Folding, spindeling, and mutilating lauguage for fun since Aug, 2004
Saturday, 04 August 2007

Meet Christian Exodus:

 

They are big supporters of the Constitution Party:

 

 

From the Christian Exodus FAQ on their website:

 

Is your organization a part of the Constitution Party, or it's Platform? If not, have you heard of the Constitution Party based in PA? They are a Party running on Christian Beliefs.

All of our Board members are Constitution Party members, and approximately 2/3 of our membership. Certainly the Constitution Party shares our beliefs and principles more than any other political party, and Christian Exodus will work diligently to promote and support the Constitution Party.

 

Check out their Position Statement.  Just in case you decided not to follow the link, here’s a couple of things you shouldn’t miss:

Immigration:

We hold that the power to enact uniform naturalization rules rests with Congress as specified in Article 8 of The Constitution. We also believe that the various States retain the right to restrict and control immigration into the State as had been exercised under the Union until 1875. No person residing in a State contrary to the laws and regulations of that State attains the expectation of rights, privileges or immunities held by citizens.

The 14th Amendment:

ChristianExodus.org holds that the 14th Amendment was enacted rather than being properly ratified. The history of this amendment is fraught with scandal and unscrupulous actions. The Amendment was properly voted on and properly rejected; only after the dissenting states were not allowed a vote was the Amendment passed.

This fraudulent act redefined the Federal government and its relationship to "The People". We hold that it is the right of the various States to nullify this Amendment and all laws and court rulings arising from it.

16th Amendment:

We hold that the various States should repeal the 16th Amendment, which grants Congress the power to directly tax the people. Direct taxation of the people is contrary to the original intent of the Union and deprives the States of a powerful check on federal excess.

17th Amendment:

We hold that the various States should repeal the 17th Amendment, which provides for the direct election of Senators. The manner in which Senators are elected or selected is a matter that should be left to the States as the original Constitution intended. Direct elections have resulted in a marked reduction in the power of the States to influence Federal actions and policies.

Check out their plan of action.

 

Here’s what FOX News says about them.  Imagine the treatment they would get if they were a LIBERAL organization that had secessionist leanings.  Also note that they are too extreme even the Bob Jones University.

Here’s a Testimonial from a true believer

And another blog passionately about the world they are leaving and the world they will create.

Don’t miss that last link…really.  He hits every note in the Conservative scale.  If he doesn’t write for Townhall.com, he should.  He's a very articulate, expressive, and orderly communicator, expecially when compared to Devvy Kidd.

I might point out that the referance to the Book of Exodus in their name implies that they believe that they are fleeing slavery and oppression in America (which they as much as say in their website.  Remember what the people in the original Exodus did to Egypt?  I wonder what plagues the people of the Christian Exodus have planned for us?

Saturday, 04 August 2007 07:55:42 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [4] |  |  | #
Monday, 06 August 2007 09:02:28 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
umm... ok

I'm not sure what the big deal is. When you say "Check out their position statement," are the things you hightlight supposed to be bad, wrong, weird, outlandish, etc? Because I don't see anything wrong with any of the items you highlighted (and yes, I did read the link, too). I'm pretty sure we (the United States) would get along just fine (nay - even better) if the cited amendments didn't exist.

As for their plan of action, meh. So what? They certainly have every right to make the attempt.

Honestly - I don't see what the big deal is...
Mark
Monday, 06 August 2007 12:05:33 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Mark,

You don't think that it is a big deal if a State can withold immigration from any individual that they wish? You think it's perfectly fine that someone can be a citizen of the U.S. but barred from living in one state or another? (I find that surprising, because in a former conversation where you advocated the elimination of the Department of Education and any federal requirements for states to educate their citizens, I dug up this Constitution Party argument that if that were the case, states should have the right to regulate immigration into their state of undesirables from other states.

You were in absolute opposition to it as unconstitutional. It is only unconstitutional without the 14th amendment.)

LOL!

I'm sure it would be convenient for you to not have to recognize the children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. as legal citizens...but doing away with the 14th amendment also does away with a number of your rights that you hold so dear.

It's amazing to me that you are so quick to lightly dismiss and throw out such important portions of the constitution.

What claim to citizenship do you have except for being born here? Are you a naturalized citizen? did you earn citizenship somehow?

Teresa
Monday, 06 August 2007 20:44:24 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
"You think it's perfectly fine that someone can be a citizen of the U.S. but barred from living in one state or another?" Whoa, Teresa! That's not what they said at all. At least not from what I understood.

...but having read it a second time - I can see how someone might think the way you do. It is questionable what their meaning is... So - hmmm - you may have a point.

Please explain your point about the elimination of the Department of Education and how that links to immigration between states. ?!? Sorry but I don't see the tie in.

You said: "I'm sure it would be convenient for you to not have to recognize the children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. as legal citizens...but doing away with the 14th amendment also does away with a number of your rights that you hold so dear." Yeah? Oh! You must mean like how the number of congressional representives is derived? Or how anyone that has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution cannot be a Senator, Representative, President, Vice President, etc? Or how the validity of public debt of the United States cannot be questioned?

Come on! - Just which of these "rights" couldn't I live without? The 14th amendment was enacted after the Civil War to handle problems that the War caused. The citizenship clause seems to be added as an afterthought to the real meaning of the amendment - to strip individual states of their sovereignty. Citizenship could have - should have - been it's own amendment. The only reason to toss it in with the other parts of the amendment was to get the amendment passed. The ideas of counting representatives, preventing someone like Robert E. Lee from holding official office, or claiming validity of debt surely would never have passed on their own merit.

Citizenship requirements surely has the merit of becomming an amendment on it's own. In fact - it is required by the Consitution for congress to establish a uniform rule for naturalization. An amendment wasn't required at all. All that was needed was for congress to pass a law - but an amendment works, too.
Mark
Tuesday, 07 August 2007 08:44:06 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Mark,

My point is that if there is no basic government standard and funding for education, certain states will treat it as though it is not a right. In otherwords, they will not educate their citizens. For instance, some states have little or no state income tax where poor school districts are almost totally reliant on federal funds, being unable to raise enough on their own. When the inevitable economic changes force emmigration out of those states, other states will want the right to control immigration into their economy and infrastructure so that they and be sure to provide for thir own citizens as well as any new-comers. Where the 14th amendment repealed, and the anti-federalist interpretation of the Constition to gain ascendancy (as the Constitution party seems to think, somehow that the anti-federalist interpretation was the one enacted without any input from the federalists...one of which was actually the primary WRITER of the thing), why then each state would certainly have the right to determine it's own standards for who could be a citizen of their state, and who would be allowed to reside there. They may be U.S. citizens, but they would also have to apply to live and work in any state other than the one that they are a citizen of.

In fact, if their view of the constiution were correct, it's possible that a person could be a citizen of the U.S., but not be able to get citizenship in any state. for instance, lets say someone was born in South Carolina after the Christian Exodus people take over and make it a requirement for someone to be a member of their church in order to be a citizen, but this guy is Bhuddist. Not being a citizen, he's not entitled to go to school, and the schools don't want him because he's not Christian, so he decides he wants to move somewhere else, but none of the other states want him because he's undereducated and has no marketable skills.

The citizenship clause was necessary because of the wide-spread practice in certain states of denying basic human rights, much less citizenship rights based on their own states' desires. Do you really think that the citizenship issues had nothing to do with the war? People born in the U.S. were supposed to have automatic citizenship, but some states decided that THEY had the power to decide that some people born here were not citizens, by criteria THEY enacted in defiance of the constitution of the United States.

This is just the sort of thing that Madison wrote to Jeffereson about in his letter of Oct. 24th 1787:

"Encroachments of the States on the general authority, sacrifices of National to local interests, interferances of the measures of different States, form a great part of the history of our political system. It may be said that the Constitution is founded on different priciples, and will have a different operation. I admit the difference to be material. It presents the aspect rather of a feudal system of republics, if such a phrase may be used, than of a Confederacy of independant States."

He goes on to state in several differant ways, the importance of the Federal government maintaining it's authority in such cases. The civil war was about usurping that authority. They lost. Several court cases have come up since then, as well as the survival of numerous organizations, both civil and uncivil to propagate the notions of the Christian Exodus people. They have lost repeatedly. My guess is that they will have to continue to lose repeatedly.

That's America. I have to say it's their right to be wrong, but I am not required to view their claims with any level of legitamacy or respect.

Hamilton is very clear that in areas of mutual interest that states must be governed by the federal government. Since the world has become more complex and the interrelationships of the states have become more binding, the scope of the federal government has neccessarily widened.

If you want to break that down, it's your perogative to have that opinion, but it seems foolish to not think of the consequences. Madison goes on to tell Jefferson of the importance of a robust federal government to commerace, business, and tradesmen, who were clamoring for a stabilizing force with the power to bring reliable and sane market practices to allow them to prosper, and not be forever at the mercy of "the capitalists" (different meaning than we make of it today).

As for Robert E. Lee, I'm amazed that you don't think it is important to keep an open traitor who bore arms against the U.S. government from holding official office. And also a little non-plussed that you would object to a constiutional assurance that the government of the U.S. will pay it's bills. You DO realize that it was customary for "old world" governments to take out loans and then renig on them based on some minor quibble, right?

As this was a usual practice, I don't see why it should be unusual for people to want an assurance that the money they lent their government to sustain it in a time of war wouldn't just "disappear" with a change of administration..."Oh, well, it was my predicessor that took out that loan...not MY government".
Teresa
Comments are closed.
Search
Archive
Links
Categories
Admin Login
Sign In
Blogroll
Themes
Pick a theme: