Yeah thats exactly how I was looking at it. The party of limited government got voted into power after 40 years back in 94 and with slim majorities for the better part of 12 years they ended up spending more money than the democrats did under reagan and bush 41. I wasnt old enough to vote back in 94 so I dont feel like I was a part of that whole wave of conservatism but I do feel like the republican party started listening to the pundits and the main stream media who were telling them to moderate their position and theyd get more votes. So they vacated the premises known as conservatism and followed bush 43's plan blindly. I dont want a party that will follow its leader blindly if that leader is leading them off a cliff. I am not a lemming and I refuse to put my head down and follow blindly so that the party can win an election and take the power back. Look what they did with the power last time they had it! They went from conservatives for the first 6 years to democrats for the second 6 years. I mean hell they showed us that they could balance the budget and even got us a surplus in 7 years. All that while the mainstream media said that they were cutting school lunches and social security and it was going to be the end of the world as we know it. The problem was their ship hit the rocks when bush got elected as a "compassionate conservative" and they chose to blindly obey his liberal ideas and not stick to their conservative ideals. The last republican president who had some thing similar going on was nixon. He started the EPA to appease the hippies and to help his poll numbers during the vietnam war. Now the EPA is saying that co2 (you know the stuff that you breathe out and makes up 3% of the atmosphere) is a danger to us all and should be regulated. Thanks nixon ... you see what appeasement gets you?! But I digress.

If the tea party'ers and the 9/12ers dont unify under a single banner we will be less than 1/350th of the population and our voice will fade into the background noise during election time. Its fine to think independently but that thinking should lead you to a party to vote for so that your voice can be added to that choir so that more people will hear you all. Rush Limbaugh said not to join a third party because then the democrats would win all the elections till a third party could gain enough steam to over take them. Which is true but the republicans have already done a good job of alienating their own base as it is and their seeking to moderate even more.

see thats the same issue I was wrestling with the last couple of years. Vote for a party thats lost its way but used to stand for what I stand for or vote for a small third party that hasnt and not win the election. In the end I gave the republicans one more vote and then left. I dont see that much of a difference between the two major parties anymore. Both mccain and obama wanted cap and trade and green jobs. both supported the tarp bailout and Id be willing to bet the only difference between them would have been that mccain wouldnt have gone so far as to take over GM and the nation's healthcare system. Glenn showed a graph that showed both parties losing members and independents growing to almost 40% of the country. If we (as in the constitution party) could get the word out to those disenfranchised 40% there would be quite a few people putting a (C) behind their name in office. But if you vote for the republicans and they ignore you and the other 90% of the country like they did with the tarp bailout do you still vote for someone who's going to ignore you? I cant.

They've been growing since their creation in 92 i think it was. If you only get one chance to succeed as a party then the republicans will never win another seat in any election. Its a process of growth to get to the point where a party gains national acceptance. It will take time to get disenfranchised republicans and libertarians to join the constitution party but it will happen... Im living proof. I wrestled with leaving the republicans for the past 2 years. But in the end I decided its better to vote for a party that shares my principles than a party that pays them lip service.

What you say is true but I am a skeptic that all states would follow suit an make them illegal and then we get into the whole can of worms of what states can have what drugs and can you transport cocaine from mexico to montana through texas and all the other states if texas says cocaine is illegal? It just makes more sense to leave the drug laws the way they are. But overall the constitution party is the best party for me and I hope more of the 912'ers.

i love this mindless argument. those who have chosen to commit a crime and get shot doing it or use a gun to commit a crime made a choice. Tell me when a baby in the womb gets to make a choice on whether it lives or dies? The mother makes that choice based on convenience not on whether or not the little miracle growing inside her has a right to live... you know right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and all that... that doesnt matter cause just like black people a hundred years ago fetuses (or is that fetii?) arent people [edit] in the eyes of the supreme court. Its interesting that the Rowe in Rowe v. Wade is now against abortion... but the supreme court has held its leftist belief that because they decided something based on the passing fancy of a woman it should stand forever as law. even though theres nothing in the constitution about the right to choose whether or not to be a mother which would make rowe v. wade unconstitutional in the very least. The right to life is an inalienable right held by all and that right begins at conception. But people can forfeit that right by committing a crime that warrants the death penalty. [/edit]

hmmm... "religion of peace" huh? I would also like to point out that there is no religious requirement for the presidency. It does speak volumes that Obama couldnt come out as a muslim and denied that hes a muslim to win public office. I mean he really just wanted the power of the presidency at any cost and wasnt going to stop at anything till he got it. If you recall his college tuition was paid for by a muslim who either co-founded or financially supported the black panthers... some were probably wondering how a kid who grew up poor and being home schooled could afford to go to NYU and Harvard law school. Well thats how. Hes been a recipient of muslim money all his life and I'd be willing to bet that now that he has the power of the presidency he will use that to hold the military back while Iran and several muslim terrorist groups gain power and possibly attack Israel and maybe even us. If they attack us that will be a way for him to claim that we need to have more government control of the (insert method of bomb delivery here).

The problem with the two major parties is that they are essentially two sides of the same coin. As Glenn says its progressive and progressive light. The power comes from the people and is loaned to the federal government for the purposes of keeping us bound loosely together and keeping us safe from insurrection and invasion. The local government should be the most influential on your life and the federal government should be the least. But if you vote for either of the two major parties you are getting bigger government its just a matter of the speed at which you get it. In Glenn's example of the total government to no government line he makes his line vertically to illustrate where we are when his demarcation line should be slanted in all honesty... to illustrate the slight difference between the two parties. Also we are no longer a democratic republic we are an oligarchy (rule by a few). We have the president firing CEOs and saying that we cant keep spending money like we are so thats why we need nationalized healthcare. the congress (like under bush till jan 2007) willingly does exactly what the president wants no matter if they take the time to read the bill or not. The republicans all of a sudden sprang back to life as the conservatives that the were supposed to be (aka the party of "no") but its a little too late for me because they turned into democrats as soon as they got power and balanced the budget.

So if you still vote for one of the two major parties you are really just perpetuating the problems we already have. Thats why we all need to unite under a third party that is dedicated to real government limitation. I was seriously looking at the libertarian party but they want to legalize drugs (maybe not all of them but bob barr did) and dont seem bent on shrinking government to its enumerated powers, and I just couldnt get behind that. So I found the constitution party which wants to keep drugs illegal and repeal the 16th and 17th amendments and shrink the government to what it was intended to be. They are the only 100% pro gun 100% pro life and 100% secure border party in existence. That's why I believe everyone should join the constitution party. It literally seeks exactly what the tea parties and the 912project want to accomplish and then some.

Yes in 38 (I think) states. His name was Chuck Baldwin. He received a little over 100,000 votes nationwide. This was also before I actually joined the party (I just joined it a month ago) so I voted for McCain. Plus the constitution party isnt on the ballot in NC so I would have had to write in anyway. It took me many hours of self debate and debate online with friends to decide whether or not I'd switch parties for the 08 election or not. I ended up not switching because I wanted to try to stop obama from being elected and while I wasnt voting FOR someone I believed in whole heartedly and I was voting for the lesser of 2 evils.

In the end the constitution party (http://www.constitutionparty.com) is the only 100% pro gun, 100% pro life and 100% secure border party out there and they embody everything that the conservatives in the republican party have been espousing to be for decades. The problem is the conservatives like Rush and Sean dont want to leave the party for a 3rd party that will not win any major election for decades. They want to be able to enact policies and you cant do that if you arent the party in power. Which makes perfect sense but I couldnt put up with the republican leadership saying "we need to be more like the democrats" and "we need to moderate our stance to be more inclusive" when that was the problem in the first place! LOL So I left and now I feel like Im part of the solution to big government spending rather than trying to get the republicans to adhere to their founding principles (and those of the country) when they get elected.

Oh and Call me Arin

Not to get off topic but

That is exactly why I joined the constitution party Betsy. The government needs to go back to its founding principles and cut out all the socialistic spending. Weve been on this path since the turn of the last century and it doesnt matter which party you vote for (though republicans have traditionally spent less) we keep hearing that this is a crisis and the government is the only thing big enough to solve the problem. The government caused the problem and the only reason its big enough to solve the problem is because weve slowly voted over time to give it more and more power so that its gotten too big to fail itself. Thats why I joined the constitution party. They want to return the constitution to its rightful place in the government as the rule book or the instruction manual. The only reason I didnt become a libertarian is because a lot of libertarians want to legalize drugs and I just cant get behind that.

On topic though, we have given them what 12 or 13 provinces back? out of 16... so we are really effectively out of there already (and this was before the messiah was elected). Iraq like Israel knows it just has to call the pentagon and we'll send help should something go wrong... well in theory we will. Thats assuming they can get enough politicians to agree on the idea.

Hi Steve,

I understand your point on this issue but I would like to turn your attention to the 22nd amendment. Thats the amendment limiting the president to two 4 year terms. So unless you want to repeal that amendment and let a president serve as long as he/she can get re elected, I believe we need to add congress to the list of people who are limited to a certain number of terms (6 for the house and 2 for the senate so that its 12 years each maybe). If people didnt just go in and vote for the same guy they always do we wouldnt have people like Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in office still. The founding fathers didnt include presidential term limits either but we have them so why not include congress?