Posted on 01/01/2004 9:48:48 PM PST by The_Eaglet
On December 15, 2003, Michael Peroutka announced his candidacy for the Constitution Party presidential nomination. In an interview on Radio Liberty hosted by Dr. Stan Monteith, Mr. Peroutka identified the need to restore loyalty to the Constitution as a key reason for his campaign for the presidency, In response to recent expansions in federal funding of education and the Medicare program, Peroutka explained how federal involvement went beyond Constitutional limits, Peroutka later explained, "The Constitution is a big stop sign that says, `Federal government, here is where you stop.' That's the way that began, and that's what we, frankly, need to return to." Dr. Monteith and Mr. Peroutka also discussed the work of the Institute on the Constitution, a non-partisan organization that educates the electorate on the founding documents of the United States government, along with their historical and philosophical premises. With the endorsement of Howard Phillips, the Constitution Party nominee in 2000, Peroutka expressed confidence in becoming the next standard-bearer for the Constitution Party, "I intend to be the candidate for the Constitution Party come next June when they have their convention." When the host asked for closing thoughts, Mr. Peroutka offered these words, "America needs to return to an American understanding of law and government. That is to say, the purpose of government is to protect and secure God-given rights, and until we return to that understanding, we're going to be in trouble, and I believe that the Constitution Party and my hopeful candidacy will stand exactly for those principles." In addition to his professional experience as an attorney and organizer of educational resource organizations, Peroutka served the Reagan administration in the Department of Health and Human Services. He now serves as chairman of the Constitution Party of Maryland and president of the Institute on the Constitution. An audio file of this interview is available from Radio Liberty at http://66.36.228.157:8080/sw_archives/rliberty/rl12-15-03a.rm. This interview was broadcast live on the Internet and affiliate radio programs.
"We really do need, Dr. Stan, an American, somebody who understands law and American form of government, to run for president; and I really believe that at this point, there is not such a person in any of the major parties ... because none of them give the slightest fig, I believe, about being loyal, and being faithful, to the Constitution of the United States, and I believe that someone needs to do that."
"Article I Section 8 lays out those programs for which Congress may tax and spend money, and education just is not listed there. Education may in fact be a good thing, but the federal government has no business being there. If you have no authority to be there, if you can't do it constitutionally, you are not going to do it right. So, that's really a theme of our campaign here, Dr. Stan: they can't do it right, because they can't do it constitutionally."
Agreed. But is it not realistic to expect at least a beginning? Can we not at least ask for an incremental undoing of 80 years of liberalism? Instead, we are getting more of same -- granted, with a tax cut -- from this Administration.
What is "childisn and delusional" is the naive belief that if we just wish hard enough, the Republican Party will actually do something to advance the conservative cause.
Interesting. So if one does not bend over to accept anything that someone with the right letter has by their name they're not 'patriotic'? Sounds more like we're not partisan.
For all of thier posturings,not a one of them, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM ,would really be " happy ", if they actually did get exactly what they post about
Try me. I would be dancing in the streets tomorrow morning if the national government decided to return to the level it was intended to be. Any conservative worth their salt would be. I know there would be hardships, but I also realize there would be more money in my pocket to deal with said hardships. And I also realize the freedoms returned back not only to the citizens of the respective states, but the states themselves, would more than offset any hardships we would face from not having to bow to Washington DC every April 15 and any time another federal 'edict' were released
Politics is the realm of the possible ; not ever immediate gratification.When the MAJORITY of the populace, would not agree with even a small percent of what FR's faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar right claim they want now or else, it is time that THEY start accepting what they can get.This is pragmatism and the ONLY name of the game.
On FR, there are Libertarians with both big and little Ls. There are those who see the Constitution Party, as the ONLY way. We still have old Patsies too. Then, there are those without any party affiliation,whatsoever, who claim that there's no one Consdervative but them, so they'll not vote at all.Take this group, stir it a bit, and few, if any of them agree about ANYTHING , other than that they won't volte for President Bush. And they expect the rest of us to find anything, ANYTHING at all worthy in their posts/positions ?
What is deffinitely childish, dangerous, and delusional here, is the pretense, by this group, that they are Consevatives and that they actually imagine that they know/undertsand politics and are willing to chance, once again, the possiblity of a Dem in the White House again and losing both Houses.
Let's just pretend ( because that's all you do anyway ! ), for a moment, that you got exactly what you think you want. Let's pretend that there are NO Federal laws, now extant, which the PURE FOOD and DRUG BILL/s have enforced for almost 100 years, absolutely NO SS,no welfare,no schools ( except private/religious ones )and no illegal substances. You wake up tomorrow and all of those things are in place; no warnings, no announcements,it's just so.
It takes a bit for all of this brave new world to sink in.The states are not only in a stated of shock, but are fiscally and mentally unprepared for it.
If you don't think that chaos would ensue, you are dead wrong. More money in your pocket ? Not for long, since states and towns/cities/villages would start raising taxes like NEVER before! And that's just for starters.You and I have no idea what each state could come up with, regarding all kinds of crazy stuff, but I can guess.
We'll have to reinstate poor houses (your taxes will rise), each state/local area will have to find more money for schools and colleges (your taxes rise), they'll need more jails (your taxes will rise),and I've not even talked about that'll happen when there's tainted/messed with food,more dopers on the streets, and the like...yet.
The LP and the CP both are against the WoT, our being in Iraq, and aren't any better for the USA safety, than having whoever the GREENIES are putting up or any of the 9 dwarves.
This isn't even the tip of the iceberg, it's a flake.
Each state could and most probably would decide things like homosexual marriage,which the Federal government would have NO say about. Don't like what your state's done? Move, you say Most people can't just pack up and leave,but even if everyone did that,then states would then be faced with inadequate housing, schools problems ( not enough/too many ), massive amounts of people without jobs/massive amounts of jobs and not enough people, and on and on and on.
You NEVER think of the consequences; no, you just want what you think you want and damn all else. That's childish !
Who wants immediate gratification? I'll sit it out, watch the two parties fight over who can spend the most of my money without asking, and eventually enough people will get fed up, and vote both parties out. That's not immediate gratification, that's absolute patience. You, however, are calling for immediate gratification. 'We' have to get this person in or this branch of government won back because we need to get the President's non-conservative agenda through. So what if it's not conservative? We are in control.
As for 'far right', you're wrong. There are many citizens of the respective states that are tired of the spending and useless laws as well. They're just still playing the game if you will thinking it will make a difference. And history shows the evidence over the past 30 or so years, it rarely does make a difference. Except perhaps for Reagan, and he had an opposing Congress. What's Bush's excuse?
This is pragmatism and the ONLY name of the game.
No, it's called selling out to gain the votes. Making empty promises that you don't plan to keep.
What is deffinitely childish, dangerous, and delusional here, is the pretense, by this group, that they are Consevatives and that they actually imagine that they know/undertsand politics and are willing to chance, once again, the possiblity of a Dem in the White House again and losing both Houses.
Would it matter? Again I refer you to 1994 when fire and brimstone Republicans came into the House. Those days when Hillary's healthcare plan was on the table. And Republicans vowed there would never be a healthcare plan of that sort. And yet, ten years later, we have Republican Congressmen threatened if they don't back the President's healthcare plan. Are you saying that in ten years time, that the majority of all the citizens of the respective states, the same ones that elected these Congressmen in 1994, had a sudden change of heart and saw the Republican light and need for a nationalized healthcare plan? Or was it just more of Bush II pandering to the moderates and left as he did with Ted Kennedy's education plan?
Wow and to think that this nation of states did without many of those things for over 140 years. Whatever did we do without FDR? That's who you neocons look up to now isn't it?
If you don't think that chaos would ensue, you are dead wrong. More money in your pocket ? Not for long, since states and towns/cities/villages would start raising taxes like NEVER before! And that's just for starters.You and I have no idea what each state could come up with, regarding all kinds of crazy stuff, but I can guess.
You can guess?!? That's all you've got? You can guess what they can come up with? It certainly could be no worse than what the 'learned' in Washington have come up with. Money based on nothing but good faith, boondoggle healthcare plans, etc.
We'll have to reinstate poor houses (your taxes will rise), each state/local area will have to find more money for schools and colleges (your taxes rise), they'll need more jails (your taxes will rise),and I've not even talked about that'll happen when there's tainted/messed with food,more dopers on the streets, and the like...yet.
Dopers on the streets? LOL!!! You centralization freaks just love to bring that one up. Ever hear of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution? Each and every one of the issues you try to scare me with are covered quite easily by that Amendment. It's what is called a Federal Republic. Federalist #45? The states would have control over these issues, and with much lower federal taxes considering we wouldn't be propping up a Tower of Babel in Washington any funding the states would need could be easily covered by taxing the citizenry. However some of these issues would not be handled by the state and would require, gasp!!!, personal responsibility. Hmmm...seems I heard a politician talk about that once. Huh, must have been just more stump talk...
Each state could and most probably would decide things like homosexual marriage,which the Federal government would have NO say about. Don't like what your state's done? Move, you say Most people can't just pack up and leave,but even if everyone did that,then states would then be faced with inadequate housing, schools problems ( not enough/too many ), massive amounts of people without jobs/massive amounts of jobs and not enough people, and on and on and on.
Ahh, more scare tactics. Don't you neocons accuse the Democrats of doing this all the time? Homosexual marriage? Would the citizens of the respective states not have their voices heard by who they elect into their respective state legislatures? And why would I want the national government to have any say about it? They've done enough as it is destroying every good and decent thing at the state level by rewording and twisting the 14th Amendment. Judge Moore would still have the 10 Commandments up in Alabama, North Carolina would still have a law against sodomy, and abortion would still be illegal in the states that didn't want it if it weren't for the national government stepping in with their rendition of the 'living, breathing' Constitution
You NEVER think of the consequences; no, you just want what you think you want and damn all else. That's childish !
No, I've thought about the consequences. I know what the consequences would be, the good and the bad. And I'm saying, according to the document that founded this nation of states, that's what the Founding Fathers intended
Bump those words. A truer statement could not be said
You live in an hallucinary world of your own making.You're blinders hold reality at bay.You'd strave to death, or die of thirst, before you would accept a 1/2 a laof of bread or a glass of liquid, that wasn't the brand or exact thing you thought best, because it wasn't 100%...just 50% of it.
Okay, so you don't vote, sit it all out waaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiittttttttttttting for yourf prince to come.Yeah, sleeping beauty, that's the ticket...NOT!
You got all of that rant out of this one statement? I said 'perhaps' for Reagan. I didn't give him immediate praise. But you keep stretching. Keep defending the education spending, the healthcare spending, and all the other non-defense spending as conservative actions
Okay, so you don't vote, sit it all out waaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiittttttttttttting for yourf prince to come.Yeah, sleeping beauty, that's the ticket...NOT!
Never said I would sit out 2004. No I will vote. And it will be for the conservative candidate. Perhaps this gentleman whose candidacy started the thread. Don't know. The Southern Party doesn't run national candidates. But they do that for a reason
There were far less people living in America,fewer states, and people died from things that people don't die from now.People and especially women and babies were addicted to patent medicines containing massive amounts of alcohol ( many alcoholics, who had NO idea that they WERE alcoholics !), poison, and/or various narcotics. Even when people KNEW what they were dealing with ( laudanum ), they used it anyway and killed their children and/or themselves.
Ronald Reagan LOOKED UP TO FDR AND PRAISED HIM , WHEN PRESIDENT , Reagan is a neocon, but I still think that FDR was a ghastly president, who surrounded himself with stinking Commies, sold us and Eastern Europe out to Stalin,and is no one to " look up " to! Neither, dear, am I a " neocon ".
Oh, I can make educated guess, based on FACTUAL historical occurrences of the past; unlike you. You need to take off those rose colored glasses, which let in absolutely NO light nor image.You can't imagine anything which might happen, because you have no common sense, no knowledge of what went before,and are a broken record vis-a-vis re your own delusions. LOL
Of sure, just as the state legislators " listen " to what the states' citizenry want now...yeah, right, un hunh. You just haven't a clue! LOL
For the umpteenth time, I AM NOT A NEOCON , and using that term as a pejorative, makes about as much sense as calling me, or anyone else you don't agree with, a racists.Learn a new word, you leftover KNOW-NOTHING.
And now, I'll stop this stupidity ( replying to you ), since I've given the lurkers more than enough of rational thought, to counter your abjectly ridiculous ravings. :-)
Bush controls BOTH houses of congress, what is his excuse for the spending increases?
No there hasn't. Nondefense spending has increased sharply. Conservatives are further behind than we were before, as I have detailed in previous posts.
Would you mind telling us where that so-called "beginning" has come? Other than a penny-ante tax cut that takes en years to unfold and starts expiring in the eleventh year, what has King George done to advance conservative principles?
This is pragmatism and the ONLY name of the game.
Pragmatism doesn't work. We can be incrementalist, but the kind of prgamatism that calls on us to support a Republiczn Party whose only real claim is that it increases the cost, size, scope, and intrusiveness of the Federal government a wee bit more slowly than the Democrats only harms our interests.
When Democrats are running things, it's as if we're all in a car heading off a cliff at 100 MPH. At least the Republicans drive the speed limit (mostly.) But we're still heading off the cliff! What we need to do is turn around the car.
On FR, there are Libertarians with both big and little Ls. There are those who see the Constitution Party, as the ONLY way. We still have old Patsies too. Then, there are those without any party affiliation,whatsoever, who claim that there's no one Consdervative but them, so they'll not vote at all.Take this group, stir it a bit, and few, if any of them agree about ANYTHING , other than that they won't volte for President Bush. And they expect the rest of us to find anything, ANYTHING at all worthy in their posts/positions ?
I have severe disagreements with Libertarians on several issues, but I know that they are at least committed to limited government. That is more than I can say for Republicans. The people you cite actually agree on about 90 percent of things, as you well know despite your snide claim otherwise.
What is deffinitely childish, dangerous, and delusional here, is the pretense, by this group, that they are Consevatives
So only Buhie/GOP Kool Aid drinkers are allowed to call tehmselves conservatives? That is a pretty arrogant viewpoint.
It is, in fact, the Bushies who are being childish, dangerous, and delusional by even claiming to be conservatives when they blindly support a President and a party which have done almost as much to increase Big Government as Democrats have. It is childish, dangerous, and delusional to pretend -- and insist that everyone else join in the pretense -- that such a bunch will ever lift a finger to do one thing that will advance conservative or constitutional principles, except by accident.
Many of us have outlined policy after policy after policy on which the Bush Administration and the Republican Party have turned their backs on conservative principles, yet you professional Republicans insist that only Republicans have any claim to conservative support and that anyone who doesn't support your favored candidate can't possibly be a conservative.
Wake up and take a good look at what is really going on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.