Alabama Constitution Party disaffiliates

Alabama Constitution Party
Resolution to Disaffiliate from the National Constitution Party

Whereas the National Constitution Party has not supported its own platform and enforced compliance by states to truthfully support the pro-life plank of the platform by allowing the Independent American Party of Nevada to remain in the national party.

Whereas the Independent American Party of Nevada is pro-death in the case of rape, incest, life of the mother and severely deformed babies and candidates of this party have run on this pro-death position, and

Whereas the National Constitution Party’s Platform claims to be 100 % pro-life, and

Whereas the National Committee of the Constitution Party voted on April 21, 2006 to retain the Independent American Party of Nevada in the national party by a vote of 41 for removal of Nevada, 57 against removal, 3 abstaining, and 2 who left the room to avoid the controversy, and

Whereas the National Constitution Party has with this step of inclusion put party politics over principle, and started down the long destructive road of the same big tent policies that destroyed the Republican and Democratic parties by allowing anyone in the party regardless of their political views, and

Whereas the Alabama Constitution Party has given the National Constitution Party sufficient time to get it’s house in order and comply with it’s own platform, and

Whereas the Alabama Constitution Party can no longer be affiliated with the National Constitution Party because it is no longer 100% pro-life, with no exceptions and has violated its own platform for the sake of building the party at any cost, and

**

Hereby the Alabama Constitution Party of Alabama disaffiliates itself from the National Constitution Party of these United States of America.

Effective when ratified by the Board of the Alabama Constitution Party

Effective date: Monday, February 19, in the Year of our Lord, 2007

Signed by the Chairman of the ACP: MaryAnn Crum
Date: Monday, February 19, in the Year of our Lord, 2007

Mary Ann Crum, Chairman
Alabama Constitution Party

151 Responses to “Alabama Constitution Party disaffiliates”

  1. Mike Gillis Says:

    What does this mean for the 2008 ballot access for the party’s presidential candidate?

    And also, without affiliation, said candidate will probably have to woo the disaffiliated state parties into giving him their ballot line and endorsing him.

    And those disaffiliated state parties won’t be able to participate in the CP primaries, though if they choose, as no longer being a part of the national party, they could choose to put up an alternate candidate for president.

    I’m a Green so I’m not familiar with the situation, but are the disaffiliated parties using the potential for lost 2008 ballot access as leverage to force Nevada to change its stance on abortion or are they truly walking away?

  2. matt Says:

    If these people can’t even agree on a presidential candidate, things are worse than I thought.

  3. Joe Says:

    My state party voted on April 10th of last year to disaffiliate effective if IAP Nevada was not disaffiliated by April 28th. Nevada had already made it clear by that point that they were not going to change their stance and I am under no illusion that they will do so in the forseeable future. Our disaffiliation resolution was definitely an effort to get national to vote to disaffiliate IAP Nevada. It was suggested to us by a leader of the Constitution Party that if enough states so voted prior to Tampa it might convince them to vote to disaffiliate Nevada. I don’t know if it would have worked in any case, but no other state parties voted to disaffiliate prior to Tampa and the vote in Tama allowed Nevada to remain. The states that have left have no leverage other than the power of persuasion to get the Constitution Party to change their pro-abort stripes. If many more ballot qualified state affiliates vote to disaffiliate you might see a change, but I doubt it even then.

    I think it is probably too late for a reconciliation at this point. I don’t claim to speak for everyone, but most people I have heard from on each side of this issue are pretty content to be finished with those on the opposite side.

    I do not know what effect, if any, it will have on the2008 Constitution Party presidential campaign. My state party does not have a primary; our candidates are chosen by caucus. Given our vote to disaffiliate from the Constitution Party, I think it is safe to say that if we nominate anyone for President at all that person will have to be pro-life.

  4. Jason C. Says:

    “I think it is probably too late for a reconciliation at this point. I don’t claim to speak for everyone, but most people I have heard from on each side of this issue are pretty content to be finished with those on the opposite side.”

    I catagorically agree with Joe, here.

  5. SovereignMN Says:

    Minnesota will also be holding a statewide meeting/convention on March 24 to discuss and vote on a resolution for disaffiliation. I’m guessing it will fail though.

  6. rj Says:

    From irrelevant and unable to affect any change on the political landscape to…even more irrelevent and even more unable to affect any change on the political landscape.

    I hate Democrats and Republicans, but third party politics pisses me off sometimes. Absolute incompetence at so many levels.

  7. Yosemite1967 Says:

    While I agree with simply making abortion illegal without exceptions and letting the courts (or juries) dictate punishment levels or pardons based on individual circumstances, it’s strange to see a resolution that exaggerates, speculates, and imputes motive. Aren’t whereas clauses supposed to contain only facts? Cases in point:

    “allowing anyone in the party regardless of their political views”: Isn’t this an exaggeration? Also, being thought police is Orwellian. The party has no right to discipline members based on their thoughts or beliefs, but it does have a right to discipline them (up to expulsion) based on how they act. Something like “failing to discipline prominent members who (1) publicly misrepresented a key point of the party’s platform and (2) when censured, showed no signs of intent to cease and desist” wouldn’t have been Orwellian.

    “for the sake of building the party at any cost”: At ANY cost? Isn’t that both an exaggeration and a speculation (mind reading)? This again demonstrates the Orwellian (a.k.a. satanic) practice of imputing motives rather than actions. While the resolution does impute some actions too, it should’ve stuck with imputing ONLY actions.

  8. Richard Winger Says:

    The Constitution Party of Alabama isn’t ballot-qualified (probably that’s apparent to everyone who has posted, but I wanted it to be completely clear.

    If people really were secure in their belief that they are right in their opinions about abortion, they wouldn’t want to expel anyone who disagrees. When one is really, really confident of one’s ideas inside oneself, one is relaxed about people who disagree. The urge to expel, censor, disassociate, shun, all comes from a subconscious belief that one is wrong. One dislikes that uncertainly within, and then projects that dislike onto others.

    If you are certain that you are right about abortion, and you see that a minority inside your own party disagrees with you, if you are secure and rational, you will be happy to have people in the party who disagree, especially if they are in a minority. After all, their presence in the party is adding resources, energy, money, manpower, to your party. They are helping you. If you were in a covered wagon in 1847 trying to cross the mountains to get to California, and there are people in the covered wagon who say I don’t really want to go to California, but nevertheless they are doing the work of moving the wagon train ahead, you should be happy to have them helping with the work.

  9. Angela Wittman Says:

    “If you are certain that you are right about abortion, and you see that a minority inside your own party disagrees with you, if you are secure and rational, you will be happy to have people in the party who disagree, especially if they are in a minority. After all, their presence in the party is adding resources, energy, money, manpower, to your party. They are helping you. If you were in a covered wagon in 1847 trying to cross the mountains to get to California, and there are people in the covered wagon who say I don’t really want to go to California, but nevertheless they are doing the work of moving the wagon train ahead, you should be happy to have them helping with the work.” writes Richard Winger.

    If Mr. Winger knew his history of the American pioneers, he would also know of the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

    It is foolish for pro-lifers to join up with those who will allow for the killing of even one preborn child. No wonder we are in our 34th year of preborn baby-killing with very little progress to it’s end. The pro-life movement is full of hypocrites.

  10. timothy west Says:

    bye bye abortion party. Interesting how the ‘platform bloodbath’ of the LP seems to have had a net positive effect….and compare that to the current CP.

    extremists on any single position usually don’t work out too well in politics be it abortion, or abstractions of liberty. Own worst enemy and all.

  11. Brandon H. Says:

    I thought everyone who would be leaving would have left by now.

  12. NewFederalist Says:

    What is the “line score” on the CP now? How many states are still sticking with the CPNC and how many have bolted?

  13. Jason Gatties Says:

    Can the CP stop claiming to be the third largest political party now???

  14. Fred C. Says:

    Richard: The problem is, eventually that minority isn’t a minority anymore, and you end up with a party much different from that you originally joined or helped found. Imagine if a bunch of folks that believed in gun control joined the LP, or the pro-pollution lobby joined the greens. At some point, it just becomes another big tent exactly like all the other big tents, and a third party can’t get anywhere mimicking the majors on their most despised tactics.

    Jason: Nope, they still have the AIP-CA and IAP-NV.

  15. Cutty Sark Says:

    I’m slightly really drunk so I hope I can post this shit right.

    “Interesting how the ‘platform bloodbath’ of the LP seems to have had a net positive effect….”

    I got into a debate about that the other day and I repeated that, and got challenged on that so I’m wondering if you have any stats on that?

    I thought it would be a no-brainer but they pointed out that the LP actually got more votes for Congress when they had an extremist platform before 2006.

    I’m thinking that can’t possibly be true, but if you have some stats so I can prove they did better by being more moderate that would be cool. I know we have to be right about this, but I just want to be able to prove it.

  16. Trent Hill Says:

    It seems there is no one balancing this article, or bringing any perspective. So I will.

    Alabama wasnt ballot qualified. Alabama was what UA likes to call a “Paper party”. We will replace them within months (and definetly before ‘08).

    Alabama is roughly the size of what the Arkansas and New York chapters were. Both of those states now have active groups which are about to officially form, and who will probably be more useful. I expect the same thing will happen in Alabama.

    This brings the total of dissafiliated parties to 8. I will list them. Arkansas, Ohio, New York, Oregon, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, and now Alabama. -Ohio has reafilliated under a different group.
    -Missouri has reafilliated under a different (and some say more proactive) group.
    -New York has a group which is going to affiliate soon.
    -Arkansas has a group which is going to affiliate soon.
    Of the four other parties (and 8 parties who originally left) only Oregon and Montana had ballot access. There is talk of reconciliation between those parties.
    The other two, Alabama and Maryland, are pretty small. Maryland isnt tiny, but not large enough to cry over.

    So there are no future surprises. I believe Mississippi, Minnesota, and Georgia are all discussing dissafilliation. But in ANY of those groups, it is believed that the group would re-form and re-affilliate.

    Overall, this has hurt us very little. The Oregon and Montana parties are still operating pretty well on a state level. And they will almost definetly vote for the CP pres candidate.

  17. Cody Quirk Says:

    If Mr. Winger knew his history of the American pioneers, he would also know of the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

    -You mean where a bunch of pioneers that were hostile to the Mormons and Indians and caused problems while crossing through Utah Territory pissed off the wrong people and got killed for it?

    It is foolish for pro-lifers to join up with those who will allow for the killing of even one preborn child.

    =It is foolish for no-exceptionists to reject any logical compromise on saving the unborn when it could make take a big chunk out of Roe V. Wade.
    Get over it people! You’re not going to get all abortion abolished outright!

    No wonder we are in our 34th year of preborn baby-killing with very little progress to it’s end.

    =Exactely, with the “no-exceptions, no compromise!” attitude, its no wonder that we haven’t gotten anywhere in 34 years.

    The pro-life movement is full of hypocrites.

    =Yeah, no-exceptionist hypocritics that actually work to strengthen Roe V. Wade and empower Planned Parenthood.

  18. Cody Quirk Says:

    My state party voted on April 10th of last year to disaffiliate effective if IAP Nevada was not disaffiliated by April 28th. Nevada had already made it clear by that point that they were not going to change their stance

    =Yet they voted to still uphold the CP platform on abortion.

    and I am under no illusion that they will do so in the forseeable future.

    =Hahaha!

    Our disaffiliation resolution was definitely an effort to get national to vote to disaffiliate IAP Nevada. It was suggested to us by a leader of the Constitution Party that if enough states so voted prior to Tampa it might convince them to vote to disaffiliate Nevada.

    =So if a bunch of states with no ballot-access and with memberships that could fill a booth at Dennys voted to have Nevada kicked out, it would make a difference?

    I don’t know if it would have worked in any case, but no other state parties voted to disaffiliate prior to Tampa and the vote in Tama allowed Nevada to remain. The states that have left have no leverage other than the power of persuasion to get the Constitution Party to change their pro-abort stripes.

    =Correction: no political leverage period!

    If many more ballot qualified state affiliates vote to disaffiliate you might see a change, but I doubt it even then.

    =They didn’t, TS

    I think it is probably too late for a reconciliation at this point.

    =you bet!

    I don’t claim to speak for everyone, but most people I have heard from on each side of this issue are pretty content to be finished with those on the opposite side.

    =Good then! And I wish you all good luck elsewhere.

    I do not know what effect, if any, it will have on the2008 Constitution Party presidential campaign.

    =Not that much, we’re already work on ballot access successfully.

    My state party does not have a primary; our candidates are chosen by caucus. Given our vote to disaffiliate from the Constitution Party, I think it is safe to say that if we nominate anyone for President at all that person will have to be pro-life.

    =Basically a write-in candidate.

  19. Cody Quirk Says:

    “At some point, it just becomes another big tent exactly like all the other big tents, and a third party can’t get anywhere mimicking the majors on their most despised tactics.”

    =What a load of crap! So basically third parties with good funding, strong media attention, and well known and liked candidates can’t get anywhere?

    Am I the King of Ireland, Fred?

    You can’t make a different in a pup tent, especially if you’re trying to shrink it.

  20. Cody Quirk Says:

    Oh yeah and we’ll have a new affiliate in Alabama very soon.

  21. Brian Grant Says:

    It’s interesting that even though the New York State Constitution Party is disaffiliated from the national CP they still provide a link to it on their links page.

  22. Joe Says:

    Brian,

    At your suggestion I have requested that our webmaster remove the link to the Constitution Party from our website. It should be removed within a few days unless our executive committee decides to keep it for some reason.

  23. Timm Knibbs Says:

    The issue is much deeper than it appears on the surface. Nevada’s platform is 100% pro-life. Some states do not even mention the issue in their platform. So why target Nevada. It is believed by many that it was because they are Mormons.
    In my own state we have had at least on town committee chairman and state leader that I would not consider 100% pro-life. Fortunately, he is no longer with the party. We also had a candidate in the last election that after he was approved by us started making statements on abortion that were contrary to our platform. To expel an entire state party because of the comments of on or two people is not wise. If we looked hard enough we could probably find a reason so expel them all.
    Two thing that I believe that the party should do to help prevent this kind of thing in the future. One is clarify and make the affiliation process mean more. The state parties a pretty much autonomous and I do not even know if the national party has the authority to expel any state. Secondly, any candidate that is listed on the national party website should sign a statement confirming his support of the 100% pro-life stance and other fundamental issues.

  24. LPiberty Says:

    I am pro-choice. But, there should be room for campaigns and parties with Principles.

    www.adopt.org

    http://imdb.com/title/tt0841119/
    Lake of Fire

  25. Richard Winger Says:

    Many people on this thread believe that all people of good will should support making it a crime to kill an incipient human being that was conceived just hours or minutes ago. Could one of those people please recommend to me a book or an article that makes the case for that policy, and which is logical and thoughtful and written to persuade people like me to that point of view?

    It seems to me that Jesus was very concerned about the welfare of human beings who have already been born. He was especially interested in the health of such born human beings. He himself healed many such born human beings. He talked about relieving the suffering of born human beings, visiting them in prison, clothing them, feeding them. He didn’t seem to say anything at all to indicate he is concerned about unborn human beings who are only a few hours old. He didn’t seem to preach that women should not have an abortion.

    If all the energy that is going into saving the unborn was instead spent on curing debilitating illnesses, especially river blindness, malaria, cholera, typhoid, liver flukes, tuberculosis, cancer, polio, etc., that are so injurious to human life, that we would be much further along the road to meeting Jesus’ concerns.

  26. Fred C. Says:

    “What a load of crap! So basically third parties with good funding, strong media attention, and well known and liked candidates can’t get anywhere?”

    Of course they can get somewhere, but by that philosophy, what would be the point? Are we third party supporters just because we dislike the number 2 or have a grudge against the letters ‘D’ and ‘R’? I’m not saying there’s no room for dissent in third parties, but when any party compromises the principles it was founded on it ceases to be the same party. And I’m not even talking about what happened in the CP anymore, or the LP’s platform issues from a short while ago, but Richard took the debate to a more basic philosophical level and that’s what I’m commenting on.

  27. Cody Quirk Says:

    “there are good compromises and bad compromises. A good compromise is one that moves you toward your objective. A bad compromise is one that moves you away from your objective.”

    Third Parties would do best by this approch.

  28. Joe Says:

    Richard,

    If by “people like me” you mean “Christians” you might try
    http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/99/aborpenlty.html

    Tim,

    Personally I would not have voted to disaffiliate a state party that was sincerely trying to elect leaders and endorse candidates who are pro-life but unwittingly chose a leader or a candidate who is pro-abortion. Our decision to disaffiliate from the Constitution Party came after the national party voted to allow IAP Nevada to remain affiliated after we were convinced that IAP Nevada knew that Christopher Hansen would allow abortions in the cases of rape and incest and chose to reelect him state chairman anyway.

    Our disaffiliation resolution did not mention anyone’s religion, including Christopher’s, and it looks to me like that is true of Alabama’s as well. I was present at the meeting when our disaffiliation resolution was debated and the subject never came up. It is my understanding that some of the people in other states who voted to disaffiliate IAP Nevada are LDS.

    I am under no illusion that this pro-abortion problem in the Constitution Party is limited to Nevada. Since Tampa, I have heard of other Constitution Party leaders and candidates who agree with Christopher, and I would not be surprised if we see even more in the future. I would consider Christopher the just the first high profile test case. One of my reasons for supporting disaffiliation was concern that a decision not to disaffiliate IAP Nevada would open the floodgates for more pro-abort candidates within the Constitution Party.

  29. matt Says:

    It seems to me that Jesus was very concerned about the welfare of human beings who have already been born. He was especially interested in the health of such born human beings. He himself healed many such born human beings. He talked about relieving the suffering of born human beings, visiting them in prison, clothing them, feeding them. He didn’t seem to say anything at all to indicate he is concerned about unborn human beings who are only a few hours old. He didn’t seem to preach that women should not have an abortion.
    ===============================
    Richard, I agree. Which is why I think that it’s so crucial that we end the end the welfare state. My biggest beef with social programs isn’t that they’re ineffective (they are), nor that they waste money (they do), not even that they prop up a tyrannical war-mongering government (obvious).

    No, none of that. My biggest beef with social spending is that it hoodwinks lazy Christians into thinking that they don’t have to help the poor.

    That being said, I still believe that abortion should be illegal, for ethical reasons, but your point certainly stands.

  30. William Potter Says:

    My old party!
    Perhaps the ACP can now work even more closely with the JRP.
    William Potter
    Jefferson Republican Party, Alabama

  31. RWR Says:

    Cody wrote:

    ““At some point, it just becomes another big tent exactly like all the other big tents, and a third party can’t get anywhere mimicking the majors on their most despised tactics.”

    =What a load of crap! So basically third parties with good funding, strong media attention, and well known and liked candidates can’t get anywhere?”

    Not if they compromise away every distinctive value they have! How will it benefit the U.S. if we have two conservative-in-name parties?

    Right now, the GOP expresses pro-life principles (however vague) in their platform, and I have no reason to doubt that they are happy to have pro-life candidates, but if a candidate comes along who is more pragmatic or “electable,” they have no problem putting their principles on hold in order to attract more voters.

    The way things are going in the CP, a candidate today who is reasonably pro-life will be embraced if he has a better chance of winning than a strong pro-lifer. Someday, it is quite conceivable that the CP will embrace a candidate who is hardly pro-life at all or even openly pro-abortion so long as he has a better chance of winning.

    Do you deny that this is happening? Now that a small degree of compromise is acceptable, who decides how many human lives is too many before a candidate is no longer reasonably pro-life?

    I don’t care at all if the CP “get[s] anywhere.” I care that principle gets somewhere. What’s that old dusty slogan you guys used to use? Principle Over Politics?

  32. Richard Winger Says:

    Thanks to the poster who referred me to something that I had asked for, something to persuade me that the Constitution Party is right on the pro-life issue. I went there and saw it referred to the Old Testament.

    The Old Testament says God told the Jews to kill all the men, women and children then already living in the Promised Land, so as to make room for the Jews to live there. I don’t believe the Old Testament is the word of God. It’s full of all sorts of other rules that no one today follows, and few even know about them, such as the rule that a man with injured testacles must not worship God in the company of others.

  33. Joe Says:

    Richard, we believe that the civil government of our nation, its laws, institutions, and practices should conform to the principles of Biblical law as revealed in the Old and New Testaments.

  34. undercover_anarchist Says:

    The real danger in this perversely incestuous CP love spat is that the eventual implosion of the CP will lead to a diarrheatic flow of Nazis and redneck sister-fuckers into the LP. The LP has enough inbreds to the slight left of the CP as it is. I am hopeful that they will be purged one day and the LP can be reformed. The complete collapse of the CP would make that impossible.

  35. Trent Hill Says:

    heh. UA, you are truly vitriolic.

    Im not going to even address the blatant racism and prejudice in your post.

    The CP is not imploding…the religious zealots are leaving.
    I will not miss someone like Pro-life Richardson
    Or Joe…
    They advocate theocracy,and that violates the CP’s platform.

  36. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Racism? You can’t play the race card, Trenton. That’s my bag.

    If you take the theocracy out of the CP, what do you have left? An LP that is just a little bit more constipated and angry? My fear is that by losing the hardcore Nazi base, your party will implode, and then half-wits like yourself will drool into the LP, further defiling it.

  37. James Niemela Says:

    Angela Wittman wrote,

    “It is foolish for pro-lifers to join up with those who will allow for the killing of even one preborn child. No wonder we are in our 34th year of preborn baby-killing with very little progress to it’s end. The pro-life movement is full of hypocrites.”

    Amen to that! Looking back at some of the Constitution Party “leaders”, with “prolifers” like these, who needs pro-aborts?

    James Niemela

  38. Trent Hill Says:

    Wow James. “With 99% pro-lifers, who needs pro-choice people?”
    That is moronic.

    Do you stab your friends when you find out that they dont think Spaghetti is the best meal ever?

    UA, Im not “playing the race card”. Im just pointing out your racially charged statement. It was obvious,and purposeful.

  39. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Please illuminate me. I fail to see how my statement was “racially charged.”

  40. Cutty Sark Says:

    “Redneck sister-fucking nazis”?

  41. Cutty Sark Says:

    “I am hopeful that they will be purged one day and the LP can be reformed.”

    If wishes were fishes….

    I thought you dropped out of the LP?

    You either go for the gusto and fight for your view point within your party, or you can abandon them and let them head more in the other direction by your absence. At some point you have to decide whether they are too far away from your position for you to support.

    You definitely can’t purge anyone if you purge yourself out first.

  42. Cutty Sark Says:

    “Richard, we believe that the civil government of our nation, its laws, institutions, and practices should conform to the principles of Biblical law as revealed in the Old and New Testaments.”

    I guess that would shut down my favorite restaurant, they would be totally fucked on the crab souffle which is very tasty and popular (shellfish is against Old Testament law).

    I gotta say, if I thought you “Christian” Sharia types were about to get in power I might have to break the sixth commandment to stop you. Actually I think you already have way too much power.

  43. Cody Quirk Says:

    Not if they compromise away every distinctive value they have! How will it benefit the U.S. if we have two conservative-in-name parties?

    =Again: “there are good compromises and bad compromises. A good compromise is one that moves you toward your objective. A bad compromise is one that moves you away from your objective.”

    =If you want to stick to the same attitude and not work to change the political system then join the Prohibition Party; they had their last convention in a mobile home, I recall.

    Right now, the GOP expresses pro-life principles (however vague) in their platform, and I have no reason to doubt that they are happy to have pro-life candidates, but if a candidate comes along who is more pragmatic or “electable,” they have no problem putting their principles on hold in order to attract more voters.

    The way things are going in the CP, a candidate today who is reasonably pro-life will be embraced if he has a better chance of winning than a strong pro-lifer.

    =That would be because practical pro-lifers have a way better chance of getting elected then a strong pro-lifer.
    And don’t bother bringing up Rick Jore, he lucked out because he only faced a Democrat, resided in a conservative district and was well-known and liked.
    And most of the strong pro-lifers have shown themselves to be religious nutjobs and hostile bigots- they don’t deserve the spotlight.

    Someday, it is quite conceivable that the CP will embrace a candidate who is hardly pro-life at all or even openly pro-abortion so long as he has a better chance of winning.

    =not even likely. A supporter of Planned Parenthood I will make sure gets the shaft.

    Do you deny that this is happening? Now that a small degree of compromise is acceptable, who decides how many human lives is too many before a candidate is no longer reasonably pro-life?

    =Nope, what is happening is that the crazies are leaving and we’re functing like a real political party now and not a church.
    In fact I like the Party better now that there isn’t a many a**holes as before.

    I don’t care at all if the CP “get[s] anywhere.” I care that principle gets somewhere. What’s that old dusty slogan you guys used to use? Principle Over Politics?

    =There are some principles that are too disgusting for me to put over politics, one being the ‘biblical-christians only’ attitude.

  44. Cody Quirk Says:

    It is my understanding that some of the people in other states who voted to disaffiliate IAP Nevada are LDS.

    =Either misguided or deceived, or out of peer pressure from others.

  45. Cody Quirk Says:

    Richard, we believe that the civil government of our nation, its laws, institutions, and practices should conform to the principles of Biblical law as revealed in the Old and New Testaments.

    =Which is not what the founding fathers wanted, especially Thomas Jefferson, and not what the CP works to accomplish.

    You and the other religious types that came in in 1999 wanted to alter the Party in that way, but you failed, so now you’re stuck with yourselves or the AHP.

  46. Cody Quirk Says:

    UA, we don’t have a Nazi base at all.

    do you see that Bowles guy running as a CP’er?

  47. Anthony Distler Says:

    The Constitution Party, despite the constant cries of “NO WE AREN’T!” from this forum, is in disaray. And I’m not sorry to see it go. When the Alabama Constitution Party clearly comes out and states that they value life that has not been born over the life of those already living, that’s when I hope and wish for the complete destruction of a party.

  48. undercover_anarchist Says:

    How is “redneck sister fucking Nazis” a racial slur? I’m complimenting you guys for getting rid of these douchebags. You just don’t know how to show gratitude. As for “not having a Nazi base at all,” I disagree. You may be purging yourself of that base, but the base did exist or contintues to in some lesser form. Look at the history of the AIP/IAP. Look at the history of the CP and how the two are intermingled. Look at Pat Buchanan, the man for whom the CP was formed, and his pro-Nazi statements, his Neo-Nazi campaign staffers, etc. I applaud the CP for purging the most hateful from the midsts, but to deny that there is/was a connection between the CP and various white power movements is to deny fact.

  49. RWR Says:

    This is it, folks – the principles of the NEW AND IMPROVED Constitution Party:

    • Biblical Christianity is “disgusting”

    • Biblical Christians are “A-Holes”

    Good thing all those religious bigots have left the party, right Cody?

  50. Trent Hill Says:

    RWR, You misconstrued his words in an obvious way. He didnt say “Biblical Christianity is disgusting.” he said your Fundamentalist, no exceptionist, extremist version of it is disgusting. And I wholeheartedly agree.

    Cutty, Joe represents some of those Religious Extremists that we have purged ourselves of. I hope your shellfish restaurant thrives!

    Anthony Distler, how exactly is the CP falling apart? Because we lost a few paper parties and two serious ones (who are apparently reconsidering)?
    Explain then, why the National Committee Meeting in Boise is expected to be one of the biggest in years?
    Or how after the disfailliators left, I have had FAR more success in recruiting members. Because I can point out that we JUST got rid of religious extremists,and would do it again if needed.

    UA, You are actually right. White Supremacists do support our movement. They generally vote for us. That is especially true in the southern states (like Louisiana, my state). However, we are not tolerant of that racism. I had a White Supremacist call me yesterday and ask me if he could attend the state meeting next week. I told him that although it was a public meeting and no one was barred from entry, he would be treated as an enemy and was not welcome. Everyone other members, and Gary Odom (national field director) agreed. Racism is not something we tolerate in our institution. However, I can no more help the fact that White Supremacists vote for the CP, than you can help that Bob Barr is a Regional Chair (Although i personally like Barr). The fact is, none of them are given leadership or influential roles. However, I will not be dishonest in order to maximize the appeal of the CP. The Racists are attracted to us.

  51. Jeremy Says:

    “I gotta say, if I thought you “Christian” Sharia types were about to get in power I might have to break the sixth commandment to stop you.”

    I don’t get it, how does you committing adultery stop anyone from getting into power? ...Oh wait I get it, you must be looking at the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments In that case: come now, lets not be threatening people. Thats not nice.

  52. Anthony Distler Says:

    The fact that you say “a couple of groups reconsidering leaving the party” as a victory, to me throws up some flares. The Constitution Party, to me, seems to be trying too hard to keep their political base with me, rather then going out and trying to find their own base. The Constitution Party doesn’t have that strong of a base in the east, and while the victories of some groups in the west and midwest is impressive, they still, to me, look like their trying to hard to either keep their own party together or to go after the Libetarian Party.

    As a member of the Reform Party, I know what it’s like to have a party destroyed by infighting. I don’t think the Constitution Party is quite like the Reform Party, but I see some of the signs. The P2008 race seems to be getting more and more interesting as we wait to see what route the Constitution Party goes with their nomination.

    Anyone else feel as if the two major parties, not to mention the Green Party, is loving all of this negative coverage and bickering between the Libetarians and the Constitution people.

  53. Cody Quirk Says:

    Why is it that we already have new affiliates in Ohio, New York, Missouri, Arkansas? We’re certainly not going to fall apart like the Reform Party.

  54. Cody Quirk Says:

    You hit the nail on the head Trent.

  55. Cody Quirk Says:

    UA, Yes, it’s true that the AIP did have ties to segregationist candidates and even whose that dubbed in white supremacy. But the AIP was not racist, neither was the IAP. Even back in the first years, the AIP had plenty of non-white members.

    In fact the American Nazi Party worked with Nixon operatives to unsuccessfully take the AIP of the California ballot in the early 70’s.
    Bill Shearer once threatened to physically throw out Tom Metzger from a AIP convention that he tried to set up a booth at and ended up leaving, thanks to Bill’s intervention.

    BTW you must be talking about a different Nevada IAP, because the Nevada Party organized and got on the ballot in 1992.

    And yes, thank you for your good complements, now we can actually behave like a constitutionalist party and not a church.

  56. Cutty Sark Says:

    “In that case: come now, lets not be threatening people. Thats not nice.”

    Self-defense.

  57. Cutty Sark Says:

    “How is “redneck sister fucking Nazis” a racial slur?”

    It represents a certain derogatory stereotype. I don’t think you meant to say that actual national socialists would be attracted to the libertarian party? How and why? Granted they are both extremists but in totally opposite directions, unless you consider them both to be “far right,” which is illogical based on their actual policies.

    You said:

    “The real danger in this perversely incestuous CP love spat is that the eventual implosion of the CP will lead to a diarrheatic flow of Nazis and redneck sister-fuckers into the LP.”

    Which I guess is supposed to say that the average CP member is inbred white trash.

    What if someone was to say (hypothetical) “the collapse of the Democratic Party will send a bunch of greasy chicken and watermelon eating, 40 ounce malt liquor drinking, hair in curlers all day, shower cap outside wearing, gold tooth having, welfare cheating, ghetto ass fools into the Green Party” – would you consider that a racially charged statement?

    I’m not saying anything about the merits of this rather unlikely scenario but just the characterization of the statement as such.

    Now, it is true that there are in fact people like that, in fact some of them live on my block. There’s even an old hooptie up on blocks that has been sitting there across the street for at least the last 2.5 years.

    And granted that the owner of that vehicle is a supporter of the Democratic
    party and has frequently expressed the opinion that he wishes Bill Clinton was still president because everything would be aiiiiight agin jes like it wuz fo. But does this permit me to characterize the whole entire Democratic Party that way? I think not.

  58. Trent Hill Says:

    Cody said
    “Why is it that we already have new affiliates in Ohio, New York, Missouri, Arkansas? We’re certainly not going to fall apart like the Reform Party.”

    I dont want to be misleading. So I will clarify what he meant. Missouri is already reorganized and recognized by national again.
    Ohio, New York, and Arkansas have groups which are all intending to affilliate at the National Committee Meeting (In Boise) I believe. If not there, then the next one in Omaha.
    On top of that, Louisiana is organizing for the first time. We are the ONLY state to have never been recognized by National at ANY point.
    I am told that although Alabama JUST dissafilliated, there is another group ready to bear the standard.
    We are hardly dieing like the Reform Party is.

    Having just recieved over $300,000 in debt, and being split into two major factions, as well as having no state affilliates in ALOT of states. The Reform Party is lieing on its deathbed.

  59. Cody Quirk Says:

    right.

  60. Michael Says:

    The Reform Party is on the ballot in five states. How do you mean by “no State affilliates”? Are you talking about having a party machine?

  61. Cutty Sark Says:

    Jeremy,

    I commit adultery every day and twice on Sundays, and if you buffoons try to use the power of the state to stop me, I’ll engage in self-defense if I think you are a real threat.

  62. Trent Hill Says:

    Cutty, nice recovery.

    Michael, The Reform Party is on the ballot in five states? How many of those have access under the American Reform Party, and how many under the Reform Party? lol. Your party is split into two factions which are equally sized. Whereas the CP has ballot access in sometihng like 14 states already,and while it has its dissention,it is by a small contingent.
    People are projecting at least 40 state ballot access for the CP
    For the Reform Party…i’d be surprised if they got 10.

  63. Cody Quirk Says:

    and while it has its dissention,it is by a small contingent.

    =I small contingent lacking ballot-access and strong membership, except for Oregon and Montana.

    People are projecting at least 40 state ballot access for the CP
    For the Reform Party…i’d be surprised if they got 10.

    =I’d be surprised if they get more then their 5 states!

  64. Narph Says:

    Richard,
    Whenever you roll up your pant cuffs and wade into the mud of a volatile issue like this, you risk soiling your credibility in areas where your expertise is truly needed: ballot access.

    Listening to you try to convince the CP disaffiliates that their religious convictions are wrong is disappointing to hear.

    The issue everyone, regardless of party, needs to learn from the CP meltdown is that a third party that won’t stay true to its platform is better off as a caucus for the Republicrats. Life is easier there, and the power more abundant. You’re wasting your time compromising any further down the political food chain.

  65. Anthony Distler Says:

    I’m a member of the Reform Party of Pennsylvania, which is not a member of either of the two attacking national parties. Comparing the Constitution Party to the Reform Party may be a stretch, but still…

  66. Zachery Relyea Says:

    Republicans until recently have held the majority in the Senate, House and Presidency. Two of the three branches of government. Yet nothing was passed
    to abolish abortion. Seems compromise does not accomplish the objective.
    No compromise, 100% pro-life means exactly that. The CP has compromised
    and has corrupted itself. This has nothing to do with religion. I did not leave the CP, the CP left me.

  67. Cody Quirk Says:

    The issue everyone, regardless of party, needs to learn from the CP meltdown is that a third party that won’t stay true to its platform

    Read this Narph=

    http://constitution-party.com/news.php?aid=279

  68. Cody Quirk Says:

    Republicans until recently have held the majority in the Senate, House and Presidency. Two of the three branches of government. Yet nothing was passed
    to abolish abortion.

    That’s because the GOP isn’t pro-exceptions, it’s Pro-Chioce.

    The major-party politicians don’t want to overturn Roe V. Wade, while both exceptions and good non-exceptionists in the CP do.

  69. Cody Quirk Says:

    And the reason why republicans lost big was because of their Global Internationalist actions on Iraq and their taste for soft money under the table.

  70. Zachery Relyea Says:

    http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf

    From the 2004 Republican Platform…

    Promoting a Culture of Life
    As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of
    Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to
    life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution
    and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections
    apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that
    right against those who perform abortions.
    ========================

    As I said…

    Seems compromise does not accomplish the objective.

  71. Cody Quirk Says:

    Then how do you explain South Dakota?

  72. Cody Quirk Says:

    That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to
    life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution
    and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections
    apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that
    right against those who perform abortions.

    =This sounds more ‘no-exceptionist’ then ‘exceptionist’, and does any Republican in Congress live up to this aspect of the platform? Besides Ron Paul?

    Chris Hansen didn’t violate the CP Platform on the Santity of Life.

    http://constitution-party.com/news.php?aid=279

  73. Cody Quirk Says:

    Hey Brad, when did you start moderating comments on your article blog?
    Let me guess, I’ve been such a sore foot for the TAV people that always get their comments criticised by me and others that you’re going to censor me now?

    What? Do you want to stifle opposing viewpoints in your article blogs so the CP detractors can drag the Party and non-Calvinist Christians through the mud without hearing hurtfull (truthful) words thrown at them?

    How about I start saluting you with a raised right hand from now on?

  74. Cody Quirk Says:

    Wow, since apparently I can no longer post anything without going to the Ministry of Imformation (Brad), now I know what would’ve happened if the Nevada IAP was kicked out of the Party, or even if John Lofton or Scott Whiteman had political power in our country.

    Apparently someone cannot tolerate the First Amendment of the US Constitution, so we’re going to have Soviet-style censorship of opinion on Brad’s blogs now because someone is too yellow to allow dissident opinion.

    Even if I found a comment offensive in my article blogs, I simply tell the person off, or another person will do such, but I wouldn’t remove it. But I’m just too honest that Brad doesn’t want other people to see my thought-provoking or revealing posts since Brad doesn’t want himself or his ideological allies proven wrong.
    How sad that you want block out the truth, Mao.

  75. Brad Winthrop Says:

    Cody, I have never moderated, censored, or removed anyone’s comments. including yours, on this or any other item. I have no idea what you are talking about.

  76. Cutty Sark Says:

    Cody, I think it maybe is the software. If you have a bunch of links in your post or whatever it kicks it out.

  77. Cody Quirk Says:

    “Cody Quirk Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.”

    -I have this listed on a few of my posts here

  78. Cody Quirk Says:

    Cody, I think it maybe is the software. If you have a bunch of links in your post or whatever it kicks it out.

    =That happened before, but I never my comments saying they need to be moderated.

  79. Narph Says:

    Cody, I’ve read that statement from Phillips. It puts forth the premise that Nevada IAP fulfilled the requirements for affiliation. It totally dodges the question as to whether they’ve committed infractions worthy of DISaffiliation. Now, Phillips makes the claim that the national party cannot interfere with the state party’s affairs, but this is FAR from claiming that Nevada has not violated the platform. In fact, Howard has several times personally asked Chris Hansen to resign over this mess. But Phillips, a man I respect deeply, does not believe the national party should disaffiliate a state party for any reason. I disagree.

    My earlier comment remains unchanged.

  80. Chris Campbell Says:

    Gee, they were angry-yet I cannot, as we did role call in Tampa, recall Alabama having any Reps there.

    Just like NY and a few other yellow-line-in-the-roaders. Bitch and moan, but they did not bother to take any personal responsibility in going to the debate.

  81. John Chance Says:

    Angela,

    Thanks for your diatribe about Mountain Meadows, etc….you sort of help me make the point, that it was more about ejecting the Mormons from the CP then it was about abortion purity.

    Thanks, you do help make a great point.

  82. John Chance Says:

    Doubt me, please check out and flood The American-skwed View. Check under ‘Mormons” “fetishers” ‘Shearer” ‘Catholics”

    Watch the fun and anger-unless they have revamped their site, which they were talking about last Fall.

    Too bad for Angela that most of these cut-and-runners have not moved to join the AHP (Protestants Only Party).

    Probably would not last out the year.

    Yes, Cody, many states have re-joined with much more sensible and good people.

    As to re-electing Hansen-when, where and how? Probably they re-elected him thanks to the Lofton/Peroutka’, made him a martyr.

  83. Cody Quirk Says:

    Good point John,

    But I think Nevada reelected Chris because he was doing a good job as state chair and also they didn’t like people outside telling them what to do.

  84. Zachery Relyea Says:
    1. Cody Quirk Says:
      March 6th, 2007 at 5:51 am

    That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to
    life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution
    and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections
    apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that
    right against those who perform abortions.

    =This sounds more ‘no-exceptionist’ then ‘exceptionist’, and does any Republican in Congress live up to this aspect of the platform? Besides Ron Paul?

    Chris Hansen didn’t violate the CP Platform on the Santity of Life.

    http://constitution-party.com/news.php?aid=279
    ===========================

    Please read my words and not into my words…

    I never mentioned Mr. Hansen.

    CPNY did not vote to disaffiliate with Mr. Hansen.

    As I said…

    “Seems compromise does not accomplish the objective.”

  85. Cody Quirk Says:

    And again, what about South Dakota- did being opposed to rape/incest exceptions work there? What about the majority of Americans that do favor exceptions?

    And the GOP plank on abortion sounds like it’s ‘no-exceptionist’. In fact it sounds like what Rick Jore tried to pass in the Montana State Legislature.

    The problem with the GOP, Zack, isn’t that they conpromised on the abortion fight- they’re simply NOT fighting. Period!’

    The CPNY didn’t want Nevada in the Party, so they made it either the CP kicks out Nevada and they’ll stay, or vice versa, I understand that.

    Hey, if you want to work to pass something that even a lot of principled conservatives won’t agree upon, and what moderates and liberals hate, and yet work to defeat something that gives you a piece of the pie rather then the whole thing, then don’t blame somebody else for the outcome of your actions. With that ‘All or nothing’ attitude, you kill as many babies everyday as Planned parenthood.

  86. Zachery Relyea Says:

    Cody,

    With all due respect.

    When you say…

    “Hey, if you want to work to pass something that even a lot of principled conservatives won’t agree upon, and what moderates and liberals hate, and yet work to defeat something that gives you a piece of the pie rather then the whole thing, then don’t blame somebody else for the outcome of your actions. With that ‘All or nothing’ attitude, you kill as many babies everyday as Planned parenthood.”

    Please look to the CP Platform…

    Sanctity of Life

    The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God’s image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born.

    To that end, the Constitution of the United States was ordained and established for “ourselves and our posterity.” Under no circumstances may the federal government fund or otherwise support any state or local government or any organization or entity, foreign or domestic, which advocates, encourages or participates in the practice of abortion.
    ==================

    I did not write those words. Yet I agree with the sentiment.

    So I joined.

    The Platform promulgates the ‘all or nothing’ attitude, and I agree with that
    sentiment.

    So I joined.

    When I was informed that sentiment may not be accurate I viewed it as
    the party left me.

  87. Trent Hill Says:

    Zachary,

    Super duper. If you can’t deal with 99% of your cake, rather than 100%, then you have no foresight.

  88. Zachery Relyea Says:

    Allow me to put it this way…

    Seems to me the CP is willing to compromise to acheive a desired 99%
    survival rate and is therefore corrupted.

    Congratulations

    I will continue to speak for the 1% being slaughtered.

    I am no longer a CP member.

    Rather than deceiving would be prospective members I suggest the CP
    remove these words from their platform…

    Sanctity of Life

    The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God’s image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born.

    To that end, the Constitution of the United States was ordained and established for “ourselves and our posterity.” Under no circumstances may the federal government fund or otherwise support any state or local government or any organization or entity, foreign or domestic, which advocates, encourages or participates in the practice of abortion.
    =======================================

    As the CP seems to condone some being slaughtered.

  89. Trent Hill Says:

    You’re right. A 0% survival rate is WAY better than a 99% survival rate.
    For example,if China invaded…it would be better to surrendur than to fight against overwhelming odds despite the fact that we would probably lose. (hypothetically. In all honesty,we could take China).

    Furthermore, the CP has not compromised on abortion. By and large most of the members are still 100% pro-lifers. You left because one guy made his opinions known,and the leadership didnt react in an authoritarian manner,like you wanted them to. Too bad,so sad.

    We will work to make 99-100% of abortion illegal, meanwhile, you will be helping the AHP or Christian Liberty Party…DO NOTHING.

  90. Zachery Relyea Says:

    “Under no circumstances”

    “or otherwise support” FOR EXAMPLE THE LAW.

    “which advocates, encourages or participates in the practice of abortion.”

    As I said…

    “Seems compromise does not accomplish the objective.”

  91. SovereignMN Says:

    Suppose all 50 states had a clean sweep of CP victories at every level of government. We’d have 49 states outlaw 100% of abortions and 1 state outlaw 99%....and this is unacceptable compared to what we currently have in this country?

  92. undercover_anarchist Says:

    And we’d still have 100% the number of abortions that we have today, except they would be legal and you Christian Communists would feel good that your beloved omnipotent state had taken a Biblical stand. I hope all of your daughters die in childbirth, you bigotted pieces of shit.

  93. Winston Smith Says:

    No one can be a Christian and COmmunist oh stupid UA blabber.

    As to your last comments, it is a shame there is no way for Mr. Cassidy to ban you, much as I normally would hate that tactic.

  94. matt Says:

    UA,
    The part of your comment that is unsuitable garbage won’t be responded to, but there are a couple of other things.

    A) I think you meant ‘illegal’ on the second line.

    B) Wouldn’t bigotry (int the traditional sense, not making allowances for UA crazy-talk) involve banning abortion for mothers of certain races? By the way, are you aware of Planned Parenthood’s origins? You can bet they were, and perhaps are, a good sight more racist than anyone in the CP leadership.

    C) Have you noticed that many people arrive at an anti-abortion position just by applying natural law theory and their normal powers of observation? Quite a few people fall into this group.

    D) Do you think it would be possible for someone to disagree with you for a reason other than their being a bigoted, small-minded jackass? Why or why not? Does it follow logically that everyone who disagrees with you deserves a violent, torturous death? Are you that attatched to the idea of being the only person on earth?

  95. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Ovarian Marxism is a futile, authoritarian agenda that requires an omnipotent state for its enforcement. It’s anti-growth, pro-crime, and pro-abortion. Anyone lacking the rational faculty to arrive at this obvious conclusion is a collectivist dolt, and while I would never advocate their death through the machinery of the state, I would not shed a tear if they got their dicks ripped off through a botched attempt at sex with farm machinery, etc.

  96. Ted Says:

    It seems to me that our founders compromised on the document they signed on 4 July 1776. As we all know, the original draft of the Declaration condemned slavery. The southern colonies demanded that the offending passage be removed otherwise the rest of the colonies could forget getting their votes for American independence. The South got its way, the Declaration was passed, and we became a country. Now then, if the other colonies had not yielded on the slavery issue becasue of principle the Declaration never would’ve been adopted and we still might be speaking the King’s e]English. Granted that ignoring the issue at that time eventually resulted in the Civil War, are the signers of the Declaration, who are practically deified by the strict constitutionalists, to be condemned as unprincipled pragmatists?

  97. LPiberty Says:

    http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/consistent/indivisible.html

    The most interesting letter was from Barry Nakell, who is a law profes sor at the University of North Carolina. He is one of the founders of the affiliate of the ACLU there. And he gave me a copy of a speech he made in 1985 at the annual meeting in Chapel Hill of the North Carolina Civil Liberties Union. He reminded the members that the principle of respect for the dignity of life was the basis for the paramount issue on the North Carolina Civil Liberties Union agenda since its founding. That group was founded because of their opposition to capital punishment. Yet, he said, supporting Roe v. Wade, these civil libertarians were agreeing that the Constitution protects the right to take life. The situation is a little backward, Nakell told his brothers and sisters. In the classical position, the Constitu tion would be interpreted to protect the right to life, and pro-abortion advocates would be pressing to relax that constitutional guarantee. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court turned that position upside down and the ACLU went along, taking the decidedly odd civil libertarian position that some lives are less worthy of protection than other lives. I asked Nakell how his heresy had been received. Apparently they’re much more polite down there than they are in New York. “With civility,” he said. As a matter of fact, he added, there were several members of the board who had been troubled for some time, but it’s interesting, they didn’t quite want to come out and say they were worried about Roe v. Wade,that they were worried about abortion. But Nakell took the first step. He’s an optimist by temperament and he tells me he expects to make more progress. And then he told me about a bumper sticker he had seen recently in North Carolina- “Equal Rights for Unborn Women.”

  98. Trent Hill Says:

    UA, the fact is that the leaders of planned parenthood were avowed socialists. The pro-choice group “A.C.T.I.O.N.” is a communist group. Pro-choice does not mean pro-liberty. There are pro-liberty people on both sides of the abortion issue. The fact that you value a grown-woman life more than an infant’s speaks of your own bigotry. The fact is, you are a Democrat-leaning libertarian (at least thats what alot of us would classify you as), and that makes you more authoritarian than most people on this forum. (Excepting Dondero of course).

  99. Zachery Relyea Says:

    SovereignMN Says:
    March 7th, 2007 at 3:28 pm

    Suppose all 50 states had a clean sweep of CP victories at every level of government. We’d have 49 states outlaw 100% of abortions and 1 state outlaw 99%....and this is unacceptable compared to what we currently have in this country?
    =====================

    I would applaud the success.

    I would work to get that 1 state to outlaw 100%

  100. Trent Hill Says:

    Zachery, welcome to compromise. You just accepted state-level outlawing in 49 states,rather than federal outlawing.
    You just sold your own ideology out.

  101. Cody Quirk Says:

    Zack, the current CP platform was done as a compromise at the last national Convention of the CP, so don’t think of it as Scripture.

    Also note that in the CP bylaws, it says:

    “Nothing in this Constitution or the bylaws of the Constitution Party shall confer upon the national party any authority to direct the internal affairs of any state affiliate.”

    So the national can’t tell Nevada what to do.

    Also note that the national CP leadership refused to endorse Chris Hansen when he ran for office last year.

    I do agree that the CP platform needs to be edited in some areas.
    On the Santity of Life, I’d reword it to where it sounds more gray on the exceptions issue. Bottom line, the CP should rather be neutral on the exceptions issue, not in favor of exceptions.

    And you will find, whether you like it or not, compromise is sometimes the only way to advance your goal, or not advance it at all.

  102. Cody Quirk Says:

    Winston,

    FYI there are Christian Socialists.

    Yes, there is such a thing.

  103. Zachery Relyea Says:
    1. Trent Hill Says:
      March 8th, 2007 at 3:58 am

    Zachery, welcome to compromise. You just accepted state-level outlawing in 49 states,rather than federal outlawing.
    You just sold your own ideology out.
    ====================

    Trent,

    I did not compromise.

    I said I would applaud the success.

    I also said I would work to get that 1 state to outlaw 100%.

    Somewhere in your mind you must think I can dictate my desired objective.

    That is just out of my control.

    If you consider accepting the fact that some things are out of my control as compromise, that is on you.

    My belief and objective remain 100% abolish abortion.

    Quoting Lord Mansfield in his conclusion in the Somerset case…

    The state of abortion “is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political; but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory;it’s so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it but positive law.”

    George Bush had the right words but he applied them to the wrong issue.

    No child left behind.
    ===========

    Cody Quirk Says:
    March 8th, 2007 at 6:53 am

    “Nothing in this Constitution or the bylaws of the Constitution Party shall confer upon the national party any authority to direct the internal affairs of any state affiliate.”

    So the national can’t tell Nevada what to do.
    =========================

    I agree. Likewise, National cannot prevent NY from disaffiliating.
    We voted amongst ourselves and decided that CP was corrupted
    and we disaffiliated.

    Allow me to clarify, by corrupted I mean spoiled by mistakes.

    To further clarify…

    “Nothing in this Constitution or the bylaws of the Constitution Party shall confer upon the national party any authority to direct the internal affairs of any state affiliate.”

    It has become painfully clear that the adoption of that clause within
    the CP Bylaws was a mistake.

    I wish those of you that have chosen to remain in CP the best.

  104. undercover_anarchist Says:

    I’m more of an authoritarian just because I vote for Democrats more often then I vote for Republicans? That’s absurd.

    I don’t value the life of one class of people more than another. I value the woman’s sovereingty over her own body. I question when exactly life begins. And I realize that making something illegal does not eradicate it, nor does it even make it less common, in some cases.

  105. Trent Hill Says:

    UA, you consider the Reps and Dems the only choices. Those two are FAR more authoritarian than the LP or CP.

  106. undercover_anarchist Says:

    I don’t consider the Dems or Republicans the “only choices.” I did not vote for Bush or Kerry in 2004, nor did I vote for Rep/Dem for Congress. I voted for several non-GOP/Dems in 2006. My beef is that there are no good choices. We have the “neo-fascist” GOP, the Agrarian anticapitalist CP, and the Marxist GP. The LP is filled with right-wing, anti-growth kooks. I am absolutely sickened by the vast majority of Democrats. However, when l look at how completely dysfunctional the LP is (the only real choice in my mind), I’m inclined to support a Democrat – despite however much I may disagree with him/her on 99% of issues – for the 1% of difference between him/her and the GOP.

    Look, the facts are in. Both major parties suck. But government grows more slowly during Dem admins, the stock market performs better, more gets deregulated, budgets and balanced, booms bloom, etc. I don’t support Democratic policies, I support Democratic results.

  107. Cody Quirk Says:

    I agree. Likewise, National cannot prevent NY from disaffiliating.
    We voted amongst ourselves and decided that CP was corrupted
    and we disaffiliated.

    =Agreed, your state has the right to do so.

    Good luck.

  108. Chris Campbell Says:

    UA, you discribed the CP as “agrarian and anti-capitalist”

    Why? WHere is the proof?

    Why do you, a self described anarchist care?

    What is wrong with farming?

    I think this is one of those times that you may need to get back on your meds, as it is clear your thoughts are all JuMbLeD uP

  109. Winston Smith Says:

    UA:I don’t value the life of one class of people more than another. I value the woman’s sovereingty over her own body. I question when exactly life begins. And I realize that making something illegal does not eradicate it, nor does it even make it less common, in some cases.

    -welcome to double speak!!, 2+2=5, eh

    I agree, please take you MeDs

  110. John Chance Says:

    James Niemela -another long knife from TAV!!

    Pull their strings, hear the parrot talk “awk, awk, Michael Peroutka says…it must be true, ”

    Too bad what is left of the Reform Party does not merge with CP, leave the wing-nuts behind too.

  111. Cody Quirk Says:

    Scott White is probably the most repulsive parrot of them all.

    Followed by John Lofton.

  112. Colby Peterson Says:

    Good- may the CP continue to impode on itself. Any political organization that can’t even support abortive measures to save the life of the mother doesn’t deserve to be a part of national politics.

  113. Cody Quirk Says:

    The CP isn’t imploding (not impoding), on itself, especially since we have new affiliates popping up in the states that left.

  114. Tom Mayfield Says:

    It is my understanding that the NV Party supports the platform of the CP. The problem is not the party it is Chris Hansen. I bet if you searched each state party you could find people in leadership doing thing that are not right. We are not perfect but we should keep striving to be perfect. As far as the comments above about Mountain Meadows it is my understanding that the Leader and Prophet of the Mormon church was aware and involved in the Massacre but no one that was there and was involved in that is alive today. That is like blaming me for my great great grandfather owning slaves. I had nothing to do with it.

    Watch the State of Arkansas they will be re affiliated with the CP within the month of March.

    The people and states that left the CP are not wise and deserve the nothingness they have ascended to.

  115. Joe Says:

    I don’t think that Christopher Hansen is the only candidate in IAP Nevada who would allow abortion in the cases of rape and incest, and I don’t think that IAP Nevada is the only state affiliate of the Constitution Party that has endorsed candidates that would allow abortion in the cases of rape and incest. I do know that my state party voted to disaffiliate from the Constitution Party eleven months ago and we continue to operate more or less as we did before we disaffiliated.

  116. Cody Quirk Says:

    How many people are registered to your state party Joe?

  117. Cody Quirk Says:

    Brigham Young was not involved with the Massacure at all.

    And even parts of Will Bagly’s book are taken out of context or misquoted…

    Here’s some good links about the massacure=

    http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Shining_New_Light_on_the_Mountain_Meadows_Massacre.html

    http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre

    http://www.angelfire.com/sk2/ldsdefense/mmm.html

  118. Carl G. Oehling Says:

    U_A says Mar. 8 at 6:34 pm “I question exactly when life begins”. It is a continuum. The beginning depends on whether you are a Christian or Athiest (Evolutionist). AS a Christian you accept from the Bible that God, who has no beginning, gave it to humans when He breathed into Adam the breath of life. He continued it to Eve by taking a ‘live’ rib from Adam. They produced live gamets which developed into adults. These adults reproduced in the same way even until today.
    As an Athiest we know scientifically in the laboratory it works the same way. We cannot get life from a rock. Thus we go to other planets looking for water, and an alien life, from which we know is a basic need in the process of living.
    I, Carl G. Oehling, accept Jehovah as the outside source of life.
    The confusion I find you producing is you don’t accept it is a new PERSON who begins at conception, not a new life. This is common knowledge I learned in 1948 in Highschool biology.

  119. Chris Campbell Says:

    Joe Says:

    March 13th, 2007 at 7:00 am
    I don’t think that Christopher Hansen is the only candidate in IAP Nevada who would allow abortion in the cases of rape and incest, and I don’t think that IAP Nevada is the only state affiliate of the Constitution Party that has endorsed candidates that would allow abortion in the cases of rape and incest.

    -well, I was in Tampa and all I heard was “Chris Hansen says…” The TAV faction failed to prove:
    1. The IAP officially changed the platform
    2. The officers agreed w/Chris
    3. The IAP candidates ran as exceptionists, including Chris
    4. It was not about Mormons in the Party
    5. The IAP was utterly corrupt.
    6. Chris Hansen was the entire Party and hence, needed to be booted.
    7. Hansen’s views were known prior to 2003 and hence, he shuld not have been elected.
    8. Peroutka did not go to Nevada, Utah and ask for votes and money-and got both. Supposeldy, if the IAP was soo corrupt, who dropped the ball in the Peroutka 2004 campaign??
    9. ALaska Party had NO abortion stance, did not stop anyone from going there.
    10. The “proof” booklet, largely a long and drawn out rant of emails-given out a whooping 1 hr prior to vote/debate.

    ALso, I would add, NY was soooo brave and passed a resolution-prior to Tampa-to leave if they did not get there way, yet so—are you ready for this—no, zero, nada, nein-reps to Tampa to vote their august moral position.

    Same, BTW, for Alabama, Missouri…...

    Real brave. I had to dent, hard, the ‘ol plastic card and my limited bank book.

    I listened, prayed and in the end, failed to have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that IAP was corrupted and needed the boot. Hansen was quiet on his-admittedly absurd-views, until carefully being drawn out and made a scapegoat. He was the Mormon held up for the 2 Minutes of Hate like Emmanual Goldstein in 1984.

    In the end, the poster s on TAV and others in their comments gave away the real reason for the vote.

    IAP is not yet at a point that they need the boot. I did vote against the Shearer bill making it harder to dissafiliate parties.

  120. Joe Says:

    Our state party elected a delegate to attend the Tampa meeting. He had a personal emergency at the very last minute that prevented him from attending. I did not find out that he was not there until well after the meeting was over.

    I can not think of another poster on TAV who is a member of our state party, so I don’t see how those comments can explain our reason for our vote. You may disagree with our reasons, but those reasons are enumerated in our disaffiliation resolution, just like the Constitution Party of Alabama’s reasons are enumerated in theirs. If a member of a state party articulates additional reasons for their vote, it does not follow that you can fairly attribute those reasons to other members of that party if they are not included in the statement actually voted on.

  121. Winston Smith Says:

    Cody Quirk Says:

    March 8th, 2007 at 6:54 am
    Winston,

    FYI there are Christian Socialists.

    Yes, there is such a thing.

    Really, Govt seziure and control of almost everything is Christian?? Could you quote that to me, chapter and verse for the Bible (NIV, KJV, DR, NKJV, etc)??

  122. Cody Quirk Says:

    Scriptural-wise, I’m not sure what motivates them, but here are some links to a few political parties (not US), that supposedly are ‘Christian Socialist’...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracia_Popular_%28Ecuador%29

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Christians

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Left_Party_%28Chile%29

    A link on Christian Socialism:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialists

  123. TomSr Says:

    I don’t need links to the Mountain Meadow Massacre. I spent 10 years researching and studying the Massacre. I was a Mormon for over 30 years and that was one of my reasons for leaving the church. But even with all I know this is not about Mormons it is about politics, this is not about religion, it is about politics. The purpose of a political party is to gain control of the power within a state, or country so that you can control the laws of the land. The 3rd largest party has been setback by a bunch of religious zealots that think they know something about what Christ would want. I know that Christ was perfect and would not have compromised anything but we are not perfect we just strive to become perfect. The many founders of the Constitution had strong religious feelings about slavery but they also knew that if they tried to tackle it at the convention the U.S. would never be formed. As long as a party publicly supports the platform of right to life then I would work with them to help achieve the goal of candidates in office. In the entire CP there are only a few that have personal feelings about the right to life. The Mormon right to life stance is another reason I left the Church but I also do not condemn them for their feelings only for their actions. I know Mormons well enough to know that no abortion is taken lightly with them.

    Those states and individuals that disaffiliated from the CP have descended into the nothingness that they deserve.

  124. Joe Says:

    Tom,

    How have we descended into nothingness? We are continuing to recruit new members and endorse candidates for office, just like we did before we disaffiliated. The Constitution Party of Montana disaffiliated and elected Rick Jore to the state legislature. Has any affiliated party elected anyone to a higher office than that? How is that “nothing?”

    I am not sure what you mean by “in the entire CP there are only a few that have personal feelings about the right to life” or what your evidence is for that. How does IAP Nevada publicly support the right to life plank of the platform, when the platform states “As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father,” and IAP Nevada elected leaders and endorsed candidates that would allow abortion in the cases of rape and incest?

  125. TomSr Says:

    Joe,

    Glad you ask. The states that have withdrawn their support from the CP did not withdraw the states support only their individual support and the support of some and in some cases many of their people. Each and every state that with drew will be replaced with affiliates from that state that will continue to work and grow the CP and it will remain the largest 3rd party in the US. If the individuals within a state support a person of good standing that person will certainly receive the support of the people, but those individuals that withdrew from the CP no longer have the power to influence the CP.

    I mean by the entire CP. as in the entire membership. When you look at the CP as a whole and all of its members and state affiliates the people within the party that have less than a 100 percent pro life stance are few compared to the whole. I should say also that the NV party is not the only location of people with that feeling. I would venture that in all state affiliates there are at least some members that feel there is some justification for abortion in some cases.

    Maybe I missed it but as earlier as yesterday I went back to the IAP and reread their platform and I see no mention of matters of Rape and incest. I see no exceptions to any right to life on their platform. Maybe you could show me where it is. I think what you are quoting is the statement from some of the members that follow the teachings of their church. I may be wrong.

    I do know that if we within the CP can elect officials to high enough offices we can effect a change and the change will be for the better.

    It is terribly wrong for one life to be lost there is no excuse for the abortion of even one life. I know however that I cannot save them all right now so I save every one that I can. And if I save just one and that is all I can do then I have done all I can. But if my action is to ignore the one I can save by turning my back on the vehicle to save the one then I am wrong. We must always realize that life or death is in the hands of God not ours. We are to serve him and we do that by personally obeying his commandments.

    Every baby, every spirit that is sent by the Lord into the body of a woman that aborts that spirit is returned to God. Those spirits are always returned to the Father that sent them for all things are in his hands. Our job is to do the best we can.

    If you think and feel in your heart you are doing the best you can then you only have to make your peace with God not with me. I feel I am doing the best I can by working to save just one more baby, just one more spirit by continuing to push for candidates that can make a difference.

    I will also say that no one from the State party in Arkansas ask my opinion about whether the state party should withdraw from the CP. They took my money for membership and did not even bother to ask what I thought about the issue. They decided to tell me and every other member within the state what we should think and feel. So I am happy that they are gone and yes the state of Arkansas Constitution Party will continue to grow and will be re affiliated with the CP. I know watch it will happen this month.

  126. Joe Says:

    Tom,

    I understand that the IAP Nevada’s platform does not allow for exceptions. That is not what our disaffiliation resolution claimed, nor does it appear to me to be what the Constitution Party of Alabama’s disaffiliation resolution claims either. Our disaffiliation resolution began:

    “Whereas the National Committee of the Constitution Party has been
    troubled for more than a year and a half by events arising from a
    decision by the chairman of the Independent American Party of Nevada
    (IAPN) to publicly air views in clear opposition to the pro-life
    plank of the National Party, and

    Whereas the IAPN chairman has refused to publicly recant his
    statements, but has affirmed his position, and

    Whereas the National Committee by majority vote at its meeting in
    Columbus, Ohio, in the fall of 2005 has requested the Independent
    American Party of Nevada to address the situation, and

    Whereas the Independent American Party of Nevada has responded by
    stating in writing to the national Constitution Party chairman the
    IAPN support for its state chairman, thus elevating the issue to the
    level of a scandal that threatens the pro-life position and message
    of the Constitution Party . . .”

    We understood when we passed that resolution that we would have no further opportunity to influence the national party. I made every effort to inform every member about the vote on our resolution and to allow every member an opportunity to debate and vote on the motion, and our members decided that we had tried long enough to influence the party from within. We never received any complaint from any member that our vote was conducted improperly. In 2004 I served on the platform committee with a member of the Constitution Party of Arkansas – I believe his name was Jason Sheppard. I recall his excellent remarks in defense of Christian principles of civil government.

    I do not agree that electing pro-abort candidates would be a change for the better. I made my peace with God that I was doing His will eleven months ago when I voted for disaffiliation. Nothing has happened since then to cause me to change my mind.

    I never had a real gauge on how many Constitution Party members nationally were pro-life Since the Sanctity of Life Resolution passed unanimously in San Antonio, I assumed it was at least a large majority. However, considering that the vote in Tampa allowed IAP Nevada to remain affiliated, it seems that we both may have been wrong about that. It seems to me that if an overwhelming number of party members nationally were pro-life, a resolution to disaffiliate a state party that supported a state chairman who publicly aired views in clear opposition to the pro-life plank of the national party should have passed easily.

  127. TomSr Says:

    First I dont believe electing a Pro abortion candidate is a change for the better. I could not support, vote for or work for a Pro abortion candidate.

    I don’t believe you can gage how a person stands on abortion or life by how the vote went at Tampa. Many people saw as I do that the attempt at destruction of the CP was totally counter productive to the mission and agenda of the Party and to my individual goals. Many people feel and I think in error that the purpose of the Constitution Party is to take on the abortion issue. I do not believe that is the mission and objective of the party any more than I believe the mission and object of the Party is to get us out of Iraq. The CP has 40 items listed on its web site as platform points. I notice that one of these is welfare. I guess you would disaffiliate a party if some of the leaders happen to be drawing welfare, or food stamps. Is one platform more important than another. The platform describes what the party is about and all aspects of it, each and every one is important.

    No, this problem will not be solved not here or anywhere as the depth of the problem is a basic difference in what the party is about. The party is not a religion, the party is a political group with political missions and objectives. The party may have people that believe in Christ but even people that believe in Christ have major differences thats why there are multitudes of churches. Anytime people try to impose their will on someone else there is a problem. The few individuals in the several states that withdrew felt their God was better than the God of the IAP and they knew better what was best for the CP. I say they and you are wrong. Again there is no evidence the IAP as a party does not support the CP platform. If a candidate nominated from the CP were to run on a 100 percent pro life platform the IAP would and does support that candidate.

    I will read any additional post on this subject here but I am done posting as I have better things to do.

    May God bless you all and grant the righteous desires of your heart, as for me I would hope to see all of you that left the party back in for we need you. We need your attitude, we need your dedication to God, we need your hard work for the labor is long and the goal if far away and we must all work together. I think we can.

  128. Joe Says:

    Tom,

    You said, “I do know that if we within the CP can elect officials to high enough offices we can effect a change and the change will be for the better.” Christopher Hansen has publicly stated that he would allow abortion in the cases of rape and incest. In our view that makes him pro-abortion with exceptions. He thinks it is permissible to abort some people, but makes an exception for those not conceived in rape and incest. I could not in good conscience vote for him, and I saw no point in remaining in a party with candidates and leaders that I would not vote for. If wanted to do that, there are plenty of other parties I could join. I joined the Constitution Party because I thought its purpose was to take on the abortion issue as well as to immediately withdraw America’s military from all overseas deployments. I concluded as much based on their statement, “It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born.” I was suprised to discover apparently many agree with you that is not their purpose at all.

    If a state party knowingly elected leaders on welfare and resisted efforts to fix the situation, I certainly think that state party should be disaffiliated. Our party’s platform says that the message of Christian charity is fundamentally at odds with the concept of government welfare. It also says that our party leaders “ust display exemplary qualities of honesty, integrity, reliability, moral uprightness, fidelity, [and] prudence . . .” What consequences can a political party use short of disaffiliation if leaders fail to display these qualities? And if there is no effort to enforce these standards isn’t it all just empty rhetoric, which one can find more than enough ofin any number of other parties?

    We know that a political party is not a religion and we understand that Christians have major differences. Anyone who has served on platform committee of the Constitution Party, or even attended a convention or party meeting, cand probably testify to that. Our concern was that the Constitution Party had decided to ignore something that we had already previously agreed to: that “as to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.”

    You keep claiming that “the few individuals in the several states that withdrew felt their God was better than the God of the IAP and they knew better what was best for the CP” but that is not at all what our disaffiliation resolution says concerning our reasons. I was present at the meeting where our resolution was debated and the subject of religion never came up. As far as I could tell, no one else present had any idea what Christopher Hansen’s religion was. If IAP Nevada were disaffiliated, I think it is possible that some of our members MIGHT consider an invitation to return, but not otherwise and I doubt that a majority would want to even then. Ironically, they seemed determined to continue as an independent American party, at least for now. I am under no illusion that reconciliation is going to happen in the forseeable future, as you are one of the few who remain affiliated that I have heard express any regret at our departure. Most of what I have heard from Constitution Party members has been along the line of “Now that those prolife extremists are gone, maybe we can be about the business of really growing our party. They’ve held us back for too long.”

  129. Yosemite1967 Says:

    I wish that the Hansens would just sign a statement declaring that they will not misrepresent the party any more by publicly contradicting its platform and that Chris specifically would just apologize for his baby=intruder and baby=thief statements.

  130. Joe Says:

    Yosemite,

    From what I know of Christopher Hansen I would not expect him ever to apologize for his statements, because he believes what he said. Like I told Jim Clymer to his face, it doesn’t bother me at all that Christopher speaks his mind. What bothers me is what is in his mind and in his heart. I do not at all begrudge him the right to believe what he believes and to articulate that belief. However, I just can not be in good conscience remain in a political party that allows him to serve as a leader and candidate knowing what he believes, or that allows anyone else to serve as a leader or candidate who would allow abortion in the cases of rape and incest.

  131. Cody Quirk Says:

    I know however that I cannot save them all right now so I save every one that I can. And if I save just one and that is all I can do then I have done all I can. But if my action is to ignore the one I can save by turning my back on the vehicle to save the one then I am wrong. We must always realize that life or death is in the hands of God not ours.

    =I agree.

  132. Cody Quirk Says:

    If a state party knowingly elected leaders on welfare and resisted efforts to fix the situation, I certainly think that state party should be disaffiliated.

    =”Nothing in this Constitution or the bylaws of the Constitution Party shall confer upon the national party any authority to direct the internal affairs of any state affiliate.”

    The bylaws disagree.

  133. Cody Quirk Says:

    Joe, I could really care what your Party does, that’s your Party, not mine.

    We already have a new reoganzied CP affiliate up and running anyway.

  134. Cody Quirk Says:

    Tom, did you bother to read the links? Perhaps there’s something there that you didn’t know before.

    Did you leave the Church for personal reasons? Because if it was over a detail in Church History, that would be a petty excuse to leave. I’ve looked into anti-Mormon arguements and claims and found they’re either taken out of context, misquoted, or distorted to fit such claims against the Church.

  135. Joe Says:

    Cody,

    Disaffiliating a state party is not directing its internal affairs. That state party would be free to continue doing whatever they want as and independent, unaffiliated party.

    Are you saying that a national party should never disaffiliate a state party for any reason?

  136. Cody Quirk Says:

    Joe,

    the national party shouldn’t disaffiliate a state party on those grounds, since it says the platform or bylaws doesn’t dictate how a state party should run itself. And you people advocated for disaffiliation on the grounds that Chris violated the Platform on Life with his personal views, when the platform or the bylaws cannot confer upon a state party’s business.

    It’s right there.

  137. TomSr Says:

    Cody Quirk, I said I would not post but I will give you the following answer to your question.

    I left the Church after many years of soul searching investigation and for many reasons but all directed at the same thing. The changing of Temple ordinances, the hiding of the Prophet Benson’s inability to recognize people including his grandson for months prior to his death. This was done while church leaders claimed he was still functioning as the Prophet. The many attempts by church leaders to cover up things that were done against church policy. Including the duping of church leaders and the Prophet by con artist with supposedly authentic documents several years ago. I capped it all of with the Mountain Meadows Massacre and several other things back thru history that convinced me that there was never any foundation to believe that Joseph Smith was a Prophet. You don’t really want to even get into what I know about Joseph Smith. Keep in mind that I don’t accept what someone says, I have to go and find out for myself. Nor the stealing of the ordinances from the Masons. It is amazing how exactly similar the Masonic ordinances are to the temple ordinances are. I now believe the Masonic organization has many good Christian people at the lower levels but is totally satanic at the upper degrees above 30. There is clear evidence that the Pearl of Great Price was a fraud. The scrolls have been found or did you not know that. They are burial records, oh the church fired a BYU Professor for stating this. There is no evidence there was ever horses in the US before the coming of the spanish, there were certainly no elephants or many other animals spoken of by the book of Mormon. Do you want me to go on. I told you I spent 30 years in the church and did not leave lightly, I left after years of research, thousands of dollars spent traveling and investigating and much prayer and soul searching of my own. I am at peace with my decision.

    Now lets get back to politics.

  138. Joe Says:

    Cody,

    All you did is repeat yourself, not answer the question.

    How is disaffiliating a state party “dictating” how they should run themselves? They would still be free to run themselves however they want.

    You say “on those grounds.” My question is, on what grounds DO you think a state party should be disaffiliated. Under your definition, wouldn’t any effort to disaffiliate a state party amount to “dictating” how that state party runs itself, which is prohibited?

  139. Cody Quirk Says:

    How is disaffiliating a state party “dictating” how they should run themselves? They would still be free to run themselves however they want.

    =Because by disaffiliating them, you cut them off from funding resources, etc, from the national Party. And the reason why is simply because of the personal views of one or two of their state leaders that do not conform to the CP Platform. Even through article 3 of the by-laws says the platform(or constitution) or bylaws cannot dictate the affairs of any state affiliate.

    =So Nevada has the right to be in the CP and still have “exceptionists” as their state officers, just like your party has the right to disaffiliate from the national on its own. Fair and simple.

    You say “on those grounds.” My question is, on what grounds DO you think a state party should be disaffiliated.

    =Personally I like the current rules on state party disaffiliation, which was passed at Tampa after the Nevada vote.

    =Also note that Nevada never adopted a “exceptionist” position on abortion.

    “Under your definition, wouldn’t any effort to disaffiliate a state party amount to “dictating” how that state party runs itself, which is prohibited?”

    =You proved a point I was making! Isn’t that exactely what your state party and others tried to do by forcing Nevada to ‘conform’ to the Platform?
    Never mind that the Nevada Party passed resolutions saying it was in conformity with the CP platform on abortion.

    =And personally we were never trying to kick you guys out at all, you left on your own. As you have the right to.

  140. Cody Quirk Says:

    Indeed Tom, this isn’t the proper place to debate religion and scriptures.

    Do you want to talk about LDS beliefs and doctrine via personal email? I bet I can prove you wrong on some of your views.

  141. TomSr Says:

    Cody Quirk, As much as I enjoy the discussion. It is done! I do not debate the church.

  142. Yosemite1967 Says:

    Joe,

    I agree that Hansen should’ve been censured (up to removal) for publicly misrepresenting the party’s platform, but I don’t agree that people should be discluded from the party for their beliefs or thoughts. I consider that to be an Orwellian, thought-police approach.

    Only God knows men’s hearts, and He will punish or reward them for what is therein, but since we do not know men’s hearts, we should only punish men for behaviour. What men do in their minds is only theirs and God’s business, or God would’ve given us the ability to read one another’s minds. Only what men do in this world, especially if it harms others, is our business.

  143. Joe Says:

    Yosemite,

    I was present at a Constitution Party of Pennsylvania meeting during which Jim Clymer told the members publicly that the Constitution Party would probably survive if Christopher Hansen kept his mouth shut, but if he mouthed off again he (Jim) was worried that the party would schism. [That is not a direct quote, but my best recollection of remarks made many months ago.] Well, Jim was right. After that, Christopher publicly reiterated that he would allow abortions in the case of rape and incest, and several state parties disaffiliated when the national party refrained from disaffiliating IAP Nevada. After his remarks, I approached Jim privately and told him that I did not care that Christopher was speaking his mind. It was never my intention in voting to disaffiliate IAP Nevada to silence state party leaders out of fear that their words would be used against their state parties. I welcome a free and open exchange of ideas and opinions. To me, none of this is really about actions. As far as I know Christopher never aborted any babies. For me it was about words and beliefs, all that we in the political realm have to work with. Jim responded to me that he too cared what was on ” Christopher’s heart and mind, but . . . ” left me the impression that if Christopher just minded his tongue he hoped that it might just blow over. My concern was not to silence Christopher Hansen, but to make sure that I was in a party that would elect people to public office that would allow some babies to be aborted.

    As far as censure is concerned, I’m not sure what that means. I was asked twice to vote on this issue. The first time: Nevada in or out? The second time after Nevada was allowed to remain: us, in or out. Both times, I voted according to what I thought was right. I never had an opportunity to vote on censuring Christopher Hansen, nor am I sure that would have been appropriate to do so.

  144. Cody Quirk Says:

    Alright then Tom.

  145. Cody Quirk Says:

    I was present at a Constitution Party of Pennsylvania meeting during which Jim Clymer told the members publicly that the Constitution Party would probably survive if Christopher Hansen kept his mouth shut, but if he mouthed off again he (Jim) was worried that the party would schism. [That is not a direct quote, but my best recollection of remarks made many months ago.] Well, Jim was right. After that, Christopher publicly reiterated that he would allow abortions in the case of rape and incest, and several state parties disaffiliated when the national party refrained from disaffiliating IAP Nevada. After his remarks, I approached Jim privately and told him that I did not care that Christopher was speaking his mind. It was never my intention in voting to disaffiliate IAP Nevada to silence state party leaders out of fear that their words would be used against their state parties.

    =Utter BS.

    I welcome a free and open exchange of ideas and opinions. To me, none of this is really about actions. As far as I know Christopher never aborted any babies. For me it was about words and beliefs, all that we in the political realm have to work with.

    =You just contredicted yourself there, you welcome a free and open exchange of ideas, yet it was ‘about words and beliefs’.

    Jim responded to me that he too cared what was on ” Christopher’s heart and mind, but . . . ” left me the impression that if Christopher just minded his tongue he hoped that it might just blow over. My concern was not to silence Christopher Hansen, but to make sure that I was in a party that would elect people to public office that would allow some babies to be aborted.

    =Basically your concern was to rid the party of a active state affiliate that had a state chairman who favored exceptions because of his religious beliefs, and whose family, which ran the state party, held the same beliefs too.

    =yet the same people would still work to overturn Roe v. Wade, while the “Pro-Life GOP’ers and Democrats” do not. Such people are realistic in the abortion approach.

    As far as censure is concerned, I’m not sure what that means. I was asked twice to vote on this issue. The first time: Nevada in or out? The second time after Nevada was allowed to remain: us, in or out. Both times, I voted according to what I thought was right.

    =And that’s your right. In fact Joe I actually agree with your state party disaffiliating from the CP since we now can organize a state affiliate there that’s practical minded.

    I never had an opportunity to vote on censuring Christopher Hansen, nor am I sure that would have been appropriate to do so.

    =Yet you voted to kick his state party (along with him), out, OK I can see the difference.
    NOT!

  146. Joe Says:

    Cody,

    As I see it, the difference is that a vote by me to “censure” Christopher Hansens does sound like an effort to dictate the internal affairs of another state party. If there was any censuring to be done, it seems to me like it should have come from his own state party, which apparently they had no intention of doing. Disaffiliation was our way of saying that we just did not want to be associated any longer with a state party that elected leaders and nominated candidates that would allow abortion in the cases of rape and incest, which, you and I agree, was are right to do. Now, I possibly could be persuaded otherwise if somebody explained to me exactly what “censure” is, but the fact remains that I was never asked to vote on whether or not to censure Christopher Hansens, just on whether or not to disaffiliate IAP Nevada and later on whether or not to disaffiliate ourselves. I don’t see what saying “Christopher Hansen should be censured” acoomplishes at this point.

  147. Cody Quirk Says:

    As I see it, the difference is that a vote by me to “censure” Christopher Hansens does sound like an effort to dictate the internal affairs of another state party.

    =That’s how you interpret it.

    If there was any censuring to be done, it seems to me like it should have come from his own state party, which apparently they had no intention of doing.

    =Probably because the IAP was getting sick and tired of putting up with the nonsense coming from the eastern parties, especially since there have been previous efforts to disaffiliate Nevada, and the issue wasn’t abortion then.

    Disaffiliation was our way of saying that we just did not want to be associated any longer with a state party that elected leaders and nominated candidates that would allow abortion in the cases of rape and incest, which, you and I agree, was are right to do.

    =The sooner you guys were gone, the sooner we could get back to work.

  148. Cody Quirk Says:

    Now, I possibly could be persuaded otherwise if somebody explained to me exactly what “censure” is, but the fact remains that I was never asked to vote on whether or not to censure Christopher Hansens, just on whether or not to disaffiliate IAP Nevada and later on whether or not to disaffiliate ourselves. I don’t see what saying “Christopher Hansen should be censured” acoomplishes at this point.

    =If you wanted the Nevada Party gone, then you’re saying you don’t want people or a party with Chris’s mindset in the CP.

    Just like how the moderators of TAV didn’t want Mr. Fluarty there speaking up for the Party.

  149. Joe Says:

    I am not aware of any earlier attempt to disaffiliate IAP Nevada. The first time I was asked to vote on it was in the fall of ‘05. And I don’t know what this business about “eastern states.” Yes, my state party is in the east, but western states like Oregon and Montana voted for disaffiliation while eastern states like Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida did not.

  150. Cody Quirk Says:

    I am not aware of any earlier attempt to disaffiliate IAP Nevada.

    =Besides in Nashville 2004, Salt Lake City 2005? Also there was talk in the forums some years ago about establishing a CPNV that Bill Shearer detailed in a critical letter of Reed Heustis.

    I don’t know what this business about “eastern states.”

    =I recall that the disaffiliation efforts were the loudest in the eastern state parties. Especially with yours, Maryland, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Missouri, & Mississippi, plus a few others that didn’t show up for Tampa.
    Massachusetts wasn’t there and the majority of delegates from Florida voted for disaffiliation.

  151. tomglobal Says:

    land mail ibm all look england stay

Leave a Reply