Category Archives: Constitution Party

The Politics of Lucy Van Pelt

March 31, 2017

By Riley J. Hood

Growing up, I read enough of Charles Schultz’s Peanuts cartoons to be familiar with the antics of Lucy Van Pelt.  Lucy was a one trick pony who always offered to hold the football for Charlie Brown and then pulled it away at the last moment: Every single time.  She never had to try something new because Charlie Brown never decided to stop listening to her.

Lucy-van-Pelt-and-Charlie-Brown-footballGuess what Charlie Brown?  She did it again. More accurately, the Republican Party FAILED to repeal Obamacare.  I told you so!  It doesn’t take psychic powers to notice an active pattern of the Democrat Party introducing socialist measures, such as the Income Tax, SSI, Welfare, the US Department of Education and Obamacare; then having the Republicans fail to remove such evils after they made campaign promises to do so. Once again, the political football has been snatched away, and the effort to kick Obamacare into the ash heap of bad ideas has failed.

Guess what?  The Republicans won’t change as long as you keep listening to them.  They do the same thing over and over again because it works every single time.  We started the Constitution Party so that you could support candidates that won’t treat you like you are Charlie Brown.  It takes a lot of work to transform a “minor party” into a major political party, but America needs some political competition from the Right.

Join a political party who isn’t afraid to fight the Democrats. Learn more about the Constitution Party at

Constitution Party of Wisconsin
PO Box 070344
Milwaukee WI, 53207
constitutionpartyofwisconsin @

Tags: , , , , , ,

Replace it with nothing!


March 29, 2017

By Craig Roberts, CP Member – Wisconsin

With the epic failure of the Republicans to repeal Obamacare, we at the Constitution Party say: We told you so! Yes, we said it. And you will be hearing “we told you so” much more in the coming years. For the entire presidential campaign we were told by “conservatives” that we must suspend our principles and vote for the Republican candidate in order to stop Hillary, instead of voting for an actual conservative candidate, Darrell Castle. After all, they said, “he can’t win.” Well, guess what? Apparently Republicans can’t win either. The Republicans failed to repeal Obamacare, a major campaign promise, and our former president’s signature piece of legislation is still chugging along.

To make matters worse, the Republicans, after trying one time to repeal it, decided to cut-and-run and move to something else. Are they really that pathetic and weak? The answer is, Yes. The Democrats, to their credit, never give up, even when they lose. They keep scraping and clawing until they get what they want. The Republicans on the other hand, keep doing what they do best:  cave-in to the Democrats.

The Constitution Party recognizes that the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to involve itself in healthcare. None! Therefore, we propose that Obamacare be repealed and replaced with nothing. What about those who really need the coverage? That can be handled by the individual states, if the citizens of those states choose to make it a priority. The states have full constitutional authority to pursue whatever program they wish. For instance, Wisconsin has Badgercare. Massachusetts has “Romneycare,” etc. Each state has the money to fund their own healthcare system, if they make it a priority. The reason they have not made it a priority is because they want Uncle Sam to pay for it so that they may continue with their wasteful spending in order to buy votes. If you are truly interested in universal healthcare, take it up with your state representatives.

The Constitution Party has proven once again to be the only conservative party left in America. We are the only party who can oppose the Democrat Party. If you want a political party with principles, you only have one choice; the Constitution Party. Join a group of people who are willing to fight for our conservative principles, not run and hide. Go to to learn more.



Tags: , , , , ,

The United Nations: An Enemy of America


January 2, 2017

By Riley J. Hood-Milwaukee County Constitution Party

In 1993, Al Gore eulogized our dead Army Rangers by saying, “These have died in the service of the UN.” In Al Gore’s mind, American’s don’t fight wars anymore they play at being policemen.  This is the United Nations (UN) “conflict resolution” doctrine.  Anyone with political knowledge knows the UN is an Un-Biblical, Un-American, Socialist, and Foreign Jurisdiction. It is our enemy by its nature, and its actions, whether we are members or not. Worst of all, the UN is a waste of life.
While the UN didn’t exist until after WWII (the League of Nations was founded after WWI) it was the substance of world alliances that caused WWI and WWII. What George Washington called, “entangling alliances.” It was “entangling alliances” and “balances of power” breaking down, that turned a local conflict between Serbia and Austria into WWI. It was repeated when Germany invaded Poland in WWII, bringing France and Great Britain into the war. (Don’t take this example as any sympathy for Hitler on my part. He should have been dispatched long before he invaded Poland. WWII was a “world war” as the result of the Appeasement Policy.) The UN is a world-wide system of entangling alliances. WWIII will be caused if and when it breaks down.  If the UN can be eliminated peacefully, by procedure, then the scope of entangling alliances can be reduced.
America has not fought a real war since WWII. We have had troops in combat, who have fought and won real battles; that is not the same as fighting and winning a real war. The difference is in leadership. In a war, you fight for your country, the USA, and you achieve Victory. The Enemy loses his right to “self-determination.” For example, the Kaiser was forced to abdicate in WWI. After WWII the NAZI Party was outlawed by Public Order #1.  It is outlawed to this day by the German Constitution. The Emperor of Japan was trotted out in front of the Japanese people and forced to tell them that he was not a god. We have not had the results of victory since that time, because we have ceded our foreign policy over to the UN.
KOREA (1950 to 1953), – America jumped in to save the Republic of South Korea from being taken over by the heavily armed Peoples Republic of Korea. This hard fought “UN Police Action” ended up in a stalemate that still exists to this day. North Korea still exists as a Communist State. General MacArthur was sacked, and our officer corps became politicized. We lost 54,246 lives in Korea.
VIETNAM (1959 to 1975) – America took over from the French after their defeat at the hands of the Viet Minh at Dien Ben Phu in 1954. We fought in full combat from 1965 to 1973. Saigon fell in 1975. We won every battle, but not the war; because we were on defense only. Policy was being controlled by the UN via SEATO. Our troops were blamed for the loss. Such was not the case. We lost 58,655 lives in Vietnam.
GRENADA (1983) – The US invaded without UN permission, yet the Reagan Administration installed another socialist government under UN auspices. We lost 18 lives in Grenada.
LEBANON (1982-1984) – The height of UN idiocy; we lost over 300 Americans, mostly US Marines, trying to enforce a UN peace that never existed. Lebanon was in the midst of an Islamic takeover.  300,000 people had died since 1975 in a “civil war.” There was the typical UN power sharing plan, then occupation by the Syrian Army. Our Marines apprehended the PLO only to have the UN relocate them. USMC units and other UN peace-keepers were jammed into a small strip of land along the Mediterranean Sea in Beirut, to enforce a UN cease-fire. Firefights, artillery duels, bombings were regular occurrences. Because it was called “peace-keeping,” most Americans will never care about what happened there.
DESERT STORM (1990 -1991) – America and a coalition enforced a UN Resolution and kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.  It was great Battle Planning that won the battle, but it was still plagued by UN limitations, such as leaving Hussein in place.  We lost 474 American lives.
SOMALIA (1991-1993) – More UN peacekeeping! We ended up with 18 dead soldiers, and their bodies dragged unclothed through the Mogadishu streets in typical Islamic style.
BOSNIA (1994 – 1995) – America occupied Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia to the benefit of Muslims. This was to ostensibly put an end to Ethnic Cleansing, which the Serbs were engaging in. (The Muslim’s are experts at ethnic cleansing, they called it Dhimmitude.) This was when Army Specialist Michael New refused to wear the UN blue beret.
HAITI (1995) – Special Forces ousted General Raoul Cedras, and reinstated the Communist government of the defrocked Roman Catholic priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. We still have US Marines stationed there, who in March 2004, had to shoot rioters.
KOSOVO (1998 – 1999) – America bombed the Bosnian Serbs, and the Serbians themselves, all to benefit the Bosnian Muslims.
AFGHANISTAN (2001 to Present) – In response to the September 11, 2001 attacks, we rightly invaded the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, because they were harboring the Al-Qaida terrorist group. The Bush Administration let the UN dictate the peace terms, and set up another Islamic government in the Taliban’s place. Operation Enduring Freedom could be termed Enduring Failure. The Muslims rewarded us with more violence, just like their predecessors the Mujahidin “freedom fighters” did, after we armed and aided them against the Soviet Union.
IRAQ (2003 to 2011) – America invaded on behalf of Bush 43, his friends, and their interests. The UN has dictated the peace, installing an Islamic Constitution, like Afghanistan and Iran. The main beneficiaries were the Shi’ite Muslim majority, until ISIS popped out of Al-Qaida in Iraq.  After Saddam Hussein was executed, we should have withdrawn.  If the UN insists on “nation building” let them use other resources, and not American lives.
We have paid a high price in blood for playing the part of stooge and spear carrier for th UN, an enemy government that engineers our defeat time after time.   The rest of the world sees no difference between “UN” and “US” when it comes to hating Americans.  Withdrawing from NATO would be a good first step.
At the Constitution Party, we hold an American view of our military. The goal of the federal defense policy is to defend the national security interests of the United States. We should be a friend of liberty everywhere, but the protectors of ours alone. We call for the maintenance of a strong state-of-the-art military and we oppose disarmament. We believe that defense expenditures must be must be directly related to the protection of our nation and must be carefully reviewed to eliminate foreign aid and inefficiency. Under no circumstances would we commit US forces to serve under any flag but that of the United States of America, and never in combat without a Constitutional Declaration of War.”  We support American policy, the American military and American Victory.

Constitution Party of Wisconsin
PO Box 070344
Milwaukee WI, 53207
constitutionpartyofwisconsin @


Tags: ,

The Case for Restricting Muslim Immigration



November 22, 2016

by Brian Farmer
(The author lived in Saudi Arabia from 1981 to 1997)

We Americans promised to “never forget” after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, but for the past seven years President Barack Hussein Obama and his allies have tried to persuade the nation that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is “contained,” and that al-Qaida is “on the run.”  Meanwhile, ISIS controls large areas of Iraq and Syria and murders Christians in areas under its control. Its supporters have perpetrated deadly attacks in Europe and the United States, and al-Qaida remains a potent presence across the Middle East and North Africa. The United States is essentially fighting a clash of civilizations with a dysfunctional immigration system that is exploited by those deadly adversaries.

After suggesting a pause in Muslim immigration, then presidential candidate Donald Trump has been attacked relentlessly by the national liberal media and the political establishment of both parties, as well as by the international community. Some claim that Trump’s proposal would be unconstitutional and therefore illegal. But the U.S. Supreme Court declared  in 1977 that “the power to expel or exclude aliens [is] a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.”

In fact, according to federal law, specifically, the McCarran-Walter Immigration Act of 1952, “Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens, or of any class of aliens, into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants.”  That act has been used several times by presidents to keep out individuals associated with subversive or dangerous groups, such as communists during the Cold War.

To understand why Trump’s idea of a moratorium on Muslim immigration would not be a bad idea, we need to look at what Muslims believe and what they are called upon to do, based on their holy book, the Quran, and their prophet, Mohammad.

According to Islamic teaching, the Quran came down as a series of revelations from Allah through the Archangel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad, who then dictated it to his followers. Muhammad’s companions memorized fragments of the Quran and wrote them down. These fragments were later compiled into book form after Muhammad’s death.

The Quran is comprised of 114 suras, which may be considered chapters.  While in Mecca, in what is now the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Muhammad respected the monotheism of the Christian and Jewish inhabitants. At that time, the Allah of the Quran claimed to be the same God worshipped by Jews and Christians, who revealed himself to the Arab people through his chosen messenger, Muhammad. It is the Quranic revelations that came later in Muhammad’s career, after he and the first Muslims left Mecca for the city of Medina (also in Saudi Arabia), which transformed Islam from a benign form of monotheism into an expansionary and militant political ideology that persists to this day.

Westerners who read a translation of the Quran often have a hard time understanding it, due to ignorance of an important principle of Quranic interpretation known as “abrogation.” The principle of abrogation dictates that verses revealed later in Muhammad’s career “abrogate”, or cancel and replace, earlier ones whose instructions they may contradict. As a result, passages revealed later in Muhammad’s career, in Medina, overrule passages revealed earlier, in Mecca. The Quran itself lays out the principle of abrogation: Sura 2, Verse 106 states, “Whatever a Verse do We [that is to say, Allah] abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?”

To confuse matters even further, though the Quran was revealed to Muhammad over a period of two decades, it was not compiled in chronological order. When the Quran was finally collated into book form, the suras were ordered from longest to shortest, with no connection whatever to the order in which they were revealed or even to their thematic content. As a result, to find out what the Quran says on a given topic, it is necessary to examine the other Islamic sources that give clues as to when in Muhammad’s lifetime the revelations occurred. After such examination, one discovers that the Meccan suras, revealed at a time when the Muslims were vulnerable, are generally benign, while the later Medinan suras, revealed after Muhammad had made himself the head of an army, are downright belligerent.

For example, this often cited passage was revealed just after the Muslims reached Medina and were still vulnerable: Sura 2, Verse 256 says, “There is no compulsion in religion.” In contrast, Sura 9, Verse 5, commonly referred to as the “Verse of the Sword,” revealed toward the end of Muhammad’s life, declares, “Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the unbelievers wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform the Islamic prayer, and give alms, then leave their way free.”

Having been revealed later in Muhammad’s life than Sura 2, Verse 256, as well as all of the other peaceful revelations, of which there are more than a hundred, the Verse of the Sword abrogates all of the earlier peaceful verses.

Sura 8, revealed shortly before Sura 9, reveals a similar theme: Sura 8, Verse 39 commands, “And fight them until there is no more disbelief and polytheism and the religion will all be for Allah Alone.” (By the way, polytheism also includes Christian belief in the Trinity.)

The Quran’s commandments to Muslims to wage war in the name of Allah against non-Muslims are unmistakable. Furthermore, they are absolutely authoritative, because they were revealed late in the Prophet’s career and so cancel and replace earlier instructions to act peaceably. Without knowledge of the principle of abrogation, Westerners will continue to misread the Quran and misdiagnose Islam as a “religion of peace.”

But Islam is far more than just a religion. It includes a mandatory and highly specific legal and political plan for society called Sharia, which translates approximately as “the way” or “the path.” The precepts of Sharia are derived from the commandments of the Quran and the Sunnah, which are the teachings and actions of Muhammad, since he is considered to be the ideal man. Together, the Quran and the Sunnah establish the dictates of Sharia, which is the blueprint for the good Islamic society. Because Sharia originates with the Quran and the Sunnah, it is not optional. Sharia is the legal code ordained by Allah for all mankind. Hence, to violate Sharia or not to accept its authority is to commit rebellion against Allah, which Allah’s faithful are required to oppose.

There is no separation between the religious and the political in Islam. Rather, Islam and Sharia constitute a comprehensive means of ordering society at every level. While it is theoretically possible for an Islamic society to have different outward forms — an elective system of government, a hereditary monarchy, etc. — whatever the outward structure of the government, Sharia is the required content. It is this fact that puts Sharia into conflict with forms of government based on anything other than the Quran and the Sunnah, such as the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, for example.

Sharia governs virtually everything, from washing one’s hands to child-rearing to taxation to military policy. It is plain to see that any meaningful application of Sharia is going to look very different from anything resembling a free society in the Western sense. The stoning of adulterers, execution of apostates and blasphemers, repression of other religions, and a mandatory hostility toward non-Islamic nations, punctuated by regular warfare, will be the norm. It would not be a stretch, therefore, to classify Islam and its Sharia code as a form of totalitarianism.

We hear a lot about jihad. Jihad literally translates as “struggle.” Strictly speaking, jihad does not mean “holy war”. However, the question remains as to what sort of “struggle” is meant: an inner, spiritual struggle against carnal appetites, or an outward, physical struggle against a perceived opponent.

As with any case of trying to determine Islamic teaching on a particular matter, one must look to the Quran and the Sunnah. From those sources, it is evident that a Muslim is required to struggle against a variety of things: laziness in prayer, neglecting to give alms to the poor, etc. But it is also true that a Muslim is commanded to struggle in physical combat against the infidel, as demonstrated in the Quranic verses cited above. In addition, Muhammad’s impressive military career serves to confirm the central role that militant action plays in Islam. More than a few apologists claim that Muhammed’s military actions were purely defensive in nature. In fact, in order to keep the Muslim movement economically solvent, Muhammad led many raids on caravans and plundered whatever they could take.

The belligerent verses of the Quran and the violent precedents of Muhammad set the tone for the Islamic view of politics and of world history. Islamic scholarship divides the world into two spheres of influence, the House of Islam and the House of War. Islam means “submission.” The House of Islam includes those nations that have submitted to Islamic rule, which is to say those nations ruled by Sharia law. The rest of the world, which has not accepted Sharia law and so is not in a state of submission, exists in a state of rebellion or war with the will of Allah. It is incumbent upon Muslims to make war on non-Muslims until such time that all nations submit to the will of Allah and accept Sharia law. Islam’s message to the non-Muslim world is the same now as it was in the time of Muhammad and throughout history, namely, submit or be conquered. The only periods since the time of Muhammad when Muslims were not actively at war with non-Muslims were when the Muslim world was too weak or divided to make war effectively.

But the lulls in the ongoing war that Islam has declared against the infidels do not indicate a forsaking of jihad as a principle, but merely reflect a change in strategy. It is acceptable for Muslim nations to declare a truce at times when the infidel nations are too powerful for open warfare to be feasible. Jihad is not a collective suicide pact, but continued combat is encouraged on an individual level. For the past few hundred years, the Muslim world has been too politically fragmented and technologically inferior to pose a major threat to the West. But that is changing.

Due to the state of war between Islam and infidels, lying to the infidel is considered part of Islamic tactics. The parroting by Muslim organizations throughout the non-Muslim world that “Islam is a religion of peace,” or that the origins of Muslim violence lie in the misguided minds of certain individual “fanatics,” is essentially disinformation, which is intended to induce the infidel world to let down its guard. Of course, individual Muslims may genuinely regard their religion as “peaceful”, but only because they are ignorant of its true teachings, just as many Christians are ignorant of their religion’s true teachings. Muslims who regard Islam as peaceful are apparently not aware that unbelievers are described in the Quran as “the vilest of animals.” Sura 5, Verse 51 warns, “O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.”

It is worth noting that Muslims generally present their religion as peaceful while living among the infidels, but such Muslims are nearly non-existent in Muslim nations. A Muslim apostate once suggested a litmus test for Westerners who believe that Islam is a religion of “peace” and “tolerance”: try making that point on a street corner in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. He claimed that you would be beaten senseless within five minutes.

During the 16 years that this writer lived in Saudi Arabia, not once was a vehicle sighted sporting a bumper sticker that read “Celebrate Diversity” or “Coexist.” By now, the reason should be obvious. In fact, this writer recalls an incident reported in one of the English-language newspapers published daily in Saudi Arabia: A man in a town in the southern part of the kingdom had stated that he no longer believed that Mohammed was a messenger of God. The local authorities deemed his offense to be so outrageous that there was only one suitable punishment: he was beheaded.

In times when the greater strength of the infidel world requires that the jihad take an indirect approach, the natural attitude of a Muslim to the infidel is one of deception and omission. Revealing openly the ultimate goal of Islam to conquer and plunder the non-Muslim world when the infidels have the upper hand militarily would be strategically stupid. Fortunately for the jihadists, most infidels do not understand how one is supposed to read the Quran, nor do most infidels trouble themselves to find out what Muhammad actually did and taught, which makes it easy to give the impression through selective quotations and omissions that Islam is a religion of peace.

For example, this writer has attended public events in which a panel of Muslims tries to educate the local non-Muslim citizenry about the goodness of Islam. The presenters invariably like to recite this verse from the Koran: “Whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.” However, the audience is not given the context of that passage. The prohibition against murder in that verse was directed at the “Children of Israel” and not at Muslims. It was part of a warning to the Jews not to fight against Mohammed, otherwise, they would receive a fearful punishment. Question: Why did the Muslim panelists at those public functions so shamelessly try to deceive their audiences? Answer: Since there is no equivalent to The Ten Commandments under Islam, bearing false witness to promote Islam is permissible. And if you have read this far, then you can probably guess by now that there is no Golden Rule under Islam, either.

As Harvard’s late Samuel Huntington predicted, and many other scholars today concur, a “clash of civilizations” is indeed emerging between the West and the Islamic world, which raises the obvious question: In light of this growing conflict, how many more millions of devout Muslims, who pray for the coming of a day when Shariah is universal and the infidels are converted, subjugated or slaughtered, do non-Muslim Americans want in their country?  It would be wise to heed the words of Alexander Hamilton:
[begin indented quote]
The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.
Foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.
[end indented quote]

Five to 20 percent of Muslims worldwide reportedly support violent jihad, which means that for every 20 Muslims allowed into the United States, between one and four will probably support Islamic terrorism. Of course, one can bet that they will not admit to that in an immigration interview!

Much of Europe is having second thoughts about having thrown open their doors to immigrants and refugees from the Islamic world, who have formed large unassimilated enclaves and “no-go zones” inside their host countries, which in turn are breeding terrorists, as the Paris attacks have proved. Europe has taken in a veritable Trojan horse. America harbors a fast-growing fifth column, as well.  The 1960 census revealed that only about a thousand Muslims lived in the United States. Now there are more than three million.

It is worth noting observations presented in the controversial book authored by Dr. Peter Hammond, Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat. Here is a commentary adapted from Dr. Hammond’s book that appeared on the Front Page Magazine website:
[begin indented quote]
Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.
Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called “religious rights.”

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to “the reasonable” Muslim demands for their “religious rights,” they also get the other components under the table. Here’s how it works.

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness. [Examples: United States, Canada, Australia]

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. [Examples: United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark]

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. [Examples: The Netherlands, Sweden, France]

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats. [Examples: Kenya, Israel, India]

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and church and synagogue burning. [Example: Ethiopia]

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare. [Examples: Lebanon, Chad, Bosnia]

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels. [Examples: Sudan, Albania]
It is good to remember that in many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.
[end indented quote]

Donald Trump’s polling surge in the aftermath of his call for a halt in Muslim immigration suggests that, despite repeated denunciations by the so-called “mainstream media” and the Washington establishment, a large part of America agrees that our current leadership is taking America down a path to national suicide, through its incredibly reckless and perverse immigration policies. Abraham Lincoln once said, “From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia…could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide.” As concerned, patriotic Americans, we need to wake up and smell the coffee, and stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

Constitution Party of Wisconsin
PO Box 070344
Milwaukee WI, 53207
constitutionpartyofwisconsin @


Tags: , ,

Trump: The Republican Fantasy


November 4, 2016

by Jerry Broitzman

There is a popular school of thought out there stating that elections are political choices, not moral decisions. That somehow a person’s morals, ethics and ideology (principles) are disconnected from their politics. I suppose this thought process has been around for as long people have been allowed to vote. This coming presidential election has brought it to the forefront again, so let’s look into it a little more deeply.

First of all, there is no such thing as voting AGAINST someone. You can only vote FOR someone. The only exception to that is if “none of the above” exists on the ballot. Therefore, when you vote FOR someone, you get ALL of them. Not just the parts that you like. In other words, you get their morals, ethics and ideology (principles), which then becomes policy (politics).

Let’s jump back in history for a bit to Germany in the 1930’s. Why did the German people align themselves with this oddball of a character named Adolf Hitler? It was because he was anti-communist and was willing to stand up to the Soviet Union. Many of Germany’s neighbors also aligned themselves with Hitler for the same reason (common enemy). The Soviets were a huge evil in the world at that time. The German people may not have liked Hitler, but after all, how bad could he be (lesser evil)? They justified it in their heads by saying they were voting AGAINST communism. What they didn’t realize was that they were voting FOR Hitler’s morals, ethics and ideology (principles), which then became official policy (politics), which manifested itself in genocide and World War II.

Let’s fast forward to present time. Conservatives are told that we must vote AGAINST this huge evil Liberal named Hillary Clinton by voting for a lesser Liberal evil named Donald Trump. We must abandon our Conservative principles and vote for a lying, adulterous, irreligious, misogynist, opportunist (Trump) in order to prevent a lying, adulterous, irreligious, misandristic, opportunist  (Hillary) from getting into office. We are told that we MUST vote Republican because no other party has a chance of winning against the Democrats. They forget that the Republican Party itself was an obscure, unknown 3rd party without a chance of winning….until it did….with Abraham Lincoln.

Trump is a Liberal. If you are counting on him to appoint conservative Supreme Court justices, you are participating in a Republican fantasy. Ronald Reagan appointed the notorious swing-vote justice, Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court. Anthony Kennedy recently voted to reaffirm abortion rights. Do you really think that Donald Trump will appoint a Justice who is more conservative than the one that Ronald Reagan himself appointed? Are you saying Donald Trump is more conservative than Ronald Reagan?

Let me bottom-line this for you. In Wisconsin, there are seven candidates for president on the ballot (yes, seven). Six of them are Liberals. Only one of them is a Conservative. That Conservative is Darrell Castle. Darrell Castle is 100% Pro-Life, 100% Pro-Traditional Marriage, 100% Pro-Gun Rights. He is the only candidate who advocates ending the Federal Reserve system and ending our financial support of the United Nations. Darrell Castle is a Christian who believes in the rule of law. He believes that those who break the law should be punished, period. Darrell Castle wants the United States to remain sovereign and rejects globalism.

If you want to vote for a Liberal, vote for one of the other six candidates on the ballot. If you want to vote for a Conservative, you have only one choice. That person is Darrell Castle. It’s a binary choice, one or the other, Liberal or Conservative. Remember, Principles = Policy. So, are you a Liberal or a Conservative? Vote accordingly.

Jerry Broitzman is the Vice Chairman of the Constitution Party of Wisconsin (CPoW). Learn more about CPoW at


Constitution Party of Wisconsin
PO Box 070344
Milwaukee WI, 53207
constitutionpartyofwisconsin @

Tags: , , , , , ,

Not Enough Babies Being Murdered for Supreme Court’s Liking


JUNE 29, 2016


by Mark Gabriel 

Not Enough Babies Being Murdered for Supreme Court’s Liking

The Constitution Party of Wisconsin (CPoW) knows the first duty of government is to protect innocent life.  The Supreme Court of the United States has abandoned that responsibility in favor of those who murder children before birth.  Roe v Wade was the court’s opinion that decriminalized child murder before birth, and now Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt  is their opinion to prevent states from requiring abortion chambers to function under the same requirements as other invasive surgery centers.  There were not enough babies being killed for their liking.  The right to life of an innocent child trumps any so called “right” of a woman to kill her child.  The US Supreme Court has once again ruled in rebellion to our Creator God and Heavenly Father.

It’s time State government leaders stop bowing down to the unjust and evil decrees of the Supreme Court.  It is time they nullify unconstitutional court opinions.  It is time we get back to the system of checks and balances the founders gave us.  Lesser magistrates need to ignore unconstitutional and ungodly court opinions.  The US Supreme Court is not the sole arbiter of what is constitutional.  Courts do not make law.  Texas needs to ignore Roe v Wade and protect all children, not just make it more difficult to kill children.

Mark Gabriel is an Executive Member of the Constitution Party of Wisconsin and a former County Supervisor of Calumet County in Wisconsin.


Tags: , , ,

Presidential Candidate Darrell Castle to visit Madison, Wisconsin


Darrell Castle

Darrell Castle

**Don’t miss your opportunity to meet Presidential Candidate Darrell Castle at the Constitution Party of Wisconsin Convention on July 16th!  Get your registration form HERE.**

Madison, WIDarrell Castle, the nominee of the Constitution Party for President of the United States will be the keynote speaker at their Wisconsin State Convention on Saturday, July 16th at Comfort Inn & Suites Madison Airport.  The theme of their convention this year is “Constitution Party:  The ONLY conservative party.”

“We are excited to have the only conservative presidential candidate visiting the great State of Wisconsin,” said Jerry Broitzman, Vice Chairman of the Constitution Party of Wisconsin (CPoW).  “Mr. Castle is the only candidate who adheres to the Seven Principles of Conservatism.”

“The Constitution Party is the only conservative party in America today,” said Andrew Zuelke, CPoW State Chairman.  “There is a wide variety of liberals that will be on the ballot in November.   Darrell Castle is the only exception.”

The Seven Principles of conservatism are:

Life: For all innocent human beings, from conception to natural death;
Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
Property: Each individual’s right to own and use personal property without government burden;
Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;
States Sovereignty: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions;  nothing in this statement is an affirmation of anti-semitism, anti-Zionism, or any race-based criteria.  CPoW is a Bible-based political party and we condemn and reject racism and anti-semitism.
American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

To attend the convention, contact CPoW at 608-561-7996 and ask for a registration form and schedule of events.  You can learn more about Darrell Castle by visiting his web site at

Constitution Party of Wisconsin
PO Box 070344
Milwaukee WI, 53207
constitutionpartyofwisconsin @


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,