Don't get fooled again

I've been advocating voters refuse to support any candidate for office who does not acknowledge the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution and the principles of self-governance America established in the War of Independence.

This is often tough to do because the two major parties have such blatant disregard for the concept of limited government.

The last mayoral election in New York City is a textbook example of what I mean.

People who want government off their backs may have cheered when Michael Bloomberg was elected over his opponent, Mark Green. Bloomberg was, after all, "a Republican," who ran to the right of Green.

Yet, it turns out, Bloomberg was actually a lifelong Democrat who merely switched parties to avoid a crowded and difficult primary race.

And, since taking over Gracie Mansion, Bloomberg has revealed his true political stripes.

Recently, he unveiled a sweeping anti-tobacco bill that would ban all smoking for the first time in bars, restaurants, bingo parlors, bowling alleys, even private offices.

Now there are many anti-smoking zealots out there who are probably cheering this draconian plan.

But it is 100 percent anti-freedom, anti-choice and a serious blow to private property rights and the free market in the nation's largest city.

If government has the authority to ban smoking in private offices or in privately owned bars or restaurants, then it has the authority to ban smoking in private homes. There is no difference. It's tyranny, pure and simple. In fact, in making the announcement, Bloomberg hinted about where this anti-smoking crusade might ultimately lead.

"In your own home you have a right to behave as you want, although it's not hard to see some day, some child suing their parents if the child comes down with cancer," he said. "That's probably going to happen."

And, you can bet, the day it happens, Bloomberg and his government-knows-best cronies will be there with a new ordinance banning smoking in private homes.

No one is forced to be a patron of an establishment where smoking is tolerated . No one. That's the beauty of the free-market system. It allows us to make individual choices. Top-down, command-and-control governance creates a one-size-fits-all system that removes choice, removes freedom.

I don't care if it's the most popular legislation ever written in New York. It is beyond the scope of government's authority to tell private property owners what they can and can't do with their establishments.

On the heels of that announcement, Bloomberg said he would support a bill by the City Council to recognize homosexual marriages in New York – making it the only city in America to change the definition of marriage in this odious and insidious way.

In other words, this man is a maniac . He is not only unfit to be mayor of the nation's largest city, he is unfit to be dogcatcher in the nation's smallest city. Yet, he wins because voters participate in this perennial ritual of supporting the perceived lesser of two evils.

As I am fond of saying, the lesser of two evils is still evil. Americans must stop this practice if they have any hope of retaining the basic character of American self-governance. It may be too late already.

But, for those reading these words, take this advice to heart in this election year. It's time to say "No." It's time to resist. It's time to boycott an election fraud that gives us no choice. It's time to raise the standards of political debate in this country. It's time to demand better choices. If that means not voting, so be it. If that means voting for a candidate who has little chance of winning, so be it. If that's the price of a clear conscience, it's hardly a price at all. And, I believe, non-participation in an evil system may be the only action that can help us take America back.

Not voting for a Democrat or a Republican is not a sin. In many cases, it is a moral obligation. It's the best way to create new political competition. It's the best way to restore our choices. It may be the only way to restore our freedom.

Joseph Farah's nationally syndicated column originates at WorldNetDaily, where he serves as editor and chief executive officer. If you would like to see the column in your local newspaper, contact your local editor. Tell your paper the column is available through Creators Syndicate .

"...It is beyond the scope of government's authority to tell private property owners what they can and can't do with their establishments...."

Try and tell that to Lester Maddox.

"it is a moral obligation"

This is the point.

The big government party faithful would have us believe that:

1. Third party voters make up an insignificant number of voters and don't matter.

2. It will be "their fault" if democrats win elections because every 3rd party vote is a "vote for the dems" (see #1 above?)

3. Third party voters are selfish, utopian, and drug-heads

4. We should all work from within the party to change it.

5. Voting on principle is un-patriotic, support the gop president, "we're at war".

All these arguments amount to the same amount of lip service as the BS we get from washington about "fiscal responsibility".

Yet, it turns out, Bloomberg was actually a lifelong Democrat who merely switched parties to avoid a crowded and difficult primary race.

Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing. I often believe that politicians are like cameleons, changing color when ever it suits them.

Most eligible voters can't muster up the gumption to spend a couple hours a year pulling the lever for the rubber-stamping of whomever they feel is the lesser repugnant of whatever scumbags are offered up by the Republicrat cartel.

How utterly incompetent must Republicans be before people realized they're throwing the game?

Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing. I often believe that politicians are like cameleons, changing color when ever it suits them.

Sad, appalling, outrageous, disgusting.

They change hats whenever it suits them. It's so easy for them to do this without so much as a thought to what they are doing to their constituents.

Farah is full of it. It didn't "turn out" that Bloomberg was anything different than what he campaigned to be. The NYC voters knew exactly who they were voting for, and chose one tyrant over another. In fact, they chose one tyrant to replace another. The fact that Bloomberg was endorsed by Giuliani should have been exactly the clue that Bloomberg would be an abortion supporting, gay rights supporting, government control maniac, since that's what Giuliani is. The audience for Farah's piece isn't New Yorkers, for whom none of this is a surprise. He's just feigning surprise to get others riled up enough to vote for people (like himself) have no chance of winning.

I have always thought that the Libertarians would be better off joining and attempting to influence the GOP than by running on their own. One of the congressman from Texas (the name currently escapes me) is one example of a reformed Libertarian turned GOPer. It would be muc more beneficial to the US if these guys matured and attempted influence from within.

I agree, although I oppose much of the LP platform (legalizing drugs and isolationist foreign policy), but I agree with them on many of the liberty and Constitutional issues...but the core of the problem for them is this...if you don't control a house of Congress, you are just a noisy nat.

One of the congressman from Texas (the name currently escapes me) is one example of a reformed Libertarian turned GOPer.

I think you're talking about Ron Paul. Except that he isn't really a "reformed" Libertarian. He is one of the few congressmen that actually votes according to the Constitution, instead of party. While it may be true that he went with the GOP in order to be elected, other than the name he isn't a Repub. Kind of like a RINO, in reverse.

Now if more Libertarians were to do this, and take over the GOP, I would call that "working within the system." As it stands now, that would require more guts than any "politician" has. Except Ron Paul. Thus "working in the system" is a lost cause, imo.

You don't have to be libertarian to see that neither party has much to offer. And it doesn't really matter a whole lot if voting for a third party causes Democrats to get elected, because the liberal mindset is already in control regardless. When's the last time you heard Bush take a stand against liberalist attitudes about how society should be run? I think the last time I heard anything like that was during the election campaign, where Bush was giving us these vague platitudes like "I trust the people. Mr. Gore trusts government," over such monumental differences in policy as when Gore proposed full prescription drug coverage within three years, and Bush said it should be done in five. This is not a winning strategy, folks.

At least with Democrats in charge, no one's getting fooled. It would be a small (and temporary) price to pay for an opportunity for a genuine conservative movement within this country.

I could not disagree with you more...there is not enough difference between the parties, but what differences there are are huge. To allow democrats to control both houses of Congress and the presidency, which allows them to appoint socialist liberal judges to mandate from the bench, allows them to redraw districts making sure that only democrats can win, and allows them to gut defense, give more money to the NEA, and make it easier for the trial lawyers to loot American companies, is not only lacking in "principle", but is anti-American, and is anti everything that the third party folk claim to stand for.

To all sheeple: Get educated, stay informed, and vote their asses out! It is your obligation as an American

Pern; It seems to me, it doesn't matter how you vote, but how you count. After the last fiasco, where a lot of the votes weren't even counted, I can see why over 50% of the eligible voters didn't even bother to vote.

To all sheeple: Get educated, stay informed, and vote their asses out! It is your obligation as an American

And how likely is any of that going to happen if only a tiny percentage vote third-party? On the other hand, if a very sizeable percentage (>10%) vote that way, it may result in Democrats claiming some more positions, but if they claim them by minority in an election where a clear majority votes conservative, their precious "mandate" will dwindle to nothing, and even the media won't be able to ignore that. Whatever victory the Dems might be able to congratulate themselves with would be short-lived.

In order to defeat the leftists, the goal has to be (among other things) to provide the people with a way of seeing that they can still exert some control over the political game, and right now, the current system doesn't provide any of that. Yes, there are some risks involved, although they seem rather small in the grand scheme of things. But nothing ventured, nothing gained. And believe me, nothing will be gained if we keep on the present path.

I can see why over 50% of the eligible voters didn't even bother to vote.

I know, I guess that's the fuzzy math GW was talking about. But I still drag my wife and son to the polls every election day. I tell my friends and associates "If you don't vote, then you have no right to complain."

Maybe if they stopped using affirmative action vote counters we could see accurate results.

Nobody is forced, but everyone should have the right to eat in peace, smokers and non-smokers.

I am sorry, but I don't buy the load of crap that smoker's rights are more important than mine. No.

My solution would be allow smoking in all restaurants, but build a separate section.....a completely separate room with closed doors, for the smokers. That way you get to puff your life away and I get to enjoy some reasonably clean air.

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.