Constitution Party of Massachusetts

Unbeleiveable! Just this morning I saw the article posted on the Drudge Report. I still cannot believe it. The article reports on Chelsea Clinton, daughter of Senator Hillary Clinton, touring prominent gay bars in PA.

If you have the stomach, go ahead and read this article on msnbc - http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/19/921148.aspx

Given the choice between Hillary and Obama, and cannot understand how any devoted Christian can remain a member of the Democratic Party. Already in Congress there have been attempts made to force a radical homosexual agenda on the American people, and yes, even our churches and religous organizations. If either Hillary and Obama are elected, I suspect that not only will we see more of such legislation proposed, but even passed with support from the White House. Of course, this is all done in the name of tolerance, love and acceptance.

Christians need to wake up and see what is going on in the world around us, Burying our heads in the sand and waiting for the rapture is not what Christ would have us to do. We need more pastors, churches and believers willing to stand up for righteousness. We cannot afford to be silent.

More than just a political statement for “family values,” we must be willing to declare sin to be just that, sin. This world needs to know they have offended a sovereign, holy God who tells us the wages of this sin is death. Only then can we share with them the wondrous truth about the gospel. Without a knowledge of sin there is no need of a saving of any kind from it.
This is a message that will not be heard in any political campaign or press release. Pastors, Churches and Christians need to start doing their job once again. When high-profile presidential candidates and government officials can take such offensive actions, how can the church remain silent? Who else is there to voice their outrage?

We have allowed issues such as homosexuality and abortion to become merely political issues instead of theological and moral issues. The Bible has much to say on both of these issues. Matters of human sexuality, orientation and certainly matters of life and death are absolutely issues that Scripture addresses and our Lord has given commands concerning. Yet, they have become merely political issues in the minds of most Americans simply because politicians are the only ones speaking about them! Again, America’s pulpits have remain silent, by and large.

Where is the modern-day John the Baptist who stand firm against the immorality of modern day Herods? If Christians will not declare the truth against sin, who will? Christians, wake up!

Kevin Thompson is an Assistant Pastor in MA, a former candidate for the US House of representatives, as well as a member of the Constitution Party of Massachusetts state committee. You can visit his website at www.kevinjthompson.info, read his blog at http://kevinjthompson.wordpress.com, or listen to him weekly on the Understanding our Times internet radio broadcast at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/understandingourtimes.

by James N. Clymer
Chairman, Constitution Party National Committee

Today marks the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. Since January 22, 1973 more than 50 million babies have been murdered in the womb under the guise of granting “reproductive choice” to their mothers.

On this date, the country’s only national pro-life political party (Sanctity of Life Platform Plank) calls attention to the carnage that results in approximately 3,700 dead babies each day. (http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html )

The Constitution Party remains committed to ending the slaughter and returning to a government dedicated to protecting the life and liberty of all citizens.

If you are a conservative Christian still thinking of voting for Mitt Romney, PLEASE visit this website.

As we know, Mitt Romney has been all over the place when it comes to abortion. When he ran for the Senate against Ted Kennedy he was unashamedly pro-choice (pro-death). When he ran for governor, he was still pro-choice. Now that he is running for President, suddenly he is pro-life. This article is very important to read because Romney himself has asked us to just look at his record while governor here.

I think the only thing we can say about Romney is that he is multiple choice.

http://republicansforfamilyvalues.com/2008/01/19/romney-care-lists-abortion-as-a-covered-benefit/

For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. – II Timothy 1:7

Earlier this week, Dr. Bob Jones, III officially endorsed Mitt Romney for President. Quite frankly, I am shocked and appalled at this decision. I have the utmost respect for Dr. Bob and for Bob Jones University. However, this endorsement is irresponsible.

I think what I find most shocking about this is the reasoning behind it. Dr. Bob said, “This is all about beating Hillary.” He went on to add, “If it turns out to be Guiliani and Hillary, we’ve got two pro- choice candidates, and that would be a disaster.”

This is what I call the politics of fear. Because we fear a supposedly evil person, we will stop at nothing, including the compromise of principles and conviction, to prevent their election. Often times, we decide to back a lesser evil person who we deem not as bad. Of course the problem is that the lesser of two evils is still evil.

That is what Dr. Jones is clearly guilty of. He deems Hillary and Rudy to be so scary, he has decided to back a flip-flopping cultist responsible for legalizing homosexual marriage here in Massachusetts. Is this really something the Lord would want us to do?

The Bible tells us that we have not been given a spirit of fear. But, one thing we have been given is a sound mind. A sound mind does not make decisions based on fear or polling data, but on prayer, Biblical principal and Scriptural convictions. A sound mind is not easily led astray by anxious worry neither is it bullied into bad decisions by bad situations.

As Christians, we do what is right and leave the consequences to our sovereign, Almighty Lord. We are not to do what is right only when we think the consequences will be favorable. We do not know how the Lord will work.

People think the election of Hillary Clinton would be the worst thing ever to happen. Therefore drastic measures, even the abandonment of principle, are in order. Let us remember that Christianity flourished under the persecution of evil Roman dictators such as Nero. God Himself declares in Romans 9 that He raised up the wicked Egyptian Pharaoh for His purpose. God is not limited or His work thwarted by any human ruler. “The king‘s heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.” – Proverbs 21:1.

Of course, another thing we must consider is the false dilemma Jones creates in the first place. Jones suggested we would only be limited two one of two options – Rudy or Hillary. That is not a true dilema. There will be other candidates on the ballot. Yet, again, because Jones deems these to be the only credible candidates, they are the only options available.

I am a member of the Constitution Party, America’s third largest party. Our motto is “principles over politics.” We will offer a true alternative to either party’s candidates. We are a party that is 100% pro-life, against gay marriage or civil unions, and will fight for the freedoms and liberties that we as Christians hold dear. On top of that, we are the only party still dedicated to upholding the Constitution.

It has been my experience that most Christians agree with our party in principle, but still feel the need to vote for one of the major party candidates. This is out of pragmatism, not principle. Again, the politics of fear.

Notice that Dr. Bob does not even take third parties into consideration, or even one of the other Republican candidates such as Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter or Mike Huckabee. We often complain about the lack of choices we have in elections like this. Yet, we have exactly the political atmosphere we have voted for. As long as Christians are willing to vote for pro-abortion candidates, that’s what we will get. As long as we continue to reject pro-life, Christian candidates(because they are third party or not top-tier), the less we will have to choose from. We have what we vote for.

Many people wish Republicans would start acting like Republicans. I just wish Christians would start voting like Christians. If we would simply start to vote our consciences, we would see a dramatically different political landscape.

As one who has run for office (with the Constitution Party), I can testify that there are more people out there that believe as we do than most people are aware of. We often assume that in places such as liberal New England, Christians cannot make a difference. But as one who has been out there on the campaign trail, I know that not to be true. Remember, that in many elections, most people do not vote. In my election, which received a lot of press attention, only 30% of voters came out to the polls. That means we still do not know what 70% of voters actually believe. What I came to see was that many people agreed with my views, yet simply believed nothing could be done and stayed home on election day. Those who did cast their votes yet were too willing to waste their votes on candidates who did not stand where they would stand. Yes, we can make a difference – if we are willing to pay the price to do that.

However, even if the Christian vote meant nothing, Christians still ought to vote like Christians. It is the right thing to do regardless of the perception or result. I wish someone like Dr. Bob Jones, III would take a stand for righteousness and not for pragmatism.

Kevin Thompson
http://kevinjthompson.wordpress.com

By Chuck Baldwin
April 27, 2007
 

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070427.html
 

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the so-called Partial Birth Abortion ban passed by Congress in 2003 and signed into law by President George W. Bush. Pro-life conservatives around the country are enthusiastically hailing this ruling as a first step toward reversing the infamous 1973 Roe v Wade decision, which legalized abortion on demand.
 
For example, Rev. Frank Pavone voiced the support of Priests for Life saying, “We are grateful to all who worked so hard to pass this law and to educate the public about this unspeakably violent procedure.”
 
Dr. Paul Schenck, Executive Director of the National Pro-Life Action Center on Capitol Hill said, “In its opinion, the Court today has begun to right a terrible wrong.”
 
Troy Newman, leader of Operation Rescue, said the decision was “another in a string of recent victories for the pro-life movement.” He went on to say, “This is the first legal crack in the crumbling Roe v Wade foundation, and is the first, necessary step toward banning the horrific practice of abortion in this nation.”
 
In a press release, the Christian Coalition of America said, “With today’s Supreme Court decision, it is just a matter of time before the infamous Roe v Wade decision in 1973 will also be struck down by the court.”
 
I, too, am happy to see that the Supreme Court has upheld the illegality of certain Partial Birth Abortions, which are actually more correctly identified as infanticides. After all, since the Roe decision in 1973, over 40 million little innocent, unborn babies have been mercilessly, but legally, slaughtered in the wombs of their mothers. So, any ruling that has the result of limiting the legal killing of babies is a positive development.
 
However, I only wish I could be as enthusiastic about the Court’s PBA decision as the others quoted in this column, but I am not. I certainly do not believe this is the beginning of the end for abortion on demand in America. Actually, I fear that this decision serves only to further augment abortion on demand in the legal framework of America.
 
For one thing, the ruling clearly distinguishes between abortion and infanticide and concludes that Partial Birth Abortion actually qualified as infanticide, which was never legalized in the Roe decision. Of course, this is correct, but stop and think about it: In an attempt to accommodate the Roe decision, physicians, mothers, and the various states and communities in which these procedures took place were allowed to commit this type of infanticide (without encumbrance or prosecution) for over thirty years.
 
Thirty years of Republican domination of the Supreme Court. Thirty years of electing myriads of “pro-life” Republicans to the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. Thirty years of promises. Thirty years of fundraising by scores of “pro-life” groups. And now, thirty years later, what we have is the U.S. Supreme Court limiting, not abortion, but infanticide.
 
For example, in responding to the euphoria of many pro-life groups’ claiming that the PBA decision has begun the legal process of overturning Roe, the Mobile Press-Register said, “The court has done no such thing; and in the majority opinion, justices pointed out that the ban doesn’t violate a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy.” The Press-Register got it exactly right.
 
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy (a faithful defender of abortion rights) said, “The Act allows, among other means, a commonly used and generally accepted method, so it does not construct a substantial obstacle to the abortion right.”
 
Did you get that? The justice writing the majority opinion said that the ruling “does not construct a substantial obstacle to the abortion right.”
 
At this point, it would be very helpful for everyone in the pro-life community, including those from groups mentioned above, to read Pastor Bob Enyart’s excellent analysis of this ruling. Go to:
 
http://www.covenantnews.com/enyart070424.htm
 
Pastor Enyart points out that not only does the Partial Birth Abortion ban not stop any legal abortions, it does not even stop all Partial Birth Abortions. In his lengthy review of the Court’s ruling, he notes that even a Partial Birth Abortion may be performed as long as the baby has not been delivered past its navel.
 
You read it right. This ruling authorizes the abortionist to take the baby out of the mother’s womb up to the point where the baby’s navel is visible and still perform his dastardly work of killing the baby. And there is more.
 
The bill even authorizes the abortionist to kill the partially-delivered baby if the baby has been delivered past its navel, if the baby passed the “critical point by accident or inadvertence.” (p. 18 III, A)
 
Of course, this means that late-term abortions are still legal in the United States. Therefore, how can pro-life groups really believe this ruling is the precursor to Roe’s demise?
 
We know that Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia have already expressed willingness to possibly overturn Roe. I believe Samuel Alito might also be willing to overturn Roe. Chief Justice John Roberts is yet unknown on this issue. As for Kennedy, forget it. He would never vote to overturn Roe.
 
Therefore, as the Court is currently configured, we are at least one vote, and maybe two, short of the five necessary to overturn Roe v Wade at the Supreme Court level.
 
However, as I have already pointed out in this column, Congress could have already overturned Roe anytime it wanted to. It could have exercised its authority found in Article III. Section. 2. of the U.S. Constitution and removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court. Consider, too, that both houses of Congress and the White House were controlled by “pro-life” Republicans from 2001 through 2006, and nothing was done to end abortion on demand.
 
As it is, “pro-life” groups around the nation are hailing this latest Supreme Court ruling as the beginning of the end for abortion on demand. I only wish that were true. Instead, more than one million innocent unborn babies will continue to be murdered in their mothers’ wombs each year, more phony pro-life Republicans will use abortion as a sales pitch in an attempt to obtain the votes of social conservatives, and “pro-life” groups will continue sending out more fundraising letters.
 
At the end of the day, I wonder if we are really as concerned about ending abortion on demand as we are about raising money and promoting a political agenda?
 
(c) Chuck Baldwin

Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. Dr. Baldwin is also the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show  “Chuck Baldwin Live” This is a daily, one hour long call-in show.

To learn more about his radio talk show please visit his web site at: www.chuckbaldwinlive.com. When responding, please include your name, city and state.

E-mail: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

By Meg Jalsevac
HARRISBURG, PA, January 19, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A letter addressed to Massachusetts’ ex-governor Mitt Romney has just been made public in which 44 conservative, pro-family leaders from across the nation requested that before stepping down from office, Romney would adhere to the Massachusetts Constitution and repeal his order directing public officials to perform ‘same-sex marriages’.

The letter was hand delivered to members of Romney’s staff on December 20th, 2006 at his office.  Romney took no action to adhere to the letter’s requests before he left office at the beginning of the New Year.

The letter cited numerous, historical cases and the Massachusetts’ Constitution to assert that Romney’s actions in implementing ‘gay marriage’ were beyond the bounds of his authority as governor. The authors further asserted that his actions were unconstitutional as were the actions of the four initial judges who formulated the official opinion on the matter in the ‘Goodridge’ case, the case that originally brought the matter to national attention.

Commenting on the ‘Goodridge’ opinion, Judge Robert Bork said that it was “untethered to either the Massachusetts or United States Constitution.”

As quoted in the letter, the MA Constitution denies the judicial branch of its government any authority over the state’s marriage policies.  So it was that three of the seven judges that heard the Goodrich case strongly dissented that the court did not have authority to formulate laws.

The letter also outlined how the MA Constitution forbids judges from establishing or altering law.  According to the Constitution, such a task is to be left to the legislature.  The judges’ opinion in the Goodrich case admitted that they were not altering the standing marriage statute in MA.

Instead, Governor Romney took it upon himself, despite legal counsel to do otherwise, to order officials across the state that they would have to perform ‘gay marriages’, even though, according to Massachusetts law, to do so is a crime. Officials who refused were advised to resign their position.

Throughout the whole ordeal, Romney maintained that he was personally against ‘homosexual marriage’ but that he must “execute the law.”  The conservatives’ letter clearly illustrates how Romney was not “executing the law” but merely facilitating the agenda of activist judges – beyond even the judges’ own expectations.

The letter clearly explained how Romney’s actions, in reality, are a crime under Massachusetts  because of his oath to uphold the Constitution.

The authors called Romney to task for ignoring the solemnity of the oath of office that he took in which he swore to uphold the Constitution of Massachusetts.  They requested that Romney publicly repeal his orders to perform ‘same-sex marriages’ throughout the state and confirm the fact that, under Massachusetts law, ‘same-sex marriage’ remains illegal. They also ask that Romney publicly take to task the political officials that worked to undermine the constitution to bring about ‘same sex marriage’ in Massachusetts.

John Haskins, writer and family activist, told LifeSiteNews.com, “Mitt Romney’s contribution to history will be that he pro-actively imposed ‘homosexual marriage’ in stark violation of the state Constitution that he swore to uphold.  Those denying this are subverting the rule of law and the plain language of a constitution.”

Haskins expressed frustration at conservatives like Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard and Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund who he says initially counseled Romney not to permit gay marriage but then defended the governor’s actions saying that he had no choice but to obey the law.  On the MassResistance website, Haskins says, “Our lawyers, law professors and pro-family political leaders are blundering this historic challenge because we have wandered far from the Constitutional texts we swore to defend.  Some of them are realizing this belatedly.  Others appear determined to defend and disguise their own errors (some quite fundamental) at whatever cost to Massachusetts and America.”

The legal background and framework of the letter was researched and confirmed by attorney Robert Paine, an expert on the topic of MA’s unconstitutional ‘same-sex marriages’.

Of the 44 signers of the Romney letter, several prominent conservative leaders are listed including Paul Weyrich, Free Congress Foundation; Robert H. Knight, veteran Washington political activist and a draftsman of the federal Defense of Marriage Act; Linda Harvey, Mission America; Rev. Ted Pike, National Prayer Network; Randy Thomasson, Campaign for Children and Families; Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth; Dr. Chuck Baldwin, radio host and columnist; Paul Likoudis, The Wanderer; Phil Lawler, Catholic World News; David E. Smith, Illinois Family Institute; Michael Heath, Christian Civic League of Maine; Gary Glenn, American Family Association of Michigan; Joe Glover, Family Policy Network; and Bill Cotter, Operation Rescue Boston.

As reported previously by LifeSiteNews.com, Romney is known for flip-flopping and wavering on key social issues.  Coinciding with his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, Romney just recently declared himself a pro-life figure despite a history of inconsistent decisions in life issues.

Read the full text of the letter:
http://www.massresistance.com/docs/marriage/romney/dec_lette…

Read ‘Romney Gay Marriage Timeline’ at MassResistance.com
http://www.massresistance.com/docs/marriage/romney/timeline….

Read Related LifeSiteNews.com Coverage:

Homosexual “Marriage” Not Legal in Massachusetts, Lawyers’ Coalition Says
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06092104.html

Despite Past Statements, Former Gov. and Presidential Hopeful Romney Says He is Pro-Life
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07010408.html

Romney Does Flip-Flop and Forces Catholic Hospitals to Distribute Morning-After-Pill
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05120905.html

(c) Copyright: LifeSiteNews.com is a production of Interim Publishing. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use LifeSiteNews.com).

NEWS TIPS to lsn@lifesitenews.com or call 1-866-787-9947 or (416) 204-1687 ext. 444

Donate to LifeSiteNews.com at http://www.lifesite.net/contribute/