Posted on 05/16/2004 10:46:41 PM PDT by ConstitutionWally
An Abortion Free American by January 2005 May 14, 2004
I am Michael A. Peroutka and I am running for President on the Constitution Party ticket. I am 100% pro-life, all nine months, no exceptions. In fact, I am so pro-life, that if elected I promise that abortion will end my first day in office.
As President, I would advocate a total ban on all abortions and a total ban on any federal funding of abortions, here or abroad.
As President, I would do everything in my power to end the national disgrace of abortion, starting with a formal acknowledgment of the legal person-hood of every child from the moment of conception. I would appoint U.S. Attorneys – by recess appointment if necessary – who will enforce the Fifth Amendment requirement that no person be deprived of life without due process of law.
It is, by the way, within the power of the President to end abortion tomorrow, as I would do my first day in office. Don't let alleged "pro-life" Presidents tell you differently. The President has an obligation under Article IV, §4 to ensure to each member State that it will be republican in form of government. Any action that is not republican in form will be utterly resisted to the grave if necessary under a Peroutka Presidency. Abortion was made "legal" (more correctly, the prosecution of abortion was made illegal) in these United States by judicial fiat, which is anti-republican in form and in violation of the Separation of Powers and Article I, §1 of the Constitution vesting all legislative power of the Federal Government in the Congress. In an American form of government, "all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison. Most certainly, anti-Constitutional court decisions are not binding.
Thus, under my presidency, Roe v. Wade will not be enforced, and the member states of the Union could again open their criminal codes and begin the prosecution of the doctors and parents who would contract for the murder of an unborn child without fear of reprisal from the Chief Executive.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Until voters on both sides understand that there is no difference between the democrats and republicans, there will never be a successful third party candidacy.
As long as the voters stay asleep and believe what their leaders tell them
The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and politics…of the Right and…Left, is a foolish idea…the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy…
It should be possible, to replace one party with the other party which will pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policy.
--Dr. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope
I like Peroutka. He is a very bold man.
You might as well cast your vote for Lyndon LaRouche.
I also like Peroutka. I'll probably vote for him because President Bush is too liberal and because Bush can't win my state, Illinois. If I thought that the vote in my state would be close, I would vote for Bush because I don't want to help split the conservative vote and give the state's elecoral votes to a liberal. Since Kerry will easily win Illinois, I'll vote for the candidate I agree with the most.
I'll probably be voting for Peroutka because his ideals are closest to mine. The only I would even consider voting for Bush right now is if he changes his immigration policies.
So, what you are saying is no matter what the circumstances, no matter what your own personal beliefs, wants, desires, wishes, hopes, dreams, personal standards, etc., I should vote for Bush no matter what. No matter if I disagree with his run away spending, amnesty for illegals, caving on matters to the socialist democrats, etc. I should just forgive all that and vote for him no matter what. So, that is your answer?
No, he doesn't. Or else he would know that the President is not a dictator.
But that seems to be what your little heart yearns for. There are a number of coutries that have dictatorships. I suggest you move to one of them and enjoy.
About what nutcases they are.
George W. Bush, like John F. Kerry, is a Skull & Bones secret society member, and a puppet for the New World Order globalist Establishment Illuminati (Rockefeller crowd), working as hard as they can to bring about a one-world government of socialist tyranny, that would supersede America's sovereignty and Constitution.
From his website.
Lovely. Might as well vote for Art Bell. At least he would be amusing.
excellent point.
I'm anti-abortion AND pro-choice. One is my personal opinion while the other represents my unwillingness to press my personal beliefs on others.
Live conservative. Legislating MY personal beliefs into law that YOU must observe is not conservative but just another example of creeping government interference in the most intimate aspects of our personal lives.
Wail, cry and pray about abortion. That's conservative. Make laws to reflect your own opinion. That's socialist.
Wasn't Roy Moore going to run for the CP?
"interference in the most intimate aspects of our personal lives" You are not anti-abortion by any definition but your own. Killing your own children is not a personal matter (though one ought to be held to account personally!)
Every law is the imposition of the beliefs of others. Even the staunchest libertarian would admit that "harmless" recreational drugs can't be given to 8-year olds. This is the same old pro-murder language wrapped in "freedom" rhetoric. It is interesting that the more Socialist a nation becomes the more it supports the killing of the weak and innocent. That is an historical fact. www.Grassboots.Org
Bravo! I produced and distribute Pro-Life TV Ads for Howard Phillips in his 1992 run. He was a constitutionalist but no wacko. I have a friend who criticised Bush's appointment of John Ashcroft to the AG position (that's Attorney General, not Assembly of God!). He thought that Ashcroft was too wimpy in his hearings, stating he was willing to uphold the current pro-abortion laws (I disagree that was his testimony, but will grant the premise for a moment).
But let me ask you this. Who would the Constitiutional Party appoint to the AG position? Here' the Catch - he must get through Senate approval. There's the problem. Ashcroft is as conservative on child-killing that you will ever get appointed. I can nominate anybody, but will they get through. We got in this mess gradually, we will only get out gradually unless there is a great spiritual renewal.
And to focus the attention of your wrath-in the case of these Constitutional Party nutters-on John Ashcroft is simply ludicrous. Even as a Roman Catholic (lapsed), I think that he's done a fantastic job.
Whether you're speaking of his emphasis on prosecuting the War on Terror, or rolling back generic street crime-which I admit, should not necessarily be a role entrusted to the federal government-Ashcroft has done a phenomenal job as AG.
Just imagining the choice that Kerry would make-should he win this election-makes me want to wince in horror.
Maybe Bush isn't perfect, but to make the specious argument that there is no distinct advantage in choosing him over his Democratic opponent...
It's simply astounding.
That's the only way I have of describing that sort of attitude.
Sure yeah right!
Hunnerd...MUD
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.