Posted on 11/01/2004 9:16:28 AM PST by SeasideSparrow
Dear third-party voter,
A tragedy is about to occur.
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.
How could this be?
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.
Not to do so will be a tragedy we will remember for the rest of our lives.
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?
Sincerely,
David Kupelian
No. If you care about immigration vote Peroutka. If you want the IRS disbanded vote Badnarik.
Wrong, George Bush's father cost George Bush's father, the election.
Wrong, George Bush's father cost George Bush's father, the election.
Our form of government is a representative republic. That means SOMEONE is going to represent you in governing at each level of government. Unless you are that representative, no matter who that representative is, they will not represent your views and opinions 100% of the time. However, if there are two different people running for that office, one of them will represent your views more often than the other.
If you fail to vote for that person, it has the same effect as it would if you voted for the other person, who will not represent your views as frequently.
You are not being asked to vote for your representative before God; it is only a vote for someone to represent your views in secular government. You are not going to lose your salvation (assuming you are a Christian believer) by this vote. At least I've never found a scripture that indicates that. Have you?
Q: What's the difference between an empty promise that a Republican or Democrat makes that you know they won't keep, and a genuine promise that a Libertarian or Constitution party member makes that will never be realized because they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected?
A: Zero. An unimplemented idea is an unimplemented idea.
You've managed to be here for many years and in all that time,haven't learned anything at all about politics.
You haven't a clue.I bet you helped give us Clinton..fess up...you did,didn't you?
bttt
Voting pool = 10 people.
Five vote for Kerry. Four vote for W. One votes for Joe Schmuck, the Independent.
Doesn't Kerry win?
Yes, but that isn't what I asked. For Kerry's chance to *increase*, the Joe Schmuck voter must have originally been a W supporter who subsequently changes his mind. For all we know, the Schmuck supporter may have been planning on sitting it out.
I deny that the GOP candidate is always automatically entitled to the vote of every non-Communist in the country. Whatever happened to earning votes?
Got that right, BIG TIME agenda. Look into the FTAA, most people seem to have never heard of it. Unfortunately most of the anti-FTAA groups are nutty left wing loons who think the FTAA doesn't go far enough! The birchers are trying to get the word out and regardless what you think of them their info is valid.
http://www.stoptheftaa.org/
And get John Kerry.
Someone said: "You are not being asked to vote for your representative before God; it is only a vote for someone to represent your views in secular government. You are not going to lose your salvation (assuming you are a Christian believer) by this vote. At least I've never found a scripture that indicates that. Have you?"
Excellent point!
Mcg1969, I appreciate all your posts here today. Also, DaughterofanIwoJimaVet, you got it! ;o)
Let's just pray God gives us all guidance tomorrow.
I have stopped pounding my head against the wall with these people. They don't understand what's at stake, apparently, and they seem entirely incapable of understanding it.
Yeah, probably. LOL
Hog wash. I have no idea what you''re talking about. I don't know anyone, RINO or conservative, who stayed home in 2000, and as a daily reader of FReep, I haven't seen anything over the last four years which supports your ridiculous assertion. Contrary to your delusions, conservatives brought the White House back to the Pubbies in '80, '84, '88 and '00, and won the Congress for the Pubbies in '94. Conservatives were the GOP until you RINOs took over.
I remember the words of Larry Hopkins, the congressman from Lexington, KY, that I worked for in '88. At his victory celebration, he told us "I can serve my party best by serving my country first". When the GOP again lives by this principle, I will consider giving it my support again. But first y'all have to look up the definition of "principle".
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
You better call Karl Rove then; because he sure as hell thinks 4,000,000 of the religous right sat home in 2000.
and as a daily reader of FReep, I haven't seen anything over the last four years which supports your ridiculous assertion
Then you don't read it very closely.
"Assessments that Bush has given up on the gay vote seem confirmed by Bush's strategist, Karl Rove, who has repeatedly claimed that the key to re-election is mobilizing the estimated 4 million evangelical voters he believes stayed home in 2000. "
"Quoth Dugwayduke: ----- Please explain how a vote for Badnarik is a vote against illegal immigration? You have read the libertarian platform? The party official opposes any limitations on immigration. ----- Michael Badnarik is not the Libertarian Party. He's the Libertarian Party's candidate. Not all candidates agree with every jot and tittle of their party's platform. And while he does support making it very easy for peaceful people to enter the US, he also supports real security for the borders..."
Horsehockey. The man's position on immigration is indistinguishable from that of the libertarian party. From the position paper you referenced: "Coupled with open, easy immigration for the peaceful, I advocate a vigorous national defense against our enemies."
Now as for his 'support for real security for the borders.', the man is even a bigger fool who wants to defend the borders while withdrawing all troops for overseas. Yeah, that makes a ton of sense, let's fight the war on terrorism here on US soil.
Exactly... most people can't grasp this. Not only will the productive have to pay back bushes "tax cuts", we'll have to pay interest to the chinese for lending him the money to "give" us those cuts.
To the bushies, I say that the only reason I personally would want to see bush elected over skerry is my personal greed... let those 6-8 million mexican friends of his that have poured over the border during his first term pay for my "tax cut".
My personal greed however, is far outweighed by what bush'll do if he recieves a second term. War against Iran, North Korea, Syria, Columbia, continued military occupation of the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, increased fascism and socialism at home, you name it! Nothing is so dangerous as a man with nearly unlimited power, so convinced he's right, when, on just about everything, he's so damn wrong.
My vote goes to Badnarik... I'm convinced that, of the Presidential candidates on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical chance of winning, he's the best. I'm equally convinced that a weak, poll-driven idiot like skerry, opposed by a 'pubbie senate & house, is much preferrable to the group of madmen that hold the executive branch of gov't today (but hopefully not tonite!).
Bottom line... we'll be worse off 4 years from now than we are today, no matter if bush or skerry is elected. This trend will continue until we, as a nation, restore the Republic as conceived by the Founders, or until a weak, socialist, balkanized US disintegrates. Those are the only two long-term outcomes from travelling the road we're on.
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.