##

Gingrich: 3rd Party May Clip GOP in 2012

Constitution Party Likely New Home for Conservatives

Lancaster, PA (April 6, 2009) The county’s fastest-growing third party, the Constitution Party, cites former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s warning that conservatives may opt for a third party ( http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/20809.html) as further indication that voters will continue to look beyond the “Big Box” parties.

“If the Republicans can’t break out of being the right wing party of big government, then I think you would see a third party movement in 2012, Gingrich said during an address to students at the College of the Ozarks in Missouri.

Formed in 1992, the Constitution Party has seen increasing numbers of voters switching party affiliation while recording the largest number of new registrations of any party, according to the independent voting analysis publication Ballot Access News .

“Voters used to think they’d be wasting their votes by voting for a third party candidate” said Constitution Party National Committee Chairman Jim Clymer. “Those days appear to be over. I ask those wondering about the third party option how long they think it will take to get the kind of government they believe in, if they keep voting for people who won’t support their views,” Clymer added, reminding “conservatives” who voted for George W. Bush that their support made possible “Bush’s rush toward a fascist economy and a tyrannical federal government and laid the perfect groundwork for Obama to finish the job.”
                                               
The Constitution Party points out why major party faithful are feeling betrayed noting the Republicans failed voters on hot button issues like immigration, privacy, civil liberties and spending and the Democrats failed their base on the war and the  so-called "Bailouts."

The Constitution Party’s 2008 presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin was endorsed by former GOP presidential candidate, one of the few constitutionally-correct members of Congress, Rep. Ron Paul. CNN’s Lou Dobbs interviewed Baldwin and told his viewers he had a “reason to vote for (Baldwin).” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-DyfFa0tZg)

Clymer, like Gingrinch, believes true conservatives will finally leave the GOP in 2012, noting the lukewarm response to GOP presidential candidate Senator John McCain by party faithful who saw little difference between the two contenders: “… John McCain , if he had won, would likely have promoted the same causes that Obama is pursuing and perhaps would have a more successful record in the results because the Republican faithful would be obliged to go right along with him.”“Now that fully � of all voters label themselves “independent”  the new  base is neither Republican nor Democrat…so 2012 is up for grabs!”, predicted Clymer.

####

We Can’t Get Enough of What We Don’t Want

By Mary Starrett
March 7, 2009
NewsWithViews.com 

Hand it to Obama, he sure gives a good speech. The silver tongued devil has an approval rating of 62% at the very same time 80% of those polled think things are going “badly” for the country.

It doesn’t make a bit of sense.

Neither does the recent poll that shows close to 60% believe government is the problem. Did this same 60% vote last time for incumbents or Washington insiders like Obama or McCain who agreed on issues more often than not? It would appear so. Why do American voters talk one way and vote another? We simply cannot get enough of that which we do not want. But, why?

We’re cowed into behaving as if we have no choice but to vote for those already in power. We’re convinced that we have to vote for incumbents 95% of the time even if we’re fuming over their voting records.

While Obama’s subjects are widely praising him after each speech, investors are registering their disapproval every time he opens his mouth.

The stock market tanked each time Obama stepped up to the mic to talk about his plans to “fix” the economy.

The day after the election the Dow dipped 5%. After the January 9th speech on why we must borrow and tax our way into debt via the $800 billion debt scheme called “Stimulus’, the stock market went down almost 2 %. Inauguration day saw a 4% drop and the day the market opened after the biggest check in history was signed, it tanked almost 4%.

By now you’ve read about the absurd spending in the ‘Stimulus’ package, you know about the tattoo-removal program, the dog parks in California and the Texas convention center.

One hefty pork product contained therein will dole out $7.2 billion to large telecommunications companies to provide internet broadband to rural areas.

That’s right. In addition to what you pay to have internet access you will be footing the bill so your friends in the country who are “underserved” can also get online faster.

Thing is, the big corporations have lobbied to keep the little ISP’s from getting a piece of the pork. So, instead of a tiny co-op getting grant money to expand broadband into an area with no access, Verizon lobbied a provision into the plan to make sure no “sole proprietors” are eligible! It’s business as usual in Washington where Obama has also paid back big labor and the teacher’s unions.

Broadband for those in the country is a good and worthwhile idea. I would especially like it because I live where only satellite internet gets me online-barring snow on the dish which sits perched on a corner of my roof. On those days if I can get out of my driveway I go to the library. A ‘hardship’ I do not expect my city neighbors to ameliorate because I chose to live on heavily forested moutaintop.

Like dog parks and convention centers, the Constitution does not permit our government to take money from one group to provide for another. It does not allow for domestic federal aid. We are being asked to assume the risk that those who live rurally should assume for themselves.

When Hurricane Katrina devastated Louisiana, Americans were asked to assume the risk (again) for those who chose to live below sea level in a city sunk between a lake and the ocean. That socialization of risk has become so accepted that we’re no longer questioning it. If people want to contribute to flood-torn areas they should be all means do so, but money for flood victims or those with no high speed internet access is not, as Congressman Davy Crockett heard a constituent tell him- “Not yours to give.”

http://www.newswithviews.com/Mary/starrett196.htm

Is Spending the Answer?

by Congressman Ron Paul
March 2, 2009

This week, Congress and the administration once again showed their lack of economic understanding, as they ramped up spending to record levels.  On the surface, maybe it does look to some like the economic crisis is a liquidity problem, that the economy is in trouble because money is not changing hands at the pace it once did in the boom years. They believe that to get back to a booming economy money needs to start changing hands again – and the quickest way to do this is for the federal government to massively expand spending to pump new money into the system.  If this is the extent of their understanding, no wonder they call for spending, taxing, bailouts and inflation.

If spending was the solution, we never would have had a problem.  During the last eight years, we’ve blown up the size of government and certainly had no want of spending on foreign or domestic policy.  The Bush administration increased spending almost 20n its first term, and nearly doubled the national debt by the end of the second term.  Certainly the case cannot be made that lack of government spending created the problem or can be the solution. 

This is mirrored in American households.  According to CNN private sector debt is 365f private sector gross domestic product.  Many relied simply on steady and continued increase in home values to enable spending and secure more debt.  That trend has proven unsustainable and many Americans are adjusting their finances accordingly.  For the first time, household debt is beginning to fall as consumers wake up to the realities of paying off debt and living within their means.

Wouldn’t it be great if the government would do the same?

A lot of capital and liquidity is out there waiting in the wings as the new administration is bringing about government uncertainty, a concept discussed by Robert Higgs as prolonging the Great Depression.  In other words, it is a foregone conclusion that government will act.  But, like a chicken with its head cut off, no one knows which way it will run, just that it will flail about wildly until it collapses.

Why start a business, when businesses could face the brunt of an increase in future taxation?  Similarly, why hire a new employee if tax policy will just force you to fire them later on to stay afloat?  Why buy a house, when you have no idea how future government meddling in the housing market will affect its value?  Why spend at the shopping mall, or buy a new car when you don’t know how tax policy will affect your family budget, or if your job will come under the axe because your employer’s tax burden is increased?

I argue these kinds of questions and concerns contribute to the weakening economy.  This type of tax policy keeps capital out of third world nations, and now is keeping capital in hiding here in the US.  People are concerned about security and savings again, retrenching their household and business budgets.  The economy could be helped if the government would just get out of the way and restore sound monetary and fiscal policies.

http://www.house.gov/paul/

TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN

By Mary Starrett
February 22, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

Bystanders in devastated areas who watch looters helping themselves to TVs and tennis shoes more often than not wind up rushing away with goods they have no business taking, reasoning that they might as well.

The mob rushes in for their “share” of the merchandise believing on some level they have a right to get theirs.

In the frenzy, rightful ownership ceases to mean anything and greed overtakes all rational thoughts about whose property is being hauled off. After all, somebody’s going to get it anyway.

As the ink dried on the massive spending ‘Stimulus’ bill politicians in states across America rubbed their hands together as visions of pork danced in their heads.

But not all elected officials rushed in to join the looters, showing that yes, America, at least at first blush, it appears there are still statesman in office. A courageous handful of governors stood up to the looters and those who engineered the smash and grab and said “Not so fast.”

Governors of Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alaska, South Carolina and Idaho have all made noises that they’re at least thinking about not joining in looting the $787 billion just sitting there amid all the broken glass.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal said, "We'll have to review each program, each new dollar to make sure that we understand what are the conditions, what are the strings and see whether it's beneficial for Louisiana to use those dollars.”

That statement shows Governor Jindal has at least considered putting principle over expediency. It’s a bold move for the head of a state reeling from a projected $2 billion dollar budget shortfall, high unemployment and record foreclosures. After all, we’re talking about a $4 billion handout from D.C..

In contrast, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin said he’d be happy to cart off Louisiana’s share of the unclaimed booty if Jindal wanted to fork over the state’s “share.”

Texas Gov. Rick Perry said, "My concern is … commitments attached to it that are a mile long.”

However, Perry’s not all that concerned about the strings the feds will attach because he added,. "We need the freedom to pick and choose.”

While these Republican governors have been roundly criticized for taking an ideological stand on the handout, their concerns will likely not amount to a hill of pork rinds. In the Stimulus bill is a provision that anticipates opposition and heads off at the pass any possibility that the money won’t be doled out.

In a move which can only be described as calculated political malevolence, there’s actually a clause in the bill to ensure that state legislatures get to override any balking governors.

At any rate, we need to ask just how far we’d go to remain stalwart on principle. Like finding a $100 bill lying on the floor of restaurant, do you pick it up and turn it over to management or do you take the money and run?

When all is said and done, the $787 billion dollar stimulus bill will actually wind up costing more like $3.25 trillion. That’s because the new programs called for in the bill will not be temporary stopgap measures tailored for an economic “jumpstart.” No, they’ll be around forever, or as long as the Republicans and Democrats are in power to fund the perpetual insanity they have both presided over for decades.

Perhaps the Republican governors who today are making what appear to be statements of principle about the folly of this socialist manifesto will tomorrow recant and cave in. But, for those of us who honestly believe we cannot spend our way out of debt, these gubernatorial mutterings soothe like balm.

Unfortunately, far too many Americans have come to believe that there’s no better balm than pork grease.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Mary/starrett195.htm

West Virginia Legislators Introduce Clearly Unconstitutional Election Law Bills

by Richard Winger
Ballot Access News
Feb. 18, 2009

Recently, two election law bills have been introduced in the West Virginia legislature that are clearly unconstitutional.

Senators Robert Williams (D-Bridgeport) and Robert Plymale (D-Ceredo) have introduced SB 271, to require declared write-in candidates to pay a filing fee. West Virginia previously had a filing fee requirement for write-in candidates, but it was declared unconstitutional in 2000 in Phillips v Hechler, 120 F.Supp.2d 587. The “Phillips” was Howard Phillips, Constitution Party presidential candidate, who had been told his write-ins would not be counted unless he paid the $2,500 filing fee. Phillips then sued and won.

Delegates Ron Fragale, Tim Miley, and Richard Iaquinta have introduced HB 2052, which says that no one who has ever been convicted of a felony in the courts of West Virginia “or any other court” (which would even include foreign courts) may be elected to any public office. This bill, if enacted, would be unconstitutional as applied to federal office. The U.S. Constitution does not permit the states to add to the qualifications that are listed in the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=866

Sign viewed as threat to the president