New Presidential Poll: 2004 Updated

Watching Michael Peroutka's acceptance speech tonight on C-SPAN reassured me that I am voting for the best candidate for our country!!

If you missed it at 6:30PM ET, they will be re-broadcasting it again tonight at 9:30pm ET.

 

I watched some of it and taped all of it, Jonathan. Mr. Peroutka is without a doubt the Christian presidential candidate, the Christian alternative to both Demopublican presidential candidates, in the 2004 election.

 

The 50% who are voting for Bush should be ashamed for throwing their vote away.

 

-----> [campaign banner snipped]]

[ June 29, 2004, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Christ4Kildare ]

 

One problem with the poll...

Gary Nolan/Libertarian Party is not right.

Although everyone thought Gary Nolan was the favorite to get the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination, and Aaron Russo had the most money for his campaign, in a stunning come-from-behind victory, Texas constitutional scholar Michael Badnarik won the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination.

Badnarik's victory was considered a shock because he had been beaten in the polls and primaries by both Nolan and Russo. According to many undecided delegates, Badnarik's superior performance in the Saturday debates propelled him ahead of the other candidates.

I was talking to Bernard von NotHaus two weeks ago over supper, he was at the Libertarian Party convention, and he said that it was very emotional, when after seeing Michael Badnarik do so well in the convention's presidential candidate debates, Gary Nolan took the mic, endorsed Badnarik and asked all of his supporters to do the same.

I told Bernard, that it shows the power of the debates and should show why the two major parties have done every thing they can to keep any third-parties out of the national debates since 1992.

 

A vote for Peroutka is a wasted vote. If you support LIFE, if you want to support traditional marriage, if you want to maintain American sovereignty, if you want a strong U.S. military, if you want to see the war on terrorism won, if you want to see an end to judicial tyranny, then vote for Bush.

 

I wonder who Mickey Moore will vote for? 911 F

 

Pragmatism, frankly, is not a biblical philosophy. Christians are not called to do what is most likely to "succeed" but to do what is right. The problem with the pragmatic approach is this - it says in effect, the good of the ends is the measure of how good the means are. But that is circular reasoning- it does not tell us how to measure the "good" of the end. Vote what you think is right not for the one you think can provide the greatest success. Pragmatism is a poor standard for right and wrong. Continuing down this path is only sliding us further along the road - not slowing us at all.

'[Conservatism's] history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the restricted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third evolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn.

'American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward to perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It tends to risk nothing serious for the sake of truth.'
- Dr. R. L. Dabney

 

Forget the "Nader affect" What we have here is the "Peroutka Affect"!

 

AMEN!

 

The idea that we have to put up with a pro-abortion president, just because he's somewhat less pro-abortion than some others, is not sound.

Your vote is a matter of stewardship between you and God. If you vote for Bush, you are selling out too cheaply.

There is a pro-like candidate.

But the GOP has told evangelicals that voting pro-life is "wasting your vote."

It seems to me that anything less would be a waste.

 

Michael Badnarik is the Libertarian candidate and for him I will vote. Gary Nolan is NOT the candidate.

 

First we need to get all Christians to vote.Less than 50% of all Christians vote.I think we have got to take responsibility for many of the things that have gone wrong in this country.We have let our lite be hid under a bushel basket.

 

Hey KenH, what's Peroutka's position on Israel? Is he pro-, anti- or neither?

 

Constitution Party's Foreign Policy Plank:

The United States is properly a free and sovereign republic which should strive to live in peace with all nations, without interfering in their internal affairs, and without permitting their interference in ours. We are, therefore, unalterably opposed to entangling alliances - via treaties, or any other form of commitment - which compromise our national sovereignty, or commit us to intervention in foreign wars.

To this end, we shall:

steadfastly oppose American participation in any form of world government organization, including any world court under United Nations auspices;
call upon the President, and Congress, to terminate United States membership in the United Nations, and its subsidiary organizations, and terminate U.S. participation in all so-called U.N. peace keeping operations;
bar the United Nations, and its subsidiaries, from further operation, including raising of funds, on United States territory; and
propose that the Constitution be obeyed to prohibit the United States government from entering any treaty, or other agreement, which makes any commitment of American military forces or tax money, compromises the sovereignty of the United States, or accomplishes a purpose properly the subject of domestic law. In this connection we specifically denounce the agreement establishing the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and any other such trade agreements, either bi-lateral or regional in nature. All treaties must be subordinate to the Constitution, since the Constitution is the only instrument which empowers and limits the federal government.
American troops must serve only under American commanders, not those of the United Nations or foreign countries.

Pacts and Agreements

Since World War II, the United States has increasingly played the undesirable role of an international policeman. Through our involvements abroad our country is being changed from a republic to a world empire in which our freedoms are being sacrificed on an alter of international involvement. The United States is now committed by treaty to defend foreign nations in all parts of the world, and by agreements other than treaties to defend more. Therefore, we call upon the President, and Congress, to immediately commence a systematic withdrawal from these treaties and agreements, each of which holds the potential to plunge America into war in some far-flung corner of the earth.

NATO, for instance, serves no defensive purpose for the United States, and this country should withdraw from it.

Unconstitutional, Undeclared Wars

Since World War II, the United States has been involved in tragic, unconstitutional, undeclared wars which cost our country the lives of many thousands of young Americans. These wars were the direct and foreseeable result of the bi-partisan interventionist policy of both Democrat and Republican administrations.

The Constitution Party is opposed to the continuation of the same interventionist policy, with that policy's capacity to involve our country in repeated wars.

We demand that:

never again shall United States troops be employed on any foreign field of battle without a declaration of war by Congress, as required by the United States Constitution;
Congress refuse to fund unconstitutional, undeclared wars pursuant to presidential whim or international obligations under which American sovereignty has been transferred to multi-national agencies.
Foreign Involvement

The Constitution Party has consistently opposed American involvement in conflicts in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Europe, and Central and South America. The United States has no interest in these areas which would justify the sacrifice of Americans on foreign battlefields - nor is our country properly cast as a merchant of death in international arms races.

We propose that the United States

repudiate any commitment, express or implied, to send U.S. troops to participate in foreign conflicts, whether unilaterally, under NATO auspices, or as a part of the United Nations "peace-keeping" operations; and
cease financing, or arming of belligerents in the world's troubled areas.
We support the principle of the Monroe Doctrine, which expresses U.S. opposition to European adventurism in the Western Hemisphere.

We call upon the Congress to immediately terminate American military presence in all foreign countries where such U.S. presence constitutes an invitation for this nation to become involved in, or further participate in, foreign wars.

We are opposed to the negotiation or ratification of any treaty which would deprive United States citizens of their rights under the United States Constitution.

Foreign Aid

Since World War II, the United States has engaged in the greatest international giveaway program ever conceived by man, and is now spending billions of dollars each year to aid foreign nations. There is no constitutional basis for foreign aid. These expenditures have won us no friends, and constitute a major drain on the resources of our taxpayers. Therefore, we demand that:

no further funds be appropriated for any kind of foreign aid program;
United States participation in international lending institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, be ended;
the Export-Import Bank be abolished;
all government subsidies, tax preferences, and investment guarantees to encourage U.S. businesses to invest in foreign lands be immediately terminated; and
all debts owed to the United States by foreign countries, or foreign entities, be collected.

 

So, is it safe to assume that the Constitution Party isn't interested in keeping up it's alliance with Isreal? We will neither attack her nor defend her? Is this basically the position?

 

The Constitution Party would be a friend of Israel, but would not send Israel or any other country a "blank check" and call it foreign aid.

The Constitution Party would also not do as the current administration has done and demand that Israel "show restraint" when attacked by terrorists. If Israel wants to go after those who attack them, then the Constitution Part would say, "more power to them!"