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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 221-226 next last
To: The_Eaglet
I like your patriotic Snoopy. :)

Thanks!

81 posted on 01/02/2004 9:26:37 AM PST by upchuck (This tag line will self-destruct in five seconds. 5.... 4.... 3.... 2.... 1.... DISOLVE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey
"True conservatives" should be the MOST afraid of America being permanently subjugated to the U.N. and international socialism ... yet our purists seem desperate to kill off the GOP, the only entity standing in the way of this happening!

Which GOP are you talking about? I know that there are some "True conservatives" in Congress like Ron Paul and the Liberty Committee, but the most of rest of the GOP are helping the U.N. Take a look at this article from 2 years ago:

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:gtvpE-YgcEwJ:www.usasurvival.org/bushprtctun.html+GOP+%2BUN&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

If I do some more searches on Google I'm sure we can find more GOP supported pro-UN bills.

This is from the Constitution Party's Platform: "We call upon the president and Congress to terminate the membership of the United States in the United Nations and its subsidiary and affiliated organizations."

82 posted on 01/02/2004 9:37:15 AM PST by jgrubbs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: jgrubbs
Minutes before President George W. Bush announced his endorsement of Kofi Annan for another term as U.N. boss, Rep. Ron Paul declared on a national radio show that he was afraid that the U.S.-U.N. relationship would get "cozier" under Bush than it had been under Clinton. He compared it to those "conservative" Republicans who had cozied up to Communist China.

http://www.usasurvival.org/nwo2.html
83 posted on 01/02/2004 9:42:02 AM PST by jgrubbs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet
Bump!
84 posted on 01/02/2004 9:42:06 AM PST by jimkress (America has become Soviet Union Lite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey; jgrubbs
"True conservatives" should be the MOST afraid of America being permanently subjugated to the U.N. and international socialism ... yet our purists seem desperate to kill off the GOP, the only entity standing in the way of this happening!

Er, who's preventing it from happening?

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.

One 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."

Bush Says 'Yes' to UNESCO

So joining U.N. organizations prevents these United States from being 'subjugated to the U.N. and international socialism'? And this is 'conservative' politics is it?

85 posted on 01/02/2004 10:36:30 AM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: jgrubbs
I wonder if Peroutka will make a more formal announcement at the Biblical Foundations of American Law Conference, which will be held on Saturday, January 24, in Lancaster, PA.

Just as long as he and his supporters continue to make his campaign known, I will be grateful.

86 posted on 01/02/2004 11:09:44 AM 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: jgrubbs
Two choices for President in the world of current political reality... one from either the GOP or the Dem party. Whatever issues you don't agree with, the GOP is miles farther to the right than the DemocRat party with it's growning segment of proud Socialists.

If you can't see or admit this you are so blinded by ideology as to be entirely useless to the country anyways. The Socialists/Greens/Communists worldwide are attempting to influence our 2004 election to defeat Bush... they consider him an enemy to their goals and an enemy to the U.N. Right now it is not just the GOP against the DemocRats, it is the GOP against the left half of our country AND America's enemies abroad... 2004 is the WRONG year for you to refuse to be part of the conservatives and rightish-moderates that form the GOP coalition.

87 posted on 01/02/2004 11:36:08 AM PST by Tamzee (Pennsylvanians for Bush! Join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PA4BushCheney/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey
Whatever issues you don't agree with, the GOP is miles farther to the right than the DemocRat party with it's growning segment of proud Socialists.

The current GOP has increased the size of the federal government at a faster rate than any other in US history, including all previous Democrats. The majority of the GOP of today would have been considered liberals compared to the GOP of Reagan's days. If we continue in the direction we are heading we will have two liberal parties in control both full of "proud Socialists".

I think Bush will win in 2004 and will continue to grow the federal government and increase it's power and spending over the next 4 years just in time for Hillary to take the reigns in 2008 only to expand what Bush has set in motion. I REALLY fear the "US Patriot Act" and Homeland Security under Hillary's control.

88 posted on 01/02/2004 11:48:53 AM PST by jgrubbs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet
Although the chutzpah of the Constitution Party adherents is admirable, they haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of winning the preseidential election - or any other election, except for some localized races here and there. What they do have a chance of doing is causing a lot of conservative voters to waste their vote instead of voting for President Bush in the 2004 election, just like Nader caused Gore to lose the last time around. Will the Constitutional Party loyalists pat themselves on the back after they have succeeded in putting Howard "Draft-Dodger" Dean in office, or God forbid - der Hildebeast?

If the Constitutional Party really wants to make a positive difference, they would organize themselves as a faction within the Republican Party and start influencing activity at the PCO and state levels, then they'd be a force to be reckoned with. Otherwise, they'll just be suqeaky wheels regarded as "extremists" and "nut-jobs" with no influence whatsoever, other than as "spoilers" which will cause Republican candidates to lose to democRATS.


89 posted on 01/02/2004 11:59:13 AM PST by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
...will cause Republican candidates to lose to democRATS.

Republican's abandoning conservative values will cause Republican candidates to lose to democRATS. I supported the GOP during the Regan years, but the last Presidential candidate I voted for as a registered Republican was Alan Keyes. There are a few members of the GOP that I still support, but the GOP as a whole is moving towards the left at a very scary rate.

90 posted on 01/02/2004 12:02:59 PM PST by jgrubbs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: jgrubbs
There are a few members of the GOP that I still support, but the GOP as a whole is moving towards the left at a very scary rate.....

One reason for that is because the conservative grassroots activists are wasting their time getting involved in fringe outfits, like the Constitution Party, instead of organizing themselves as a real opposition block within the Republican Party. The Party will reflect the values of the most organized activists - which right now happen to be the "moderates" (i.e.: spineless compromisers) because the real conservatives are demoralized and jumping ship - which will only cause the "moderates" to be in control. Is that what consrvatives really want? Then they'd better wise up, stop whining, organize, get activated and get the Republican Party back on track.

91 posted on 01/02/2004 12:12:34 PM PST by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
The Party will reflect the values of the most organized activists - which right now happen to be the "moderates"...wise up, stop whining, organize, get activated and get the Republican Party back on track.

I think the party reflects the leadership, not any single goup of activists. The RNC leadership calls themselves "moderate" or "compasionate conservatives", when they realy are only another form of socialists. There are some great organized activists groups within the GOP like The Liberty Committee (http://www.thelibertycommittee.com/), but I think they are shunned by the leadership and usually end up voting against the majority of the GOP. I would love to see the Republican party back on track, but I think it has drifted to far left for that to be possible. Entitlements are forever and the current GOP under the leadership of Bush has give many handouts to the American people it would be very difficult if not impossible for them to take them back. Medicare, GOP Pork and soon amnesty for 8 million illegals, I would say that the Republican party doesn't care what the activist or the voters feel or think, only what will keep them in power.

92 posted on 01/02/2004 12:20:49 PM PST by jgrubbs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: BlkConserv
The only way these people will be satisfied is if one of the Founders can be somehow magically brought back to life and run for President again

Nah they would find something like Ben Franklin starting the Post Office or the part in Alexander Hamiltion's hair is wrong to scream that the sky is falling.

93 posted on 01/02/2004 12:27:29 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BlkConserv
The only way these people will be satisfied is if one of the Founders can be somehow magically brought back to life and run for President again.

No, I just want the current GOP to stop compromising on so many issues and start sharing the same values and principals the Founders had. I guess that is hard though when most of the GOP think that the American form of government is a Democracy, and would rather compromise and increase the strength of the Federal government so they can stay in power.

94 posted on 01/02/2004 12:32:07 PM PST by jgrubbs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Not Alexander Hamiltion!

He's the father of the modern day Coast Guard. Hamiliton was a donut-eating jack booted thug!

95 posted on 01/02/2004 12:34:05 PM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
He's the father of the modern day Coast Guard. Hamiliton was a donut-eating jack booted thug!

No, but close

Hamilton's basic plan of government looked like this:

Two legislatures consisting of (1) an assembly, directly elected by the people to three year term ; and (2) a senate, chosen by electors from senatorial districts to serve during good behavior

A Judiciary consisting of twelve justices to serve during good behavior. The judiciary would have both original and appelate jurisdictions.

An executive "Governor," whose election is made by electors chosen by electors chosen by the people from the senatorial districts, to serve during good behavior. Hamilton was opposed to terms for the executive because he felt that the incumbent would spend his time in office creating a political machine to ensure his reelection. He saw, in retrospect quite clearly, that limited terms would effectively limit the chief executive to engaging in full-time electoral politics. "An executive for life has not this motive for forgetting his fidelity and will therefore be a safer depository of power."

The Hamilton Plan

Senators and President for life? What amounted to an elected monarch. Never mind his banking schemes. I often wonder how this nation of states would have been different if Burr had not given Hamilton what he deserved. Perhaps Clay would not have been as influenced by Hamilton's views and Clay's American System would not have begun to come to fruition under Clay's lackey.

96 posted on 01/02/2004 12:45:08 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
Not Alexander Hamiltion! He's the father of the modern day Coast Guard. Hamiliton was a donut-eating jack booted thug!

Reminds me of the latest news from Seattle: A local restaurant has been offering "Naked Sushi" where patrons eat sushi off of a nude woman. Not to be outdone, local homosexuals have scheduled a "naked donut-eating contest" at the restaurant. http://www.thestranger.com/2003-11-20/savage.html

97 posted on 01/02/2004 12:47:43 PM PST by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Hamilton convinced Congress to authorize the building and commissioning of ten revenue cutters with which to force the collection of customs duties on American citizens. That force of Revenue Cutters eventually became the U.S. Coast Guard.

As Secretary of the Treasury, for a new nation with a war debt, Hamilton was faced with the realization that people who had regularly smuggled their good past English Revenue Cutters to avoid paying English customs duties were now continuing to avoid paying the same duties to their own country. Many of our founding fathers kept up that little tradition.

The Revenue Cutters were given the authority to stop ships, without warrant, and search them for contraband and to seize vessels carrying such contraband. In this way he was able to force American's to pay the government it's due.

98 posted on 01/02/2004 12:50:07 PM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
As David Theroux of The Independent Institute points out, “Over the past three years, with inflation at record lows, U.S. government spending has increased by a massive 28.3% -- with non-defense discretionary growth of 30.5% -- producing the largest deficit in U.S. history and the highest rate of government growth since LBJ’s ‘Guns and Butter’ combination of the Vietnam War and ‘Great Society.’”

Did you know that President Bush has become the first president since the long-forgotten James Garfield not to veto a SINGLE spending bill? That we now have record pork spending and corporate welfare in agriculture, education, Medicare, energy defense, transportation, foreign aid, homeland security, and more?

This coincides, though not really coincidentally, with vastly expanded governmental powers to detain people without charge, access to counsel, or trial. Privacy rights have been shredded as your government now has the authority to intercept phone, Internet and other communications, and to access your health, financial and other private records.

Where is the outrage over this disastrous turn of events? There is precious little from the public or from Big Media. Few of us seem concerned, at least for now. And the situation could become even more perilous for freedom lovers if, as the former commander of American forces in the Iraq war, General Tommy Franks predicts, another terrorist attack on American soil results in the virtual nullification of the Constitution.

“Democracy” is historically followed by the rule of Caesars, the Man on Horseback, the Dictator. Is that where we are heading in this new century?

(Exceprts from Ron Smith's "Something to Say" Commentary, http://wbal.com/stories/templates/commentary_smith.asp?articleid=14624&zoneid=3 )
99 posted on 01/02/2004 12:50:38 PM PST by jgrubbs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
I could have made it through the day without reading that...where's the egg nog when I need it?
100 posted on 01/02/2004 12:51:05 PM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 221-226 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