Phil Hudok Running as Constitution Party Candidate for U.S. Senate from West Virginia

By Krzysztof Lesiak

Originally published on IPR on July 3, 2013

Phil Hudok

Since early 2013, Phil Hudok has been running as the Constitution Party candidate for U.S. Senate in West Virginia for 2014. Hudok, a former public school teacher, was the Constitution Party’s write-in candidate for Governor of West Virginia in a 2011 special election (received 76 votes, or 0.03%) and again in 2012 (received 72 votes, or 0.01%). A Randolph County resident, Hudok is currently a state officer in the West Virginia CP, serving as a trustee and director of the Potomac Highlands Council.

Hudok, 62, has four daughters with his wife, Lynn. His youngest daughter, Olivia, was a senior at Pickens School, West Virginia’s smallest public school serving only 44 students from kindergarten through the twelfth grade. However, she received homebound instruction due to the fact that she refused to take newly mandated vaccine shots. Public health officials claimed that allowing Olivia Hudok into the classroom without her receiving the mandatory immunizations would put other children at risk. Hudok, one of only three seniors at the school and the class valedictorian, was permitted to attend commencement ceremonies and graduate in May.

Hudok, a life-long West Virginian, holds a BA degree in Physics and General Science from West Liberty State College and a Master’s Degree in Educational Computing from the University of Charleston. Hudok operates a small photography and video business and also serves as webmaster and media producer for Call to Decision Ministries, a non-denominational Christian ministry that conducts outreach efforts across the nation and has produced over 500 hour-long Bible studies.

In August 2008, Hudok, along with 2008 CP gubernatorial candidate Butch Paugh and another individual became the fist holder of a non-biometric West Virginia driver’s license.  This was achieved after eight years of petitioning and refusing to provide biometric facial images for the state database used for identifying criminals and other purposes. However, the successive governor elected in October 2011, Earl Ray Tomblin, rescinded the agreement that allowed Hudok and the two others to posses non-biometric driver’s licenses.

The Constitution Party candidate’s platform centers on his Christian religious beliefs and his belief in adhering to the Constitution. Hudok emphasizes the importance of a “God-ordained” family as the “cornerstone upon which society is built” and restoring what he says is the nation explicitly Christian heritage. He believes that three questions must be asked before any level of government exercises authority: 1)  Is the service that the proposed authority would exercise, truly necessary? 2)  Is the governmental structure in question prohibited by either God or by constitutional statute from assuming such authority? 3) Is the family or another more localized level of government capable of successfully administering the service? 4) Is the governmental body even capable of providing the service?

Hudok has written a mission statement that he has posted to his campaign website:

I credit Jesus and the Call To Decision fellowship for the spiritual foundation, my parents for a good solid upbringing, my family for support, and the founders of this country for the opportunity, for any success I have had or will ever have in the future.

I am presently the 2014 Constitution Party candidate for U.S. Senator.  I plan to bring to the public the constitutional issues that have been ignored and trampled.  Our form of government is designed for and will only work within the realm of our Christian heritage and beliefs. That message must be made clear with no compromise. If the Lord is not the foundation, the house will fall. Duty is ours and results are the Lord’s. Both major parties have participated in the degradation of our once proud and worthy country.  It is time for everyone to make soul searched decisions.  I have made mine.  Have you made yours?

I serve God, family, and country in that order.  The New World Order is an anathema to everything I believe in.  That is what motivates me to pursue political office.

Currently, Hudok has a campaign website as well as a YouTube channel. He does not seem to posses a Facebook page or personal profile.

Interview: CP Vice-Chairman Randy Stufflebeam Talks About CP Baltimore Meeting, CCTUC and More

Published on IPR on April 27, 2013. More third party politics. Stay tuned, original political commentary from me will be coming soon!

Randy Stufflebeam is currently the National Vice-Chairman of the Constitution Party, a position he’s held since April 2012. He resides in southern Illinois. He was the CP candidate for Illinois Governor in 2006, in which he received 19,020 votes (0.55%). This is the largest write-in vote total in Illinois history. He is also the vice chairman of the Constitution Party of Illinois and is a former Marine.

Krzysztof Lesiak
Going into the April 20th national committee meeting in Baltimore, how did you feel? Where you optimistic that it would be a successful meeting?



Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam
That’s an interesting question. Interesting in that I am almost always a glass half full kind of person. Did I feel that the meeting was going to be successful, that depends on what you mean by successful. Frank Fluckiger, the National Chairman is a details oriented kind of person and I had every confidence that the objectives/agenda that he set for the meeting would be achieved, and pretty much by the clock that is set. In that regard I had no doubt about the meeting being successful.

The number one thing we have to do within the Constitution Party across the nation is raise money. This is an area where my optimism hasn’t been so high. HOWEVER, I am much encouraged in our prospects as we have what I perceive to be tremendous leadership in raising money through Peter Gemma. Peter was involved in the Ron Paul endeavors and has helped the Republican Party raise a lot of money in the past and he is now fully on board with the Constitution Party. He has presented some short term and long term goals that once implemented, I believe, will put the Party on the path of financial recovery.

Overall, I would have to say that the meeting was very successful, not so much in terms as to what was specifically accomplished at the meeting, but in terms of getting the party to begin heading in the right direction and get us on a solid financial foundation to put us in the condition of winning elections throughout this nation.


Krzysztof Lesiak
Ok. Now according to an article I wrote for IPR, 3 major events transpired. The first of which, was the disbanding of Young Constitutionalists. Why do you think YC was not successful? Also, when Joshua Fauver arrived for Saturday’s meeting, he claimed he wasn’t informed about the votes on the matters that took place before he first walked in, until some time later- why wasn’t he informed at all, do you suppose?



Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam
Before going into the separate issues of the Young Constitutionalists and the Clarion Call to Unite Committee let me specifically address Mr. Fauver’s position of not being informed of the votes concerning these matters of which he has an interest.

Both of the resolutions that dealt with these matters were first dealt with by the Executive Committee on Friday night and were passed without dissent. HOWEVER, all resolutions that are passed by the executive committee MUST BE presented to the National Committee and voted on before they can be considered passed by the party. Both resolutions were presented to the National Committee and they were both passed without dissent.

While the titles of the specific resolutions that were to be considered by the National Committee were not listed on the agenda, the agenda had specific time for dealing with resolutions and I believe that time was listed on the agenda as being Saturday, @ 8:45am. It is my understanding that Mr. Fauver decided to sleep in during the time of discussion for any resolutions that might be presented to National Committee. Mr. Fauver was registered for the National Committee meeting and had paid his registration, however, he did not pay the State Committeeman dues and was not listed by the state of Louisiana as an official committeeman/representative of his state and therefore did not have any voting rights at the committee meeting. Still, I have been assured that had Mr. Fauver been present, he would have been afforded the opportunity to speak on behalf of either resolution.

Had I even had the time to recognize Mr. Fauver’s absence that morning, I might have thought he lost interest in the meeting and was possibly already on a flight home. Be that as it may, I was running the sound system for the meeting and had no time to take specific notice as to whether or not Mr. Fauver was present and informed of information that he has a specific interest in. As far as I knew, he was there.

Let me state unequivocally that there was NO DEVIOUS attempt to withhold information from Mr. Fauver. The fact that Mr. Fauver was absent from probably the most important part of the meeting (which was on the agenda, the resolutions report @ 8:45) of which he was registered (and paid good money), means that the majority of the responsibility rests on his shoulders, not mine, nor the chairman’s responsibility to ensure he is where he should be when he has an interest in what is taking place at the meeting.

YOUNG CONSTITUTIONALISTS

In the issue of the “Young Constitutionalists” the language of disbandment is inaccurate.

According the motion that was made during the fall, 2012 National Committee Meeting that was held in St. Louis, there was a condition that organizational bylaws for the Young Constitutionalists would be presented to the next national committee meeting which meet on April 20. The Young Constitutionalist leadership failed to meet this obligation and therefore made the resolution that was made in the fall “null & void.”

The National Committee passed a resolution (without dissent) on Saturday morning which stated:

“In as much as the bylaws and documents were not submitted as a condition of the original resolution to reestablish the Young Constitutionalist, as an official arm of the Constitution Party, the resolution is null and void.”

I will accept the blame for the Young Constitutionalists not having been successful. I admit that because my attention has been directed towards other endeavors within the party, both nationally and within my own state that I did not give the Young Constitutionalists the attention that it deserved. I will correct that deficiency.

The bottom line was that the Young Constitutionalists were responsible for not fulfilling its obligations and the national party was simply holding the Young Constitutionalists accountable which was supposed to be the official arm of the party.

That’s not to say that this can’t be done at the fall meeting of the National Committee, but it will be an entirely new effort to reestablish the Young Constitutionalists and with the water that has been under the bridge on this past effort, we’ll definitely be prepared with documentation prior to the meeting.

NOW, I can personally say that Mr. Fauver was completely aware of what was happening with the Young Constitutionalists as I personally talked with him Friday night about it.

CLARION CALL TO UNITE COMMITTEE

In the issue of the Clarion Call to Unite Committee (CCUC) I don’t think that I need to rehash the issue dealing with Mr. Fauver’s lack of being informed about the resolution that was passed.

I will say that I was present for both the Executive Committee discussion and the National Committee discussion and never once was Mr. Fauver’s name brought up as him being there as an official representative of the CCUC. As I stated above, I personally discussed the situation with the Young Constitutionalists on Friday night following the executive committee to let him know that the issue of the Young Constitutionalists will be brought before the National Committee meeting in the morning (Saturday). Never once did it enter my mind that Mr. Fauver was there as an official representative of the CCUC, otherwise I would have let him know about the resolution about the CCUC at the same time I talked with him about the Young Constitutionalists.

Before I provide the specific resolution that was passed by the National Committee, I have heard nothing but positive statements about and respect for the Chairman of CCUC, Cody Quirk and Vice-Chairman Joshua Fauver.

In both of the discussions (the Executive and National Committee) regarding the CCUC issue, never once was there a deriding comment made about either of these gentle, neither do I believe that during the discussions their names were even brought up; the discussions revolved, almost exclusively, around the advantages and disadvantages of affiliating with the other organizations.

The resolution that was passed concerning the Clarion Call to United Committee states:

“The National Committee is taking a position that it is not in our best interest to become involved with the Clarion Call to Unite Committee or affiliate with this organization.”

There are two extremely notable “cons” in dealing with this particular issue:

1) The Clarion Call to Unite Committee is proposing that the Constitution Party dissolve its organization (as well as all the others) so as to create a completely new organization, where a new platform and bylaws would be drawn up and new leadership elections would take place.

2) Two of the organizations were involved in a major rift where they had issues with the official Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominee of the party that was elected and decided to support one of their own. To my knowledge, neither party’s leadership has ever made an attempt at reconciliation.

There is an example of another state party affiliate deciding to support a presidential candidate of its own. They disaffiliated to do so. They have since made reconciliation and have been brought back into the party as an official affiliate. There’s no reason why either of the two that disaffiliated shouldn’t have sought reconciliation with the Constitution Party. Instead, they are more than happy to see the Constitution Party dissolved and then merge together to elect new leadership. This seems more like a hostile takeover than a longing to reconcile the differences and merge with the Constitution Party so that together we can be stronger and start winning elections.

AGAIN, the Constitution Party has extended NO ILL WILL towards anyone associated with the Young Constitutionalists nor the Clarion Call to United Committee. I expect to see great things come from these young men. I know that Joshua Fauver has announced his run for office and I will do all that I can to help and support him in his endeavor.

It is my opinion that the Constitution Party leadership has acted correctly in both issues. The Constitution Party stands ready to unite with ALL fellow Constitutionalists. HOWEVER, we do not see dissolving the organization for political expediency to be the best idea. As I have said on numerous occasions, “I believe the Constitution Party is the last great political hope for these United States of America!” Yes, I know we have issues! Yes, I know we need money! Yes, I know with more people in the party we would be stronger! Yes, I know that it is an uphill battle in cliff proportions! BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT THE CONSTITUTION PARTY HAS THE FOUNDATION AND THE PLATFORM AND THE LEAERSHIP TO START WINNING BATTLES AND GETTING CANDIDATES ELECTED.


Krzysztof Lesiak
Do you think that, if more members of the Constitution Party were present at the National Committee meeting in Baltimore, Md, the votes on the matters relating to Joshua, the YC organization, and the CCTUC would have still been unanimous?


Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam
Regarding the Young Constitutionalists… NO. That was mine and Joshua’s fault.

Regarding the CCUC… Who knows? Especially if there had been members not only registered, but paid committeeman dues. If he would have been there as a committeemen, I would expect that it would not have been unanimous.

By the way, I would not use the word “unanimous”. Both resolutions were passed “Without Dissent” no roll call vote was taken and therefore unanimity can not be established. There might have been someone who abstained from voting and if there was an abstention, it would not have been unanimous. Does that make sense?


Krzysztof Lesiak
Ok. this is my last question on CCTUC. The 4 points of it are that the party that’s joining must be pro-life, favor constitutional government, support non-interventionist foreign policy and withdrawal from the UN, and support for tariffs and American jobs from outsourcing and foreign competition. Did CP members at the meeting know of these 4 planks of the CCTUC, and in your opinion does it really matter?


Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam
This is a simple question to answer.

1) Those points are a matter of fact in the Constitution Party’s platform.

2) While those (and others) criteria would absolutely have to be met to affiliate with the Constitution Party, they were not at issue. What was at issue is two things, primarily:

A) The past actions of a couple of the other organizations and the destructive affect that they had on the Constitution Party.

Dissolving the Constitution Party’s leadership and platform is NOT in the best interest of the Constitution Party (neither do I believe it to be in the best interest of our country, because of affect),


Krzysztof Lesiak
I forgot about this one: least one person alleged on IPR that Quirk’s and Fauver’s association with the Robby Wells 2016 campaign was the primary reason for the rejection of what they were advocating for. Do these statements bear any credence?



Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam
I do believe that Robby Wells was mentioned as supporting the CCUC during the Executive Committee meeting discussion, I do NOT think it was mentioned during the National Committee meeting.

And while I’m certain that was a factor, I don’t believe it was the main factor.


Krzysztof Lesiak
Ok. Darrell Castle announced at the meeting that he’s exploring running for the CP presidential nomination in 2016. If you feel comfortable, what’s your opinion on this? Also, what are your plans for the CP’s future – and what is your outlook on how the CP will be carrying on, including growth, candidate recruitment, youth, etc?



Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam
I THINK IT’S GREAT ! ! ! If I had my way, I’d have at least 4 candidates officially announcing their candidacy for the Constitution Party’s Presidential Nomination.

That’s why I held the only Constitution Party Presidential Debates by conference call.

Plans for the future?

Current plans are to focus on state and local races. I am working to recruit a full sleight of state-wide candidates here in Illinois, I already have a Gubernatorial and an Attorney General Candidate.

Nationally? I’m looking to recruit more presidential candidates. It will generate more interest in the party.

I believe within the next year GROWTH WILL BE PHENOMINAL!! Given the complete dissatisfaction of the two major parties and the defection that we are already beginning to see.

Youth? ABSOLUTELY. I will be working on those “Young Constitutionalist” bylaws.

As the song says, “The future’s so bright, I’ve got to wear shades!”


Krzysztof Lesiak
Oh, BTW.. do you think Robby Wells will seek the CP nod in 2016? He’s currently an independent



Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam
Let me be clear about something.

I am the National Vice-Chairman. It is my job to gain ballot access for our party and our candidates. IT IS NOT TO SUPPORT ANY PARTICULAR CANDIDATE AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL. It would be a conflict of interest to do so. My job is to make it as fair as possible for every candidate seeking our nomination. That’s why I held the debates last year that I did.



Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam
Robby Wells seeking the CP nomination?

I think he should and the longer he waits the harder it will be for him to get the nomination, especially considering there are other people already talking about it.


Krzysztof Lesiak
Do you know or feel comfortable disclosing the other people?


Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam
In terms of “real” candidates, currently, Darrell Castle is the only one exploring the possibility. There always someone nobody knows who wants to put their name in the hat as well.

But that doesn’t mean some “big name” candidate won’t come seeking our nomination within the next couple of years.


Krzysztof Lesiak
Randy, thanks so much for your time!! I REALLY appreciate it. Is there anything you think we missed that you would like to add?


Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam
I think that’s good for now. I look forward to seeing your “report.”

It’ll be fun to see what the response will be.

IPR Interview: Joshua Fauver Talks About Constitution Party National Committee Meeting in Baltimore

Originally published on IPR on April 24th. 

Joshua Fauver is a Constitution Party activist from Louisiana. He is the Vice-Chairman of the Clarion Call to Unite Committee (CCTUC). He is also the Southeast Regional Coordinator for Robby Wells’s 2016  presidential campaign. In March of this year, he announced his candidacy for the Louisiana House of Representatives in the 21st District in 2015. Here’s his Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JoshuaFauverforStateRep

 

• 
  
  
  

  Krzysztof Lesiak 
  

   
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  Alright. So, before we get into what transpired in Baltimore, could you tell us about your involvement with the CP, like how long you have been involved, what your positions are/were, and also a little bit about your 2015 campaign for Louisiana state representative?
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
   
  

  
  

   Joshua Fauver

  
  

  
  

  
  

   
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  Sure. I became involved in the Constitution Party officially in April of 2012. I had begun talking to them in March of that year an agreed to become more involved after the Louisiana Republican caucus as I was still interning for the Youth For Ron Paul Campaign. I actively campaigned on behalf of Virgil Goode after the caucus. I held the position of Chairman of the Young Constitutionalists very briefly and have recently announced my intentions to run for State Representative in Louisiana’s 21st district. Our current representative is a two term incumbent Democrat who has never been challenged outside of his own party so I feel really good about my chances.
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
   
  

  
  

  
  

  Krzysztof Lesiak 
  

   
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  Ok. So how did you feel going into Balitmore’s meeting on April 20th? What were your expecations?
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
   
  

  Joshua Fauver

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  I felt good going into the Baltimore meeting on April 20th. I had sat in the executive national committee meeting on the 19th, and nothing of any real dire concern was brought up. My expectations were that things would be normal. I had seen the agenda, we had received one when we registered for the meeting and I was expecting we would follow it and things would be relatively normal.
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
   
  

  
  

   Krzysztof Lesiak

  
  

  
  

  
  

   
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  How many people (estimate) were there at Saturday’s meeting? What states had the biggest representation, if you know this info? Was there general enthusiasm in the crowd, considering this was months after Virgil Goode’s surprising under-performance in the election?
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
   
  

  
  

   Joshua Fauver

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  I believe the estimate was something like 53 people. It was around 50. I honestly couldn’t tell you what state had the largest representation.I would say the enthusiasm was good. A lot of people were excited about what Jenifer Young has going on in her state and the progress she is making there.
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
   
  

  
  

  Krzysztof Lesiak

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  Is she Wyoming’s state chair?
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
   
  

  
  

  Joshua Fauver

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  I believe so. Yes.
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  Krzysztof Lesiak

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  Ok. So what was the first major thing to happen once the meeting was called into session? Was it the topic of Young Constitutionalists?
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
   
  

  
  

  Joshua Fauver

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  I couldn’t tell you that. I was about an hour late to the meeting on the 20th.
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
   
  

  
  

  Krzysztof Lesiak

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  Ok, so what was the topic being discussed at hand when you came in?
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  Joshua Fauver

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  Don Shrader was discussing party building when I came in.
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  Krzysztof Lesiak

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  Alright, according to my article, Young Constitutionalists was dissolved. It was supposed to be the youth arm of the CP per my understanding. You were its chairman. Why was it decided to be dissolved? Was there any opposition to this?
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  Joshua Fauver

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  I knew the topic was going to be discussed. Randy Stufflebeam had a discussion about it Friday night. There were stipulations in the resolution passed in St. Louis that we had not noticed to be totally honest. We failed to meet those stipulations. We knew we would most likely be dissolved on Saturday, but I don’t know if there was opposition to dissolving the organization. It must have been done during the first hour of the meeting, during my absence. No one provided me with any details on the matter after it happened.
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
   
  

  
  

  Krzysztof Lesiak

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  So what were some of those stipulations? And what was your reaction to finding about this dissolution happening before you arrived at the meeting?
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
   
  

  
  

  Joshua Fauver

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  Well, like I said, Randy and I talked about it Friday night. I knew it was going to happen, I wish I had been there for it, but I knew it was going to happen. Some of the stipulations were having by laws and such drawn up by the Spring meeting. Something both Randy and I failed to get done.
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  Krzysztof Lesiak

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  So there were never any Young Constitutionalist college chapters being discussed ( I assume this would be part of the organization’s goal)?
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
   
  

  
  

  Joshua Fauver

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  We were certainly discussing them. I was contacted by several college aged students who were interested in starting a chapter on their campuses. Problems with prioritizing time arose for me when I became involved with Free and Equal and I know Randy was running an exploratory committee for a Senate campaign, and had the day to day responsibilities of being the vice chairman of the party. I’m aware it isn’t a great excuse, but the bylaws just didn’t happen.
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  Krzysztof Lesiak

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  Ok. Now to the huge issue, the Clarion Call to Unite Committee (CCTUC). Were you representing them? Why did the CP overwhelmingly pass a resolution saying that they won’t support or affiliate with the CCTUC and its efforts? Did this come as a surprise to you?
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  Joshua Fauver

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  You might say I was representing them. I wasn’t there to do that however. I went to represent Louisiana. I can’t tell you why the C.P voted on a resolution saying the will not support our efforts. I wasn’t there. This too was done during that one hour period when I was not present. It wasn’t on the agenda they had given us, nothing discussed alluded to the idea it would come up during the meeting on the 20th. In fact, I asked Mrs. Joan Castle if anything of any real importance would come up, she said not to her knowledge. In fact, I didn’t even discover that this resolution was voted on until this afternoon, which is shocking to me. Both Randy and Frank knew full well I supported this matter and didn’t even bother telling me after my arrival that it had been voted on.
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  
  

  Krzysztof Lesiak

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  At least one individual told me the CCTUC was rejected because Robby Wells, a 2016 independent presidential candidate, is involved with it. You and Cody Quirk are involved with Well’s efforts to a degree to, as is Constitution Party of VA co chair Aaron Lyles, who is Well’s co campaign manager and Virgil Goode’s second cousin. Apparently, the person I talked to believed Wells isn’t widely liked in the CP. Do you think that because of him CCTUC was not endorsed by the party?
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  Joshua Fauver

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  Being that no on from the party told me anything about the matter I don’t believe I can answer that question accurately. But perhaps the idea has merit, as long time party activist Darrel Castle did announce his interests in seeking the party’s nomination in 2016 on the same day the CCTUC chose not to endorse the efforts of the CCTUC. Though I can’t say that is the case, perhaps it is. I don’t know. Again, no one from the party informed me of the vote to begin with.
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  Joshua Fauver

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  The C.P chose not to endorse the efforts of the CCTUC I mean.
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  
  

  Krzysztof Lesiak

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  Do you think Wells will seek the CP nod in 2016? I believe he said he’s running independent now as part of the CCTUC efforts to bring in people and then come back into the CP. If he doesn’t, Castle will likely be the nominee. What’s your opinion of Castle representing the party as its presidential candidate?
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  Joshua Fauver

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  That will have to be a decision that is made closer to 2016. Right now Robby is concerned with getting his name out there and building a team and support across the country. As far as Mr. Castle goes, I don’t him well enough to make an informed opinion on him as the party’s candidate.
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
   
  

  
  

  Krzysztof Lesiak

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  What do you think overall of the CP’s meeting? Was it productive and successful? What does the CCTUC plan on doing now?
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  Joshua Fauver

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  Obviously my opinion of the meeting has changed as the report on the vote I was unaware of came in. I’m not happy at all with what transpired in Baltimore. I was totally blindsided when I found out about the resolution that was passed. I would hardly call their decision not to endorse our efforts a success. I think it will hinder the growth of the party. I believe we are going to continue our efforts at unifying the parties. I still believe it is necessary for our goal of restoring constitutionally limited government. We will continue with or without the Constitution Party’s blessing.
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  
  

  Krzysztof Lesiak

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  Anything that you think we missed, that you would like to add?
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  Joshua Fauver

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  No, I think that about covers it.
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  
  

  Krzysztof Lesiak

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
  Thanks for your time.
  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

IPR Exclusive: Follow-Up Interview with Cody Quirk, Nevada CP Activist Working to Unite All Constitutionalist And Right-Wing Parties

Originally published on IPR on March 30, 2013. 

Back in January 2013, IPR first interviewed Nevada Constitution Party activist Cody Quirk about his organization, the Clarion Call to Unite Committee (CCTUC).  From the website, (http://www.cctuc.com): “The Clarion Call To Unite Committee is a group made up of like-minded constitutionalists from various minor parties and political independents that likewise favor the restoration of our Constitutional Republic. The goal of this group, however, is to bring all Constitutionalist and Principled-Conservative political parties together in harmony and work towards the formation, and eventual creation, of a permanent and united national party that will be successful in its efforts to restore our original Constitutional Republic.”

• 
  
  Krzysztof Lesiak


• 
  
  
  

  
  
  IPR interviewed you back in January. (That interview is available here: http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/01/ipr-exclusive-interview-with-cody-quirk-nevada-cp-activist-seeking-to-unite-all-constitutionalist-parties/). Since then, what progress has been made with CCTUC and it’s goal to unite all constitutionalist and right wing minor parties under one banner?
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  Cody Quirk Since the start of our dialogue with the other constitutionalist parties out there, we have made tremendous progress! Besides the supportive individual members and leaders of the Constitution Party that back the CCTUC and the goal of uniting the parties, we have 5 other national & state parties that want to talk about unification, with a sixth one still undecided. Only one party rejected our efforts and appeals, and the leaders and members of two others were impossible to get a hold of, or never responded to any of our emails, or calls. Nevertheless, the first hurdle for us has largely been accomplished- therefore, we have already set up a private conference with the leaders, officers, and/or official representatives from each of these parties, including the Constitution Party, which will take place in two weeks from now. I must say that bringing all, or at least the majority, of these constitutionalist/principled-conservative parties together is largely possible here; you just have to work at it and be both diplomatic, yet persistent.
  
  

  
  


• 
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  Krzysztof Lesiak Can you tell us which parties said they are willing to collaborate and which party declined?
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
   Cody Quirk
  
  

  
  

  
  
   
  
   
  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  Krzysztof Lesiak Yes, the Reform Party of Kansas has a ballot line, which they gave to Chuck Baldwin in 2012, he received over 5,000 votes (more than he did in 2008 in the state). As for the America First Party, aren’t they basically a website only party? Also, what about America’s Party, Christian Liberty Party, or American Conservative Party -have you reached out to these small parties?
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  Cody Quirk Yes & No: I do not understand why the Kansas RfP had Chuck Baldwin on the ballot when he wasn’t running for president then, and there was Virgil Goode as the constitutionalist choice during that election (even though Gary Johnson did pick up a lot of constitutionalist votes). However one of the rumors I heard about the Kansas RfP was that the guy running it previously (Joseph Martin), has already moved out of the state- so we don’t fully know the situation that’s going on over there, yet its not the end of the world and hopefully the matter with the Kansas RfP will soon become moot. As for the AFP, I might have to agree with that statement; out of literally all the people in their party that we emailed, or called, only Mr. Hill, Mr. Hey, and one Mrs. Romelle Winters, responded to us. They also haven’t ran any state or local candidates since 2006, judging from their website -so indeed, you might be correct in that statement. I mentioned that there was one party still on the fence about the issue of merger and in attending our conference, so all I’ll say on America’s Party is ‘ditto’. And previously, I addressed that there were certain parties that we were not going to reach out to- because either they were too neoconservative (or too moderate), or even too radical/extremist, for our taste, and to include them in our efforts would have been a serious mistake- the American Conservative Party is indeed of the former, which is simply a wannabe Republican Party in their beliefs and in their platform, while the Christian Liberty Party is of the latter and prohibits certain Christians and non-Christians in membership, along with favoring the establishment of a theocratic style (and Calvinist-oriented) American government, rather then in restoring our Constitution Republic; so to try to talk to the CLP about merging with the parties that are part of our coalition we have now is out of the question, period.
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  Krzysztof Lesiak Are you planning on having physical talks with these leaders? Or conference calls?
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  Cody Quirk The one coming up in a few weeks is going to be both via phone & online- but again, it will be private, as, only the leaders, officers, and official representatives of each party are invited- so we basically set out invitations first to these people that we want, or expect to be at the conference. And the conference itself will be monitored as well- because of the sensitive nature of this meeting, we don’t want anything to go wrong or for anyone to cause problems there. And when this conference is concluded, the recordings of it will be publicly released soon afterwards. However, I am considering allowing one or two non-party members to join the conference, as both witnesses and honest participates that support the CCTUC and uniting the parties together.
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  Cody Quirk And whether we have a second or a third meeting, or conference, later on down the line also depends on how this upcoming one works out.
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  Krzysztof Lesiak Ok. Now what about the Constitution Party leadership? I assume they are away of your efforts and work with CCTUC. Are they behind this effort? Is the end goal of this effort to get these parties to merge with the CP?
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

   Cody Quirk
  
  

  
  

  
  
   Honestly, I first started this effort on my own- without any form of encouragement, or direction from the leaders of the CP whatsoever, yet it quickly grew- people flocked to it and later became officials with the CCTUC. Of course the Young Constitutionalist Chairman, Joshua Fauver, is helping me out and he has been a great help and certainly is a experienced patriot and has a heart of gold. A few other CP leaders, and even leaders of the National IAP support the CCTUC in principle… But then again, there are also other leaders of the CP that are a bit ‘clannish’ and highly skeptical in their mindset about reaching out to the other parties on the issue of merger, and still think that the CP is doing great and doesn’t need any improvement at all, when in fact it does, and certainly is still going through a rough time internally since the 2012 elections. We’re still trying to reach out to such people and to all leaders in the CP and make then understand that the nonexistent or petty differences, past animosity, and complete distrust of the other constitutionalist parties out there must come to an end! Obama got re-elected, our Second Amendment rights, and many other constitutional rights we once cherished are now in danger like no other time in our history- and with the GOP moving more to the Left then ever, the CP and the other ‘rival’ parties out there need to bury the hatchet on any feuds, or rivalries that may have been going on previously, and unite together as one national entity that would be stronger, more organized, and a thousand times more politically powerful then the CP, and any other constitutionalist party is by themselves. And I greatly fear that for any CP’er to reject this Clarion Call To Unite, that not only would they be hurting their own party, but would also be hurting the cause & goal to bring back constitutional government in our nation. Honestly, to reject such an incredible, political opportunity that has never been available before in modern American political history, yet is available now, would not only be selfish and petty, but outright simpleton- we cannot put party above principle here! We have a goal of restoring our Constitutional Republic, and to start making the major breakthroughs in state and even national elections that the CP is still currently struggling to reach that point since it first came into existence 20 years ago. With a unified constitutionalist party, however, not only will we reach that point, but we will put an end to the two-party system.
  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  Cody Quirk On the matter of merging the other parties into the CP- in a way, yes, but only if certain conditions are met and the merger is done in a way that is fair and considerate to all of the political parties, their leaders, and their members which would be involved in the merger itself
  
  

  
  


• Krzysztof Lesiak What do you envision the future to be, do you think you’ll be successful, how long will it take you think for unification? Also what are your plans with the Constitution Party, and more specifically the Nevada IAP?
  
  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  Cody Quirk I’m a firm believer of the saying that “God Helps Those That Help Themselves” -the future only looks bleak and damning if we do nothing to change it or even prepare for it. And unlike the current mindset that many CP’ers and constitutionalists do hold, we need to start looking at the glass being half-full instead of half-empty; I believe that if we’re simply more motivated and more driven to restore our constitutional government, then things will change for the better and we will become blessed due to our relentless, dedicated work. With the CCTUC, I believe this ‘work’ is going to indirectly get the ball rolling back in our, and the nation’s favor; if we can bring the parties together as one and form a unified constitutionalist party, then the political dominoes will soon start to fall and give us bigger opportunities that are yet to come. What we intend to create, I firmly believe, will began a political, and even a social effect similar to what the Republican Party had on the American landscape back in the late 1850′s- only with our goal being the restoration of our Republic and our Constitution instead of then abolitionism and modernism -we will gradually start to move mountains we never thought we could have moved before, and that lies on the individual patriot and the drive, or resolve that’s within him/her to not accept the status-quo and to do something about it, regardless of any disadvantages or obstacles that might be in his/her way. You see, the more you keeping pushing yourself, the more motivated you become- the more motivated you become, the more relentless you become- the more relentless you become… The more successful you will be afterwards. That’s how I am personally- I just cannot accept things the way they are, or the way they’re going to end up- and if I want to see that changed and no one else is going to do it, then I’ll get up and do the job myself, regardless of how difficult it is; I’m going to do something about it. I admit I’m a little surprised in how far we’re gotten on this, and while I don’t know what the outcome will be, yet if we still keep pushing hard and moving forward, no matter what, then we will certainly move one big mountain out of our way, and while it largely depends on how things go with such efforts, but no matter what, we are going to unite these parties, regardless; we’re not taking ‘no’ for an answer. The fate of constitutionalism, and our own nation, is in our own hands, even if we don’t realize it- we will decide that fate ourselves, it is up to us if our nation slips entirely into darkness, or if we work hard to bring it back into the light- we are only powerless in the bleak outcome if we simply do nothing, or do little. Yet if we work hard to unify the parties as one, then I imagine we can both start electing candidates into the state legislatures, even a few into congress, and maybe a governor or two. But we will also develop a tremendous influence on our own federal government where I believe that some of the goals and views in the CP national platform, and the platforms of the other parties, can actually be accomplished, through government reform and legislation at the state and federal level. I do firmly believe that with such a scenario becoming a reality for America -we will then be a firm redoubt against the socialistic & totalitarian tides that could sweep throughout the world as they’re starting to now. Those are my goals for the CP, even if it means the CP itself must transform into something more incredible & effective in order to get to that point- it is possible, but again the members of the CP themselves are the ones to decide such a outcome. As for the Nevada IAP, well, with the current strategy we’re using here, which is starting to bear us fruit- we simply need to keep at it, and to better develop the IAP itself in many ways- yet that is already happening. So I can confidently say that we will be a permanent fixture (and hopefully a bigger one, later on, then we are now) on Nevada’s political landscape for many generations to come. You know Chris, its really is something what one individual could do if he/she had the willpower or determination to do it- to make great changes happen for the better, or for worse- especially if that one person can inspire others to do the same as well. I do hope to continue to be a positive inspiration to other constitutionalists & patriots out there that want to change the status-quo, as I am trying to do myself. But regardless, the Almighty has left the future of our country in our own hands- and we better not sit idly by and allow it perish.
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  Krzysztof Lesiak Alright. Anything you want to add that you think we might have missed?
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  


• 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  Cody Quirk I think we’re good. Thank you so much for the interview and keep up the good work dude.