First off, someone suggested they'd like to hear my opinion about the interview John Lofton, of The American View, conducted with Jim Gilchrist, co-founder of the Minuteman Project after his "hat toss" into the ring for the 2008 presidential race.

I read the interview and thought Mr. Lofton did a fair job of keeping the "iron to the fire" as it were when questioning Mr. Gilchrist about his stand on "Abortion, Iraq War, God And Government, Sodomy, The Draft, Theocracy” and of course immigration. In my opinion Mr. Gilchrist knew his audience well enough to provide answers that he felt would be acceptable to the interviewer. His background is journalism so he knows how to conduct himself during an interview. He's also a retired CPA so I believe he would have a reasonable understanding of economics but that topic wasn't approached during his time with Mr. Lofton.

Would I vote for him over someone else? It depends on who the someone else is I guess. He has no foreign policy to speak of, no real leadership experience, at least not at a level necessary to be president. He's not in the same league as a Howard Phillips or a Michael Peroutka so all he's really got going for him is name recognition and a powerful message regarding our borders. Not enough to qualify him as leader of the free world in my opinion, but then who am I to talk? I would like to run for president some day and Gilchrist has more going for him than I do...

Next, I need to put forth a public apology to members of the LDS church. In my rant on May 24 titled "Except For What?" I made a comment about swearing (cursing) using the name Joseph Smith rather than Jesus Christ. I made this comment because at the last two National Committee meetings I've attended I heard someone from the Nevada delegation take my Lord's name in vain. Because he was from Nevada I made an incorrect assumption that he was Mormon. Since then I have checked and the truth is that the "gentleman" who cursed openly, in violation of the Third Commandment, is actually a member of the catholic church. As such, since I made my comments under a false assumption I feel the need to apologize to those members of the LDS church whom I may have offended. Your faith is your own and my faith is my own. We can disagree on the semantics of our different faiths and continue to work together towards restoring Constitutionally limited government - so long as we agree on how to get there. That is, I still will not compromise on the Sanctity of Life issue, and I know there are people within the Mormon church who are also, absolutely, 100% pro-life, no exceptions.

Next topic, The California Statesman, also known as 'The California Enquirer' and 'Shearer's Smears', published by Mr. William Shearer of California. I actually took the time to read the mailing these past two months - first because I was on my way to Tampa and, at the time, I had a certain level of respect for Mr. William Shearer's opinion as a senior statesman and co-founder of the USTP; second because I wanted to get his analysis of Tampa in the May issue.

I was utterly appalled by what I read in the April issue. Bill Shearer actually printed a tirade about Mr. Reed H. Heustis, a member of his own AIPCA, that was blatantly slanderous, mean-spirited and a most unprofessional portrayal of a God-fearing husband, father and Christian businessman. Again, I was utterly appalled. The thing that really bothers me is this publication is sent out to anyone who inquires about the CP! [NOTE: I have been informed that the CP HQ does not send the publication to people who merely inquire; however, I have also been told (different source) that Bill Shearer has access to the CP mailing list. If someone inquires and they get added to the mailing list they may end up receiving the Statesman.]

So people who are first hearing about us and call the national headquarters to receive more information may also get added to Mr. Shearer's mailing list. What kind of a horrible first impression that must make! And, a subscription is considered a 'perk' for being a Club 2000 member!

The May issue wasn't much better. Mr. Shearer took six pages of, what I now call his 'bird cage liner', to portray those on the pro-disaffiliation side as fanatics, even going so far as to compare them to racists! Here's the quote:

"How just is it to punish an entire party for one person's dissent on some subsection of a platform plank? No more just than to punish all of the people of an ethnic group because one member of the group broke the law and went to jail."

I still cannot believe he compares being a member of a political party to being born Black or Hispanic! Mr. Shearer, you are no better in that comparison that those homosexuals who claim they deserve special civil rights. Last time I checked you can choose to be homosexual or you can choose to be heterosexual. Same thing with a political party - you can choose to be a member or not. But a Black person cannot choose to be Caucasian any more than a Hispanic can choose to be Asian. So to compare those who choose to stand up for the 1% of babies that would be killed in utero because of exceptions, with a criminal who happens to have a different skin pigmentation is absurd and you need to rethink your philosophy!

Mr. Shearer goes on to attack the pro-disaffiliate group as "radicals", "extremists" and "zealots" among other things. His contention that the desire to disaffiliate the IAP of Nevada because they are Mormons is as absurd as his ill-thought racial comparison. I've been told by someone in Nevada that there are many non-Mormons in the IAP. Does that mean those in favor of disaffiliation want to kick out Nevada because members of the IAP are Mormon or Catholic or whatever church they happen to belong to? And what about Utah - I understand there's a couple Mormon's in that state too, but is anyone trying to disaffiliate Utah? NO!! The issue is, and always has been, about a little thing known in the CP as the "San Antonio Resolution".

Here's what that document says:
==========
02/28/1998

SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE RESOLUTION

The following Resolution was passed by unanimous vote of the National Committee of the Constitution Party at its semi-annual meeting in San Antonio, Texas on February 27, 1998.

Whereas, the Preamble to the 1996 Platform of the U.S. Taxpayers Party states (in part) that members of the party "gratefully acknowledge the blessings of the Lord God as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of this Nation". Said Preamble states further that, "Our Republic is a nation governed by a Constitution, which is rooted in Biblical Law, administered by representatives who are constitutionally elected by the citizens", and, moreover, "In a Republic governed by constitutional law rooted in Biblical Law, all life, liberty, and property are protected because law rules,"and

Whereas, in the section titled, "Abortion", the 1996 Platform of the U.S. Taxpayers Party states, in part, that, "The pre-born child, whose life begins at conception, is a human being created in God’s image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore the duty of all civil government to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born." This duty is a fundamental requirement for all U.S. Taxpayers Party candidates;

Be it therefore Resolved, The U.S. Taxpayers Party National Committee shall not endorse or distribute, allocate, contribute to or solicit funds for, or support in any way whatsoever, any candidate who does not pledge and act to defend and promote the inviolable right to life of innocent human beings, from the moment of conception to natural death -- without exception.
==========

THAT IS WHAT THIS DISAFFILIATION MOVEMENT IS ABOUT!!!

Christopher Hansen and Janine Hansen, recognized leaders of the Independent American Party of Nevada, have both publicly stated that they hold to personal exceptions for abortion in the case of rape, incest or "life of the mother". Since they have made their personal feelings a matter of public record, and have stated that they hold to these exceptions because of the teachings of their church, (which happens to be the LDS church) that they cannot, in good conscience support the "Sanctity of Life" plank, as it is titled in the 2004 National Platform.

They have both signed documents stating they are "pro-life" and that they support both their State and the National Platforms, but they have also stated that they have personal exceptions to a 100% pro-life stance. Well, OK, they are 99% pro-life but what happens if they get elected to office? What if a bill comes up that would make ALL abortions illegal? Would they vote against it because their church allows for exceptions? We don't know because they haven't been elected. But the Platform is clear and so is the above Resolution. If you don't support the Sanctity of Life plank then you can't be a candidate and since the IAP knowingly runs and supports candidates with a less-than-100% pro-life position, and refuses to withdraw that support, the National Committee has the right, granted by the organizations Constitution and Bylaws, to disaffiliate.

That's what this whole issue is about and those who get side-tracked with procedural issues or talk of religious bigotry need to re-examine the facts and see this for what it really is. And Mr. Shearer would marginalize the issue by claiming that the Platform's "no exceptions" Sanctity of Life Plank is a mere nuance which can be disregarded as trivial. Shame on you and those you were able to fool into thinking this is about something it is not!

Mr. Shearer claims that the National Committee would have been deprived of a ballot qualified affiliate if the vote had gone the other way. But look at the result of voting to retain one ballot qualified affiliate - two states with ballot access have already disaffiliated themselves and three others have votes pending this month alone! Is the ballot line of the other states of less value than Nevada's? The National Committee has made a grievous error in judgement and the organization will continue to suffer until this error is corrected!

Finally, I'd like to say a little bit about common courtesy.

In this technological age in which we live people use text to communicate more often than verbal communication.

This is evidenced in everyday life when I sit thirty feet from a co-worker who sends me an email message rather than calling out my name to ask me a question. Or when my wife sends me an instant message rather than calling me on the phone.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against technology by any means. In fact, I find it far more convenient to answer an IM from my wife than to answer multiple phone calls each day.

But as a society I think we're loosing something called the "personal touch" that you get when you speak to another person. Since most electronic text communication via email or instant message is short and meant to be direct it also strips away the tones that you can hear in someones voice. I can tell when the person I'm speaking with is happy or rushed by the tone of their voice. I can't tell what a person is feeling from a text message or email.

As such, much distortion can result in a text message being taken the wrong way. And worse, people today feel some sense of liberty to distribute a written message without thinking of the consequences that may come about.

Most people wouldn't think twice about repeating something they heard another person tell them because we view our spoken words as private communication and to repeat what someone tells you is typically considered gossip. But the same people who would never consider themselves to be 'gossips' will forward an email they received because they feel "someone else" needs to know about that.

Rather than contact the person who sent the original message and see if it's OK to forward we just click away. I'm guilty of doing this too so I'm not just pointing fingers here.

We as a society need to consider our written communication to be as privileged as our verbal communication. Unless expressed consent to repeat or forward is given in advance, as is the case with all my commentaries, then take the time to ask "is it OK for me to tell so-and-so about this"? That's what we do when we're on the phone with someone and we need to start doing the same thing with our email or IM's.

Assume all conversation is privileged communication from one person to another and ask permission to inform another before blindingly forwarding. Just doing that much would have saved some people I know, myself included, a bit of embarrassment earlier this week.

=============================================================
If you enjoy these commentaries and have not already subscribed to the list, click here to be added and you will receive an email notice when a new post is available.

If you have subscribed in the past and no longer wish to receive these commentaries then click here to be removed from the list. You will receive one final message confirming your desire to be removed.

If you aren't sure how you came to receive this then perhaps someone you know forwarded it to you. Please feel free to forward this message with the SUBSCRIBE / UNSUBSCRIBE info in tact. Always use Bcc: and clean up a message before you forward it. No one likes scrolling through forwards or reading between all the >>> junk. Thank you for your support!