Michael Anthony Peroutka Endorses Ron Paul

Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Sep 20, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    "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."

    - www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=926&print=1&PHPSESSID=ff59f8ef7e7c5688a3f1b71655175401
     
  2. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    At the risk of putting words in KenH's mouth, 2Timothy 2:1-4, I believe the purpose of the OP is to show that some very conservative profamily types can in full conscience support Paul.
     
  4. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    Well, it's good to have a sane voice speaking for you, which is something I'm sure Dr. Paul hasn't heard in a while.


    And I do think this is pretty cool.
     
  5. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good point.
     
  6. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    I imagine Ron Paul has tired of the "Strippers for Ron Paul" mentality. He's a legit candidate but some of his supporters do him no favors.
     
  7. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mr. Peroutka was a huge topic of conversation on this board back in 2004 as the Constitution Party presidential candidate.
     
  8. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0

    ............ Nevermind, it's not worth saying.

    Jamie
     
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    But unfortunately he does not feel the same way about Iraqis who are already born. He thinks it is correct to have not gone after Saddam Hussein who systematically murdered people. He thinks it is correct to pull out of Iraq and leave it to terrorists who will continue the murder.

    So Ron Paul, as has been demonstrated before, is not consistently prolife. He is admirably prolife when it comes to American unborn. (However, even that seems questionable since it seems I read he is for turning the abortion law back to the states rather than making murder a federal crime. I am not sure on that but I think I read that on here.)

    Ron Paul should be consistently prolife.
     
  10. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please name one canidiate of any party, or any nation that fits your example. Find one, and then you have the right to compare such apple and oranges.

    If you're so worry about the unfortunate babies/others killed in Iraq when Saddam was in power, what about the thousands being killed now by this 'war'? Do you not think the many Doctors and Medical staff that fled the country didn't hurt the type of care these iraqis got after the war was started?

    What about all the other countries that kill their people, either by mass genocide<sp> or simply starving them to death so the people in power can get more powerful? Iran? North Korea? A lot of the countries south of the border of the USA?

    Where exactly do you draw your line?

    You make me laugh that you want to talk about Ron Paul's stance on abortion and yet there isn't a SINGLE canidisate that would come close to his record in the senate. You want a perfect world before you step outside in it, and I can tell you, you won't get it. Is Ron Paul prefect? No! Does he stand for a lot of we as believers should stand for? Yes! Does he do it only to get elected or does he do it because that's just who he is?

    Don't believe in Ron Paul if you want, but don't knock his record either unless you have someone else that is at least on equal grounds as him.

    Jamie
     
  11. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    So if you are consistently pro-life, I assume you oppose the death penalty?
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know of one, but it's hardly apples and oranges.

    I think it is a tragedy that any are dying. But this war has not killed as many as Hussein did, probably because we stepped in.

    That's a tough question. I don't really have an answer to. If you know me on here, you know I have consistently said that. There are tough issues here that deserve serious thought.

    I have no idea.

    I wasn't aware that pointing out blatant inconsistency was knocking his record. We are all inconsistent in things. Let's just have the decency to admit it.
     
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Being consistently pro-life means I support the death penalty. It is what God commanded as the just penalty for murder. It is how we show the value of the life that was taken. We show the value of something by what we demand in exchange for it, and by what we accept in exchange for it. When we accept less than a life for a life, we are showing that we are not pro-life.
     
  14. Bro. James Reed

    Bro. James Reed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is no question that Hussein was an evil man who led the regime involved in the killings of somewhere in the neighborhhood of a million (depending on your source) people, civilian and military. Taking into account that Saddam was leader of Iraq for 24 years, and the US war with Iraq has only lasted 4 years so far, it is no wonder there have been fewer deaths during this war than there were total during his power. However, if you stretch this war ought into years and years, and taking into account that millions of Iraqis have fled their country, we are on target to reach Saddam's total (percentage wise anyway) in another 20 years.

    So, are our leaders really any better than Saddam? Is it better to kill a million people to retain one's power or to kill a million people to "help" them? I'd say ask those who were killed which they preferred, but obviosuly we can not.

    It is time for this war to end and it is time for the Iraqis to stand up for themselves and take freedom by the reigns. The US forces have done everything asked of them thus far. The only way true freedom and democracy will reign in Iraq is if the people of Iraq really want it and are willing to take it themselves. We can not force people to be free. The sooner our government learns this, the better for all of us.

    I just wish people could see what is happening. I used to have the blinders on my eyes as well. Thank God that is no longer the case. There is certainly a time to fight, and this is not that time. The war has been one. All of the military objectives were accomplished. Bring the troops home and let Iraq be run by Iraqis. If they really want freedom, they will fight the foreigners themselves and take it. If they don't, then they'll just set up a new dictator. The US has no control over either.

    Regardless of what we might like to think, we are not mommy and daddy to the world. It is not our job to go around and forcibly make countries do our will and conform them to our image. As Dr. Paul says, we should lead by example, not by force. If this was any other type of discussion, we would all agree on that principle, yet when talking about foreign governments, many people seem to think the only thing we can do is fight a war. Is God really well-pleased with us for such behavior? I think not.
     
  15. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Call to your remembrance hte middle of hte 20th century with Germany, USSR, SE Asia, Japan. And put it this way: If people are going to die, then die for a good cause. Now, one would be hardpressed to say that the same amount or percentage of people will die under the present scenario as under Hussein. That is simply unwarranted fear mongering.

    I think we all agree. I also think it is high time for my 18 month old to start using the potty. But he isn't and until he does, we continue to work with him and take care of him.

    It seems that you still do. You seem to think that if we pull out, everything will magically get better. It won't. It will get worse than with Saddam. That is why we can't quit early.

    The objectives have not been accomplished. So let's finish the job.

    As far as "the only thing we can do is fight a war," you would have to talk to someone who believes that. However, Saddam rejected ten years of diplomacy, sanctions, and inspections. Do you want to keep warning? Or do you want it to have some teeth.

    We should lead by example. Unfortunately, Dr. Paul is not helping in this particular area. He seems good in other areas. This is a glaring weakness that will not go away. In years to come, terror and Islamofacism will get worse, and it will be not be enough to be one who says "At least it won't happen here." Because eventually it will.
     
  16. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    1) You seem to think that if we keep our troops in Iraq for however long, everything will magically get better. It won't.

    2) It already did happen here. Check the history books about what happened on September 11, 2001.
     
  17. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294

    A specious argument.
     
  18. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think it will magically get better. It gets better with intentional action and leadership, something you seem to be against. I think this has been mismanaged. But that doesn't equate to failure or the need to pull out.

    I coach soccer. The fact that we get to halftime down one or two doesn't mean we pack it in and say, "Hey, we accomplished our goals. We got our shoes tied and uniforms on. We played half a game. Let's go home." No, we buckle down and talk about how to go out and fix what was wrong.

    And why did it happen here? Because we were not vigilant elsewhere. We were not willing to take Bin Laden when we had the chance. We were not willing to finish the job in 91. History speaks plainly to this, as you suggest. And it refutes you.
     
  19. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    1) I agree.

    2) Neither Saddam Hussein or Iraq had anything to do with the attacks on our nation on September 11, 2001. History refutes you, Larry. It refutes you mightily! :)
     
    #19 KenH, Sep 21, 2007
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2007
  20. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    To my konwledge, I never said it did. There is some evidence of Al Qaida connections in Iraq. There was evidence of Iraq's intent to pursue WMDs, and some credible evidence that he had them, or at least believed he had them. There was undeniable evidence that Saddam was almost daily shooting at American planes patrolling the no-fly zone, thereby actively attacking the US.

    So history doesn't refute me. It confirms what I have said. I think perhaps the case is that you simply do not understand what is being said, given your reaction to my posts, and your two completely misleading topics today on Senate votes. It is hard to imagine that you could misread something that badly, but as we often see, people with political biases see whatever they want. You are a prime example.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...