Starrett for President?

“Mary Starrett is interesting to many libertarians,” says Richard Burke, the Libertarian Party of Oregon’s last gubernatorial nominee as well as its executive director. Burke cited the independent presidential candidacies of John Anderson in 1980 and Ross Perot in 1992 as examples of third-party alliances. “Strange things happen in politics.”

Livingston remains confident in his campaign to draft Starrett, saying he’s already received positive feedback from Constitution Party officials in Minnesota.

Read the rest of the Willamette Week article here.

294 Responses to “Starrett for President?”

  1. ElfNinosMom Says:

    Interesting blog entry.

    I’m not sure why anybody would want to draft her, since the article makes it clear that she isn’t the least bit interested in running.

  2. Trent Hill Says:

    ElfNino,

    “But channeling the spirit of Civil War Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman (“If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve”), ”

    Sherman became president.

  3. Glen Livingston Says:

    I am the one starting the “Draft Mary Starrett For President” campaign. We feel that Mary is the perfect candidate as she is a woman, a non-professional politician, articulate and tough as nails. If the Constitution Party wants to grow and grow into one of the dominant political parties in this nation-it will have to put citizen candidates like Mary for President.

    The days of only running men-example-Ron Paul or any other Congressman is over. Mary is the perfect woman for the job. I am proud to work for the nmination and election of Mary Starrett for President.
    If you wish to join us or have any questions, email us at: [email protected] or telephone me at: 503-922-0672. Thank you for your time.

  4. Austin Cassidy Says:

    Sherman was never President….

  5. Jason Says:

    Trent, I think you meant U.S. Grant

  6. Austin Cassidy Says:

    Well, Sherman did say that. But… he stuck to it.

  7. Joe Says:

    Glen,

    How is Mary the perfect candidate when a stated goal of the Constitution Party is to “restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations” and the the biblical doctrine of the headship of man disqualifies a woman for civil office: http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=759

  8. globalist_elitist Says:

    No, you guys. Sherman DID become president in the world where the Fed is a Jewish-Communist conspiracy, the South were the good guys in the Civil War, the income tax is illegal, the Illuminati and aliens control the world, immigration and trade are bad for the economy, and 9/11 was an inside job. OPEN UP YOUR EYES!

  9. Anthony Distler Says:

    What, nobody’s ever heard of President Sherman? He was sandwiched between President Martin Luther King and the Jimmy Stewart Administration.

  10. Gary Odom Says:

    I hope that everyone realizes that “JOE”S comment in no way whatsoever reflects the position of the Constitution Party. Women have every bit as much right to participate in the political process as men. Good Grief! Which century is he living in?

    I would support Mary Starrett in a minute, if I thought she was interested, which, at this time, I do not.

  11. Joe Says:

    Gary,

    Did you read the article that I linked to? It is from Michael Peroutka’s website. You know, the Constitution Party’s candidate for President in 2004 and current member of the Constitution Party’s executive committee?

    What difference does it make what century we are living in? God’s word does not change. Perhaps Mary has considered this since since her last run for office, and THAT is the reason she is not interested in running for president of the United States?

  12. matt Says:

    Yeah,
    Now that Mary’s read the Bible, she agrees with Joe.

    Likely.

    I hope you’re joking.

  13. Trent Hill Says:

    Joe, Shutup…

    Austin, Damn. You’re right. Im thinking of Grant.

    GE, Nice.

    Joe, again. Shutup.

  14. Cody Quirk Says:

    Did you read the article that I linked to? It is from Michael Peroutka’s website. You know, the Constitution Party’s candidate for President in 2004 and current member of the Constitution Party’s executive committee?

    =Peroutka isn’t a member of the Party anymore.

  15. Cody Quirk Says:

    And having women as legislatures or even presidents is not unconstitutional. What is unconstitutional is repealing the 19th Amendment and barring women from holding office because of some radical puritan views that the majority of Christians would refute, and also violate the 1st Amendment.

  16. Cody Quirk Says:

    Hey Joe, how about if we’re going to take away women out of our government and take their right to vote, we return blacks to slavery too!
    Better yet, let’s also bar Catholics from holding office or voting even!

  17. Cody Quirk Says:

    If Starett is going to run, yeah I probably would support her.

  18. Trent Hill Says:

    I’d support her and then some.

  19. Rebel Says:

    I’m sure that Mrs. Starett would make a fine candidate for president, but she will only have a limited budget and the press will ignore her. Her vote total probably won’t even have the potential to breach 400,000, if any past elections are indicators. There is a big nest of grassroots activity that is supporting Ron Paul for pres on the GOP line (he’s already raised around a million dollars and hasn only been a declared candidate for a month) . He can win the nomination if every libertarian, constitutionalist, anarcho-capitalist, christian conservative and anti-war democrat latches on to his campaign’s reigns. I still plan on voting for any constitution or libertarian candidate I can find on the lower level offices. We have about ten months to galvanize every Patriot in the US to chip in and volunteer for his campaign. Third parties (like the CP and LP) have long had electoral problem because we’re not working together when it’s appropriate. We have our minor differences, but in the end we both strive for constitutional government. Ron Paul, running under the GOP banner, could have our support (members of CP/LP) as well as many republicans who are inclined to vote for him anyway. So, in essence, he instantly has broader support than any one candidate from the LP or CP. We have our work cut out for us to beat out the top three GOP candidates, but none of them have the loyal supporters that ony Dr. No has. He has a proven track record of supporting liberty and this alone gives him my approval above any other candidate that I would normally support. For your lives, your fortunes and your sacred honor its time to step up and stand up to the money machine that runs the Fed, the major media and the establishment in general. Ron Paul, like I said before, has already raised more money thus far than any potential third party candidate could raise the ENTIRE election cycle. He’s on par to generate 10-20 million dollars as his current pace and there’s no telling what will happen once he becomes a house-hold name. Let’s do it everyone! With freedom fading faster as the days go by, the time to act is now.

    ronpaul2008.com or
    dailypaul.com (blog)

  20. Joe Says:

    I’m not joking, just guessing.

    In broadcast #99, Michael Peroutka spends several minutes at the beginning of the show explaining that he remains on the executive committee of the Constitution Party and that rumors to the contrary are false. You can listen at http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=780 That show aired a week ago.

    At least one other member of the executive committee would presumably vote against a Starrett nomination. For serving as a delegate to the Constitution Party’s convention in ‘04, I received a tape of a speech Howard Phillips gave at the Witherspoon School of Law and Government. On that tape he talked about how the nineteenth amendment was the worst amendment ever passed, how it was the precursor to abortion-on-demand and most of the other ills in America. Now, that does not mean that there is no possibility that Starrett could get the nomination if she wanted at. What I am arguing against is Glen’s suggestion that she would be an “ideal” candidate for the Constitution Party’s nomination. You are kidding yourselves if you don’t think at least a significant minority of party members would balk at the idea of nominating a woman, any woman, as president. At least that is my judgment based on the members I have met - including the wives and daughters of delegates at the last convention. If you think I am wrong, perhaps you could tell me the last time the Constitution Party nominated a woman for a spot on the national ticket? Or for that matter when was the last time any party in America did so, other than far-left parties like the Green Party?

  21. Trent Hill Says:

    Joe, Mary Starrett now sits on the Executive Board as Communications Director, guess who she was appointed by?

    She also ran for governor of Oregon under the CP there. That means at least one state supports her. Furthermore, I have not met ONE current-CPer who contends that women should not hold office, although I have met several who don’t think Mary Starrett is the ideal candidate (Because she doesn’t have money or a household name).

    You. Are a joke my friend. And so is Peroutka. He LEFT the Constitution Party, he DISAFILLIATED, and is therefor no longer a member of the executive committee. That is one of the requirements of BEING on that committee, is being a member of a state party.

  22. Joe Says:

    Have you never met Howard Phillips Trent? He believes in one family, one vote. So does Doug Phillips. In my experience they are far from atypical among the Constitution Party in that regard.

    Did you listen to broadcast #99? He explained during that broadcast that he is still a member of the Constitution Party’s national executive committee. If Peroutka is such a joke, why did the Constitution Party nominate him unanimously to run as president in 2004?

  23. matt Says:

    Are Howard and Doug Phillips in the same family?
    If so, I’d be as pleased as punch if they agreed to only vote once rather than twice. The less of that, the better.

    Seriously, though. Universal suffrage isn’t indicative of personal liberty, nor is it a necessary precondition. Philosophically, it wouldn’t bother me a bit if, say, only land-owners were allowed to vote for Senators, or if voting were restricted in some other way. The important things are the rule of law and government respect for personhood.

    Practically speaking, this is ridiculous and will probably offend most people, so why bother.? Also, we don’t have a strong enough Constitution to do this. Since we ignore human rights like crazy anyway, this would just create legally sponsored class warfare.

  24. Cody Quirk Says:

    Did you listen to broadcast #99? He explained during that broadcast that he is still a member of the Constitution Party’s national executive committee.

    =Or so he claims.

    If Peroutka is such a joke, why did the Constitution Party nominate him unanimously to run as president in 2004?

    =maybe because he wasn’t causing problems then as he did now.

  25. James Niemela Says:

    Joe,

    Thank you for your defense of God’s principles on this discussion. I too remember the speech you alluded to by Howard Phillips, given in 2004. Interesting that Mr. Quirk and some others who remain in the Compromise Party didn’t immediately attack him like they have Mr. Peroutka. Then again, why should we expect them to be consistent? The Bible says a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. So we need to expect them to flip flop like a beached whale.

    James Niemela

  26. Trent Hill Says:

    Joe,

    You didn’t answer my question. Who appointed Starrett as communications director? Do you remember what Howard Phillips had to say about her?

    While I’v read Doug Phillip’s opinion on the subject, it isn’t really credible. He doesn’t have any electoral sway, while Howard Phillips does.

    When Howard Phillips protested Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s nomination to the court, he didn’t point out Biblical rules why she shouldnt. He pointed out that she was pro-abort.

  27. SovereignMN Says:

    The CPMN unofficially backed Sue Jeffers campaign for MN Governor last year when she ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination. They have also ran women for statewide offices before such as State Auditor and Lt. Gov.

    The only time I’ve heard CP members state they don’t approve of women being elected to office was on the TAV forum and the CPNY. The CPNY has disaffiliated as have most, if not all, of the TAV members.

    I do know of some people who are reluctant to back women candidates if they have younger children and a victory would require them to be apart from their family. But to me that is a completely different set of circumstances than being against all women running for office .

  28. Jason Says:

    Peroutka, Lofton, and Whiteman are all kooks. Lofton especially. I mean the man wishes and prays that service members die over here in Iraq. He thinks they are sinners for fighting in this war and are destined for hell. He hasn’t the slightest idea of what dedication and service means. Thank God that people like him are neither in uniform or in charge of anything other than the mindless zealots that he leads around. The man is a joke professionally, morally, and socially. He better pray to his holy Calvin that I am never in the same room with him.

    Peroutka is an idealist kook and is only fit to lead his clones who have no minds of their own. You are all wrong and confused sheep. You make me sick for even posting something as if it was truth and knowledge or a undisputable fact because your Master said it. Get real.

    Whiteman….well he pretty much thinks and does as he is taught. He is the highest clone, a perfect specimen for the rest of the clones to emulate.

    They are all weirdo’s and I could care less what any of them say on their show. They mean nothing to us or their views. So please spare us the enlightenment of their views and opinions. They have time and time again, at least to the sane folk, proven that they are no-counts, insane, hate-filled, reactionary radicals destined for obscurity and a pointless existence.

  29. SovereignMN Says:

    matt said “Seriously, though. Universal suffrage isn’t indicative of personal liberty, nor is it a necessary precondition. ”

    I would tend to agree with this but I fear the potential for abuse to ever change our current rules. The last thing you’d want to do is make the requirements for voting subject to the whims of the majority.

    “Practically speaking, this is ridiculous and will probably offend most people, so why bother.?”

    Agreed. I would however be willing to fight to get property tax levies to be voted on by landowners only. It seems grossly unfair that someone who doesn’t own any property can vote in $XXXX amount in new taxes on those who do.

  30. James Niemela Says:

    Jason,

    I voted for MAP in 2004. Didn’t you?

    James Niemela

  31. Trent Hill Says:

    James,

    I believe he did.
    Doesn’t matter though, Peroutka wasn’t ACTING CRAZY then. He was either hiding his crazy, or had not yet discovered how much power he could garner by being a “rebel”.
    The sad part is this, that we all voted for him.
    But guess what? Alot of people voted for George Bush without realizing how bad on the issues he was.

  32. James Niemela Says:

    So, in other words, Mr. Hill, you and the rest of the folks who voted for Mr. Peroutka, and now are attacking him, really didn’t do in-depth research of the candidate you voted for? Surely you didn’t all vote for him simply because you are mindless sheep of the Compromise Party (a.k.a. Constitution Party), now, did you?

    James Niemela

    For the record, I voted for MAP in 2004, and would again in a heartbeat.

  33. James Niemela Says:

    Regarding the first charge you made above, do you really think MAP was hiding something? If so, what was he hiding? What is he saying now, that he wasn’t saying then? I can think of some other people who were not totally forthright, to put it nicely. Like some pro BABY-MURDER people from Nevada, and others. But what was/is Mr. Peroutka hiding?
    Regarding the latter charge you made above, I would contend the people who were deceptive about their non-compliance with the CP platform, and refuse to this day to comply, are the ones being the REBELS.

    James Niemela

  34. Chris Fluharty Says:

    Joe and James. If the American View is so biblical and pro constitution then why did they ban me and erase every post I made. That is called censorship. Are they that afraid of open debate? I did not curse nor did I do anything but prove through the bible they claim to follow, that their beliefs were wrong, unscriptual, and not those held by real Christian fundamentalist. I defended my state affiliate with rock solid evidence and they banned me because they did not want to look like the liars they were. They were unable to provide a shred of evidence supporting their so called article. So frankly sir the American View should be called the Reformed Christian view because unless you are one of them they will not hear you nor accept your view. That my friend in not American or Christian.

    As for you biblical ineptness (ie women not serving in politics) I will tell you this. Politics is a civil issue not a spiritual issue. Jesus said render unto Cesar what is Cesar’s. That means keep civil what is civil and holy what is holy. Mary is being biblical if she is submissive to her Husband. Politics have nothing to do with this headship relationship. So run back to your American view buddies like J Glenn Ferral and Chuck “Camp Director” and tell them to come here for an open non censored debate. I will have them for breakfast just like I did before I was banned. Tell them saveourstate sent you. Tell Lofton and Mikey to come as well. Since neither had the guts to debate this openly. So much for free speech aye Joe.

  35. John Lofton Says:

    So, Peroutka, Whiteman and I are all “kooks,” eh, “Jason”? But, vilification is not refutation. Be specific, please. Refute one thing I’ve said or written. Put up or shut up. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com; Recovering Republican.—PS - Even “kooks” can be right about some things.

  36. Chris Fluharty Says:

    On the topic at hand, I would not support Mary because I do not feel she can do the job. She is not qualified is what I am saying. TV personality does not equal good governance. Look at Arnold in California. Sony and Clint also in California, Does anyone remember Jesse Ventura? Truthfully we need to stop worrying about a national candidate and focus more on winning state seats etc. If national poured money into the states where someone could win a seat we’d grow faster then running a paper candidate in the National election. Of the list of CP choice floating around the only one I would back would be Pastor Baldwin or Mr. Phillips. They have experience and knowledge for the office. Mary is just not qualifies enough to lead a super power. Sorry that is just how I feel.

  37. Chris Fluharty Says:

    Mr. Lofton- You banning me is evidence enough. What are you all so afraid of? You published bold face lies of the CPMO and I refuted them with verifiable proof and you all ban me. That is pretty kooky behavior. Just admit your real motivation and maybe the dialouge can be opened. It is also pretty kooky to say a baby who does not know right form wrong will go to hell if God did not elect them. Your proof? A denominational catechism/confessional. No biblical citations whatsoever. That sir is kooky. Salvation is by grace through the cross alone. Jesus died for all. What part of whosoever is to hard for you to understand? A baby cannot choose Jesus until they understand that they are indeed living in a sin nature. To say God holds a lottery of who he will save is kooky. Grace is irresistible. We have a free moral choice. Adam chose to eat from the tree of knowledge of Good and evil just like we can choose to eat of the tree of life (Jesus). I can refute more of your insane religous bigotry but this is a political forum and not a theological debate. Good day.

  38. James Niemela Says:

    “To say God holds a lottery of who he will save is kooky. ”

    “Grace is irresistible.”

    “We have a free moral choice.”

    ????????????????????????????

    James Niemela

  39. Chris Fluharty Says:

    James am I going to fast for you? These are all typical Reformed theologies. Do you disagree?

    They are all a part of the TULIP.

    T- Total depravity
    U- Unconditional election (no choice or free will)
    L- limited atonement (Christ dies for the elect and not all)
    I- Irresistable Grace If God calls you cannot refuse.
    P- Preservation of the Saints (once saved always saved if you are a part of the elect sin all you want it does not matter)

    does that answer your ??????????????

  40. Jason Says:

    John,

    Insanity= What you actually are (a kook) and what you actually see yourself as (a living prophet, a modern day messenger, righteous law giver).

    I won’t be so easily snagged into refuting you (though I’m not saying that it would be entirely impossible), I just really don’t have the time or the energy to sypher through the mountains of idiocy on your stupid site. One needs only to go to Camp Kook AMV and see yours and the other clones vitriolic comments and wacky world views. As such and as stated earlier, your comments on American Service Members that are fighting for cowards such as yourself. What kind of man actually wishes harm on people he has never met or knows anything about? John, you are not that special or intelligent, it would not take much to refute you and show what you really are. It would really be a waste of time because I think that you are in fact, insane.

    Your own medicine:
    Whom God wishes to destroy, he first makes mad - Prov.

  41. Chris Fluharty Says:

    BTW I meant to say grace is resistible.

  42. Jason Says:

    To the Clone,

    James, I did not vote for MAP in 04. I wasn’t a CP member then. I voted for Bush.

  43. James Niemela Says:

    Dear Jason,

    Wow, so you were a GOP sheep? What changed you?

    James Niemela

  44. Jason Says:

    Many things.

  45. Jason Says:

    I didn’t even know of the CP in 04. I’ve never been a sheep, clone boy.

  46. Chris Fluharty Says:

    Why didn’t you know the CP in 04. Were you in a state w/o ballot access? That may be why he is refering to you as a sheep.

  47. Jason Says:

    I just hadn’t heard of them, much like most people who do not hear of 3rd parties, unless they seek out and become informed. I voted for Bush because I liked him and I sure as hell was not going to vote for a man like Kerry.

  48. James Niemela Says:

    Dear Chris,

    Thank you for your response. I would have to say I agree with some of the points you stated above, and probably would disagree with some of them. However, I wonder why you are attacking the folks at TAV for their religious views? Kind of interesting that you should, considering how the National Compromise Party bought into the lie that the Nevada disaffiliation issue was over the LDS people’s religious views (which it wasn’t) and thereby rejected their duty to disaffiliate the baby-killers based partly on that excuse. Why are you now playing the very trump card that you in the CP claim to despise? (Attacking people for their religious views) Have those at TAV attacked you for your religious views?

    James Niemela

  49. Jason Says:

    Give me a break. That is all you hate-mongers do! Are you kidding me? And you stated all of that in the most unshameful manner. Paalease.

  50. Trent Hill Says:

    James,

    Peroutka was hiding the fact that he was/is a religious bigot. That he was exclusively seeking a Calvinist-Party. That he was an absolutist.

    I have said it in the past. I’ll say it again:
    Getting a vasectomy is only 99.4% effective in making a man inept.
    Being pro-life-exceptionist is only 99.4% effective in making abortion illegal.

    So. By those stats we can conclude the following:
    Just as a vasectomy is pro-pregnancy, so is an Exceptionist pro-choice.

    Would you agree?

    As for Peroutka, I did not vote for him in ‘04. I didn’t vote at all. I was just 17.

  51. James Niemela Says:

    “Give me a break. That is all you hate-mongers do! Are you kidding me? And you stated all of that in the most unshameful manner. Paalease.”
    [Jason]

    Where (specifically now) did I attack someone for their religious views?

    James Niemela

  52. James Niemela Says:

    “I have said it in the past. I’ll say it again:
    Getting a vasectomy is only 99.4% effective in making a man inept.
    Being pro-life-exceptionist is only 99.4% effective in making abortion illegal.

    So. By those stats we can conclude the following:
    Just as a vasectomy is pro-pregnancy, so is an Exceptionist pro-choice.” [Trent Hill]

    Now that’s profound.

    /sarcasm off/

    James Niemela

  53. James Niemela Says:

    “Peroutka was hiding the fact that he was/is a religious bigot. That he was exclusively seeking a Calvinist-Party.” [Trent Hill]

    Trent,

    Please tell me where Mr. Peroutka said he wants an exclusive Calvinist-Party. I can’t recall him ever saying that. To the contrary, he has made it clear that the issue is not about religious views. Then again, I actually listen to TAV and look into the issue, and read his writings. I do not look to those who hate him to interpret to me what he says. Have you actually listened to his radio shows, or read what he has written? I would encourage you to look into this matter a little more, read his position papers which are posted on TAV, and stop shooting from the hip without any evidence to prove what you are saying. Go to www.theamericanview.com and actually read what he has written on this matter. It certainly won’t hurt.

    James Niemela

  54. Chris Fluharty Says:

    James

    I was simply answering Lofton’s question to where he has been kooky. The difference is I am willing to work with a Catholic, Calvinist, whatever. The TAV crowd bans me for challenging them. I respected everything they did until they played the hypocrite. The article The Death of a Party is a bold face lie and I proved it. So they banned me and erased all the post so that they were never found out. This is my problem with the TAV. Had I been a voting member I too would have voted to remove the Nevada party because they did not subscribe to the platform. But since they are a separate state party they legally have their own COnstitution and by-laws and can elect anyone they want. That does not affect me in Missouri because we are 100% pro life. Plus we are focused on Missouri and not National. When the CPMO stops being 100% then I will stop supporting the party. We have a a Jewish rabbi, several catholics all working hard to promote the party. When the old leadership was in charge they refused to work with any of them. Even refused to give an award to a pro life activist because they were Catholic. So I can not speak for National but here in Missouri the Calvinist were very much caught up in religious bigotry.

    So James I hope you see why the TAV has evoked my ire. They are hypocrites and extremist. They lack the very Christian charity they say all should have. They do not AGAPE their neighbor. Just philo them.

  55. Chris Fluharty Says:

    James

    If he did not only want a Calvinist view espoused then why did they ban and erase my non Calvinist post from their discussion board. I did not violate a single clause in their terms of service.

    They worship Calvin more then Jesus. If you notice they all quote the Westminster confessional more then the bible.

  56. James Niemela Says:

    Dear Chris,

    Thank you for your responses. I really hope Trent will answer my latest post, since he made the charge against Mr. Peroutka. However, I am wondering about this statement you made.

    “The difference is I am willing to work with a Catholic, Calvinist, whatever.”

    Where has Mr. Lofton said he will not work with someone who is not a Calvinist? Specifically?

    Also, this statement.

    “If he did not only want a Calvinist view espoused then why did they ban and erase my non Calvinist post from their discussion board. I did not violate a single clause in their terms of service.

    They worship Calvin more then Jesus. If you notice they all quote the Westminster confessional more then the bible.”

    I am assuming (correct me if I’m wrong) that since this was a statement made concerning Mr. Peroutka wanting a Calvinist-Party, that this statement of yours is referring to him. If so, where, specifically, has he stated he only wants a Calvinist view espoused? There are people of other denominations who post on TAV, and they often disagree with the folks at TAV. Thank you for your time.

    Regards,

    James Niemela

  57. James Niemela Says:

    Dear Chris,

    Also, don’t you think it is unfair to say “they all quote the Westminster confessional more then the bible.” ? I don’t believe you can characterize everyone who posts on TAV by what a few posters do. There are more than enough “kooks” who post here- I certainly wouldn’t characterize or lump everyone on this forum as being like them. We need to be more careful so we don’t over-generalize.

    Regards,

    James Niemela

  58. John Lofton Says:

    Try again, please, “Chris Fluharty.” What I asked for was the refutation of
    “one thing I’ve said or written.” So, publishing on our page something written by someone else about Missouri is irrelevant to my challenge. And where exactly and when did I “say a baby who does not know right form wrong will go to hell if God did not elect them”? I recall no such statement by me. You say: “I can refute more of your insane religous bigotry but this is a political forum and not a theological debate.” But you haven’t refuted ANYTHING I’ve said.

    say a baby who does not know right form wrong will go to hell if God did not elect them. Your proof? A denominational catechism/confessional. No biblical citations whatsoever. That sir is kooky. Salvation is by grace through the cross alone. Jesus died for all. What part of whosoever is to hard for you to understand? A baby cannot choose Jesus until they understand that they are indeed living in a sin nature. To say God holds a lottery of who he will save is kooky. Grace is irresistible. We have a free moral choice. Adam chose to eat from the tree of knowledge of Good and evil just like we can choose to eat of the tree of life (Jesus). I can refute more of your insane religous bigotry but this is a political forum and not a theological debate. Good day.

  59. Trent Hill Says:

    James Niemela,

    I have read many of Peroutka’s position papers, i’v read the TAV forums, and i’ve listened to TAV radio several times. I find MANY things that Peroutka says quite stupid and more fit for a church than a political party.

    As for this:
    “Now that’s profound.

    /sarcasm off/

    James Niemela”

    It is profound. I am glad all you could could come up with was a sarcastic remark (and a flat one at that).

  60. Chris Fluharty Says:

    James

    The willing to work with comment is a generalization for all the disaffiliates. I am of course basing it on my own experiences in dealing with them. Plus the fact Lofton is the moderator and banned me for espousing a non Calvinist view. Since I did not violate the terms of service that is the only logical explanation.

    As for the Calvinist only party. His actions speak much more then his writings. Besides he is a smart man who speaks through others to protect his own name. That is the oldest political trick in the book. I have worked in politics to long. Every political figure is what they call a word Ninja. Even MAP.

    It may seem unfair, but so is what they did to me. Most of the theological posters including Lofton use the WCF as their primary source for faith. I know there are others on the site who are not as sheepish but I do not have the time nor desire to separate the wheat and the chaff. Besides most TAVers have no desire to hear the truth. When you give it to them they erase it.

  61. John Lofton Says:

    Good. When asked to put up (specify) or shut up, “Jason” has decided to shut up (not specify). I particularly liked his phraseology that he would not
    “be so easily snagged into refuting you (though I’m not saying that it would be entirely impossible), I just really don’t have the time or the energy to sypher through the mountains of idiocy on your stupid site.” Golly, you’d think that with a mountain of this stuff it would take no time at all to come up with ONE THING to refute. Oh, well. And yes, “Jason,” that smell is your pants on fire…

  62. Angela Wittman Says:

    Dear Gentlemen,

    This reminds me of an old Western movie… I am waiting for a couple of you to come falling out of the saloon doors with fists and beer bottles flying!

    Now, please know that it is a shame for you men to hide behind the skirts of a woman, even though we are capable of holding public office doesn’t mean we are supposed to.

    You men should be running for office! Shame on you for sending a woman out to do a man’s job.

  63. John Lofton Says:

    Dear “Trent Hill”: Give me an example, please, of one thing Michael Peroutka
    has said or done that to you means he “was/is a religious bigot,” that “he was exclusively seeking a Calvinist-Party, That he was an absolutist.” Thank you.

  64. Angela Wittman Says:

    Jason wrote: “Peroutka, Lofton, and Whiteman are all kooks. Lofton especially. I mean the man wishes and prays that service members die over here in Iraq. He thinks they are sinners for fighting in this war and are destined for hell. He hasn’t the slightest idea of what dedication and service means. Thank God that people like him are neither in uniform or in charge of anything other than the mindless zealots that he leads around. The man is a joke professionally, morally, and socially. He better pray to his holy Calvin that I am never in the same room with him.”

    Please tell me what or who gives you the right to misrepresent and slander others? You do not even give us your last name so you can slander others and then run away. You are a coward.

  65. Chris Fluharty Says:

    http://theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1476

    I am sorry Lofton, it was the other henchman that said newborns go to hell if they are not called. Here is the url. I do not know how to link it. But it was Whitman that made these claims and it is a few post down. The TAVers were debating if Bill went to heaven. How Christian of them.

    All one has to do is go to TAV and look at the threads like Reformed Scholarship, debating Calvinism, premillinialist hymn, etc. Those who even have a hint of dissention is ridiculed. I doubt Mr. lofton really wants me to refute him. Besides Mr. Lofton the articles you choose to publish are a reflection of who you are. One can notice you did not deny my claims. I guess we all now know for sure that the whole article was in fact a lie. Thanks for confirming it.

    So sir I refuted your entire credibility by association. The TAV is a hyper Calvinist church crowd pretending to be a political party. This site isn’t the TAV so you can’t ban me or erase me and no one believes your excuses. So unless you want to be open and honest for a change and admit you all wanted a church and not a political party, give it up. For people who hate the party so much you sure do spend a lot of time talking about us.

  66. Angela Wittman Says:

    “If Peroutka is such a joke, why did the Constitution Party nominate him unanimously to run as president in 2004?”

    Cody says = “maybe because he wasn’t causing problems then as he did now.”

    Angela says: Mr. Peroutka is revealing that he is a man of courage and integrity as he has stood firmly on the Word of God: “Thou shalt not kill.” The problem causers are the leaders in CP who have waffled on the sanctity of life issue and are scrambling to hide their compromise.

  67. Chris Fluharty Says:

    Angela

    what gives the TAV the right to slander then erase all evidence that proves they were indeed slanderous. It goes both ways. The entire TAV website is a shrine to religious bigotry. Non-Calvinist or biblical literate posters need not apply. Not a single person from the TAV has ever said what term of service I violated. i have even made mention to it here and notice Mr Lofton a moderator is silent on the subject. instead they change the subject to Jason. I am ready for High Noon. Anytime anyplace. My six shooters are ready as is my trigger finger.

    Jason is a young political zealot who is tired of his party being attacked by people who do not want any part of it.

    As for hiding behind a skirt that does not answer the evidence. Where in the Bible does it say a women cannot be a civil authority? You all demand evidence but fail to provide it when challenged. Like I have said before keep what is Cesar separate from what is God. Why are you all trying to defile what is holy with something as slimy as politics? Stop trying to combine them to fit your religious beliefs. This is why Madison and Jefferson worked so hard to stop religious zealot ism by working with Fisher Ammes, a religious zealot, to create a good 1st amendment. But since that does not fit the TAV belief structure I will probably get some excuse.

  68. Chris Fluharty Says:

    MAP won the nomination because he had the cash needed to run. I respected him and supported his nomination, but his actions later reflected his real self. I am founded in my faith and a pastor, but i know in America you must keep faith and politics separate. Politics will always water down faith. Romans 13 is plain and simple to understand. Let stop confusing the issue.

  69. Angela Wittman Says:

    Dear Chris,

    There are other arminians at TAV. I do not know the specifics of your case, but I appreciate the moderation of the group. Do you think you may have been perceived as a trouble maker? Or perhaps your attitude was argumentative? Also, you do sometimes make accusations and statements which are a little reckless and wild, then you have to go back and apologize as you got your facts wrong.

    Why can’t a woman lord herself over a man? Because it is a perversion of God’s created order. How shameful

  70. Angela Wittman Says:

    Dear Chris,

    It is impossible to keep faith and politics separate. I think the reason we are in a moral free fall in America is Christians have tried to keep their faith separate from politics and the humanists filled the vacuum with their faith in the power of man. You will either serve Christ or the devil, take your pick.

  71. Trent Hill Says:

    Angela,

    It is interesting to note that Peroutka accepted the Hanson’s political advise, money, support, and leverage when he ran for the CP Presidential race in ‘04.
    Also, he accepted the Alaskan Independence Party’s endorsement, even though they take no stance on abortion.

  72. Trent Hill Says:

    Angela Whittman,

    That guys name is Jason Corley, from the LACP. He is a strident pro-liberty political activist and is surely not afraid of the Calvinist Party’s Cabinet.

    John Lofton,

    My name is Trent Hill, no need to put quotes. As for proving Peroutka is an absolutionist, take his views on the Nevada issue as evidence. And although he has been carefully wording his attacks on Chris Hanson, Scott Whiteman has not. He recently stated that mormons were “Devil worshippers”. And don’t question my sources, because I WILL go find the quote, it’s in the TPW database.

  73. James Niemela Says:

    “Besides he is a smart man who speaks through others to protect his own name. That is the oldest political trick in the book. I have worked in politics to long. Every political figure is what they call a word Ninja. Even MAP.” [Chris]

    I don’t agree with your over-generalization. (AGAIN) But if it were the case, who is Jim Clymer and the rest of that pack of compromisers speaking through? Or more correctly, who are they speaking for?

    James Niemela

  74. James Niemela Says:

    “So sir I refuted your entire credibility by association.” [Chris, to Mr. Lofton]

    Dear Chris,

    Is this what you teach your congregation? That if you don’t like someone, you can dislike all his friends simply because you dislike him? That’s not very Christ-like. And then you have the gall to accuse the TAV folks of being “not American or Christian.” Hmmmmm…......

    James Niemela

  75. Jason Says:

    Angelia and the rest of the mindless clones of the Z-Team (Z meaning Zealots):

    You are in no position to question my motives or authority if I choose to make “slanderous” remarks about the Masters and the Clones of the TAV.
    They are hardly slanderous in any nature.

    John, are you really trying to challange me to make the effort to go to your site and gather all of your remarks? Are you some how implying that I will not find anything kooky or inflamatory; or better, flat out wrong and insane. I’ve said it before, you are delusional.

    You of all people should know some of the rediculous crap and paranoid propaganda that is on your site. What in Calvins name are you thinking?

  76. James Niemela Says:

    “I find MANY things that Peroutka says quite stupid and more fit for a church than a political party.”

    Oh sheesh. The “we’re a political party, not a church” swill AGAIN! Can’t we let that idiotic, un-Christian, un-American, unthinking statement rest in peace with one of it’s greatest purveyors?

    James Niemela

  77. Jason Says:

    James and the rest of the clones:

    Enjoy your Calvinist utopia and very uneventful careers as political activist. You give sane Christians a bad name.

  78. Jason Says:

    Angela:

    Zip it, don’t ever address me directly. You are not equal to man. Also, you should repent for calling me a coward. Now go on, pray to Calvin for being a sinning hypocrite, Angela.

    “Why can’t a woman lord herself over a man? Because it is a perversion of God’s created order. How shameful.”
    -Angela Wittman

    More kookiness and hypocrisy on the Clones part.

  79. James Niemela Says:

    “James and the rest of the clones:

    Enjoy your Calvinist utopia and very uneventful careers as political activist. You give sane Christians a bad name.”

    YAWN….....ZZZZZZZ…....

  80. Joe Says:

    According to Michael Peroutka, Jim Clymer told him that membership on the executive committee is not dependent on belonging to an affiliated state party and that Michael remains on the executive committee according to the party’s bylaws.

    If John Lofton and Scott Whiteman are a joke, then the Constitution Party must be a joke too. I remember Scott served in an official capacity on the platform committee on ‘04. I don’t recall the exact title, but his job was to rule whether proposed platform changes were constitutional or not. A pretty important job to give to someone as reprehensible as some of you claim he is. Likewise, I recall John’s speech at the convention and the standing ovation he received for it. But I don’t think it’s a joke. I don’t think I had ever heard of John or Scott before I got to the convention, but was quite impressed with them.

    I don’t recall whether or not John criticized America’s military in his speech, but I definitely remember that Michael Hill was in his speech and he received a standing O too. So did Doug Phillips whose whole speech was about how women should not serve in the military. It is hard for me to understand how a party can applaud a speech like that and then turn around and nominate a woman to serve as commander-in-chief of the armed forces! But, if and when the Constitution Party nominates a woman for president or vice-president, I will admit that I was wrong about that. Whether I am wrong about that or not, it doesn’t change the fact that the biblical doctrine of the headship of man disqualifies women for civil office. God’s law remains whether or not the Constitution Party nominates women or America elects a woman President of the United States.

  81. James Niemela Says:

    Dear Joe,

    Thank you for the EXCELLENT points!

    Kind regards,

    James Niemela

  82. Angela Wittman Says:

    Dear CPers,

    I think you have proven the point that the Constitution Party is no longer a vehicle for pro-lifers or Christians. I hope you will all be happy together, but with all the sniping going on, I fear you will turn and devour each other… After all, you have no absolutes governing you. Instead you have tossed out the Word of God as the final authority and embraced false religion.

    I think the evolution of the governing documents for the party is proof that all I say is true. Examples of evolution: CP Platform, 1st Plank; Party pledges to uphold the Party platform; change in disaffiliation rules; past presidential candidates positions on the EC…I am sure there is more, but I have an appointment this morning and have run out of time. Thank you.

  83. Cody Quirk Says:

    Interesting that Mr. Quirk and some others who remain in the Compromise Party didn’t immediately attack him like they have Mr. Peroutka. Then again, why should we expect them to be consistent? The Bible says a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. So we need to expect them to flip flop like a beached whale.

    =I don’t love Howard Phillips, but his politicial thinking is on the practically sane level, Peroutka is not.

  84. Cody Quirk Says:

    So, in other words, Mr. Hill, you and the rest of the folks who voted for Mr. Peroutka, and now are attacking him, really didn’t do in-depth research of the candidate you voted for? Surely you didn’t all vote for him simply because you are mindless sheep of the Compromise Party (a.k.a. Constitution Party), now, did you?

    =How could I know he was a vicious nut and anti-Mormon? Especially when he campaigned in Nevada and spoke at the IAP state convention. In fact Peroutka should’ve known about Chris Hansen’s view on abortion, yet he did not then.

  85. Cody Quirk Says:

    For the record, I voted for MAP in 2004, and would again in a heartbeat.

    =Too bad he’s not going to run, and if he did, he probably would have write-in status only.

  86. Cody Quirk Says:

    Regarding the first charge you made above, do you really think MAP was hiding something? If so, what was he hiding? What is he saying now, that he wasn’t saying then?

    =For one, he’s more a zealot then ever.

    I can think of some other people who were not totally forthright, to put it nicely. Like some pro BABY-MURDER people from Nevada, and others. But what was/is Mr. Peroutka hiding?

    =Chris Hansen always held such a view, only by pestering him did he make a big deal of it.

    Regarding the latter charge you made above, I would contend the people who were deceptive about their non-compliance with the CP platform, and refuse to this day to comply, are the ones being the REBELS.

    =So the leaders and founders of the CP were the rebels? Even though your kind of people started showing up after 1999.
    We’re not choosing to brake away, you are, so you’re the rebels.

  87. Cody Quirk Says:

    So, Peroutka, Whiteman and I are all “kooks,” eh, “Jason”? But, vilification is not refutation. Be specific, please. Refute one thing I’ve said or written. Put up or shut up. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com; Recovering Republican.—PS - Even “kooks” can be right about some things.

    =For one you’re such a coward to only want to debate on the phone with Ed Brayton when he offered to debate you via email and in public. And two, the only rebuttal you can do to people is call them names and throw a temper tantrum like a spoiled brat.

  88. Cody Quirk Says:

    Thank you for your response. I would have to say I agree with some of the points you stated above, and probably would disagree with some of them. However, I wonder why you are attacking the folks at TAV for their religious views?

    =Well for one, since you guys attack Mormons, Catholics and other non-Calvinists, consider it just dessert. And for one, your take on Government conforming to the Bible (by Calvinist interpretation), rather then the US Constitution is a visible red flag.

    Kind of interesting that you should, considering how the National Compromise Party bought into the lie that the Nevada disaffiliation issue was over the LDS people’s religious views (which it wasn’t)

    =Lies and more lies…

    http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=950&highlight=mormons

    http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1093&highlight=mormons

    http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=933&highlight=mormons

    http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=896&highlight=mormons

    and thereby rejected their duty to disaffiliate the baby-killers based partly on that excuse. Why are you now playing the very trump card that you in the CP claim to despise?

    =Why does the TAV have to use fascist tactics by not only kicking out opposing views, but also delete the said posts?

    (Attacking people for their religious views) Have those at TAV attacked you for your religious views?

    =Yes, and people’s personal character too.

  89. Cody Quirk Says:

    Where (specifically now) did I attack someone for their religious views?

    =LOL! the TAV forums

  90. Cody Quirk Says:

    “Please tell me where Mr. Peroutka said he wants an exclusive Calvinist-Party.”

    Actions speak louder then words.

  91. Cody Quirk Says:

    Now, please know that it is a shame for you men to hide behind the skirts of a woman, even though we are capable of holding public office doesn’t mean we are supposed to.

    =Then perhaps women shouldn’t only just be barefoot and pregnant, but also not even allowed to participate in any form of politics.

    You men should be running for office! Shame on you for sending a woman out to do a man’s job.

    =If you were Black, Angela, I could see you as a Grand Dragon in the Ku Klux Klan.

  92. Cody Quirk Says:

    Please tell me what or who gives you the right to misrepresent and slander others?

    =I should ask the same of you Angela! What gives you the right to slander Chris Hansen and the Nevada IAP?

    You do not even give us your last name so you can slander others and then run away. You are a coward.

    =You left the Party rather then fight- you’re the coward.

  93. SovereignMN Says:

    These banterings are pointless. I suggest both sides of this debate heed the instructions of Christ in Luke 9 “And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them”. You never see Christ badgering people to accept his message. He gives the truth and if people are unwilling to listen, he departs.

    After careful consideration and prayer I made my decision to remain in the CP. It’s time to move foward and look ahead. I am 100% confident in my salvation through Christ and quite frankly don’t care whether anyone at TAV thinks I am ‘elect’ or not. I am also 100% confident in my position on abortion to know that remaining in a political party with someone with views like Chris Hanson (views which I do not share) does not make me a pro-abort.

    It’s time for everyone to move on.

  94. Cody Quirk Says:

    “Angela says: Mr. Peroutka is revealing that he is a man of courage and integrity as he has stood firmly on the Word of God: “Thou shalt not kill.” The problem causers are the leaders in CP who have waffled on the sanctity of life issue and are scrambling to hide their compromise.”

    Angela, can you explain to me why Peroutka spoke at the Nevada IAP convention in 2004? Why did he even campaign in Nevada? Peroutka should’ve been smart enough to have known about that the Hansens’ view on abortion that mirrors the LDS Church’s stance on it.

    http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=9bc1d93c8688f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=726511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD&vgnextfmt=tab1

    You should’ve known yourself Angela. But then again you did favor exceptions in Abortion yourself when you first came into the CP.

  95. Joe Says:

    I have heard Michael say on at least one show, I don’t recall which, that he did not know about it and if he had he would not have done so.

  96. Cody Quirk Says:

    According to Michael Peroutka, Jim Clymer told him that membership on the executive committee is not dependent on belonging to an affiliated state party and that Michael remains on the executive committee according to the party’s bylaws.

    =This from the mouth of Michael. Joe can you back up that claim? where in the bylaws does it say that?

    If John Lofton and Scott Whiteman are a joke, then the Constitution Party must be a joke too.

    =A joke that is growing and reorganizing its various lost states.

    I remember Scott served in an official capacity on the platform committee on ‘04. I don’t recall the exact title, but his job was to rule whether proposed platform changes were constitutional or not. A pretty important job to give to someone as reprehensible as some of you claim he is.

    =Reading his resignation letter-

    http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=628

    I sometimes wonder why he didn’t talk this way before.

    Likewise, I recall John’s speech at the convention and the standing ovation he received for it. But I don’t think it’s a joke. I don’t think I had ever heard of John or Scott before I got to the convention, but was quite impressed with them.

    =Og course with someone like you.

    I don’t recall whether or not John criticized America’s military in his speech, but I definitely remember that Michael Hill was in his speech and he received a standing O too. So did Doug Phillips whose whole speech was about how women should not serve in the military. It is hard for me to understand how a party can applaud a speech like that and then turn around and nominate a woman to serve as commander-in-chief of the armed forces!

    =There’s a difference between putting women on the front lines or in political office. I know you can’t see the difference due to your black and white color blindness.

    But, if and when the Constitution Party nominates a woman for president or vice-president, I will admit that I was wrong about that. Whether I am wrong about that or not, it doesn’t change the fact that the biblical doctrine of the headship of man disqualifies women for civil office. God’s law remains whether or not the Constitution Party nominates women or America elects a woman President of the United States.

    =Whatever.

  97. James Niemela Says:

    “Actions speak louder then words.” [Cody]

    Couldn’t agree more, Cody! That’s why anyone who says the CP is prolife needs a reality check! Thanks for making a good point- :)

    James Niemela

  98. Cody Quirk Says:

    I think you have proven the point that the Constitution Party is no longer a vehicle for pro-lifers or Christians.

    =No Angela, it’s just not a vehicle for Calvinist and bigots anymore.

    I hope you will all be happy together, but with all the sniping going on, I fear you will turn and devour each other… After all, you have no absolutes governing you. Instead you have tossed out the Word of God as the final authority and embraced false religion.

    =Well, you worship Calvin more then Jesus and block out any manner of humbleness or meekness that Jesus taught about- from your life. You’re the one embracing the Devil’s snares.

    I think the evolution of the governing documents for the party is proof that all I say is true. Examples of evolution: CP Platform, 1st Plank; Party pledges to uphold the Party platform;

    =You forget Angela that the committee bylaws prohibits the national from getting involved into state parties business.

    change in disaffiliation rules; past presidential candidates positions on the EC…I am sure there is more, but I have an appointment this morning and have run out of time. Thank you.

    =ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, what? Oh sorry, I fell asleep, listening to this crap is starting to bore me since it’s nothing but rants and ravings of little cowards who didn’t get their way and cannot build a viable Calvinist Party to match the CP.

  99. James Niemela Says:

    Now on to the real point you made that comment, what SPECIFIC actions has Mr. Peroutka taken/done to prove that he wants “an exclusive Calvinist-Party”? No more mindless babble, over-generalizations, etc. Be specific now, please!

    James Niemela

  100. Joe Says:

    Cody, this is the from the mouth of the national chairman of the party. Who would be better able to answer whether Michael Peroutka is on the executive committee than Michael Peroutka and Jim Clymer? You? Trent? According to the governing documents of the National Constitution Party, the seat which Michael holds on the executive committee of the National Committee is his by right of being a candidate for the office of President of the United States under the banner of the Constitution Party. It is not in any way or reading of the constitution and bylaws of the party dependent upon association with any state party, affiliated, disaffiliated or withdrawn. This seat is a permanent seat on the committee, not dependent upon being just the “immediate past candidate” as is the position of Chairman of the party, just as Howard Phillips’ seat on the EC is permanent by the same rule. Those who claim that Michael is not on the executive committee are quilty of the kind of rumor-mongering that broadcast #99 was apparently intended to address.

    Yes, I see a contradiction between taking a position that women should not serve in the military on the one hand, and on the other saying that it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to serve as commanders-in-chief of the armed forces.

  101. Cody Quirk Says:

    “...Let’s see now…a Party with a supposedly pro-life platform but, in Tampa—er, um, uh, excuse me—I mean, in fact, this platform turns out to be just so many words on paper, meaningless, without substance. It all sounds so familiar…Arghhhhhhhhhhhhh!”

    “So, I’m “a jerk and a filthy pig,” eh, Mr. Quirk? Well, you, sir, are a big poop-face, a doo-doo brain whose mother was a hamster and whose father smelt of elder berries”

    Statements like these John make debating you like debating my 10 month old daughter.
    I can see why you rejected Ed Brayton’s offer of a online debate, the only rebuttals you can do is name calling and strong-arm McCarthyist tactics to make up for how incorrect and simpleton you are.

    http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/06/john_lofton_debates_over_debat_1.php#more

  102. Cody Quirk Says:

    Now on to the real point you made that comment, what SPECIFIC actions has Mr. Peroutka taken/done to prove that he wants “an exclusive Calvinist-Party”? No more mindless babble, over-generalizations, etc. Be specific now, please!

    I recall from Frank Fluckinger that Michael was eagery working to become the next National Chairman of the Party (being a bit ambitious are we?)
    Michael also worked hard for the removal of the Nevada Party, which is a dead givaway as to want he and the dissaffiliation faction in the Party wanted.

    Do you want more?

  103. Cody Quirk Says:

    Couldn’t agree more, Cody! That’s why anyone who says the CP is prolife needs a reality check! Thanks for making a good point-

    =Whatever James, it isn’t going to make a difference since the majority of Pro-Life voters will still be voting GOP for a long time, and people like you will be gnashing their teeth instead of putting their shoulder to the wheel and build-up the American Heritage Party. Being the fact that even after Tampa, Jim Clymer refused to endorse Chris Hansen for Nevada Governor, and there isn’t any resolutions to modify the Sanctity of Life plank, your accusations hold only hot-air, not water.

  104. Cody Quirk Says:

    Cody, this is the from the mouth of the national chairman of the party.

    =No it isn’t, it’s from the mouth of someone who claims to be from the mouth of the national chairman of the party.

    Who would be better able to answer whether Michael Peroutka is on the executive committee than Michael Peroutka and Jim Clymer? You? Trent? According to the governing documents of the National Constitution Party, the seat which Michael holds on the executive committee of the National Committee is his by right of being a candidate for the office of President of the United States under the banner of the Constitution Party.

    =Show my the documents Chris, not Peroutka’s statements.

    It is not in any way or reading of the constitution and bylaws of the party dependent upon association with any state party, affiliated, disaffiliated or withdrawn. This seat is a permanent seat on the committee, not dependent upon being just the “immediate past candidate” as is the position of Chairman of the party, just as Howard Phillips’ seat on the EC is permanent by the same rule. Those who claim that Michael is not on the executive committee are quilty of the kind of rumor-mongering that broadcast #99 was apparently intended to address.

    =Even so, the CP won’t give him a single inch to manuver at any Party meeting.

    Yes, I see a contradiction between taking a position that women should not serve in the military on the one hand, and on the other saying that it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to serve as commanders-in-chief of the armed forces.

    =Well you’re the one with the extreme views.

    =Why then, is it also perfectly acceptable for men with no military service or tactical knowledge to serve as commanders-in-chief of the armed forces?

  105. Cody Quirk Says:

    It’s time for everyone to move on.

    =Apparently the crybabies here don’t want to. Never mind they’ll do better good organizing and activating AHP state-affiliates or voter clubs then spending their whole lives typing on a computer thinking they’re God.
    All these spoiled children know is to throw their temper tantrums when they can’t get their way.

  106. Cody Quirk Says:

    Another thing, the fact that Peroutka is trying to cling onto his ‘position’ in the CP shows he’s either a hypocrite to those that left the Party thinking we’re Pro-Life and full of “Devil-worshipping Mormons”, or he still hopes to get elected to a position in the CP that he can try to open the flood gates and take it over again, even though the crybabies here abhor the CP.

  107. Cody Quirk Says:

    BTW Angela, I made some detailed and well researched rebuttals to the Chick cartoon linked to Ben Powers’ resignation letter, go check it out.

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/03/26/minnesota-constitution-party-rejects-disaffiliation

    (scroll down)

  108. Joe Says:

    What do you mean “cling to?” By your own party’s own bylaws, a presidential candidate is a permanent member of the executive committee. He does not have to “try” to do anything. That is a simple statement of fact.

  109. James Niemela Says:

    “Show my the documents Chris, not Peroutka’s statements.” [Cody]

    And likewise, Cody, can’t you give us something better than Frank Fluckigers statements to back up your slander of Mr. Peroutka regarding your blather about his desire to become the next national chairman. Sheesh! Open mouth, insert foot.

    [By the way, I think you meant to say, “Show me the documents Joe”, (not Chris). You really need to take a breather and calm down. Go have a piece of pizza and a Mountain Dew, then come back. :) ]

    James Niemela

  110. James Niemela Says:

    “What do you mean “cling to?” By your own party’s own bylaws, a presidential candidate is a permanent member of the executive committee. He does not have to “try” to do anything. That is a simple statement of fact.” [Joe]

    Dear Joe,

    You are right of course. However, sadly, it appears that the facts don’t matter to some on this forum. (Or to the National CP, either, for that matter.)

    Kind regards,

    James Niemela

  111. Cody Quirk Says:

    And likewise, Cody, can’t you give us something better than Frank Fluckigers statements to back up your slander of Mr. Peroutka regarding your blather about his desire to become the next national chairman. Sheesh! Open mouth, insert foot.

    WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! From someone with both feet in his mouth.

    Poor James, is this all you can do in politics?

  112. Cody Quirk Says:

    BTW James, it’s Fluckiger’s, not Fluckigers.

  113. Cody Quirk Says:

    What do you mean “cling to?” By your own party’s own bylaws, a presidential candidate is a permanent member of the executive committee. He does not have to “try” to do anything. That is a simple statement of fact.

    =But why doesn he still want to be in the CP? Why doesn’t he resign?

  114. Cody Quirk Says:

    And get over the fact that you failed to get the Michigan Taxpayers Party to disaffiliate from the CP James.

    You need to get your act together.

  115. Joe Says:

    Cody,

    According to my understanding of the bylaws he can not resign, nor can Howard Phillips. When you are nominated for president one of the obligations you take on is to be a permanent member of the executive committee. Now, a person might choose not to attend any of the meetings and might regret the fact that they are on the committee, but their wish to resign would not change the fact that as far as the Constitution Party is concerned, they remain on the executive committee. I may be wrong about that, if someone would like to show me where it says that a former presidential candidate can resign his permanent membership on the committee I will stand corrected.

    On broadcast #99 Michael explains why he has no desire to resign. I do not recall his exact words. Folks can listen for themselves, but my recollection is that it has something to do with him hoping that there might still be reconciliation within the party and believing that it may still be possible for the party to correct itself on the life issue.

  116. James Niemela Says:

    Actually, some may consider me a Big Mouth, but it is not big enough to get both feet in it. Maybe only one foot. Thanks!

    James

  117. James Niemela Says:

    “WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! From someone with both feet in his mouth.

    Poor James, is this all you can do in politics?” [Cody]

    Ok. If that bothered you, let me put it more politely and nicely.

    Dear Mr. Quirk,

    Could you please provide or point me to where I may find documentation that Mr. Peroutka was seeking to become the next National Chairman? I shall be awaiting your reply. Thank you for your time. I remain

    Sincerely yours,

    James Niemela

  118. Cody Quirk Says:

    Janine Hansen is another person that can also back up certain statements Peroutka has said to her concerning her faith.

    I know by his defense and friendship of many LDS haters and Calvinist extremists on the TAV and formally in the CP, the tone of the many articles on The American View, that his actions speak louder then words.

    Another thing, didn’t he say in a article regarding Tampa that is the absence of the Party’s repentence, that “I will be forced to leave the CP National Party”?

    Why hasn’t he done so already?

  119. Cody Quirk Says:

    Why don’t you talk to Frank Fluckinger yourself? I believe he’ll confirm it with you.

  120. Jason Says:

    You know what you clones remind me of? A clingy estranged individual who is still looking for closure and attention from the one who no longer wants anything to do with you. Ok, so I’ll be the bigger man here, so here goes….Clones, look, its not you, its me ok. Thats all. I wish you all the best and I’m sure that you will find a new party who will love you and appreciate your….er “views”.

    I know it must be hard hearing the news coming out of the CP camp. How we moved on, replaced you and are doing better than ever. You shouldn’t allow jealousy to consume you. I’m sure it makes you feel even more insignificant than you already are, because your party really doesn’t exist, but you have to move on.

    Here is a suggestion to you Clones and be sure to tell your masters as well: use all of this energy that you have in being infatuated with the CP, its members, and its buisness and go out do something nice for your own party. Ok, that is your only option, you can’t stay in the past and dwell on the what might have beens, you have to move on. So pucker up butter cup, and get out there and knock’em dead. And remember you are Somebody!

    There now don’t we all feel better.

  121. Cody Quirk Says:

    Bothered? More like pity for you.

    Believe me, somebody like you can insert objects as big as both your feet in there.

  122. Cody Quirk Says:

    “...you have to move on. So pucker up butter cup, and get out there and knock’em dead. And remember you are Somebody!”

    Jason, I think these people just can’t grasp the concept.

    Unfortunate that they can’t, even as extreme as they are. I might have some respect for then if they did, but it doesn’t look like they want to.

  123. Cody Quirk Says:

    Go ahead James and email Frank.

  124. James Niemela Says:

    Nope. Not going to do it. You made the charge, then mentioned Janine Hansen as added “proof” of your charge against Mr. Peroutka. Is that the best you can do? Don’t you have documentation to back up your claims? Why don’t you get your buddy Frank on here; maybe he can point me to where I can get some proof for your claims. Or is he going to wag the dog just like you are? You guys jump around like a cat on a hot roof. Come on, man. Back up what you said. or if you just said it in haste, just admit that you have no proof and contact Mr. Peroutka and apologize for slandering him! Show your color, if you have any. Let’s see if there is anything more than the big yellow stripe down your back.

    James Niemela

  125. Cody Quirk Says:

    You won’t even bother emailing Frank which shows that either I’m right or your afraid of the truth.

    How about you and your friends apologize to us here for behaving like spoiled brats? It’s quite pathedic your arguments, no wonder you can’t do anything useful.

  126. Cody Quirk Says:

    Email Frank, you coward.

  127. Cody Quirk Says:

    You’re not convincing anyone here that Peroutka is a genuine constitutionalist.

    I know him well by his fruits. As many here do.

    Hope you washed your feet first, it could leave a bitter taste in your mouth.

  128. Trent Hill Says:

    Jesus. 127 comments. Mary Starrett should be flattered.

    Angela Whittman, John Lofton, Scott Whiteman,

    We are happy you have all found this higher truth. Good luck on helping the AHP or forming your new Calvinistic-antiWomen-Absolutionist-Party.

    Cody and Chris,

    Leave it alone. They only damage themselves.

  129. Angela Wittman Says:

    Thank you, Trent. I will be most honored to be included in any endeavors of John Lofton and Scott Whitemen. May I use you for a reference?

    I am blessed. : )

  130. James Niemela Says:

    “Email Frank, you coward.” [Cody]

    Nope. Not going to do it. YOU MADE THE CHARGE. NOW SUBSTANTIATE IT!
    (If you can :) )

    Thanks-

    James

  131. Trent Hill Says:

    Angela,

    As Jason stated. According to your own biblical interpretation, you have NO right to address me as an equal.

  132. Rich Says:

    I loved it when Frank Zappa and Lofton were on Crossfire. It was a great debate…but I think in the end, Zappa won it.

  133. Angela Wittman Says:

    Dear Jason and Trent,

    I was created with a mind, a mouth and the intelligence to use both simultaneously… Now if you have a complaint with me, please take it up with my Creator.

    Thank you. : )

  134. Chris Fluharty Says:

    James I do not think you understood me. By association means it is his job as moderator to check the validity of his site articles. And since the silence is all the proof I need. Lofton is guilty. I teach my congregation the truth and the Whole Bible not just the stuff that fits a denominational creed. My Christianity is secure thanks for your concern.

    Angela- Your biblical ignorance is forgiven. You have yet to provide any scriptural evidence to your claims. If you cannot I understand, but do not play holier than thou until you can. If women are not to have leadership roles then why were there there females apostles? You all need to read the whole bible before you get all holy. You are coming across as Pharisees not Christians.

  135. Chris Fluharty Says:

    BTW there were also female deacons consult Romans 16:1 if your bible has that book! The women leader excuse is old and unscriptual it is time you all wake up to Folgers in your cup. No reply is needed unless you have book chapter verse.

  136. Angela Wittman Says:

    Dear Chris,

    I thought we had already hashed this out at TAV? The Church I belong to recognizes deaconesses. But the natural order is for men to be the leaders. I think you all are just embarrassed to admit that you have become feminized.

    I am not going to give you book, chapter, verse as I believe we have already had this discussion. I can understand the younger men who have been raised in a feminist culture to be ignorant of God’s natural order for men and women, but I am surprised at those of you who were born prior to the 1960’s.

    Now it has been fun debating you all, but I have work to do at ChristianLibertyParty.com which I have neglected long enough. Thank you and may you all have a nice evening.

  137. Trent Hill Says:

    “I was created with a mind, a mouth and the intelligence to use both simultaneously… Now if you have a complaint with me, please take it up with my Creator.”

    Exactly. God created you with a mind, a mouth, and intelligence (arguably). So why shouldn’t you (well,not specifically you. But women in general) vote? Why shouldn’t you hold office? Women are just as capable.
    In the realm of governance, intelligence is all that is needed to solve political problems. And intelligence is not an attribute where men have the upper hand. We are equals as genders.
    Whereas physique is a little different. The reason women can’t serve as soldiers is because, as a gender, they are not generally as physically strong. This is an important distinction to understand, as Im sure you would have contended that women could be soldiers under my arguement.

  138. Joe Says:

    Trent,

    The reason that women should not hold office has nothing to with capabilities. As Rev. Einwechter article states in the TAV article:

    “We should recognize that the issue here is not the character or ability of the woman seeking the office; nor is it her spiritual condition, her views on the issues, or even if she is the “best” available candidate. . . .” Likewise my objection here has nothing to do with Mary’s ability. I don’t think I ever met her from what I do know of her I am willing to stipulate that she is very capable. However, the point in question for Christians is, “is it biblically proper for a woman to hold political office, and thus rule over men?” I am convinced that the answer to that question is no.

    Physical strength is not the reason most cons