Mike Peroutka the Constitution Party's presidential candidate is a qualified write-in candidate in the State of Texas, and there are substantial reasons why he and vice-presidential running mate Chuck Baldwin make the best choice in this election year.
First and foremost, no other presidential candidate has promised to stop the federal government from enforcing the provisions of Roe v. Wade on their first day in office as Mike Perouka has done. Abortion is the most important social issue of our time, and we have a responsibility to do our utmost to end such atrocities against the most innocent and defenseless among us. It is not an exaggeration to say that you may be pulling the lever for your own salvation on election day. This is because we as Christians have a duty to vote for the candidate who will be most restrictive on abortion when election day rolls around. Voting for a candidate who is less restrictive than Mike Peroutka on abortion is simply not defensible in the eyes of God. He doesn't care about the polls and He doesn't care about political parties. He cares about His children, whom He loved and adored more than adults in virtually every Biblical account. Woe indeed to those who don't do their utmost to save His little children.
The Republican and Democrat presidential candidates represent very shoddy alternatives. The Republican believes in pre-emptive war and the Democrat has voted in favor of partial birth abortion. In addition, the Democrat is so clueless as to the issues which are likely to get him elected, that he talks about Christmas in Cambodia, his war medals, the war medals of his opponent, whether his opponent served admirably in the National Guard, and whether he served admirably in Vietnam, rather than the wrongness of pre-emptive war. In fact, he came out solidly in favor of pre-emption during the first presidential debate on September 30th when he said, "The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for a pre-emptive strike. ... No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America." Someone as blind as this on an issue that could win him the election cannot be trusted to have the prescience to run a country. As George Bush the Elder might say, he just doesn't have the "vision thing".
As I mentioned in a previous article, it is vitally important to adhere to the just war philosophy first defined by St. Augustine if we do not wish international organizations like the United Nations to become embroiled in more and more peacekeeping missions around the world. The U.N. draws the majority of its troops from America, so any time it becomes involved in a situation, more of our boys and girls are placed in harm's way. The U.N. was created to respond to countries that engage in unjust wars. Unfortunately, the likely long-term effect of America's foray into Iraq will be increased involvement for the U.N. in far-away places. Sovereign nations which only engage in just wars can actually decrease the involvement of the U.N. globally, but nations which engage in unjust, pre-emptive wars will undoubtedly increase the U.N.'s involvement in world affairs.
As for the Republican, he continues to tout the absolute righteousness of his pre-emptive war in Iraq. Although we hear rumblings behind the scenes that troops may be pulled out in '05, none of this is evident on the campaign trail. All we hear is how necessary it was to launch a foray into a country that did not attack us, even as Osama bin Laden continues to roam the earth a free man. I saw a neat bumper sticker the other day that said, "Osama been Forgotten". Our president just doesn't seem to grasp the importance of picking and choosing our fights in accordance with just war principles, and he certainly doesn't acknowledge what would happen if every country in the world adopted his philosophy. Can you say World War III? Pre-emptive war is a very, very, very dangerous policy, because, over time, we must accept the pre-emptive wars of other countries to avoid criticizing our own. The eventual result can be nothing other than chaos and world war.
This is not to downplay the abortion policies of the Democrat, which are simply heinous. Speaking as a Catholic, I can tell you that there is no way his bishop should allow him to receive Holy Communion as long as he publicly supports abortion. If you are interested in the reasons why this is so in the Catholic Church, I have written an article on the subject at http://www.tkofc.org/ProlifeReport.cfm?D=PL093004.cfm.
The other political parties don't offer viable alternatives either. The Green Party candidate, if elected president, would do his utmost to implement an explosion of new federal regulations to restrict your use of our country's natural resources. Signing the Kyoto Protocol would be first on his list, and everyone who has reviewed this document says that it would curtail economic growth to the point where negative growth might actually become a reality. These are truly scary policies for which sound scientific reasoning has not proven a need, and which only appeal to the most militant of environmentalists. Unfortunately, the Democratic presidential candidate is also in favor of the Kyoto Protocol now that Russia has signed it. In the first presidential debate, the Democratic challenger stated, "You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations." Voters should be very wary of this.
The Libertarian Party candidate cannot possibly appeal to anyone who is concerned about social issues like abortion and illegal drugs. You don't hear Libertarian candidates talk too much about these issues, but when you dig into the party platform, the same old "anything goes" policy still applies. You may be able to sell this philosophy to left-over flower children from the 60s and young utopian idealists, but it doesn't fly with families and those of us who are aware that our country and our laws were founded on Biblical principles like the Ten Commandments. The Libertarians still get a lot of protest votes, though, from people who just want the federal government off their backs. If these people would dig a little further into the Constitution Party Platform, they would see that the Constitution Party offers a responsible way to do this.
Last on the list is the Reform Party, which really doesn't have its own candidate this year, but which has now officially endorsed Ralph Nader's candidacy. This party has been so plagued with infighting and petty squabbles that its platform has become a watered-down version of its former self. For example, under the heading of Taxes, the Reform Party platform states that:
- We shall create a new tax system.
- The new system shall be fair and simple.
- The new system shall raise the money needed to pay the nation's constitutionally legitimate bills.
- ... and so forth.
Wow. Don't hit me all at once with so many specifics. I'm not sure I can take it.
The fact is that the Reform Party has surrendered what principles it did have to a man who is mainly interested in promoting himself. There is no long-term future in that.
When you look at all of the alternatives, I hope that you like me will come to the conclusion that Mike Peroutka makes an excellent choice in this very important presidential election year. Not only are his positions on the issues defensible, logical and Constitutionally correct, he is currently on the ballot in 37 States which hold 363 electoral votes, more than enough to win. And three more States are possible in the last month of the campaign.
Vote FOR Mike Peroutka on election day, November the 2nd. When you consider the spiritual as well as the political implications, it's the most important thing you will do this year.