I appreciate Richard posting another story regarding the Prohibition National Convention. I want to continue commenting from a previous story entitled “Prohibition Party Nominates Jack Fellure for President” but since many are “too lazy” to click back to previous stories (including myself), I’ll continue here.
Also, I want to start now at attempting to break myself of a bad habit of attributing comments to LPers and CPers as though they all are of one mind of what I alledge. I will use the qualifiers of “some” or “many” in the future. Because I know there are a few LPers or a few CPers – though it may be a small few – who do share my views, and not the views I may label the majority with.
I will say, however, that many – regardless of their 3rd party – who have made negative comments regarding the fact the Prohibition delegates selected Jack Fellure, are lacking any real evidence or proof for their comments, and thus resort to childish comments such as “back stabbing” “mentally deranged” or “half-deranged” or the party is attempting to start a “theocracy.” All of these silly claims are unfair and untrue. What many outside the Prohibition Party are really concerned about is they see this party well on its way to being revived and helping establish a genuine populist party based on Christian principles. The Prohibition Party has been around for some 144 years! How many years has the CP, the LP, the Greens, and other 3rd parties been around?
Yes, there is going to be an independent coalition (i.e. the beginnings of a real 3rd party)and not necessarily called the “Prohibition Party” but with a name which is generic and marketable. The Prohibition Party is going to play a role in this effort, and many on the outside are afraid they will be left behind in the dust. I sense a little old fashioned jealousy here.
But to correct the erroneous comments of those like Doremus Jessup, it may come as a great surprise to him and others that the Prohibition Party has no problem with anyone drinking, smoking, or gambling. This is your individual liberty! What this party is against is allowing commercial enterprises to profit off of a product or an activity that causes the users or participants health problems, untimely death, and economic problems – from which, we the taxpayers, have to pick up the tab. Doremus Jessup, read the 18th amendment and tell me where it says your individual right to drink is to be denied!
And this silly nonsense of we should also ban plastic bags because a child may suffocate by one, really doesn’t even deserve a comment. But when was the last time you saw a sign in a store which advertised “Plastic Bags to suffocate your child in?” How silly.
But those LPers, CPers – and even the Greens and other 3rd partisans – who think the Prohibition Party are a bunch of “blue-nosed” kooks, go ahead and have your snickers and laughs. But while those of you who are drinking that beer, smoking that cigarette, or throwing your money away by gambling, just remember that those extra taxes which all Americans have to pay for such irresponsibilty, has to be paid for non-drinkers, non-smokers, and non-gamblers also.
I suspect the Fellure-Davis ticket is going to be heard from more than its distractors and critics want to admit. Again, I detect a little bit of jealousness here.
You can’t go anywhere unless you use the internet to its fullest extent to get your message out to the masses. We live in a new age and if the Prohibition Party fails to recognize this, it will die. If the party remains confined to its small circle of senior citizens, when they are all gone, there will not be any replacements.
If the party actually wants to survive it needs to embrace social media, seek out the youth and take advantage of new temperance groups such as the members of the Straight Edge movement.
You’re not going to “revive” the party by nominating a 79 year old man who doesn’t use the internet and calls for the criminalization of homosexuality. I don’t see any “jealousy” from the individuals posting here, just frustration over the direction of this party.
If that’s true that the Prohibition Party really doesn’t mind what people do in the privacy of their own homes and are only opposed to commercialization, then I have TWO IDEAS for them:
1) Take their approach to the drug issue. Focus on decriminalizing (not legalizing= sellable) drugs for personal use by people who grow/manufacture their own as long as they do not sell any. Ditto for distilling our own spirits. Why can we brew our own beer and vint our own wine, but not make our own moonshine? Do the current PP members have the courage for this?
If they are truly in support of the Constitution, than they can surely see where there is no federal authority for involvement in this except for customs and trafficking issues.
2) Prohibition didn’t work in the 20s and it hasn’t worked with the drug “issue” for the last forty years. Seriously consider a name change. The Constitution Party did it. Prohibition is too negative-sounding. (and so is the PP abbreviation for that matter). Call yourselves something like “the Modesty Party.” Look up the definition and I think you’ll agree.
The Prohibition Party has flirted with a name change a few times in its past. In 1980, for instance, it placed its nominees on the ballot under the name Statesman’s Party. Since vote totals seemed unaffected the name reverted to Prohibition by 1984. In the 60’s I believe there was an effort to change the name to American Christian Party but that obviously didn’t happen. Since this party has been a progressive party at times as well as a conservative party at others there would seem to be lots of possible choices if delegates at a future national convention were interested.
To William Saturn. I agree with the first part of your comment. Yes, the historical Prohibition Party MUST “…use the internet to its fullest extent to get your [their] message out to the masses.” They intend to do just that. A good bit of time was spent addressing the party’s current website and as funds allow, they intent to make it one of the best websites in the nation, with many links, streaming broadcasts, etc. And they intend to form coalitions with other groups – youth included. Stay tuned.
On the second part of your message, “You’re not going to “revive” the party by nominating a 79 year old man…” Obviously you have not met Dr. Fellure. True, he does not (as yet) have email but he will have access to it. You misjudge this “79 year old man.” He has a message – spoken clearly and factually – and already has a waiting audience – the dozens and dozens of churches he speaks in yearly and now where he will carry his presidential campaign. The Prohibition Party knows that it will not win the “liberal” vote or the “conservative” vote. It is shooting for the “Christian” voter – most of whom have been lied to by the GOP. Again, stay tuned.
To Jeff Becker, To your comment (1), I cannot officially speak for the Prohibition Party, but – if it can be proven that marijuana (as well as other drugs) is/are NOT a “gateway” drug, they might be inclined to take the same Constitutional position on “individual production and use” of it as they do for Alcohol. Just as the party wants to see an end to drunks driving down the highway killing innocent people, likewise they do not want to see people “high on marijuna” or other drugs driving down the highway killing innocent people. Since you appear to have some knowledge about these drugs, why not begin a dialogue with the Prohibition folks in that regard? To your comment (2), let me tell you the facts. Prohibition did not FAIL! Prohibition was not ENFORCED! Read the real facts. True, where it was not enforced (which included most of the nation) it did “fail.” Where it was enforced, it worked. Again read all the facts. Don’t let biased defenders of Alcohol erroneously mislead you.
And finally to Casual Bystander, let me clarify – the party does not see the need to change ITS name – only work in coalition with a larger, more dominate group (which might use a 3rd party name) but – if so – use a 3rd party which is generic and marketable. But I would agree with you, if the party ever decides to go it alone, it needs a better name on the national level such as “Progressive”, “Patriotic”, and even “Christian” would be better than “Prohibition.”
To all, I suggest you stayed tuned. In the party’s “post Earl Dodge” era, I think you are going to see a revived organization.
Alabama Independent- I sincerely hope you are correct about the party experiencing a resurgence. I understand that Earl Dodge was both a blessing and a curse but as you have stated, that era is now over. I wish them the best.
Pingback: Alabama Newspaper Story on Prohibition Party Presidential Convention | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
It’s nice to see some news coverage on this event.
Wikinews report came out an hour earlier: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Prohibition_Party_holds_convention;_nominates_Jack_Fellure_for_U.S._President
I appreciate Richard posting another story regarding the Prohibition National Convention. I want to continue commenting from a previous story entitled “Prohibition Party Nominates Jack Fellure for President” but since many are “too lazy” to click back to previous stories (including myself), I’ll continue here.
Also, I want to start now at attempting to break myself of a bad habit of attributing comments to LPers and CPers as though they all are of one mind of what I alledge. I will use the qualifiers of “some” or “many” in the future. Because I know there are a few LPers or a few CPers – though it may be a small few – who do share my views, and not the views I may label the majority with.
I will say, however, that many – regardless of their 3rd party – who have made negative comments regarding the fact the Prohibition delegates selected Jack Fellure, are lacking any real evidence or proof for their comments, and thus resort to childish comments such as “back stabbing” “mentally deranged” or “half-deranged” or the party is attempting to start a “theocracy.” All of these silly claims are unfair and untrue. What many outside the Prohibition Party are really concerned about is they see this party well on its way to being revived and helping establish a genuine populist party based on Christian principles. The Prohibition Party has been around for some 144 years! How many years has the CP, the LP, the Greens, and other 3rd parties been around?
Yes, there is going to be an independent coalition (i.e. the beginnings of a real 3rd party)and not necessarily called the “Prohibition Party” but with a name which is generic and marketable. The Prohibition Party is going to play a role in this effort, and many on the outside are afraid they will be left behind in the dust. I sense a little old fashioned jealousy here.
But to correct the erroneous comments of those like Doremus Jessup, it may come as a great surprise to him and others that the Prohibition Party has no problem with anyone drinking, smoking, or gambling. This is your individual liberty! What this party is against is allowing commercial enterprises to profit off of a product or an activity that causes the users or participants health problems, untimely death, and economic problems – from which, we the taxpayers, have to pick up the tab. Doremus Jessup, read the 18th amendment and tell me where it says your individual right to drink is to be denied!
And this silly nonsense of we should also ban plastic bags because a child may suffocate by one, really doesn’t even deserve a comment. But when was the last time you saw a sign in a store which advertised “Plastic Bags to suffocate your child in?” How silly.
But those LPers, CPers – and even the Greens and other 3rd partisans – who think the Prohibition Party are a bunch of “blue-nosed” kooks, go ahead and have your snickers and laughs. But while those of you who are drinking that beer, smoking that cigarette, or throwing your money away by gambling, just remember that those extra taxes which all Americans have to pay for such irresponsibilty, has to be paid for non-drinkers, non-smokers, and non-gamblers also.
I suspect the Fellure-Davis ticket is going to be heard from more than its distractors and critics want to admit. Again, I detect a little bit of jealousness here.
You can’t go anywhere unless you use the internet to its fullest extent to get your message out to the masses. We live in a new age and if the Prohibition Party fails to recognize this, it will die. If the party remains confined to its small circle of senior citizens, when they are all gone, there will not be any replacements.
If the party actually wants to survive it needs to embrace social media, seek out the youth and take advantage of new temperance groups such as the members of the Straight Edge movement.
You’re not going to “revive” the party by nominating a 79 year old man who doesn’t use the internet and calls for the criminalization of homosexuality. I don’t see any “jealousy” from the individuals posting here, just frustration over the direction of this party.
If that’s true that the Prohibition Party really doesn’t mind what people do in the privacy of their own homes and are only opposed to commercialization, then I have TWO IDEAS for them:
1) Take their approach to the drug issue. Focus on decriminalizing (not legalizing= sellable) drugs for personal use by people who grow/manufacture their own as long as they do not sell any. Ditto for distilling our own spirits. Why can we brew our own beer and vint our own wine, but not make our own moonshine? Do the current PP members have the courage for this?
If they are truly in support of the Constitution, than they can surely see where there is no federal authority for involvement in this except for customs and trafficking issues.
2) Prohibition didn’t work in the 20s and it hasn’t worked with the drug “issue” for the last forty years. Seriously consider a name change. The Constitution Party did it. Prohibition is too negative-sounding. (and so is the PP abbreviation for that matter). Call yourselves something like “the Modesty Party.” Look up the definition and I think you’ll agree.
The Prohibition Party has flirted with a name change a few times in its past. In 1980, for instance, it placed its nominees on the ballot under the name Statesman’s Party. Since vote totals seemed unaffected the name reverted to Prohibition by 1984. In the 60’s I believe there was an effort to change the name to American Christian Party but that obviously didn’t happen. Since this party has been a progressive party at times as well as a conservative party at others there would seem to be lots of possible choices if delegates at a future national convention were interested.
To William Saturn. I agree with the first part of your comment. Yes, the historical Prohibition Party MUST “…use the internet to its fullest extent to get your [their] message out to the masses.” They intend to do just that. A good bit of time was spent addressing the party’s current website and as funds allow, they intent to make it one of the best websites in the nation, with many links, streaming broadcasts, etc. And they intend to form coalitions with other groups – youth included. Stay tuned.
On the second part of your message, “You’re not going to “revive” the party by nominating a 79 year old man…” Obviously you have not met Dr. Fellure. True, he does not (as yet) have email but he will have access to it. You misjudge this “79 year old man.” He has a message – spoken clearly and factually – and already has a waiting audience – the dozens and dozens of churches he speaks in yearly and now where he will carry his presidential campaign. The Prohibition Party knows that it will not win the “liberal” vote or the “conservative” vote. It is shooting for the “Christian” voter – most of whom have been lied to by the GOP. Again, stay tuned.
To Jeff Becker, To your comment (1), I cannot officially speak for the Prohibition Party, but – if it can be proven that marijuana (as well as other drugs) is/are NOT a “gateway” drug, they might be inclined to take the same Constitutional position on “individual production and use” of it as they do for Alcohol. Just as the party wants to see an end to drunks driving down the highway killing innocent people, likewise they do not want to see people “high on marijuna” or other drugs driving down the highway killing innocent people. Since you appear to have some knowledge about these drugs, why not begin a dialogue with the Prohibition folks in that regard? To your comment (2), let me tell you the facts. Prohibition did not FAIL! Prohibition was not ENFORCED! Read the real facts. True, where it was not enforced (which included most of the nation) it did “fail.” Where it was enforced, it worked. Again read all the facts. Don’t let biased defenders of Alcohol erroneously mislead you.
And finally to Casual Bystander, let me clarify – the party does not see the need to change ITS name – only work in coalition with a larger, more dominate group (which might use a 3rd party name) but – if so – use a 3rd party which is generic and marketable. But I would agree with you, if the party ever decides to go it alone, it needs a better name on the national level such as “Progressive”, “Patriotic”, and even “Christian” would be better than “Prohibition.”
To all, I suggest you stayed tuned. In the party’s “post Earl Dodge” era, I think you are going to see a revived organization.
Alabama Independent- I sincerely hope you are correct about the party experiencing a resurgence. I understand that Earl Dodge was both a blessing and a curse but as you have stated, that era is now over. I wish them the best.