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?

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'.

You are on the mark, except for one point. Rove and Morris are very different. I have no doubt but that Rove has a superior memory, but that is all. He is like a night club act, where the idiot savant memorizes the Manhattan phone directory. He has no analytic abilities, whereas Dick Morris has considerable analytic abilities. (That does not mean that I necessarily agree with his conclusions.)

The reason some of us could not vote for Bush today, is the absolutely stupid advice that Rove has given him. (I voted straight Republican today, except for the Presidency.)

I wouldn't vote for Peroutka, especially after reading about his family history. He isn't qualified. Not that he has a chance anyway but still. I like the Constitution Party for the most part, I think they are a bit heavy on the religious tip as far as what America would find palatable but they are anti-illegal immigration and pro-gun etc.

If I was in a swing state I would have voted Bush but since I am not I wrote in Tancredo/Hunter. I simply cannot vote for a candidate that will not put the stomp down on our poruous borders etc. I pray Bush wins(and I think he will) but never again will I vote for a candidate that goes against what I believe in. I voted for Arnold when I lived in CA and then he turns around and votes to ban .50 ammo. That was a slap in the face. I would have voted for a real conservative had I known that.

There will be a fight within the GOP no matter who wins today. There are plenty of REAL conservatives out there like me who are tired of being ignored by the likes of Karl Rove.

OK, fine. You are not a member of a third party, it's not a "struggle" you're participating in, you're just choosing to vote for a third-party candidate. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt that this was some sort of genuine crusade or struggle for you, because only then would it be even remotely worthy of the kind of glorification your're giving it.

Why are you so anal about third parties? I only said I vote for whom I feel is the best one for the job. Sometimes, on rare occasions, I have been known to vote for a Republican, like I did when I voted for McClintock.

Now I know that to a party hack like yourself, I committed the ultimate sin because I should have voted for Ahnold!, but I disagreed with Ahnold! and felt like McClintock was the best man for the job.

And again, I am not belittling the effort of REAL soldiers who die in REAL battles, because you do not deserve to be compared to them. That is why I invented two DIFFERENT examples to compare you to: IMAGINED soldiers who had no weapons to fight with, and IMAGINED lunatics who jump off buildings. Neither is remotely like the soldiers in Iraq, are they?

Invented is a good word for your arguments, which have no basis in reality but allow you to knock the stuffings out of them so you appear to be a thinking man.

And why shouldn't I be allowed to be compared to the soldiers and Marines? I served my time in the military. Didn't you?

Should I have left my principles behind when I completed my obligation? Did my oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic suddenly become null and void?

And why did I choose them? Because like those unarmed soldiers or delusional aviators, your plan of action---even though it is supposedly based on principle---is negligently ineffective at accomplishing your its goal.

You chose them because you wanted to insult me, not make a point.

This is QUITE UNLIKE our soldiers in Iraq, who are accomplishing a great feat. So again, my words had nothing to do with the soldiers in Iraq, and in fact were meant to put considerable distance between your so-called "voting on principle" and their noble work.

We all do our part. For some the tool is a gun, while others, the ballot box. Until I mentioned it, the soldiers in Iraq were the furthest thing from your mind, which is why you belittled my remark about people dying for a principle. It wasn't until I pointed this out to you that you became indignant.

It is good that you're a member of the Republican party. It requires no thought or consideration, only blind obedience. That suits you.

What of it? YOU HELPED ELECT CLINTON!

You sent NO message.

You cut off you nose to spite your face.

You're a dog in the manger!

And you've just proved that you would rather be miserable,get less than NOTHING that you claim to want, are a masochist,and a political naif.And don't even think of telling me that you voted your "principles" and/or that you could sleep at night. YOU and the rest of your ilk inflicted Slick Willie and his crew on this nation.I hope you enjoyed those long,horrible 8 years...the rest of us didn't!

And maybe GHW Bush was far from ideal;however,he sure as shooting would NEVER have disgraced the office,nor taken Chinese money,nor turned the White House into a whore house/motel 6,nor given away our secrets and armed the Chinese;for starters.

Yes,I know,this falls on deaf ears,but Joe,no fringe candidate is EVER going to be elected and Perot was NOT a Conservative...he was and IS a raving lunatic,who wouldn't haves been able to run the country.Neither do ANY of the fringers now running,capable. So all you did is allow Clinton to win...your "principles" and fedupness are chaff and dross.

Well, you're probably right about Morris. I can't stand him, Rove, or any other political advisor because they seemingly don't have souls. They have no concept of what's right or wrong, only what makes political sense. I want leaders, I want statesmen, not politicians who make their decisions based on which way their advisors tell them the wind is blowing.

Yes. A leader who is a statesman does not flow with the breeze, he finds a way to persuade others to the course that is right. The most compelling demonstration of the inadequacy of both Kerry and Bush is that neither of them even saw fit--or felt adequate--to actually address a mass TV audience on election eve, to give a comprehensive presentation of their philosophy of Government. We were bombarded with slogans--30 second spots--but no efforts to actually persuade to a course that is right, but not necessarily previously popular. The statesmen who gave us the America we are losing, were made of better stuff!

Put another way, there are an almost infinite number of approaches to any issue, if you really care about what is right. A statesman would have addressed the people, not as a fawner appeasing yesterday's opinion polls, but as one who understands what America has been and can be, with the spirit of the Fathers rekindled. With that intent--driven by a sense of what is right--he would have adopted the best approach to correct popular errors, not endorse them. Reagan did it. So did the Founding Fathers.

I don't quite understand what point you're trying to make. Are you saying a LP immigration policy will be worse than what we have now, better, or are you just trying to insult the LP or libertarians?

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."

What's this got to do with the price of tea in China? I said I disagreed with the LP position on immigration. If Badnarik's position mirrors the LP platform, I disagree with him, too. But the statement you quoted wouldn't really mean anything at the federal level in a libertarian America, because there would be no federal social-welfare programs.

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?

By drastically reducing the amount of money consumed by gov't parasites, by drastically reducing the myriad of rules and regulations that decrease productivity and drive business off-shore, and by re-establishing a climate in this country that attracts productive, educated immigrants who would bring something to the nation's economic table other than an appetite.

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?

The gov't was far too intrusive into the lives of Americans long before the "Fascist Act" was passed. If you support anything remotely resembling the level of power gov't has over every aspect of our lives, a "Free Republic" is the last place you should be.

That said, foreigners in a foreign country aren't residents, and you "know" something about the one's that come here the same way a bar bouncer does... you meet them at the door and decide whether or not they can come in.

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?

Terrorism has no delineated "national" territory, hostile nations do. National defense means defending national borders. You go on offense only when attacked by another, hostile nation. Terrorists, you hunt down and kill, individually. Attacking someone because he "might" or "could" pose a threat to you, is a crime, whether on the individual or national level.

You know, your neighbor "could" break into your house tonite and hurt you... shouldn't you kill him now, just to be safe? Go ahead, you know the cops'll understand. You can't just sit around and wait for him to cross your property line, then it'll be too late, right?

Get out and look around. There's still a lot of empty space here.

Every square inch of the continental US is owned and controlled by someone. There may be a lot of sparsely populated land in the US, but there's no unorganized territories to settle. You may want us to have a population density like china or india, but I don't.

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.