Mr. Michael Peroutka: His Face Is Set

Isaiah wrote, “Therefore I have set my face like a flint” (Isa 50:7). The prophet is speaking of God’s Suffering Servant who has resolutely embarked upon an irreversible course. The New Testament says that our Lord “stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem” to endure the cross (Luke 9:51). Scholars tell us that the phrase “set one’s face” is a Hebraism implying fixedness of purpose, especially in the face of difficulty or danger. I imagine this is the mindset of our brave sons and daughters in Iraq as they set out on a dangerous convoy through the Sunni Triangle.

As for Jesus, He had chosen to enter upon the path before Him—a path of humiliation, suffering, and death in order to accomplish the divine plan of salvation. He knew the time had come when, after His suffering and resurrection, He would again be taken up and reinstated in His former glory with the Father and vested with the new glory He had won as Son of Man.

This Saturday, fully aware of the path awaiting him, Mr. Michael Peroutka will announce his candidacy for President of the United States. The decision to run for public office was not an easy one for this soft-spoken man. In his statement of candidacy he notes:

To say that I did not feel qualified to take on such a massive task is to engage in gross understatement. After prayer and serious consideration, I am convinced that the question of my qualification and competence is not solely within my power to judge. The uniqueness of this undertaking and the special demands that it requires, make it necessary to rely upon the judgment, experience and counsel of men who have trod this path before me. In short, if men like Howard Phillips and Jim Clymer are convinced that I can adequately represent the Constitution Party in such a fashion, then I must weigh their opinion and their vision as well as my own knowledge of the task and of my own strengths and shortcomings. In light of these considerations, and despite previous misgivings, I believe God has given me this duty to perform.

Mr. Peroutka entertains no illusions that his path will be easy or “successful” in the world’s eyes. He is simply carrying out to the best of his ability the will of God as he understands it:

[T]here are at least two distinct tasks against which competency must be judged. One is the running of a legitimate and appropriate candidacy. The second is the serving in office in the event that God would grant the victory. About the first I know almost nothing except that it will be a challenge that will test my knowledge, patience, energy, and stamina. I expect to take punches and I need to do so with equanimity and maintain the course despite attacks and setbacks. I am committed to this. Regarding the second, I feel a little more qualified. Although I am not well-schooled on every important issue, I do feel that I have an overall grasp of what a Constitutional Republic of Sovereign States based on Biblical principles would look like and I think, with practice, I can express this clearly and concisely. Applying these principles to every question of current events in a rapid-fire interview with good sound bites may not be my forte but I think I could actually do the work of the office if God gave it to me to do. Moreover, I am confident that if He gave it to me He would give me the resources and the help to carry out His will for me.

What does this mean for you and me? As voters, we are now faced with a viable alternative to the two-party monopoly that dominates American politics. And, like Mr. Peroutka, it is time to make a choice. Pastor Mark Dankof put it this way in a recent email:

What are your other voting options in the first Tuesday of November this fall? One will be a liberal Democrat, quite clearly the reincarnation of another Dukakis candidacy. The other will be Rockefeller Republican George W. Bush, who has given us 1) a Congressionally undeclared and preemptive foreign war in Iraq on the basis of fraudulent claims and evidence; 2) a never-ending and disastrous occupation of that country which continues to siphon billions of tax dollars and American lives with no end in sight; 3) a Leviathan federal budget of 2.3 trillion dollars with 500 billion dollar + deficits; 4) a catastrophic immigration policy which has given blanket amnesty to an additional 12 million illegal aliens in the United States; 5) a continuation of America-Last trade policies as outlined in NAFTA and GATT, designed to destroy the manufacturing base and sector of the American economy; and 6) ongoing capitulations in the Culture War to the anti-Christian, pro-abortion, and homosexual lobbies active within his own Party.

If you like these policies, Mr. Bush and/or his Democratic opponent are just for you. I accept this. But if you share my own anxiety about the future of America and the direction either King George or John Kerry of the People’s Republic of Massachusetts will set in the four years that follow this November’s election, please prayerfully consider Michael Peroutka as worthy of your vote as the next President of the United States. And tell as many of your friends and family members as you can of this important option I commend to you. There is indeed a viable alternative available. And let’s Reclaim our Republic.

A friend of mine recently asked me, “But I’ve never heard of Michael Peroutka. How in the world can a man without name recognition, personal connections, and access to resources be considered a viable candidate for president?” This is a legitimate question. But it has been answered by Mr. Howard Phillips, one of the founders of the Constitution Party. In an interview with Mark Dankof on World Net Daily, Mr. Phillips said this:

Christians, conservatives, Constitutionalists, will only be effective in politics when they begin with the standard, rather than beginning with the man. If you begin with the standard of God’s word, the Bible, if you begin with the political standard of the Constitution, and then assess the degree to which those who seek your support identify themselves with that which is required by the Bible and the Constitution, you are less likely to err. But there is no such thing as perfect discernment—we just do the best that we can.

In other words, not only does the Constitution Party put principle above politics; it puts principle above personality. This is as it should be.

Personally, I like the determination and humility I see in Mr. Peroutka. It reminds me of what the apostle Paul said in Acts 20:24. Although aware that bonds and afflictions awaited him, he declared, “But none of these things move me.” Paul had set his face. In Philippians 3:13 he tells us, “This one thing I do,” not “These many things I dabble in.” Yes, there are “those things which are behind,” and Paul is forgetting them. But there are also “those things which remain before,” and Paul is reaching forth unto them with every ounce of his God-given strength. All the land that remains to be possessed, all the service that remains for us to accomplish, all that is ours in Christ both as individuals and as a nation—let us reach for these while there is still time.

Today is the day to make up our minds on “this one thing.” It will help bring all other things in their proper relation to that. This is what Mr. Peroutka has had the courage to do, and that is what we must do.

David Alan Black is the editor of www.daveblackonline.com. His latest book, Why I Stopped Listening to Rush: Confessions of a Recovering Neocon, will be released this year.

Don't you think that by running for re-election after advocating and implementing abhorrent liberal policies that Bush is splitting the conservative vote? He would serve conservatives better by dropping out of the race and supporting someone who is consistent in his positions.

I think the majority of Americans are not liberal or conservative, and don't pay much attention to the details. These people have never heard of the Constitution Party, and they won't vote for it. They'll vote for the candidate of one of the major parties. An exception would be someone like Perot with LOTS of money and LOTS of media attention. Do you suppose the Constitution Party will get that?

He barely beat a half-witted socialist Democrat who served in the previous administration.

Precisely. Over half the American voters voted for either Gore or Nader. A little less than half the American voters voted for Bush or more conservative candidates.

Most Americans are moderates, and believe the media hype that Conservatives are too mean and hateful. They don't want to be like that; they see themselves as kind and generous people.

Most Americans see third party candidates, on the whole, as Quixotic nutcases, and they don't vote for them. By the time of the election, Peroutka will be lucky if 10% of Americans have even heard of him. During the last election, both Pat Buchanan and the Reform Party were fairly well known, but got very few votes.

A repeat race, especially after outspending said administration, will only further divide conservatives.

The biggest thing dividing conservatives is these "conservative" candidates. One wonders what they are actually expecting to accomplish, since they can't possibly expect to win.

Bush isn't perfect by a long shot, but he sure beats Kerry.

I can see your point there. It was a bit over the top. However from the perspective of doing something so unpopular and still pressing forward with it because he believes in the long forgotten concept of what used to be a Republic nonetheless, I have to give him some credit. It's refreshing to see a candidate that is willing to stand up and say "this is what the Constitution says my job is and that's what I'm doing" instead of the candidate who says 'Vote for me and see what I can give you".

However from the perspective of doing something so unpopular and still pressing forward with it because he believes in the long forgotten concept of what used to be a Republic nonetheless, I have to give him some credit.

For reasons I've stated above, he's not likely to get a significant number of votes. HOWEVER, if he did get some measurable percentage of votes, the practical result of his candidacy is more likely to be the election of the Democratic candidate, which is exactly the opposite of what he says he wants. Therefore, it's non-productive and most likely to be counter-productive.

It's refreshing to see a candidate that is willing to stand up and say "this is what the Constitution says my job is and that's what I'm doing" instead of the candidate who says 'Vote for me and see what I can give you".

Well, yeah, except that MOST people are more likely to vote for the person who promises them the most - that's precisely WHY politicians make those promises. At least President Bush has kept most of his.

Interesting. Never considered a citizen of a respective state allowing their voice to be heard called 'counter-productive'. Much better we continue the popularity contest. Can't let following the precepts and letter of the law in the Constitution get in the way now can we?

Oh yes, remind me in thirty years to write a letter to each and everyone of the politicians that voted, called for, passed, signed, and in any way was responsible for this $530 billion (and growing exponentially) 'healthcare' package that was just signed. I'm so absolutely grateful....

Of course by then it'll probably cost $4 to mail a dern letter but we can't let cost and limitations of the national government as explained by the Constitution get in the way of 'promises' now can we?

I think it's really interesting we have people on other threads jubilant because Nader is going to jump in and split the liberal vote, but don't see that Peroutka and whoever the Libertarian candidate may be are potentially splitting the conservative vote.

I think principle is very important, but if you don't get anyone elected, how are you going to get your policies implemented? I've decided half a loaf is better than none.

If you happened to lose your job, would you work at whatever you could until you could find a new job you liked, or would you sit on your rear and whine about not being able to find the perfect job as you starved and lost all your possessions?

A job is a personal responsibility and something I am expected to uphold. Much as the leaders of the nation. To pay lip service to a document and then go about business as usual is not something one should expect from their leaders. Politicians maybe, but not leaders

As for Nader's vote tally, heck the man has been running for years. Sooner or later people start to vote for them. We constantly hear about this 'incrementalism' the Republicans are trying to sell as the excuse for expanding and not limiting government. It's the same with the votes. Nader has been doing it over and over. And in some states he's giving a showing that I imagine Democrats and Republicans alike don't appreciate. Somebody is trying to kick them off the top of their hallowed hill with a message out of the ordinary

I'm not saying we'll see some 20-30% runup with a conservative third party this year or even next election cycle. But you have to admit, some citizens of the respective states are getting restless. The Republican party is going conservative when it matters less and less. As this continues, will 'flyover' country be voting solid Republican 25 years from now?

A job is a personal responsibility and something I am expected to uphold.

Then you agree it is better to have a job that pays some of your bills than to pay none of them while you wait for the perfect job to be offered to you?

I see George Bush as the job which will pay some of the bills right now - because as a practical matter, that perfect job isn't available yet, except in my mind.

Much as the leaders of the nation. To pay lip service to a document and then go about business as usual is not something one should expect from their leaders. Politicians maybe, but not leaders

I have to agree with Greatgrandma here, if these people were running in the GOP primaries, I'd vote for them to send a message to the Republican PTB that I'd like a more conservative candidate. I voted for Keyes in the last two primaries.

I can't vote for Peroutka in the primaries now. I'd give up my right to vote for anyone else (no one else locally running on the Constitution Party ballot).

The other point is, you have 3 congresscritters you can vote for, as well as your state and local politicians. THAT is the place to vote for the hardcore conservatives and really make a difference, because they are the ones who pass the laws and spending bills, and the President doesn't even have a line-item veto, which puts him at a disadvantage trying to cut spending. Remember how Reagan's budget shutdown got blamed on Conservatives?

The president has to be president for the entire country, and we know from the last election (red zones, blue zones, etc) that the country is fairly evenly divided. Barring some combination of candidates to really split the left, there is no way a "true conservative" is going to get elected in the United States right now. Better to take someone who's moderately conservative than to throw it all to the liberal, I think.

So far as Congresscritters go: I heard my own Rep. Jack Kingston say just last week that he'd give the administration a D- on fiscal issues; way too much spending. Jack is one of the better ones - you've probably seen him on Hannity & Colmes from time to time.

However, he loves "bringing home the bacon" as much as any of them, and I haven't seen him turning down any pork barrel stuff that will benefit his district. I'd give him a D on some of that as well, but he doesn't seem to see his own part in it.

Exactly. I once thought I would never vote for any Republican who was pro-choice (I am VERY pro-life.) But if I have a choice of two candidates for Senate office, one a pro-choice Dem, and one a pro-choice Republican, the Republican is a better, although pragmatic, choice, because he will more than likely confirm a Bush nominee for the judiciary. Standing firm to a hard principle in this case would be penny wise and pound foolish.

This is the same kind of choice. And Bush has given us tax cuts, a partial birth abortion ban, gone after those who would harm us on THEIR soil, not ours, and for this, I applaud AND support him.

The dems are upset about Nader, but Republicans see his candidacy as a possible advantage. The Dems would see this Peroutka guy as an advantage to them. Is that what he wants?

Goldfinch (a conservative grandma :-)

the Republican is a better, although pragmatic, choice, because he will more than likely confirm a Bush nominee for the judiciary. Standing firm to a hard principle in this case would be penny wise and pound foolish.

Pragmatic is the key.

We all have ideals, but we're all forced to make pragmatic choices in real life - which car or house to buy, where to live, etc. - because the ideal either doesn't exist, or we can't afford it.

We understand that life works this way, but some people haven't realized yet that politics does as well.

Then you agree it is better to have a job that pays some of your bills than to pay none of them while you wait for the perfect job to be offered to you?

Yes to that I will agree. However, my personal responsibility and limitation of my power is not outlined in the document that is supposed to be running this nation of states. His is.

The other point is, you have 3 congresscritters you can vote for, as well as your state and local politicians. THAT is the place to vote for the hardcore conservatives and really make a difference, because they are the ones who pass the laws and spending bills, and the President doesn't even have a line-item veto, which puts him at a disadvantage trying to cut spending. Remember how Reagan's budget shutdown got blamed on Conservatives?

Well I will applaud you for that stance. According to some, to even vote for the most conservative candidate on the ballot at this level should be akin to treason.

On that I will agree as well. However, this nation of states is not just red and blue anymore. The issue is that many don't realize, or are being pressured by friends, family, etc. to stay in that red/blue mindset. As I said it won't happen in this election, it may not happen in two election cycles. However sooner or later, either the Democrats will go off the deep end, or the Republicans will move too far to the left, and then no amount of pressure will be able to stop a third or even fourth party from being elected into more powerful positions.

Some say those who advocate a different solution are impatient. I would say quite to the contrary. They are more than patient. Because they realize that while a difference can not be made within a generation, hopefully within their lifetime they will see a change. And they continue to hold out that hope

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.