Why I Am Voting For Bush
by Liz Michael, http://www.lizmichael.com
(For immediate release, Copyright 2000, LizMichael.com, All RIghts Reserved. Permission to reprint granted nonexclusively so long as the author and web page are referenced.)
One vote can mean a lot. It gave Thomas Jefferson the presidency, saved Andrew Johnson's presidency, gave Marcus Morton the Massachussetts governorship, and in 1993 approved the largest tax increase in history. That vote belonged to Al Gore, interestingly enough. On November 7, a small number of Americans who care will go to the polls and cast a vote in probably the closest Presdiential election in 40 years. Who gets that vote, and who gets your vote, could prove to be critical. I am voting for George W. Bush. And it isn't even a hard decision for me.
Why DO People Vote?
Why DO people vote, and how do they vote? People vote almost always for one of four reasons. Those reasons would be:
1. Because the candidate (or proposition) represents their views about 80% or more.
2. Block voting. This includes party lines, racial lines, gender lines, union orders, whatever.
3. To vote the lesser of two evils, or
4. To oppose a great evil.
Now, I need to clarify that voting the lesser of two evils, and voting against a great evil, are two different things. I think one of the problems certain people have understanding those of us who will vote for Bush is because they see Bush as another evil, and they THINK we're voting the lesser evil. I want to address that question last, and it will become crystal clear that I don't see George W. Bush as the lesser evil in this election.
Firstly, I will frankly admit that I am not voting for Bush because he represents 80% of my political world view. I am a small government, conservative libertarian, and Bush is certainly not small government or libertarian, and he frankly isn't all that conservative as Republicans go.
Secondly, I do not engage in block voting. Never have, never will. I am too independent thinking to ever vote anyone's party line. Albeit I will frankly admit that whenever I have voted for a Democrat, I have usually lived to regret it.
Al Gore, the Great Evil
So let's document the primary reason I am voting for Bush. Bush is the only man who can beat Al Gore and Al Gore is the Great Evil in this election to be avoided at all costs. Now, I frankly don't like Al Gore. But I don't like most politicians. I think Al Gore is as big of a liar as Bill Clinton, but then again, most pols are. What precise IS so evil about Al Gore?
1. Al Gore wants to shred the Constitution. He will lead an all out assault on our civil liberties, on our first amendment and our fourth amendment rights. And also, and most importantly our second amendment rights. A victory by Al Gore will be a message to both American politicians and the American people that the Second Amendment is dead, and the government can feel safe in riding roughshod over all civil liberties including gun rights.
But an Al Gore win will be more than just a message. Al Gore will undercut the ability of the American people to rebel against the government. You see, the second amendment is not about hunting ducks and deer. The second amendment is about preserving arms ownership in private hands so that the people may thwart the enemies of this nation. Every intrusion you have witnessed under the Clinton administration you will see tenfold under a Gore administration.
The militia clause of the second amendment is clear. The founders knew two things. Firstly they knew that domestic tyrants would abound, and would have to be put in their place. This is why the Revolution was fought. This is why the Civil War, or as some of us unreconstructed Southrons would say, the War of Northern Aggression, was fought. It is why the next Revolution shall be fought. The advocates of gun control are in reality fighting against the next American Revolution in advance, through a crazy quilt of laws that make firearms sales and ownership difficult.
But it wasn't just domestic tyrants that the founders had in mind. They also envisioned a day when Americans would probably have to fight a war on this soil against foreign invaders. In such an invasion, having arms only in the hands of the military would prove disasterous. But having arms privately owned among the whole populace would be a great asset to a nation, and may well save a nation from conquest. The advocates of gun control know this, too. The advocates of gun control seek to weaken this nation so that foreign invaders may easily conquer it. They may deny it all they want, but 90% of the time, you scratch the surface of a gun controller, you find someone anxious to weaken the ability of this nation's people to defend themselves in the event of a foreign invader.
Isn't Bush As Bad As Gore On Guns?
The concept that Bush-Cheney would be as bad as Gore Lieberman on guns is laughable on its face. Bush has an established record of granting the right to concealed carry of firearms in the state of Texas, and Dick Cheney has one of the most pro gunowner records EVER for a U.S. Congressman. The National Rifle Association nearly brags about the Bush-Cheney White House and the leverage they would have in it.
Should the need for a Revolution arise, I feel we will be in better position to conduct it after a Bush Presidency than after a Gore Presidency. Should this country be invaded by hostile foreign forces, we can better avert those forces locally under a Bush Presidency than under a Gore Presidency. This is a no brainer, in my opinion. Is Bush perfect on guns? No. But the difference between Bush and Gore on guns is so stark that it cannot be lightly dismissed.
2. The economy. Under Al Gore's proposed agenda, the so-called reinventor of government would nearly triple its size, and undoubtedly increase taxes drastically to pay for his pet programs. You will have less money to spend of your own. Moreover, Al Gore's environmental agenda will result in increased govenrment power and bureaucratic terror over anyone who conducts a business or owns property. Even your freedom of movement is jeopardized, if Al Gore gets his "Earth In The Balance" wishes fulfilled: your automobile with its internal combustion engine, is on his hit list. It is his desire that gasoline taxes skyrocket: conveniently, these higher taxes will help to feed his vision of expanded government. Fewer businesses. Greater unemployment. Less freedom.
Economically, Al Gore is a depression waiting to happen. But even THAT'S not the worst of it. With increased taxation and increased regulation will come increased persecution of the innocent taxpayer by the IRS, and more Americans in prisons. Clinton's record of using the IRS to punish his political opponents is notorious. And Clinton is, in Gore's eyes, "one of our greatest Presidents". You do the math.
3. Educational freedom. Gore's war on vouchers is actually only a key strategy of a bigger plan. Namely the National Education Association, and other teachers' and school administrative unions, inflicting their omniscient will over every American family and every American child. Nevermind that 72% of black Americans support vouchers: Gore and the NEA don't give a rat's *** about something as vital as a black child's education.
Don't think this will stop at the public schools. Private schools, parochial schools, and homeschooling are also on the hit list of these monopolisitc megalomaniacs. If you are a homeschooling parent, these people will have you hauled into court and have your children taken away from you. And these people are Al Gore's best friends.
4. The Supreme Court. This reason is the one the Libertarian Party discounts as a wash. Again, this is laughable on its face. Gore will appoint justices who believe, as he does, in a "growing Constitution". In other words, his appointees will shred the Bill of Rights, and leave you will less freedom. I am more optimistic about Bush's choices, who at least have a good chance of being strict constructionists like Clarence Thomas, who will halt this cancer upon the American republic known as the "Evolving Constitution".
5. Foreign policy and the military. Gore is, like Bill Clinton, sold out to the Communist Chinese. Do I need to even remind people of the Chinese financing of the 1996 Democratic campaign, which Gore was a key and instrumental part of, and of the subsequent sale of nuclear secrets, of which the Los Alamos affair was but the tip of the iceberg? Furthermore, using the connections his father developed with Occidental Petroleum's Armand Hammer, he is sold out to the Russians, and should we ever have to fight the Russians, with its nuclear arsenal quite intact, this is the wrong man to be running our government.
How bad will Gore be for the American military? Gore sold his 1991 Gulf War vote to the highest bidder. According to former Senator Alan Simpson, Gore offered to support whichever side "would offer him the most and the best speaking time." The night before the vote, he barked at the GOP Senate secretary, "Dammit, Howard! If I don't get 20 minutes tomorrow, I'm going to vote the other way."
What is the Clinton-Gore military record that we can expect more of under Gore? Eight years of magnificent neglect. Sorties over Yugoslavia funded by cannibalizing operations and maintenance accounts. A burgeoning inventory of increasingly capable Third World coastal submarines vs. a naval budget for subs scheduled to be reduced to zero by 2005. The reduction of the military budget to two-thirds of what it was in 1985. Twenty percent of carrier-deployed F-14s which do not fly. Forty percent of Army helicopters rated insufficient to their tasks. Army gas masks with a 50% failure rate. Insufficient flying times for pilots. Brigade officials pressured to falsify readiness ratings. I don't think our military could be in any worse shape if the Soviets had been running it for us, willfully sabotaging it. Of course, Moscow is no longer the Soviet capital: apparently Washington is.
What if the eventuality I mentioned earlier in the gun control segment, came to pass, and foreign troops managed to set foot on our soil? Who will compromise the government more? Who will compromise the people more? Even Ralph Nader in the White House wouldn't be nearly as dangerous as Al Gore under these circumstances. I'm no globalist seeking a Pax Americana maintained with American military might. But can't you plainly see the erosion of the American military under Clinton-Gore is not by accident but by design?
Now some will argue that Bush and Cheney are beholden to the New World Order ... my response... even if that is so, I would rather have the Bush NWO right now, with the US somewhat on top and in control of it, than have the Clinton-Gore NWO that would likely bring us Chinese and Russian troops marching down our streets.
However, consider the following. George W. Bush professes to be a very religious man. As a religious man, I consider his heart may just be open to a divine message to do what is right for his country, and not what is right for some of his financial backers. I see no other candidates open to such a concept. And while I do not presume to be the judge of Albert Gore Jr.'s soul, I just don't sense in him anything remotely approaching a willingness to follow a divine call.
The Best Shot At Beating "The Great Evil"
In short, to oppose the great evil, we must vote for the candidate who has the best shot at taking out that great evil. No other candidate but Geroge W. Bush even remotely has that capability. In short, with Bush, far from being "a lesser evil", most of our problems will either be stopped in their tracks or moved in the opposite direction, as opposed to Gore, where they will pick up momentum like an oncoming freight train.
Additionally, I know that the big media machine will help move Gore's evil agenda. I don't think Bush gets the same bounce, so if he's pushing something evil, the media probably won't be all over themselves trying to help him do it. Bush represents a better balance of power from our standpoint.
What About The Third Party Candidates
Now, lest any of you say that I'm a GOP loyalist, so of course, I'm saying that, in the Massachussetts Senate race, I am saying completely the opposite. The only way remotely possible to defeat Teddy Kennedy is with the Libertarian, Carla Howell. I believe EVERY REPUBLICAN and EVERY conservative Democrat, and ANYONE who cares about civil liberties AT ALL should vote for the Libertarian there. Am I a Republican loyalist? Not by a long shot. I think half the GOP Congress deserve to be thrown out on their traitorous asses. I just don't think they should be replaced by Democrats.
However, let's look at the third party field this year. In my opinion, it's the worst that it ever has been. Ralph Nader, who is getting most of the third party play, is not as much of an outright danger in government as Gore, and perhaps, would instill a touch of honesty to Washington, but is still a liberal, and would still inflict disasterous economic liberal policies upon us.
Patrick Buchanan is a dangerous megalomaniac, who in a zeal to get $12.5 million conducted a scorched earth campaign upon a minor party, virtually destroying it: we should not even entertain the concept of Buchanan anywhere NEAR the White House, giving how he has shown his true colors.
Harry Browne isn't seriously running for President: rather, he and his party hacks in the national Libertarian Party are raiding sympathetic libertarians and pocketing the money, a repeat of the most disgraceful display the so-called "Party of Principle" has ever had. Does it surprise us that it is headquartered in the Watergate Hotel?
John Hagelin thinks our national problems can be alleviated by all of us chanting "OHM" and being brainwashed into Transcendental Meditation. 'Nuff said.
Howard Phillips, although I think he is a legitimate good guy, has forgotten that the purpose of the founders was a free country, as opposed to a Christian one. And as such, I fear he would unknowingly lead us into the very kind of government the historical New World Order has always been: a Christian theocracy. Having seen the Holy Roman Empire and the Church of England, I can confidently say I want none of that.
Sending a Message
Sending a message is fine, when the election is a foregone conclusion. For example, in the Feinstein-Campbell California Senate election, we all know that Feinstein is going to roll. So voting for Gail Lightfoot is a strong option to consider. And let me say that I know Gail Lightfoot, and she is a friend of mine: trust me, Tom Campbell is no Gail Lightfoot and is no libertarian. John Kyl, in Arizona, faces no Democrat on the ballot: message-sending isn't a bad idea there either. And Presidential elections go state by state. If you live in Texas, for instance, Bush will win Texas. So sending a message by voting for someone else causes no harm there. And if I had a candidate I could vote for among the third parties, maybe I'd think about sending a message.
But looking at the third parties this year, why bother even thinking that way? George W. Bush is in my opinion, the clear moral superior of them all anyway. Is he perfect? No. No man is. Does he agree with me 100%? Not even close. Would I completely trust him as President? I don't think I would even completely trust MYSELF as President. Could he betray us? Yes he could. But Al Gore and Bill Clinton already HAVE. And as such, I think Bush stands head and shoulders above all Presidential competition in 2000.
President Gore
One more thing. Many of you know that I rather shamelessly advocate the "Time Honored Tradition" of the founding fathers, namely violent revolution when necessary. But in truth, I would much prefer this country be restored by ballot box rather than cartridge box. And that is my final reason for supporting Bush: to avoid the Revolution.
Mark these words carefully. A President Bush may delay the need for the Revolution. Should the deity decide to utter the right words to President Bush at the critical time, there is a chance that a President Bush will heed the wisdom, and make a Revolution not necessary. I can envision a President Bush heeding the divine.
I cannot envision President Gore doing any such thing. With President Gore, a full revolution, in all its bloodiness, is inevitable. Even if it does not happen on his watch, President Gore will oppress us with policies that will leave freedom loving Americans with no recourse but violent revolution against the federal government, and no successor will be able to prevent it, in all its stark bloodiness. I don't simply predict it. As one of those freedom loving Americans, I can guarantee it.
With that in mind, have a pleasant November 7th, and choose carefully
------------------
NRA Joe's Second Amendment Discussion Forum
http://Second.Amendment.Homepage.com
by Liz Michael, http://www.lizmichael.com
(For immediate release, Copyright 2000, LizMichael.com, All RIghts Reserved. Permission to reprint granted nonexclusively so long as the author and web page are referenced.)
One vote can mean a lot. It gave Thomas Jefferson the presidency, saved Andrew Johnson's presidency, gave Marcus Morton the Massachussetts governorship, and in 1993 approved the largest tax increase in history. That vote belonged to Al Gore, interestingly enough. On November 7, a small number of Americans who care will go to the polls and cast a vote in probably the closest Presdiential election in 40 years. Who gets that vote, and who gets your vote, could prove to be critical. I am voting for George W. Bush. And it isn't even a hard decision for me.
Why DO People Vote?
Why DO people vote, and how do they vote? People vote almost always for one of four reasons. Those reasons would be:
1. Because the candidate (or proposition) represents their views about 80% or more.
2. Block voting. This includes party lines, racial lines, gender lines, union orders, whatever.
3. To vote the lesser of two evils, or
4. To oppose a great evil.
Now, I need to clarify that voting the lesser of two evils, and voting against a great evil, are two different things. I think one of the problems certain people have understanding those of us who will vote for Bush is because they see Bush as another evil, and they THINK we're voting the lesser evil. I want to address that question last, and it will become crystal clear that I don't see George W. Bush as the lesser evil in this election.
Firstly, I will frankly admit that I am not voting for Bush because he represents 80% of my political world view. I am a small government, conservative libertarian, and Bush is certainly not small government or libertarian, and he frankly isn't all that conservative as Republicans go.
Secondly, I do not engage in block voting. Never have, never will. I am too independent thinking to ever vote anyone's party line. Albeit I will frankly admit that whenever I have voted for a Democrat, I have usually lived to regret it.
Al Gore, the Great Evil
So let's document the primary reason I am voting for Bush. Bush is the only man who can beat Al Gore and Al Gore is the Great Evil in this election to be avoided at all costs. Now, I frankly don't like Al Gore. But I don't like most politicians. I think Al Gore is as big of a liar as Bill Clinton, but then again, most pols are. What precise IS so evil about Al Gore?
1. Al Gore wants to shred the Constitution. He will lead an all out assault on our civil liberties, on our first amendment and our fourth amendment rights. And also, and most importantly our second amendment rights. A victory by Al Gore will be a message to both American politicians and the American people that the Second Amendment is dead, and the government can feel safe in riding roughshod over all civil liberties including gun rights.
But an Al Gore win will be more than just a message. Al Gore will undercut the ability of the American people to rebel against the government. You see, the second amendment is not about hunting ducks and deer. The second amendment is about preserving arms ownership in private hands so that the people may thwart the enemies of this nation. Every intrusion you have witnessed under the Clinton administration you will see tenfold under a Gore administration.
The militia clause of the second amendment is clear. The founders knew two things. Firstly they knew that domestic tyrants would abound, and would have to be put in their place. This is why the Revolution was fought. This is why the Civil War, or as some of us unreconstructed Southrons would say, the War of Northern Aggression, was fought. It is why the next Revolution shall be fought. The advocates of gun control are in reality fighting against the next American Revolution in advance, through a crazy quilt of laws that make firearms sales and ownership difficult.
But it wasn't just domestic tyrants that the founders had in mind. They also envisioned a day when Americans would probably have to fight a war on this soil against foreign invaders. In such an invasion, having arms only in the hands of the military would prove disasterous. But having arms privately owned among the whole populace would be a great asset to a nation, and may well save a nation from conquest. The advocates of gun control know this, too. The advocates of gun control seek to weaken this nation so that foreign invaders may easily conquer it. They may deny it all they want, but 90% of the time, you scratch the surface of a gun controller, you find someone anxious to weaken the ability of this nation's people to defend themselves in the event of a foreign invader.
Isn't Bush As Bad As Gore On Guns?
The concept that Bush-Cheney would be as bad as Gore Lieberman on guns is laughable on its face. Bush has an established record of granting the right to concealed carry of firearms in the state of Texas, and Dick Cheney has one of the most pro gunowner records EVER for a U.S. Congressman. The National Rifle Association nearly brags about the Bush-Cheney White House and the leverage they would have in it.
Should the need for a Revolution arise, I feel we will be in better position to conduct it after a Bush Presidency than after a Gore Presidency. Should this country be invaded by hostile foreign forces, we can better avert those forces locally under a Bush Presidency than under a Gore Presidency. This is a no brainer, in my opinion. Is Bush perfect on guns? No. But the difference between Bush and Gore on guns is so stark that it cannot be lightly dismissed.
2. The economy. Under Al Gore's proposed agenda, the so-called reinventor of government would nearly triple its size, and undoubtedly increase taxes drastically to pay for his pet programs. You will have less money to spend of your own. Moreover, Al Gore's environmental agenda will result in increased govenrment power and bureaucratic terror over anyone who conducts a business or owns property. Even your freedom of movement is jeopardized, if Al Gore gets his "Earth In The Balance" wishes fulfilled: your automobile with its internal combustion engine, is on his hit list. It is his desire that gasoline taxes skyrocket: conveniently, these higher taxes will help to feed his vision of expanded government. Fewer businesses. Greater unemployment. Less freedom.
Economically, Al Gore is a depression waiting to happen. But even THAT'S not the worst of it. With increased taxation and increased regulation will come increased persecution of the innocent taxpayer by the IRS, and more Americans in prisons. Clinton's record of using the IRS to punish his political opponents is notorious. And Clinton is, in Gore's eyes, "one of our greatest Presidents". You do the math.
3. Educational freedom. Gore's war on vouchers is actually only a key strategy of a bigger plan. Namely the National Education Association, and other teachers' and school administrative unions, inflicting their omniscient will over every American family and every American child. Nevermind that 72% of black Americans support vouchers: Gore and the NEA don't give a rat's *** about something as vital as a black child's education.
Don't think this will stop at the public schools. Private schools, parochial schools, and homeschooling are also on the hit list of these monopolisitc megalomaniacs. If you are a homeschooling parent, these people will have you hauled into court and have your children taken away from you. And these people are Al Gore's best friends.
4. The Supreme Court. This reason is the one the Libertarian Party discounts as a wash. Again, this is laughable on its face. Gore will appoint justices who believe, as he does, in a "growing Constitution". In other words, his appointees will shred the Bill of Rights, and leave you will less freedom. I am more optimistic about Bush's choices, who at least have a good chance of being strict constructionists like Clarence Thomas, who will halt this cancer upon the American republic known as the "Evolving Constitution".
5. Foreign policy and the military. Gore is, like Bill Clinton, sold out to the Communist Chinese. Do I need to even remind people of the Chinese financing of the 1996 Democratic campaign, which Gore was a key and instrumental part of, and of the subsequent sale of nuclear secrets, of which the Los Alamos affair was but the tip of the iceberg? Furthermore, using the connections his father developed with Occidental Petroleum's Armand Hammer, he is sold out to the Russians, and should we ever have to fight the Russians, with its nuclear arsenal quite intact, this is the wrong man to be running our government.
How bad will Gore be for the American military? Gore sold his 1991 Gulf War vote to the highest bidder. According to former Senator Alan Simpson, Gore offered to support whichever side "would offer him the most and the best speaking time." The night before the vote, he barked at the GOP Senate secretary, "Dammit, Howard! If I don't get 20 minutes tomorrow, I'm going to vote the other way."
What is the Clinton-Gore military record that we can expect more of under Gore? Eight years of magnificent neglect. Sorties over Yugoslavia funded by cannibalizing operations and maintenance accounts. A burgeoning inventory of increasingly capable Third World coastal submarines vs. a naval budget for subs scheduled to be reduced to zero by 2005. The reduction of the military budget to two-thirds of what it was in 1985. Twenty percent of carrier-deployed F-14s which do not fly. Forty percent of Army helicopters rated insufficient to their tasks. Army gas masks with a 50% failure rate. Insufficient flying times for pilots. Brigade officials pressured to falsify readiness ratings. I don't think our military could be in any worse shape if the Soviets had been running it for us, willfully sabotaging it. Of course, Moscow is no longer the Soviet capital: apparently Washington is.
What if the eventuality I mentioned earlier in the gun control segment, came to pass, and foreign troops managed to set foot on our soil? Who will compromise the government more? Who will compromise the people more? Even Ralph Nader in the White House wouldn't be nearly as dangerous as Al Gore under these circumstances. I'm no globalist seeking a Pax Americana maintained with American military might. But can't you plainly see the erosion of the American military under Clinton-Gore is not by accident but by design?
Now some will argue that Bush and Cheney are beholden to the New World Order ... my response... even if that is so, I would rather have the Bush NWO right now, with the US somewhat on top and in control of it, than have the Clinton-Gore NWO that would likely bring us Chinese and Russian troops marching down our streets.
However, consider the following. George W. Bush professes to be a very religious man. As a religious man, I consider his heart may just be open to a divine message to do what is right for his country, and not what is right for some of his financial backers. I see no other candidates open to such a concept. And while I do not presume to be the judge of Albert Gore Jr.'s soul, I just don't sense in him anything remotely approaching a willingness to follow a divine call.
The Best Shot At Beating "The Great Evil"
In short, to oppose the great evil, we must vote for the candidate who has the best shot at taking out that great evil. No other candidate but Geroge W. Bush even remotely has that capability. In short, with Bush, far from being "a lesser evil", most of our problems will either be stopped in their tracks or moved in the opposite direction, as opposed to Gore, where they will pick up momentum like an oncoming freight train.
Additionally, I know that the big media machine will help move Gore's evil agenda. I don't think Bush gets the same bounce, so if he's pushing something evil, the media probably won't be all over themselves trying to help him do it. Bush represents a better balance of power from our standpoint.
What About The Third Party Candidates
Now, lest any of you say that I'm a GOP loyalist, so of course, I'm saying that, in the Massachussetts Senate race, I am saying completely the opposite. The only way remotely possible to defeat Teddy Kennedy is with the Libertarian, Carla Howell. I believe EVERY REPUBLICAN and EVERY conservative Democrat, and ANYONE who cares about civil liberties AT ALL should vote for the Libertarian there. Am I a Republican loyalist? Not by a long shot. I think half the GOP Congress deserve to be thrown out on their traitorous asses. I just don't think they should be replaced by Democrats.
However, let's look at the third party field this year. In my opinion, it's the worst that it ever has been. Ralph Nader, who is getting most of the third party play, is not as much of an outright danger in government as Gore, and perhaps, would instill a touch of honesty to Washington, but is still a liberal, and would still inflict disasterous economic liberal policies upon us.
Patrick Buchanan is a dangerous megalomaniac, who in a zeal to get $12.5 million conducted a scorched earth campaign upon a minor party, virtually destroying it: we should not even entertain the concept of Buchanan anywhere NEAR the White House, giving how he has shown his true colors.
Harry Browne isn't seriously running for President: rather, he and his party hacks in the national Libertarian Party are raiding sympathetic libertarians and pocketing the money, a repeat of the most disgraceful display the so-called "Party of Principle" has ever had. Does it surprise us that it is headquartered in the Watergate Hotel?
John Hagelin thinks our national problems can be alleviated by all of us chanting "OHM" and being brainwashed into Transcendental Meditation. 'Nuff said.
Howard Phillips, although I think he is a legitimate good guy, has forgotten that the purpose of the founders was a free country, as opposed to a Christian one. And as such, I fear he would unknowingly lead us into the very kind of government the historical New World Order has always been: a Christian theocracy. Having seen the Holy Roman Empire and the Church of England, I can confidently say I want none of that.
Sending a Message
Sending a message is fine, when the election is a foregone conclusion. For example, in the Feinstein-Campbell California Senate election, we all know that Feinstein is going to roll. So voting for Gail Lightfoot is a strong option to consider. And let me say that I know Gail Lightfoot, and she is a friend of mine: trust me, Tom Campbell is no Gail Lightfoot and is no libertarian. John Kyl, in Arizona, faces no Democrat on the ballot: message-sending isn't a bad idea there either. And Presidential elections go state by state. If you live in Texas, for instance, Bush will win Texas. So sending a message by voting for someone else causes no harm there. And if I had a candidate I could vote for among the third parties, maybe I'd think about sending a message.
But looking at the third parties this year, why bother even thinking that way? George W. Bush is in my opinion, the clear moral superior of them all anyway. Is he perfect? No. No man is. Does he agree with me 100%? Not even close. Would I completely trust him as President? I don't think I would even completely trust MYSELF as President. Could he betray us? Yes he could. But Al Gore and Bill Clinton already HAVE. And as such, I think Bush stands head and shoulders above all Presidential competition in 2000.
President Gore
One more thing. Many of you know that I rather shamelessly advocate the "Time Honored Tradition" of the founding fathers, namely violent revolution when necessary. But in truth, I would much prefer this country be restored by ballot box rather than cartridge box. And that is my final reason for supporting Bush: to avoid the Revolution.
Mark these words carefully. A President Bush may delay the need for the Revolution. Should the deity decide to utter the right words to President Bush at the critical time, there is a chance that a President Bush will heed the wisdom, and make a Revolution not necessary. I can envision a President Bush heeding the divine.
I cannot envision President Gore doing any such thing. With President Gore, a full revolution, in all its bloodiness, is inevitable. Even if it does not happen on his watch, President Gore will oppress us with policies that will leave freedom loving Americans with no recourse but violent revolution against the federal government, and no successor will be able to prevent it, in all its stark bloodiness. I don't simply predict it. As one of those freedom loving Americans, I can guarantee it.
With that in mind, have a pleasant November 7th, and choose carefully
------------------
NRA Joe's Second Amendment Discussion Forum
http://Second.Amendment.Homepage.com
