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 has ALREADY happened...in some states, the third party small percent was enough to give the election to the democrat, but the MOST damaging one so far was Ross Perot in 1992. Ross Perot did NOT take votes from democrats...all the post election data shows that Perot cost Bush the election, put a liberal socialist lying democrat in office with only 41% of the vote, gave us eight years of moral decay in the Administrative branch, massive judicial appointments, missle technology to China, and unchecked growth of terrorism....THANKS ROSS....thanks third parties.

and the LP doesn't have a prayer of controlling either house of Congress, then you have to work within the existing parties to bring about the changes needed

I keep hearing this circular, illogical argument. Insisting that nobody should vote for X because nobody else votes for X is ridiculous. I suppose if the Dems and the Communists were the two major parties, you'd be telling us to vote for Ted Kennedy and Diane Feinstein.

"The "princilpled" LP may assure the final destruction of the Constitution by acting out their version of principle by assuring the socialist democrats finish the job (voting for marginal third party that take votes from those who DO have a chance of winning, or by not voting is not principled.)"

Let me see if I can understand this:

To save the Constitution and our priciples, we must compromise our principles and vote for those less evil (but still evil) who would derail the Constitution at a slower pace than the more evil opponent. How many election cycles will it take before there is no Constitution or principle left to compromise?

You realize, of course, that you are wasting your time with these 3rd party morons.

I wonder how many of them have taken some of their evident enthusiasm and energy and put it to work at the county GOP party level, to influence in a conservative direction the ONLY political vehicle we have that has a prayer of effecting real change. I'm guessing none. It's far too morally satisfying to strike a "holier than thou" pose and avoid dirtying one's hands with the sometimes unpleasant work of actual political campaigning and electioneering.

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

rw, it's not your rights or the smoker's right that are important. It is the rights of the property owner to decide how to run his business. There are resaurants that choose to cater to non-smokers. If your preference is a different restaurant that chooses to allow smoking, then you have a decision to make: Compromise and eat there or stand up for you rights and go to another restaurant.

America. What a country!

You're failing to make a critical distinction. Ross Perot was not a conservative, nor did he even try to make himself out to be one. The most he did was put a new flair on the same old anti-constituional ideology. I would not advocate voting for third parties just because they're third parties, but I do advocate voting for conservatives who respect the Constitution, even when there's a small risk involved in doing so. And it is a small risk because even if the Democrats end up winning some new posts, they won't be able to avoid the fact that the majority voted not only against them, but against their ideology. That has never happened, and it would be the beginning of a much more genuine change for the better.

You may have wanted to direct that comment to me. ItB's posts agreed with yours.

Anyway, the issue under discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with "avoiding dirtying one's hands with the sometimes unpleasant work of actual political campaigning and electioneering," but has everything to do with only supporting those candidates who support the Constitution. And incidentally, the reason that electioneering often involves such unpleasant dirtying of hands, is that too many candidates that people falsely feel like they have no other choice than to support, are themselves dirty and unpleasant. And that's not going to change unless people take a solid stand against it.

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

No one said more important, but as important.

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.