Political parties are meant to offer alternative philosophies, priorities, agendas, and/or strategies to achieve the purpose of government as outlined in the Constitution.

Both major political parties have demonstrated more similarities than differences and therefore offer no clear alternatives to voters.

Repetition of failed policies and strategies has worsened our economic, social, and educational condition and proven a waste of taxpayer money, regardless of the party in power.

Neither major party has shown itself able to govern with a clear and consistent moral compass, and thus, the purpose of government has not been well-served by them.

As needs have changed, our country has seen the death and birth of political parties. Today's major parties have either radicalized themselves into irrelevance for the average citizen or have moved so often with shifting political winds that they no longer possess a clear identity or mission.

Therefore, the Constitutional Party was formed to provide the people of Pennsylvania with a real political avenue to make their vote count, to provide a political expression of their beliefs and values in elections and in implementing public policy; thereby better serving the purpose of government.

Minor parties or third parties have played a major role in American history, and had great influence on the body politic. In the thirty years preceding the Civil War, half a dozen minor parties made their appearance. The Republican Party came into being during the summer of 1854. It grew because people, mostly northerners, quit the established parties that existed and joined the new party. Minor parties have been numerous since the Civil War. In the last 10 years minor parties are springing up like tulips in the spring. The reasons for this are many. Suffice to say, the Democratic and Republican Party have grown arrogant in their power.

In 1992, Peg Luksik put it well, "We have one party - two names." Principles seem to mean little to the professional politicians who ignore their oath of office to uphold the Constitution of their states and the United States.

Many people are frightened by the idea of a third party, or think it impossible for a third party to succeed. This is not true. In 1858, the Whigs essentially disappeared, replaced by the Republicans, over slavery (an issue in many ways like abortion). In 1913, in North Dakota, the Non-Partisan League was begun; among the leaders was the grandfather of our campaign manager, Robin Bernhoft. They swept to power in 1916, and absorbed the Democrats in the 1920s.

In England, the Liberal party virtually disappeared in 1917, largely from public disgust over war crimes in Ireland (the infamous "Black and Tans"). The were replaced by the Labour Party.

Four years ago, in Canada, Prime Minister Mulrooney's governing party was not only voted out of office, but reduced to two members in the Canadian Parliament, replaced by an entirely new "third" party, which swept to power.

It can happen, it does happen, and sometimes circumstances are such that it has to happen. We can do it in Pennsylvania.

Did you know the 1996 elections featured the lowest voter turnout since 1924?! More people than ever before were so disappointed with the choices presented to them by the two major parties that they chose to just stay home November 5, 1996.

Indeed, cynicism of our politicians, and of our whole political system, is now at an all-time high. The credibility of politicians, in general, has sunk so low that prostitutes now have more believability than politicians ("Fox News Sunday," Feb. 2, 1997)!

The reason for the cynicism is obvious: be it federally, or state-wide here in Pennsylvania, there's simply not a dime's worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats.

You and I have observed the federal Republicans giving the U.S. Department of Education even more money than the Democrats asked for. You and I have also observed Pennsylvania Republicans appropriate state dollars for contraceptive use for teens behind their parents backs (something the Democrats didn't even do). You and I know that both of these actions not only hurt families, they force us taxpayers to fund programs at exorbitant rates - keeping our taxes high.

Was it any surprise, then, when those same Republican leaders raised nary a peep to fight the recently passed $385 million family planning bill that will help fund abortion and contraception worldwide with your tax dollars?!?

No, I'm afraid the more time goes on, the more proof comes to the surface that the two parties can be rolled into one - the "Republicrats."

Now, one would hope that this situation would get more people in a fighting mood to rise up against these same "Republicrats." Instead, though, I fear more and more people are just choosing to "opt out" and say, "That's it!"

Well, I'm not ready to quit yet - are you?

I'm sure you're not. In fact, the more Democrats and Republicans portray themselves as virtually the same party, the more I'm convinced that we did the right thing by forming the Constitutional Party in 1994.

It's obvious that the Democrats and Republicans don't want our ideas - just our money and our votes. Both parties showed their contempt for our pro-family positions when they respectively blocked Bob Casey from speaking at the Democratic Convention in 1992 and when Pat Buchanan was treated with such animus by the Republican hierarchy in 1996.

Since we certified the Constitutional Party we've been working very hard at making it a viable political vehicle. We ran candidates for two statewide offices in 1996, have created a party structure, have initiated a party newsletter, and are working on an endorsement system to let you know which candidates in any party are standing firm on the issues.

It is now 1998.

Maybe the best, if only, way to halt the present "Republicrat" system is to win - the governor's seat. The governor controls the entire Executive Branch, including all the bureaucracies, and in Pennsylvania, at least, has line-item veto power over the budget.

In 1994, many voters fell for the "She can't win" trap.

I came to the conclusion that my vote means more to me than to any candidate. It is the loudest speech I can make politically. It is the only speech the politicians must listen to. So I want it to clearly communicate what I believe.

I hear many well-meaning souls talk about 'wasting' a vote, because a candidate can't win. But I think the privilege of the ballot box is a trust. Given to me by men and women who literally died to provide it. If I use my vote to tell a lie by not voting for a candidate who truly represents my principles, I have not 'wasted' my vote. I have desecrated it.

I'm not interested in polls. I'm interested in integrity and courage. Mine - and the candidate's.

Years ago I read the book, "Profiles in Courage." It featured individuals who did what was right even when they lost. ln some cases they lost the specific fight; and in some cases they lost their careers.

We call those people heroes.

Why?

Because they refused to veer from what they knew to be right; because they refused to accept evil - greater or lesser; and because they were more interested in pleasing God than in pleasing man.

How do you look upon your vote?