Cody’s Pro-Life Rebuttal: Part 1

I just couldn’t let this go by. Part 2 will come a little later…

Pro-Life: I was born and raised in Wyoming on a ranch in a small town. I was a basketball player, and a good one. I stand 6’5 which was tall back in the ‘50’s and ‘60’s. My father did well in business, so we did not lack financially. We were not religious people. We were selfish. I converted to the LDS Church at 17 and was a devout Mormon for 33 years. I played basketball at BYU for a short time. At BYU I came in conflict with the establishment culture when I complained to the University president and the church about corruption in the Athletic department. BYU and the church ignored the corruption. I have a long history of exposing hypocrites and crooks.

CQ: The Church has dealt with students and professors that have butted heads with BYU or the Church, even has kicked them out if they’re unrepentant. BYU is run by the Church and can do anything it wants with the University.


————————————————————————

TPW: What offices you have run for?

Pro-Life: I ran for Idaho State Representative in 2004, gaining 22% of the vote. I ran for Governor in 2006, and received almost 2%, which was more than the Libertarian candidate. You will not see this in CP news. My wife garnered 25% of the vote for State Legislature in 2006 as a CP candidate. Neither she, nor Paul Smith, who ran for U.S. Congress, will be in the CP news.

CQ: Yet the CP candidate for Lieutenant Governor got more votes then you did, and you got only 68 more votes then the Libertarian candidate, or 0.1% more.

I was officially “un-endorsed” by the CP after the Party compromised on the right to life issue. I remained in the race because I believe that I could still make people accountable for hearing the truth and possibly save a baby from being murdered. The ‘compromisers’ did not think about the possibility that I might save a baby, as their selfishness and ambition clouds their judgment.

CQ: The CPID simply voted down disaffiliation from the national Constitution Party after Michael Peroutka and his allies tried to kick out the Nevada IAP and failed.
The SD abortion ban could’ve been made law if it wasn’t so non-exceptionist in its wording. But instead abortion still continues in South Dakota. Apparently the no-exceptionist logic is, if every baby can never be saved, then what’s the point? Their own dogmatic views and hostility to other Pro-Lifers only serves the abortion industry.

Pro-Life: I know the American Heritage Party. Their fault is in not running any candidates. I have announced my candidacy for US Senate in 2008 and am running as an Independent. I like the AHP.

CQ: The AHP is the former Washington state CP affiliate that left the Party in the late 90’s when they had issues with LDS in the CP, and also thought the CP wasn’t exceptionally Christian.
The AHP has very strict requirements for joining, as a example can be seen
here…

CQ: And yet you got less votes then Nevada IAP Gubernatorial candidate Christopher H. Hansen, who favors exceptions and is considered to be a “Devil-worshipping Mormon” by some of his anti-LDS critics. LOL!
You only serve as ammo for Planned Parenthood, sir!

Pro-Life: The reason I will go to the top of the ballot is to save more babies and make more people accountable for the Great Judgment.

CQ: Another flaw in your logic. You would be more successful in running for a local office and work your way up, but you’ll never win with what you have in mind and you’ll never be able to argue for your position in the US Senate.

Pro-Life: Well if you think winning or getting some percent of the vote is important, I look stupid.

CQ: Well, yes you are, basically.

What is one soul really brought to Christ worth? I am not talking about bringing souls to Christ in the phony Christian way. What is one baby’s life worth? If you are really pro-life, then protest these murders out in the streets of your city. If you are afraid of your reputation being ‘damaged’, then go to another city.

CQ: Basically you want to save the unborn in a phony way.

Pro-Life: I hope the CP does run a candidate against me. I would really like it.

CQ: So you want to split the vote and let neither you or the CP candidate win. Wow, I’m unimpressed!

Pro-Life: Yes, I have talked with Howard privately and been in meetings with him. I wish he and others would admit to crashing the CP.

CQ: Hahahaha!

No one asks this question: Did Howard and other CP leaders intentionally split the Party over Nevada/baby murder so they could retain control?

CQ: If they did, then kudos! The CP needs to move forward and not be debating about Biblical scripture or having Holier-Than-Thou verbal spats!

The ‘non-compromisers’ were gaining numbers faster than the ‘smart’ politician group.

CQ: Not true, in fact it was the other way around nationally. And in Idaho, somehow Pro-Life and his allies decided to put a halt on County Committee building before the State Convention. I wonder why?

If the CP had not been split, possibly the ‘non-compromisers’ would have had more votes at the 2008 National Convention.

CQ: True or not, the CP is doing awesome without the ‘non-compromisers’, especially electing two people to local office in Nevada and gaining a City Mayor in Minnesota.

Pro-Life: I voted for Michael Peroutka. In the Governor candidate’s debate of 2006, I was asked who my hero was, and I said “Michael Peroutka was my living hero.”

CQ: Apparently Michael and his friends couldn’t take losing at Tampa, so TAV is more focused on bashing the CP then organizing a new Party or helping organize the AHP. I wish I didn’t vote for that man.

Pro-Life: I would run for President, my only motive being to save babies and make people accountable.

CQ: And nothing else matters? Not even illegal immigration or our economy, or our men dying overseas for a pointless cause? Sad.

If I were one vote away from becoming President and all I had to do was mute myself on one subject to win, I would speak up and lose. You can see that I’m “too stupid” to be in the CP.

CQ: I agree. The CP is definably not for stupid people. Neither is politics in general.

I like telling the voters they are selfish and corrupt. I try to see how few votes I can get by offending most of the voters.

CQ: Hahaha! Pro-Life, you would make a excellent comedian!

Pro-life: I did not vote for Mike Crapo. He ran unopposed in 2004. I was going to run in that race but I ignored my conscience and God’s promptings. Mr Crapo allows for baby-murder exceptions for one thing.

CQ: You’re AHP material Marvin.

Pro-life: Not accurate. My wife and I, and most of our children resigned from the LDS church. We still have children who are LDS. These comments that we are “anti-Mormon” come from people who are not personally acquainted with us.

CQ: What about your outbursts at a CP national Committee Meeting in Salt Lake City in April 2005? Jim Clymer had to censor you then. What about problems the CPID had recruiting previously? Especially among LDS voters? And I really doubt Paul and Sue Venable don’t have a reason to loathe your presence in the CP.

The greatest sin in the LDS church is to criticize the prophet or his policy.

CQ: Actually the greatest sin in LDS belief is to deny the Holy Ghost or deny Christ while having a full-knowledge of who He is. But I do think openly criticizing the Prophet is a big No-No. Even though you don’t automatically get excommunicated because of it.

Well, we really criticize the idea of the prophet being infallible. We remind everybody that free agency is God’s principle. The LDS church teaches that God will not allow the prophet to mislead the church.

CQ: Yet I do not believe Gordon B. Hinckley is misleading the Church in any way. In fact, thanks to him the Faith is growing more and we are building more LDS Temples then ever. I accept him as my Prophet.

The reason we are on this earth is to exercise our free will and not blindly follow any authority.

CQ: Latter-Day Saints do not follow authority blindly, especially in the Church.

If you criticize the LDS prophet, especially if you are former LDS, you are labeled an apostate, anti-Mormon, or anti-Christ.

CQ: Isn’t that what anti-Mormonism is? And don’t many critics of the LDS Church, including Edward Decker, consider LDS to be anti-Christian or anti-Christ?

28 Responses to “Cody’s Pro-Life Rebuttal: Part 1”

  1. Tom Bryant Says:

    As a member of the LDS church, I wasn’t aware that it had such a strong influence in the Constitution Party. The LDS teachings that I grew up with naturally led me to the Libertarian Party.

    Of course, the LDS Church is much more liberal outside of Utah and Idaho.

  2. Trent Hill Says:

    The LDS church is pretty strong throughout the midwest and is gaining strength in the south too. There is indeed GREAT strength in the CP that comes from the LDS members. Utah, for example is our strongest state. Closely followed by Nevada and Idaho (because of THERE LDS members).

    Tom,you should have a talk with Christopher Hanson.

  3. Jason Gatties Says:

    Just my opinion but I think Cory should have waited a few days before a rebuttal. Allow the readers to let the previous interview sink in before you offer a rebuttal. Again, no disrespect meant, just my opinion.

  4. RWR Says:

    I’ll go one step beyond Jason’t comment: I don’t think a rebuttal has any place on Third Party Watch. In the year+ that I’ve been reading this site, Austin has very objectively presented news from all angles of third party politics, and left it at that. So far the new writers have done a good job of continuing in that spirit, which is why Cody’s rebuttal stuck out to me like a sore thumb on TPW’s front page.

    As with Jason, that’s just my opinion. But it’s my opinion that decides whether I get my third party news from TPW or another source.

  5. Trent Hill Says:

    Cody Quirk is writing from a Constitution Party viewpoint. Both Cody and Brad do. Stuart and Austin represent the Libertarian leaning side.

    Obviously there is a REASON Austin wanted a CP-leaning author, otherwise why would he ask for one? He would have just asked for “another blogger”, as opposed to “Another CP blogger.”

  6. RWR Says:

    I think you misunderstand my point - the content on this site has always been predominantly news rather than commentary, so this rebuttal seems out of place to me. And although I am in no better position to speak on Austin’s behalf than you are, it would also make sense to bring in writers that are “specialists” in a certain party, with the assumption that they would have more sources and could provide more frequent reports, so I don’t think you can assume your REASON is also his reason. Obviously.

    This is a matter of perception, and in my opinion, rebutting news stories seems incongruent with what I expect here. Additionally, it doesn’t make sense for you and me to debate my preferences in news sources.

  7. Anthony Distler Says:

    Someone sounds snippy…

    ThirdPartyWatch is a blog site, as is Politics1, for those who know anything about that site. They mostly provide news. However, since it IS a blog, it leaves open room to add in commentary or editorials.

  8. matt Says:

    I think the rebutting would have been better handled in the comments than in a whole other thread. Which isn’t to say that Mr. Quirk doesn’t make some legitimate points, it’s just that criticism of independent or 3rd party candidates is usually not done this way on this site. It would be nice if articles dedicated to criticizing people didn’t become the norm. We all have the same goals, right?

    Of course you can do whatever you want, and should handle your business however you think is best. I’m just saying what I think.

  9. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Since when did TWP become a right-wing hate blog?

  10. Cody Quirk Says:

    “Of course, the LDS Church is much more liberal outside of Utah and Idaho.”

    =Yes and No.

  11. Cody Quirk Says:

    Understood Jason, but being LDS, a lot of what Marvin was saying about the LDS faith is untrue and insulting. So things had to be cleared up.

  12. Cody Quirk Says:

    I’ll go one step beyond Jason’t comment: I don’t think a rebuttal has any place on Third Party Watch. In the year+ that I’ve been reading this site, Austin has very objectively presented news from all angles of third party politics, and left it at that. So far the new writers have done a good job of continuing in that spirit, which is why Cody’s rebuttal stuck out to me like a sore thumb on TPW’s front page.

    =So Brad’s interviews with religious nut-jobs and his biased reports on the Constitution Party doesn’t matter? I speak the truth when it gets distorted by someone like Marvin Richardson. Especially if it involves my religious faith.

    =But you’re with this group of people, like Joe and Pro-Life and Captain Neon, aren’t you RWR? You don’t like the articles here, then indeed look elsewhere. TPW is bi-partisan and includes more then just 4 view points.

  13. Cody Quirk Says:

    It’s very simple folks,

    If articles or interviews here decide to start bashing people’s personal beliefs, then I also return eye-for-an-eye.

    Didn’t I say I can be vicious if provoked?

    But speaking of commentary, I think I’ll re-list my rebuttals appropriately under such. They are not news items.

  14. Trent Hill Says:

    Cody Quirk, I think that would be best.

    Brad Winthrop, is he CP, or is he ex-CP? Im confused as to his affilliation.

  15. RWR Says:

    “I think I’ll re-list my rebuttals appropriately under such. They are not news items.”

    I look forward to it, Cody. Although we seldom see eye-to-eye, it is enjoyable debating with someone who feels as strongly about his beliefs as I feel about mine. And I think the comments section is a much better place to do it.

    “But you’re with this group of people, like Joe and Pro-Life and Captain Neon, aren’t you RWR?”

    I am my own person, but I do indeed agree with Joe and Captain Neon on many issues. Before this interview, though, I hardly knew anything about Pro-Life, except that he was pro-life (huh?), so being able to read more about him was helpful.

  16. Cody Quirk Says:

    Brad apparently is with a state party that broke of with the CP, I dunno if he or his state Party is already AHP yet. The article wasn’t a rebuke to Brad, only to ‘Pro-Life’, whose false accusations and fabrications about my Church couldn’t go unheeded.

  17. Cody Quirk Says:

    RWR, his name is Marvin Richardson, he is a ex-mormon that apparently doesn’t really know his former Church well. I’ve looked into my own faith too, and read plenty of anti-mormon material, and its anything but the truth.

    If you really what to know about something you don’t know, you don’t get your info from only one side, or a biased source.

    But you’re set in your beliefs, so there’s nothing more to say.

  18. Cody Quirk Says:

    Another thing RWR, Pro-Life stated this:

    “Our family believes that polygamy is sick. We were created in God’s image and likeness. We believe in the pre-existence of Mankind. We believe Joseph Smith was a selfish leader and that he started the infallibility of the prophet to cover his polygamy (adultery).
    This idea of infallibility of the prophet has caused the LDS people great harm.”

    Unfortunately, I forgot to add it in Part 2 of my rebuttal, but LDS do not believe that our Prophets and Leaders of our Church are infallible!

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

    Again Pro-Life is wrong in this accusation and only shows he cannot be taken seriously at all.

  19. Angela Wittman Says:

    Dear Cody,

    As I publish and edit several news blogs, please take some well meaning advice and try to not let your personal feelings get in the way of writing objectively. Your references to Prolife seem to be a little vindictive and you come across as having a “chip” on your shoulder.

  20. Cody Quirk Says:

    I should say the same about you Angela, heck you’re more emotional then I am!

    Why are you being hypocritical?

  21. Yosemite1967 Says:

    Cody, I haven’t yet read any of Angela’s blog entries, so I can’t speak to whether or not her comment was hypocritical, but she does make a good point about objectivity. Like Columbo used to say, “Just the facts, Ma’am.” Or, in your case, “Just the facts, Sir.”

    I actually agree with your position, but you do it harm by not keeping your head and by letting your emotions get the best of you. By ranting, you give the opposition ammo to more easily defeat you in the future. Chris Hansen’s hyperbole wherein he called babies “intruders” and “thiefs” should be a lesson to us all. He gave the anti-Mormons their most valuable ammo—and boy, did they use it!

  22. Cody Quirk Says:

    I’ll keep your words in mind.

    Be sure to read Angela’s posts.

  23. Chris Fluharty Says:

    Angela Can you tell me why the TAV has choose to ban me form their forum? They are obviously afraid of the truth. Please pass along to them this. Are you all such cowards that you are afraid of open debate. Just keep spreading your lies because you will reap what you sow. Cody has no chip, he was dealing with this person in a way he had to. You all ( the Petroukaites) just look for a demon under every bush when it does not agree with your denominational beliefs. We (the CP) are a lot better off w/o the church/disaffiliates. especially here in Missouri.

  24. Cody Quirk Says:

    Chris,
    I’ve read your posts on TAV forums, and you have earned my respect.

    They probably kicked you out because you were saying things that they didn’t want to hear- the TRUTH!
    All these losers can do is hiss and scream and knash their teeth. they want to tear down the CP rather then move on and organize a Party or group.

    It kinda reminds you of the attitude Satan had when he was cast out of Heaven.

    Chris, your best bet is to stick with the TPW blogs and speak the truth from here!

  25. Chris Fluharty Says:

    Thanks, I hope to do just that. We here in Missouri are growing leaps and bounds since we were purged of the church crowd. We are doing great.

  26. Cody Quirk Says:

    Awesome!

    Be sure to tell Frank Kellam that!

  27. Yosemite1967 Says:

    OK, Cody, I’ve read a bunch of Angela’s other comments on other blogs on this site, and you’re right, she was being hypocritical by saying that you were not being objective. However, I’m hoping that we can all now get past that and work together on things on which we agree and all try to be more objective than we have been in the past.

    Those who carefully maintain their objectivity through everything will always have the upper hand, especially in debates. Again, I always like to quote Columbo: “Just the facts, Ma’am!”

    Now, since I’m a philosopher at heart, please allow me one, rare, unobjective statement, and let me know what you all think of it: Those who refuse to work with others on common beliefs because they don’t agree on other unrelated beliefs might eventually find themselves all alone, even at the Judgement.

  28. Cody Quirk Says:

    Now, since I’m a philosopher at heart, please allow me one, rare, unobjective statement, and let me know what you all think of it: Those who refuse to work with others on common beliefs because they don’t agree on other unrelated beliefs might eventually find themselves all alone, even at the Judgement.

    =Wholeheartedly agree.

Leave a Reply