The Way I See It
Michael Anthony Peroutka
Dear Members of the Constitution Party National Committee:
For a very long time I have thought that there could be nothing more challenging than running for the office of President of these united States.
To be sure, the challenge in 2004 was a rewarding and satisfying one. But the mission was daunting. Considering the travel, the finances, the schedule, the conflicts, the occasional fatigue, and the task of explaining, promoting and defending a biblical (American) worldview of law and liberty and government to talk show hosts and other interviewers who had no understanding of (or built in hostility to) this American view, it was by God’s grace and your help, that we were able to accomplish it honorably.
To be doubly sure, I gained an increased measure of admiration for Howard Phillips, William Shearer and other men and women who had plowed this ground before I arrived on the scene. I am grateful to these folks and all members of the national party for their vision and encouragement.
But now something even harder and even more challenging faces me —and you, as we approach the National Committee meeting in Tampa. The infighting that has surrounded the Nevada party’s failure to solve the problem of compliance with the National Party platform on the issue of abortion has become distracting, unproductive and hurtful. Moreover, there is confusion, I believe over the nature of the issue.
Please allow me a few words to declare the way I see it.
WHAT IT IS NOT ABOUT
First, without deep explanation, let me state what I believe is NOT the issue.
This is NOT an issue about religious freedom or about the LDS Church or LDS members. I have it on substantial authority that a member of the LDS Church can subscribe to the pro life position of the Constitution Party without denying his allegiance to his church or its leaders.
This is NOT a “State’s Rights” issue. Anyone who knows me knows that I am very suspect of centralized authority. Indeed, it is the very best American tradition, I believe, to be thus suspect. But this is not about central authority so much as it is about the truthfulness of Nevada when, on one hand it declares itself to be 100% pro life and yet does not remove a chairman who has published and repeated remarks that are antithetical to this position.
This is NOT about how loyal we should be to any particular family. At the last executive committee meeting that I attended (Columbus, Ohio) there was much sentiment that we should be “loyal” to a certain family that helped us “build this house” and we shouldn’t kick them out of the house they helped to build. While I admire many families in Utah and Wisconsin and New Mexico and Maryland and Pennsylvania and Virginia and elsewhere, the motto of our party is correctly “Principle over Politics”. It is not “Loyalty to Family over Principle over Politics”. I use this phrase not to be cute or coy but to say that where my loyalty to men is in conflict with the principles of Godly government, my duty is clear, albeit difficult because of my temporal friendships. Exodus 20:13 is, of course, the standard. God says “You shall not murder”. Our founding fathers thought that the right to life was so obvious that they called it “self evident” — that is to say it is so clear that it is not subject to argument. They acknowledged the divine origin of life and so must we.
WHAT IT IS ABOUT
This IS a matter of adherence to the national party platform as a self enforced criterion of membership in the only party in America that claims unashamedly to represent the true, original, Biblical, American view of government.
I was privileged to represent to the American people, on your behalf, this American view. I was privileged to stand up for the rights of the unborn, as truly innocent life that must be defended by the sword of civil government. If I had known that party leaders were defining the word “innocent” in a different way, as has the chairman of the Nevada party, I could not and would not have, in good faith run for President on your behalf. If I had known, as I now do, that our office seekers in Nevada, including Janine Hansen who sat on the executive committee, were running on a platform that allowed exceptions for rape and incest, I could not and would not have been able to perform this duty for you and before God.
I’m not sure if other members of the executive committee knew about Janine’s position (allowing abortions under certain circumstances) on this or not. It came to light at the Columbus meeting and I thought it was the reason for Janine’s resignation. I thought that Nevada was going to withdraw from the party after this fact was discovered. Although I had not talked with Janine, my conversation with Howard Phillips who had talked to her led me to believe that Nevada was likely to withdraw. When Mr. Shearer, who had defended Nevada’s position resigned and when Nancy Spirkoff also resigned, I was saddened but hopeful that the party could continue, albeit diminished in numbers, to reaffirm it’s 100% pro life stance.
The Constitution Party, to maintain its mission and its vigor, I believe, must stick to the truth. The American people are hungry for a TRUE alternative. Purity on the abortion issue, far from being a pejorative, is exactly what we must achieve. This is true for two reasons:
It is in conformance to God’s law and the Constitution.
It will, in God’s Providence, build the party.
Moreover, we must recognize another truth that has played out before our eyes. Nevada, and perhaps California’s current leadership, has already left the party.
The issue of compliance to the National Platform is, as I have suggested earlier, a SELF ENFORCED one. Nevada has had the opportunity to self enforce and self correct this situation and has refused to do so. They have thus already declared that they are not among us. It only remains for us to acknowledge their departure.
Furthermore, at the Salt Lake meeting, the representatives of both Nevada and California told the executive committee members that they had not paid their State assessment dues because they were waiting to see how the committee would decide on holding the next meeting in Ohio, an item that they were opposing. I remember my shock at realizing that such a statement on their part indicated that they had already broken fellowship with our assembly. We were NOT in covenant if they would withhold their assessment for this purpose.
In summary, I don’t think there is any alternative at this point but to accept the truth that is already before us. The Nevada party has left our fellowship of their own accord. Specifically they have:
failed to self enforce among their own leaders an adherence to the party platform on the issue of abortion.
published voters guides declaring Janine Hansen to be a candidate that will vote to allow murder in some circumstances
declared themselves out of fellowship with our party by withholding the payment of assessments unless and until they get their way on a certain issue.
We should acknowledge by our action the truth of what has already happened. Regrettably, Nevada has left us. They have already disaffiliated themselves. As stated above, I believe that we are obligated to acknowledge this fact with our vote.
If I have misspoken or misrepresented any material facts, here, I ask those who have definitive proof of the error to correct me immediately.
This is how I see it. I hope this is helpful.
For the Republic,
Michael Anthony Peroutka
April 17, 2006