Minnesota and South Dakota Constitution Party

Super Poster Number of posts : 198 Registration date : 2008-10-04

I am a member of the Constitution Party. However, I don't know of any other Constitution Party members locally. If you are one or would like to discuss the Constitution Party or political issues, reply to this thread.

The national Constitution Party website:
http://www.constitutionparty.com/

The Minnesota Constitution Party website:
http://www.cpmn.org/

The South Dakota Constitution Party website:
http://www.sdakcp.org/

Super Poster Number of posts : 198 Registration date : 2008-10-04

I saw in the October 21, 2008 Watertown Public Opinion there is a Constitution Party candidate running for South Dakota District One House.

Franklin Nelson de Padilla, 44, is a bartender, private investigator and paralegal, has a wife and three kids, and lives in Sisseton.

From Googling him, it appears he was formerly affiliated with the Democratic Party.

Super Poster Number of posts : 198 Registration date : 2008-10-04

The South Dakota Constitution Party was organized by William (Bill) Scott in 1992 as the South Dakota Taxpayers Party.

The South Dakota Constitution Party is very small with perhaps 300 on its mailing list.

Steve Willis is the State Chairman.
Brandon Michaels is the Vice Chairman.

In 2006 Steve Willis ran for South Dakota Governor with Larry Johnsen running for South Dakota Lieutenant Governor on the Constitution Party ticket.

2008 South Dakota Constitution Party candidates include:
Steve Willis - for State Senate in Sioux Falls
Eugene Hidalgo - for PUC
Scott Bartlett - for State Senate in Sioux Falls
Franklin Nelson de Padilla – for District 1 House

Super Poster Number of posts : 198 Registration date : 2008-10-04

This is what my political party says.
Can you believe it?
Can you believe it is true?

SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES
By Darrell L. Castle
Constitution Party 2008 Vice-Presidential Candidate

Crystal water turns to dark
Where ere it’s presence leaves it’s mark
And boiling currents pound like drums
When something wicked this way comes.
(Original poem by Ray Bradbury)

Laws, originally evolving out of the New Deal legislation written in response to the great depression, once protected the American financial system. Starting in the 1990’s, in response to intense lobbying efforts by the financial industry, those laws were stripped away. The most important one was Glass Steagall which separated commercial banking from the type of investment work of a stockbroker. Glass Steagall was signed out of existence in 1999 by President Clinton and less than 10 years later the entire financial system is bankrupt. Another law, known as The Uptick rule, prevented companies from crashing due to large scale shorting of company stock. A company’s stock could not be sold short as long as it was in continuous decline. Short sellers had to wait for an uptick in the stock before shorting. The Uptick Rule ended in 2007 just about one year ago.

The end of the laws protecting the American public from unscrupulous speculators disguised as bankers caused changes in the way our banks do business. The banks decided that simple banking, that is loaning money at interest, was not profitable enough so they began investing in risk paper. This changed them from banks into something akin to casinos. Now that the gamble has finally failed these new casinos are asking the American taxpayer to pick up the tab for their greed and excess.

Now all this risk paper, known in the financial world as “the derivatives market” is collapsing. Derivatives are not stocks or bonds or anything else substantial. They are simply paper derived from other paper such as futures and options. Futures and options are exchange traded derivatives, but the largest group of derivatives is not even traded on the exchanges. These are called “counterparty derivatives” and consist of such things as collateralized debt obligations, mortgage backed securities, and credit default swaps. It is estimated that total derivative exposure of the financial system is between one quadrillion and one and a half quadrillion. A quadrillion is 1000 trillion. To put that in perspective, the entire GDP of all the world’s countries in 2007 was approximately 60 trillion. GDP is basically everything that is produced for sale. The American people are now being asked to shoulder the risk of the entire derivatives market and if they do, 700 billion will prove to be a drop in the bucket.

The rapid increase in the price of fuel during the last year is a good example of the destructive nature of the derivative market. Much of the price increase was due to speculation in futures especially by Goldman Sachs (Henry Paulson’s company) and Morgan Stanley. These companies, it is believed, are responsible for about 50% of the speculative price of oil. What that means is that every time we buy gas we subsidize the parasites who feed off us so they can continue their existence. We are now being asked to accept increased taxes to cover their losses.

Now that this mess has been created, what should be done to resolve it with the least amount of pain for the American People?

1. All failed and at risk financial companies, not just those we constantly read about, should be seized by the F.D.I.C. (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) and put into involuntary Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. The money people have on deposit would carry the same FDIC guarantee as before so there would be no need for panic. The Chapter 11 trustee would examine the assets of these institutions and all derivative paper should be discharged in bankruptcy. The American people should not accept one penny of risk for derivative paper. The real assets such as mortgages on residential real estate should be separated and foreclosure should be indefinitely frozen. The at risk mortgages, whether subprime or not, could be written down to the current value of the property and re-amortized for a payment the homeowner could afford. The mortgage could then be returned to the bank for service or referred to Fannie and Freddie if the bank did not survive Chapter 11.

2. The Federal Reserve Banks should be seized by Congress under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The FED banks could survive as Clearinghouse banks but the Federal Reserve that has robbed the American people for 100 years would cease to exist. The debt owed by the American people to the FED banks would be discharged in bankruptcy. Congress would take monetary policy from the FED and would simply stand in place of the FED through a monetary board. The FED credit computers would be transferred to Congress who would issue new credit (money) because under our present system 97% of all money originates as credit. This new credit would keep the system going and prevent collapse. It could all be done without interest and without debt. The backs of the international banking cartel would be broken forever and the American people through their elected representatives would control monetary policy i.e. money in circulation, interest rates, and credit availability.

3. Glass Steagall and the Uptick Rule should be returned. Speculation in the futures markets of essentials such as fuel, food, and medicine should be banned or at least have a punitive tax say 50% attached.

4. The Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Trustee would immediately move to seize any assets taken by the CEO’s and Boards of Directors from the bankrupt companies during the prescribed time period. No bankruptcy system would allow the CEO of the bankrupt company to keep hundreds of millions as in some of these cases. At the same time, the U.S. Attorney should be directed to examine the process for criminal sanctions where laws have been violated.

In conclusion, this plan would return our monetary system to the American People and ignite a new wave of prosperity and liberty. Every crisis presents opportunities if we only look for them. This is an opportunity for the American people to throw off the yoke of debt bondage that has enslaved them for 100 years and gain direct control of monetary policy through representatives answerable directly to them. No particular philosophy has been respected or spared in this plan. I am more interested in saving the system for the American people than I am in respecting anyone’s philosophy of money or government. This is intended to be a simple, easy to understand, explanation of our banking crisis with a Consitutional solution.

Super Poster Number of posts : 198 Registration date : 2008-10-04

I have an urge to bash Reaganomics.

I remember something about a Rolling Stone magazine article criticizing Reaganomics.

I looked for the article and came across journalist William Greider.

For 17 years Greider was the National Affairs Editor at Rolling Stone magazine, where his investigation of the defense establishment began. He is a former assistant managing editor at the Washington Post, where he worked for fifteen years as a national correspondent, editor and columnist. While at the Post, he broke the story of how David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director, grew disillusioned with supply-side economics and the budget deficits that policy caused, which still burden the American economy.

The Education of David Stockman

William Greider is responsible for several must-read books. If you can get your hands on pretty much anything that Greider wrote in the 80s and 90s you will see that much of it has come to fruition.

Throughout the expanse of William Greider's contribution to the literature of latter 20thy century and early 21st century political and economic discourse, and in his masterpiece One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism in particular, William Greider wastes not a word of his phenomenal mind in deconstructing this persistent myth that indenturing the rest of the world into servitude of the global economic theory postulated by American politicians in debt to the most despicable human beings the world has never known (the owners of Big Business) is the absolutely ideal method by which to better the livelihoods of the vast majority of human beings on this planet.

In addition to One World, he is the author of several best-selling books on politics and economics, including Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country (1987, Winner of the Los Angeles Times Book Award), which remains the definitive popular study of America's central bank and how the Fed steered the U.S. economy through the turbulent politics of the Reagan era in the 1980's; and Who Will Tell the People: The Betrayal of American Democracy (1992), an account of how accountability and responsibility have decayed in the American political system.

Greider's book, Fortress America: The American Military and the Consequences of Peace, was praised by The New York Times Book Review as a landmark work "that should by all rights ignite an urgent national debate." It illuminates the seldom-addressed yet critical economic policies and philosophies that govern U.S. armed forces and strategies for global security.

Does anyone here think William Greider is wrong?

If William Greider is right, shouldn’t drastic action be taken?

Super Poster Number of posts : 198 Registration date : 2008-10-04

Was Reaganomics a success or a failure?

When did the USA quit using Reaganomics?

Does George W. Bush use Reaganomics today, and why or why not?

Super Poster Number of posts : 198 Registration date : 2008-10-04

This is what my political party says:

Obama - McCain Meeting Shows “Not A Dime’s Worth Of Difference” Between Two

The “Fix” Is In: Same-Old–Same-Old Two Party Charade

Lancaster, PA, (November 17,2008) The Constitution Party (www.constitutionparty.com), America’s fastest- growing third party, points out Monday’s meeting between president-elect Barack Obama and former GOP rival John McCain (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27764127/) shows the striking similarity of both candidates when it comes to the issues.

Obama promised that his meeting with McCain was to “have a good conversation about how we can do some work together to fix up the country.”

Constitution Party National Committee Chairman Jim Clymer said, “It’s ludicrous to hear Obama say he and McCain can talk about “fixing-up” the country when both these candidates supported the disastrous so-called “bailouts” which can do no such thing.”

Clymer added, “To think that the American people fell for the ‘two party’ ruse thinking all along they were actually voting for any politically distinct ideology is absurd.”

During Monday’s meeting with McCain, Obama said, “"We shouldn't worry about the deficit next year or even the year after. ...”

“It’s precisely that kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place”, Clymer, noted.

The Constitution Party challenged voters during the election to show any measurable difference between the two candidates on issues like illegal immigration, second amendment gun-owner rights, taxation, foreign intervention, unconstitutional wars and job-destroying “free-trade” schemes like NAFTA and GATT.

During Monday’s meeting, president-elect Obama pledged to ‘restore America ’s moral standing in the world”.

“This statement comes from the U.S. Senate’s most rabid pro-abort”, said Clymer. “If Obama was so determined to ‘restore America ’s moral standing in the world” he would have started in Illinois . He would not have fought so hard to defeat the ‘Born Alive Infant Protection Act’.” (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647) That legislation offered babies who survived late term abortions humane care until their death.

“Obama apparently thinks infanticide is A-ok, at least during the first few hours post birth, and now he has the audacity of hope for “moral standing” in the world?” Clymer asked.

The Constitution Party’s candidate for president, Chuck Baldwin, was the only candidate for president who was pro-life, pro-secure borders and pro-2^nd amendment. Baldwin opposed the “bailouts”, challenged the constitutionality of the war in Iraq and promoted the abolishment of the Federal Reserve and IRS . Baldwin was on the ballot in 37 states.

Super Poster Number of posts : 198 Registration date : 2008-10-04

I would like to see some political discussion on the forum, and it looks like I have to get some from off the forum, so I attempted to engage in discussion with Bob Ellis of the Dakota Voice blog which is conservative Republican:

I just discovered Dakota Voice. I was looking for an online South Dakota Republican willing to discuss the Republican Party, and it seems like it is somewhat hard to communicate with Pat Powers of South Dakota War College. I am an ex-Republican member of the South Dakota Constitution Party. I have some questions for you about Reaganomics. I have been posting on a local forum and I would like to post your answers there, as I think it would be good to discuss the Republican Party, and so far nobody on the forum has dared to defend it.

Was Reaganomics a success or a failure?

When did the USA quit using Reaganomics?

Does George W. Bush use Reaganomics today, and why or why not?

Super Poster Number of posts : 198 Registration date : 2008-10-04

I got a reply from Bob Ellis from the Dakota Voice blog.

He said he agrees with almost all of the Constitution Party platform but hasn’t given up on the Republican Party yet. He admits that right now the Republican Party is in terrible shape, but he thinks that the bulk of conservatives will not go to another Party until the tipping point arrives. He thinks that the Republican Party is the best hope conservatives have of stopping or slowing down the socialists in the Democratic Party.

He thinks that Reaganomics lowered taxes. He would like to see more de-regulation of the free market. He would like to have a flat tax or a sales tax that would be more fair than the “stick-it-to-the-rich” Marxist taxation system we have now.

I emailed back to Bob Ellis of the Dakota Voice blog:

I guess the Republicans lost some seats to Democrats this election, and I am not generally proud of the Republicans who are in office, so what have you got to lose by joining the Constitution Party which you should be able to believe in more than the Republican Party?

Of all the Republicans you know, isn't there one who would be willing to defend the Republican Party to me?

Super Poster Number of posts : 198 Registration date : 2008-10-04

I emailed my questions to Gideon Oakes of SD Shovel which claims to dig up the best of the South Dakota conservative blogosphere:

I just discovered SD Shovel. I was looking for an online South Dakota Republican willing to discuss the Republican Party, and it seems like it is somewhat hard to communicate with Pat Powers of South Dakota War College. I am an ex-Republican member of the South Dakota Constitution Party. I have some questions for you about Reaganomics. I have been posting on a local forum and I would like to post your answers there, as I think it would be good to discuss the Republican Party, and so far nobody on the forum has dared to defend it.

Was Reaganomics a success or a failure?

When did the USA quit using Reaganomics?

Does George W. Bush use Reaganomics today, and why or why not?

Super Poster Number of posts : 198 Registration date : 2008-10-04

I got a reply from Bob Ellis of Dakota Voice. He said that Pat Powers of South Dakota War College is probably more died-in-the-wool loyalist Republican than he is.

Personally, I think Pat Powers of South Dakota War College is a bad example for conservatives to emulate.

I told Bob Ellis:

Here is South Dakota War College.

Do you find a way on it to contact Pat Powers without having to reply to a blog?

Reaganomics intended to stimulate the economy by reducing taxes, but how does that make sense when the national debt is increasing? The national debt will have to be paid off sooner or later, and the sooner the better. Anybody who doesn't admit the national debt has to be paid off is making a bad situation worse.

Super Poster Number of posts : 198 Registration date : 2008-10-04

I sent Bob Ellis of Dakota Voice some further questions:

I once answered a question on a forum: “Is God right wing?”
I said: “Yes. Morally and socially AND economically.”
Another guy had answered “If we are using modern American political conventions of right wing-left wing, then obviously morally and socially He would be, but not economically.”
Would you say he was wrong?

Is de-regulation of the free Market always a good thing?

What do you mean we have a “stick-it-to-the-rich” Marxist taxation system? Do you consider yourself one of the rich?

Isn’t it dumb to wait for the Republican Party to reach the tipping point? The Republican Party has had plenty of time to get its act together.

Super Poster Number of posts : 198 Registration date : 2008-10-04

I sent questions to Steve Sibson of Sibby Online.

I am an ex-Republican member of the South Dakota Constitution Party. I have some questions for you about Reaganomics. I have been posting on a local forum and I would like to post your answers there, as I think it would be good to discuss the Republican Party, and so far nobody on the forum has dared to defend it.

Was Reaganomics a success or a failure?

When did the USA quit using Reaganomics?

Does George W. Bush use Reaganomics today, and why or why not?

Super Poster Number of posts : 198 Registration date : 2008-10-04

I sent Bob Ellis of Dakota Voice another question:

I missed asking you a good question: What part of the Constitution Party platform don't you agree with?

Lightninboy, I count 14 posts on this thread and they are all yours.

This is a forum, not a blog. In a blog you can write to your hearts content on whatever subject you want. In a forum people converse about various topics of interest.

When you make a post and no one posts a reply that usually means they aren't interested in the topic you started. This then does not become a license to continue to post on the same thread. If people are not engaging in dialog with you on this forum you need to take it someplace where they will.

There are many threads in this forum that never have replies.

You seem to think that discussing Reaganomics is important. You are entitled to your opinion. Just because other people don't reply doesn't mean that people on this forum don't "dare to defend it." It may mean that other people like me don't have any interest in discussing it. To be honest many people work and cannot take the time to reply. Not everyone can spend the day in front of the computer. Most people have a life you know.

A thread was started some days ago about the concern that President-elect Obama has not proven that he is a natural born citizen. It was an important subject but there were no replies for over 20 days and it was not appropriate to stand up on a soapbox in the meantime and continue to badger people about it.

Perhaps both subjects are important. That does not change the fact that if people are not replying it is not appropriate to continue posting in a one-sided conversation.

If no one wants to talk about Reaganomics then pick up your toys and go play somewhere else. You started you own forum, use it. You can make your own rules. Here it is not appropriate to keep posting on a thread about conversations that you have with other people. If they want to talk on the forums then let them. If they don't then take the hint.

If you have news to update a thread that is one thing. All you appear to be doing here is to try to bully or cajole people into a discussion that nobody seems to want.

What you are doing in this thread is writing a blog, aka journal, aka diary.
That is not appropriate, judge

cease and desist.

Super Poster Number of posts : 198 Registration date : 2008-10-04

Then why don't you reply? Don't you care about the country?

Subject: Thread locked for inappropriate posting. Tue Nov 25, 2008 7:12 am

Here again we have another example of manipulation.

You start off with a question that had already been answered. I stated in the previous post why I or other people may not be replying. Then you turn around and ask me why I don't reply. In any discussion one has to listen to the other side and then formulate a response. You obviously didn't listen if you have to ask "why."

In your second sentence is the manipulation. "Don't you care about your country?" That statement is made to cause an emotional response in an opponent and make them engage in conversation in order to prove that they do care about their country. A ploy often used in politics that is tiresome and annoying for the public to have to be subjected to when they listen to the media.

Again you weren't listening to my previous post. I stated that President-elect Obama may not be qualified to be president. He has not shown that he is a natural born citizen. It is possible that he may be an illegal alien as he has never produced documentation to show that he is an American citizen and there is evidence to suggest that he is not. People pick the subject they want to discuss that they feel is most important. Choosing one subject
over another doesn't mean that people don't "care about your country."

I warned you that all you seem to be doing was to try to bully or cajole people into a discussion, and here you are in your next post doing that very thing.

We are planning to have some forum workshops in the future and I would suggest you consider attending them in order to learn forum etiquette. When you started this thread it was informative to read about the Constitution Party. The links you provided were helpful to anyone wanting to know more about it. Then you continued to post inappropriately. For that reason this thread is now locked.