Billings Outpost article on Rick Jore
What he isn’t is boss of the national Constitution Party. Reporters who gave him that label noted that he was the highest ranking elected public official in the Constitution Party.Jore is vice chairman of the Montana branch of the party but no longer a member of the national organization. The Constitution Party’s passion has always been opposition to federal income tax, gay rights and abortion. Especially abortion. The national party proclaimed the right to life from conception to natural death of all Americans.
When the Utah chapter of the party tweaked its platform to fit the Mormon Church’s pro-life position, the national party found itself in a bind. If it stood firm, it might lose one of the most active and fastest growing of its affiliates. If it yielded, members from other states would be outraged.
The Utah party’s modified pro-life stand made exceptions in the case of rape and incest. The original Constitution Party platform allowed no exceptions. It’s platform read: “We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception. As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.”
The national party bowed to pressure from the Utah chapter. Six state Constitution Parties (including Montana’s) severed ties with the national organization.
For Jore, there was no choice. “Pro-life is pro-life,” he said.
Read the rest of the article here.
March 2nd, 2007 at 9:15 am
The state in question was Nevada , not Utah. Also it had more to do with the personal statements of Nevadas chairman, not the tweak in the platform. I’m not 100% sure ,but I think the platform change came after all the discussion about the chairmans comments. As far as I know to this point the Nevade party still is 100% prolife and adheres to the national platform on that issue. I hope this does not start 80 comments about what the Nevada chairman said because that issue is now behind us.(the CP).
March 2nd, 2007 at 9:25 am
Exactely,
The Utah CP’s platform is the same as the national’s on the Sanctity of Life stance.
http://cputah.org/html/platform.html
The author should’ve done way more research on the Nevada matter, nevertheless this article is completely inaccurate and not worth my time.
March 2nd, 2007 at 9:40 am
OT:
One year ago today,
I was being helicoptered to Georgetown University Hospital in critical near death condition due to a large brain tumor unknown to anyone just 1 hour before. It has been a tough year but I wanted to say thank you to my libertarian extended family.
My doctors are optimistic that I will have more time than thought to live and spend with my wife Gloria, and even though I cant blog anymore, it’s great to still be here and follow the goings on.
Here’s to another year!
live every day like it’s your last. It may be just that. Love the people around you hard as you can, and dont ever substitute material things for friendship or love. It all can change very quickly, and regrets about your life weigh heavy if you cant fix them. Fix them now instead.
March 2nd, 2007 at 9:55 am
timothy,
May you have many more days and many more oppurtunities to do what you love and enjoy the people you love.We don’t always see eye to eye, but your presence here is a blessing, just as it was in the old days on HoT!
Not sure whether this type of thing is up your alley or not, but you’ll certainly be included in my evening prayers.
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Yea, this article is…really crappy.
While I like Rick Jore, I disagree with his stance on the Nevada issue. Im hoping we can reconcile.
However,calling Nevada, Utah demonstrates the awful research that took place here.
March 2nd, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Hello Timothy West,
Congratulations on your reaching the anniversary. Best wishes for another.
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:39 pm
The author’s final sentence of the Billings Outpost article is telling indeed:
Persistence – not compromise – won [Jore] his seat.
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:42 am
RRHeustis, I would add that Providence had even more to do with it than persistence, though perhaps the Providence wouldn’t have come without the persistence and lack of compromise on Rick’s part. :^)
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:08 am
RRHeustis,
Jore made a deal with the Republicans that he would caucus with him,if they would give him a better position than most freshman deserve.
Based on principle alone,he would not have caucused with his enemies. He would have stood alone. A beacon of truth.
The fact is, sometimes in politics you need to make deals and compromise.
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:59 am
“The author’s final sentence of the Billings Outpost article is telling indeed:
Persistence – not compromise – won [Jore] his seat.”
With only having a Democratic candidate to beat in a conservative district; persistance was the easy part!
And this author REALLY needs to rewrite his article.
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Trent Hill says:
The fact is, sometimes in politics you need to make deals and compromise.
You won’t get an argument from me there. There is nothing wrong with compromising and making deals per se. The question is >i>What is it that is being compromised?
If you compromise on style and timing, then that’s acceptable – there’s nothing wrong in that. In politics (you’re absolutely right), you must compromise and make deals.
However, one must never compromise principle – particularly Christian Constitutionalist principle – for political gain. That is totally unacceptable.
This is the difference between mere politicians and statesmen. Politicians compromise principle for political gain, and a politician is often seen licking his finger and holding it in the air to gauge where the winds of “public opinion” are blowing on certain issues. In contrast, statesmen never gauge public opinion on principle issues because they know that these issues must never be compromised no matter how popular or unpopular they are.
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Yosemite1967 says:
I would add that Providence had even more to do with it than persistence, though perhaps the Providence wouldn’t have come without the persistence and lack of compromise on Rick’s part.
I wholeheartedly agree with you here. Thank you for putting this in proper perspective.
God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; however, man still has the duty to pursue God’s holy preceptive will regardless of any perceived “chance” of success.
As Stonewall Jackson once proclaimed, “Duty is ours; consequences are God’s.”
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:25 pm
I do not believe that the Nevada party ever had an official revision of their platform that added the exceptions mentioned in the article.
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:23 pm
“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.”
=A better step in the right direction…
March 3rd, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Dear Gentlemen,
Why are you all assuming that the author really meant Nevada instead of Utah? I thought Utah was right in there supporting IAP Nevada? In my eyes there is little difference between the Constitution Party affiliates in Utah, Nevada and California. The parties which stand out are the ones who place principle over politics and have consequently left the national Constitution Party.
For a different perspective of this article, please visit http://www.ChristianLibertyParty.com.
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Angela.
Associating yourself with the Christian Liberty Party makes it easy for me to refute your words. I dont have to EXPOSE your craziness, you are putting it in a glass case for us.
I thought you were railing for the American Heritage Party?
Next step is the Christian Falangist Party right?
Good luck on becoming the single most extreme “Christian” voter.
March 4th, 2007 at 7:08 am
You can just go all the way and join the Creator’s Rights Party.
March 4th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Why are you all assuming that the author really meant Nevada instead of Utah? I thought Utah was right in there supporting IAP Nevada? In my eyes there is little difference between the Constitution Party affiliates in Utah, Nevada and California.
=Because the author should’ve said Nevada instead of Utah then. Are you stupid or something Angela?
No, I’m sorry, you’re just a viper in distress.
March 4th, 2007 at 9:36 am
She won’t join the Falangists because they are Catholic oriented.
...I sometimes wonder if she will ever take up Christian Indentity.
March 4th, 2007 at 9:39 am
What happened to the American Heritage Party Angela?
March 4th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
She has a letter on her blog saying she was going to focus on something else. The fact is, Angela is the sort of racist and religious extremist that we dont even want VOTING for us, much less in leadership.
She has posts on her blog praising Cal Zastrow, who during his tenure as Michigan CPer was openly anti-semitic and anti-mormon. He was one of the leaders of the Anti-Nevada movement.
We got rid of him too,thank god.
March 4th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Dear Trent and Cody,
I pray slander and character assassination’s will become beneath you. I forgive you as you probably do not know what you are doing.
I also want to sincerely express my sympathy at the passing away of Mr. Shearer. I pray he made peace with the LORD. I hope all will learn from the implosion of the Constitution Party not to put their trust in man, but to trust only in the LORD who made heaven and earth and who has ordained all that comes to pass.
March 4th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
wow. You are using William K. Shearer’s death as an opportunity to make political gain. You are truly sick.
March 5th, 2007 at 12:30 am
So, Angela, what do you think of the Creators Rights Party?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Horsley
March 5th, 2007 at 12:39 am
Here’s a website the Undercover Anarchist would probably love.
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/05/06/bizarre_sex_habits_of_the_extreme_rightwing.php
March 5th, 2007 at 4:42 am
Yep, Mr. Shearer’s passing is going to get mocked and scorned like Jesus’s Crucifiction. Obviously Angela and compnay have no Christian Honor or remorse.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:56 am
*company
March 5th, 2007 at 10:18 am
FUCKING SWEET!
This guy, Neal Horsley, should definitely be the CP nominee for President
On the May 5, 2005, edition of the Alan Colmes Show on talk radio, Alan Colmes asked Horsley about allegations that he had sex with animals in what Horsley now calls “The Mule Interviews”.
NH (laughing): “Just because it’s printed in the media, people jump to believe it.”
AC: “Is it true?”
NH: “Hey, Alan, if you want to accuse me of having sex when I was a fool, I did everything that crossed my mind that looked like I…”
AC: “You had sex with animals?!”
NH: “Absolutely. I was a fool. When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule.”
AC: “I’m not so sure that that is so.”
NH: “You didn’t grow up on a farm in Georgia, did you?”
AC: “Are you suggesting that everybody who grows up on a farm in Georgia has a mule as a girlfriend?”
NH: “It has historically been the case. You people are so far removed from the reality… Welcome to domestic life on the farm…You experiment with anything that moves when you are growing up sexually. You’re naive. You know better than that… If it’s warm and it’s damp and it vibrates you might in fact have sex with it.”
Horsley’s website includes a graphic of himself standing behind a mule with a caption reading, “If God would make homosexuals to have anal intercourse, Why not Me and This Cutie?”
March 5th, 2007 at 11:28 am
UA, even YOU have to admit. This guy is out of the CP’s league of craziness.
March 5th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
2 to 1, this guys playing the devil’s advocate on the bestiality. Even if he admits to doing it, he’s probably only promoting it to circuitously criticize homosexuality. Either way, his approach smacks of insanity.
March 8th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Apparently I was right in the nutjob reaction to Bill’s death:
“Bill Shearer was no Christian for the duration of when we saw him. What we saw of his life, though only a small part of it, was the utmost rancour and hostility to Christ’s children and Church. Therefore, it is speculation to assume a man with such open hostility toward Christ’s Church was a Christian absent some evidence of a recantation of his open hostility toward Christ during his life. “But Scott, how can you judge a (dead) man’s heart?” Only by the vile spewing it flung out on Christ and His people while it still beat.
Last he spoke on the subject of his Christianity, to my knowledge at least, was at Tampa. There he stated that he finds beauty in all types of religions, Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, etc. He said:
I’ve lived a very long time and…I’ve seen beauty in the Mormon Church, of which I’m not a member. I’ve seen beauty in the Protestant church, of which I have been affiliated with over my life time. I have also seen beauty in the Jewish community, and in their worship and when I have been in this party I want to reach out to all those people — the Catholics, the Jews, the good people in the party.
Such a man is a religionist and not a Christian.”
http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1476
These words were spoken by Scott Whiteman.
I find it harder and hader to see these people as Christian when they’re always spewing their venomous ranchor and behaving like more like Gods then followers of Christ.
March 8th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Scott Whiteman? How apropriate.
March 8th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
To put into context my point above about Jore not compromising and that being part of the reason that he received providential help: I don’t consider it a compromise to work for common goals with someone who doesn’t agree with everything one believes.
What I was referring to, with respect to Jore, was his uncompromising position on principles—not a refusal, on his part, to work with others having different beliefs. From what I’ve gleaned from reports about him, he doesn’t appear to be one to refuse to work with those with whom he doesn’t agree 100%.
I believe that it’s perfectly feasible to work with those who disagree with us on other points without compromising our own principles. To do otherwise is to become a church unto one’s own self, because one would be hard-pressed to find anyone, either on Earth and in Heaven, that agrees with him 100% on everything.
We imperfect mortals have constantly changing minds, no matter how unchanging we think our beliefs are. One who doesn’t belief in working with others with differing beliefs might ask himself: “Would I work with my past self from five years ago?” “From ten years ago?” “From twenty years ago?”