Peroutka 2008

Fri, 21 Jan 2005
Joe Giganti: Bush Address Snubs Pro-Lifers

Dear Friends of the Constitutional Republic,

Shortly after President Bush’s Inaugural Address, I received the following from my friend and a real pro-life hero, Joe Giganti. I thought I would share it with you:

For God, Family, & the Republic,
Michael A. Peroutka



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


By Joe Giganti

Those who thought Bush would mention...even tokenisticly...the pro-life movement, rightly should be disappointed. Those who believed he would once again shortchange the pro-life movement appear to be correct. Of course, some will probably argue that one of the two following entries were intended to be pro-life, but I think that is a generous pass being given to Bush.

Bush: "Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love. Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another, and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth. And our country must abandon all the habits of racism..."

Bush: "From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time."

If these statements are read in their full context, their anemic nature becomes even more clear. At best -- and I'm stretching far past a mile to offer this--these statements started off wandering down the road of pro-life, but, much like everything else done by this Administration in the past week, it quickly takes a Left turn, never to be heard from again. More accurately, the second comment is actually part of the speech's overall theme and intention, which appeared to be the justification to invade other countries.

The fact is, President Bush never once used the phrase, "sanctity of human life;" the word "abortion" is never used, in any context; and he does not even mention our unalienable "right to life," even when speaking of and quoting from our Declaration. This on the heels of the "covert" Sanctity of Life Sunday and the new pro-abort RNC Co-chair, Joann Davidson of Ohio.

If the pro-life movement is willing to accept this kind of treatment, then we should all dig in and expect to be "fighting" for an end to abortion sometime AFTER the next 35 years. It is not by mistake or oversight that the very constituency that is responsible for his second term is now being swindled by Bush. Unfortunately though, pro-lifers appear willing to cling to the belief that these snubs are actually part of some grand plan to sneak a pro-life effort into his agenda.

Republicans Offer the Unborn 32 More Years of Roe v. Wade

Perhaps we must come to grips with the fact that with Republican
President, Republican Senate, Republican House and majority Republican
appointees on the Supreme Court, 4,000 dead babies daily is the best the
GOP has to offer. ...


by Scott T. Whiteman, Esq.

In a December 16, 2004 National Review Online article A Pro-Life Mistake, Attorney Clark D. Forsythe of Americans United for Life recommended that State Legislators cease and desist in the introduction of legislation prohibiting abortion in their States. Attorney Forsythe counseled that since the Supreme Court is not pro-life (despite the fact that Republican Presidents appointed a super-majority, seven out of nine, of those Justices), it would be folly to introduce such legislation at this time. An old proverb comes to mind, "If not now, when?"

On November 2, 2004, the American electorate voted into office a Republican President, Republican House, Republican Senate and a majority of Republican Governors. The Supreme Court is made up of a super-majority of Republican appointees. We have, in America, undeniable Republican Party Rule. If the Republican Party is pro-life, now is the best and only time to effectuate any real pro-life legislation.

Those pro-lifers who refused to support the reelection effort of Mr. Bush were told that the election was about the judiciary and the Supreme Court - without good appointments, we'll have another 32 years of Roe v. Wade, we were told. Prior to the election, and since, was there any evidence from the White House that there is any intention to nominate pro-life justices? In fact, has not Mr. Bush nominated several abortion supporting judges to the lower benches, and wasn't his campaigning for Alren Specter (who has promised to block all pro-life Justices) evidence that Mr. Bush has no intention of creating a pro-life judiciary and of eliminating legal abortion in America.

Perhaps we must come to grips with the fact that with Republican President, Republican Senate, Republican House and majority Republican appointees on the Supreme Court, 4,000 dead babies daily is the best the GOP has to offer. Given the President's remarks in the third Presidential debate, that "reasonable people can come together and put good law in place that will help reduce the number of abortions," we ought not be looking to the Republican Party as the vehicle by which abortion will be made illegal. All the big-government GOP has to offer is regulations that might reduce the number of abortions. I know from a statistical point, 1,000 puréed babies daily would be "better" than 4,000 diced-up babies, but it is not better for the 1,000 the President has permitted to die on his watch.

I question why the director of Americans United for Life (AUL) would counsel his fellow colleagues in the pro-life movement to refrain from introducing legislation that would prohibit abortions. I can't help but believe that he shares the opinions of the Republican Party - and the President specifically - regarding minimizing abortions, and he is not committed to ending legal abortion in America. The AUL offers model legislation guides to pro-life lobbyists on Abortion Clinic Regulations, Cloning, Crimes Against the Unborn Child Act, Human Embryo Research, Heath Care Rights of Conscience Act, Parental Involvement for Minors Seeking Abortion, Physician-Assisted Suicide and Informed Consent Legislation. Not a one of the AUL eight recommended legislative strategies decries the legality of abortion. If, and frankly since, abortion is immoral and unlawful, it cannot be regulated without us acquiring the same bloody hands that the pro-abortion lobbyists have. Regulating abortion concedes its legality, and assumes that abortion is here to stay as a Constitutionally secured right. Apparently this is the best the Republican-minded pro-lifers have to offer - to concede defeat before the battle begins. Compromise requires that you be willing to accept half a loaf, we are told. Then the GOPers ask for a quarter loaf, and get about an eighth. Why has no one thought to ask for a loaf and a half? Preemptive concession - in this case that abortion is legal and will remain such - is the rule of day.

Additionally, regulating abortion creates new federal regulative programs, requires funding and oversight, and permits the pro-life movement to remain on its high horse demanding more federal intervention in abortion related causes. Keeping abortion legal for nearly 32 years now is quite possibly the best fund-raising strategy any lobbyist organization could have ever conceived.

It is due to this politically impotent view that I am not a member of the Republican Party. When you belong to the political machine, as Attorney Forsythe and his Americans United for Life, the National Right to Life and other compromisers satisfied with being the reasonable people the President suggested would come together and pass good laws permitting a certain number of abortions, you lose your taste for victory. What Mr. Bush, Attorney Forsythe, the AUL and others have effectively said is that they want abortion to remain safe, legal and rare. But, if every pregnancy resulted in a natural end (either birth or miscarriage), but abortion was still legal, the pro-life movement would have lost the battle, and the pro-abortion "rights" advocates would have won.

The GOP and the pro-life lobbyists have demonstrated their lack of commitment to the unborn, and they must, therefore, be opposed. They are no longer the friend of the unborn, and they are no longer our friends if they are unwilling to expend the political capital we have given them to protect the unborn. Parties and lobbyists are vehicles to advance a cause – if they stop advancing, it is time for us to find or create one that will.

The crux of Attorney Forsythe's argument (I'm not picking on him since in reality the grand majority of these "pro-life lobby" organizations would contend the same as he) is this: Legislatures, don't expend in 2005 the political capital received in 2004 since the courts will oppose you, and you will be slapped with an attorney's fees bill from the ACLU.

[cont.]

[...cont.]

Legislators, if I may humbly submit to you an alternative to the preemptive concession of Attorney Forsythe: If you fail to act, you will be slapped with a bill for the blood of the unborn you have permitted to be shed in your State. As State Legislatures, you can interpose between the Judicial Usurpation of Roe and the unborn babies in the womb. Since Roe was decided unconstitutionally and fraudulently, it is void ab initio and invalid as against the States - but you must be willing to make and stand by that argument.

As a party to the Contract of the United States Constitution, you have an absolute right to insist upon compliance to it from the other Party, namely the Federal Government. Go right ahead, declare abortion illegal - you have, after all, also taken an Oath to the United States Constitution. To submit to Roe in your jurisdiction is to commit perjury of your Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The only question left is this: If the Republicans elected into office are willing to make that stand, will the leaders of the Party and the pro-life movement support it? If not, and frankly my hopes are not very high, or if they are not even willing to raise Interposition as a remedy against a Federal usurpation of power, it is time to conclude that neither the Republican Party, nor the pro-life lobbyists, are committed to ending legal abortion in America.

Deo Vindicae,

Scott T. Whiteman, Esq.

Brother Steve Right On Target On Bush And Abortion

January 26, 2005

Dear Friends of the Constitutional Republic,

At the recent "March For Life" in Washington DC, Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) told the crowd: "I can stand here today and say that the end of abortion- on-demand has started."

With all my heart and soul, I would like to believe that this is so. But, in all honesty, I do not see things the way Sen. Brownback sees them. If, however, I am wrong, and Sen. Brownback is right, one thing is certain: President George W. Bush has done nothing effective, or of substance, to stop abortion-on-demand.

Notice, please, I do NOT say Mr. Bush has done nothing to try and stop ANY abortions. I'm talking here about ABORTION-ON-DEMAND which means almost all abortions.

In his remarks to this year's "March On Washington," Mr. Bush, as they say, phoned it in, literally. He did not appear personally --- though he had no conflicting event on his schedule. Mr. Bush talked about protecting the weak, the innocent, the voiceless. He said "progress" on the pro-life front is being made. He spoke of "the America of our dreams, where every child is welcomed in law – in life, and protected in law," including "unborn babies."

But, President Bush made no announcement about what, in his second term, he is going to do, or recommend be done, to legally protect the unalienable right-to-life of innocent unborn babies. Instead, without explaining what he meant, Mr. Bush said the "American dream" he had alluded to "may still be some ways away." This defeatist attitude echoes similar preemptive surrender rhetoric. In October of 2003, the question asked of Mr. Bush was: Should all abortions should be banned? No, he replied, because he didn't think "the culture" had changed to where the American people or Congress would ban all abortions.

Well, my brother Stephen, is right on target in reacting to what the President says here. On Tuesday of this week, Stephen was quoted in the "Washington Times;" later that same day he was a guest on Gordon Liddy's nationally-syndicated talk show. Stephen --- a veteran pro-life activist in Maryland, radio host and commentator (Facethetruth.com) --- says:

"That's a tough thing to say to the 4,000 babies who will be aborted tomorrow --- that this is not the right time to ban abortion. When is the right time --- when public opinion polls says it's the right time? Shouldn't he be a leader and make it the right time? Let's stop leading by public opinion polls."

Thank you Brother Steve and amen!

The truth that must be faced about President Bush and abortion is that Mr. Bush has no desire to stop abortion-on-demand. I don't say this because I can read his mind or his heart. I say this because he has NOT DONE what HE ALONE could have done, and what I said I would do, when I ran for President as the Constitution Party candidate. I said, if I may once quote myself:

"I would start with a formal acknowledgment of the legal personhood of every child from the moment of conception. Then I would appoint U.S. attorneys --- by recess appointment if necessary --- who will defend the right-to-life of the unborn. It is within the power of the President to end all "legal" abortions by Executive Order, which I would do my first day in office. Under my Presidency, Roe v. Wade would NOT be enforced and 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."

Better late than never on this issue, President Bush could have said ALL this at the most recent "March For Life." He could have even said it IN PERSON. But, in order to do either of these things, he would have to, FIRST, have the DESIRE to stop abortion-on-demand --- which he does not. And THAT'S the problem.

A footnote: On the day of and the first day after the "March For Life," on the first White House Web page, there was a large color photo of the President in his Inaugural Parade box, standing with a young lady, both of them smiling and giving the "Hook'em Horns" hand salute of the University of Texas. There were also videos to be seen of the President: Thanking a joint Congressional Inaugural Committee; and thanking military guests at another Inaugural event. There were stories about: What Mrs. Bush wore on Inauguration Day; Inauguration Day photos; the President's un-Constitutional $350 million tsunami relief aid. There was no mention of the "March For Life."

For God, Family, & the Republic,
Michael A. Peroutka

Peroutka hasn't actually said he will run in 2008, has he? Well, we are campaigning for him anyway. Just delivered 30 copies of a great WorldNetDaily article in his favor to a dear woman in our church. She asked for thirty. She says the whole country needs to know about him. (At this rate- it's good we get a four year head start.) :c)

Suitability of a 2008 Constitution Party Presidential Candidate

Hello,

I am the organizer of the (Meetup) Cincinnati Support Group of the Constitution Party. Recently, my group has had a important discussion about the 2008 presidential candidate. I would like to know what others in the party think about this issue. Here is the link to this particular discussion on our local message board.

http://michaelperoutk...

Matt Miller