Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Michael Peroutka Announces Presidential Campaign (December 15)
Radio Liberty and Others ^ | 1/1/2004 | Adam Valle

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,
"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."

In response to recent expansions in federal funding of education and the Medicare program, Peroutka explained how federal involvement went beyond Constitutional limits,
"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."

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.


Other sources: Politcs1
American Independent Party of California News & Views
Constitution Party of Florida


TOPICS: Announcements; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2004; aip; billofrights; bush; clinton; constitution; constitutionparty; cpot; cpow; decision2004; education; election2004; electionpresident; freedomofreligion; howardphillips; iap; iotc; medicare; michaelperoutka; mikeperoutka; peroutka; peroutka2004; peroutka4president; radioliberty; righttolife; stanmonteith; supremecourt; taxpayersparty; tedkennedy; thirdparty; wwwiotconlinecom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-226 next last
To: nopardons
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 !

As usual, I have to add, "And your little dog too!"

Stay away from the garden hose. It's connected to the hosebib in the Bohemian Grove.

181 posted on 01/03/2004 12:28:33 AM PST by nunya bidness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: TBP
BTTT!

I'm not certain I'll be voting for who you're voting for, but I'm certain I'm not voting for Bush.

Gridlock was better than what we have now.

182 posted on 01/03/2004 7:24:40 AM PST by 4Freedom (America is no longer the 'Land of Opportunity', it's the 'Land of Illegal Alien Opportunists'!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: ETERNAL WARMING
"What makes you think we're 'fringe?' Independents are the fastest growing group in the country".

That deserves repeating over and over. In fact I dare say Independents are at 33 percent of the voting population soon to be the majority of the voting public.

183 posted on 01/03/2004 10:59:57 AM PST by JustAnAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Welcome to the new 'conservative' party. Where to be called conservative you just have to be a shade less liberal than your opponent. Oh, and have a R by your name.

Don't forget the so-called conservatives who add new socialistic federal programs, going beyond the liberalism of their Democratic predecessors.

184 posted on 01/03/2004 1:39:37 PM PST by The_Eaglet (Conservative chat on IRC: http://searchirc.com/search.php?F=exact&T=chan&N=33&I=conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Bush had a golden opportunity after 9/11 to cut gov't size and spending. He has done neither - non-defense spending is through the roof and Bush has yet to veto a single bill.

And this makes him "conservative" how?

185 posted on 01/03/2004 1:55:39 PM PST by The_Eaglet (Conservative chat on IRC: http://searchirc.com/search.php?F=exact&T=chan&N=33&I=conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet
Phooey!. There's little practical difference between D's and R's, except the Dems head towards Socialism faster. Over time, both will deliver us to the state. Their selfish interests in power and holding a powerful and great paying job with really lucrative benefits and ego boosting TV time make this progression inevitable. And then they pile on laws that make it impossible for the "citizen legislator" to have a chance. Maybe gridlock ain't so bad after all.
186 posted on 01/03/2004 2:08:15 PM PST by furball4paws (Never less alone than when wholely alone; never less idle than when wholely idle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
The extremists actually believe that "conservatives" will make a comeback after they break the Republican party and the DUmocrats have full control of the Supreme Court, the legislation, all government, gun confiscation, etc.....

simply use your imagination of the irreversible damage a DUmocrat (Socialist/Marxist) controlled government would create. I know, I have a brilliant strategy to teach those Publikians a lesson, lets all fall on our swords! That'll teach 'em!

187 posted on 01/03/2004 2:09:13 PM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (HOW ABOUT rooting for our side for a change, you Liberalterian Morons!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: JustAnAmerican
Yes, independents do vote on a centrist view point, not extreme left, left, extreme right, Constitutionalist, isolationist, or Protectionist.

President Bush will get that vote because he offers a middle ground solution. Quite brilliant really.

188 posted on 01/03/2004 2:15:03 PM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (HOW ABOUT rooting for our side for a change, you Liberalterian Morons!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: jgrubbs
He will be there with Justice Roy Moore, Alan Keyes, Jim Clymer and Howard Phillips.

I wish I could go. I am interested in what they all have to say.

189 posted on 01/03/2004 2:15:47 PM PST by The_Eaglet (Conservative chat on IRC: http://searchirc.com/search.php?F=exact&T=chan&N=33&I=conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
simply use your imagination of the irreversible damage a DUmocrat (Socialist/Marxist) controlled government would create

Who needs to imagine? It's right in front of us. If you were to tell me ten years ago that one of the parties was in control and passed massive spending bills in the name of education and healthcare, I couldn't be convinced that a Republican not only signed it, but signed it gleefully. 'We' are in control of the House, the Senate, and the White House. What's the excuse? The people want it? It gets 'us' more votes? I thought 'conservatives' didn't run the government based on polls. That's the standard accusation, among many, about Clinton. He ran the nation by polls. Mind you, Clinton was worse morally but after seeing two years of the Republican party in control of every part of government, I'm not so sure a logjam isn't the best solution between the two parties. 10-15 years from now when this all starts to come back and bite the citizens of the respective states, namely in their wallets, don't blame Democrats. This fiasco should be laid solely at the feet of the Republican party.

190 posted on 01/03/2004 2:23:09 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: billbears
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.

I certainly didn't see him recommend any other alternatives to stopping the socialism and/or unconstitional activity perpetuated by the Bush administration.

191 posted on 01/03/2004 4:29:32 PM PST by The_Eaglet (Conservative chat on IRC: http://searchirc.com/search.php?F=exact&T=chan&N=33&I=conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: billbears; GeronL; Tailgunner Joe
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

...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."

It sounds like Bush doesn't consider UNESCO's affronts to the dignity of the unborn as a problem.
We don't need any presidents supporting this nonsense, especially those that claim to be pro-life.
Click here to view the Constitution Party platform on the sanctity of life.

192 posted on 01/03/2004 5:18:42 PM PST by The_Eaglet (Conservative chat on IRC: http://searchirc.com/search.php?F=exact&T=chan&N=33&I=conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
Oh yeah...they've really " taught " the GOP so much, in the past and " saved " America from the horridness of a re-elected x41, by helping to install Clinton. Just imagine how much better America would be, if Dean were presidxent, or Hillary, or.......

After all, they sleep soooooooooooooo much better, clutching their " principles " to their chests, as Dems rob them blind, ignore terrorist problems,give away our secrets, deplete our military and weapons, place activist judges in all courts, and trample all over their rights. LOL

193 posted on 01/03/2004 5:44:37 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet
yay
194 posted on 01/03/2004 7:27:14 PM PST by GeronL (The French just can't stop being French.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Constitution Party should be more pro-war, cuz we have NO CHOICE but to fight.

otherwise, I am usually with them.

195 posted on 01/03/2004 7:28:13 PM PST by GeronL (The French just can't stop being French.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
I love the idea of the Constitution Party and I do NOT consider myself a Republican... but..

I bet it ticked him off when Saddam's capture kicked his announcement off the top of the news

It would have to be a NO NEWS day for this announcement to be in the top of the news.

196 posted on 01/03/2004 7:29:55 PM PST by GeronL (The French just can't stop being French.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
It is difficult to do that, when some would rather vote fringe party than GOP. When some Conservatives go fringe, they only help the Dems! That does less than nothing,on every level, to roll back what the Dems have spent decades installing!

and calling them names is the best way to get them back?? I doubt it.

197 posted on 01/03/2004 7:38:20 PM PST by GeronL (The French just can't stop being French.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Chris Tucker
Why don't you guys field some candidates for Congressional races instead of focusing on the Presidency, who is just a figurehead for the Executive Branch anyway? In

Now thats constructive. Unlike those who just like to name call, and I agree with you. We should be focused on running a few people for Congress in districts where they will get attention and in ones they might win, then they will act as the consience of conservatives in the US House... although probably sitting in the GOP side.

198 posted on 01/03/2004 7:41:48 PM PST by GeronL (The French just can't stop being French.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
The PURIST and UNAPPEASABLES, here, won't ever " come back " and they call the rest of us names regularly.

Other than fringers, unappeasables, and purists ( all descriptive terms and NOT name calling at all !), just WHAT names have I been guilty of calling them ? NONE , through great restraint, I assure you. :-)

199 posted on 01/03/2004 7:51:00 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: caltrop
I'm sure he will make this a "close race" like the McIdiot/Jeb race in 2002. /sarcasm
200 posted on 01/03/2004 9:47:30 PM PST by Clemenza (East side, West side, all around the town. Tripping the light fantastic on the sidewalks of New York)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-226 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson