Posted on 09/19/2007 12:56:58 PM PDT by traviskicks
The following statement has been issued by Michael Anthony Peroutka, the Presidential candidate of the Constitution Party in 2004. He is also co-founder, with his brother Steve, of “Institute On The Constitution.” And he is co-host, with John Lofton, of “The American View” radio show.
I endorse Rep. Ron Paul for President. And I endorse him not because he is the lesser of two evils. A Christian can never endorse any kind of evil. I endorse Rep. Paul because — from a Christian/Biblical and Constitutional perspective – he is, by far, the best candidate running for President.
— Rep. Paul believes, correctly, that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant word of God and thus it is not the role of God-ordained civil government, at any level, to feed, house, clothe or educate anybody.
— Rep. Paul takes his oath to God as a Congressman seriously and believes, correctly, that the Constitution is the highest man-made law in our land, that it severely restricts what the Federal Government can legally do, and it must be obeyed. This is why, as he states on his campaign web site, he has: never voted to raise taxes; never voted for an unbalanced budget; never voted for a Federal restriction on gun ownership; never voted to raise Congressional pay; never taken a government-paid junket; and has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
In addition, Rep. Paul has voted against: the Patriot Act; regulating the Internet; and he voted against the Iraq war. He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program. He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
— Rep. Paul, again correctly, is truly pro-life and believes that there are no circumstances under which it is OK to murder by abortion any innocent unborn babies.
Another admirable characteristic demonstrated repeatedly by Rep. Paul is that he speaks honestly and plainly. In one of the recent GOP candidate debates, re: the Iraq war, he said: “Yes, I would leave. I would leave completely” – no troops in the region there, none. Period. He added: “We need a new foreign policy…to mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend this country, defend our borders.”
When his questioner dishonestly accused him of saying that we should take our marching orders from Al Qaida who also want us to withdraw from the Arabian Peninsula, Rep. Paul replied: “I’m saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it’s an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We’ve committed the invasion of this war. [The Constitution is] where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy.”
Well, amen!, Rep. Paul. God bless you, sir, and your family as you proceed in this campaign. And God does bless us when we obey Him.
Rep. Ron Paul is a real patriot who understands that true love of country requires, first, trusting in God’s Providence and next obedience to our Constitution. He is a man who rejects mindless jingoism such as “My country right or wrong.” Instead, he believes that when our country is wrong – as it is today in many ways — true patriots must work to set us right. As President, Ron Paul, I believe, would work Christianly and Constitutionally to set our country right. This is why, in good conscience, I endorse his candidacy for President of the United States.
A footnote: You may hear our recent interview of Rep. Paul by downloading the following file:
Yes, I will miss the entertainment, but their absence will only be a plus for FR. Let them go to DU where they belong.
So defeat is a good thing. Got it.
Did the framers rely on polling as to how they should vote, or did they form a representative Republic?
There is only two "polls" I care about, one is on election day, and the other is of a private nature.
Leadership doesn't rely on polls.
History will judge the Iraq war opponents harshly. I hope you live long enough to change your mind or get thoroughly shamed.
“Just, Underwhelmed”
Partly true for me, but I get the creeps being on the same forum as moveon.org proxies.
LOL, they do if they plan to get elected. And siding with only 37 percent of the public (a number that will decrease by next year) isn't the way to get elected.
History will judge the Iraq war opponents harshly. I hope you live long enough to change your mind or get thoroughly shamed.
No I think not. History has shown us what has happened to Western nations who have tried to bend regions of the Middle East to their way of thinking. The result will be the same now as they were then.
Constitution party ping
Paul may come or go but the issue of getting out of Iraq will remain. All the funny face sophomore stuff and comments won't make it go away.
What did the History books in your neck of France indicate about the West installing a democracy in Japan, Korea and Germany?
Relying on media driven polls is food for fools.
"Paul may come or go but the issue of getting out of IraqJapan will remain"
"Paul may come or go but the issue of getting out of IraqGermany will remain"
"Paul may come or go but the issue of getting out of IraqKorea will remain"
"Paul may come or go but the issue of getting out of IraqKosovo will remain"
Sorry, but the others were not your words. They just spotlight the fact that you want us out of the only place we are currently in, that has vital US security interests at stake.
Please, use the delete button and remove your Freerepublic link, you guys are stinking up the place.
When did Japan, Korea, or Germany become part of the ME? It's a different region junior with a history much different than those regions. BTW, we've already had this lesson. Japan and Germany had forms of representative government at points prior to the West 'installing' new ones.
Relying on media driven polls is food for fools
Hey no worries. You think a candidate who advocates 'staying the course' will get elected next year be my guest. It won't happen, but believe what you will.
Isn't Japan and Germany totally different culturally and historically, yet are able to govern themselves western style?
Are there NO governments in the ME that equal Japans "form of representative" governement back in the 30's and early 40's?
The people of the Middle East are just animals to you guys, and Saddam was "the only one who could control them" as I quote directly from one of your fellow terror excusers.
All people, everywhere deserve to live free and without tyranny. Of course, being perfectly selfish and suicidal is perfectly ok with your average Paulistinian.
William F. Buckley once remarked that the defining element of conservatism is realism—realism about the limits of state power, the nature of human beings and societies, the complexity of international life. Yet many conservatives who believe that the state can do nothing right at home think that it can do nothing wrong abroad. (If things go badly, why, more money, bigger bombs and ground troops will straighten it out.) Many who are scornful of social engineering at home seem sure it will work beyond our borders. They seem convinced that good intentions and a burst of state power can transform the world. How conservative is that?
You are the one who has no business posting on a conservative forum.
Begone you liberal statist troll.
And take your sheep faced friends with you.
Thanks for the laugh.
If you think the Iraq war is social engineering then you are beyond help, and are simple part of the anti-war derangement that is threating America with suicide.
Please, do us all favor, leave Freerepublic.
Actually not. Japan yes but the Japanese were beginning to experiment with democratic forms of government on their own in the late 1800s. Get that? On their own. Not by force.
And to be honest I don't remember reading Germany and Japan being invaded for close to a millenium on a regular basis (in the same fashion the Arabic world was invaded). But then again I read books so....
The people of the Middle East are just animals to you guys, and Saddam was "the only one who could control them" as I quote directly from one of your fellow terror excusers.
Wow you know so much about me. Not. They are not animals, they have a different culture. One that should be respected.
All people, everywhere deserve to live free and without tyranny.
Define free. Define tyranny. Does free by definition mean a democratic form of government only? What if the general population elects a theocracy or advocates a theocratic view of government (unfortunately as some around here do). They are willing to put themselves under a set of rules that I would not call 'free'. But they freely submit to said rules because that is what they believe.
Are you then not limiting their freedom because their view of 'freedom' is different from yours?
...just one that is not compatible with democracy and living in peace with her neighbors right?
No sense in helping stablize the Iraqi government now that Saddam is gone right?
You anti-war kooks are dangerous.
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.