Do What’s RIGHT; Forget About The “Boogie Man”
By Michael Anthony Peroutka
A correspondent in our “Forum” recently mentioned the “Council For National Policy” asking if it’s true that Michael Anthony Peroutka spoke to this group. Well, yes, he did, in New York City on August 26, 2004, when he was the Constitution Party’s Presidential candidate. His address was titled: “Do What’s Right; Forget About The ‘Boogie Man.‘“And I must say that Michael did an excellent job in his talk despite the fact that about two-thirds of the audience walked out on him when it was announced he was about to speak. Confronted with this shameful act of rudeness, Michael demonstrated himself to be a true Christian gentleman. I was never prouder to be an associate of his than on this particular day during our campaign. Here, for the first time on our page, is the text of his address. — J.L.
Thank you for the kind introduction. I appreciate the opportunity to speak and to be with people who care about their country and their country’s government. My wife, Diane and I have been CNP members for three years now and we are honored to be with so many wonderful people who have given so generously of their time — treasure — talent because they love their country.
In a sense, I feel I must begin almost with an apology. I know that this is an unusual way to begin but it may be appropriate here because much of what I’m going to say to you, undoubtedly, you already know.
The title of my brief talk, given to myself and also to Mr. Badnarik of the Libertarian Party is a question: “Do Third Parties Deserve the Support of Conservatives?”
I wish to begin by saying that I did not pick this title. I first saw it when I saw the tentative schedule for this conference. But I heartily accept it, embrace it and I am happy to speak to it.
“Do third parties deserve the support of conservatives?”
Well… in all honesty, and not intending any flippancy, I would answer that ANY party that not only SAYS it is conservative, but also PROVES that it is conservative, BY ITS ACTIONS, — deserves conservative support.
This much seems obvious.
But, what IS conservative? What does the term mean? We should start by defining our terms. The modern conservative movement, including the Republican Party — WHICH, INCIDENTALLY, BEGAN AS A THIRD PARTY — stressed the importance of limited — fiscally responsible — Constitutional government.
In 1964, in its “STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES”, the American Conservative Union praised the U. S. Constitution because it guarantees the right of individuals, quote, “through strictly limitingthe power of government,” unquote. This statement also said that our liberties can remain secure, quote “only if government is so limitedthat it cannot infringe upon those rights”, unquote.
In his acceptance speech before the Republican National Convention on July 16, 1964, Barry Goldwater said that freedom was made orderly in our country, quote, “by our Constitutionalgovernment”, unquote. Goldwater denounced “centralized planning” saying that “the cause” — not A cause but THE cause — of the Republican Party was, “to resist concentration of powers.” He said government should perform “only constitutionally sanctioned tasks.”
The 1964 Republican Party Platform strongly criticized leaders in the Democrat Party because they, “have sought the enlargement of federal power,” because they were “federal extremists, impulsive in the use of national power, improvident in the management of public funds.” Such individuals “so recklessly disposed,” it was said, “cannot be trusted with authority over their fellow citizens.”
Echoing Goldwater, this platform said the federal government “should act only in areas where it has Constitutional authority to act.” And Democrat President Lyndon Johnson was criticized because he burdened the nation with four unbalanced budgets in a row, “creating deficits totaling $26 billion.”
Four Years earlier, in September of 1960, at the home of William F. Buckley, Jr. in Sharon, Connecticut, “The Sharon Statement” was adopted by the Young Americans for Freedom. Among other things, this document noted that its signers believed: “The Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power.”
This statement went on to say …”that the genius of the Constitution — the division of powers — is summed up in the clause which reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people, in those spheres not specifically delegated to the federal government.”
Several years earlier, explaining why he was proposing to found a magazine that was to be “National Review”, Mr. Buckley stated as one of his convictions: “The growth of government — the dominant social feature of this century — must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side.”
Well…
It saddens me to say it — but it is true — that the Republican Party, at the national level, has not — for whatever reason — given us limited — fiscally responsible — Constitutional government.
In fact, just to cite the most recent example, the Bush Administration has given us the biggest, most expensive, most debt-ridden government in modern times. And — I must be honest here — the Bush Administration has behaved as if the folks who run it have never heard of our Constitution. For example:
—Who would have thought that a supposedly conservative Republican President (and his Justice Department) would do nothing to help Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore in his fight to follow his oath of office and acknowledge God — the most important battle for religious freedom in our country in modern times.
To my knowledge, Mr. Bush himself said nothing publicly about this crucial issue; his press spokesman talked only about the right to appeal in our courts. In other words, the courts would decide what’s right and wrong in this matter.
—Who would have thought that supposedly conservative Republicans, in the White House and in Congress, would continue the unconstitutional federal Department of Education which now has an annual budget of more than $60 billion — an agency which as recently as 1996 the Republican Party Platform promised to abolish?
— Who would have thought that supposedly conservative Republicans, in the White House and in Congress, would pursue an unnecessary war in Iraq without a declaration of war, which the Constitution requires?
— Who would have thought that supposedly conservative Republicans, in the White House and in Congress, would approve a so-called Medicare “reform” plan to give older Americans drugs, a program which, at last count, will cost $540 billion and is the largest new entitlement program since LBJ’s “Great Society”?
— Who would have thought that supposedly conservative Republicans, in the White House and in Congress, in this age of terrorism, would refuse to effectively police our borders?
In fact, Mr. Bush had made our country even more vulnerable to terrorism by suggesting an amnesty — he calls it a “reform” — which would allow millions of illegal aliens to stay in America legally — even though such a plan is un-Constitutional because it is a failure to uphold the laws of our country, which the President swore to do when he took office.
— Who would have thought that a supposedly conservative, pro-life President would do nothing to stop the overwhelming majority of abortions when he could do something by not only declaring, but securing and defending the unalienable right to life of the unborn and by vetoing funding for Planned Parenthood — a group devoted to infanticide?
— Who would have thought that supposedly conservative Republicans, in the White House and in Congress, would push for something called a “faith-based initiative” — which is nowhere authorized by the Constitution — and which seeks to, of all things, entice churches and Christian groups to become recipients of federal welfare?
The truth must be faced my friends and fellow CNP members.
You know — and I know — that regardless of intentions, regardless of the many promises over the years, the talk that has been talked has not been walked.
Supposedly conservative Republicans, in Congress and in the White House, have not delivered on what they said they stood for and what they said they would do.
This is a fact. It is not rhetoric.
So, we come back to our question: “Do third parties deserve the support of conservatives?”
Only Parties that are truly Conservative — truly Constitutional — and truly Christian, I might add — who will actually honor God, defend the God-ordained family, and work to restore our original Republic, deserve the support of Conservatives.
What must be faced is the fact that the Republican Party is not that party.
The Constitution Party is that party.
As a matter of plain fact, because it is the only party truly dedicated to the restoration of the American Constitutional Republic, the Constitution Party is the republican party (small “R”)
Meaning, that if you are a republican (small r) — someone who desires the return of Constitutional government in this American Constitutional Republic — your party is the Constitution Party. If you are someone who desires a return to the rule of law in America, your party is the Constitution Party.
So why wouldn’t you give your wholehearted support to the party that represents the conservative principles that you believe in and that is determined and committed to restore the American Republic? Why wouldn’t you support the party that embraces the Christian worldview of our founding and sees service in civil government as part of — and subject to — the Great Commission set forth in Matthew 28?
Well, could it be the “Boogie Man”?
I know this sounds silly but maybe it is the “boogie man.”
Remember the Boogie man? He’s not really there but he’s meant to scare you. He’s not there but you react to him anyway.
What is “Boogie man” politics?
It goes something like this: A supporter of Candidate A says about his man, who’s running against Candidate B: “True, Candidate A isn’t perfect. But he’s a lot better than Candidate B. So, since you certainly don’t want to elect Candidate B, you must vote for Candidate A.”
You see, Candidate B is the “Boogie man”. He has big teeth, he scares children, and he will eat your grandma. You know you hate him. He’s right outside the door and so you can’t do anything that would let him in the house — the White House.
A specific example of what I’m talking about is a recent column in “World Magazine” by that publisher’s Editor-in-chief Marvin Olasky. Let me say that I don’t know Mr. Olasky personally and I mean him no offense. I have read many of his columns and enjoyed them. But I argue here — not with him — but with his argument.
The headline on the column says, in part, that “the stakes really are higher than usual” in this year’s Presidential election. So, Mr. Olasky says, this “is a good time to think through” what is at stake in this election.
So far, so good. But then Mr. Olasky reveals a way of thinking that, for Christians, is bankrupt and, well, not really Christian.
For openers, Mr. Olasky reluctantly concludes that this year’s presidential election is pivotal “because two decidedly different views of America’s role in the world confront us.” He is referring to President Bush and John Kerry. Why, exactly, he limits this race to only two candidates, is not addressed.
But, is it true that the views of President Bush and Senator Kerry are “decidedly different” when it comes to America’s role in the world?
No, this is clearly not true.
Both individuals are New World Order men, globalists, internationalists who, on a number of important issues, are decidedly the same.
— Both Men were originally for, and are still for, our un-Constitutional — undeclared, unnecessary war in Iraq, though they quibble about details.
— Both men have strongly supported a variety of international trade agreements and international trade organizations which have eroded American sovereignty and disadvantaged American workers, throwing tens of thousands of our fellow citizens out of work.
— Both men are fervent believers in the United Nations.
— Both men have no plan whatsoever to stop illegal immigration into our country or do anything about the illegal aliens that are already here, many of whom may be terrorists.
Mr. Olasky, who obviously favors President Bush, notes that “Supreme Court Justices continue to grab power.” So, “with several justices perhaps waiting until after the election to retire, the next president may have his judicial way for the next 30 years.”
But, of course, most of the judges on the Supreme Court were appointed by Republicans — some of the worst “power grabbers” in fact.
True, Mr. Olasky says, a Republican win “will not mean victory for Biblical principle but only the opportunity to keep battling for the soul of the GOP— and victory for compassionate conservatism will once again be elusive. Sadly, (here comes the ‘Boogie Man’!) if the Democrats win, international and further judicial disaster is within our grasp.”
Now, ironically, Mr. Olasky’s own language here reveals that “Boogie man politics” has failed miserably. I say this because this “boogie man politics” has been practiced for years, at the urging of many journalists and magazines and newspapers and party leaders, and it has failed.
How do we know that it has failed? Because Mr. Olasky says that a Republican win is the only opportunity to “keep battling” for the soul of the GOP.
This must mean — it has to mean, that the “boogie man politics” plan has not yet resulted in a victory for the soul of the GOP. This is still, after all these years, an elusive dream — a Charlie Brown football that is always, always pulled away before shoe-leather hits pigskin.
So why do Mr. Olasky, and others among us keep preaching the failed “boogie man politics” sermon?
I have no idea. It’s a mystery.
As for Mr. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism,” it has given us the biggest, most expensive, debt-ridden, intrusive, un-Constitutional federal government in modern history. Why we would want this to continue is another mystery.
There is, however, a Party and a presidential ticket, that is “decidedly different” from the Republicans and Democrats. That party is the Constitution Party. And that ticket is the Constitution Party’s candidates for President and Vice President, respectively, myself and Dr. Chuck Baldwin.
I ask you — if you are for Godly government, and you want the Christian/God-created, man/woman only family defended; if you are republican (small r) and you want to restore our original Constitutional Republic, please support and vote for our Party and for our ticket.
Please do not waste you vote on those who have demonstrated their lack of fidelity to conservative, republican principles, to the United States Constitution and to the rule of law.
And again, I apologize for telling you what you already really know:
The “Boogie Man” is there to scare you. Don’t be afraid to do your Constitutional, American, Godly duty.
I, again, thank you for your kind attention and for the opportunity to speak to you today.
May God bless us all — as He has promised to do — when we obey Him. Thank you.
