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."
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.
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.
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.
Don't forget the so-called conservatives who add new socialistic federal programs, going beyond the liberalism of their Democratic predecessors.
And this makes him "conservative" how?
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!
President Bush will get that vote because he offers a middle ground solution. Quite brilliant really.
I wish I could go. I am interested in what they all have to say.
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.
I certainly didn't see him recommend any other alternatives to stopping the socialism and/or unconstitional activity perpetuated by the Bush administration.
...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.
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
otherwise, I am usually with them.
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.
and calling them names is the best way to get them back?? I doubt it.
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.
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. :-)
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.