Posted on 05/08/2004 1:45:25 PM PDT by kjvail
If John Kerry Was President by John Notgrass
In the 2004 election, American voters face a scary situation. Just think what might happen if John Kerry is elected President...
* If John Kerry was President, he might allow abortion to continue with government endorsement and funding.
* If John Kerry was President, he might appoint pro-sodomy and pro-abortion people to high government positions.
* If John Kerry was President, he might corrupt American schools by sending them more Federal funds and regulations.
* If John Kerry was President, he might station your sons and daughters around the world to fight someone else's sons and daughters.
* If John Kerry was President, he might increase federal police powers in the name of national security.
* If John Kerry was President, he might approve campaign finance "reform" that gives extra advantages to incumbents.
* If John Kerry was President, he might favor giving amnesty to illegal aliens.
* If John Kerry was President, he might encourage Congress to send more of your money to other countries in the form of foreign aid.
What makes it even scarier is that George Bush has already done all of these things! But many "conservatives" only seem to care about these things when "liberals" do them. If a "conservative" President ignores the Constitution and disregards God's moral instructions, his "conservative" supporters generally grin and bear it. Please don't vote for John Kerry, but please don't vote for George Bush!
Thank God we don't have to vote for the lesser evil. The Constitution Party is running candidates who believe that life is precious and who believe that government powers should be limited. We need representatives who are bound to principle rather than party. We need leaders who will work to protect and restore the valuable provisions of our Constitution. If John Kerry was President, I'd probably be disappointed with his leadership. George Bush is President, and I am disappointed. That's why I support Michael Peroutka for President.
John Notgrass Tennessee
------------------------------------------------- Wulf's Domain - The Home Page of John Notgrass http://www.notgrass.com/wulfthesaxon/
We need leaders who will work to protect and restore the valuable provisions of our Constitution.
Uh, two things. First, "protect and restore"? Shouldn't that be "restore and protect" if the logic were to hold?
Second, "the valuable provisions of our Constitution." Which provisions of the Constitution are not "valuable"?
If John Kerry was President, I'd probably be disappointed with his leadership.
Probably? PROBABLY?
George Bush is President, and I am disappointed.
Fair enough.
That's why I support Michael Peroutka for President.
Yowza! You're disappointed in one, therefore you support the other who has no foundation on which to run, no footprint on power to inact what he thinks should be done, and no experience in elective office whatsoever.
Riiight...
The author of this piece may be "principled," but he sure is dumb. He can't put anything in order logically.
Already posted.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1131527/posts
If John Kerry Was President
Peroutka 2004 ^ | May 07, 2004 | John Notgrass
Posted on 05/07/2004 4:19:42 PM EDT by athinkingconservative
If John Kerry Was President by John Notgrass
In the 2004 election, American voters face a scary situation. Just think what might happen if John Kerry is elected President...
* If John Kerry was President, he might allow abortion to continue with government endorsement and funding.
* If John Kerry was President, he might appoint pro-sodomy and pro-abortion people to high government positions.
* If John Kerry was President, he might corrupt American schools by sending them more Federal funds and regulations.
* If John Kerry was President, he might station your sons and daughters around the world to fight someone else's sons and daughters.
* If John Kerry was President, he might increase federal police powers in the name of national security.
* If John Kerry was President, he might approve campaign finance "reform" that gives extra advantages to incumbents.
* If John Kerry was President, he might favor giving amnesty to illegal aliens.
* If John Kerry was President, he might encourage Congress to send more of your money to other countries in the form of foreign aid.
What makes it even scarier is that George Bush has already done all of these things! But many "conservatives" only seem to care about these things when "liberals" do them. If a "conservative" President ignores the Constitution and disregards God's moral instructions, his "conservative" supporters generally grin and bear it. Please don't vote for John Kerry, but please don't vote for George Bush!
Thank God we don't have to vote for the lesser evil. The Constitution Party is running candidates who believe that life is precious and who believe that government powers should be limited. We need representatives who are bound to principle rather than party. We need leaders who will work to protect and restore the valuable provisions of our Constitution. If John Kerry was President, I'd probably be disappointed with his leadership. George Bush is President, and I am disappointed. That's why I support Michael Peroutka for President.
John Notgrass Tennessee
The Constitution Party candidate is head and shoulders above both Bush and Kerry.
But the "big cahuna" of the "third" parties is the Libertarian Party.
That candidate is Michael Badnarik, and he is *good!* Really good! Excellent.
Please see badnarik.org. Be sure to look at the calendar in case there is an event at which you can meet him.
We of those smaller parties that advocate freedom really need to band together. Our country is sinking into totalitarianism fast. We need to do as the Bible says, to work while it is still daylight, as night is coming and we will not be able to work any more.
I am seriously worried. The shadows have been lengthening for quite some time, and now it is dusk.
Please consider rallying behind Badnarik. Thank you.
No difference between Kerry and President Bush?
I don't agree with the premise.
Bush lowered taxes, made every effort to appoint strict constructionist judges, protected the country, fought its attackers, projected a moral image, supported God, Guns, & Family.....and on and on.
Bush/Cheney 2004
True, but not a great deal.
made every effort to appoint strict constructionist judges
False, he made no effort whatsoever. In months of unprecedented tactics by the Democratic Party he made one mid-afternoon, low key statement in support of the judges he had appointed. This should have been mentioned every news conference it could be slipped into, on the Sat morning radio address etc... He allowed the Dems to act like a majority party when they are a minority.
protected the country, fought its attackers, projected a moral image
All true, his actions and leadership on the War Against Islam have been excellent.
supported God, Guns, & Family
God?
I don't know about that, his faith figures prominently in his speeches sure but he has said nothing while the ACLU has run amok attacking Christianity.
Strict constructionist judges
The nominees were strict constructionist. He even began appointing via recess appointments.
The SENATE is where it bogged down. It is hard to fault the President for the actions of the Senate. IMHO, Sen. Frist discovered that had he gone for the nuclear option that he would have been deserted by Spector, Snowe, etc.
He has the bully pulpit, he didn't use it.
I will vote Bush, we need a strong leader, not a wuss like Kerry, but we must be realistic. Bush is hardly conservative.
I should've noticed earlier but I didn't...Peroutka for Pres.....he's the Libertarian or Constitution Candidate. (I always get the lesser names mixed up.)
That explains this post. Sorry for not recognizing it sooner.
The best of both worlds would be that those parties do their best and then negotiate some consideration from the Republicans for dropping out of the race and asking their supporters to go Republican.
If they could gain a guarantee on a plank or two in the Republican Party Platform, do you think that would make it worthwhile? I think it would help the minor parties to grow. Better to say that you've assisted a winner in winning than to say that you absorbed a monstrous loss.
I think Pres. Bush was fighting Senate rules and Senate democrats on this one. They were not going to relent.
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.