THE LESSER OF TWO DANGERS
We are way past the need to surmise which presidential candidate from the one-party charade is the "lesser of two evils." With Kerry's stunning admission that he too would have invaded Iraq - even knowing that Iraq had no WMD, no connection to 9/11 and posed no danger to America - the final merger of the Bush/Kerry ticket is now complete.
Consequently, short of a "second party" election miracle, we will be swearing in a warmongering, big-government-loving socialist in January.
Since a simple coin toss could determine which half of the Bush/Kerry ticket is the lesser evil, that question is a non-issue. What we really need to understand is which one of them will be the least dangerous to America's freedom over the next four years.
Will both halves of the Bush/Kerry ticket propose the same amount of massive government programs for jobs, schools and global imperialism? Without a doubt. Will both halves of the Bush/Kerry ticket support increasing the crushing load of taxes, the income transfer schemes, the exploding debt and the oppressive regulations that are choking off our productivity? They certainly will! Will both sides of the Bush/Kerry ticket support a further erosion of our freedoms and the destruction of our borders? You can count on it!
It is a given that either half of the Bush/Kerry team will continue the relentless attack on our culture with an equal fervor. So what we need to start focusing on, is which one of them has the least chance of being able to pull it off.
From 1992-2000 the US budget grew from $1.382 trillion to $1.789 trillion, for an increase of 29% during the two Clinton terms - huge by any measure. But from 2000-2004 the Bush budget skyrocketed to $2.318 trillion for an unbelievable increase of 29% in just four years! (See for yourself here.) The reason Bill Clinton was able to rain down such considerably less mayhem on America during his eight years than Bush has in just four, is because "conservatives" in Congress kept an eye on him and refused to give him everything he wanted.
Sure, the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 was a complete ruse, but when Clinton tried to nationalize health care, there were howls from all corners. When he attempted to raise spending, taxes and regulations, or when he tried to drag us into a ground conflict in Bosnia, the "conservatives" showed just the tiniest shred of backbone and held him back - by even the smallest amount - if for no other reason, than to deny him any victories. When Clinton surrounded himself with clueless nutcases like Madeline Albright and Janet Reno, the Republicans relished and publicized every screw-up they made. (And there were plenty!)
The evidence is fairly conclusive; when an unabashed socialist Democrat is in office, the Republicans at least pretend to act like the opposition party. But when an unabashed socialist Republican like Bush is in office, the Republicans lose their collective heads and give him everything he wants. How else could Bush have gone almost four years without a single veto?
George Bush has proved himself to be incapable of abiding by the oath he swore to defend the Constitution. Under his leadership, 4,000,000 (that's four million!) American children have been murdered in the abortion holocaust, the budget has been completely busted, the debt has exploded, our freedoms are threatened as never before, and we were dragged into an illegal war that has led to thousands of casualties and hundreds of billions of dollars squandered from our (bankrupt) national treasury.
By any objective measure, George Bush is unfit to lead this nation for another four years.
Is the prospect of a Kerry presidency every bit as abhorrent as four more years of Bush? The mere thought of it is absolutely sickening! But Kerry is likely to be the least dangerous of the two because historically, "conservatives" would regain a little of their backbone and deny him the ability to finish the job of destroying this nation.
Of course, rather than trying to figure out the "lesser evil," or the "lesser danger," the right thing to do is to vote for a candidate who will defend our Constitution, defend our borders, protect our unborn and restore our liberties.
The right thing to do is to vote for Michael Peroutka, the only real American patriot running for President. He has committed to "promote a civil government in these United States that acknowledges God, defends the family, and restores the American Republic to its founding principles."
The right thing to do (and I know this may sound a little crazy) is to vote your conscience and let God worry about the results!
© 2004 David Brownlow - All Rights Reserved
are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Dave Brownlow, an engineer, has been designing and selling industrial automation control systems since 1979. He lives in Clackamas OR with his wife Suzanne and their four children. Active in the pro-life movement and conservative politics for over 20 years, David ran for US Congress in the 3rd District of Oregon in 2002 on the Constitution Party ticket. He has announced his plans to run again in 2004. His Web-Site www.davebrownlow.com E-Mail: email@example.com
But Kerry is likely to be the least dangerous of the two...