Third party or reform the Republican Party, Let us choose a path and set our minds to the work.

I find it interesting that when I present an Idea for a “Third party” I get a lot of argument about how hard and costly it would be, the failures of past third party attempts, lack of time and resources to prepare a new party. I even get history lessons on Lyndon LaRouch, Ross Perot, and even the Viet Nam War. Much of which was interesting but none of it addressed the issues that I brought up. The main article did answer all the objections to it.

Do not start a “New Party” but Unify the existing ones, the only problem being, finding a leader who can unite all the conservative factions. The only name mentioned was Rand Paul, I like him but I am not sure he can unite the conservatives in one action.

The only alternative offered was by Suzie; reform the Republican Party.

I wrote a Blog about that idea and what we need to do to reform the Republican Party; again I received a lot of argument about the corruption in the party, the power and control that the existing party leaders have and it is simply too late to form a third party. I wonder if some of you read it before you commented on it? The only response directly related to what I wrote was by: Chad Lewis:

1. Rand Paul or Allen West

2. Adhere strictly to the CONSTITUTION for a Platform

3. Now or later... I no longer refer to myself as a Republican in any event

So now I am asking “what do you want?”

What plan do you see for the future of our country?

What action do we need to do?

I hear a lot of complaining and very few solutions, a lot of nay saying but no alternatives. Both of my suggestions are viable actions if they are worked the way I wrote them. We can form a third party and we can reform the Republican Party; but we must take action soon for which ever path we choose. Both plans require some of the same actions and the first thing we need is Unity of action. Let us choose a path and set our minds to the work.

In the words of great Military leaders “Lead, Follow or get out of the way.”

We are now open for suggestions on action.

May God guide us on the path.

Just my thoughts for today.

Tags: Society

Promote

1 member promoted this

Comment

You need to be a member of The Constitutional Conservatives to add comments!

Join The Constitutional Conservatives

Comment by John Tripp on March 30, 2013 at 12:09pm: All I have left to ssy on this issue is - anyone wishing to start a third party can contact the office of George Soros. He will be more than happy to fund your effords. It is not the republicans, it is the leadership of the party ! The bathwater makes up 90% of what you all wish to throw out.

Comment by luis522 on March 30, 2013 at 11:04am: Hey, ol buddy! Do you believe that another party would be like starting fresh? It isn't. It can't be. It would still be all the same players and mindset -- just another abel. That's like putting on new clothes w/ out showering and the same soiled underwear and smelly socks.

We need to clean house -- but from our very mindset outward.

We need to define ourselves by our principles; and we do that by articulating a plan of action that is crucial to our very Nation, and that would benefit ALL American Citizens.

One message -- not different messages for different groups, races, or gender. We MUST stick w/ it and not hesitate, nor become apologetic. We must stand confident w/ our intentions. The people need to believe and trust that the true path lies within the law and w/ indiviudal rights.

We CAN do that through the GOP. I think that the people have had enough of "change". We want to go back to basics. Simple solutions are always best. The more moving parts - the more possibilities of a system breakdown.

The tax code contains approx 80K pages. Is it effective, or fair? No. We need a flat tax; no loopholes.

Right how, as of 2011, 10K Boomers have been retiring every day. That's 300K a month, or 3.6million a year. By 2025 that'll be 50.4million on SS "retirement"; That doesn't include those presently receiving disability (SSDI): or death benefits for children whose parent(s) had/has passed away; or those on Medicaid/SSI. And, if this isn't bad enough, Medicare is in even worse shape -- putting out $3 for every $1 that it takes in.

Right now our unfunded liabilities are not less than $130 TRILLION due to all federal social programs.

And we haven't even TOUCHED Obamacare (ACA) which has over 17,000 pages of law and regulations which, by 2014, will take $500B from M'care to start funding it.

It's UNSUSTAINABLE, folks! The country NEEDS reform if we are to rescue our economy and very sovereignty! Have you guys heard of "The Chilean Model For Social Security"? Google it. Then merge that w/ Dr Ben Carson's proposal for a "Health Savings Plan", and we'd be on the path to recovery and then prosperity, again.

This WON'T happen over night. But it would secure the future for the grandchildren and on.

These are just a couple of solutions. We also need to rescue and reform our Education system as well. Time to take the children away from the federal govt and the UN -- and back AT HOME W/ THE PARENTS where it belongs.

Just one more, if I may. We MUST elect Conservatives to every local and state office that we can. From the bottom to the top. And we must keep'em ALL on a tight neck chain.

Well . . .actually, nobody has to take my suggestions seriously at all. I mean, who am I, right?! The sa,e FAILED mindset and programs have worked fine so far, right?! Just disregard what I posted above.

Comment by L1M89 on March 29, 2013 at 8:44pm: When elite Republican't leadership(?) announced a new GOP policy of "all we need is to be loved and accepted by everyone" or maybe it was "all we need is love" they also announced the death of our formerly principled political party connected to our Constitutional Republic. Couple that with the allegation of how the GOP is barred from challenging voter fraud and we have a situation of our party turning it's back on us, leaving patriots. Didn't President Reagan say something similar regarding the D'Rat Party?

“I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. It left me.”

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/i-didn-t-leave-the-democratic-party...

Some Republican'ts seem to wanna relive the good old glory days of their party when the GOP was laughingly referred to as the "Loyal Opposition Party" and for them I offer a little musical interlude;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Zf4GNkrXag

Comment by John Tripp on March 25, 2013 at 1:37pm: CONSERVATISM - Every one of us have different levels of social and fiscal concerns. Herein lies our problem. The idea behind the tea paert rallies in '09, and the reason they were so successful, is social consevatism was never mentioned at these rallies, only fiscal conservatism - smaller government and fewer taxes. Social conservatism usually goes with this by default.   For the immediate future, it is my opinion that we must sick to fiscal issues.   Get the pants on first, then we can work on the shoes.

All politics is local, and the polls that stand out to me s the most telling are the ones taken in eachdistrict, asking how they liked their candidate. 90% said they would vote for them again.   I will bet my firt born male child that Olympia Snowe has a monument the size of Lincoln's here in Southern Maine before she dies.   She could have stayed in the Senate for another 24 years if she chose to. The same thing can be said of Collins in the Northern District of Maine.    Snowe quit, and now we have an " Independent ", who was a Democrat, and is left of Marx.

My advicewill be the same in all elections - vote your principles to the max......until the primaries are over ! Then you must vote for the mst fiscally conservative candidate.   I doubt that will ever be a Democrat anyway, but I would have no trouble voting that way if the record shows his worth. I have never been a member of a Party and never will.   For those serious about a third party, it would be much easier to organize a write-in campaign strategy than organizing an official party and all the paperwork and costs that accompanies it. We can't organize a bake sale right now.    It has been suggested that the republican leadership would not just step down.   Of course they wouldn't, that is why there are by-laws in the House and Senate for removing these people.   The class of 2010 tried, but did not have nearly enough clout. If we send them help, maybe in a couple cycles things will look much differently.

In the end, we cannot blame anyone but the electorate who sent these representatives to office, and as long as this system of pork filled omnibus Bills are the S.O.P., the locals will not replace their reps., regardless of how bad they are for the Nation.

Comment by Gary Davis on March 25, 2013 at 12:55pm: "...Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
~Thomas Jefferson~

Comment by Gary Davis on March 25, 2013 at 12:50pm: I do not even want to use the word "Conservative" because, one, I don't want to conserve anything holding us back and, two, it continues to play into the Left's semantic displacement of the word.

This is what I hold to be Classic Liberal values, classic liberal in the sense of our Forefathers, in the sense that I am a citizen and not a subject, that the individual is held in highest regard, not the collective.

My Non-Negotiable Platform:

Your unalienable rights are established by your Creator and are not subject to be given, removed or altered by any man or government. An entitlement is granted by government and is only an entitlement as long as it is granted.

Mankind has the right to self-government, to bear arms for self defense and to own, develop and dispose of property. We have the right to make personal choices, of free conscience and to choose our profession. We have the right to choose a mate and beget our own kind.

We have the right to assemble, to petition and of free speech. We have the right to, but not always the benefit of, a free press.

We have the right to enjoy the fruits of our labor, to explore and develop the natural resources of the earth, to improve our position through barter and sale, the right to contrive and invent.

We have the right to privacy, to personal security and to provide nature's necessities - air, water, food, clothing and shelter. We have the right to contract, to free association, and to a fair trial.

Along with these rights come some public and private duties to maintain those same rights. Forgetting these is where it all began to go horribly wrong.

First, we have the duty to honor the supremacy of the Creator and his laws. The duty not to take the life of another except in self-defense, to not steal or destroy the property of another and to be honest in all transactions with others.

Children have the duty to honor and obey their parents and elders while parents have the duty to protect, teach, feed, clothe and provide shelter for children.

We have the duty to support law and order and to keep the peace, not to contrive through a covetous heart to despoil another, to honorably perform contracts and covenants both with God and man and to not trespass on the property or privacy of another.

We have the duty to provide, to the best of our ability, for the needs of the helpless - the sick, the crippled, the injured, the poverty-stricken. The duty to become economically self-sufficient.

We have the duty to maintain the integrity of the family structure, to perpetuate the human race, to be temperate and to not promote or participate in the vices that destroy personal and community life.

We have the duty to support personal and public standards of common decency, to follow the rules of moral rectitude and to not aid or abet those involved in criminal or anti-social activities.

And we have the duty to perform our civic responsibilities - VOTE, assist public officials, serve in official capacities when called upon, stay informed on public issues, volunteer where needed.

Comment by Suzie (admin) on March 25, 2013 at 12:23pm: If used in a non-political sense, "conservative" simply means "not much."

Comment by Hugh Akston on March 25, 2013 at 12:18pm: Yes I have investigated the third parties on both the left and the right, the Pirate Party, the Pan-sexual Peace Party, and even the Marijuana party.

Most of the Left have single minded one point agendas and are willing to join with others as long as they agree to their one point, Gay rights, legalizing Marijuana and “Natural” milk do not conflict with each other; so they are willing to support each other’s ideas if they get what they want.

Interpretations of the meaning of the Constitution, total liberty, and “Reasonable limits” on rights do conflict; often it is a broad idea that causes the conflicts. Separation of Church and State and Separation of State and Church, have different meanings to many people, conservative values and the place of religion in politics cause many of the divisions on the right.

When ideas conflict, then there is a need for compromise, one concept that we have a problem with. A Local support of third parties and a national support of Republican candidates will not split the mid-term elections; but it will send notice about the next Presidential elections.

I am enjoying this discussion as we have many ideas coming forward, but we do not have a long time to discuss this we need to get started on action.

Suzie raised an important question; “Can we agree on Conservative values?”

What do you hold as nonnegotiable values and what can you say you are willing to compromise on? What do we consider as “Conservative values”?

God Bless.

Comment by L1M89 on March 25, 2013 at 10:34am: @Gary;) Many did as you said "In the last "election" I, too, advised against voting for a third party and diluting the vote. That was then, this is now" for years I've fought against those advocating voting for alternative candidates as to protest the GOP candidates. As you summed up "That was then, this is now" and we're in agreement. Why fight for the GOP when they refuse to fight for their own candidates who're confronted with voter fraud?

'When 1,099 felons vote in race won by 312 ballots'

"a discussion of the 2008 Minnesota Senate race in "Who's Counting?", a new book by conservative journalist John Fund and former Bush Justice Department official Hans von Spakovsky. Although the authors cover the whole range of voter fraud issues, their chapter on Minnesota is enough to convince any skeptic that there are times when voter fraud not only exists but can be critical to the outcome of a critical race.

In the '08 campaign, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman was running for re-election against Democrat Al Franken. It was impossibly close; on the morning after the election, after 2.9 million people had voted, Coleman led Franken by 725 votes.

Franken and his Democratic allies dispatched an army of lawyers to challenge the results. After the first canvass, Coleman's lead was down to 206 votes. That was followed by months of wrangling and litigation. In the end, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes. He was sworn into office in July 2009, eight months after the election.

During the controversy a conservative group called Minnesota Majority began to look into claims of voter fraud. Comparing criminal records with voting rolls, the group identified 1,099 felons -- all ineligible to vote -- who had voted in the Franken-Coleman race.

Minnesota Majority took the information to prosecutors across the state, many of whom showed no interest in pursuing it. But Minnesota law requires authorities to investigate such leads. And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial. "The numbers aren't greater," the authors say, "because the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that they must have been both ineligible, and 'knowingly' voted unlawfully." The accused can get off by claiming not to have known they did anything wrong."

source - http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-wo...

Comment by Suzie (admin) on March 25, 2013 at 10:31am: You know of course the third party will most likely at least split these mid term votes due to the simple fact that folks have choices- they will never choose the same third party- we will just have a bunch of more heavily populated third parties! Good luck with that...

Have you guys researched ALL these third parties! OMG! My Mom used to say "there is an ass for every saddle"...

http://home.conservativepartyusa.org/