Why You Cannot Afford to Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils

I have said this before, and I will say it again. Eventually, all things come to blood. If a nation heads in the wrong direction for long enough, good men will die. Here’s the thing though: how can you expect a nation to turn around if you do not pursue that which is great, rather than that which is barely acceptable? How can you expect goodness to come forth by choosing between the lesser of two evils?

Let’s take it a step further: If you believe that America is heading in the wrong direction but you are not willing to fight for what is good nor willing to look the part of a fool for the sake of righteousness; if you continue to be complacent and hope that tomorrow will be no different than today, then let me congratulate you on the murder of your children1.

For if you truly believe that all things come to blood, and you do not fight today, then you are leaving that fight to your children. You are leaving them to live in a world made worse by your inaction and to either become corrupted by that world, or to be killed by it.

You are leaving them to death.

And if you are that sort of man; if America is a nation composed of men who are willing to make that choice, then we will deserve the death that comes. We will deserve it, because day by day, in a million tiny ways, we will have chosen it.

1Let me be clear here: if you are fighting for good as well as you know how, I cannot accuse you. But there are those of you who are and have been compromising. Who know it, and need to be confronted with it. You have made easy choices for the very reason that they are easy. I have been one of you. I say, let it end today.

How to Shake Up the Republican (or Democrat) Party

I just want to say this, and then I’m going to bed. If you want to shake up the Republican party a bit, now is the time to do it.

Right now.


And here’s how you do it.

  1. Find a candidate who is as close to what you believe in as possible, regardless of whether you think he has a chance to win or not.
  2. Go to his website.
  3. Make the biggest donation that you can afford.

You have to remember this: Politics does not happen in a vacuum. People notice how much money people are raising, and they react to it. For instance, at the end of this last quarter when Ron Paul announced that he had raised $5,200,000, which was on par with McCain, which was half as much as Guiliani, people started asking questions like: How is someone who has been getting almost no mainstream coverage raising that kind of money? What is it about this guy that is getting people’s attention? Since that time Ron Paul’s mainstream coverage has increased dramatically. If he makes his December 1st goal of raising 12 million dollars, it will jump even more.

Presidential elections happen once every four years, if you just give $100 that’s nothing compared to what you pay for entertainment over that same period. Seriously, it’s time that people who say they have convictions start acting like it.

And if you don’t have any money, email this to someone who does!


My First Political Contribution

Today I made a donation to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, and I have to be honest with you, I’m not exactly flush with cash at the moment. But in that same honest vein, let me say to you that I have never been as excited about a political candidate in my, admittedly, short life.

What excites me about Ron Paul is simply this: in a day and age when most presidential candidates talk about what they are going to do for America or how they are going to make America into a better, safer place, Ron Paul talks about obeying the law of the land. He talks about obeying the Constitution. He talks about State’s Rights. He talks about liberty and describes it as the double edged sword of personal opportunity and responsibility it was meant to be. He talks about absolute right and wrong.

In other words, surrounded by a sea of pragmatists who would sell their children’s freedom to ensure their momentary comfort and power, Ron Paul is about doing what is right regardless of the consequences.

To steal a quote from the West Wing, the reason I am voting for Ron Paul in the primaries is because I am tired of it. Year, after year, after year. Of having to choose between the lesser of Who Cares. Of trying to get myself excited over a candidate who can speak in complete sentences. Of setting the bar so low I can hardly look at it. They say a good man can’t get elected president. I don’t believe that. Do you?

And that’s it in a nutshell. I think Ron Paul might actually be a good President of the United States. Not the lesser of two evils, not worrisome on some major issues, not the candidate who we have to vote for so we can keep Hillary out of the White House, but a good man.

And because I now have money involved in this, because I’m seriously supporting this man with more than words, I would encourage you to seriously, check him out.

Ron Paul on Ron Paul

While I don’t want this blog to become a political blog by nature, I also don’t want to shy away from discussing politics when it is germane to do so. Having said that, if you read this blog regularly you’ll have noticed that I like Ron Paul a bit. Ok, I like him a lot. And it’s not that I agree with him on every issue. What I do appreciate about him is that he believes the Constitution must be followed, he believes that the Federal government’s authority should be limited, and that liberty cannot be traded for security. He believes that State’s have authority of their own and that individuals should have a great deal of freedom. But as illustrated by Governor Huckabee’s comments in the last debate, it’s not enough to make statements that just sound good, you’ve also got to know how to work out the implications of what you believe. You’ve got to know how to think through an issue and end up with the right answer. So the question is, “What do all these things that Ron Paul says he stands for really mean? What actual decisions would he make if he was president?”

So here’s what I’m suggesting: If you want to know more about Dr. Paul, go here and read a collection of his quotes taken from different interviews. I only ask one thing: because Dr. Paul speaks very differently than the average politician, try to put aside your knee jerk reaction to standard political positions and instead ask yourself, what would a President who was trying to follow the Constitution of the United States, do in this situation? What is the actual right thing to do, if one’s goal is to follow the law? When you’re not sure, go read the actual Constitution (paying special attention to the 10th Amendment)

Anyway, feel free to leave any comments or criticisms (or helpful links to Ron Paul related information).

Governor Huckabee, Breaking Things, and Honor, Honor, Honor, and Yet More Honor

Fresh from the New Hampshire Republican debate we have some of Governor Mike Huckabee’s comments on why we have to continue the surge in Iraq and why we can’t leave the country the way that Congressman Ron Paul wants us to:

We have to continue the surge. And let me explain why, Chris. When I was a little kid, if I went into a store with my mother, she had a simple rule for me. If I picked something off the shelf of the store and I broke it, I bought it.

I learned don’t pick something off the shelf I can’t afford to buy.

Well, what we did in Iraq, we essentially broke it. It’s our responsibility to do the best we can to try to fix it before we just turn away because something is at stake.

I should say this before I go on to say mean things about Governor Huckabee: I like him for the most part. I think he’s a nice guy who is probably genuine in what he says he believes and I think he probably loves his country, and clearly, he listened to his mother and all that.

But on the other hand, what does breaking something in a store and having to pay for it have to do with Iraq? We weren’t looking at Iraq and they slipped out of our hands. We weren’t playing with Iraq and let them fall to the floor. And does it mean that once we pay for it, we will own Iraq? Or does it?

No. Instead, we engaged in military action with Iraq based on the terms outlined in the cease-fire agreement from the 1991 Gulf War. We invaded their country and we overthrew their government. In other words, to try and use Governor Huckabee’s analogy, we were in a store and shopkeeper Hussein tried to kill us and in the ensuing battle we broke something. Do we still have to pay for it? And to who? The new shop keeper? The international police? Governor Huckabee’s mother? I have no idea. The real point I’m trying to make is not that the Iraq war was justified, but that the analogy is lame and just doesn’t work. We don’t need to try to make foreign policy by applying the Huckabee Customer Code of Conduct, we look at what happened and ask how we should respond righteously.

It gets worse, because he went on to say this:

Senator McCain made a great point, and let me make this clear. If there’s anybody on this stage that understands the word honor, I’ve got to say Senator McCain understands that word — (applause, cheers) — because he has given his country a sacrifice the rest of us don’t even comprehend. (Continued applause.)

And on this issue, when he says we can’t leave until we’ve left with honor, I 100 percent agree with him because, Congressman, whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a discussion that historians can have, but we’re there. We bought it because we broke it. We’ve got a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and ever served in our military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve.

What does this mean? I mean, I know what all the words mean, but what does it mean to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve? Grammatically, the ‘them’ in the sentence refers to the troops, but what does this really mean when it comes to leaving Iraq? How can we know when we’ve fulfilled our honor to the Iraqis or to the troops? What is the criteria we should use so that we know when we’ve acted with sufficient honor? Do we ask Senator McCain? Do we ask presumably-then-President Huckabee? I have no idea.

But what scares me most of all about Governor Huckabee’s rhetoric is this statement:

…whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a discussion that historians can have, but we’re there.

What Governor Huckabee is doing here is using the word “honor” as if it doesn’t matter that the word means different things to different people. He is using the word honor, in part because no one can object to being honorable. In many ways, he is like a 15 year old boy telling a girl he would like to bed that he “loves” her. They both hear the same word, but they think of very different things. A week later when he is no longer as infatuated, he will say quite sincerely, “It doesn’t matter that I loved you then, what matters is that I do not love you now.”

I would like to submit that we cannot determine how to act with honor unless we determine whether we went into Iraq rightfully or wrongfully. And while it is all well and good to say, “we’re there”, it is also necessary to ask how we got there, for no other reason than so we can properly answer the question of what we need to do now. It’s something that must be treated seriously.

You could say that our honor demands it.

Oh, Hugo….

From an Associated Press article by  Christopher Toothaker:

President Hugo Chavez said Sunday that foreigners who publicly criticize him or his government while visiting Venezuela will be expelled from the country … “How long are we going to allow a person _ from any country in the world _ to come to our own house to say there’s a dictatorship here, that the president is a tyrant, and nobody does anything about it?” Chavez asked during his weekly television and radio program.

That’ll show ’em who’s not a tyrant Hugo. That’ll show ’em…

A closer look at Ron Paul

If you haven’t been to Wikipedia and read their article on Ron Paul, you should do so, right now. This guy is sharp, he’s humble, and he is according to both his own party members as well as his political opponents, an excellent example of what a congressman should be.

Some of the things that stood out to me about Ron Paul:

  • He is strongly pro life (something very few presidential candidates can claim in this election)
  • He has never voted for a tax increase.
  • He has never voted for a congressional pay raise.
  • He does not participate in the Congressional pension (calling it immoral).
  • He sometimes spends three to four days a week in his district addressing constituents’ concerns, often accompanied by one of his 17 grandchildren.
  • Paul’s Congressional office returns money to the government each year; in 2000, the sum returned was $50,000

So, if you haven’t done so, it may be time for you to take a look at Ron Paul, because he’s running for President, and so far, he has my vote.