Greetings! I write to update you on a few matters concerning both our Party and our National Party. Many things have happened over the past few months, some of which may have caught your ear in a conversation or eye on a website. I'll start by addressing some recent "goings-on" with our National Party.

Before I begin, please let me remind the reader - especially our active, current CPoW members - that the CPoW is a state-level organization that is affiliated with a national organization made up of other state-level organizations. I rehearse this because it provides a foundational understanding that is very important when considering events and actions at the national level. Our primary loyalty should be to our state organization, not the national one.

With that said: the CP National Committee is the governing body of the national CP organization. It meets twice a year (usually the spring and the fall) to conduct whatever party business comes before it. The National Committee is comprised of members sent from the various state party affiliate organizations. The number of National Committee members from each state party affiliate varies based on an agreed-upon formula. The CPoW is currently afforded seven members on the National Committee.

Several years ago, it came to the National Committee's attention that one of our state party affiliates may not be upholding the pledge it signed to become a part of the national party. Each state party organization has been required - since 1996 - to sign a pledge agreeing to "… build and direct the state party in accordance with the platform and objectives of the national party…". This would logically extend to candidates supported and endorsed by the state party affiliate and anyone in authority within the state party affiliate speaking publicly on behalf of the state party affiliate. This would seem simple enough.

However, things are often not as simple as they initially appear to be. The issue raised at a December 2004 National Committee meeting was not that of a candidate's possible infidelity to the National Platform or that candidate's state party endorsement of them nonetheless but rather the fact that a particular state party
affiliate's Chairman held and expressed views contrary to one of the key platform planks in our National Platform - the Sanctity of Life plank. This knowledge was gained through personal e-mail exchanges, not as part of an official pronouncement from the state party itself.

Obviously, it is not good or helpful that the Chairman of a CP state party affiliate holds and expresses views contrary to the national platform (because how well could he really help "…build and direct…" their state party "…in accordance with the platform and objectives of the national party…"?). But an important question to be answered is this: was he speaking officially for the state party affiliate or for himself? Some would argue that is one in the same because of his position; others would say he's entitled to his personal opinions as long as he makes it clear that he is not speaking for his party. It is these type of questions that need to be examined and decided upon by the National Committee (the group to whom the afore-mentioned pledge was made).

Most us belong (or have belonged or travel along with) the CP and the CPoW primarily because of our absolute agreement with the Sanctity of Life plank and the CP's and CPoW's firm stand - without apology - on it. So I'm sure you can appreciate how sensitive and serious such an allegation would be.

So, back to our narrative…

What happened next was a period of "in-fighting" that recently crescendoed at the spring National Committee meeting in Tampa, FL. Rather than initiate an orderly, official inquiry into the allegations of misconduct (possible violation of the pledge) back in December 2004 that was sanctioned by the National Committee and charged with the responsibility of determining the facts of the matter and reporting back to the National Committee at its next meeting, individual National Committee members (and sometimes entire state party organizations) began their own "inquiries" into the allegation. Much of this was conducted through Internet chatrooms and e-mail exchanges. In the process, many destructive, hurtful, and downright dishonest things were said and done, which only acerbated the situation and brought us further, not closer, to a reasonable conclusion.

All of these unofficial "inquiries" came about because the National Committee had no plan or procedure to follow when (not if) a possible pledge violation occurred (and it still doesn't have one). Into the void came the unofficial "inquiries", mostly conducted by well-intentioned individuals and groups seeking to answer the question of whether or not there was a pledge violation and then what should or would the National Committee do about it should the evidence demonstrate a pledge violation, in fact, had occurred.

By the time the National Committee met in Tampa, this issue had raged and ravished our national organization for almost one and a half years. Friendships were challenged (some were destroyed); trust and confidence in our leadership and each other was definitely questioned. The issue had been distilled to this: the state party organization in question (the Independent American Party of Nevada) was to be disaffiliated because it held as its Chairman a man who openly defied the 100% no exceptions, no excuses, no apologies position on the Sanctity of Life that is very clearly (at least, to me) explained in our National Platform or that the IAP was not to be disaffiliated because the national organization has no say in the "internal affairs" of state party affiliates, a la who is or is not the Chairman or any other party officer.

An organized 2-hour "debate" ensued and then the vote on the disaffiliation resolution was taken. The resolution failed 44-57.

Some have taken this vote to mean the national party is now pro-abortion. Others have taken the more measured response that the national party has allowed the "camel's nose" of pro-abortion in our "tent" and eventually the whole beast will be inside. Still others (I'm among them) believe the National Committee - and especially our national leaders - has bungled this whole issue from Day One and that what is needed is some clear processes and leadership to help us sort through what is yet a big mess.

The CPoW has been endorsing and promoting a "Protocol" (of our own construction as a template or as the process itself) to be used by the National Committee to make inquiry into any allegations of misconduct or pledge violations or anything that needs to be reviewed or examined officially by and for the National Committee. Until such a "Protocol" (ours or something similar) is in place and being used, the National Committee will continue to be at the mercy of frustrated individuals and demagogues on both "sides" of any controversy.

The National Committee meets again this coming December and I'm confident this subject will - once again - be before us. Since the Tampa meeting in April, the IAP has put forward a slate of candidates for the fall elections in their state that contain some who openly state they do not support or endorse a 100% no exceptions position. This would seem to me to be a violation of the pledge they signed to the National Committee but it is up to the National Committee - as a whole - to make that determination. I'm not sure they can or will do that if they do not have some mechanism of inquiry (…a "Protocol"…) to follow.

So, where is the CPoW on all this?

We believe the national organization is comprised of more state party affiliates (and, in turn, members within those state party affiliates) who are 100% pro-life, no exceptions, no excuses, no apologies than those who hold to a lesser standard (or threshold). Therefore, it is our position that we need to defend our Sanctity of Life platform against all attackers, compromisers and excuse makers, whether they be from within or without! We should not allow a minority (and incorrect) group to hold sway and define us. A fight for what is right must be fought! This is where we are on the national question.

If anyone reading this has any questions or comments about what they've just read or wish to make further inquiry about this subject with me, I encourage you to write or call and ask your questions and make your comments. I believe in open, forthright communication and hope that you do as well.

As far as what is currently happening within the CPoW, we are at a very critical point. Ballot access is earned based on either a massive petition drive or by one of our candidates receiving 1% of the total votes cast for a particular statewide office sought. Our current ballot access line is up for "renewal" during this fall's elections. If we fail to gain the necessary percentage of the vote in the November election, we loose our ballot access line, forcing us to regain it by a much harder mass petition drive effort.

Into this fray march Jhered Hamby and Bill Hemenway. Jhered and Bill took out nomination papers in June and attempted to gain 2,000 signatures each to have their names placed on this fall's ballot. The cutoff date was July 11th but, unfortunately, neither man obtained the needed 2,000 signatures. All is not lost, however! Both men signed up to be a write-in candidate for the offices they seek (Governor and State Treasurer, respectively) on the fall ballot - and we have another opportunity to get their names printed on the November ballot!

If one (or both) receive 2,000+ votes in the September primary, their names would appear on the November ballot on our ballot line. Failing that, both would be left to strictly a write-in campaign with the same requirements to retain ballot access qualification: 1% of the total votes cast for Governor and State Treasurer.

So, at this point, we have two possibilities: get 2,000+ write-in votes in September - getting their names printed on the November ballot - and then getting 1% of the total votes cast for the office sought or getting 1% of the total votes cast for the office sought (Governor and State Treasurer) by write-in on the November ballot. Either way, a write-in campaign is involved but I dare say the more "doable" option would be during the September primary election.

So, let's start talking up our candidates NOW so folks are ready to write their names on their ballots in September! If we succeed then, Jhered and Bill would have their names printed on the November ballots, which would make it more likely that we could get the needed 1% of the total votes cast for Governor and/or State Treasurer.

This is a critical moment for our Party. I need each of you to step up and commit to helping us keep our ballot access line for the next four years. That would mean not only for local and state elections but for the 2008 national election. By "step up", I mean help out however you can - with your time, your talent and/or your treasure. Tell all your family, friends and neighbors about our write-in candidates and how we need them to go to the polls in September and write-in Jhered's and Bill's names for Governor and State Treasurer, respectively. If you can think of any creative or otherwise helpful way to get the word out to the "masses" in Wisconsin, please let us know. And, finally, if you can help us with your most generous contribution at this key time, it would be put to good use and greatly appreciated.

We exist as a political party to advance a platform that Honors God, Defends the Family and seeks to Restore the Republic. To do this, we need to offer candidates for public office who will advance these ideals as members of city councils, county boards, the State Legislature - even the Governorship. But to accomplish this task we need your active involvement. Please begin considering putting yourself on the ballot this coming Spring 2007 for City Council, Town Board, County Board, or one of the many other local offices that will be up for election. We often say we need good (better!) people in public offices as our leaders. Why not YOU? Advance planning and consideration will help you be prepared when the nomination season for the Spring elections begins in a few months (December will be here before we know it!).

In the meantime, please pull out all the stops for this important effort coming this fall. Jhered and Bill are willing to stand and be counted - what about YOU? Can we count on YOU when it matters most? I sure hope so. Let's take back this state and nation from those who would have us live afar from our values. But it won't happen unless you and I determine to DO SOMETHING about it and then MAKE IT HAPPEN!

God bless you and God bless our state and nation.

For God, Family and Republic,

Randy W. Hamby

Chairman