The “Lesser Evils” I Will Not Vote For

Here's a reflection by Chuck Baldwin with which we heartily agree.  We were lectured by some in 2012 that Mitt Romney was the "lesser of two evils."  I wonder how many of those who disagreed with our refusal to support the 2012 GOP presidential nominee voted for Lindsey Graham in 2008.  That race pitted Bob Conley, running as a Democrat who has never in his life voted for a Democrat and is as conservative as Pat Buchanan, against the treasonous Graham.  We were told by some they would not vote for a "Democrat," so they voted for evil when they could have replaced him with a true, small government, Constitution-loving, freedom promoting conservative.  Conley would not have provided the key committee votes clearing the way for the appointments of Kagan and Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court.  So how has your commitment to party over principle worked out for you?

 By Chuck Baldwin

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.

Read more at Chuck Baldwin Live >>

Obama and the Infernal Serpent

From American Thinker

By Jeffrey Folks

The president may not be aware of it, but envy has always been regarded as a sin.  Envy of the rich is actually one of the seven "deadly sins," according to Christian belief.  The idea that envy is "deadly" is so deeply rooted in Western civilization that only a politician profoundly ignorant of that tradition, or dismissive of it, would fail to regard envy as wrong. 

For the ancients, envy was such a harmful instinct that it was represented as a mythological figure of destruction.  One of the earliest Greek writings, Hesiod's Works and Days, describes envy as nasty-mouthed, physically repulsive, and rejoicing in human suffering.  It is the sort of evil that Hesiod associated it with the decline of civilization ruled by a corrupt race of "iron" men (not the gold or silver of the past).  Even 2,800 years ago, it was understood that envy is an evil that arises in the late stages of great civilizations, when political life begins to focus on how to redistribute goods rather than how to produce more goods.  Great writers have always understood this fact.   

Jewish Financiers Abandon Obama

 Democrats beware: Jewish money is on the move.

Barack Hussein Obama bows to Saudi King Abdullah

From Financial Post

By Lawrence Solomon

Even before the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare last Thursday, leading more than 50,000 outraged Americans to send Mitt Romney more than $5-million by the following day, the Obama re-election campaign was hurting. “I will be the first president in modern history to be outspent in his re-election campaign, if things continue as they have so far,” Obama wrote small donors early in the week, in imploring them to open their pocketbooks. By the end of the week he was making a similar plea to big donors, stressing urgency in getting cash fast, to secure ads for the fall.

God's 'Moral Imperative': A Voter's Guide

By Stephen Stone, President, RenewAmerica

This installment in our series on Mitt Romney and Mormonism takes a look at the moral imperative God requires of all voters. It's an imperative that has special relevance to those who wish to "do the right thing" this election.

Our analysis should be of particular interest to those who support Romney — a candidate whose liberal-socialistic record, and opportunistic, untruthful rhetoric, make voting for him problematic for moral conservatives this fall, notwithstanding the abhorrent record and rhetoric of Barack Hussein Obama, our nation's Muslim-leaning communist-in-chief.

We address our thoughts especially to Mitt's main political base: active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who stand almost unanimously with Romney in "sustaining and supporting" his pragmatic, immoral mischief, manipulation, and deceit.

We also address evangelical and other Christians who have deep reservations about voting for the "lesser of two evils" this election — in other words, Mitt — whom many consider a virtual stand-in for Obama, due to his hand in the creation of Obamacare, his enabling of pro-abortion policies as governor of Massachusetts (even after proclaiming himself "pro-life"), and his singlehanded imposition of same-sex marriage on his state, opening the door to gay marriage nationwide. (Click here, here, and here.)

As we proceed to discuss "voting as a moral obligation," our premise is that a moral citizen's only concern is to respect and obey the will of God, no matter the issue at hand, or the enticements, rationalizations, or self-serving arguments for doing otherwise.

This biblical premise has as much relevance to politics and civic obligations as any other area of life.

Test of Fire: Election 2012

Will you vote the values that will stand the test of fire? Some things are more important than high gas prices or a faltering economy. They are life, marriage and freedom. This November, Catholics must stand up and protect their sacred rights and duties.

Prominent African-American Pastor Calls on Romney to Renounce Historic Mormon Racism

Pastor O'Neal Dozier

A prominent Florida pastor has called on Mitt Romney to renounce Mormon doctrines that are severely prejudicial against the black race.

Reverend O'Neal Dozier sees the offensive, anti-black Mormon doctrines as a ticking time bomb that the Obama campaign will undoubtedly use to rally its base among African-Americans.  He has published an open letter asking Dr. Richard Land, President of the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, to join him in asking Mitt Romney to "renounce historic Mormon racism."

Reverend Dozier, Senior Pastor of The Worldwide Christian Center Church in Pompano Beach, Florida, is also a former professional football player with the Chicago Bears and has been a friend and advisor to President George W. Bush, Governor Jeb Bush and former Florida Governor Charlie Crist.

Reverend Dozier's open letter to Dr. Land follows:

Constitution Party Nominates Virgil Goode for President

The former Congressman has held strong views on illegal immigration and citizenship.

From The Roanoke Times

By Arielle Retting

 

Congressman Virgil Goode

Former U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode of Rocky Mount secured the Constitution Party's nomination for president at the party's convention Saturday in Nashville, Tenn.

Goode was one of six candidates vying for the spot. He won on the first round of balloting with 203 votes, with 202 votes needed to receive the nomination.

Goode served 24 years in the Virginia Senate — making headlines when he helped parlay a power-sharing agreement between Democrats and Republicans after the 1995 elections left it evenly split. He was elected to Congress in 1996, succeeding L.F. Payne. Goode left the Democratic Party to become an independent before the 2000 election and then joined the Republican Party ahead of the 2002 election. Goode was unseated in 2008 by Democrat Tom Perriello.

Santorum Declines to Endorse Mitt Romney

Surrounded by his wife, Karen, and members of his family, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum announces he will suspend his campaign during a press conference in Gettysburg, Pa. (Getty Images / April 10, 2012)

Rick Santorum pointedly declined Monday night to endorse presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney, instead pointing out that he has not backed a candidate in the race and urging his supporters to vote their conscience.

“As far as how you vote, that’s up to you,” Santorum told thousands of supporters during a conference call. “I haven’t supported any candidate at this point, so that’s really up to you.”

Read the rest of this entry >>

Mitt's 'McCain Impression'

By Stephen Stone, President of Renew America

With Rick Santorum's recent departure from the 2012 presidential sweepstakes, the Republican establishment — aided and abetted by self-identified "conservative" voters — has just ensured the re-election of Barack Obama.

That's a view widely held by real conservatives, not just my own view.

The GOP now fields one of the most disliked, ruthlessly ambitious, untruthful, problematic candidates for president in recent memory. Never before in modern history has a Republican presidential candidate been so overtly manipulative of the political process, or of the public mind, than Mitt Romney. (You'd have to revisit Obama's media-driven, illusion-based 2008 Democratic candidacy to see something comparable). As a result, rarely has the Republican base been left with so unpopular a choice.

Of course all along, the Romney camp's presumption has been that in the end, conservatives will vote for Mitt in large numbers precisely because they have no other choice.

That's not likely to happen, though — given human nature, and given the principled nature of some voters — despite the country's intense disaffection for Dictator-in-Charge Obama.

Who Is This Guy Pretending To Be President?

From Investors Business Daily

By Andrew Malcolm

Has anyone seen Barack Obama recently?

You know, the optimistic hopeful fellow with the charming smile who promised so many positive things four and five years ago, how he was going to change the harsh, partisan tone of our nation's capital and bring the country together as its first African American president.

Poll Shows the More People Know About Romney, the Less They Like Him

Here's a telling poll about the GOP Establishment's candidate, Mitt Romney.  The more people know about him, the less they like him.  What a tragedy it will be if this man becomes the GOP nominee, particularly when a president's reelection is usually a referendum on the incumbent, and the incumbent makes Jimmy Carter's presidency look successful by comparison.

Record Number See Romney Negatively; Obama Outpaces Him in Popularity

Mitt Romney trails Barack Obama by 19 points in basic popularity as the 2012 presidential contest inches closer to the main event, with a record 50 percent of Americans in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll now rating Romney unfavorably overall.

Thirty-four percent hold a favorable opinion of Romney, the lowest for any leading presidential candidate in ABC/Post polls in primary seasons since 1984. His unfavorable score is higher than Obama ever has received; it’s been exceeded by just one other Republican candidate this year, Newt Gingrich, and by only one top candidate in 28 years, Hillary Clinton in 2008.

Read the rest of this entry at ABC News >>

Sunlit Uplands Interviewed on Sergio Politics Blog

We were very pleased to be interviewed recently about the 2012 presidential election by one of the Blogosphere's best political blogs, Sergio Politics.  The full interview is available here.

Santorum or Romney? Culture War or Class War?

From The Center for Vision and Values, Grove City College

By Paul G. Kengor

The question for Republicans right now seems obvious: Would you prefer Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney to run against Barack Obama?

Well, it depends on whether you prefer to engage President Obama on cultural grounds or on terms of class warfare. Obama and his chief political strategist, David Axelrod, are going to give us one or the other. Thus, maybe the better question is: Can Santorum articulate and defend social conservatism better than Romney can defend free markets? Which of the two is a more forceful, eloquent spokesperson for the area that Obama and Axelrod will use to define and malign him?

Not only has President Obama been employing class rhetoric unceasingly for three years now, but David Axelrod has been planning precisely such an assault against Mitt Romney. “Obama officials intend to frame Romney as the very picture of greed in the great recession—a sort of political Gordon Gekko,” reported an August 2011 Politico piece titled, “Obama plan: Destroy Romney.” The piece quoted Axelrod: “He [Romney] was very, very good at making a profit for himself and his partners but not nearly as good [at] saving jobs for communities. He is very much the profile of what we’ve seen in the last decade on Wall Street.”

This was the plan even before the Occupy Wall Street movement exploded. Axelrod and Obama view Mitt Romney as red meat for the Occupy movement, the poster-boy for Wall Street greed.

“[Romney] says he represents business,” Axelrod told MSNBC in October, “but he really represents the Wall Street side of business.”

Axelrod told George Stephanopoulos that Romney is “not a job creator” but a “corporate raider” who outsourced “tens of thousands of jobs,” “closed down more than 1,000 plants, stores, and offices,” and joined “his partners” in making “hundreds of millions of dollars” at the expense of the poor. Axelrod calls this the “Bain mentality.”

This caustic, class-warfare rhetoric is just a taste of what will come if Romney gets the GOP nomination. The class envy will get far worse. And no one will do it better than a smiling Obama.

Perhaps the only thing that might energize the president and his team more is a battle with the Catholic Church over his HHS mandate on “contraception.” And that’s where Rick Santorum comes in.

I’m increasingly convinced that President Obama wants this fight with the Catholic Church. I think this is a fight not only close to Obama’s ideological heart, but one he perversely feels can help him politically. If he can frame this debate as not about taxpayer support of abortion drugs, or about religious liberty, or freedom of conscience, or the First Amendment and Constitution—all of which it is—but about “women’s rights” vs. the stodgy old men who run the Catholic Church, he will make headway with certain voters. Don’t underestimate Obama’s ability to do just that.

If Rick Santorum becomes the 2012 GOP nominee, he’ll be an automatic spokesman for the Catholic Church’s position. He’s a living, breathing testimony to the Church’s teaching, from his own personal life to his well-informed intellect on Church teachings. Rick Santorum is the rarest candidate who has actually read Church encyclicals like Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae.

That’s just fine for President Obama and David Axelrod. They’ll take that guy any day. Hey, buddy, you want a culture war based on Catholic Church teachings? You got it!

Never mind, of course, that President Obama started this fight with his heavy-handed decree to the Catholic Church. The president’s protective media will behave as if Rick Santorum is the intrusive one, rudely and righteously thrusting his faith into the “public square.” The media will not portray Santorum as simply reacting to Obama’s totally unnecessary decree and intrusion—which is what really happened—but as a sexist Neanderthal who just can’t pull his nose out of your bedroom.

So, that brings us back to my original question for Republicans: Which of the two—Romney or Santorum—is a more forceful, eloquent spokesperson for the issues that Obama and Axelrod will use to define and malign him? I think the answer is Santorum, which is less a vote for Santorum than a vote of no confidence in Romney’s persuasive abilities. Or does that bring us back to Newt, assuming Newt remains politically viable?

One thing is certain: Neither of these Obama-Axelrod tactics will unify Americans; it will divide them, pitting them against each other by class or religion, by income or faith, by money or conscience. And that isn’t a good thing, especially from a president who promised to be a unifier and symbol of “hope.”

Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College, executive director of The Center for Vision & Values, and author of the newly released Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century. His other books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and God and Ronald Reagan.

The Political Reality Behind the HHS Mandate

From American Thinker

By Janice Shaw Crouse

President Obama's policies and politics are focused like a laser on the so-called "women's rights" vote -- the feminist and the single women's vote.  According to Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (GQR), feminist voters in the 2008 presidential election created a "new American electorate."  The data support that conclusion.  Unmarried women supported Barack Obama by a 70-to-29 percent margin, and they voted for Democratic House candidates by a similar margin, 64-to-29 percent.  There was a 44-point difference in the voting patterns of married and unmarried women in 2008.  Unmarried women edged out both younger voters and Hispanic voters as the demographic with the strongest support for Obama.

Poll: Santorum Best Against Obama in Swing States

From The Hill

By Christian Heinze

Here's a "Wow" poll that will simulate caffeine for your morning.

A new USA Today/Gallup poll of swing states shows Rick Santorum running strongest against Obama in swing states.

So strong that he leads Obama, 50%-45%. Mitt Romney also bests Obama by a slightly smaller 48%-46%.

Election 2012: Generic Presidential Ballot

Election 2012: Generic Republican 47%, Obama 41%

From Rasmussen

A generic Republican now holds a six-point advantage over President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 match-up for the week ending Sunday, October 2.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds the generic Republican earning 47% support, while the president picks up 41% of the vote. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Last week, the generic Republican and the president were essentially tied. Since weekly tracking began in early May, the Republican has earned 43% to 49% support, while the president has picked up 40% to 45% of the vote.

"Republican Candidate" Extends Lead vs. Obama to 47% to 39%

Margin marks first statistically significant lead among registered voters

 

Registered voters by a significant margin now say they are more likely to vote for the "Republican Party's candidate for president" than for President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, 47% to 39%. Preferences had been fairly evenly divided this year in this test of Obama's re-election prospects.

Read the rest of this entry at Gallup >> 

Tim Pawlenty to Announce Candidacy on Monday

Tim Pawlenty is announcing his candidacy in Iowa tomorrow for President of the United States.  We're going to take some time to look over the field, but T-Paw is among those we like.  Here's a preview: