Constitution Club


--
May God bless and keep you in His arms.


=============
To: sinslayer@windstream.net
From:
Chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com
Subject:
The “Lesser Evils” I Will Not Vote For by Chuck Baldwin
Follow:
The “Lesser Evils” I Will Not Vote
For by Chuck Baldwin

The “Lesser Evils” I Will Not
Vote For

By Chuck Baldwin

This column is
archived  here .
After then-Congressman Joe Scarborough convinced me to
endorse the neocon Bob Dole for President back in 1996, I vowed to myself that I
would  never vote for “the lesser of two evils” again. I haven’t; and I
won’t.
Almost anytime one hears someone talking about voting for the lesser
of two evils, it always means voting for a Republican instead of a third party
or independent candidate. The argument is always the same: he or she (the third
party candidate) cannot win. Therefore, voting for someone you presume cannot
win is “wasting” your vote. I used to believe that, too, but no more.
One
could even make the argument that voting for an unprincipled neocon Republican
is actually voting for the greater evil, not the lesser. It seems we lose far
more liberties under Republican administrations than under Democrat ones. That
does not mean that Democrat presidents care more for the Constitution and
limited government than Republican presidents. It simply means when Republicans
occupy the White House, rank and file conservatives and freedomists go fast
asleep. I mean deep sleep. I mean extended hibernation. The two administrations
of G.W. Bush are prime examples.
In terms of foreign policy and the
burgeoning police state at home, there is no distinguishable difference between
Bush and Barack Obama. None! Except for the fact that with a Democrat in office,
conservatives, Christians, and freedomists are much more alert and quick to
oppose the administration’s draconian policies, whereas, with a Republican in
office, those same people sit back and totally ignore identical policies. Yes,
sometimes voting for a Democrat might be voting for the lesser of two evils.

I personally witnessed an election in which a vote for the Republican was
not just a vote for the lesser of two evils; it was a vote for a politically
evil candidate over a politically righteous candidate. I use the words “evil”
and “righteous,” not in the true spiritual sense, of course, but in the overall
political result of the two candidate’s positions on the issues.
I’m talking
about the US Senate race in South Carolina in 2008. The Republican candidate was
the pro-war, pro-police state, pro-big government, anti-Constitution incumbent
Lindsey Graham. Lindsey Graham is the personification of everything that is
wrong with Washington, D.C. Mind you, Graham is a US Senator from South
Carolina. There are probably more evangelical Christians, more Christian
schools, and more Christian influence per capita and per square mile in South
Carolina than in any State in the country. Bar none! And Lindsey Graham is the
best that South Carolina can send to Washington, D.C.? Egad!
In 2008, I was
running for POTUS as the Constitution Party candidate. I spent some quality time
in South Carolina during that campaign. I had previously spent time in the
Palmetto State campaigning for Congressman Ron Paul. What I’m saying is I spent
quite a bit of time in South Carolina that year.
While I was in South
Carolina, I was introduced to the US Senate Democrat candidate Bob Conley. I
spent much time getting to know Bob. I could not find one issue over which he
and I disagreed. Bob was as straight as a gun barrel politically speaking. He
was an awesome candidate. So, while I was in South Carolina, I was happy to
publicly endorse Bob for that US Senate seat. In that race, a vote for the
Republican candidate was to vote for the only “evil” candidate in the race. Yet,
conservatives and Christians by the tens of thousands cast their vote for Graham
simply because he was a Republican. You see, voting for the “lesser of two
evils” does not apply to anything except voting for a Republican.
We had a
similar situation here in Montana in 2012 for a State office race when there was
only a choice between a liberal Democrat and a Libertarian Party candidate. No
Republican was in the race. Without question, the “lesser of two evils” vote (in
the jargon of so-called conservative Republicans) would have been cast for the
Libertarian Party candidate. But what happened? A sizeable percentage of
Republicans didn’t vote at all. They refused to vote for “the lesser of two
evils.”  This proves, once again, that the issue is not about voting for the
“lesser of two evils,” it is only about voting for Republicans.
Obviously,
there are numerous people who treat Democrat candidates the same way. It doesn’t
matter one whit how unfaithful the person might be to Democrat positions, if
there is a “D” behind the name, they will vote for him or her. President George
Washington was right: this kind of loyalty to any political party is a bane of
freedom.
Back to the aforementioned 1996 Presidential campaign: after
leaving the airport where Scarborough and I had appeared alongside Bob Dole, I
felt sick to my stomach. My radio talk show at that time was on a meteoric rise
and I had enthusiastically campaigned for Pat Buchanan. I even hosted a major
event for him in the Florida Panhandle during that campaign. I knew Bob Dole was
no conservative; I knew he would never be faithful to the principles that I felt
so deeply about. But, in the name of defeating Bill Clinton, I allowed Joe
Scarborough to talk me into throwing my support behind Dole. As I walked away
from that press conference, I vowed to myself, “Never again will I vote for the
lesser of two evils.”
Now, that cliché, the lesser of two evils, means
different things to different people. So, for sake of clarity, let me tell you
what it means to me. I have a six-point litmus test. I don’t care whether the
candidate is male or female, black or white, Democrat of Republican,
conservative or liberal, Christian or pagan, if he or she violates fidelity to
one of more of these principles, I will not vote for him or her; I don’t care
how “evil” the opponent might be.
Life
I will not vote for someone who
would support or facilitate the legalization of abortion--a Republican candidacy
notwithstanding. If neither major party candidate is pro-life, I will vote for
someone else in the race that is, or I will leave my ballot blank on that race.
I have done that numerous times. I will not vote for anyone who supports the
killing of innocent unborn babies. Period!
Marriage
I will not vote for a
candidate (from any political party) who would support the attempt to redefine
marriage as being between anyone except between a man and a woman. Marriage is a
divine institution and our Creator has already defined it. Government didn’t
invent marriage; and government cannot re-invent it. To tell you the truth, I
don’t think government has any business being involved in marriage to any
degree.
Mind you, I’m not talking about civil unions. That is another matter
altogether. I have my opinions on that subject, but that issue does not rise to
the level of marriage. And I most certainly am not talking about granting power
to the government to invade people’s privacy. I don’t want government in the
bedroom, living room, kitchen, or closet.
The Warfare State
Ever since
World War II, and the advent of the United Nations, America’s foreign policy has
been the antithesis of the principles of liberty and independence. Foreign
interventionism, nation-building, and wars of aggression are the enemies of
freedom. The vision of America’s founders was one of free trade and good will
with all and foreign entanglements with none. Modern American leaders have
completely inverted that concept. Now, it is foreign entanglements with all and
free trade (the so-called “free trade” agreements in modern times are not free
trade at all but government-manipulated trade) and good will with none.
The
so-called “war on terror” (along with the “war on drugs”) is the cornerstone of
all of the infringements upon the liberties of the American people at home and
the excuse given to justify all sorts of military aggression abroad. The “war on
terror” is actually a war on the liberties of the American citizenry. The “war
on terror” has made us less free and less safe.  And if it continues unabated,
it will result in the enslavement of the American people.
Therefore, I will
not vote for any candidate for public office, regardless of political party,
that does not understand the evilness of the Warfare State and that will not
aggressively oppose it. This includes those who support sending US military
forces around the globe to fight undeclared, unprovoked wars, those who support
the use of drones for the purpose of military assassination, and those who
support interfering in the internal affairs of foreign countries without due
process as prescribed by the US Constitution.
The Police State
The
burgeoning police state currently being built in this country is the result of
the Warfare State. Legislation that authorized such things as the Patriot Act,
the Military Commissions Act, the NDAA, the DHS, USNORTHCOM, etc., tramples the
Bill of Rights into the ground. For all intents and purposes, the Fourth, Fifth,
Sixth, Seventh, and Tenth amendments to the Constitution have been thoroughly
and absolutely shredded by every administration and congress of the Twenty First
century.
I absolutely refuse to vote for any candidate of any political party
that would facilitate the burgeoning police state. That would be like asking me
to vote for the lesser evil of, say, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, or like
asking me to choose between Nero and Caligula. No thanks.
The New World
Order
Now, use this term and all kinds of ideas pop into people’s minds. To
some, it means a “Jewish conspiracy.” To others, it means a “Catholic
conspiracy.” To still others it means a “Masonic conspiracy.” Ad infinitum.

However, to me it simply means there are elitists within government,
business, religion, private groups, etc., (from virtually any and every brand or
type) who truly desire to strip countries (especially the United States) of
their independence and sovereignty. This is nothing new. Its roots go back to
the Tower of Babel.
There have always been rich and powerful individuals who
have attempted to accrue riches and power unto themselves. And the best way to
accomplish this is to erase national borders. It is always about money. Always.
Sovereign nations are an encumbrance to a global anything, but especially to a
global financial market. Trade restrictions, imposts, tariffs, regulations,
etc., are anathema to global merchants. Therefore, in order to erect a global
economy or global financial market, one must create some sort of global
government to control it. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the New World
Order.
I believe the United Nations is a tool of globalists to pave the way
for global government. I believe certain internationalist organizations were
created to facilitate global government. Some of these organizations probably
include the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the
Bilderberg Group, etc.
But from a political perspective, I refuse to vote for
any candidate for public office, regardless of political party, that would
support any legislation that would cede even the slightest bit of American
sovereignty to any supranational or international body. Most of the so-called
“free trade” deals fall into this category. The creation of any facsimile of a
European or North American Union or North American Community (call it what you
will) falls into this category; asking US armed forces to serve under, or at the
behest of, the United Nations falls into this category; and legislation that
would facilitate illegal immigration certainly falls into this category.
Gun
Control
This is a no compromise, no negotiation-issue with me. I absolutely
will not vote for any candidate, regardless of political party, that supports
any additional gun control. We already have too many egregiously enslavish gun
control laws on the books. If anything, our lawmakers should be expunging gun
control laws, not adding new ones.
Friends, have you ever noticed the
wording of the Second Amendment carefully? The Second Amendment is the only part
of the Constitution that is said to be “necessary.” The only thing, the ONLY
thing, that the Constitution says is “necessary” is the right of the people to
keep and bear arms. It doesn’t say that the Supreme Court is necessary, or that
the US Congress is necessary, or that even the President is necessary. It says
that the right of citizens to keep and bear arms is necessary. (A big word of
thanks to my good friend, Dr. Ed Vieira, for recently pointing this out to
me.)
I don’t care if a candidate for public office is a Democrat, Republican,
or Whig, if he or she supports or facilitates in any way any further gun
control, I absolutely and positively will not vote for them--regardless of how
more “evil” their political opponent might be.
There you have it. These are
the six criteria I use when I say I will not vote for the lesser of two evils. I
don’t expect a candidate for public office to be perfect; I don’t expect to
agree with them on every issue; I don’t expect them to be of my religious
persuasion. I can differ with them on a wide array of issues. But these six
issues are not negotiable. On these issues, there is no lesser of two evils.
Transgression of any one of these issues means I will not vote for them--party
affiliation notwithstanding. I concur with the words of John Quincy Adams,
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the
sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” And these are the six
principles upon which I will either vote or not vote with the “sweetest
reflection.”
Dear reader, I sincerely hope that you are not one of these
folks who blindly support a political party with no regard to position or
principle. A man or woman who has no principles they will not compromise has no
principles at all. And if we need anything in the voting booth today, it is
fidelity to principle--especially the principles of liberty upon which our
freedoms rest.



© Chuck Baldwin




www.ChuckBaldwinLive.com ;            To Support Our Work Please Donate Here






  This message was sent to sinslayer@windstream.net. You are
receiving this because you are currently subscribed
to

ChuckBaldwinLive.com updates. If you no longer wish to receive this
newsletter please  Click

Views: 22

Comment

You need to be a member of Constitution Club to add comments!

Join Constitution Club

© 2019   Created by Online Professor.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service