• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Constitutional Party Candidate: Michael Peroutka '04

Roy

<img src=/0710.gif>
Site Supporter
I voted for Pat Buchanan last election. The CP candidate will most likely get my vote this election year (unless Hardsheller throws his hat into the ring).

Please be warned - the Constitutionalist Party and the Constitution Party are not the same. The Constitutionalists are a very liberal crowd. Here's a link to their web site. http://home.earthlink.net/~jmarkels/cp.html

Roy
 

Hardsheller

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hardsheller:
Only one problem - Michael Peroutka's positions on the issues is untenable.
Only one problem with George W. Bush as president for the last three years - the majority of what he has actually done is either liberal or socialistic.

It's rather hard to believe that someone would state that by the government remaining within its constitutional bounds it would cause an economic depression, Hardsheller.

If this is an indication of economic understanding in America, it's no wonder we end up with presidents like Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.
tear.gif
</font>[/QUOTE]What Michael P. is talking about and the Constitution Party is advocating would take years to implement. You can't undo 100 years of political corruption and government intervention into every arena of life in one 4 year term without it causing diastrous economic distress throughout America.

I'm all for reform and downsizing of the federal government but I'm willing to see it happen gradually.
 

Hardsheller

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Roy:
I voted for Pat Buchanan last election. The CP candidate will most likely get my vote this election year (unless Hardsheller throws his hat into the ring).

Please be warned - the Constitutionalist Party and the Constitution Party are not the same. The Constitutionalists are a very liberal crowd. Here's a link to their web site. http://home.earthlink.net/~jmarkels/cp.html

Roy
Roy,

I can't run. I went AWOL one time when I was in the ARMY and you know what Galatian says about that! :D
 

Don

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So Ken, are we to assume for now that just like the Iowa caucus, he's "competing" for the Constitution Party nomination?
 

bb_baptist

New Member
Michael Peroutka Opposes Bush Amnesty

PEROUTKA 2004
8028 Ritchie Highway
Suite #303
Pasadena, Maryland 21122

877-MAP-2004
www.peroutka2004.com

FROM THE CAMPAIGN HEADQUARTERS IN PASADENA, MARYLAND

January 10, 2004

Dear Friends;

The Republican Party Platform that George Bush ran on called for a
total overhaul of our immigration system and criticized the Clinton
Administration for lax enforcement of our immigration laws. But,
President Bush’s recently announced so-called immigration reform does
nothing to secure our borders. In fact, his suggested plan makes
things worse --- a lot worse and a lot more dangerous.

President Bush says his proposed program will offer legal status as
temporary workers to the millions of illegal aliens now employed in
our country who are breaking the law! This makes no sense at all.
None.

Representative Tom Tancredo, a Republican from Colorado who is
chairman of the 68-member House Immigration Caucus, has it right
when he says this Bush proposal dangerous because it offers additional
incentives and rewards for illegal aliens while it gives only lip
service to what is really important: border security. Tancredo points
out that of the 37,000 non-Mexicans who illegally crossed our borders
in 2002, more than 7,500 were from countries that are known to harbor
terrorists. And, he notes, President Bush and his advisors are ignoring
the fact that there was another amnesty program in 1986 which was a
failure and only encouraged more illegal immigration.

Regardless of what President Bush says, his new program is a blanket
amnesty for the 8 to 10 million illegal aliens who have broken into
our country. It is, as Pat Buchanan says, a massive reward for law-
breaking. It is a refusal to execute the laws of the United States --
which he pledged to do when he swore, as President, to uphold our
Constitution. And is a blatant act of political pandering in an attempt
to get the votes of Hispanics.

President Bush says our country needs an immigration system that, in
his words, “serves the American economy and reflects the American
dream.” This is true. But his new plan does neither. It does not
benefit American workers to have illegal aliens taking jobs at wages
lower than many of our people will not work for. And it is more of a
nightmare than a dream to advocate a plan that makes it legal for
potential terrorists to stay in the United States.

As President, one of my top priorities would be to really secure our
borders and deport all individuals who are here illegally.

Michael Anthony Peroutka
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
Originally posted by Hardsheller:
Originally posted by Roy:
[qb]
I can't run. I went AWOL one time when I was in the ARMY and you know what Galatian says about that! :D
Dont let that stop you. I know a great Southern Baptist that could be your campaign manager...Bill clinton
laugh.gif
:D
 

KenH

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Don:
So Ken, are we to assume for now that just like the Iowa caucus, he's "competing" for the Constitution Party nomination?
Yes, but it's pretty much a slam dunk.
 

KenH

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Hardsheller:
I'm all for reform and downsizing of the federal government but I'm willing to see it happen gradually.
Of course, it would take place gradually regardless of how hard a Constitution Party president of the USA might try to implement it. Franklin Roosevelt tried to expand the federal government a whole lot faster than what he was actually able to accomplish. It would work the same way now. But at least we would actually start going in the limited, constitutional government direction for a change.
 

The Galatian

Active Member
It would also be nice to see our debt go down for once.
It did. It can again. All it takes is the ability to keep expenditures in line with revenue, and the backbone to say "no" to special intersts.

The present inhabiant of the WH has neither.
 
Originally posted by Hardsheller:
...

I'm all for reform and downsizing of the federal government but I'm willing to see it happen gradually.
Great, when do we start? The longer we leave Bush in office, the farther we have to go.
 

g_1933

New Member
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would also be nice to see our debt go down for once.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It did. It can again. All it takes is the ability to keep expenditures in line with revenue, and the backbone to say "no" to special intersts.

The present inhabiant of the WH has neither.
Exactly.
 

Gina B

Active Member
The person saying he doesn't have enough experience to be President is correct IMO, although I love this guy! I doubt he'll get elected, so here's my plan.
He's going to get his name known by running. He's not going to win, so what we do is promote him and promote him to get him into the public eye, then when we see there's no chance he'll win we go ahead and vote for the next best thing...which so far would be to keep Bush in office. Then we comes back in 4-8 years after Peroutka has been elected to other government jobs and has enough experience and is very well known, he'll run again, and then he'll have a chance at getting elected for real. :eek:
Gina
 

KenH

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Gina L:
and vote for the next best thing...which so far would be to keep Bush in office.
The problem with that idea is that we still end up with a liberal as president(if Mr. Bush wins as I expect) and you will be responsible for him being in office. Do you really want that on your conscious - to have voted for a man who will not reverse Roe v. Wade by urging Congress to use its constitutional power to do so by removing abortion from the purview of the federal courts or, alternatively, who will not urge Congress to pass a pro-life amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

I know I don't.
 

Dragoon68

Active Member
Originally posted by LadyEagle:
http://www.peroutka2004.com

I believe he'll get my vote.


[Edited thread title]
I haven't found a whole lot of information of his web site other than very general comments indicating support for God, family, and republic. What is presented seems, overall, to be good points although there's not much information on just how his ideas would be turned into law of the land. Some of the things he wants to do he wouldn't be able to solely do as President. His position on a host of other issues isn't clear. What's his record as an attorney and public servant? It would be very difficult to conclude this man's position of important issues much less his ability to actually do anything about it from the information provided even if he could win.

At this point I know I'm not going to vote for any of Democratic candidates. I'm still planning to vote for the Republican candidate which will most likely be President Bush. But, hey, a vote doesn't count until it's entered in the ballot box, so I'm always interested in learning more facts about the options. Perhaps there's a better source of more specific and detailed information on Peroutka someone can recommend?
 

KenH

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Dragoon68:
Perhaps there's a better source of more specific and detailed information on Peroutka someone can recommend?
www.constitutionparty.org/ustp-99p1.html

Fortunately, Constitution Party candidates actually have to adhere to the party's platform or must state publicly where they disagree.

Also, the Peroutka website has just been set up. I am sure there will more info during the next 9.5 months.
 

Dragoon68

Active Member
Originally posted by KenH:
www.constitutionparty.org/ustp-99p1.html

Fortunately, Constitution Party candidates actually have to adhere to the party's platform or must state publicly where they disagree.

Also, the Peroutka website has just been set up. I am sure there will more info during the next 9.5 months.
Okay, I already had that web site book marked and have reviewed it. A whole lot of it is agreeable with me except for a few points I find troubling. Where does Peroutka, on his web site, state his agreement with all points or any disagreement?
 

KenH

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Dragoon68:
Where does Peroutka, on his web site, state his agreement with all points or any disagreement?
I imagine that won't happen until the convention in June.
 

LadyEagle

<b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
Last night I emailed our Tennessee CP and suggested they update their website - for which they promptly thanked me & added a link to Mr. Peroutka's site for Presidential candidate.


Anyone else contacted their state CP sites?

If anyone is interested, the link to the CP sites for all the STATES is...

HERE !!
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=001128

(Please click - it took me a REALLY LONG time to convert HTML code to UBB code & check the links to see if they worked...
tear.gif
) :D
type.gif
 

KenH

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Anyone else contacted their state CP sites?
I emailed my State chairman(who was in my house on January 1
) as soon as I found out about the site.
 
Originally posted by Gina L:
The person saying he doesn't have enough experience to be President is correct IMO, although I love this guy! I doubt he'll get elected, so here's my plan.
He's going to get his name known by running. He's not going to win, so what we do is promote him and promote him to get him into the public eye, then when we see there's no chance he'll win we go ahead and vote for the next best thing...which so far would be to keep Bush in office. Then we comes back in 4-8 years after Peroutka has been elected to other government jobs and has enough experience and is very well known, he'll run again, and then he'll have a chance at getting elected for real. :eek:
Gina
Gina,

Please don't do that. The CP needs real votes to establish itself and to gain political status. Why be so afraid of Bush losing? He has moved the country further leftward in three years than Clinton did in eight. As long as the Republicans are winning with liberals, they will continue to run liberals. Let 'em lose, it is richly deserved.
 
Top