Retired Raytheon Engineer Don Woolley is planning to start the Southern Arizona Conservative PAC in Sahuarita, Arizona. Mr. Woolley has been working on getting the paper work completed with the Secretary of State and has a Facebook page.
In an email exchange, Mr. Woolley explained that their concerns are mainly with southern Arizona, but may promote candidates and government legislation on a case-by-case basis. The PAC is open to people who consider themselves conservative despite their political party. He is asking for donations to get the PAC started.
In an email to one of his possible volunteers, he writes, “We will assemble a board from a wide range of folks, not more than 6, with a treasurer and deputy treasurer, and we encourage you to send us candidate’s info so we can survey them individually, of course the first requirement is they have to be conservatives.
“The qualifications are you have to be a conservative, smaller government, lower taxes, more liberty, balanced budget at all levels of government.”
“We are playing the roll out at the end of the week, I will send you an email with Website and Facebook URLs…we have laid the ground work and are anxious to start taking donations, we will be working through Paypal so rest assured everyone’s security will be protected,” he added.
Currently, you can contact the PAC at southernarizonaconservativepac@gmail.com or phone 520-256-5333. Their web site is expected to be online soon.
Posted by John Kabitzke
Last updated 07/07/10 8:30 PM
Please be informed by reading the following on his broken contract with Americans:
Just as report cards keep parents posted on their children’s progress in school, constituents have a tool to let them know how their federal representatives measure up to their oaths to uphold the Constitution.
We should expect high “grades” from them, because it is not difficult to determine whether legislation oversteps the clearly delineated, limited powers of the Constitution. If there is uncertainty, the Bill of Rights tells the government everything else is off limits. Moreover, an oath calls God as witness to the oath-taker’s honesty and integrity. In other words, it is both illegal and immoral to violate the Constitution. Why are so many Representatives bringing home Fs on their report cards? They may mean well, but a Congressman’s good intentions do not fulfill his obligation before God to vote according to the law.
There are a growing number of candidates for Congress who are running in support of the Constitution. Many of them were motivated to become involved as a result of the political phenomenon in the last presidential race that became known as the “Ron Paul Revolution.” But if the GOP establishment has its way, the Republicans who will go to Washington will be of the neocon variety and will offer voters looking for alternatives to the liberal Democrats more of an echo than a choice. The establishment-favored Newt Gingrich is a case in point.
The Republican?
After more than a decade out of the spotlight, Newt Gingrich is once again making headlines as a conservative author and basking in media speculation of his possibility as a presidential candidate. He is busy promoting his conservatively themed books and documentaries while touting firm belief in limited government and personal freedoms. Gingrich’s rhetoric brings back memories of his old days as a staunch proponent of cutting taxes, balancing the budget, reducing bureaucratic regulations, and strengthening national defense.
Just as in those days, Newt Gingrich now positions himself as a conservative. But does his definition of conservative mean loyalty to the Constitution, or loyalty to the establishment? “Understanding the real Newt Gingrich … is essential,” said John F. McManus, president of the John Birch Society and producer of the new DVD The Real Newt Gingrich. “Americans must realize that they are being persuaded to follow false leaders, to put confidence in men who don’t deserve our confidence.” Both Gingrich’s congressional track record and his present activities prove him no better than the current White House occupant.
By introducing moral imagination to the foreign-policy conversation, the Republican candidate is doing the nation an important service.
A dispute has broken out among fans of Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy about whether he’s a strategic liability. Paul, says Kevin Drum, is such a “toxic, far-right, crackpot messenger” that “the only thing he’s accomplishing is to make non-interventionism even more of a fringe view in American politics than it already is.”
It’s certainly true that Paul’s hawkish critics are using his weirder ideas and checkered past to try and make non-interventionism synonymous with creepiness. But, whatever their success, Paul is making one contribution to the foreign policy debate that could have enduring value.
It doesn’t lie in the substance of his foreign policy views (which I’m largely but not wholly in sympathy with) but in the way he explains them. Paul routinely performs a simple thought experiment: He tries to imagine how the world looks to people other than Americans.
Americans completely stripped of all rights under Section 1031
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, December 2, 2011
The Senate last night codified into law the power of the U.S. military to indefinitely detain an American citizen with no charge, no trial and no oversight whatsoever with the passage of S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act.
One amendment that would have specifically blocked the measures from being used against U.S. citizens was voted down and the final bill was passed 93-7.
Another amendment introduced by Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein that attempted to bar the provision from being used on American soil, an effort to ensure “the military won’t be roaming our streets looking for suspected terrorists,” also failed, although Feinstein voted in favor of the bill anyway.
Fellow entrepreneurs, Americans, anyone who still cares about this country at all — this is a must read: By the end of this week, the US government very likely will have the power to lock up US citizens for life at Guantanamo Bay or other military prisons — without charge and without trial. This means that, in the near future, a controversial Twitter post, attending a peaceful protest, or publishing an anti-Congress critique or anti-TSA rant on Google+ could land you “indefinite detention” for life, in the wording of the bill. No access to a lawyer, no access to trial.
Yes, you read that right. This would target American citizens, on American soil. Military personnel would be able to come into your house like something out of a Tom Clancy novel and chopper your innocent self down to Guantanamo Bay for life.
A couple years ago one of my neighbors asked me to accompany her to a tea party meeting at the Maryville, TN library which is about 25 minutes from Knoxville. I said, “Sure, I’d love to go see what they’re doing.” There were several speakers and most of it was boring classroom beginner’s education for those that were just waking up to the fact that we’ve lost our country. We paid our two dollars and sat in the back of the room. The third speaker’s topic was “Where to go for information.” When they showed pictures of websites of Newt Gingrich and Heritage Foundation and others, I just shook my head and got up and left. I was absolutely appalled that any freedom loving American would send an audience of uneducated people into the hands of those that are worse enemies than the obvious Democrat Marxists. Remember folks, “A false friend IS MORE DANGEROUS than an open enemy.”
For several months I’ve mulled over the thought of exposing everyone they suggested, Newt, Heritage, Koch and a plethora of GOP candidates running for election in 2012 for POTUS. In a previous three part article, SAVING THE REPUBLIC?, I exposed a good deal of the Heritage background, but we will need to revisit and explore more deeply the deception of this allegedly conservative think tank which is anything but a constitutional foundation.
First we’ll start with Newt who masquerades as a rightwing conservative but is one of the most dangerous enemies of freedom now hoping to gain the presidency in 2012. Some friends have told me with all the bad press he’s dead in the water, but I saw McCain resurrected, not once but twice to win the primary in the 2008 elections, so we still need to know the truth about Newt.
Last week I commented on the Republican Presidential candidates’ knowledge of the Constitution. In that message I made the statement that the Constitution prevents an Obamacare-style individual mandate regardless of whether it’s implemented by the Federal government or a State government. Many of you responded with the same question: “What part of the U.S. Constitution prevents a State government from imposing an individual mandate?” This message is my response to that question:
The U.S. Constitution imposes upon the Federal government a duty to protect certain rights of individual citizens against intrusion by State government. This duty arises from at least two places in the Constitution: Article IV section 2, and the 14th Amendment.
Article IV section 2 states: “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.”
The 14th Amendment section 1 states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
These sections unquestionably do impose upon the Federal government a duty to protect individual citizens from State violations of certain rights. But, the question is: what rights are protected from State intrusion? That question has been debated since the Constitution was ratified. We fought a war over it, and the question is still being hotly debated. When it’s answered poorly States lose sovereignty, millions of babies are murdered, private property is stolen by States, and many other rights are violated. When it’s answered properly States are prevented from denying free speech, prevented from imprisoning individuals without a jury trial, prevented from disarming their citizens, and prevented from stealing private property. Continue reading “Are we in a prison without bars?” »
CD-1 candidate Wenona Benally Baldenegro has recently focused a lot of time and energy accusing Congressman Paul Gosar of being an extreme tea party Republican. The Huffington Post even covered her campaign with an article titled Arizona’s New Democrats: Wenona’s Bid Inspires Bipartisan Campaign Against Radical Tea Party Rep. Gosar.
Interesting campaign strategy but there’s a huge problem with the premise. Congressman Gosar is anything but a tea party Republican. Yes, he was endorsed by Sarah Palin and yes, he was elected largely due to tea party support but that is where his tea party credibility ends.
Having been very involved with the tea party during the 2010 election, I know firsthand that many in the tea party gave Gosar their complete support based solely on his opposition to the national healthcare bill (and the fact that he waved a pocket Constitution around and promised to consult it before every vote). Few bothered to check any further. If they would have, they would have realized that Gosar is your average status quo Republican who will vote party over principle every single chance he gets. It also would have been clear that Gosar has zero respect for the Constitution, individual rights and personal freedom (perfect example: Gosar was part of a movement a decade ago that tried to force fluoride on the residents of Flagstaff ).
Gosar’s recent vote to raise the debt ceiling along with his votes to extend the “Patriot Act” fly in the face of his supposed tea party principles. These votes (and others) have led to tea party members abandoning the Gosar ship in droves.
It is contempt for the Constitution and the intellectual and spiritual laziness of our so-called representatives that has allowed this atrocious state of affairs to exist under the excuse of confronting a debt the American people do not owe.”
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
August 4, 2011
The so-called debt ceiling crisis has nothing to do with the government running out of money. It is about the creation of a super committee, a council of thirteen, designed to circumvent Congress and ignore the will of the American people.
The ruling elite have a plan to take America down. The takedown has a timeline, a schedule, and it has been interrupted and set back by Congress. Despite the fact Congress usually does whatever the globalists tell them to do, certain members hold up the agenda by holding hearings and introducing resolutions on everything from the Federal Reserve to the globalist wars in the Middle East, South Asia and now Africa.
The handpicked “super Congress” – six members from the Senate, six from the House, and the president forming a committee or gang of 13 – will now push through the elite’s agenda behind closed doors in direct violation of the Constitution.
The Environmental Protection Agency has doled out nearly $100 million in grants to foreign groups and governments over the past decade, according to a new congressional report.
The report from Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee shows the pace of foreign grants has quickened under the Obama administration, with $27 million in EPA funds going abroad since early 2009 — not counting projects in Canada and Mexico. Continue reading “EPA Spent $100M on Foreign Grants in Last Decade, Study Finds” »
The Separation of Church and State poster child—Thomas Jefferson—is quoted as saying, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
The Republican-controlled house has created a list of budget cuts. The White House contends these cuts represent cuts in services that will destroy the lives of every American (paraphrased). It is much better to leave the People destitute and penniless in return for these important services. Continue reading “Budget cuts objectionable to the White House” »
High-ranking congressmen made a concerted effort to financially distance themselves from BP in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, either by reducing or altogether dumping their stock holdings, according to a Center for Responsive Politics analysis of lawmakers’ personal financial disclosure documents released Tuesday.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) gave up all or a significant amount of their holdings in BP after the 2010 spill, which leaked an estimated 205 million gallons of oil in the Gulf of Mexico and killed 11 oil platform crew members in the initial explosion.
Boehner, who in 2009 reported owning BP stocks valued between $15,001 and $50,000, sold all of his holdings sometime in 2010. His documents do not disclose specific dates of his transactions.
And Kerry, who in 2009 owned BP assets valued between $351,003 and $765,000 — the most of any congressmen that year — sold hundreds of thousands in a string of transactions between the months of April and May when the spill occurred. During his two transactions in May, he sold between $100,000 and $250,000 worth of his holdings each time.
“I gave you no choice. That’s the whole, bright mystique of life, isn’t it? Choice. Maybe that’s what the soul is. Choice.”
“Can we live with the loss of it?”
“Perhaps. But I think it would be better to die trying to win it back.”
Outer Limits episode from the sixties. A Feasability Study is the story of a group of humans taken by aliens for the purpose of slavery. Interesting. Our “government” simply uses welfare, taking over the health care system and the PATRIOT act. They’ve already turned their Constitutional duty to coin money and regulate the value thereof to a cabal of private bankers.
February 5, 2012 1906 John Carradine 1920 Frank Muir CBE 1946 Charlotte Rampling 1948 Barbara Hershey 1948 Lord Haden Guest 1948 Sven-Goran Eriksson 1952 Russell Grant 1962 Jennifer Jason Leigh 1966 Jose Maria Olazabal
Have a question concerning the Constitution and your rights? You can try our U.S. Succinct Court Office.. WE ARE NOT LAWYERS and we CANNOT GIVE ADVISE on any case that may be pending for or against you. We can, however, provide links to resources that might answer your questions. Feel free to use our Contact Form.
The Constitutional Republic Party web site is NOT a non-profit organization for tax purposes. We do not provide candidates for office, but we support candidates with Constitutional views. Our current purpose is to provide education about the true purpose of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and other historic documents. We do provide information and news which may have an impact on your Constitutional rights.
We will publish almost any, intelligent articles and opinions that do not contain cursing and do not advocate physical violence against an individual or group of individuals---even if they are belligerent. Those opinions expressed and comments in reply to such opinions are solely those of the authors.
Loading ...
