Constitutional Party Candidate: Michael Peroutka '04

Brethren, this is difficult. I'd like for everything in life to be ideal; but I must be a realist. On January 20, 2005 someone will take the oath of office and that parson WILL be George Bush, or one of the democrats (it's looking more and more like John Kerry.) Is there seriously any doubts about that? I am extremely dissappointed in G.W. and some things he has done and said. Well, others that have been highly regarded have done some stupid things too: It is known that Abraham and Mary Lincoln consulted a medium to try and contact their dead son. It came out that Reagan, through Nancy, used astrology to give Reagan an edge against his opponents.
I just cannot vote in a way (divide and conquer) that will give the Presidency to a democrat.

 

There is nothing extra special bad about a socialist Democrat compared to a liberal Republican like George W. Bush. Conservative Christians need to overcome their Democratophobia and stop voting for liberals like George W. Bush who will never bring an end to abortion or restore our Republic. Conservative Christians need to vote for conservative Christians.

 

posted by Hardsheller:

Roy,
I can't run. </font>[/QUOTE]Though it's a week old, this is still crushing news.
I'm glad I read it on the Baptist Board first, before hearing it on CNN.

Roy

 

How about a big AMEN!!! for Brother Ken.


AMEN!!! , Brother Ken!

Roy

 

I also intend to vote for Peroutka. I agree with him on most issues including trade, while I disagree with President Bush on most issues. I also encourage you to get involved in your local Constitution Party affiliates because Mike Peroutka will need a lot of help getting on the ballot in some states.

 

The most amazing thing about this whole thread is that none of you know anything about this guy - Peroutka - other than what you have read online.

I stand amazed!

 

What news show would interview Peroutka? You might as well ask them to act more Godly.

 

MICHAEL PEROUTKA BIOGRAPHICAL FACTS:

POLITICAL: State Chair, Constitution Party of Maryland. Member, Constitution Party National Executive Committee. Founder and Director, Institute on the Constitution (conservative non-profit organization).

PROFESSIONAL: Health Initiatives Analyst/Attorney, US Department of Health & Human Services, 1976-87. Attorney (private practice),1987-present. Founder and Director, American College for Cultural Studies (Biblical-Constitutionalist education program).

EDUCATION: B.A., Loyola College. J.D., University of Baltimore, 1981.

PERSONAL: Born 1952. Married to Diane Peroutka. Three children.

 

Actually, that is Joe Eldred's, co-founder of Paul2004.com, opinion.

 

Seems odd you would need to do that. I would think a national up-and-coming political party with a candidate running for President would keep their local websites updated without individual citizens having to "suggest" that to them.

Maybe they're not as serious as you are about their party OR their candidate?

Just a thought...
CJ

 

Not really. The local and State parties tend to be more concerned about making their presence felt in local and State races where they can have much more of an impact than in the presidential race.

 

Well, just for fun, I checked the Texas CP website. There are 11.6 million registered voters in Texas (as of the 2000 election). I was visitor number 18913 to the CP party website (although I don't know when the "number of visits" count started).

The home page has current articles and info; however, the "latest news" link is an article posted in March, 2002.

I can't find ANY info about Peroutka on the national CP website.

Later...
CJ

 

Hey, CJ,

What is your point? The Constitution Party is a small party and will probably always be a small party. I expect the two branches of the Demopublican Party to always be the two major parties as they have been for about the past 150 years.

I have voted for a major party presidential candidate three times and all three times that candidate won and all three times I have been disappointed in the way they governed after I voted for them.

So, I don't care about winning any more. Voting for a "winner" hasn't won me anything in advancing what I care about politically. Government keeps getting bigger and I pay more and more in taxes and the national debt keeps getting bigger.

Therefore, I see absolutely no point in voting for a "major" party candidate.

 

Ken,

So you will vote for someone who you KNOW will not win? Wow...

Are you involved in getting the CP candidates elected at your state and local levels? That's where it starts, as I'm sure you know. Or are you just going for the "whole enchilada" by voting for someone for President who, by your own admission, will not win because it doesn't matter to you whether he wins or not?

Just curious...
CJ

 

Below the presidential ballot line, Arkansas has some of the toughest ballot access laws in the nation for "second" parties.

I am not exactly a party activist. Outside of my vocation, my avocation is dog training. I don't have much time or money for political involvement - outside of arguing with conservatives on this board who plan to vote for liberals like George W. Bush in 2004.

I am more motivated by issues than by elections - such as my support for privating Social Security, privatizing Medicare, replacing the income tax with a sales tax, etc.

I am amazed you are surprised that I don't care about voting for a winner. You should know by now that I care more about voting on principle than pragmatism. I was pragmatic in 2000 with Mr. Bush and I deeply regret it.

 

I have read his opinions, read opinions about him of others who I trust (see posts above), and met him personally. And, I know more than enough about the present occupant of the White House and his Democratic opponents to know NOT to vote for ANY of them.

 

We're certainly not voting Republican or Democrat this year. We're interested in checking out the other parties.
But some of Peroutka's statements leave me uncomfortable. Is he a theonomist/ reconstructionist? If so, he, like Pat Robertson before him, would be guided by dangerous principles. America is not the Church; America is not Israel. We cannot run the country as though it were.
Theonomy is what spurred the Puritans to drive Roger Williams (Baptist pastor) out of their society, hoping he'd die in the wilderness. Why? Because he believed in the Baptist teaching of the liberty of the soul, that each one stands responsible before God for himself. That man must have the freedom to worship as he chooses--not by a State Church.
D. James Kennedy is a theonomist. Pat Robertson is a reconstructionist. Jerry Falwell is a reconstructionist. Their viewpoints are deceptive because they use Christian/Biblical terminology, but have their own meanings to what they say. Life in America under their regime would be just as oppressive as under George W. or Clinton, or worse.