The Constitution Party's website lists "Seven Principles of the Constitution Party." They are:
- Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
- Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
- Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
- Property: Each individual's right to own an steward personal property without government burden;
- Constitution and Bill of Rights: interpreted according to the actual intent of the founding fathers;
- States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people.
- American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.
Does any of this constitute "opposition to the 'New World Order,'" "groundless conspiracy theorizing," or "extreme antigovernment doctrines"? First of all, let us consider the "New World Order." Does such a thing even exist? The answer to that question will largely depend on how one defines the term. What is an undeniable fact is globalization, and the concentration of the world's wealth of a relatively small number of billionaires. And as the Eurocrisis has vividly demonstrated, a global economy will require global regulation. It may be too early to speak properly of a "New World Order," but one is surely emerging. What will the world look like then? Shouldn't we all be concerned?
As for "groundless conspiracy theorizing," there may be some within the Constitution Party who engage in this kind of speculation, but the Party itself does not take a position on such matters. By the very nature of the case a conspiracy is hard to prove. If it is secret, how would outsiders know about it? Conspiracies are like the theory of evolution: it is possible to "prove" almost anything based on circumstantial evidence. What we should be concerned about are the massive social, economic and cultural changes that are profoundly changing the world today, and are probably beyond the power of any one clique or cabal to manipulate or control. We might be, in fact, living in the End Times predicted in the Bible.
And then, what about "extreme antigovernment doctrines"? As we pointed out in our last blog post, one man's orthodoxy is another man's "extremism." "Extreme" simply implies a wide difference between two positions. If the SPLC thinks that we are extreme, on whose side does that reflect? It simply says that there is a wide difference between us and them, which we freely acknowledge.
What is fair to say, however, is that we are "radically conservative," in the sense that we seek a return to the first principles of American government. The U.S. Constitution was intended to be a compact among the American people, and that compact can only be altered by the people themselves. The Founding Fathers never pretended that they had the answer for every problem that would confront the growing republic. But the made a provision in the Constitution for amending the document as the need should arise. Might we not amend it today to accommodate such popular federal programs such as Social Security and Medicare? But what is not conscionable is simply to ignore the letter and intent of the document and to read into it whatever the Supreme Court may please. That is nothing less than judicial tyranny, and effectively extinguishes the principle of self-government among a body of free citizens.
Is this radical? It surely is. But we in the Constitution Party feel compelled to hold aloft the torch of liberty amid the encroaching darkness. Let our hands never falter in the cause of liberty, humanity and justice!
(...facepalm...)
ReplyDeleteThe Southern Poverty Law Center listed the Democratic People's Republic as a "rogue state" and attempted to link the DPRK to international terrorism. According to the US State Dept. website, a rogue state is one that defines itself as "..such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human rights, sponsor terrorism, and seek to proliferate weapons of mass destruction." But in this case, does the proverbial shoe fit? Does the DPRK meet the Capitalist definition of a " rogue state"?
On the DPRK website can be found the Great Speech titled "On Socialist Construction and the South Korean Revolution in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea":
The Three Fundamentals are:
1.Political independence
2.Economic self-sustenance
3.Self-reliance in defence
It will be noted that all Three Principles are rooted in the philosophy of Juche as expressed by Dear Leader Kim Il-sung Himself!
Does any of this constitute "such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human rights, sponsor terrorism, and seek to proliferate weapons of mass destruction.""? First of all, let us consider "authoritatian regimes." Does such things even exist? The answer to that question will largely depend on how one defines the term. What is an undeniable fact is leadership is important, and that total lack of authority is something of great concern. And as the Eurocrisis has vividly demonstrated, a global economy will require global regulation. What if nobody was prepared to do what was right? What will the world look like then? Shouldn't we all be concerned?
As for "sponsoring terrorism," there may be some within the DPRK who engage in this kind of activity, but the Party itself does not take a position on such matters. By the very nature of the case sponsoring terrorism is hard to prove. And then, what about "seeking to proliferate weapons of mass destruction"? As we pointed out in our last blog post, one man's WMD is another man's "contribution to home defense." "Mass" simply implies a wide difference between two positions. If the U.S State Dept. thinks that we are proliforating WMD's, on whose side does that reflect? It simply says that there is a wide difference between us and them, which we freely acknowledge.
What is fair to say, however, is that we are "radically revolutionary," in the sense that we seek a return to the first principles of Juche and the Homeland. The DPRK Constitution was intended to be a compact among the Korean people, and that compact can only be altered by the people themselves. Dear Leader never pretended that they had the answer for every problem that would confront the growing republic. But He made a provision in the Constitution for amending the document as the need should arise. Might we not amend it today to accommodate such popular federal programs such as Social Security and Medicare? But what is not conscionable is simply to ignore the letter and intent of the document and to read into it whatever the Justice System may please. That is nothing less than judicial tyranny, and effectively extinguishes the principle of self-government among a body of free people as our beloved People's Democratic Republic of Korea.
Is this radical? It surely is. But we in the DPRK feel compelled to hold aloft the torch of liberty amid the encroaching Capitalist Running Dog darkness. Let our hands never falter in the cause of liberty, humanity and justice!
Does any of this constitute "opposition to the 'New World Order,'" "groundless conspiracy theorizing," or "extreme antigovernment doctrines"? First of all, let us consider the "New World Order." Does such a thing even exist?
ReplyDeleteNo.
Let us not.
Let us return to the original claim.
Always maintain focus. "Eyes on the prize" and all that.
According to the SPLC's website, an "antigovernment Patriot" group is one that defines itself as "opposed to the 'New World Order,' engages in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocates or adheres to extreme antigovernment doctrines."
Let's take the first one, this "New World Order" business.
Is the Constitution Party opposed to it?
I don't care what it is or even if it exists.
I just want to know if the Constitution Party is opposed to it.
You've gone to the party website and quoted The Seven Principles.
Which is fine as far as it goes.
Yet there's no reason to stop there, is there?
The idea is to play Devil's Advocate.
Can a reasonable person connect the dots (if any) between the Constitution Party and the NWO?
Have you ever done a google search on the Constitution Party and then run a background check on them using certain key phrases?
(...hint, hint...)
I don't mean just reading their official site and leaving it at that.
I mean have you googled them? Properly?
I would also have to say that I think that your methodology is faulty. The problem with the Internet is that you have know way of checking the accuracy of the "facts" on any particular website. The proper method is to rely on primary sources...
Oh but I agree. Use primary sources.
Please do. In fact, I insist on it.
If you like, you can automatically ignore anything written by the SPLC. Yet restricting yourself to primary sources and doing word searches does not hamstring any casual investigation to only the official website and nothing more.
You can go further.
Much further.
Other people will...so it's better if you take that into consideration and respond to it yourself honestly and ahead of time. Otherwise, when someone else does some googling and then points out certain items you are going to have to go into damage control and your credibility gets ripped to shreds.
Represent the SPLC's position with the utmost fairness. Bend over backwards to walk a mile in their shoes and demonstrate to a neutral reader that you have done so. Let that be your starting point.