Maryland Constitution Party Breaks Ties

Looks like the Maryland chapter of the Constitution Party has followed some other states (New York, Oregon, Montana, etc.) in disaffiliating with the national party.

The link:
http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=897

The letter:

Jim (Clymer):

As Secretary of the Constitution Party of Maryland, it is my duty to convey the following to you. I had additionally copied Thom Holmes, Chairman of the Credentials Committee, and special Maryland notables.

By unanimous vote of the State Central Committee meeting in Convention on June 27, 2006, the Constitution Party of Maryland voted to dissolve the relationship between the Constitution Party National Committee and the Constitution Party of Maryland. The Constitution Party of Maryland is hereby freed of any former obligations or responsibilities imposed upon her by the Constitution or By Laws of the Constitution Party National Committee.

Signed on behalf of the State Central Committee,

/s/
C. Michael Chastain
Chairman

/s/
Thomas Matthew Trump
Vice Chairman

/s/
Scott T. Whiteman
Secretary/Treasurer

119 Responses to “Maryland Constitution Party Breaks Ties”

  1. Freelancer Says:

    Yep. Pretty much expected this from the beginning. Although I’m surprised that it took so long.

  2. Freelancer Says:

    Although, what’s strange is some of the affiliates still have web links to the national party on their sites.

  3. Christopher Hansen Says:

    How many candidates did Maryland have on the ballot this year?

    Nevada has 45.

    Utah has 44.

    If Maryland cannot even field candidates what was lost when they quit?

    I know Scott Whiteman is a religious bigot and Mormon hater so no loss there.

    Do only Mormons know how to run for office in the Constitution Party? Are these Mormon haters just waiting for God to take care of everything? Is that why nothing ever gets done with these kind of people?

    Why even have a political party if you have no candidates? What Maryland needs to do is form a church not a political party. They could call it the Wait For God to Take Care of Everything Church and they could hate the Mormons and Jews and Catholics and Buddhists and Muslims and Hindus.

    Oh But Wait! They already do that.

  4. Josh Says:

    With all due respect, Mr. Hansen, if anyone bears the bulk of responsibility for destroying the Constitution Party, it is you. I, and many others within the Party (including those who voted “no” at Tampa) are sick of your arrogance. You seemed to have interpreted the Tampa vote as your own personal mandate to spew vitriol toward anyone who disagrees with you. The vast majority of the leaders within the national Party wish you would just go away.

    And why are you bringing up just Nevada and Utah as examples of good states? Why are you bringing up only the states that are predominately Mormon? Are you trying to say that non-Mormons are not committed to the CP? It seems you’ve injected your own source of religious bigotry into this debate. Pot…kettle…black.

    The best thing you can do for the Party is to resign. And leave everyone else alone. Are you that insecure in your own manhood that you have to clutch the title of “state chairman” as long as possible? Just remember one thing—-all leaders are disposable.

  5. Trevor Southerland Says:

    The CP makes me feel so much better about the LP.

  6. RRHeustisJr Says:

    Josh says:
    Are you trying to say that non-Mormons are not
    committed to the CP? It seems you’ve injected your
    own source of religious bigotry into this debate.
    Pot…kettle…black.

    Don’t you realize that religious bigotry only goes one way? Mormons now wield a blank check to hurl as much invective as possible, knowing full well that any response to their heresies will be smeared as “bigotry.”

    Maryland did the right thing by leaving the Pluralist, compromising national Constitution Party.

  7. NewFederalist Says:

    Wow. Just wow. How can people with so much in common become so separated? This is just so typical of minor parties and the biggest reason for the “wasted vote” syndrome.

  8. Gary Odom Says:

    This comes as absolutely no surprise. Nor is it the least bit discouraging. On the contrary, these people were the instigators of this whole thing. Now the Constitution Party can get back to the business of building a national political party that is open to all Americans-Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, men and women and all who desire to restore constitutional government in this Nation.

    Nevada and Utah are not the only state parties in the Constitution Party who are doing a good job. Good work is being done for the Constitution Party in Nebraska, Connecticut, South Dakota, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, California and many, many other states. For the most part, our state party affiliates and its candidates are concentrating on taking on Democrats and Republicans, not in tearing up their own Party. I will say, however, that the Nevada and Utah parties definitely deserve honorable mention for the excellent job they are doing in getting candidates on the ballot and before the voters. This is, after all, the real purpose of a political party, not to engage in endless debates about religion!

    In response to Reed Heustis’ comment: Except for responding to being called “devil worhipping Mormons” and other slanders, (and I am not a Mormon) I really haven’t seen our Mormon members and candidates doing anything other than trying to build the Constitution Party and attempting to reach out to the voting public.

    The Constitution Party strongly supports religious freedom as guranteed by the 1st Amendment so that all people may worship as they wish. While our Party, like the Declaration of Independence, acknowledges God as the source of life and our rights, those seeking to participate in and build the Constitution Party need to be ready to roll up their sleeves and do the tough “nuts and bolts” work necessary to achieve success, and not expect political work to be some kind of ongoing religious worship service. What religious views our members hold, how they say their prayers or where they go to church concerns me not at all. That they work in good faith to build the Constitution Party and to further its objectives, its platform, its principles and sooner or later, elect its candidates, does.

  9. Christopher Hansen Says:

    Josh

    Why? Because I remained true to my beliefs that I have had since helping to start the Independent American Party in 1966 AD?

    Did I ask anyone else to leave?

    Did I call for a vote to kick anyone else out?

    Why is it may fault at all?

    I am not a religious bigot?

    How could being true to the teachings of my church, which were well publicized for decades, have broken up the Constitution Party when Peroutka and Whiteman and Clymber all knew that the entire Hansen family, including Dan who helped create the Constitution Party, were LDS?

    Why did Peroutka take our help knowing that we were LDS?

    I never asked for anyone to quit.

  10. Christopher Hansen Says:

    Josh,

    I have been the State Chairman for 3 years. I was re-elected after serving a standard two-year term by a unanimous vote at the State Convention. Why should I step down? To make Whiteman feel better?

    GET THIS STRAIGHT I am doing what the Nevada IAP members WANT! We are growing like crazy since I took over. We are in the news all the time. We have 45 candidates. We are the most vibrant party in the nation for the Constitution Party. We were not just 3 years ago. I made some BIG changes on how the IAP was doing things and THEY WORKED!

    I wanted to resign this year because I was recovering from an violent attack upon me and my daughter and was basically not allowed to. (The man that attacked us just plead guilty last week and it had NOTHING to do with politics) No one else even wanted the job.

    The Nevada Secretary of State just wishes I would go away too because I tell the truth and he does not like it either. I just filed criminal charges against him and just beat his stupid voter registration laws in court again. If national leadership does not like us well we are none to pleased with them at the moment either.

    You want some truth. Here you go.

    Almost every candidate in Nevada agrees with me on abortion. They, like me, are 100% pro-life and believe that we must defeat Roe V Wade in stages. They also believe that trying to have abortion as the “key” issue” is a loser. They believe that we cannot get a law restricting ALL abortions and never will. They are not all LDS but many are. They believe that we can stop ALL abortions but not using the law as a club. There are other ways that will work but the No Exceptionists REFUSE to even consider them. They want it their way PERIOD. We disagree. Until we have a change in TACTICS we will continue to be losers and ALL our candidates agree on that.

    So why does the Constitution Party have them listed on the candidates page but not me?

    Nevada asked that ALL our names be removed from the national web page and that the party only have a link to our web page to reduce the tension on this issue. They REFUSED!

    And why is it that there is no definition of whether or not life of the mother is an exception? Is it allowed or not by the party. The party leadership does not agree on EVEN THAT!

    Let’s have a vote on whether or not Life of the Mother is or is not an allowable exception and see what happens to the party then!

    I get bombarded with emails from all over the nation and they tell me how wrong I am but NONE OF THEM AGREE!

    So tell me Josh: Is a life of the mother abortion murder or not?

    Nick Peros just sent me this: “I am against abortion in any and all situations and would eliminate any possibility for abortion in ALL situations, even in the case of rape, physical deformity, incest, and health to the mother. Simply because we have the scientific ability to take the life of a baby doesn’t provide us the moral capacity to make the decision of who should live and die. You cannot legislate morality, of course, so why try to legislate exceptions to it. ”

    Peroutka agrees with Peros but Daniel M. Hoyt from Oshkosh, Wisconsin writes: “You see, I don’t believe there is an exception for the “life of the mother” because I don’t believe that very rare circumstance can ever be considered an abortion.”

    So according to Hoyt an abortion for the life of the mother is not really an abortion at all. AMAZING. Why not just re-classify all abortions for rape, incest, health of the mother as not REALLY being abortions and then we CAN ALL JUST GET ALONG? Because an abortion is abortion and life of the mother abortion is an abortion and if we have to decide whether or not it is an allowable exception or not.

    Chairman Clymer basically agrees with Mr. Hoyt by the way.

    So which one is it, Josh? When you kill the baby to save the life of the mother is it an abortion or not. And be very careful how you answer that on this open forum because if you agree with Mr. Hoyt then Peroukta will think you a murderer in your heart, like he called my sister who has fought against Roe v Wade for decades and leads the Pro-life movement in Nevada.

  11. RCAIP Says:

    “And why are you bringing up just Nevada and Utah as examples of good states? Why are you bringing up only the states that are predominately Mormon?”

    -Isn’t it odd how such state affiliates with LDS members and leaders are the MOST active and organized of the national CP? Obviously members of the LDS Church spend more time building and campaigning for the Party then whine and boost of how pure in ideology they are in chatrooms and do nothing except bicker, complain, and throwing temper tantrums.

    Very petty and irrational remarks, Josh.
    You’re the one in the wrong.

  12. RCAIP Says:

    Mr. Heustis, if you do not like Latter-day Saints in the CP, then are you considering leaving the Party?

  13. Patriotic Jones Says:

    Christopher,

    Unlike RCIAP in other discussions, I believe there can be an agreement on terms. That’s the issue here when discussing the life of the mother.

    Based on the meaning of the word “Abort,” which means an early termination—to abort a mission is to terminate the mission prior to its completion. Based on this pure meaning of the word abort, even pre-mature births would be considered and abortion, since it is an early termination of the birth. In other words the birth did not go to full gestation.

    Most people apply the term “abortion” to any termination of a pregnancy in which the expected result is the death of the unborn child. However, I’d like to suggest a use of the term abortion to not just mean the expected death of the unborn child, but the MURDER of the child.

    Regardless of the circumstances surrounding the inception of the child, to kill an unborn child is murder. Especially, when based on no other criteria other the circumstances of rape or murder. The question has been asked, “Why should the child be made to pay for the sins of the father?”

    This then clarifies the circumstances surrounding “the life of the mother” where the intent is NOT the murder of the child, but to save the live of the mother. It is a LIFE saving issue, not a matter inconvenience of having to deal with the off-spring of a criminal. The object is NOT to kill the child. Almost unequivocally, the Doctor will attempt to save both the unborn child and the mother. It boils down to intent. Something that I’m sure a lawyer with Mr. Hansen’s reputation can understand.

    Where else can Mr. Hansen justify the killing of one for the crimes of another? This is his only defense, that the unborn child is an intruder. Let’s see that argument be applies to someone who is forced to trespass by someone else. Who would be found guilty of committing a crime? The sad thing is this same process is not allowed to apply to an unborn child. I don’t care what religion you come from, to justify the killing anyone for the criminal act of another is in itself criminal.

    SO…... Life of the mother is NOT an exception to abortion when defined in terms of murder. Two people are in the water, you have one life buoy, who do you throw it to?

    Now, one other issue needs to be address in this discussion, “What should happen to the child who is conceived as a result of a criminal act of rape or incest?” Typically, it probably not a good idea to have to force the mother into racing the child who is the result of a violation of her and such a deep and intimate level. The child would most likely be the object of hate. So adoption is the best possible solution for the mother and the child.

  14. RRHeustisJr Says:

    RCAIP says:
    Mr. Heustis, if you do not like Latter-day Saints in the CP, then are you considering leaving the Party?

    RCAIP, this has nothing to do with my “liking” of Latter-day Saints (LDS). Contrary to what you might think, I have many good friends who are LDS. In fact, my best friend throughout law school was (and is) LDS. I had many LDS soccer and baseball teammates growing up. I like most LDS people I meet!

    It is therefore irrelevant whether I “like” or “dislike” LDS people. This is not a people issue, which is why I try to stay away from ad hominem argumentation. It is a foundational issue.

    What I oppose are the foundations of LDS theology and Humanism/Pluralism which are at odds with orthodox Christianity, and which provide the basis for the pro-abortion views held by various party leaders. The reason these issues have come to a head today is because there is no agreement as to what forms the proper foundation for the party’s beliefs. You cannot build a structure on a faulty foundation and expect the structure to long endure.

    “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3) There may be agreement as to various various sub-issues in the Platform, but as far as the foundation goes, agreement does not exist. It is Humanism/Pluralism versus the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ our God. If there is no agreement here, squabbling is inevitable.

    I joined the Constitution Party in 2002 because I believed that the party would never compromise on the Life issue based upon what I believed was a biblically Christian foundation. Had I known in 2002 that state parties would be allowed to elect pro-aborts as party officers, I would have never joined the party in the first place, because it would have been obvious to me that the party was neither wholly committed to the issue nor to the foundation.

    So, am I considering leaving the Party, you ask? I am. I cannot in good conscience promote a national party that allows its state affiliates to elect pro-aborts as party officers. You disagree with that, and I respect your right to disagree. I would not expect you ever to do something that goes against your conscience, and I am sure that you wouldn’t expect me to do the same. Today I am suffering an internal struggle as to whether I should remain active in any way with the Constitution Party. Since the events in Tampa, I have taken a “wait and see” approach, and I believe that I shall come to a decision soon.

    Perhaps I will stay in the party for another 30 years? Perhaps I’ll leave by month’s end? Whatever that decision will be, how about doing me a little favor: please identify yourself and give me your email address so that when I do make that decision, you’ll be the amongst the first to know? :)

  15. Joe Murphy Says:

    Mr. Heustis,

    I have to disagree with your statement using Amos 3:3. If I understand correctly you are stating that there is not an agreement on the life issue, therefore there is squabbling. I believe that Mr. Hansen stated he is %100 pro-life as are you. I feel that most of the people at the Tampa meeting were %100 pro-life as well. Now the disagreement is how do we get there. You seem to be using LDS theology, as you put it, Humanism/Pluralism vs. the crown rights of Jesus Christ our GOD and mixing it with political rhetoric.

    In Amos 3:3 that was a rhetorical question to the nation of Israel. What I am getting at is that we are not yoked together because we are in the same political party. If we were to try and join our different churches as one church, then Amos 3:3 would be a more appropriate response.

    We are in a political party together, not because we agree on everything but because we agree on most things. I do not believe the party has lost anything on its foundation of being pro-life.

    I also do not like how you refer to people who disagree with you or maybe have a different approach to the pro-life issue as being pro-aborts. I have never meet you or Mr. Hansen but from what I have read you both appear to be %100 pro-life. Why then can we not work together, unless that is not your intention to begin with.

    As far as your association with the constitution party you stated you are taking a wait and see approach. I am curious as to what information you do not know at this point that would change your mind one way or the other.

  16. Phil Sawyer Says:

    With all due respect to everyone who made comments above, I must say (as a former member of the American Independent Party of California/Constitution Party – and now, for disclosure purposes, on the left of the political spectrum), I don’t think that a few state party defections (based upon religious intolerance) are going to make a significant difference in regard to whether the Constitution Party grows or not. The Party is stuck in a rut and is outside the mainstream of USA voters. The way forward for the Party would be for it to stop thinking of istself as a minor party and recognize that the Republican Party is on its last legs as a major force. (I have been on record, for a couple of years or so now, as predicting that the GOP will be a minor-sized party by 2012.)

    The Constitution Party would do well to uphold the sort of optimism expressed by Gary Odom, above. In addition, it needs to do more to reach out to mainstream voters – and leave the religious debates for those who would form a Party and a Country based upon a single religious doctrine (another minor-sized party, most surely).

  17. Christopher Hansen Says:

    Patriotic Jones,

    So you agree with Clymer and disagree with Peruotka, Peros and Whiteman. Okay. So what?

    This is what I am writing about.

    The party that SAYS it is 100% pro-life disagree on what is and what is not allowable. You have clearly demonstrated this.

    And yet I was attacked beacuse my views on how to obtain a 100% pro-life nation are different from Whiteman and Peroutka just like yours are different from Whiteman, Peros, and Peroutka.

    I am 100% pro-life. My tactics on how to obtain that goal are different from yours. The goal is the same. You believe there should be an EXCEPTION for life of the Mother based upon the INTENT of the mother’s actions.

    So now we are discussing which abortions are to be allowed depending on the “intent” of the mother. Is the mother’s life to be considered more important than the unborn? You are saying it is. Many members of the party disagree with you and would consider you and I BOTH baby murderers.

    And you are correct. Self-defense is not murder. Self-defense has never been considered murder in America. Intent makes the difference. We agree. Just because the unborn dies does not mean the intent was to murder the unborn. RIGHT! We agree.

    So tell me. Does the party platform say that abortion for the “life of the mother” is allowed or does it say it is not allowed.

    Just look it up and send back the CLEAR WORDS of the platform that tells the world where the Constitution Party stands on this issue.

    Or did the authors leave enoungh room for reasonable people like you to disagree with unreasonable people like Peros?

    South Dakota was attacked by the No Exceptionists for allowing for life of the mother abortions when the passed the law outlawing ALL OTHER ABORTIONS.

    Let me make it VERY CLEAR to you. The NO Exceptionists now think you are a baby murderer.

    Welcome to the club.

  18. Christopher Hansen Says:

    RRHeustisJr

    I hope you stay. I am not asking you to leave.

    By the way do you support an exception for life of the mother like Clymer and Patriotic Jones or are “life of the mother” abortions in opposition to “orthodox Christianity” in your view?

  19. Christopher Hansen Says:

    Joe Murphy,

    You wrote: “Why then can we not work together, unless that is not your intention to begin with.”

    During this long battle I was out to expose the anti-Mormons for exactly what they were. I was tired of losing strong active IAP members when they would go to nation conventions and get attacked for being LDS. So I did work to expose them to save the IAP. I even went to extremes in debates, (that I knew were being combed over like Book of Mormon scripture to find anything that could be used as a weapon. I went far beyond what I really believe (the were dabates after all and you often go to an extreme to demonstrate a point not necessarily becasue you would agree with that extreme) to expose these Mormon haters for what they really were. I intentionally set a trap and they feel into it hook, line and sinker. I wanted people to know the truth about men like Whiteman and they finally exposed themselves AFTER Tampa. They were two faced and now everyone knows it.

    To call us pro-aborts and Humanism/Pluralists is the root of the problem. As Whiteman says, “He will no longer work with people outside his faith” and “Mormons are Satan worshipers.”

    Such people refuse to get along with people like me. How can a Calvinist work with a Satan worshiper, after all?

    This battle over abortion was NEVER about abortion. It was ALWAYS about whether or not Mormons were to be allowed in the party. It has been going on for 14 years by the Cal Zastros of the party. These so-called Christians USED the abortion issue to play upon the hearts of good people that would NEVER refuse to work with Mormons (like RRHeustisJr) but have very stong beliefs about abortion. It was a political tactic to either get rid of the Mormons or destroy the party and take with them as many people as the could to form their own New Anti-Mormon party (whatever it was to be called the heart was still the same.)

    Jefferson called Calvinists Demonists and worse than atheists. Calvinists say Franklin and Jefferson were not Christians.

    Franklin and Jefferson, however, worked with Calvinists to form this nation.

    I happen to be more in agreement with Jefferson and Franklin than the Calvinists and Evangelicals etc. and like Jefferson and Franklin can work with even these “Demonists.”

    Sam Adams believed that the Catholics did not deserve freedom of religion in America. I disagree with Sam on that. I also love the fact that he did what was necessary to start the revolution with England.

    There are many Wonderful Christians that believe the “Mormons” (members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) are wrong but work with us. I work with them in Nevada all the time. We have an agreement on over 95% on how to act but less than 10% agreement of the foundations of REAL Christianity.

    My good friend in the Tax Truth Movement is Christopher Hansen. We share the same name and about a 95% agreement on everything. He believes that Mormon beliefs are wrong and rejects them but we agree on so many other things that we are VERY close friends and work together on what we agree upon.

    Anti-Mormonism and the hatred of everything Mormon is what this battle is about. It never was about abortion. Abortion was just the only weapon these religious bigots could use to have any chance at victory.

    They were exposed for what they REALLY were and so they lost. Now they are out to destroy rather than work together on a 90% agreement level.

    How sad.

  20. Christopher Hansen Says:

    Phil Sawyer,

    We are not interested in getting the support of the “mainstream” voter. We are interested in restoring freedom to this nation. The “mainstream” voter supports fascism if he is a mainstream Republican and socialism if he is a mainstream Democrat.

    We are interested in reaching out to the non-mainstream voter. The vocal minority. We are interested in reaching out to those that see that Republican Neo-Con Fascism is bad news and the Democratic Socialism is a 65 Trillion-Dollar debacle.

    As a third party we do not need a majority to prevail only a vocal minority intent upon setting brushfires in the minds of men until the spark of freedom ignites in enough to get 37% and start winning elections in three-way races.

    In Nevada we are doing this. We are growing 4 times as fast, percentage wise, as the Republicans. We had 1.8% of the total number of registered voters in 2003 AD and now we have 3.4%. We have 45 candidates. We had 6 in 2000 AD. The Good Republicans and Good Democrats work with us because although we often disagree we do agree on SOME things and can work with everyone from the ACLU to Gun Owners of America. From the Progressive Leadership Alliance to the Protection of Marriage Coalition.

    But we, in Nevada, are not mainstream and do not want to be unless the mainstream voter wakes up and realizes that the Constitution, as George W. Bush has called it, has become nothing more than a “Goddamn piece of paper.”

    We must abolish Fascism/Socialism but the mainstream voters still supports those things because they do not want freedom. They want other people to take care of them. Just ask anyone on Social Security. They want their check no matter if it is taken at gun point from the young. “Damn the next generation full speed ahead,” is the TRUE Battle Cry of the AARP. They do not care who pays for their meds just as long as they get their fix. They are government junkies and they want what is “coming to them” no matter what it does to the next generation.

    If that is the mainstream voter, and I believe it is, then may their chains set lightly upon them and may history forget they were our countrymen.

    Give me liberty or give me death.

    Death to Socialism/Fascism.

  21. Sean Scallon Says:

    Looks like some in the CP have come to a crossroads as to their thinking about the party. Perhaps maybe some words of mine can help them choose the right path.

    To Mr. Huestis: Political parties in the U.S. have never been based soley on one religion or one class or one ethnicity, not the successful ones anyway. All strong parties have been coaltion of different groups of voters who have found common ground on a vareity of issues. If you or those in the disaffiliated states are thinking about setting up a strictly Calvinist party, you’ll have about much impact on politics as the average DeLeonist party. You will be a sect and nothing more. May I remind you what happened to the former Washington state CP group that broke away from the CP a few years ago because it would not call itself a pure “Christian” party? I don’t think the American Hertitage Party has a lot of followers out there do they?

    To Mr. Hansen: I think you calvalierly misunderstand the opposition there is to you within the CP. Yes some of it is bigoted. But there are others, especially those who were former Republicans, who joined the CP because the GOP tolerated and supported politicians who supported abortion rights despite disagreeing with their party’s platform. They cannot undertsand why a party would take the time to write a platform and then support someone who would undermind it. That’s why the joined the CP, because they wanted honesty in politics not deals or winks and nods. They believe, as I believe, that you cannot put catagories on abortion and say this is okay and this is not okay. They believe all life is precious, even a bastard life. They care very deeply about this issue and to see the CP national committee not punish the Nevada IAP for its stand on abortion just reminds them of the GOP they left. Be happy that the national committee didn’t kick your party out instead of whining that they are not supporting the Nevada IAP during this election year. This was the bargain you accepted when you and others in the Nevada IAP decided to modify the state party position on abortion from the national position. That maybe your right to do so as a state party, but don’t expect the national party not to react in a way that punishes your deviency. The Nevada IAP may not have merieted expulsion, but it certainly doesn’t merit support on an issue that is a key reason for the party’s overall existence.

    I’ve said my piece on this situation many times. If the state parties in question feel they must disaffiliate to show their disapproval of the decision made by the national committee, so be it. But to form a completly new party would be an utter diaster for those in the Constitutionalist community. The party is just beginning to establish itself as one of the major non-major (hope that’s not an oxy-moron) parties out there along with the Greens and the Libertarians. There’s no other conservative party out there with the strength nationwide and organization of the CP. I earnestly hope that both sides in this debate either find commmon ground or just agree to disagree without rancor or bitterness until the time comes to settle this dispute. To do so otherwise would be suicide and over 15 years worth of work wasted. Just remember that.

  22. RRHeustisJr Says:

    Sean Scallon says:
    Political parties in the U.S. have never been based soley on one religion or one class or one ethnicity, not the successful ones anyway.

    I disagree. Take a look at the Democratic Party. Its sole religion is Secular Humanism. The Republican Party religion is also Secular Humanism with a Deist flavor. None of these parties are irreligious. The concept of Neutrality is a pure Myth. Every party will be based upon some sort of religion. The only question is, Which one? The current Constitution Party National Committee has chosen the religion of Pluralism and will soon morph into Secular Humanism given enough time.

    Sean Scallon also says:
    All strong parties have been coaltion of different groups of voters who have found common ground on a vareity of issues. If you or those in the disaffiliated states are thinking about setting up a strictly Calvinist party, you’ll have about much impact on politics as the average DeLeonist party.

    Sorry, but nobody that I know wishes to establish a “Calvinist party.” On the contrary, there are many that do wish to see an explicitly Christian party without regard to intradenominationalism. It is our belief that this nation is deeply steeped in a Christian heritage that long pre-dates the Declaration and Constitution, and it is that Christian heritage in the realm of law and politics that Christian Constitutionalists wish to restore through a vehicle committed to the same.

    We also reject the contempory “wisdom” that dictates a surrender or compromise of principle in order “to appeal” to those who reject our principle. Winning elections only means something of value to a Cause when the principle of the Cause itself is victorious, not any mere party.

  23. Sean Scallon Says:

    If you consider secular humanism a religion then by that token atheism and deism are religions as well. I’m sure Richard Land’s Southern Baptists will be happy to know you called the secular humanists. That will be a suprise to them.

    Do you consider Mormons Christians?

    Yes there is a Christian character to our law and government. There’s also a pagan Greek and Roman charcter as well and Jefferson was a deist and Franklin and “secular humanist” as well. So who’s government is it that we formed back in 1787, pagan? Christian? or Deist? And if you go back before then, which America are we talking about, Puritan? High Anglican? Low Anglican? Baptist? Quaker? or Dutch Reformed?

    You can try to deny the pluralism within Christianity all you want but its not going to solve anything. A Christian party yes, who’s Christianity are we talking about, Catholic? Calvinist? Lutheran? Methodist? Baptist?

    Political parties may not be neutral but they’re not exclusive either, at least not the successful ones.

  24. RRHeustisJr Says:

    Sean Scallons says:

    If you consider secular humanism a religion then by that token atheism and deism are religions as well.

    Yes, I do; and yes, they are. Atheism maintains a belief that Man is his own god; and Deism holds that its god is impersonal whereby “He” simply created the universe like a clockmaker “winds up” a clock, and then “let it go on its own.” Both viewpoints are religious.

    Sean Scallon also asks:
    Do you consider Mormons Christians?

    Sorry, I do not believe that Mormonism falls within the purview of orthodox Christianity, but I do believe that Mormons, like anybody else, can be saved if they repent of their sins and receive the Christ of the Bible as God, King and Savior.

    Sean Scallon also says:

    if you go back before then, which America are we talking about, Puritan? High Anglican? Low Anglican? Baptist? Quaker? or Dutch Reformed?

    We hold to a bottom-up localist position – not top-down! – whereby each locale determines for itself what foundation upon which it bases its own laws. One locale might be more Puritan; the other might be different. A truly Christian political party would empower localities to determine which flavor of government it wishes to run for itself without outside interference.

    We don’t believe in top-down tyranny. We believe in government closest to the people that best reflects the customs and culture of the people in those communities.

  25. Christopher Hansen Says:

    Sean,

    A.I am 100% pro-life. I believe all life is indeed precious even the life of a bastard. In fact I believe it so much that I adopted a special needs child.Have those that think I am evil done the same? I have fought to overturn Roe v Wade since 1973 AD. My sister and family have lead the fight against Roe v Wade in Nevada. My actions on the Pro-life issue speak louder than words. I oppose abortion with my WHOLE HEART.

    B.I was not whining that the Constitution Party was not supporting me. I was whining because they WERE supporting candidates that agreed with me. That is hypocritical. I have never had their support in the past even before this controversy and I never sought their support in this election. It certainly is no help here in Nevada anyway. National does NOTHING to help us in Nevada that is not returned with interest.

    C.Nevada has not modified its position on abortion. It is the same it has been. We, as a party, to date, still support the National Platform. Do you find anything in Nevada’s platform that you openly disagree with concerning abortion?

    D.You state: “The Nevada IAP may not have merieted expulsion, but it certainly doesn’t merit support on an issue that is a key reason for the party’s overall existence.” I agree with you! So why are they listing our candidates instead of just putting a link to our web site?

    E.I seek common ground. I never asked the other States or any individual to leave. Not once. Not ever. They left.

    F. One question. Do you believe Life of the Mother abortions are allowable or not allowable under the Constitution Party platform? In other words do you agree with Clymer or Peroutka on that issue?

  26. Phil Sawyer Says:

    In response to Christopher Hansen:

    Dear Mr. Hansen;

    You are opposed to socialism and I am opposed to capitalism. However, you are not my enemy, you are my brother in Jesus Christ.

    Regarding the minor splits in the Constitution Party (of which I am no longer a member), I will say, once again, that the Constitution Party will not be greatly hurt by a few state parties splitting off due to religious intolerance. They can form as many new parties as they want, based upon all of their individual favorite doctrines. Most likely, they will not amount to much. This country of ours was founded upon the priniciple of religious liberty (among other things); it is not very likely to turn into a country based upon a single religious doctrine.

    Yours sincerely,

    Phil Sawyer
    Sacramento, California

  27. Christopher Hansen Says:

    RRHeustisJr

    So since the Nevada party is largely LDS then you would empower [that] localit[y] to determine which flavor of government (leadership) it wishes to run for itself without outside interference.

    Then why are you bothering Nevada?

    Because you are a hypocrite and do not believe what you preach. You would support empowering that local party ONLY if they met with YOUR FALSE standards for Christianity.

    That is the problem. We do indeed disagree upon what Christianity is just as the self proclaimed Christian Jefferson called the Calvinists Demonist but still worked with them.

    You do not want to allow to the LDS what we allow to you. If you want your demonistic form of Anti-Christ Christianity to be the foundation of your state party that is your choice. In Nevada we are more like the Founding Fathers and allow all men to worship whatever God or gods they choose as long as their actions profess that they are good people.

    The National Party was SPECIFICALLY established to keep the National Party from interfering in State Structure. Then the hypocrites and Mormon haters tried to go around the rules. They lost. Abortion was never really the issue on EITHER side.

  28. Christopher Hansen Says:

    Sean Scallon,

    Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.

    This Court has taken notice of the fact that recognized “religions” exist that “do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God,” Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 n. 11, e. g., “Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.” Ibid. See also Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127 (1957); 2 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; J. Archer, Faiths Men Live By 120-138, 254-313 (2d ed. revised by Purinton 1958); Stokes & Pfeffer, supra, n. 3, at 560.

  29. Centurion Says:

    Sweeping away most of the prededing rhetorical and self-serving smoke , there are actually only a few points of worthwhile distinction on this subject

    In summary:

    1.) The NVIAP (and its supporting-state-parties) position on abortion is essentially the same as the GOP’s and most “pro-life” organizations, i.e., they condone exceptions, and no approach except incrementalism can possibly “work,” even if it takes another three or four decades and another 40-60 million dead babies—as if God’s patience is infinite regarding the wanton murder of His created images; and His law is secondary to the autonomous whims of man. Meanwhile, party growth achieved by ethical compromise is the overriding strategy in the humanist worldview.

    2.) The rants about religious bigotry are irrelevant to the basic debate, which centers on allegiance to the CP platform, i.e., its fidelity to Christ, His law, and the no-exceptions plank on life. Incidentally, while the focus of disageement on this thread has been “life or health of the mother,” the
    IAPNV leadership has also publicly advocated the dectruction of children with fetal defects, and those conceived in rape and incest. Whatever the readers’ beliefs on these issues, that is the essence of the division, with its root in the party platform and its professed allegiance to Jesus Christ, not John Calvin or Joseph Smith.

    3.) References to religious history in America are useful only if applied with wisdom and accuracy. Those who ponder the Christian worldview of most of our forefathers might consider that many believers in the CP are laboring forward, not backward, in our political activism, as the Christian founders expected their heirs to do. That vision includes fulfillment of the Great Commission, and the restoration of all spheres of the culture, including civil government, to the Kingship of Christ and biblical jurispru-dence. These are the founding principles of the Constitution Party, from a political perspective, as spoken publicly and frequently by Howard Phillips and many other noted party leaders over the past 14 years. It is the promise of orthodox Christianity, as revealed in scripture. The Constitution,
    including the First Amendment, is one of countless tools for advancing that mission. It is a long-range project of the type few are yet willing to join; but perseverance will reward, while compromise will curse.

    It is but ours to raise the standard, and to trust God for the outcome.

  30. Christopher Hansen Says:

    Centurion,

    There is no “No Exceptions Plank.”

    Most of the leaders in the Constitution Party support AT LEAST the Life of the Mother Exception. Clymer sure does.

    No where in the platform are the words “No Exceptions” found.

    In fact it says: “No government may legalize the taking of the unalienable right to life without justification…” Therefore the only question is what is justifiable? Most believe that an abortion for “Life of the Mother” is justifiable. The question of what is and what is not justifiable is not answered in the platform.

    It appears that most of the rest of your ideas are as accurate as your statements about the Constitution Party platform.

    The Constitution you proclaim was created by the “curse” of compromise. In fact the reason we have a House of Representatives and a Senate is because of the GREAT compromise.

    Even the First Amendment was a compromise. Madison opposed it. Henry demanded it. If you believe compromise is a “curse” then you MUST believe the Constitution is a “curse.” So why support it? I can answer that. It is because you are a hypocrite.

    The Nevada Independent American Party has raised the Standard and we trust God for the outcome. We always have. That is why we are so successful. All Glory be unto God.

    Are you running for office this year? If not are you not compromising?

  31. RRHeustisJr Says:

    Christopher Hansen asks:
    So since the Nevada party is largely LDS then you would empower [that] localit[y] to determine which flavor of government (leadership) it wishes to run for itself without outside interference. Then why are you bothering Nevada?

    Nobody’s “bothering” Nevada. The pro-disaffiliation leaders simply did not wish to affiliate with a pro-abortion party like IAPNV. Had the pro-disaffiliation leaders succeeded in Tampa, the IAPNV would have still existed, running its business as usual, the only difference being that it was no longer affiliated with the national Constitution Party.

    The IAPNV does what it wants, and nobody sought to change that. But because of the vote in Tampa, I can no longer market or promote the national Constitution Party as legitimately pro-life. Its decision to continue affiliation with a pro-abort state party makes it a PLINO party (Pro-life in name only).

  32. RCAIP Says:

    RCAIP says:
    Mr. Heustis, if you do not like Latter-day Saints in the CP, then are you considering leaving the Party?

    RCAIP, this has nothing to do with my “liking” of Latter-day Saints (LDS). Contrary to what you might think, I have many good friends who are LDS. In fact, my best friend throughout law school was (and is) LDS. I had many LDS soccer and baseball teammates growing up. I like most LDS people I meet!

    =I recall you are a former Catholic, I’m sure your views of LDS people were different then. As much as they are your friends, you wish for them to leave the Church, yes?

    It is therefore irrelevant whether I “like” or “dislike” LDS people. This is not a people issue, which is why I try to stay away from ad hominem argumentation. It is a foundational issue.

    =No, it’s a belief issue- the foundations that you speak of are only interpretation.

    What I oppose are the foundations of LDS theology and Humanism/Pluralism which are at odds with orthodox Christianity, and which provide the basis for the pro-abortion views held by various party leaders. The reason these issues have come to a head today is because there is no agreement as to what forms the proper foundation for the party’s beliefs. You cannot build a structure on a faulty foundation and expect the structure to long endure.

    =Define Orthodox Christianity; and would you equate the Catholic Church with Orthodox Christianity?
    In my view, not only do Latter-day Saints fit within ‘Orthodox Christianity’, they are The only True Orthodox Christians. I do agree with your opposition to Secular Humanism, but your opposition to the LDS beliefs many Party members hold will only be divisive and destructive to restoring our constitutional government- you’re only doing the Secular Humanists a favor.
    =being purist and excluding every favorable element also counts as a faulty foundation- especially if you choose to keep it so pure as to not build on it.

    =This is the LDS Church’s REAL stand on abortion-
    http://www.lds.org/newsroom/issues/answer/0,19491,6056-1-201-10-201,00.html

    “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3) There may be agreement as to various various sub-issues in the Platform, but as far as the foundation goes, agreement does not exist. It is Humanism/Pluralism versus the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ our God. If there is no agreement here, squabbling is inevitable.

    =From your view.

    I joined the Constitution Party in 2002 because I believed that the party would never compromise on the Life issue based upon what I believed was a biblically Christian foundation. Had I known in 2002 that state parties would be allowed to elect pro-aborts as party officers, I would have never joined the party in the first place, because it would have been obvious to me that the party was neither wholly committed to the issue nor to the foundation.

    =Then you made that mistake in the first part.

    So, am I considering leaving the Party, you ask? I am. I cannot in good conscience promote a national party that allows its state affiliates to elect pro-aborts as party officers. You disagree with that, and I respect your right to disagree. I would not expect you ever to do something that goes against your conscience, and I am sure that you wouldn’t expect me to do the same. Today I am suffering an internal struggle as to whether I should remain active in any way with the Constitution Party. Since the events in Tampa, I have taken a “wait and see” approach, and I believe that I shall come to a decision soon.

    =Good luck on your decision, if the Party does not hold or adhere to your beliefs, then go with one that will.

    Perhaps I will stay in the party for another 30 years? Perhaps I’ll leave by month’s end? Whatever that decision will be, how about doing me a little favor: please identify yourself and give me your email address so that when I do make that decision, you’ll be the amongst the first to know?

    =Nah, I reccomend you make the annoucement on The American View,
    I usually check out the website to see what Peroutka and John are talking about- I won’t miss your annoucement.

  33. RCAIP Says:

    “I disagree. Take a look at the Democratic Party. Its sole religion is Secular Humanism. The Republican Party religion is also Secular Humanism with a Deist flavor. None of these parties are irreligious. The concept of Neutrality is a pure Myth. Every party will be based upon some sort of religion. The only question is, Which one? The current Constitution Party National Committee has chosen the religion of Pluralism and will soon morph into Secular Humanism given enough time.”

    =Yes, in ideology that is, HOWEVER its members and registered voters don’t have their party’s idealogy as their relgious beliefs. Both parties have Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, even Mormons, etc in their ranks.- no political party is of one religion in means of their members beliefs, except for some of the communist/socialist groups.

    =Secular Humanism very ultra left-wing in political idealogy, I really doubt the CP will become that if ALL the fanactics leave- unless the Red socialists and the Green Party takes us over- LOL!

  34. RCAIP Says:

    “Sorry, I do not believe that Mormonism falls within the purview of orthodox Christianity, but I do believe that Mormons, like anybody else, can be saved if they repent of their sins and receive the Christ of the Bible as God, King and Savior.”

    = Why don’t you go to- http://www.mormon.org -And read about what we REALLY believe!
    LDS (Mormon) do not need to repent and accept Christ BECAUSE WE ALREADY DO ACCEPT AND BELIEVE IN HIM! We even pray in His Name too!

    Very feeble-minded remarks Reed.

  35. RCAIP Says:

    “Nobody’s “bothering” Nevada. The pro-disaffiliation leaders simply did not wish to affiliate with a pro-abortion party like IAPNV. Had the pro-disaffiliation leaders succeeded in Tampa, the IAPNV would have still existed, running its business as usual, the only difference being that it was no longer affiliated with the national Constitution Party.”

    =Then if they didn’t want to affiliate with the Nevada Party, why did they attempt to kick out Nevada in the first place rather then leaving Nevada alone and quitting the national Party first? There also have been past attempts to kick Nevada out before the abortion issue came up. Were those attempts justified, with the abortion issue not in question then?

    “We hold to a bottom-up localist position – not top-down! – whereby each locale determines for itself what foundation upon which it bases its own laws. One locale might be more Puritan; the other might be different. A truly Christian political party would empower localities to determine which flavor of government it wishes to run for itself without outside interference.
    We don’t believe in top-down tyranny. We believe in government closest to the people that best reflects the customs and culture of the people in those communities.”

    =Do you know how hypocritical you sound? You believe in making every state Party adhere to the national platform and have local control only through the dictates of the national leadership, yet at the same time you believe each ‘locale’ should control its own affairs and hold its own beliefs and customs. You are contridicting yourself and making no sense. You truely sound like a Republicrat politician alright.

    =At least Bill Shearer and Chris Hansen have more integrity and honesty then you and Peroutka.

  36. Vincent Darrah Says:

    Look under abortion in the CP platform and you will find these words Mr. Hansen.

    We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception.

    Looks to me it does say NO EXCEPTIONS

  37. Chris Campbell Says:

    Reed Heustis says:Don’t you realize that religious bigotry only goes one way? Mormons now wield a blank check to hurl as much invective as possible, knowing full well that any response to their heresies will be smeared as “bigotry.”

    Reed,
    Now that the “yes” folks left, there is little to stop this of which you complain about. Those of us that voted “no” could use your help in the future, sadly too many “yes” folks now resemble that yellow line in the middle of the road. I did not vote FOR Hansen, but against the flimsy case made for Nevada disaffiliation. Again, now I have a harder time trying to hold hte line. Also, I would be hesitant to use the word “heresy” as that can be a divisive, downward sloop.

  38. Chris Campbell Says:

    Reed says:
    I cannot in good conscience promote a national party that allows its state affiliates to elect pro-aborts as party officers.

    The national Party does not “allow” or “disallow” anything within the workings of state parties.. It can vote to kick out a state affiliate-as the Tampa vote was about. But, the National cannot interfere within the inner workings of the state affiliate.

    Clymer made this apparent in the Oregon online video (Google has poor quality). No one is a member of the National Party, they are members of the state.

  39. Sean Scallon Says:

    We hold to a bottom-up localist position – not top-down! – whereby each locale determines for itself what foundation upon which it bases its own laws. One locale might be more Puritan; the other might be different. A truly Christian political party would empower localities to determine which flavor of government it wishes to run for itself without outside interference.

    We don’t believe in top-down tyranny. We believe in government closest to the people that best reflects the customs and culture of the people in those communities.

    But you, Mr Heustis don’t believe in letting the Nevada IAP determine its own foundation based on, perhaps although I may be wrong, its Mormon flavor? Interesting position. If the state party you belong to has a life without exceptions clause and the national party has one too, what makes you so concerned about Nevada all of a sudden?

    Life of the Mother concerns, Mr. Hansen, is a medical decision made by doctors during the birth process itself and there’s no need to codify such decisions into law. It’s a lot different than going to a clinic after being raped or finding out your baby has birth defects and decide to terminate the pregnancy. If it is true that your state has such exceptions as well, regardless if they are LDS positions or not, then they do run counter to the national platform like it or not, which is a decision the Nevada Party took knowing full well it would spark controversy.

  40. Barry Kroeker Says:

    Chris Hansen has done a very good job of explaining his own perspective on the Constitution Party National Committee majority vote in Tampa in April, 2006, rejecting disaffiliation of the Independent American Party of Nevada. He sees it as fundamentally a religious issue, and in a sense, I think he is correct.
    Anyone who is familiar with the very public writings of Chris Hansen understand that he believes he is assisting in the fulfillment of LDS (Latter Day Saints) prophecy with the Independent American Party of Nevada. He believes that the IAP is America’s inevitable great hope for the future.
    The national Constitution Party organization is open to his participation, and has with the Tampa vote essentially given him carte blanche to continue to mold the IAP of Nevada (and the national party, I might add) in a distinctively Mormon image (including the LDS church position on abortion, which is a reluctantly pro-abortion position, despite Chris Hansen’s deceptive claims to the contrary).
    Those of us who joined the Constitution Party because we thought its platform (including its prolife plank) was rooted in the God of the Bible are responding to the unprincipled Tampa action in a variety of ways. Some are staying with the national group in hopes it can be restored/reformed. Some have already left (six state affiliates at last count, with more considering), and some are still uncertain or even unaware of the situation, as leaders at the national level have refused to even publicly acknowledge the formal disaffiliation notices received at the national headquarters.
    Curiously, even though the national Constitution Party organization majority voted “with” Chris Hansen’s supporters in Tampa, CP leaders have pledged officially and publicly NOT to support his candidacy for governor of Nevada because of what THEY describe as Chris Hansen’s deviation from the pro-life plank. But this is smoke and mirrors—the national party wants to play this issue in the murky middle, and are finding out the hard way that politics over principle is not a good way to build a third party.
    The national Constitution Party has worked very hard in recent years to be “inclusive” of Mormons and I support this effort to a point, but not when key platform positions are compromised or deceptively framed to “lure” unsuspecting lay people into supporting the organization, and not when Mormon doctrine is used as a wedge to divide the party and marginalize Christian believers who I believe comprise the majority of its membership in many states.
    I do not support Chris Hansen’s political vision. It is not the vision articulated in the current national Constitution Party platform (which I helped write). It is not built on the same religious foundation as this nation was. And should he and like-minded followers attain a political advantage, I believe we can expect more of what history has shown to be the nature of of the LDS cult.
    http://www.christiananswers.net/evangelism/beliefs/mormonism.html
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/mormon/beliefs/god/godchrist.shtml
    http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2003/07/26/mormons/index.html
    Sincerely,
    Barry Kroeker

  41. Jonathan Grubbs Says:

    Chris Hansen says he is 100% pro-life on this thread, but has been quoted as saying in another interview that he doesn’t believe the preborn child is a life, and that life begins when the child takes his/her first breath. Which is it Mr. Hansen?

    I don’t know anyone in the party who had any problem with Hansen being a Mormon, it was only after it was found that there were some in the NV state party leadership who were not 100% pro-life that the action was taken to get their party leadership back in line with the National Party platform, the move was not to kick out the party, but to give them time to come into compliance with the national platform, after they choose not to do this, the next option was the vote to disaffiliate. Mr. Hansen is the one who made it an issue about the Mormons. He is not interested in building the Constitution Party, but only in building the “prophesied” AIP party, with or without the Constitution Party’s help.

    The biggest problem with the AIP affiliates is that most of the registered voters in those states have never heard of the actual party or the Constitution Party, they just think they are registering as Independents. An easy way to see which state affiliates are the real supporters of the Constitution Party is not by looking at any inflated voter registration numbers, but by looking at the actual votes during the election, for example:

    Ohio 11,940 votes for Peroutka in 2004
    Nevada 1,152 votes for Peroutka in 2004

  42. Centurion Says:

    Lies from the Left (i.e., Christopher Hansen, Chairman of IAPNV, candidate for governor):

    1.) “There is no ‘no exceptions’ plank.”

    2.) “Most of the leaders in the Constitution Party support AT LEAST the Life of the Mother exception.”

    3.) “No where in the platform are the words ‘no exceptions’ found.”

    If there is zero credibility in the above set of libelous quotes, then why should any other claims of “success” or “righeousness” by NVIAP leadership be taken seriously on this forum or any other?

    Defenders of the subject Hansen positions, please take note and do some more homework.

    Has anyone else noted that Leftists always use inflammatory strawmen when their credibility and ethics are challenged? Examples include:

    (a.) racism; (b.) extemism; (c.) religious bigotry; d.) hypocrisy; e.) persecution; f.) fundamentalism, etc., etc.

    Jesse Jackson, Hilary Clinton, Barney Frank, Kate Michelman, Christopher Hansen: Please call home.

  43. Jonathan Grubbs Says:

    Chris Hansen says:
    Most of the leaders in the Constitution Party support AT LEAST the Life of the Mother Exception. Clymer sure does.

    I have heard Clymer answer this accusation from you in the past. You are using half-truths to try to make it look like you are not in the wrong for supporting abortions like you do. Clymer has talked about the life of the mother in cases of an “Ectopic Pregnancy”, that is the only case he has talked about. There is never a case where an abortion is needed to save the life of the mother. The surgical procedure used during an “Ectopic Pregnancy” is not an abortion.

  44. RRHeustisJr Says:

    RCAIP says:

    This is the LDS Church’s REAL stand on
    abortion – http://www.lds.org/newsroom/issues/answer/0,19491,6056-1-201-10-201,00.html

    Thank you for demonstrating the pro-abortion view of the LDS Church:

    “The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when: Pregnancy results from rape or incest….”

    The issue culminating in Tampa was the result of competing worldviews: one Biblical, the other Mormon and/or Pluralist. As long as no agreement is reached regarding the foundation of the Constitution Party, there will continually be similar squabbles arising in the future. The same goes for all parties.

  45. Jonathan Grubbs Says:

    There are meny other “churches” and “church leaders” that would allow for possible exceptions. I believe Baptist pastor Jerry Fallwell once said that he would allow exceptions for rape or incest. That would make him less than 100% pro-life and would disqualify him from receiving my support if he were to run for office. It wouldn’t mean I am anti-Baptist, just like my refusing to support Chris Hansen doesn’t make me anti-Mormon. It’s not about religion, it’s about being 100% pro-life, with no exceptions, or not being 100% pro-life by allowing exceptions.

  46. RRHeustisJr Says:

    RCAIP says:
    Do you know how hypocritical you sound? You believe in making every state Party adhere to the national platform and have local control only through the dictates of the national leadership, yet at the same time you believe each ‘locale’ should control its own affairs and hold its own beliefs and customs. You are contridicting yourself and making no sense. You truely sound like a Republicrat politician alright.

    I can see how it sounds hypocritical to you if you contextually misapply my comments to party governance. I was not writing of party governance. I was writing of various governmental localities without regard to party politics.

    As you recall above, Sean Scallon asked me, “[I]f you go back before then, which America are we talking about, Puritan? High Anglican? Low Anglican? Baptist? Quaker? or Dutch Reformed?”

    I responded, “We hold to a bottom-up localist position – not top-down! – whereby each locale determines for itself what foundation upon which it bases its own laws.” In context, my response addressed localist governance in the sense that each locale is able to hold to a Christian denominational “flavor” without being forced to live according to the “requirements” of other Christian denominations.

    Nonetheless, even this concept of localism does not give carte blanche for these communities to enact laws that violate fundamental Biblical priciples at the expense of the larger surrounding communities (i.e., the state). In other words, if a community enacted homosexual “marriage” or polygamy legalization or authorization of child sacrifice, the state would have the right to strike down such “legalities” as being violative of explicit Biblical law. On the other hand, the state would not have any right to force a particular denominational requirement upon dissenting localities.

    I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.

  47. RRHeustisJr Says:

    RCAIP says:
    =At least Bill Shearer and Chris Hansen have more integrity and honesty then you and Peroutka.

    Please don’t resort to the ad hominem. You made sense in earlier comments, and those comments were welcome. The ad hominem is unneeded.

  48. Sean Scallon Says:

    Nonetheless, even this concept of localism does not give carte blanche for these communities to enact laws that violate fundamental Biblical priciples at the expense of the larger surrounding communities (i.e., the state). In other words, if a community enacted homosexual “marriage” or polygamy legalization or authorization of child sacrifice, the state would have the right to strike down such “legalities” as being violative of explicit Biblical law. On the other hand, the state would not have any right to force a particular denominational requirement upon dissenting localities.

    I’m having a debate with a CP member on my blog who has the same Lincolnian view about local communities. I have told him and will tell that such view dangerous, because you seem to imply that if a community defies the state or even national government on a question such as abortion, you would send in the Marines to set them straight. Lincoln had Columbia, South Carolina burned baceuse of slavery, would bur down New York City because of abortion? And you wonder why people say CP members are theocrats or Christian Reconstructionalists.

    You are putting limits on your party’s potential growth.

  49. Christopher Hansen Says:

    Jonathan Grubbs,

    Does the baby die or live?

  50. Christopher Hansen Says:

    Vincent Darrah,

    NO! It says:

    We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception.

    I AGREE with this statement 100%. READ THE WORDS. DON’T ADD TO THEM!

    The word abortion is not found in that sentence IS IT? That is one of the problem with the platform. It is not defined. People like you read into it words THAT ARE NOT THERE. WHY? So that people can believe what they want to like you do. It leaves room for disagreement. They are, as Chairman Clymer called them in my brother’s office in Las Vegas, “Weasel words.” They allow you to make up your own meanings.

    You are like the moron patriots that read a statute that says the government MAY do “whatever” as MUST do “whatever.” And then go to jail because they do not know the difference. I see it all the time. You read what you want to read instead of reading the words that are written.

    It does not say that these unborn humans cannot be aborted for “justifiable” reasons like life of the mother for an “Ectopic Pregnancy.” Just as you have the right to self-defense against all persons who also were given life by God. You have the right to shoot soldiers that are shooting at you that are ALSO given life by God. Government has the power to take God given life for “justifiable” reasons, JUST LIKE MOSES DID, according to the same platform that says: “We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception.” EXCEPT FOR JUSTIFIABLE REASONS!

    I want ALL ABORTIONS TO END. EVERY DAMN ONE OF THEM! I am working hard to create a nation where abortions will stop. What kind of a mad man would want ANY abortion to occur? Who would want murder or theft or rape or war? I want Roe v Wade overturned. I have worked actively to overturn Roe. And then these Anti-Mormons split the party over one man’s disagreement with them? If you believe that then you believe that Peroutka and Whiteman and Zastro were not Anti-Mormons.

    I also believe in original intent of the Constitution and the right of self-defense EVEN FOR WOMEN and the right of the governed and therefore the government to determine what is and what is not justifiable when it comes to taking a God given life.

    I want the Constitution party to stop being hypocritical. They say they believe in original intent BUT THEY IGNORE IT WHEN IT COMES TO WHEN LIFE BEGINS UNDER LAW. Some say no exceptions. Some say exceptions for life of the mother. Some say an abortion for an Ectopic Pregnancy is not an abortion at all even though it is indeed an abortion and the unborn baby does indeed die. Some say “Just lie about it.” Or: “Just be quiet and don’t tell anybody.” But whatever you do do not tell the truth or debate this issue in public because we cannot talk about this issue in the Constitution Party.

    And for that I am called every name in the book by people that claim to be Christians. These same people that say no one can take a life yet say the Bible is completely true but reject that Moses slaughtered children and so did Joshua for “justifiable reasons.” But then God commanded that but God would never command it today even though God never changes.

    These same people say that a child cannot be punished for the sins of a parent and yet they believe in “original sin” and that all children are punished because of the “Sin of Adam.” Many even believe children need to be baptized because they are born with sin and yet say the child is innocent. So what is it? Is it innocent or born with sin? They say the bible does not allow for a child to be punished for the sins of a parent but forget that a bastard child could be kicked out of a congregation for TEN GENERATIONS because the Bible says it is okay. But also say that part of the Old Testament is not correct any more while they try to put up the Ten Commandments everywhere because they are true because they are in the Old Testament! But Original Sin and kicking out the bastard children cannot be talked about concerning the ABORTION ISSUE. WHY? Because they are hypocrites. They say they base their beliefs on the Bible and BUT THEY REFUSE TO EXPLAIN ORIGINAL SIN when they say a child cannot be punished for the sins of a parent!

    They quote one verse like you did with the platform but they ignore the verses that disagree with their “pure Orthodox Christianity.” Naturally anyone that disagrees with them is not a REAL Christian. And the truth be DAMNED along with all the Mormons.

    I want government and people to follow the law. I want open and honest debate about original intent of when life began BUT THAT IS NOT ALLOWED. WE DON’T WANT TRUTH in the Constitution Party because we already made up our minds so don’t confuse us with the facts.

    I want people to read the words that are written. I want people that agree on 95% of an issue to work together on that issue. I want people to work together if that only agree on one single issue.

    I never kicked anyone out of the party. I never asked anyone to quit. I compromise without ever compromising my principles. It is interesting to note that these people that say that compromise is a curse all asked me to compromise my religious beliefs for the sake of party unity. HYPOCRITES!

    Well I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I make no apologies for that. I am proud to be LDS. I debate people from other churches ESPECIALLY ANTI-MORMONS and I defeat them with EASE! Because their religion is based on lies and garbage. And yet I can work with anybody. So take your hatred and/or lies and half-truths and do with them what you will. What I will do is continue to run for governor, build the Independent American Party of Nevada, recruit new people to stop paying income taxes and work to actually STOP ABORTIONS and I really do not care what anyone else thinks of me because my only judge in the end will be God and I really do not care if it is your God or my God. I will be what I think my God wants me to be and if your God does not like it then He can send me to Hell because I do not like tyrants. My God is not a tyrant. If your God is, like the Calvinist God is, then I am at eternal war with all forms of tyranny over the human mind.

    Rebellion to tyranny is obedience to God is the belief this nation was founded upon. I follow that.

  51. Christopher Hansen Says:

    Barry Kroeker,

    There you go. We are a cult to you. It is obvious that you cannot work with cultists.

    We are a power within the Constitution Party. An evil tree cannot have good friut and a good tree cannot have evil fruit.

    So which one is the Constitution Party? It cannot be both.

    And you are correct. I WILL push my agenda as I believe it is the correct agenda and in Nevada it has been and the proof is in what we have accomplished.

    At least we have fruit so others can judge us.

  52. Christopher Hansen Says:

    Jonathan Grubbs,

    What I have said is the BIBLE says life begins at the first breath. Do you understand the difference between me saying it and me saying the Bible says it?

    Do you understand that if I quote Blackstone on the law that it is NOT ME saying it but I am quoting Blackstone?

    With all the study I have done in the last four years on abortion I can say without question that I do not know when, under law, life begins. If is begins at conception then it does not agree with the original intent of the Constitution. Of that I am sure. If it begins, as the Bible says it does, at the first breath then it also disagrees with the original intent of the Constitution.

    A man whose brain is not functioning is considered dead. If a unborn’s brain is not functioning is it dead? I do not know.

    I am 100% pro-life because I want to stop all abortions. The question I have is how do we accomplish that goal.

    The No Exceptionists have failed to accomplish it their way. Maybe it is time to try a new approach?

  53. Christopher Hansen Says:

    Centurion,

    And you Anti-Mormons use terms like Baby murdering, Cultist, Smith worshipers, Non-Christian, Pro-abort, Satan worshipers, etc. So what does that make you according to your standards? How did you put it?

    Here, let me quote you. “Has anyone else noted that Leftists always use inflammatory strawmen when their credibility and ethics are challenged?”

    I was just following the Golden Rule and treating you like you treated us. Get over it you Leftist.

    And if you think that was libel, SUE ME. I would love to get you into a court of law under oath. I would tie you in knot with your own words until you did not even know what you thought you believed before I got you on the stand. HYPOCRITE! There is another name that fits you.

    I can take the heat but you just whine. That mean ole’ cultist Satan worshiping pro-abort baby murder Christopher Hansen is calling us names! Boo Hoo.

    I am laughing at you because you deserve to be laughed at. You people always try to place rules on others that you do not follow yourselves. HYPOCRITES. HYPOCRITES HYPOCRITES. Live by the rules you set for us and you could not get out of bed in the morning the weight would be so oppressive.

  54. RRHeustisJr Says:

    Sean Scallon says:
    You are putting limits on your party’s potential growth.

    As long as God is in control, there are no limits. Our duty as Christians is to put Biblical principle first – even if it is totally unpopular! Results are totally in God’s hands, not Man’s.

    I reject the game of secular politics as usual. Licking my finger and sticking it in the air to see which way the wind blows is not my idea of righteousness. Building a Big Tent without regard to principle is an ultimate surrender of principle. I don’t believe in Big Tents. The best things come in Small Packages, and God can be trusted to use what the world deems to be weak and foolish in order to confound the “strong” and “wise.”

  55. Christopher Hansen Says:

    Jonathan Grubbs,

    Ohio 11,940 votes for Peroutka in 2004
    Nevada 1,152 votes for Peroutka in 2004

    Now the rest of the story!

    Was it voter fraud?
    http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/995

    “There also seems to be an abnormally high vote count for third party candidates who received less than one-half of one percent of the statewide vote total combined. For example, in precinct 4-F, the right-wing Constitutional Law candidate Peroutka received 215 votes to Bush’s 21 and Kerry’s 290. In this precinct, Kerry received 55% of the vote where Gore received 91% of the vote in the year 2000. These numbers suggest that Kerry’s votes were inadvertently or intentionally shifted to Peroutka.”

    So did Peroutka really get 11,000 or was it just a part of the voter fraud that let Bush win?

    And then again look what our other candidates did.

    SCHUMANN, DAVID K. US Senate IAP 6,001

    HANSEN, JANINE IAP Congress 10,638 in ONLY one of THREE districts not Statewide like Peroutka.

    Janine would have had 55,000 State wide with Ohio’s population numbers if her percentages stayed the same.

    PROFANT, CATHIE LYNN IAP State Senate in only one of 21 districts not Statewide like Peroutka 13,117

    ANDREWS, MARK IAP 9,289 in just one assembly district out of 42 not statewide like Peroutka. That would be 2,017,013 State wide with Ohio’s population if the percentages held.

    How many Presidential candidates were there in Ohio? The answer is FOUR!

    How many in Nevada? Seven if you count none pof the above?

    What was Peroutka percentage of the vote total since Ohio has 11,421,267 people and Nevada has 2,206,022 people.

    That would mean that Peoutka would have received 5963 if Nevada had Ohio’s population.

    But wait it gets better!

    In Ohio there was ONLY four candidates and no place to vote for none of the above.

    In Nevada there was 6 presidential candidates on the Ballot. BADNARIK, MICHAEL, BUSH, GEORGE W., COBB, DAVID, KERRY, JOHN F., NADER, RALPH, PEROUTKA, MICHAEL A. PLUS none of the above which got over 3000 votes. That is over 17,000 in Ohio. More than Peroutka got in Ohio. How many people voted for Peroutka that would have voted none of the above if that had the chance? You bring up the: They think they are Independent. Well I can bring up: They were just voting as a protest with Peroutka.

    How many votes would Peroutka received if he had 6 opponents instead of 3? With just the standard increase in the protest vote alone without none of the above or the additional candidates he could have had at least another 1000 votes in Nevada which, if compared to Ohio’s numbers would have given him 11,139 almost identical to Ohio’s voter Fraud increased numbers.

    IAP Senate candidate Dave SCHUMANN, the only other State Wide candidate in Nevada in 2004 got 6001 in a six-way race. That would be about 31,000 votes in with Ohio’s population.

    How many votes did the Constitution Party candidate for United States Senate get in Ohio? ZERO? Why? Because there was no Senate Candidate in Ohio because Ohio did not do the work to get one like Nevada did.

    So take your Apples and Oranges comparison and place them where they belong. In the garbage right next to your mind.

  56. RCAIP Says:

    Thank you for demonstrating the pro-abortion view of the LDS Church:

    “The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when: Pregnancy results from rape or incest….”

    The issue culminating in Tampa was the result of competing worldviews: one Biblical, the other Mormon and/or Pluralist. As long as no agreement is reached regarding the foundation of the Constitution Party, there will continually be similar squabbles arising in the future. The same goes for all parties.

    =You forgot this:

    =”The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.”

    =And these:

    http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1985.htm/ensign%20may%201985%20.htm/reverence%20for%20life.htm?f=templates$fn=document-frame.htm$3.0$q=$x=$nc=7262

    &

    http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20december%201984%20.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm$f=templates$3.0#LPTOC1

    =Some Lawyer you are, Why don’t you do more research next time- your arguments are completely untrue and biased.

  57. RCAIP Says:

    “I responded, “We hold to a bottom-up localist position – not top-down! – whereby each locale determines for itself what foundation upon which it bases its own laws.” In context, my response addressed localist governance in the sense that each locale is able to hold to a Christian denominational “flavor” without being forced to live according to the “requirements” of other Christian denominations.
    Nonetheless, even this concept of localism does not give carte blanche for these communities to enact laws that violate fundamental Biblical priciples at the expense of the larger surrounding communities (i.e., the state). In other words, if a community enacted homosexual “marriage” or polygamy legalization or authorization of child sacrifice, the state would have the right to strike down such “legalities” as being violative of explicit Biblical law. On the other hand, the state would not have any right to force a particular denominational requirement upon dissenting localities.”

    =Basically what you advocate is contrary to the Founding Fathers and opposed to a Constitutional Republic.

    =Your beliefs make Ted Kennedy and the other liberal Democrats look pleasant by comparison.

  58. RCAIP Says:

    “Please don’t resort to the ad hominem. You made sense in earlier comments, and those comments were welcome. The ad hominem is unneeded.”

    =Well, if you don’t want to hear ‘ad hominem’ remarks, this really is not the blog for you.
    =Basically you’re pretty unpopular with the CP Leadership, including Mr. Shearer- who said some very ‘ad hominem’ things about you that were very accurate to the ‘T’.

    =And some of your remarks, including those made about the LDS Church were not ad hominem?

    =Your last name ought to be Hypocrite instead of Heustis.

  59. RCAIP Says:

    “As long as God is in control, there are no limits. Our duty as Christians is to put Biblical principle first – even if it is totally unpopular! Results are totally in God’s hands, not Man’s.”

    =In that case, if God was on your side, your friends would have prevailed at the Tampa meeting.
    =If God was on your side, Bill Shearer of the California AIP, would’ve passed away in April from cancer, as his Doctors believed he only had such a short time to live, yet he certainly exceeded their expectations and mustered the support needed for Tampa.

    =God doesn’t serve Pharisees!

  60. RCAIP Says:

    If anyone is interested in researching the LDS Church itself, (non-political topics)-

    http://lds.org/

    http://www.mormon.org/welcome/0,6929,403-1,00.html

    http://fairlds.org/
    &

    http://fairlds.org/apol/ai201.html

  61. RCAIP Says:

    Chris, do you just feel like you’re at a circus? All the clowns doing their tricks, all the animals roaring in their cages, and all the freak shows on display?

    At least these nuts entertain us like such- in fact I think I’m going to get myself some cotton candy!:D

    Next ad hominem response please!

  62. Vincent Darrah Says:

    Chris

    An ectopic pregnancy is NOT an abortion. In that case, they are trying to save the life of both the mother and baby. Technology may not allow them to successfully do it yet, but they are trying. Every doctor I talk to tells me that, they dont INTENTIONALLY try to end the pregnancy, which is what an abortion is. Unfortunately, they cant yet save the child in that case, but they are trying.

    You tell me not to add words to anything, dont try to change the meaning of words either. An abortion is the intentional taking of an unborn life.

    Notice in my comments, i may not agree, but I have NOT resorted to name calling like some on this list

  63. RRHeustisJr Says:

    RCAIP rationalizes the legitimacy of abortion by saying:

    “The [Mormon] Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.”

    Perhaps the Mormon “god” may grant his blessing on baby killing, but certainly not the God of the Bible.

    This Mormon theology disturbs me. Simply substitute “racial extermination” for “abortion:”

    “The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify racial extermination automatically. Racial extermination is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.”

    The God of the Bible would never bless such a decision. Again, maybe the Mormon “god” would.

    Destruction of babies based upon the uncontrollable circumstances of their own fertilization is no less immoral and barbarous than the destruction of humans based upon their own uncontrollable racial classification, no matter how much “personal prayer” one engages in.

  64. RRHeustisJr Says:

    I had written, “As long as God is in control, there are no limits. Our duty as Christians is to put Biblical principle first – even if it is totally unpopular! Results are totally in God’s hands, not Man’s.”

    RCAIP then responded, In that case, if God was on your side, your friends would have prevailed at the Tampa meeting.

    Incorrect conclusion. Check the logic.

    How does the concept of “duty is ours, results are God’s” logically mean that God’s people will be victorious in every battle? It does not follow.

    While it is true that God’s people are victorious in the end, there will be many battles lost in the interim. Through them all, God’s people must always realize that God is in complete control of all things, even through the deepest and darkest of the lowest moments and circumstances of the lives of His people.

    It is therefore the duty of Christians to remain faithful to God’s Law-Word, knowing and relying upon the fact that any and all results are completely in God’s control and perfect timing. If God wills that His children suffer defeats and humiliation and trials and tribulations, then His children will so endure them. On the other hand, if God wills that His people partake in the sweet fruits of victory, then such sweet victories will come to pass. Regardless of the outcome provided through God’s Sovereign Will though, God’s people must always remain steadfast (do their duty!) no matter how many assail their steadfastness or ridicule their stand for righteousness.

    “Duty is ours, results are God’s.” – John Quincy Adams.

  65. Sean Scallon Says:

    To Mr. Heustis: All I can say is that if you are thinking about not being involved with the CP anymore then don’t. Judging by what you say, in fact, you should probably get out of politics altogther. All you are doing is wasting your time.

  66. RRHeustisJr Says:

    Sean Scallon says:

    Judging by what you say, in fact, you should probably get out of politics altogther. All you are doing is wasting your time.

    Nonsense. Every moment of my life does not belong to me. It belongs to God. Christians are to storm the gates and press forward the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ in all areas of life, including law and politics.

    I appreciate you sharing your opinion on how I should spend “my” time, but I would rather listen to my Creator and do my duty, and let Him take care of the rest. Thanks.

  67. Christopher Hansen Says:

    RRHeustisJr Says:

    “Perhaps the Mormon ‘god’ may grant his blessing on baby killing, but certainly not the God of the Bible.”

    Have you ever actually read the Bible?

    Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

    The god of Your Bible not only gave his blessing, he ordered the killings.

    Joshua killed everyone in city after city.

    The god of the Israelites slaughtered little children time and again.

    What Bible do you read?

    Do you believe in original sin? Are we punished for the sins of a parent? Are unborn withoout sin or do they have original sin?

  68. Christopher Hansen Says:

    Sean Scallon,

    I would have to agree with you about
    H. Jr.

  69. Phil Sawyer Says:

    In response to Sean Scallon:

    Dear Mr. Scallon;

    With all due respect, I have to disagree with you about Reed Heustis. Although Reed and I are on different ends of the political spectrum, I have always known him to be a very honest, intelligent, and logical person. Furthermore, he is a very devout Christian. As a fellow Christian, I feel compelled to state that fact. If people like Reed Heustis were all to leave the political scene, our country would be in even worse condition than it already is – and the situation is terrible already!

    Phil Sawyer
    Sacramento, California

  70. Christopher Hansen Says: