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
First, let's summarize repub/dem immigration policy as they have administered it for the last 40 years...
Today, the vast majority of immigrants who pour into this country every year, both legal and illegal, are economically-driven immigrants. That is to say that they're not coming for freedom or the opportunity to succeed on their own, they're coming to take advantage of social-welfare programs. In other words, they're coming here to live off money you earn, taken from you at gunpoint, and given to them by the gov't. Can't really blame them for taking "free" money.
The dems want them here because uneducated, unskilled marxist peasants vote dem. The 'pubbies want them here because uneducated, unskilled, marxist peasants work for next to nothing (especially when you pay their living expenses!). They also drive down the wages of the native-born, which further helps the big-business friends of the 'pubbies. Neither party cares if you want them here or not.
The immigration policy of a Libertarian America would attract immigrants who would be coming here for freedom and opportunity, not handouts. These immigrants would be the same type of people who built this country in the first place. If you have to have immigration, these are the kind of people you want to have.
Also, there's nothing in the LP immigration platform that would deny us the power to know who's entering the country, unlike what's happening today. There are more parasites in the world than productive people, so a Libertarian America would probably attract less immigrants, making it more possible to monitor the movement of people across the nation's borders.
In addition, a Libertarian federal gov't, only performing the few tasks given it by the Constitution, would most likely be a lot better at border control/defense than today's fedgov beast, which does everything, and does nothing very well.
This libertarian thinks there's too many people here now. I think that mass immigration should have ended when the empty, open spaces ran out. But if we have to have immigration, let's at least let the right people in, coming here for the right reasons. That's not what's happening now.
"If you don't mind, let me, a LP member strongly opposed to mass immigration, expain how immigration could work in a Libertarian America."
"Today, the vast majority of immigrants who pour into this country every year, both legal and illegal, are economically-driven immigrants. That is to say that they're not coming for freedom or the opportunity to succeed on their own, they're coming to take advantage of social-welfare programs. In other words, they're coming here to live off money you earn, taken from you at gunpoint, and given to them by the gov't. Can't really blame them for taking "free" money."
Again, horsehockey. Your candidate says in his position paper on immigration: "I do not regard the existence of the social "safety net" as a good excuse for excluding immigrants."
"They also drive down the wages of the native-born, which further helps the big-business friends of the 'pubbies. Neither party cares if you want them here or not."
And the 'open border' party, the libertarian party, would not restict immigration so exactly how does your party or it's candidate expect to do any thing to protect American wages?
"Also, there's nothing in the LP immigration platform that would deny us the power to know who's entering the country, unlike what's happening today."
The libertarian party is against the Patriot Act and any other use of government to 'spy' upon residents. So, exactly how will you know any thing about any one?
"In addition, a Libertarian federal gov't, only performing the few tasks given it by the Constitution, would most likely be a lot better at border control/defense than today's fedgov beast, which does everything, and does nothing very well."
Oh, yes, let's make border defense the hall mark of our defense program. Let's not confront terrorists on their territory, let's just sit on our borders and play defense. Why, I'd love to see your game plan for a football game. Would you forbid your players from crossing the fifty?
"This libertarian thinks there's too many people here now. I think that mass immigration should have ended when the empty, open spaces ran out."
Get out and look around. There's still a lot of empty space here.
Amen, I'm logging a protest vote for Badnarik as well.
We can't tolerate this endless compromise with the left. It must stop somewhere, and the only way to do it is to send our so-called "conservative" leaders a shot across the bow.
If you say so, but I will not be taking an active part.
Neither candidate represents my views enough for me to vote.
I have no fear for my soul when it comes to an election.
If God wants me to vote for a particular candidate, then I'm sure I will.
Why in the world would I do as you say? I can, and will post on FR.....as to whether I vote or not has nothing to do with my belonging to an anonymous internet forum.
I know and have learned enough about politics to make the decision I have made.
Who are you to tell me what to do anyway?
Sorry, you're gonna have to do better than that. I have no use for Karl Rove, the RINO moron he is. He's no better than toe sucking Dick Morris. Give me facts, not the delusions of some idiot who's failed ideas may very well make this president yet another one term Bush.
"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."
So in other words, he doesn't have any proof, he just thinks 4 million of us stayed home in 2000. What a crock. Give me facts, not the delusional rantings of Karl Rove. You may place absolute credence on his statements, and hang on his every word, but I could care less about his speculations.
Anyone who stays home today in protest is irresponsible and not fulfilling his civic duty to vote. As I tell the young people I work with, vote for someone you believe in, even if it means writing yourself in. Yes, we have an obligation to vote, owed to the generations of Americans who have died to protect our rights. But that obligation doesn't mean we somehow owe our votes to Coke or Pepsi. Your president was once my president, but he squandered my support by turning his back on the conservative ideals that brung him to the dance. I resent that, and I resent the RINOs that stole my party.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Oh, I get it now; that's how you do it! Just ignore anything you don't agree with.
You obviously have a comprehension problem!
Enjoy your irrelevancy!
I have very little patience for people who take that position. This is America, where we vote for our representatives. Voting is a responsibilty of citizenship. If you're not prepared to do that, please leave.
No, Einstein, that's not it at all. Rove isn't what's called a "credible source". It's like Sarah Brady telling us that "guns kill 15 children every day". It's a load of crap, meant to serve her agenda, just as Rove's drivel about religious conservatives staying home in 2000 is meant to serve his agenda. Rove's blather is about as relevant as Dick Morris'.
But I suspect you know this already, just you're not willing to admit it. You're so mad that we conservatives dare to find "somewhere else to go", that you're willing to risk exposing your blind loyalty to the RINO-in-Chief and his RINO advisor.
"You obviously have a comprehension problem!"
No, the problem is in your blind partisanship. After all, you're the one with the cutesy little Bushbot pic on your homepage. You've admitted it...you're a robot, programmed to do the bidding of your master, and programmed to accept anything said by him and his minions as the Gospel truth. Just like the Klintonistas, your mind is absolutely off limits to the truth, if it is in any way not beneficial to your master.
"Enjoy your irrelevancy!"
Enjoy your mental slavery. Kool-Aid helps wash it down, from what I understand.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Keep posting; you're making my points for me.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
If anybody knows who voted in 2000, it's Karl Rove. And you can bet he's not counting on you all again this year.
The last shot across the bow gave us 8 years of WJC and ended up making the Republican party STRONGER than ever. Now the party of "Reform" is running Nader!
Yay! Rah, rah! Go Team! We're the best, and we're always right! Everyone else is wrong and stupid, 'cause we're the best!
That's the essence of you what you just said. So again, how am I helping you make your point? Let's break it down:
1) you said we conservatives didn't help Bush win in 2000, because 4 million of us "stayed home" in 2000,
2) I said I hadn't heard anything of the type, and told you we helped "bring home the bacon" many, many times,
3) you cited Rove as your source, and gave examples of how he thinks and speculates that many conservatives stayed home in 2000 (mind you...he offered no hard and fast evidence that we stayed home, he only offered his speculation),
4) I pointed out that Rove is an operative of the Bush administration, just as Sarah Brady is an operative of HCI or whatever her group is called these days, and therefore is not credible, because he's not impartial,
5) you say that I'm helping you make your point, and offer as evidence the statement that "if anyone knows, Rove does".
Sir, your case wouldn't even stand up in a high school debate! It's based wholly and entirely on your belief that just because Rove is who he is, that he must be right, and everyone else is wrong! What's next? Are you going to call me a "big stupid-head"?
I'm wasting my time with this "debate". You Bushbots are absolutely impervious to the truth, you've built such a wall of "we're right and you're wrong" around yourselves and your president. I wish you the best of luck in this election, and for your sake, I hope your man wins. I fear you will implode if he loses.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
No, I did not; I said that the religious right sat home; conservatives voted.
"And you can bet he's not counting on you all again this year."
And he may very well come to regret that.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Sorry, but your level of patience is not my concern. I take my responsibilities very seriously, thus my decision.
1) My post #104: "The GOP ain't listening now! If they're not listening to conservatives, why the hell should we vote for them?"
Notice I am referring to "conservatives", not the Religious Right.
2) Your post # 106: "Maybe you should look for another party then. Just stop trying to tell the GOP what to do."
3) My post # 114: "Oh yeah, God forbid the Pubbies should dance to them that brung 'em to the hoedown. God forbid the president should actually listen to those who supported him in 2000. Pathetic..."
I'm still talking about conservatives here.
4) Your post # 121: "You didn't bring us to this dance; remember, you all are always so quick to remind us that 4,000,000 of you sat home in 2000."
This apparently is where you changed the terms of the debate from "conservative" to "Religious Right", and didn't bother telling me. "Conservative" is not a synonym for "Religious Right". Yes, they are conservatives, but so are Constitutionalists, gun owners, property rights advocates, strict constructionists, small "l" libertarians, etc.
Sounds to me like you just lost the high school debate yet again, bro. With your debating skills, maybe you should run for the Senate on the Pubbie ticket...you'd be at least as effective as Lott and Frist.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
No Barf alert in the title. If someone wants my vote, they have to earn it.
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.