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."
Then would you mind explaining the difference, or is that either a) beneath you Bushie Kool Aid drinkers, b) too hard for you, or c) both?
When you vote with this kind of blind party loyalty, wasting your vote is exactly what you are doing. Only when you vote for principle does your vote mean something. When you vote for that in which you do not believe, you waste your vote on "the lesser of two evils." Well, the "lesser of two evils" is still an evil.
This kind of arrogant, pointless response is all you and the other GOP Kool Aid drinkers have posted on this entire thread. You have not said one single thing of any substance, just this kind of arrogant contempt for thosue of us who actually defend conservative principles even when they are under assault from your precious party.
Refuting you,though easy, is pointless
If it's so easy, why don't you do it instead of engaging in more nasty, mean-spirited, name calling liek a liberal does?
that which you make claims to want, will only come in dribs and drabs with a majority GOP Congress and president.
Again, one more time, since I am trying to have a rational discussion, how will this miracle happen, since the Republicans do at least as much to increase spending and impose Big Government as Democrats do? They did it in the Nixon Administration, the Ford Administration, the first Bush Administration, and now in the second Bush Administration. Name something they have done to move things in our direction. One thing. We're all waiting.
Yes, I know you don't care about that...it's ONLY your supposed " principles " that matter.
That is snotty, arrogant, and a violation, IMO, of the personal attack rule. Your snide, condescending tone does not help your argument, but it it typical of a cornered statist.
I have devoted my life to the conservative movement. My parents were among those who worked to found the Conservative Party. I worked on many of its campaigns. I have done whatever I could for Barry Goldwater, both Buckleys, Phil Crane, Ronald Reagan, and other conservatives. I have also worked to oppose such liberals as Clinton, Carter, Rockefeller, and others. (Oops, I forgot. To you, Lord Nelson couldn't hve been a liberal -- he had an R after his name.) I spent 12-13 years in Young Americans for Freedom, served on the State Board for two years, served on Platform Committee at 3 YAF National Conventions. I have been a member of the Conservative Caucus. I was involved in the Young Conservative Alliance for a while. I have been and am an active member of the DC Chapter of FR. How dare you question my conservatism?
I'm not the one posting here on behalf of an Administration and a compliant Congress that have increased the Federal role in education, passed massive agricultural subsidies, imposed steel tarriffs, apologized to the Chinese after they shot down our airplane, destroyed our freedom of speech in the period before an election in the name of campaign finance reform, greatly increased the power of teh government to spy on citizens, given the government the power to make a citizen disappear, and created the most massive entitlement program in almost 40 years, among other things. I'm the one arguing in opposition to all of that and in oppostiion to the politicians who gave us that (none of which I supported.) And you dare to questionn my conservatism?
Outside of JFK,no Dem president in the past 100 years has lowered taxes. In the past 30 years, Both Reagan and Bush the younger HAVE lowered taxes.
In the last 30 years, no Dem president has fought against Communism and terrorists. Reagan and Bush the younger have.
Though some Supreme Court Justices ( and other judges )have not turned out to be quite what their nominators thought/hoped they'd be, NO Republican president set out, as Dem ones have,to clog the courts with activist faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar lefty ones.
No GOP president looks to the UN as the arbiter for the world; the Dems do.
The Dems want us to fund the UN's abortion policies throughout the world. President Bush stopped that.
The Dems are all for massive affirmative action; not so the GOP.
That's just for starters; however, I knew, even before I made that wee list, that none of that is " good enough " for you. My replying is an exercise in futility. No matter what anyone says, it's NEVER good enough ! So, dear, maybe you guys should just rent a couple of phone booths and meet every other Friday night. It's the ONLY way you'll be in a places where you can feel superior to everyone else and cry in your beers, about how everyone but YOU ares idiots/Kool Aid drinkers and not be told off by the rest of us. ;^)
And were active in supporting the drive to get the recall on the ballot in California.
But don't tell them stuff like this. This blind, party hack GOP Kool-Aid drinking Bushies don't want to know that. If they actually knew and accepted this fact, tehn they would have to stop hating people like us for daring to put conservative principle ahead of blind support for anything that happens to label itself "Republican."
Why would they now? What's their purpose? To gleefully spend monies the national government throws their way and fleece their own citizens at a lesser level than the national government does. However, put the responsibilities on them that the national government has taken away and see what happens. It worked for over 100 years, why wouldn't it now?
Your entire argument is based on lowered expectations. 'We' aren't the people the Founders were. 'We' can't be expected to do it all at once, or even begin to. 'We' have to 'work within the party' to make changes, changes mind you that have done nothing to begin to return this nation of states to a Constitutional Federal Republic. However it has allowed the Republicans to stay in charge and that's all that matters isn't it?
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.
Personally I haven't seen you make a rational argument yet. I bring up Bush II's expansion of the national government through excessive spending. Unconstitutional expenditures under the Republican party. No actions to date by either party to bring this behemoth called the national government under control. And what do I get? We 'need' government intrusion. It's 'good' for us. Whatever would we do without it? Not one rational thought. And of course more limited praise for FDR for his 'wonderful' economic plans that did nothing more than lengthen the Depression years.
You may be a Republican I'll give you that. You are an ardent dyed in the wool, one hundred percent 'yellow dog' Republican. But you're not a conservative. Far from it. Your very words on this thread attest to that.
The Dems want us to fund the UN's abortion policies throughout the world. President Bush stopped that.
Hmmmm....
Today we report on the news that the U.S. government intends to rejoin UNESCO, which it pulled out of during the Reagan era. Social conservatives will be deeply concerned over this since UNESCO, while not as bad as the U.N. itself, still supports the U.N. in promoting abortion and anti-family values around the world. Social conservatives will insist on one of their own for the U.S. UNESCO job.Bush Says 'Yes' to UNESCOOne of the little-noticed and little-reported items in President George W. Bush's speech to the U.N. General Assembly last week was the U.S. pledge to rejoin UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. In his speech, President Bush declared that "As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United States will return to UNESCO. This organization has been reformed and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights and tolerance and learning."
One year ago, President Bush stood before the United Nations General Assembly and pledged that the United States of America would return to UNESCO as a symbol of our nation's commitment to human dignity. Our delegation is proud to be here today representing our country and fulfilling that commitment. We believe in working with the nations of the world to promote the values shared by people throughout the world. Working in communities to help friends and neighbors is part of the fabric of American society. As of October 1st, the United States government will once again be a full, active and enthusiastic participant in UNESCO's important mission to promote peace and freedom. And the people of my country will work with our UNESCO colleagues throughout the world to advance education, science, culture and understanding.Remarks by First Lady Laura Bush to UNESCO Plenary Session
A UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) document, entitled "Unwanted Pregnancy and Unsafe Abortion," calls for sweeping government reform to make abortion available to all women and adolescent girls without restriction, going as far as to suggest that governments should subsidize abortions and offer "redress" to women who have been "denied" access to abortions "that should be made available to them."UNESCO Calls Abortion on Demand "Proper" Medical Procedure for Girls
Could you run your argument by me again?
The Conservative Party, in N.Y., is a hapless thing, one of many such parties, and one of the many, who gives their line on the ballot to people who are on MANY lines ( Rudy was on their line, as well as many others ), or to nonentities with no chance of winning move than a few votes.
I worked for both Buckleys' campaigns, as well as on many others. SO WHAT ? I FREEPED, all alone at great danger to myself, before there ever was such a thing.Big deal...again SO WHAT ? I don't need to prove myslef/bolster my ego, by listing every single thing I have ever done, politically,during my entire life, on FR; unlike you. And, your credentials don't prove a thing; not a damned thing about your political acumen.But, your post sure do...you have none!
I didn't call you names, I didn't personally attack you, and you're behaving exactly like Howard Dean. If you can't take the heat on FR, then don't post or read it; or just ignore the posts that so offend and hurt you. You like to dish it out, but can't take even a wee smidgen of it back. TOUGH !
True, although as I have pointed out, the Bush tax cuts don't fully unfold until ten years after enactment, and in the eleventh year they begin to be repealed. It would be nice if the Republicans, now that they control both houses, showed their commitment by making them permanent and bringing them into full operation faster.
And Republicans do deserve credit for voting unanimously against Bill Clinton's tax increase.
However, Bush the Elder and other Republicans have raised taxes. Many of the current tax-increase proposals in the states are coming from Republican governors.
In the last 30 years, no Dem president has fought against Communism and terrorists. Reagan and Bush the younger have.
I love the way that this iw carefully written to skirt the obvious unfarness of saying that "no Dem president has fought against Communism" since JFK, Truman, and even old corrupt LBJ did take some measures, however half-hearted, against Communism. And Bill Clinton never got the chance to be a Cold Warrior -- not that he would have -- as the Cold War was over by then.
So we're essentially talking about Carter. In fairness, he did slap a grain embargo on the Soviets after they invaded Afghanistan, but that is probably the only anti-Communist measure he took. Mostly, he was interested in "dtente" and in getting along with them to make sure that they didn't gain any more ground -- but that was indistinguishable from the policies of Nixon and Ford.
And of course, Nixon began the detente with Red China and Ford was the one who bugged out of Vietnam.
As for fighting terrorism, it was the greatest President in my lifetime who traded arms to the Iranians after they grabbed some Americans. It was a Republican who forced this President's hand by refusing to finish the job in 1991. Which party bugged out after the attack on teh Marine Barracks? Oh, yes. Republicans. Both parties have persisted in the futile effort to get along with the terrorist Arafat. True, Democrats have a bad record on fighting terrorism, but the record of Republicans on this issue is spotty at best.
Though some Supreme Court Justices ( and other judges )have not turned out to be quite what their nominators thought/hoped they'd be, NO Republican president set out, as Dem ones have,to clog the courts with activist faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar lefty ones.
Ah, yes, the standard Republican card -- the Supreme Court argument.
Uh, Earl Warren. William Brennan. Harry Blackmun. And so forth.
Two of the most reliable liberal votes on the Court are Souter and Stevens (who, IMO, is senile and ought to be led off into the sunset.) O'Connor and Kennedy vote with them frequently. All Republican appointees. And Whizzer White, who was a fairly conservative justice, was a Democrat appointee. I would say that Breyer is more conservative than two of the Republican justices, the aforementioned S&S.
Three of Bush's foru appointeees to the Texas Supreme Court while Governor were pro-aborts. At least one of them is reported to be on his list of potential nominees for the Supreme Court when he gets a chance.
Furthermore, it's been reported that the plan is to make O'Connor, not Scalia or Thomas, the next Chief Justice.
W has been open about his desire to appoint a Hispanic to the Supreme Court. I hope that will be someone like Miguel Estrada. But it is just as likely to be Al Gonzales, who would be a disaster. I would oppose a Gonzales nomination, just as I opposed the nominations of O'Connor and Souter (along with the Conservative Caucus and YAF, among others.) Bush seems to be more interested in the politics of the thing than in the substance of his appointments. He has nominated some pretty bad judges and refused to use the recess appointment power to put any really good ones on teh bench.
No GOP president looks to the UN as the arbiter for the world; the Dems do.
Actually, that is why Bush the Elder held back from toppling Saddam in 1991, leaving the job for his son to clean up. The UN told us to stop. Our mandate from the UN was just to free Kuwait, nothing more.
The Dems want us to fund the UN's abortion policies throughout the world. President Bush stopped that.
A small step forward, although I read that he was initially inclined to continue the previous policy. He has done nothing to stop our indirect support of China's "one child" policy.
The Dems are all for massive affirmative action; not so the GOP.
If you will recall, it was a Republican Administration that gave us Affirmative Action. And the EPA as well, FWIW.
President Bush stated his support for "Affirmative Access" during his campaign and he took the Affirmative Action side in the Michigan cases.
I knew, even before I made that wee list, that none of that is " good enough " for you. My replying is an exercise in futility. No matter what anyone says, it's NEVER good enough !
Because you and the other professional Republicans here refuse to pay attention to other things, at least as significant if not more so, that the Republican Party has done in power that could not in any way be described as conservative:
They gave us the largest entitlement program in almost 40 years, a boondoggle estimated at $400 billion, which if previous government estimates are any guide, is low by a factor of about 100.
They enacted a piece of legislation removing our right to criticize any incumbent during the two months before an election.
They enacted a massive Federal education spending bill that blows up Federal spending on education (and take it from me, a Hillsdale guy, Federal spending brings Federal control. That's why my alma mater won't take a dime of Federal money.) And it didn't even include any school choice provisions.
BTW, Federal education spending is patently unconstitutional.
They enacted a massive farm subsidy bill that supposedly was so bloated because it included Federally-covered insurance (where is the Constitutional justification for that?) and then passed a massive insurance bill separately afterwards.
When Red China shot down one of our airplanes and held two of our men captive (briefly), President Bush apologized to the Chinese. They attack us, and we apologize to them. Jeez, that sounds like Democrat policy to me.
They enacted a bill enabling American citizens to be whisked away and held incommunicado for as long as they deem necessary without even the courtesy of a hearing.
They reneged on their promises to make even an effort to abolish the Department of Energy and the Department of Education, and the Chairman of the RNC has made it clear that such ideas are unwelcome in the Republican party.
Instead, in the past 20 years, they have added two Cabinet departments! That is a really good way to promote smaller government!
They reneged on their promises to defund the NEA, NPR, and other government funded centers for leftist agitation. They never even made any real effort.
This Administration imposed steel tarrifs, which harm our economy, and only revoked them after the WTO told them to.
They refuse to make even a token effort to defund and withdraw from the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, the UN, and other anti-American institutions.
This is only a partial list. It's just what I could come up with from memory. I can find much more.
The Republicans do little more for us than the Democrats do and they do about as much to hurt our cause and our principles. How do we advance our cause by supporting this kind of a party?
It's time that we came together to build a genuinely conservative party in this country, since the Republicans have long since ceased being one. And I speak as a onetime YR. The Republicans were formed in the 1850s because tehWhig Party had ceased to take a stand on any issues that mattered. Well, the Republicans did such a good job of replacing the Whigs that they have become the Whigs.
The Whigs need to be replaced again.
No, Giuliani was not on the conservative Party line any of the three times that he ran. You could look it up.
The Conservative Party makes suer that there is a conservative voice in a liberal state. It exerts influence to keep the state from going completely off the cliff. I think it sometimes bends a bit too much, more than its founders would have liked, but that is a judgment call.
I didn't call you names, I didn't personally attack you
That is a baldfaced lie. Go back and read your own posts. Your entire posting on this thread has been abusive, name calling, and totally free of any substance whatsoever. I have been attacked many times on this forum. I'm a big boy; I can take it. Evidently, you can't.
Could you run your argument by me again?
I'll restate it for him. Bend over, shut up, and take it. After all, it's being done by Republicans so it must be good.
Yeah, he'll just have to deal with the RINO and Rat arrogant nutcases who water down an already watered down agenda.
When you vote with this kind of blind party loyalty, wasting your vote is exactly what you are doing. Only when you vote for principle does your vote mean something. When you vote for that in which you do not believe, you waste your vote on "the lesser of two evils." Well, the "lesser of two evils" is still an evil.
"Our first president, George Washington, warned us about the dangers of putting any political party above the general interests of the country. It would do well for Americans today to relearn this basic lesson. Our loyalty must first and foremost be to the fundamental principles upon which our nation was built, not to the finite interests of political partisanship."
"It is a fatal mistake to assume that any political party is the harbinger of patriotism. Theodore Roosevelt said, 'Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country.'"
"My loyalty to a party or politician must be measured by his loyalty to the fundamental principles on which America was founded. When I remain loyal to a politician or party after they demonstrate an unwillingness to be faithful to those immutable principles I am guilty of disloyalty to my country."
--Dr. Chuck Baldwin
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.