An open letter to Jim Clymer and the Constitution Party National Committee

Dear Mr. Clymer and the Constitution Party National Committee,

Recent events in the Constitution Party and actions by its National Committee have caused me to withdraw my support therein. On at least two occasions the Constitution Party has failed to uphold its platform and principles. First, the primary cause of my discontentment is the national committee’s failure to uphold its platform in regard to abortion. A party such as the Constitution Party was founded on moral principals and a desire for restoration to Biblical and Godly civil government, which adheres to our founding charters and the Constitution of the United States. The National Party has failed to uphold its stance on the issue of abortion. The only Biblical standpoint is a 100% pro-life position, which has been rejected for the sake of appeasement.

The second error in judgment made by the Constitution Party, as expressed in a recent letter, is its apparent support of Jim Gilchrist as a presidential candidate in the upcoming 2008 election. There are several reasons this is a mistake and should immediately be corrected. Primarily, Mr. Gilchrist has been a supporter of the illegal, Un-Constitutional, undeclared Iraq conflict. Comments by Mr. Gilchrist have shown he has supported President Bush’s policy in Iraq, which is in direct conflict with the Constitution Party’s platform of congressionally declared war. Secondly, Mr. Gilchrist has given questionable, ignorant, and indecisive comments regarding abortion and its illegality. If the Constitution Party is serious about its platform and principles, it should recognize Mr. Gilchrist is merely a disenfranchised Republican who talks tough on illegal immigration and should reject any effort to place him on the ballot representing the Constitution Party.

For these reasons I can no longer give my support to the national party or any candidate who chooses to run under its banner. To remedy the present quagmire, in which the national party has embroiled itself, it must begin by disaffiliating any state party who refuses to uphold the national party platform, as the Nevada affiliate has recently done. Furthermore, the party must position itself to run Biblically and Constitutionally qualified candidates as it did in the 2004 presidential election with Michael Anthony Peroutka.

In a recent letter issued by Mr. Clymer, the Constitution Party asks for a financial contribution to further the party’s agenda. For the aforementioned reasons, I can no longer support the party financially or ideologically. In a political atmosphere where centrism and compromise are prevalent, the Constitution Party has fallen in line with the two major parties seeking to abandon Biblical and Constitutional government for the sake of empirical victories. It is my hope and prayer the party returns to its principles and upholds its platform and that I may return my support to a vehicle which once so accurately reflected my political beliefs.

Liberty through His Grace,

Jordan L. Clark

Hugo Chavez should be banned from the United Nations

As many of you may know, I am no fan of our current president, George W. Bush. However, recent comments by Hugo Chavez towards our president are simply unacceptable. Let me begin by saying that I'm not defending Bush or his policies, rather his position as our president and thus head of state. In a recent speech to the United Nations, Chavez called Bush "the devil" and made other comments and gestures insulting the president. Many delegates found this humorous and enjoyed Chavez's speech.

He should have been ejected from the room and banned from the United Nations.

The reason for this is not the content of Chavez's comments; George W. Bush may in fact be the devil or one of his agents, but rather the time and place where the words were spoken. On an international platform in a formal setting, Chavez insulted our president in an unacceptable manner. I'm not even angry that Chavez chose the United Nations as the place to express his discontent, but calling names is simply childish and rude. Then again, maybe he took a look at hardcore liberals and right wing nuts here in America who do the same?

But why has the administration not responded and done something? After all, Venezuela is a rather weak country economically and militarily (comparatively), so why not issue embargos or at least some mean rhetoric? A seemingly unrelated question, but the same answer, why are we in Iraq? You guessed it, black gold, Texas tea, oil! Venezuela currently controls 12% of the world's oil output and any sudden interruption in their supply would cause an immediate increase in U.S. gas prices of .25-.30 cents. That's not much but enough to incite the wrath of the entitled American public.