Vote for Peroutka or Badnarik?

I am not talking about the tragedy, the unthinkable calamity that will befall America should John Kerry be elected president of the United States. That a person with a history of actual treason should become commander in chief of America's armed forces during wartime is more bizarre and terrifying than any "Manchurian Candidate" scenario Hollywood could concoct.

No, I'm referring to a different tragedy. The tragedy that idealistic, patriotic, constitutionally minded Christian Americans very possibly will be the ones that actually turn over this nation to Kerry – a man who opposes, and is intent on destroying, every one of their most cherished values.

By most accounts, the presidential race is a dead heat. The fact is, several swing states in the 2000 election were settled by just a few thousand votes. This time around the race looks every bit as close – so every single vote counts.

My friends, the hour is late and the stakes high, so let me just say it straight:

A vote for Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party, or for the Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik – regardless of whatever personal virtues they possess, or those of their party's platform – amounts to a vote for Kerry. After all the high-sounding words have been spoken in justification of voting for either one, this is the undeniable fact that remains. It's the most basic mathematics possible, so I won't insult anyone by explaining it.

Furthermore, the "lesser of two evils" argument that I've heard 1,000 times – usually stated as "voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil" – is shallow and unworthy of those good folks who hold the Constitution and Judeo-Christian heritage so dear. This view, with its emphasis on personally choosing not to support any evil whatsoever, is held largely by religious people, mostly Christians.

But every Christian also knows he or she is a sinner – in a word, evil. Not totally evil, of course, but every human being – including you, me, Bush, Kerry, Peroutka, Badnarik and everyone else – has got a problem with evil. It's only the degree that is different from person to person.

If Bush is truly "the lesser of two evils" – which, put another way, means he is the greater good – then it's indefensible to vote for anyone else than Bush, since that would unquestionably help Kerry – the greater evil.

Let me restate this: If the object of your vote is to avoid supporting evil – and yet by your vote you end of electing the worst possible choice as president when you had it easily within your power to choose a better man – then you have indeed supported evil.

One of the many people who responded to my column on "Voting your conscience" informed me that by voting for Bush instead of Peroutka, I was operating from fear and not faith. We should just vote our consciences, he said (in this case, he was suggesting a vote for the Constitution Party candidate), and leave the outcome to God.

This is a mis-applied principle. Yes, we're meant to live righteously and not be overly concerned with the result. That means we're meant to speak the truth even if it makes us unpopular. We're meant to do the right thing, even if we lose a seeming advantage, even if it hurts, even if we lose our job. This is living from faith and leaving the outcome to God.

But when we have a clear choice between a better option and a worse option, and millions of lives will be affected by our choice, God doesn't require that we do the impossible and make a third option win out. Getting Peroutka or Badnarik elected president is impossible.

What God does hold us responsible for is to do the right thing, to act with wisdom. If America can have a safer nation with a more decent president – or be more endangered with an unprincipled, ambitious sociopath as president – and if we, you and I, are the ones who choose that president tomorrow, then we have a responsibility to choose the better man.

This is not an ordinary election. We are at war. That's not a metaphor, as Kerry's campaign says, but rather a real war. Millions of lives are at stake. America's security is at stake. The Supreme Court, America's sovereignty as an independent nation, the lives of the unborn, the sanctity of marriage, freedom of the press – all are at stake in this election.

As we reported in our special "REVOLT ON THE RIGHT" edition of Whistleblower magazine, there have been many times in American history when a robust third-party bid for the presidency has had a powerful and meaningful effect on the course of the nation. But tomorrow is not one of those times. Tomorrow is a time for good people to come together to stop a major evil from descending on this country.

In the last few days, Patrick Buchanan, who ran against Bush four years ago on a third-party ticket, urged Americans to vote this time for Bush. Why?

Likewise, WND's founder and CEO Joseph Farah – who did not support Bush in 2000, who has said for years he would be unable to support Bush in 2004, and who has been very favorable toward third parties – recently changed his mind and endorsed Bush over Kerry. Why?

Even Dr. John Hospers, America's first Libertarian Party presidential candidate, has urged Libertarians not to vote for their own party's candidate, but rather to vote for Bush. Why?

I'll tell you why. Because they realize what is truly at stake in this election. Do you?

The Libertarian Party's Statement of Principles

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

Libertarian Party platform HERE.

"The GOP is the only party that will listen to you."

OK, let's see...

1) CFR
2) the "Patriot" Act
3)the Mediscare drug benefit, aka the "Bankrupt Generation X" Act
4) the "guest worker-illegal scumbag alien amnesty" plan
5) bleeding, gushing borders in the north and south, aka the invasion route
6) wildly expanded federal government which continues to grow
7) no expanded military or Border Patrol
8) thousands more federalized union employees
9) two new federal bureaucracies (TSA and DHS)
10) lukewarm support for the RKBA (if it weren't for Tom DeLay, we'd still have the Klinton gun ban)
11) lukewarm opposition to faggot marriages, faggot "civil unions", etc.
12) a Richie Cunningham "good guy" pursuit of the WOT, instead of a George Patton "grab 'em by the nose and kick 'em in the ass" approach that is sorely needed
13) Kennedy's "No Child Left Behind" Act
14) only one of his conservative judicial nominees on the bench, thanks to an recess appointment
15) and so on and so forth...

The GOP ain't listening now! If they're not listening to conservatives, why the hell should we vote for them? Because we have "nowhere else to go"? Horse hockey.

"And if we lose, then you're really out of luck."

I've been out of luck since the Pubbies became the "cave in party" back in '95. The Pubbies left me, not the other way around. Maybe if they manage to hold onto Congress, they'll remember where their spine and ba**s are and start offering some opposition to the Commies...nah, I forgot, the Pubbies have surrendered their ba**s to the polls and the lamestream media.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

Listen, four months ago there were only two candidates; today there are only two candidates.

For your information, I don't use the argument "Kerry would be worse," because that's a fact; I believe in George W. Bush and in what he's doing; he's the president of ALL the people of this country, not just us, and he has to DEAL with all of them.

I think he's doing the best any person could do in the situation he's in; if you don't, fine. But don't be furious at the rest of us because we happen to think things are going pretty well compared to what they could be.

As for living in LaLaLand, that's an insult to me and everybody that doesn't agree with YOUR agenda; you're no better than you accuse us of being. You want your way and you're going to make everybody else miserable trying to get it.

Face the fact that only about two percent of conservatives want the slash and burn policies most of you want; it's not that we don't know things are wrong -- we just don't feel like setting fire to our hair every single time somebody who doesn't agree with Bush comes along.

And why do you need US to tell you to write the president? Can't you figure that out for yourselves? I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that we DO write the president when we don't agree with him, huh? The difference is that we write him when we DO agree with him, too.

As for the remark about Bush being elevated to a diety, that's just as childish as you say we are; we SUPPORT him and we're sick and tired of NOTHING he does being supported by you all.

If you don't think Kerry would be worse, we don't have much in common.

AmishDude said: "Thank you for the flypaper thread.
And welcome to Free Republic."

Thanks for the warm welcome, friend. Don't know if you're really Amish or not, but thought you might find this interesting:

World News
October 28, 2004

Hats off to Bush as he calls on Amish country
From Tim Reid in Lancaster, Pennsylvania

HIS horse and buggy safely tethered, straw hat perched on his head and plain dark suit brushed as neatly as his long beard, Dan Stoltz, an Amish builder, watched in quiet awe yesterday as his hero, George W. Bush, emerged from Air Force One to greet the roars of the crowd.
“We’re voting for Bush. We like his values,” Mr Stoltz declared. And as Mr Bush looked down to see not just baseball caps, but clusters of white bonnets, boaters and trademark beards, he knew beyond doubt that this year the Amish have hitched their buggies to his re-election bid and are coming out to vote.

Mr Bush landed in the heart of Pennsylvania’s Amish country, among its rolling fields and unmechanised farms, aware that if just a few thousand vote for him here and in the neighbouring battleground state of Ohio, this deeply conservative community that shuns modern life might just deliver him another four years in the White House.

Although pacifists, the 52,000 Amish in Pennsylvania, and 55,000 in Ohio, are natural Republicans, even more obsessed by cultural issues of abortion and gay marriage than matters of war and peace.

“An Amish vote is a Republican vote. And if we don’t vote, we pray Republican,” said Chet Beiler, a former Amish and now Republican activist who has been dropping off registration forms in Lancaster County’s Amish farms and shops. Already 2,000 have signed up and promised to ride their buggies to the polling booths on Tuesday.

Mr Beiler has been working with the Bush campaign, which has aggressively courted the Amish vote all year. Campaign workers are even offering to drive them to the polls. But reaching out to a community that does not watch television, drive cars or have telephones in their houses (some have answer phones in their barns), has not been easy. So on July 9, Mr Bush came to Lancaster for a private meeting with 30 Amish.

“They loved Bush,” Mr Beiler said. “He’s anti-abortion. He’s against gay marriage. He’s pro-faith. He’s plain spoken, as many of them tend to be. And we recognised that this year, the Amish are excited enough about President Bush to register in large numbers and in a swing state this close, it could make all the difference.”

Mr Bush usually campaigns in open-neck shirts, but yesterday he took to stage next to his wife, besuited and immaculate. Thirty yards away, Sam Stoltfus, 60, an Amish farmer who began the journey on his buggy to Lancaster’s airport at 4.30 am, looked on in delight.

“We are sort of swept up in Bush fever,” he said. “You could hold up a dead mouse with a sign ‘I love Bush’ and we’d still probably think twice about stomping that mouse underfoot.” In Pennsylvania’s Lancaster County, and Holmes County in Ohio, election boards have seen a surge in Amish names among those registering to vote.

“A lot will vote this year,” Donald Kraybill, an Amish expert at Elizabethtown College, in Pennsylvania, said. “I’m expecting about 20 per cent to turn out for Bush, or about 3,000 votes. And remember, because they don’t have telephones, they have been completely under the radar for the pollsters. If Ohio, particularly, is as close as Florida in 2000, they could make all the difference.

This is a very unusual year, and it’s very unusual to see all this activity.”

The Amish are not natural political animals. They are deeply reserved Christians, descendants of Swiss Germans who settled in Lancaster and Holmes Counties in the early 1700s as part of William Penn’s “holy experiment” in religious tolerance.

And not all are comfortable with voting. Many want to maintain their seclusion from modern life and are concerned that if their profile is raised, the privileges that let them maintain their way of life, including an exemption from paying taxes, will be threatened. Many elders are cautioning against getting involved in the election.

But when the Amish feel that their core values threatened — and they see John Kerry as a threat — they are willing to emerge from seclusion. They came out in large numbers in 1952 to vote for Dwight Eisenhower against the Unitarian Adlai Stevenson, and again in 1960 to vote against the Roman Catholic John F Kennedy. Mr Bush’s decision to invade Iraq also does not sit comfortably, but social issues trump everything.

“I don’t agree with war at all,” John Fisher, an Amish welder and father of seven in Lancaster, said. But he added that Mr Bush’s “focus on the family” will win his vote.

As President Bush roared into the autumn sky and on to a rally in Ohio, the Amish untethered their horses and slowly guided their buggies through the enormous post-rally traffic jam, and back to their farms. But next week, many will be back out again for their President.

What changes have republicans and democrats brought about that's been good for the country?

You are obviously missing the point. I am well aware that you don't think the Republican party is doing this country any good. And while I suspect there are areas where I am more positive than you are, I would agree that the Republicans, indeed this entire country, needs to make a distinct shift to the right.

Where we are disagreeing is WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT. You have chosen a method that is guaranteed to fail, and will often be counterproductive. Working within the party to support candidates like Tom McClintock or Tom Tancredo is far more likely to have an impact. The problem with a Constitution party vote is that it demands a quantum leap in political movement, when only incremental steps are possible.

I will say again, though, that if we could get approval voting going for national races, that would change things imemdiately. I would quite seriously consider shifting to the Constitution party if that were to happen. I would very likely still vote Republican as well, at least until the Constitution party became a viable top-tier option---and yet---and I suspect a lot more hardcore Constitution party supporters would see the wisdom in doing so too.

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.