http://www.orangevillechrysler.com

http://www.willistonlakelodge.com/

=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.

=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.

=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.

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.

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.

=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.

=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.

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.

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.