Video of debate with Kevin Thompson; interview with Jim Clymer

Kevin Thompson has updated his campaign blog to include video of the Nonprofit Alliance debate he participated in and an interview with Constitution Party chairman Jim Clymer:
http://www.thompson07.com/news/

28 Responses to “Video of debate with Kevin Thompson; interview with Jim Clymer”

  1. John Lofton Says:

    Re: Jim Clymer’s Pinocchio Performance On The Pro-Life Issue
    ————————————————————————————————————————
    Interesting interview of Jim Clymer by CP Congressional candidate Kevin Thompson. Jim says a lot of things that are good and true. But, when it came to the CP and the pro-life issue, an issue he said was, for him, a “big one,”—well, his nose begins to lengthen ever so slightly. And, sad to say, the more he discusses this issue, the more rapidly his nose grows—longer and longer.

    Jim quite properly and accurately criticized the Republican Party because, he said, it only “on paper claims to be pro-life” but “in practice—-.” He doesn’t finish his sentence. It is as if it suddenly occurrs to him that he has skated on to very thin ice, that maybe this “on-paper-but-in-practice” wording might not be, for him, the most appropriate phraseology. But, hey!, who am I to speculate why he didn’t complete his sentence? I don’t read minds.

    In any event, Jim is certainly right about the Republicans saying one thing on pro-life, but doing another thing; talking pro-life, but not actually doing what they say and thus disregarding their Party Platform. And his assertion that there has been “virtually nothing done” by President Bush and the GOP is right-on.

    Amen!

    Jim’s nasal elongation accelerates when Kevin asks him (with no examples cited) about the “rumors, misinformation and bad communication” concerning the CP’s pro-life position. Kevin asks about the CP’s “official line” (interesting wording) on pro-life. Jim replies: “Well, the official line is, and this is our Platform, that we recognize the sanctity of life and the protection of innocent human life without exceptions.”

    Then, strangely, defensively—though he was not being attacked but instead was having a slow-pitch, softball interview – Jim says “We get it from both sides with people trying to parse that. When we say ‘no exceptions’ we’re not talking about where an operation is necessary to save the life of the mother that may result in the unintended death of the child. That’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about recognizing mother and child as human beings deserving the protection of the law….”

    But, of course, if a pregnant woman needs an operation to save her life, and this operation causes the death of her unborn child, this is not an abortion. Abortion is always the intentional murder of the unborn baby.

    Insisting that the CP’s position on pro-life has not changed, Jim says: “We’ve not changed. There have been some charges about that. But, listen – we’ve got some people out there who either because of not being educated properly, or because of not saying the right things…have not presented the national pro-life position as it exists.”

    Wow. Sounds kind of scary. I sure wish Jim had named at least one of these improperly-educated, not-saying-the-right-things people. They sound dangerous. I’d like to avoid them.

    But, I don’t know anybody who has said the CP has changed its views or Platform on pro-life, no-exceptions. I do, however, know many people who have said, truly, that Jim, Howard Phillips and others refused to defend the pro-life, no-exceptions Platform when they voted to let the not 100 percent pro-life Nevada Party stay affiliated with the national CP.

    Speaking of which, in this interview Jim says: “We expect States to police themselves. The national Party is made up of a federation of State parties and we require them to officially pledge an allegiance to the national party Platform, especially the pro-life plank” (emphasis mine).

    Well, now, this statement is very interesting. And I sure don’t remember Jim saying anything like this when we had our debate in Tampa, Florida, about the CP/pro-life issue and the apostate Nevada Party. No, sireee. I recall no such language by Jim then.

    But, that’s a baked cake. So, what should be done regarding a State CP, like Nevada’s, that blatantly and proudly admitted, in Tampa, that it violated its “official pledge” to obey the CP Platform’s 100 percent/no-exceptions pro-life plank? Addressing this issue in this interview, Jim says:

    “But, we’re not out there as policemen to smash somebody over the head if a misstatement gets out at some point. At some point, a State party might, theoretically, [get] disaffiliated if they deviate too significantly from the Platform.”

    Yikes! Talk about people who are “improperly educated” and “not saying the right things!” So, that’s what you think the debate in Tampa was about, Jim? You think the only thing Nevada Party officials did was simply misstate something?

    Have you forgotten, Jim, that the position of the Mormon hierarchy of the Nevada Party was/is that abortion is allowed for rape, incest, life/health of the mother and for fetal deformities? No “theory” here, sir. And if these pro-abortion views do not constitute deviating “too much” from the CP Platform, tell me, Jim, why not?

    And Jim still doesn’t seem to understand that when the top Nevada CP people lied about being in compliance with the CP Platform on pro-life, when they violated what Jim calls an “official pledge of allegiance” to the this Platform, the Nevada Party disaffiliated itself.

    Finally, Kevin, seeming to endorse Jim’s failure, his refusal, to defend the pro-life/no-exceptions CP Platform in Tampa, says, in this interview, gratuitously, to Jim: “But, you don’t want to become like the intrusive government we all stand against.” To which Jim replies: “Exactly. That’s right.”

    Kevin: So, we can say the CP is “100 percent pro-life, no-exceptions.”

    Jim: “That is correct.”

    Right, Jim, correct – 100 percent pro-life, no exceptions—“on paper.” But – “in practice”? Well, you know what you said about those Republicans. On the pro-life issue, action-wise, you and the CP, and the GOP are, alas, not all that different.

  2. Trent Hill Says:

    See Lofton debate Zappa.

    You big government freak.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ISil7IHzxc

  3. Joe Says:

    Sure Trent, don’t address any of the points John raised when you can dredge up a twenty year old television appearance to change the subject. I wonder whether Kevin “Shame on Tom Brady for Fornicating” Thompson would agree with John Lofton or Frank Zappa in that debate?

  4. Recovering CPer Says:

    The CP has decided to milk the pro life platform when it suits them. But nothing in deed suggest the pro life platform means anything to them anymore. I recently left the party because I openly confronted a CPer on a blog for saying he and the party allowed for exceptions. Instead of correcting the errant party poster I was rebuked by the state chair for using the CP name for my personal religious zealotry (my words, not hers). Rather then stay and cause strife I left. I told them from the start if they ever spoke of exceptions I would leave and I did. The CP is not 100% Pro life but on paper only, which saddens me. The desire to be a big tent has clouded the vision of some very good people. I hope they realize one day the errors of thier thinking.

  5. Joe Says:

    Recovering,

    What blog and CPer was that?

    If I understand correctly what you are describing I don’t agree exactly with your reasoning for leaving the Constitution Party. It sounds like what that Constitution Party member wrote is correct. The Constitution Party does allow for exceptions – they voted to retain a state party that elected leaders and endorsed candidates that would allow abortion in the cases of rape and incest. Are you saying that it would be ok to allow for exceptions as long as that fact remained unspoken?

  6. Cody Quirk Says:

    Interesting interview of Jim Clymer by CP Congressional candidate Kevin Thompson. Jim says a lot of things that are good and true. But, when it came to the CP and the pro-life issue, an issue he said was, for him, a “big one,”—well, his nose begins to lengthen ever so slightly. And, sad to say, the more he discusses this issue, the more rapidly his nose grows—longer and longer.

    =I notice you and Michael have such big noses too. Especially describing what the Nevada fight was all about and even what would happen to the national CP afterwards. Hahaha.

    ===========

    Then, strangely, defensively—though he was not being attacked but instead was having a slow-pitch, softball interview – Jim says “We get it from both sides with people trying to parse that. When we say ‘no exceptions’ we’re not talking about where an operation is necessary to save the life of the mother that may result in the unintended death of the child. That’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about recognizing mother and child as human beings deserving the protection of the law….”

    But, of course, if a pregnant woman needs an operation to save her life, and this operation causes the death of her unborn child, this is not an abortion. Abortion is always the intentional murder of the unborn baby.

    =This is a exception that’s described here. Yet it’s still an abortion since this kind of procedure usually terminates the child’s life intentionally in order to save the mothers.
    Believe me, I had family members that went through such procedures

    Insisting that the CP’s position on pro-life has not changed, Jim says: “We’ve not changed. There have been some charges about that. But, listen – we’ve got some people out there who either because of not being educated properly, or because of not saying the right things…have not presented the national pro-life position as it exists.”

    Wow. Sounds kind of scary. I sure wish Jim had named at least one of these improperly-educated, not-saying-the-right-things people. They sound dangerous. I’d like to avoid them.

    =Kinda hard to avoid yourself, Mr. Lofton. LOL! Your friends included.

    But, I don’t know anybody who has said the CP has changed its views or Platform on pro-life, no-exceptions. I do, however, know many people who have said, truly, that Jim, Howard Phillips and others refused to defend the pro-life, no-exceptions Platform when they voted to let the not 100 percent pro-life Nevada Party stay affiliated with the national CP.

    =Yet the IAP was in compliance with the national platform by a unaminous resolution passed by the IAP and never mind the 3rd CP bylaw states:

    “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.”
    http://constitution-party.com/news.php?aid=279
    However I recall certain members in the blogs, chatrooms, and emails go against the 4th paragraph of the Preamble of the CP, since many members of the Nevada IAP blonged to a certain faith that they view as the work of the devil.

    =And rather, they didn’t vote to let the Nevada Party stay, they voted against the disaffiliation of the IAP- get you facts right!

    Speaking of which, in this interview Jim says: “We expect States to police themselves. The national Party is made up of a federation of State parties and we require them to officially pledge an allegiance to the national party Platform, especially the pro-life plank” (emphasis mine).

    Well, now, this statement is very interesting. And I sure don’t remember Jim saying anything like this when we had our debate in Tampa, Florida, about the CP/pro-life issue and the apostate Nevada Party. No, sireee. I recall no such language by Jim then.

    =Yet many, many others used such language then. Even Reed Heustis detested such a national Party founded on a pluralist “Mormon” founding.

    But, that’s a baked cake. So, what should be done regarding a State CP, like Nevada’s, that blatantly and proudly admitted, in Tampa, that it violated its “official pledge” to obey the CP Platform’s 100 percent/no-exceptions pro-life plank?

    =Did they officially proclaim that they favor exceptions? Are they calling for the national CP to alter the language in its pro-life plank of the platform? Or is Mr. Lofton basing this on the personal expressions and arguments of a Christopher H. Hansen? Is Mr. Lofton even basing this on allegations that some IAP members favor exceptions personally? My! If Mr. Lofton bases a whole state or national political party on the personal beliefs and actions of its members, then even his own flock is not safe!

    “But, we’re not out there as policemen to smash somebody over the head if a misstatement gets out at some point. At some point, a State party might, theoretically, [get] disaffiliated if they deviate too significantly from the Platform.”

    Yikes! Talk about people who are “improperly educated” and “not saying the right things!” So, that’s what you think the debate in Tampa was about, Jim? You think the only thing Nevada Party officials did was simply misstate something?

    =I recall a lot of Mr. Hansen’s comments were misstated or taken out of context by others. And you’re misstating and taking things out of context yourself.

    Have you forgotten, Jim, that the position of the Mormon hierarchy of the Nevada Party

    =Mormon hierarchy? Hahahaha! IAP’ers are not all Mormons, and the IAP doesn’t have D&C Sect. 134 as its official platform does it now? The Utah CP probably has even more of a percentage of LDS members then Nevada does.

    =And do you see the IAP praising and supporting Mitt Romney now? Do you?...
    I think not.

    was/is that abortion is allowed for rape, incest, life/health of the mother and for fetal deformities? No “theory” here, sir.

    =Yet you misstated that LDS belief John! LDS only believe in such options as a LAST RESORT, never as a automatic verdict. Apparently you’re the one doing the misstating here Mr. Lofton.

    And if these pro-abortion views do not constitute deviating “too much” from the CP Platform, tell me, Jim, why not?

    =For one, there’s no other disagreement here except for the wording of the pro-life plank that the IAP still upholds!

    And Jim still doesn’t seem to understand that when the top Nevada CP people lied about being in compliance with the CP Platform on pro-life, when they violated what Jim calls an “official pledge of allegiance” to the this Platform, the Nevada Party disaffiliated itself.

    =By re-electing Mr. Hansen? Give me a break! They didn’t break anything except the bigoted stranglehold on the CP by such people as you. I think Jim understands well.

    =============

    Right, Jim, correct – 100 percent pro-life, no exceptions—“on paper.” But – “in practice”?

    =You won’t hear a real CP’er advocate to let the mother die in order to save the child, that’s for sure.

    Well, you know what you said about those Republicans. On the pro-life issue, action-wise, you and the CP, and the GOP are, alas, not all that different.

    =What about the other issues, like immigration and foreign policy? Oh, that’s right, they don’t matter. Even though such issues kill as many people as abortion does, if not more! Mr. Lofton and the others obviously had it in for the Nevada IAP, even before the Pro-Life issue came about.

  7. Cody Quirk Says:

    The Constitution Party does allow for exceptions – they voted to retain a state party that elected leaders and endorsed candidates that would allow abortion in the cases of rape and incest. Are you saying that it would be ok to allow for exceptions as long as that fact remained unspoken?

    =So that’s how the CP is pro-choice in your view huh?

    =You know, glasses are not just half empty or have full.

    Then I guess you are not even a Constitutionalist, since you disregard Article 6 and the First Amendment in the Constitution, and ignore the statements the Founding Fathers made on religion and religious tyranny.

    That also includes Thomas Jefferson’s view of Calvinism.

  8. Joe Says:

    I didn’t say “pro-choice” which is a term pro-aborts use to justify their behavior. I said the Constitution Party “allows for exceptions” which is what this unnamed Constitution blogger apparently claimed.

    Your question “what about the other issues, like immigration and foreign policy?” does not make sense in the context of what John said. He qualified his statement with “on the pro-life issue.”

    The point is that, like the Republican Party, the Constitution Party allows candidates and party leaders who would allow exception in the cases of rape and incest. I believe that is an established fact that we can all agree on. Given that fact, it makes little sense for the chairman of the Constitution Party to complain that the GOP is “pro-life on paper while in practice they are not”, because that also describes the Constitution Party.

  9. Trent Hill Says:

    “Sure Trent, don’t address any of the points John raised when you can dredge up a twenty year old television appearance to change the subject. I wonder whether Kevin “Shame on Tom Brady for Fornicating” Thompson would agree with John Lofton or Frank Zappa in that debate?”

    Why would I beat my head against the wall? We’ve argued 100 times about how rediculous people like John Lofton and Michael Peroutka are for causing all this strife over ONE state party complying only 99.4% with ONE of the issues, and agreeing completely on all others. I’d rather go chew concrete, because you people just don’t get it.
    Then I realized, I don’t need to prove you wrong. I need to show the average reader of this blog how incredibly stupid and incapable of reasoning John Lofton really is. Zappa, was a fitting way to do this—as Zappa hands the man his own backside in a debate.

  10. Joe Says:

    But Trent, that only works if people agree with you that Zappa was right and Lofton was wrong. Now, John participated in that debate several years before the Constitution Party even existed, but don’t you think, given the pornography plank of the Constitution Party’s platform, that John prefigured the Constitution Party’s position on free speech quite well? Does the following language sound closer to John Lofton’s or Frank Zappa’s views in that debate?

    “We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.”

  11. Recovering CPer Says:

    The state party I was with did not allow exceptions. The national is a different bag of worms. Unlike those who left early on I was able to tell the difference between state and National. But it seems my state affiliated as 100% pro life but this example shows they did not plan to stay that way. I was confronted because I told them we (the state party) was 100%. He/She then emailed links from our discussion to the state chair and I was told to stop using the state name for blogging and I was in leadership at that time. So I left because I told them I would never allow for exceptions. It seems the national has been whispering in every ones ear that we must become a big tent party and focus on other issues besides pro life. I agree with the other issues part but to change the stance to welcome more people is a grave choice. Their actions speak louder then their words.

  12. A More Perfect Union Says:

    John Lofton: Recovering Republican

    User: Recovering CPer

    Next: Recovering AHPer

    Finally: Politically irrelevant.

  13. Trent Hill Says:

    “We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.”

    This is a rediculous statement. For too long people have assumed that because im a CPer I support every plank. Well here I am establishing myself now: THIS PLANK IS REDICULOUSLY CONTRADICTORY.
    How can you uphold the “cherished right to free speech” by “vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity”???
    Its BS. Are you kidding me? You want big daddy government to make sure Billy Zakowski doesn’t watch porn? Why not let…oh I dont know…HIM or HIS PARENTS make that decision? Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

  14. Sean Scallon Says:

    I once emailed a Peroutka supporter about what he thought Peroutka would do if say, Roe v. Wade was repealed but that a couple of state decided to allow abortion on demand. He responded “well we could send in the Marines on such places.”

    That’s all you need to know about the so-called conservatives in the formerly Calvinist wing of the CP. They’re a bunch of Lincolnites! Or better yet a bunch of political Whigs. They equate Dred Scott with Roe and they take the Lincoln expansive governement “house divded cannot stand” view on abortion which would require military force to bring everyone into line and everyone on the same page. Nevada IAPers should thank God neither John Lofton or Perotuka or the Calvinists had a militia at their disposal otherwise Chris Hanson’s home would have been attacked.

    The national platform of the CP has not changed one iota, which is why I doubt Chris Hanson will ever noninated by the CP for president and or vice president. But the state party differs slightly with the national on abortion. Apparently in John Lofton and the Calvinist world view, if you get a wart on finger, you have to cut off your whole arm. Neither Jim Clymer, Howard Phillips or William Shearer (RIP) were suicidally stupid to kick out a state party that’s one of the most organized and numeorus among all those of the CP federation (and it is a federation when you consider the Calfornia AIP predates the CP by over 30 years.

    A religion should expect its members to abide by its catechism. A political party is a broad coalition of different gorups of people and viewpoints but that share either common goal or outlook or at least soemthing that keeps them together. Both you John and those who agree with you have made the choice to leave the CP for a polticial vehicle that functions like a religion. That’s fine. But you’ll learn soon it enough where that will leave you when it comes to politics. I know you don’t care, you feel you are doing the Lord’s work. That’s fine do. But even you and I would agree religion and politics are two differnet things entirely.

  15. Trent Hill Says:

    Sean, a good refutation.

  16. Joe Says:

    It’s funny hearing Michael Peroutka being accused of being a Lincolnite. When I was campaigning for him I had to defend his membership in the League of the South. Here is an example of what his site has to say about Lincoln: http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=424

    When I joined the Constitution Party in 2000 I did so because I agreed with what I thought was the common outlook that held us together: that we would never endorse or support in any way whatsoever, any candidate who does not pledge and act to defend and promote the inviolable right to life, from fertilization to natural death—without exception. The Tampa vote convinced me that either I was mistaken about that shared outlook from the beginning or that outlook had changed. Either way, as long as the Constitution Party retains state affiliates that knowingly elect leaders and endorse candidates that would allow abortion in the cases of rape and incest I can not in good conscience be involved with them, because I do not agree with you that religion and politics are two different things entirely.

  17. Cody Quirk Says:

    I didn’t say “pro-choice” which is a term pro-aborts use to justify their behavior. I said the Constitution Party “allows for exceptions” which is what this unnamed Constitution blogger apparently claimed.

    =So that makes it automatically ‘Pro-Abortion’?

    Your question “what about the other issues, like immigration and foreign policy?” does not make sense in the context of what John said. He qualified his statement with “on the pro-life issue.”

    =I’m sure he and the CP are on the same boat with such issues as immigration and foreign policy (assuming), yet since they don’t see eye-to-eye on abortion, that makes them as bad as the GOP. Then again we’re talking about a guy that throws American flags in the trash on Memorial Day.

    The point is that, like the Republican Party, the Constitution Party allows candidates and party leaders who would allow exception in the cases of rape and incest.

    =Actually the GOP allows candidates to run that are completely Pro-Abortion, 100%! The CP doesn’t. Yet even if you take off one shoe while being fully clothed, you’re still considered naked in such a absolutionist view.

    I believe that is an established fact that we can all agree on. Given that fact, it makes little sense for the chairman of the Constitution Party to complain that the GOP is “pro-life on paper while in practice they are not”, because that also describes the Constitution Party.

    =Yet even the people that are in the CP that favor exceptions still work to overturn Roe v. Wade, including me. The GOP’ers do not. That’s the difference.

  18. Cody Quirk Says:

    It’s funny hearing Michael Peroutka being accused of being a Lincolnite. When I was campaigning for him I had to defend his membership in the League of the South. Here is an example of what his site has to say about Lincoln: http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=424

    =Just because he belongs to a confederate organization doesn’t mean his personal views conform to a confederate style government.

    When I joined the Constitution Party in 2000 I did so because I agreed with what I thought was the common outlook that held us together: that we would never endorse or support in any way whatsoever, any candidate who does not pledge and act to defend and promote the inviolable right to life, from fertilization to natural death—without exception.

    =I also recall that you joined because you thought this was a christian party that would uphold your own view of how things should be run, Mr. Elred.

    =I spelled you last name right, right?

    The Tampa vote convinced me that either I was mistaken about that shared outlook from the beginning or that outlook had changed. Either way, as long as the Constitution Party retains state affiliates that knowingly elect leaders and endorse candidates that would allow abortion in the cases of rape and incest I can not in good conscience be involved with them, because I do not agree with you that religion and politics are two different things entirely.

    =Good luck being on your own then.

  19. Joe Says:

    No, that is not my name. And no, I do not recognize any difference between those who would allow abortion of those conceived in rape and incest and those who would allow abortion in the cases of rape and incest. In large measure, it was leaders of the Constitution Party who convinced me of that and it is also what my faith teaches. Those same people also convinced me that Roe v. Wade does not have to be overturned to end “legal” abortion in America. I do not believe in luck, but I do appreciate your encouragement.

  20. Chris Fluharty Says:

    I think Sean has a point. Political parties are suppose to be diverse. This is the main reason why I chose to leave the CP myself. if a party is unwilling to stand on its platform then it is better to be in no party at all then to be a hypocrite. Joe is also right, exceptions do = pro abortion. Constitutional right to life should stand no matter what the circumstance. An exception to a right is wrong. The Constitution is not mold-able to whims of culture. The fact the CP want to embrace all comers is a good reason why it will cease to exsist as it was founded. BUt they are doing what they need to do to make an impact in poltics. It is them who needs luck.

  21. John Lofton Says:

    Sean Scanlon writes: The national platform of the CP has not changed one iota, which is why I doubt Chris Hanson will ever noninated by the CP for president and or vice president.

    Comment: Right. The problem is Clymer, Phillips and others FAILED TO DEFEND IT! So, what good is a Platform position that exists only on paper and is not defended by the national leadership? Answer: It’s no good. Wake up, please.

    Scanlon: But the state party differs slightly with the national on abortion. Apparently in John Lofton and the Calvinist world view, if you get a wart on finger, you have to cut off your whole arm.

    Comment: The Nevada Party differed only “slightly” with the CP Platform? Wrong! You really should do your homework before you opine otherwise you reveal only your ignorance. The CP Platform is 100 percent pro-life, no exceptions. The Nevada Party hierarchy (Mormons) had/have the Mormon position on abortion which is to allow unborn baby-murder in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, life/health of mother. The difference here is NOT “slight.”

    Scanlon: Neither Jim Clymer, Howard Phillips or William Shearer (RIP) were suicidally stupid to kick out a state party that’s one of the most organized and numeorus among all those of the CP federation (and it is a federation when you consider the Calfornia AIP predates the CP by over 30 years.

    Comment: The Nevada Party disaffiliated itself when it lied and, falsely, signed a pledge saying it was in compliance with the CP Platform on abortion. And the refusal to defend the CP Platform on abortion may have kept Nevada in the CP but this act of political cowardice caused many other parties to leave the CP! And the CP could do nothing “suicidal.” It’s a corpse and dead people can’t kill themselves.

    Scanlon:….religion and politics are two different things entirely.

    Comment: Not at all. All of life is “religious.” The Lord Jesus Christ is King of kings, Lord of lords, and has ALL power in Heaven and on earth. Thus, all “politics” is “religious.” All “politics” will be either under the Lordship of Christ and serve Him or in rebellion against Him.

  22. Cody Quirk Says:

    John: Right. The problem is Clymer, Phillips and others FAILED TO DEFEND IT! So, what good is a Platform position that exists only on paper and is not defended by the national leadership? Answer: It’s no good. Wake up, please.

    Comment: Defend what? A extremist interpretation of a platform plank?
    Never mind what the Party Bylaws say of state party matters.
    And I doubt such men would defend a anti-mormon agenda to knock off the IAP from the CP.

    John: The Nevada Party differed only “slightly” with the CP Platform? Wrong! You really should do your homework before you opine otherwise you reveal only your ignorance. The CP Platform is 100 percent pro-life, no exceptions. The Nevada Party hierarchy (Mormons) had/have the Mormon position on abortion which is to allow unborn baby-murder in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, life/health of mother. The difference here is NOT “slight.”

    Comment: Where in the IAP platform does it allow for exceptions in abortion?...
    NOWHERE!
    Don’t you have a brain Mr. Lofton? Oh that’s right, you don’t.
    Apparently John’s bigotry and ignorance wears thin the reliability of his arguments.

    John: The Nevada Party disaffiliated itself when it lied and, falsely, signed a pledge saying it was in compliance with the CP Platform on abortion. And the refusal to defend the CP Platform on abortion may have kept Nevada in the CP but this act of political cowardice caused many other parties to leave the CP! And the CP could do nothing “suicidal.” It’s a corpse and dead people can’t kill themselves.

    Comment: Kinda like how you killed your sympathy with Constitutionalists when you brought Mormonism in the mix of your arguments. You kicked yourselves out of the Party by going against the ‘no religious test’ part of the preamble.
    And 80% of the state parties that left have already been reorganized and reactivated.
    Shows how “devastated” the CP was after Tampa. LOL!

    John: Not at all. All of life is “religious.” The Lord Jesus Christ is King of kings, Lord of lords, and has ALL power in Heaven and on earth. Thus, all “politics” is “religious.” All “politics” will be either under the Lordship of Christ and serve Him or in rebellion against Him.

    Comment: You forget that Jesus hasn’t returned yet. And the Constitutionalist goal to the restore our nation back to the Constitutional Republic that it was (which includes freedom of religion), not make our nation a Theocracy that the Founding Fathers had long dreaded. But then again, this attitude comes from a religious philosophy that killed people falsely accused of witchcraft in a New England colony.

  23. Cody Quirk Says:

    I didn’t say “pro-choice” which is a term pro-aborts use to justify their behavior. I said the Constitution Party “allows for exceptions” which is what this unnamed Constitution blogger apparently claimed.

    =Yet I hear John and company rant about how we’re Pro-Abortion here and there.

    Your question “what about the other issues, like immigration and foreign policy?” does not make sense in the context of what John said. He qualified his statement with “on the pro-life issue.”

    =Yet he is wrong on the Pro-Life issue.
    The Nevada Party voted to uphold the CP plank on abortion and they do not allow for exceptions in their Platform. Read it yourself.

    The point is that, like the Republican Party, the Constitution Party allows candidates and party leaders who would allow exception in the cases of rape and incest.

    =Well, you have the MAJORITY of Americans who favor exceptions, yet still want to see Abortion limited and Roe v. Wade overturned. Can we deny Party membership to the majority of the people? And you forget that the GOP allows for candidates that support the Roe v. Wade ruling to run under the Party banner.
    WE DON’T!
    Like I said before, we’re not the same as the GOP on abortion. The only thing I care about is as long as that said person want to overturn Roe v. Wade and limit abortion severely. That is what should matter.

    =You want no compromise? Then look at what happened in South Dakota!

    I believe that is an established fact that we can all agree on. Given that fact, it makes little sense for the chairman of the Constitution Party to complain that the GOP is “pro-life on paper while in practice they are not”, because that also describes the Constitution Party.

    =No it isn’t Joe, because the GOP wants to still support Roe v. Wade and abortion ‘rights’, while we want to do the opposite and work to do the opposite. We’re more pro-life then the GOP is, I think that is something we can agree on, unless you’re foolhardy not to.

  24. Cody Quirk Says:

    No, that is not my name.

    =Sorry.

    And no, I do not recognize any difference between those who would allow abortion of those conceived in rape and incest and those who would allow abortion in the cases of rape and incest.

    =Could you re-phrase the question again. You’re saying the same thing. And the difference is the GOP’ers have made sure abortion was kept legal, either intentionally or by their own greed. We want to stop it. Whither we disagree on how to get there or what actions to take afterwords, we want to and will stop it.

    In large measure, it was leaders of the Constitution Party who convinced me of that and it is also what my faith teaches. Those same people also convinced me that Roe v. Wade does not have to be overturned to end “legal” abortion in America.

    =Well, good luck convincing a single town or county that they don’t have to keep abortion legal in their neck of the woods. If you want to heed this challenge, go for it then.

    I do not believe in luck, but I do appreciate your encouragement.

  25. Cody Quirk Says:

    I think Sean has a point. Political parties are suppose to be diverse. This is the main reason why I chose to leave the CP myself.

    =Sad to see you go. Even though when we mean we’re Constitutionalist, we mean it 100% (including the First Amendment and at the end of Article 6)

    if a party is unwilling to stand on its platform then it is better to be in no party at all then to be a hypocrite. Joe is also right, exceptions do = pro abortion.

    =That attitude will not overturn Roe v. Wade, nor will it rally the majority of Americans to the Constitutionalist cause. May I remind you of South Dakota.

    Constitutional right to life should stand no matter what the circumstance.

    =Even if the mothers life depended on it.

    An exception to a right is wrong. The Constitution is not mold-able to whims of culture.

    =Including the whims of Calvinism or any other totalitarianistic creed.

    The fact the CP want to embrace all comers is a good reason why it will cease to exsist as it was founded.

    =That fact that if we don’t, we’ll end up like every short-lived third-party in history.

    BUt they are doing what they need to do to make an impact in poltics. It is them who needs luck.

    =being that most of the state parties that left are already reorganized and running. The CP gaining ground in many places, including Nevada.
    The Party isn’t dead at all, in fact it’s still a child going on puberty.

  26. Marco Feindler Says:

    Hi this is very usefull, thx-

  27. Tiffany Hopper Says:

    deoxidator calvinist brut wanderlust capsizal rhinocerotidae towel notative
    Environmental Fund For Maryland

    http://www.willistonlakelodge.com/

  28. Tori Merrill Says:

    deoxidator calvinist brut wanderlust capsizal rhinocerotidae towel notative
    Chinese New Year Recipes

    http://www.orangevillechrysler.com

Leave a Reply