therecommendations that the 9/11 Commission made in 2004.)"Real ID is needed to protect the American people from terrorists who usedrivers licenses to board planes, get jobs and move around the country as the9/11 terrorists did," Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the top Republican on the HouseJudiciary Committee, said in an e-mailed statement. "It makes sense to havedrivers licenses that ensure a person is who they say they are. It makes thecountry safer and protects the American people from terrorists who would use themost common form of ID as cover."Copyright ©1995-2007 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

Fraudulent Banking System

On February 13th there will be a rally in Reading Pennsylvania at the > Fire Hall, Hosted by Mr. Micky Poletta to expose the "FRAUDULENT > BANKING SYSTEM," being used in America and how they are stealing your > wealth fromyou through these inflation, property taxes, licenses, Bank > Fraud, and on it goes.> > There will be Media and radio adds running at this meeting. Please let > me know if you are willing to go and we can car pool, or maby rent a > bus. > > I strongly urge you to attend this meeting.> > Hagan Smith

Amity Township Fire Hall #49Old Sweeds Rd.East Reading Pa.Off 422 east, just past the Michaels Resturant,left on Old Forge Road to Old Sweds Road.For more info call: Micky Poletta at 717-790-9556 home.e-mail at: mickpao@cs.com

Constitution Party response to the state of the union

It is clear both ‘Big Box’ parties still don’t get it! America’s Largest “Third Party” Responds to the President’s Address
LANCASTER, PA: The president tried to convince Americans last night that “we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border - and that requires a temporary worker program.”
To stop the invasion of our country the president proposed giving illegals an “orderly path” and simply doubling the size of the U.S. Border Patrol. He wants you to believe this “will leave border agents free to chase down drug smugglers”, yet two U.S. Border Patrol agents were arrested and jailed for trying to do just that, while the president does nothing!
Constitution Party Communications Director Mary Starrett commented: “Apparently the president hasn’t listened to the overwhelming majority of Americans who want illegal immigration halted.”
While the Constitution Party applauds the president’s attempt to bring tax reform into the health insurance debate, his proposal doesn’t go far enough to remove government from the equation. National Chairman Jim Clymer stated: “Our health care costs aren’t so high because we have too little government involvement but because we have too much. Americans now fund half of all medical care expenses with their taxes -mostly through Medicare and Medicaid.”
Clymer cited medical procedures typically paid for out of pocket as a case in point: “Operations like laser eye surgery have fallen in price every year for a decade, proving that when consumers, not corporations or the government are in charge, the market will dictate both quality and lower costs.”
The Constitution Party decries the president’s call for expanded federal mandates for alternative fuels and increased fuel efficiency standards. “‘Command and Control’ environmentalism stymies free market solutions. It’s not cost effective for consumers and it’s unconstitutional” Clymer said, adding “Despite the scare tactics used by both parties, air pollution emissions in the U.S. are lower than they were in 1940. Instead of being beholden to big multi-national oil companies, we should allow the free market to develop new energy sources.”
As to the constitutionally unauthorized war in Iraq, the Constitution Party reminds Americans that during his 2003 State of the Union address, the president said: “If Saddam Hussein does not … disarm…we will lead a coalition to disarm him.” He said those words relying on intelligence information that we now know to be false. More than 3,000 U.S. soldiers have since died. Both parties in Congress abdicated their duty to either declare war or prevent engaging in war. The president should now be looking for ways to extricate the U.S. from the quagmire he and Congress got us into by making arrangements for Iraq to immediately assume the responsibility of stabilizing its government, and getting our troops out. Let us use the past as prologue for what could very well be justification for yet another war in the Middle East, this time in IRAN. What could be the purpose of calling for an increase in the size of the military, other than to engage in further excursions as world policeman? Has this president learned nothing from the Iraq debacle?
Unlike the Republican and Democrat parties, the Constitution Party remembers that our founders warned against such “foreign entanglements”.
The Constitution Party believes the president’s request to renew his No Child Left Behind law should be flatly denied by Congress. According to the president, NCLB, would “prepare our children for jobs of the future.” Presumably, these are the same jobs that have been shipped offshore by this administration’s misguided trade policies.
The Constitution Party (www.constitutionparty.com), the third largest party in the United States measured by voter registrations, is growing fast and is made up of Americans who believe a return to constitutional government is imperative.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEJanuary 24, 2007For more information contact Communications Director: Mary Starrett,(602) 315-6193, mstarrett@constitutionparty.com

New congress looks to diminsh the 2nd admendment

Tuesday, January 23, 2007
The first major anti-gun bill of the new Congress has already been introduced, and it could prove to be the most serious threat to the Second Amendment we face under the new congressional leadership. On the first full day of the new Congress, anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy introduced H.R. 297, the most massive expansion of the Brady law since it passed in 1993. This is a bill you helped kill last year, but the new House leadership will be even more eager to pass it than were their predecessors. This bill provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the states to "provide the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS] with all records concerning persons who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, regardless of the elapsed time since the disqualifying event." Covered under this bill are records pertaining to the Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban, lists of persons under indictment, mental health records, records relevant to the identification of illegal aliens and other records. NICS is the system used by the FBI to conduct a background check prior to a firearm sale by a federally licensed gun dealer. Most people are aware that NICS records include a list of convicted felons, but there are many other categories of persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms for which computerized lists may not be available. It is these categories that are targeted by this bill. For instance, the bill expands upon the unconstitutional Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban [922 (g)(9)]. This gun ban, passed as an amendment to a 1996 omnibus spending bill and signed into law by President Clinton, was originally introduced by leading anti-gun Senators Frank Lautenberg, Dianne Feinstein, and Edward Kennedy. Under the Lautenberg ban, people who have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or, in some cases, merely yelling at a family member can no longer own a firearm for self-defense. The Lautenberg gun ban should be repealed, not expanded. The bill also seeks to computerize records of persons "under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year." Such persons, though not even convicted of the crime in question, are prohibited from possessing a firearm. The gun grabbers are seeking to force the states to provide the federal government all of these indictment records, updated quarterly. Given the maxim among those in the legal profession that prosecutors can get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich," this, too, is a gun prohibition that should be repealed, not expanded. Mental health records are also covered under the McCarthy bill. This could have a significant impact on American servicemen, especially those returning from combat situations and who seek some type of psychiatric care. Often, veterans who have suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder have been deemed as mentally "incompetent" and are prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4). Records of those instances certainly exist, and, in 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system. Mental health records can also have a future impact on young people, as this country trends closer to mandatory mental health screening for students. In a 2003 report by a subcommittee of the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the author states that "The problem of emotional disorders in children is large -- 20% of all children are affected -- and it seems to be growing." It is unknown how these people will be categorized in the future. The fact that metal health 'experts,' a notoriously anti-gun community, would have a say in who is allowed to possess a firearm is, quite frankly, frightening. Many in the profession would just as soon consider anyone who owns a gun as 'mentally incompetent.' Another sobering thought is how computerized data are often mishandled. Consider the disturbing news reports that 25 million Social Security number records of veterans were hacked. The more that our private data gets added into government computers, the more likely we are to have our identity compromised. Perhaps the provision that would lead to the greatest number of 'fishing expeditions' is that related to illegal aliens. Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from owning guns. The bill requires all relevant data related to who is in this country illegally. But what records pertaining to illegal aliens from the states would be relevant? Perhaps a better question would be, what records are not relevant? In order to identify illegal aliens, "relevant" records could allow the FBI to demand state tax returns of all citizens, employment records, library records (we've already seen how these have been deemed relevant to terrorism investigations), DMV and hospital records -- all in the name of making sure that you're not an illegal. The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, is one of the most virulent anti-gunners in the entire Congress. Of the 32 cosponsors of the bill last year, 31 were GOA "F" rated, one was rated "D." These representatives support the bill because it enhances their gun control agenda, not because they are concerned about protecting your Second Amendment rights. Also among the bill's supporters are anti-Second Amendment groups like the Brady Campaign and Americans for Gun Safety (AGS). In fact, the McCarthy bill is taken point by point from a 2002 ASG "report" entitled "How America's Faulty Background Check System Allows Criminals to Get Guns." This bill was first introduced in 2002 by Rep. McCarthy and Sen. Chuck Schumer. It passed out of the House that year, and was only defeated by a GOA-supported filibuster by former Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH). Since the bill has already been around for several years, look for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to put this bill on the fast track as a way to thank Sarah Brady and her anti-gun cohorts. The Brady law needs to be repealed, not expanded to allow anti-gun administrations to find new ways to strip citizens of their Second Amendment rights. ACTION: Gun Owners of America is the only national pro-gun organization opposing the McCarthy bill, so it is imperative that you contact your representative immediately. Please take action today and spread the word about H.R. 297! We need all the help we can get. You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative a pre-written e-mail message. And, you can call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.