Introduction and Analysis of the Situation

National Committee

Ohio Constitution Party
Executive Committee

All animals are equal except the pigs. Pigs are more equal than the other animals (emphasis mine) George Orwell, Animal Farm

Recent events in our party demonstrate that there is a growing chasm of opinion that separates two very different factions. Very much like the War for Southern Independence, there is both a surface emotional issue and a more important yet obscure underlying issue which one side uses to mask the true agenda that is driving the split.

The emotional driving force is centered on the true distinctive of our party, the statement in the preamble that should guide all of our thinking on this issue. We are, by declaration of our platform preamble, the only explicitly, though not exclusively, Christian party. An obvious corollary of the Christ-centered platform is contained in the 100% pro-life with no exceptions plank of our party’s platform. It is this clearly and unmistakably worded plank that outlines our party’s stand on the life issue. That plank was reconfirmed and even strengthened by the National Committee with the passage of the “San Antonio” resolution. A short history is included in the attachment marked “A,” which is a letter written by the Ohio Executive Committee to the national Executive Committee prior to the Spring 2005 Salt Lake City meeting. The platform and resolution requirements appear to be the major bone of contention.


We write appear because, like any good illusionist’s performance, one of the main goals for successfully fooling the audience is distracting them from noticing what the illusionist is actually doing. This job is usually performed by a beautiful woman in a revealing costume. In the earlier mentioned war it was performed by a radical group of anarchist-abolitionists (Not all abolitionists to be sure. Many who opposed slavery on principle were appalled by the rhetoric and tactics employed by the radicals at the helm of the vessel. Many of these were from the South.).

In order to analyze the reality of the illusionist’s trick one must know what distractions he is employing so that we can ignore them and discern what is really happening. The first distraction on the issue of adherence to the pro-life plank is the issue of States’ Rights for individual state party affiliates.

The Constitution Party platform, constitution and by-laws are readily available for all to read and understand. All party leaders should be fully cognizant of all of the provisions of these foundational documents and their emanations, umbras and penumbras. It stands to reason that all members of state parties and their leadership have understood and agreed to the provisions of those foundational documents or they would have invested their political capital with another party.

Presumably, all party members understand and are in agreement with the philosophical framework of the party, especially since party representatives were required to state that they were in agreement when their parties joined the national. Thus, to resort to a States’ Rights defense for actions, which openly and willfully violate both the spirit and the letter of the rules and regulations of the party, is disingenuous. Parties who do not agree are free to leave the party and associate with one with which they find themselves in agreement philosophically.


In the case of Nevada Independent American Party (IAP), the illusionists in the national Executive Committee have based their use of this defense on article III of the party constitution, which states, “Nothing in this Constitution or the bylaws of the Constitution Party shall confer upon the national party any authority to direct the internal affairs of any state affiliate.” By the logic applied in this defense, a state affiliate could run a candidate on a platform the rest of the National Committee finds heinous or is clearly damaging or fatal to the party as a whole, calling for some form of genocide for instance, and nothing could be done about it!

Of course, this is an absurd and disingenuous construction and application of rules designed to protect state parties from unreasonable interference in their internal affairs. The illusionists have by clever sleight-of-hand twisted the bylaws of the party in an attempt to force acceptance of open and willful violations of the party rules by specially favored state party officials.

The most obvious example of this distraction technique is in William Shearer’s letter dated October 24, 2005 to the National Committee. Mr. Shearer purports to be outraged that the National Committee interfered with the right of the Nevada IAP to thumb its nose at the platform of the party by voting to require that the admittedly errant Nevada IAP bring its party leadership into compliance with the national platform and resolutions, citing the above cited “internal affairs” clause of the party constitution.

He then duplicitously cites a list of what he claims are unacceptable abuses but are, by any standard, legitimate state party internal functions. These “indefensible” acts included helping National Committee members raise expenses for the meeting, binding National Committee members to representing the clear will of the state party in their votes on pivotal resolutions and appointments to the National Committee. In other words, any attempt to bring disciplinary action against the Nevada IAP for ignoring the rules of the national party invokes the “internal affairs” clause of the constitution. Actual internal state party decisions regarding how state National Committee members are delivered to the meetings, are appointed or vote are ineligible for that defense. A master illusionist convinces his audience that something that is impossible is nevertheless true.

As good illusionists, the Executive Committee have performed another sleight-of-hand in making an entire state party, namely Illinois, disappear then reappear with an entirely different Executive Committee, bylaws and party make-up. The reason given is that the party was not a recognized affiliate, a claim which, despite requests for the records pertaining to the disaffiliation, is impossible to ascertain. However, it appears that the Illinois party did not meet the mercurial religious standards of the national Executive Committee.

As we have demonstrated, States’ Rights only hold for parties with whom ranking members of the national Executive Committee have a special relationship. Thus, the States’ Rights argument is exposed as a distraction to avert the National Committee’s attention from what the illusionists are actually doing.


There have been accusations of religious bigotry leveled against National Committee members who have stepped forward to insist that state party organizations that openly and willfully violate the constitution, bylaws and resolutions of the party on key issues be disciplined. But is this an illusionist’s distraction?

Go back to the Illinois disaffiliation. Again, details are sketchy due to the national Executive Committee’s refusal to supply any information, despite the tacit requirement of Article III that records of national Executive Committee actions be made available to the National Committee pursuant to its review and oversight function. The Illinois party was removed because the party’s Executive Committee placed a religious test for membership in party leadership in their bylaws and also restricted membership on the Executive Committee to men.

The Illinois Party’s bylaws were written according to that state party’s freedom of conscience and the tenets of their faith that were well within the bounds of orthodoxy and also the constitution and bylaws of the Constitution Party (The “religious test” restriction applies only to national candidates).

The Constitution and bylaws are clear and unequivocal. Only the National Committee can disaffiliate state party organizations (constitution Article III, bylaws Article II, § 2.2). Yet, Illinois was disaffiliated by action of the national Executive Committee and for reasons of the religious belief of the state’s Executive Committee members. William Shearer and Nevada IAP Chairman Chris Hansen have both openly expressed an intolerance bordering on hatred for Calvinists. Hansen called Calvinists “Satan worshipers” and actually offered, though purportedly tongue-in-cheek, a resolution disaffiliating Calvinists from the party at the Fall 2005 meeting in Columbus. Tongue-in-cheek or not, the underlying religious bigotry and hatred behind the discarded resolution is clear. It was Mr. Shearer who proposed and drove the Illinois disaffiliation through the Executive Committee to its successful conclusion.

On several occasions Midwest Regional Chairman Cal Zastrow and Mississippi Chairman Les Riley, among others have been called abusive names and accused of the worst forms of religious bigotry in letters distributed to National Committee members (except Zastrow and Riley, interestingly enough) by William Shearer who provided only accusations and absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back his claims. So it is clear from these examples that the religious bigotry claims are both hypocritical and another distraction by the illusionists to divert the attention of the more trusting members of the National Committee from what they are really doing.

Mr. Shearer’s most recent letter provides the quintessential example of the use of distraction in this area of religious intolerance. It is difficult to imagine that anyone could pull off one of the greatest illusions possible, on a metaphorical par with making the Statue of Liberty disappear. The illusion he used was the liberal employment of religious bigotry to make a case that his targets are religious bigots.

He purports outrage that the party would have the temerity to try and enforce a party platform plank on abortion that interferes with the doctrine of the Mormon or Latter Day Saints (LDS) church. Mr. Shearer has conveniently forgotten that some of the most vocal opponents of Nevada IAP’s attempts to flout the party’s clear stance on abortion were LDS church members! He forgets that some of the people whose credentials were challenged in Columbus through his and his allies’ efforts were LDS adherents. There are many party members who are also members of the LDS church and who are in complete agreement with the 100% pro-life with no exceptions stand of the party. They also believe that the LDS church has made a grave theological error in its current abortion stand.

This is no different than many Constitution Party members who are mainline Christian church members. Presbyterians, United Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, the list of churches (or portions of them) who condone the killing of the innocent goes on and on. Many who disagree with their own churches’ stands on abortion joined our party because Howard Phillips promised them that we were an island of pro-life refuge in a stormy sea of pragmatic abortion stands for political advantage. Now they are told that their position is anti-LDS bigotry, even if they are LDS!


To illustrate that this is a distraction, we need to step away from the emotional abortion issue and look at another pivotal biblically based morality issue, that of homosexual “marriage.” According to Mr. Shearer, he stands with us in opposing any form of recognition of anything counterfeiting true marriage as a permanent union between one man and one woman.

There are a number of mainline Christian churches that condone and even demand that homosexuals be allowed to “marry.” Let’s say that that some people who are members of one of those churches and who adhere to all of its doctrine as the inspired and infallible rules of God come into control of their state party. Now let’s say that they not only run candidates who agree with their stand to legalize homosexual “marriage,” but openly campaign for state and national office on that stand. Does the States’ Rights defense, that the national has no right to insist that they adhere to the platform, apply? If so, does opposition in the National Committee to that states flouting of the platform then constitute religious bigotry?

How about a state advocating and running candidates with an “open borders” stand, an issue Mr. Shearer’s party has a deep interest in, as does national if Chairman Clymer’s recent newsletter is any indication? After all, several mainline Christian churches oppose illegal immigration laws and prosecutions. One suspects that Mr. Shearer would find that his own ox had been gored (except under special circumstances to be explained later) and would strenuously demand that the state party either comport with the national platform and resolutions or be disaffiliated. Look how easy that was to analyze without the emotional abortion and phony States’ Rights distractions.


An examination of the language Mr. Shearer has utilized in making his case that pro-lifers are religious bigots is revealing. Principled pro-life leadership of the party were referred to in his letter as “religious extremists,” a “rabble,” “puritanical extremists,” an “extremist minority (twice),” “fanatics,” “Johnny come-lately extremists (and the variant “come-lately extremists”),” “bigots” and finally “virulent extremists.” All leveled against people of faith who insist on referring to the Bible as the basis for all principled approaches to political questions, an approach preached long and loud by party founder Howard Phillips in recruiting new members. He said (paraphrasing Joe Morecraft III)

According to Romans 13 it is made clear that the role of civil government is to be a ministry of justice and a terror to evildoers…It is the first duty of law to prevent the shedding of innocent blood (emphasis added).

But those stalwarts in the party who have answered Howard’s clarion call and insist that the platform and resolutions of the party regarding the protection of life say what they mean and mean what they say are belittled as “virulent” and “puritanical extremists.” One wonders if Howard Phillips is included in this “extremist minority” since his rhetoric puts him squarely in the “principle over politics” camp.

Mr. Shearer is all for freedom to follow the tenets of ones faith, as long as the outward expression of that faith does not have an effect on leadership of the Constitution Party, interfere with his de facto control of the Executive Committee or his own man-centered political “big tent” philosophy This is the same “big tent” philosophy that disaffected Republicans are coming over to the Constitution Party to escape!

And they come to the Constitution Party precisely because Howard, in making the sales pitch to disaffected Christian Republicans longing for a principled approach to the election process, has made it clear by quoting George Washington that our party exists to

“…raise a standard to which the wise and honest may repair recognizing that the event is in the hands of God.”

But, according to Mr. Shearer too much of the latter part of that statement, that “…the event is in the hands of God” is to him a form of religious fanaticism that is detrimental to party growth and its image.


Another and probably the most revealing of the illusionists’ distractions are continued false accusations that Cal Zastrow has personal ambition to remove Jim Clymer from the Chair of the party and replace him there. This is possibly the most absurd and baseless accusation we’ve heard in some time. It would truly be laughable were the intent behind it not so very serious.

Those of us in the Midwestern region who have come to know Cal for his deep faith in God, absolute commitment to the cause of Christ, protection of innocent life and tireless efforts to help us gain ballot access know that he is the most guileless and the least ambitious man in the party. He has been selfless and has sacrificed much in helping to build the Constitution Party in his home state and the Midwest into what they are. We challenge anyone to provide hard evidence of these allegations. We publicly call any man or men who issue these allegations and/or continue to spread them as fact in the absence of non-existent evidence a liar.

This challenge includes Mr. Shearer, who has made a habit of making public (though cowardly, in that he provides no copies of his poison pen letters to the victims) accusations against his perceived political opponents yet provides no substantiation relying only on his status as an anointed friend of Howard Phillips and his position as a former party chairman for shelter. Furthermore, we challenge anyone who persists in making accusations of this loathsome type against any of the alleged opponents of the unprincipled practices of the national Executive Committee to provide tangible proof. You won’t be able to. There isn’t any.


A quick quiz before advancing, since this process is in use in the false debate for all with discernment to see. There is a process that consists of three parts. The first part is thesis, a statement of position on a given question (e.g., the first duty of law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood) The second part is antithesis, a conflicting statement of position (e.g., it is bigotry to require that a state party adhere to the mutually agreed upon party rules when that party denies that the unborn products of rape or incest are innocent victims on philosophical grounds). A single or a group of facilitators, (illusionists) dialogue with both sides to build an entirely new thing, a compromise composed of portions of both thesis and antithesis and called a synthesis. What is this process called? If you don’t know, we will answer it in the last section of this analysis since it is pivotal that you understand how illusionists work this process.


Why is illusion three the most revealing of the distractions? The answer lies in uncharacteristically poorly obscured illusionist’s movements in Mr. Shearer’s letter and in a letter (complete with a petition) from Mr. Robert Peck dated November 12, 2005. What these letters reveal is the actual goal of the illusionists- concentration of all real authority to do party business in the hands of a hand picked specially privileged clique of friends and political cronies of Bill Shearer and relegation of the duly constituted National Committee to “rubber stamp” status.

If you think that’s a harsh assessment please read a partial list of charges regarding the way the Ohio delegation and other members and parties have been treated in party business dealings by the chair and the Executive Committee in the attached letter to Chairman Jim Clymer marked “B.”

In the letter from Mr. Peck we are told that, as far as he knows, this is all about the personal views of Chris Hansen on abortion. Sadly, Mr. Peck has forgotten the warning of the book of Proverbs that

“The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him”[3]

and did not bother to avail himself of the reams of evidence and debate available including the “smoking gun” piece of evidence, Janine Hansen’s own candidate questionnaire in which she admits that she ran for national office on a stand that includes exceptions for rape and incest on abortion, an open and willful affront to the Constitution Party platform and the San Antonio resolution. Since Chris Hansen is chair of the Nevada IAP his actions, or lack thereof, condoned it, which is tantamount to the fact that he was guilty of malfeasance in office.

But it is not this obvious fact that tells the tale. It is Mr. Peck’s argument that we are all just far too emotional and ignorant of the facts of the case to make a rational decision. I think you will see from the earlier exercise on ignoring the distractions that that is a demonstrably false assertion.

Nevertheless, based on this argument (which we have dubbed the “we’re like 13 year-old girls and too hormone-driven, emotional and silly to think straight” argument) Mr. Peck makes the suggestion that we in the National Committee give up our constituted authority to deal with this crucial question (for the good of the party, you understand) and let the truly neutral, wise and anointed members of the Executive Committee decide the issue.

We can only assume that Mr. Peck has been stationed at a post in the hinterlands and held incommunicado, only getting news from passing Constitution Party members in the “pragmatism trumps principle” wing of the party. We can deduce this because firstly he admits his ignorance, secondly demonstrates that the few factoids he has based his entire case on are false and thirdly has no clue that the crisis we currently face was caused by the partisan and heavy-handed attempts to whitewash the Nevada IAP party affair at three (and counting) National Committee meetings by the Executive Committee.

These whitewashes included resolutions replete with false statements claiming compliance with the party’s platform and resolutions from Nevada IAP, which were force fed to a mostly compliant National Committee. The most egregious of these resolutions was offered and passed in Salt Lake City, the supporting affidavit of which was exposed as an outright lie by the revealing of Janine Hansen’s position on the issue as a candidate of the Nevada IAP at the Columbus National Committee meeting.

This is, of course what a sizable clique of the current, mostly hand picked, membership of the Executive Committee hoped to achieve (but not all of them. There are still some good, principled people on the Executive Committee, though some of them need to stand up and demonstrate it). In times of crisis, men who are ignorant of the facts and unwilling to do the work to acquire the knowledge necessary to make the crucial decisions, seek a savior or saviors in the personage of a strong man or group of strong men who are perceived as all-knowing or endowed with wisdom not deposited on the huddled and ignorant “rabble” (as Mr. Shearer stated). In other words, “please Mr. Strongman, form a junta to save us.”

This brings us to Mr. Peck’s petition. Conceived in ignorance of the facts and dedicated to the proposition that only the Executive Committee possesses the wisdom to deal with the Nevada IAP violations, it calls on them to seize National Committee power, consolidate it in their own hands and disaffiliate anyone who continues to protest. More discerning National Committee members passed on this “opportunity.”


Remember the quiz question earlier? The answer is that the process is called the Hegelian dialectic. It is a rhetorical tool that is used to cause those who are holding onto principle weakly to loose their grip completely in order to “dialogue a consensus” and to ostracize those who hold more tightly. The goal of the facilitator is to maneuver those who stand principle to either come into “consensus” with the synthesis or leave the group. The synthetic consensus position is always incompatible with a principled stand and always uses threat of withdrawal of human relationship as the “club” to force compliance with compromise.

Mr. Peck demonstrates that he has fallen prey to the dialectical distraction of Mr. Shearer by proposing that the party “…[a]llow a degree of non conformity of thought while we let state parties manage their own internal affairs…” In other words, allow Nevada IAP to damage the party as a whole by violating the abortion plank, because the party constitution demands it. As you remember, we dispensed with this States’ Rights distraction earlier. This is an excellent statement of the proposed synthesis from the thesis and antithesis laid out in the quiz question earlier. Mr. Peck heads one of the sections of his letter “Shame On Us!” Shame on us indeed if we are swayed by this caliber of argumentation!

To his credit Mr. Peck demonstrates that although he is ignorant of the facts he is, nonetheless a discerning thinker, and has a firm grasp on what the terrible effect of accepting the synthesis will be. He says in the remainder of the clause quoted above “…unless or until the state party as a whole begins to publicly oppose and subvert our national party’s platform and cause (emphasis added).” As we have demonstrated, this is exactly what the Nevada IAP has done. Will Mr. Peck be honest and support a motion to discipline the Nevada IAP? Time will tell.


Earlier we stated that Mr. Shearer’s letter contained poorly hidden illusionist tricks. He demonstrates his true agenda in purporting to “expose” Cal Zastrow’s fictional one. Mr. Shearer wants to make it virtually impossible for a disaffiliation resolution to be brought ever again. He has already proposed to the Executive Committee a resolution that would set the bar so high for a disaffiliation resolution as to make it virtually impossible to achieve, and give a de facto veto power to the state party under scrutiny. This is a blueprint for disaster and will eventually result in party anarchy by scenarios described earlier.

As we all know, anarchy always leads to totalitarianism and tyranny. Mr. Shearer refers to the breakup of several of the old AIP National Committees. What he fails to reveal are the reasons for those breakups. He knows full well that unrestricted States’ Rights allowed Nazi’s, Klan’ers and other undesirables to gain control of individual parties and no one at national level could stop them. This killed at least one of those AIP National Committees that we are aware of. Note that, unlike Mr. Shearer, we are emphatically NOT accusing him of being a Nazi or a Klan’er. We are accusing him of being someone incapable of learning from the past.

Once word is out that the Constitution Party has adopted a “loose construction” approach to its platform resolutions, constitution and bylaws, there will be elements that will seize control of weak state parties or form new ones in unrepresented states with ulterior motives. National will he completely helpless to stop it. This will be the end of the Constitution Party, as currently constituted, as it has been the end of the old American Independent and American parties. Only “big tent” pragmatism, like the Libertarian Party now practices, could save it at that point, and that means the surrender of principle.


Mr. Shearer wants you to accede to the idea that the chairman ought to have the unrestricted right to fill all Executive Committee vacancies and builds a beautiful straw man in the form of claiming that Cal Zastrow tried to “dictate” an appointment to our own Midwestern regional co-chair slot then knocks it down claiming that he tried to “usurp the chairman’s function” to no avail. But, as with most of Mr. Shearer’s yarns the light of truth makes the lie burn to dust.

In fact what occurred was that after the resignation of our former co-chair, who also was in violation of the party platform and resolution requirements and was removed from the National Committee by her state party, the Midwestern states caucused to elect someone for nomination to the chair for appointment. While we are fully aware here in the Midwest that the chair fills midterm regional chair and co-chair vacancies (though no one can explain why it is not done by election), we complied with the clear intent of the bylaws, since in fact the regional chairs and co-chairs are chosen for their full terms by election of the member state National Committee delegations (bylaws article II, § 2.4.A).

The Midwestern Regional caucus nominated our choice for the replacement, Randy Hamby of Wisconsin. In an act designed to show the Midwest “who was boss,” the chair ignored our choice and instead appointed Scott Bartlett of South Dakota who was not even on the list of those we considered but had the distinct advantage of being a political ally of Mr. Shearer’s and so now sits on the national Executive Committee.

So what about the will of the Midwestern region delegates? According to article III of the bylaws the Executive Committee members are subordinate to the National Committee and their activities subject to National Committee oversight and review. Mr. Shearer and other members of the Executive Committee either don’t know that or hope that you don’t. We will state with an assurance approaching metaphysical certitude that the latter possibility is the true choice in light of the way this party’s National Committee has been manipulated in the past.


Mr. Shearer then raises the distraction of Cal Zastrow’s personal ambition to run the party. Ignoring the illusionist’s trickery we see that the real bone of contention is about who really runs the party. Is it a hand picked clique of friends and cronies of one of the sharpest teams of Hegelian dialectic facilitators we have seen who hold appointments to the Executive Committee, or is it the duly elected state representatives of the National Committee? The Constitution of the party and bylaws are clear. It is also clear what Mr. Shearer believes, and this is where the conflict arises.

In his defense of Nevada IAP he makes it clear that it doesn’t really matter if Nevada IAP violated the party’s platform and resolutions. According to Mr. Shearer, Both the Nevada IAP and California AIP have a “get out of jail free” card. It is the fact that these two parties were there for the founding of the US Taxpayers Party. This, you see, confers a special status complete with permanent seats on the Executive Committee and special dispensation to stray well beyond the bounds of the party platform, resolutions, constitution and bylaws with impunity. Further, it makes state party organizations that complain a target for innuendo, insult and vicious attack as a “voice for strife instead of ‘unity'” from the Executive Committee.

Mr. Shearer waxes eloquent on this point in his letter with a builder’s analogy. There is much back and forth about “A” and “B” sharing in the burdens and finances of building the house together. In the end “A” tells “B” that he is “not pure enough” to live in the house anymore. Of course, the whole scenario is false by weak analogy, like much of Mr. Shearer’s work.

We present for your analysis a much better analogy. “A” and “B” form a partnership in order to build a building for their mutual benefit, profit and enjoyment and as a shelter for the oppressed. They mutually agree to abide by standards of construction and management of the building and agree that there will be a board of directors that consists of all members and they draw up a set of standards. As time goes on they actively recruit other members to their partnership touting their standards, which all agree are some of the highest in the land.

Little by little “B” begins to lose its commitment to the standards and unilaterally decides to cut corners in its part of the building, and in some cases deliberately destroys vital support structures that begin to damage the building as a whole. Some of the later joining partners begin to insist that “B” maintain the standards set for them all. But “A” steps in and insists that “B” be given the freedom to destroy the building as it sees fit, since it was, after all, a founding partner. “A” and “B” then begin to use structures they built into the standards to protect the partners from interfering with each others local work responsibilities, begin to twist those rules to protect “B” from inquiry into its destructive behavior by the newer partners. Some of the newer partners seeing that that this will leave them with a useless and crumbling shelter begin to warn the others, but some cannot grasp it due to their being swayed by the credentials of the original partners and their belief that they wouldn’t abandon their original principles.

“A” and “B” then begin to appoint compliant partners to a special committee which begins to accumulate power and authority, isolating the more observant newer partners and lowering the standards, though only for members of the special committee. Eventually, the observant newer partners begin to pull out and the remaining partners are left with a rapidly crumbling building and the nagging “what happened” question echoing in their conversations. We will grant that this is a very different analogy but assert that it is a far more accurate one.


Howard Phillips proposed this thesis as a founding principle of the Constitution Party.

Once a principle is conceded the question is not whether defeat will be experienced but rather when and to what extent…stay off the slippery slope. Once you surrender a principle it is only a matter of time before you slide to the bottom.[4]

William Shearer proposed this antithesis as a governing principle of the party

…California’s American Independent Party would never have joined the Constitution Party in the absence of the protective language which was place in the national party’s Constitution. Dr. Baldwin wasn’t in New Orleans at the 1992 convention when the national party was formed. Neither were most of the come-lately extremists who are now trying to throw the Nevada IAP party out. The Nevada IAP party was in New Orleans, however, and the IAP has an absolute right to rely on the solemn commitments made by the national party to induce State parties to join the national party (emphasis added).

In other words, the California American Independent Party (AIP) and the Nevada IAP have special privileges that the Illinois, Ohio and other state CP’s do not. The synthesis was stated by Orwell in Animal Farm and repeated at the beginning of this letter and again here- “All animals are equal except the pigs. Pigs are more equal than the other animals (emphasis mine) George Orwell, Animal Farm


Attached you will find a letter received from Chairman Clymer, marked “C,” in reply to our letter mentioned above, marked “B.” In it you will find ample evidence that the pigs are, indeed more equal than the other animals, that the dialectic is at work in the upper echelons of our party, and that there are even more illusionists tricks are in use.

In addressing our inquiry into the status of Mr. Shearer’s resignation from the Executive Committee the chairman states incorrectly that Mr. Shearer is entitled to his seat on that body and may resign from it and retract his resignation at will.

Article V of the party bylaws state that

“The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall govern the Constitution Party in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with the Constitution and these Bylaws and any special rules of order the National Committee may adopt.”

Robert’s Rules, § 49 under the heading Appointment of Committees, states that

“The resignation of a member of a committee should be addressed to the appointing power, and it is the responsibility of that power to fill the resulting vacancy (emphasis added).”[5]

The appointing power is the National Committee and Mr. Shearer offered his resignation to that committee. It was accepted tacitly, since no motion to refuse it was offered. Therefore, Mr. Shearer cannot be a member of the Executive Committee until and unless the National Committee reappoints him. Yet, he now holds his resigned position on the Executive Committee. Why?

Presumably, Chairman Clymer, an attorney, knows the ins-and-outs of the party constitution and bylaws and is familiar with Robert’s Rules. Mr. Shearer has been allowed to repeatedly publicly submit resignations when things don’t go his way in Conventions and National Committee meetings for effect, only to privately rescind them later when no one but his political allies are looking. Under the close scrutiny of a National Committee oversight inquiry, you can expect a hyper-technical illusionists’ distraction from Chairman Clymer regarding why this has been permitted time after time and in violation of the principles of good organizational governance.

Chairman Clymer defends his actions in not consulting all members of the Executive Committee before meeting with the Nevada IAP membership by stating that it is not his normal practice to report on the day-to-day operation of the party. Of course, the Chairman must have some discretionary power in order to perform routine and party building functions. What is clear however is that the meeting with the Nevada IAP leadership was not a simple and routine “show the flag” meeting, but a disciplinary meeting. This meeting should have been an attempt by the chair to achieve the Nevada IAP’s compliance with the will of the National Committee and the party platform and resolutions as stated in the Columbus resolution. The Executive Committee is deeply split on this question. The bulk of that committee wants to abandon principle in favor of personal relationship with the Nevada IAP leadership. They want to bypass the National Committee, in violation of the Constitution and bylaws (constitution Article IV, bylaws article II, § 2.1), as we have already demonstrated.

The Chairman, as the chief executive officer of the Constitution Party, has a duty to consult with representatives of both sides of this issue to develop a clear outline for gauging the success or failure of the attempt, before engaging in a meeting of such grave importance to this body. But Chairman Clymer did not. We cannot say with certainty, since the documents we have requested have been denied us, but we have it on the best authority that Chairman Clymer presented a document requiring compliance with the platform and bylaws to Nevada IAP Chairman Hansen. Hansen adhered to the principle that the unborn victims of rape and incest are “robbers and invaders,” and refused to commit the Nevada IAP to the Constitution Party platform position. This can only be characterized as a failed effort to bring the Nevada IAP into compliance with the platform. This should be the end of the story. But it isn’t.

Instead, Chairman Clymer falls back on the already discredited States’ Rights illusion in questioning whether or not the National Committee should use its authority to disaffiliate. In doing so he falsely frames the question regarding why the Nevada IAP would be disaffiliated. He said it would be because “…of its internal choice of leadership.” This is patently false. The issue is emphatically NOT about the Nevada IAP leadership personally. We couldn’t care less who runs any party other than our own. We only care that the leadership of those parties remain in compliance with the mutually agreed on platform, resolutions, constitution and bylaws of the national party on critical issues.

The real reason for the push for disaffiliation is the Nevada IAP’s lack of compliance with the most important plank of the party’s platform. The platform that guarantees that state parties will only run candidates for office that are 100% pro-life with no exceptions. The platform that guarantees that as a party we are serious about protecting all of the constitutional rights of every American, including unborn citizens. If the Constitution Party can’t get it right on the keystone issue of the sanctity of all innocent human life then we won’t get anything else right. This is the real question. The rest is a distraction.


Chairman Clymer claims that he will insist on adherence to the pro-life plank and that the party’s platform remains intact and in operation. In the next paragraph he insinuates that the party is “…being fractionalized over fine points such that we are totally marginalized and ineffective…” He also implies that the Nevada IAP’s position is only “marginally different” than the rest of the party’s. Belief that the Constitution guarantees the rights of all citizens, including the innocent unborn is a fine point? Belief that their mothers in “self-defense” can kill the innocent unborn victims of rape and incest because they are “robbers” and “invaders” is only a “marginally” different perspective?

Chairman Clymer claims to be looking for “middle ground” on this issue. There is no “middle ground” on this issue, as Howard Phillips has on more than one occasion asserted. One either condones the execution of the innocent unborn or he opposes it.

In a stunning statement of dialectical synthesis the Chairman states that we can adhere to principle while simultaneously surrendering the principle in order to attract those with different views. He says this will “…allow us to become an effective force in the American political scene.” This is, of course, classic Orwellian doublespeak. Peace is war. Love is hate. Protection of life is murder. It will make us a laughing stock, not an effective political force.


Chairman Clymer returned from his meeting with Nevada IAP officials with the conviction that it didn’t really matter if the Nevada IAP complied or pledged to comply with the platform and resolutions of the Party at all. What really matters that they are “true patriots, committed to the cause of liberty and, in general, the principles of the Constitution Party (emphasis added).” In other words patriotism coupled with lip service to party doctrine trumps actual adherence to principle and the stated rules of the party, if the patriotism is deeply held enough.

Need we point out that it is patriotism in the absence of guiding principle that finds the United States embroiled in an illegal and undeclared war? Do we really need to remind the party that the attacks on September 11, 2001 and the subsequent fraudulent war in Iraq have been used as excuses to strip the constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens, with the administration calling principled opponents of the war “unpatriotic?” And need we point out that the “principle over politics” wing of the party is similarly being accused of being “divisive” for demanding adherence to principle? Do we really need to draw the parallels in the attitudes of our current government and the Nevada IAP in denying the 5th amendment rights of individuals, specifically the unborn? Do we really need to point out that what is happening is that the Nevada IAP is demanding that the Constitution Party as a whole not only accept but condone the running of candidates for federal office who insist that stripping an individuals’ God-given rights is a matter of personal choice? It is a sad day in the Constitution Party if we must.


The truth is that this entire mess would not be happening if it were Ohio or Maryland or Mississippi or Illinois or Kentucky or any of the many other “second-class status” parties who were flouting the rules. We would have been disaffiliated in December of 2004. If the past is any indication, it would have been done in a way that violates the constitution and bylaws of the party, probably by vote of the Executive Committee. Upon inquiry this would be followed by a hyper-technical argument explaining that the expelled party had “never having been officially an affiliate” despite having voted in National Committee meetings. Instead, we are dealing with a charade. Party leaders wear a mask of impartiality while practicing the grossest forms of cronyism. Those who point out that the emperor has no clothes are attacked as divisive, threatened with sanctions and are denied information needed to prepare for informed debate on the issues and to show violations of party rules.

How long will the party continue to be held hostage by specially privileged affiliates who make our claims of “principle over politics” a target of derisive laughter and a mockery of our party platform? How long will we stand by while party leadership concocts dialectical arguments to defend favored parties and expels parties that do not meet their religious requirements? Will we continue to allow the Executive Committee to centralize power and make the National Committee into a ceremonial “rubber stamp” body, expecting deep pockets which can be picked for one hundred hard earned dollars a year and $125-$150 twice a year in meeting fees for the privilege?

Mr. Shearer has proposed bylaws revisions that essentially strip the National Committee of the ability to discipline parties who willfully violate the party’s foundational principles. The Tampa meeting is probably the last chance for the National Committee to reassert its authority over the business of the party before it begins its new life as a personal fiefdom of hand picked political heirs. Unfortunately, those hand picked heirs do not include men of principle and honor like Michael Peroutka and Scott Whiteman and a few other holdouts who are now isolated or have remained silent on the Executive Committee. With the ability to see past the illusionists distractions we have outlined here you can make your own determination about who they are.

If you care about this party be in Tampa in April.

Charles Michaelis


James Burkhamer


Barry Sheets


Bruce Purdy


Dr. Patrick Johnston


Nathan Radcliffe

At Large

Joe Rogers


[1] Phillips, Howard, How to Implement Christianity Into Politics,, approximately 2:30 [2] Phillips, Howard, Sovereignty and Accountability,, approximately 52:45 [3] Proverbs 18:17 Holy Bible New King James Version [4] Phillips, Howard, Current Issues From a Christian Constitutional Perspective,, approximately 12:35 [5] Robert, Henry M., III et al., Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 10th Ed., Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing, 2000, 480

Series NavigationLetter to National Executive Committee from the Ohio Executive Committee- A short history of the Nevada Independent American Party (IAP) situation