We are conservative Christians who believe a so-called "conservative" Republican would be worse for America than Hillary Clinton. This website seeks to discourage voting for "the lesser of two evils."
By "conservative Christian" we mean that our webmaster is a
and also believes:
Can't get more "conservative" and "Christian" than that.
Why on earth would such a conservative Christian hope that Hillary gets elected rather than the candidate Sean Hannity supports?
Please consider the following scenario. It is Election Day 2008. You have your choice between:
- Rudy Giuliani
- Hillary Clinton
- Jesus Christ
OK, forget "Jesus Christ," since He didn't want to assume political office anyway. Substitute "Ron Paul," "George Washington," "Rush Limbaugh" or whoever you think the absolutely perfect candidate would be:
Now, one more stipulation. According to all the polls, only about 10% of the voters are planning to vote for the perfect candidate. All other voters are equally split between Giuliani and Hillary. The "perfect candidate" will lose.
Here's the question: Will you vote for the perfect candidate -- in this case, the ONLY candidate who will keep his oath to "support the constitution" -- or will you vote for "the lesser of two evils."
This web page seeks to explain why voting for "the lesser of two evils" will result in MORE EVIL. If the GREATER of two evils wins, there will be LESS EVIL.
This may not always be the case throughout human history, but it is true in America from 1921 to the present.
No Christian in good conscience could ever vote for Hillary Clinton. This webpage does not advocate voting for evil. This webpage advocates voting for good even if that means "evil" will be elected instead of "the lesser of two evils."
Did you vote for George W. Bush because you were afraid Al Gore or John Kerry would be worse, even though you wanted to vote for some other candidate? Then this website is for you.
- You believe that if you vote for a candidate who
- truly stands for the principles of the Constitution
who truly opposes the New World Order
who acts on principle
not for points in political polls
or kickbacks from special interests,
- you will be "wasting" your vote because your candidate will not be the "winner."
- You did NOT vote "for" Dubya because you believed him to be dedicated to the principles our Founding Fathers fought and died for, a man passionately committed to advancing a truly conservative agenda, heroically swimming against a tide of liberalism and globalism, carrying a wounded nation safely to the rock of moral absolutes and liberty under God.
- You voted "for" Dubya because you were afraid that Al Gore would carry us to a New World Order of international socialism even faster than George W. Bush will.
We hope you can see that George Dubya DID get us there. By nearly every measure, the Bush Administration was worse than the Clinton Administration. A vote for a Bush regime was and is a vote for the New World Order -- eventually. Like father, like son.
But here's the surprise:
The George W. Bush Administration has advanced liberalism and globalism
FASTER and FURTHER
than an Al Gore Administration
could have even dreamed.
And Giuliani, Romney, or anyone else who's
"the lesser of two evils"
will make America more socialist than Hillary.
The proof for this surprising claim is obvious when you think about it. The facts are linked are on this page. It has happened every time the "lesser of two evils" has been elected.
More than that, you'll see that voting for the candidate you really want to see become President (even if you are certain he won't win in November) will change your life.
Please -- follow these links. Your future depends on it.
- The "Conservative" Nixon did more to advance leftism and socialism than Hubert Humphrey ever could have.
- Gary Allen: Nixon: The Man Behind the Mask, Chapter 1.
- Note the sources quoted in that article: they are liberals. True conservatives also admit the truth. It is only false conservatives who claim that Nixon was a conservative. That's because false conservatives agree with Nixon's liberal achievements, and will admit with Nixon, "We are all Keynesians now." False conservatives hate conservatism as much as liberals in the pulpit hate Biblical Christianity. They are "wolves in sheep's clothing."
- If you want to advance liberalism, vote Republican; if you want to advance conservatism, vote Democratic
- Thomas Gale Moore, Hoover Institution (link coming soon! - temporary link)
- George Bush: The Establishment's Man
- James Drummey on President G.H.W. Bush
(There IS such a thing as "the Establishment." Click this link if you don't believe it. Use your "back" button to return here.)
- Gary North: The Lesser of Two Evils Rarely Is
- The "greater" of two evils probably can't build the coalitions necessary to get anything done at all.
Additional Links of Interest (from the 2000 election -- soon to be updated)
The Bush Record
Your vote for Bush in 2000 and/or 2004 was a vote for international secular socialism. You supported BIG Government by your vote for Bush. The size of government, and the influence of secular socialism INCREASED under George Bush more than it would have under Gore or Kerry. Had Gore or Kerry been elected, Republicans in Congress would have been on their guard. Even false conservatives might have voted against the policies of Gore or Kerry. But with a "conservative" in the White House, Congressional conservatives had to go along. Even true conservatives were pressured by false conservatives into supporting secular socialist policies because they were promoted by "our man in
the White House."
It will be better for America for Hillary to be elected and everyone to jump into action to oppose her, than for Giuliani or any other "conservative" to be elected and to begin promoting the same secular socialist agenda of The Establishment. The Establishment's secular socialist agenda will be promoted more effectively with a "conservative" President who will disarm millions of true conservatives throughout America.
Those who will not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.
Why Christians Should Not Vote for George W. Bush (2004)
The Republican Leadership opposes conservative action, just as they did during the impeachment proceedings against Mr. Hillary.
This is why we must question the very mythology of the Republican-Democrat, "Left"-"Right" distinction.
Not a Dimes Worth of Difference
Irritating, Lousy, Liberal Republicans
The Myth of Republican Conservatism
The Symbiotic Relationship Between Liberals and Conservatives
The Bush-Clinton Dynasty
Bush's Abortion Funding
Demopublicans vs. Republicrats
"At least under President Hillary, Republicans in Congress would know that they're supposed to fight back. When President McCain proposes the same ideas -- tax hikes, liberal judges and Social Security for illegals -- Republicans in Congress will support 'our' president -- just as they supported, if only briefly, Bush's great ideas on amnesty and Harriet Miers.
"You need little flags like that for Republicans since, as we know from the recent unpleasantness in Florida, Republicans are unalterably stupid."
The President is in many ways a puppet, a figurehead. His (or her) strings are pulled by "the Establishment." Both Giuliani and Clinton are in the hip pocket of the Establishment. Richard Harwood was deputy managing editor of The Washington Post until he retired in 1988. His article, "Ruling Class Journalists," (The Washington Post, October 30, 1993, p. A21) confirms the existence of America's ruling class, or "the Establishment." Describing the Council on Foreign Relations, Harwood writes:
The president is a member. So is his secretary of state, the deputy secretary of state, all five of the undersecretaries, several of the assistant secretaries and the department's legal adviser. The president's national security adviser and his deputy are members. The director of Central Intelligence (like all previous directors) and the chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board are members. The secretary of defense, three undersecretaries, and at least four assistant secretaries are members. The secretaries of the departments of housing and urban development, interior, health and human services and the chief White House public relations man, David Gergen, are members, along with the speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate. . . . In the past 15 years, council directors have included Hedley Donovan of Time Inc, Elizabeth Drew of
the New Yorker, Philip Geyelin of The Washington Post, Karen Elliott House of the Wall Street Journal and Strobe Talbott of Time magazine. . . . The editorial page editor, deputy editorial page editor, executive editor, managing editor, foreign editor, national affairs editor, business and financial editor, and various writers as well as Katharine Graham, the paper's principal owner, represent The Washington Post in the council's membership. The executive editor, managing editor and foreign editor of the New York Times are members, along with executives of such other large newspapers as the Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times, the weekly news-magazines, network television executives and celebrities - Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and Jim Lehrer, for example - and various columnists, among them Charles
Krauthammer, William Buckley, George Will and Jim Hoagland. . . . They do not merely analyze and interpret foreign policy for the United States; they help make it."
This was Clinton's Presidency (1993). It applies to Bush's as well -- different names, but all members of the secular "ruling class." Some members of the Establishment serve in both Republican and Democrat administrations. And if "We the People" vote out one group of Establishment figures and replace them with another group of Establishment figures, the television networks, the newspapers, the magazines, radio, and major corporations -- whose leaders don't have to campaign for your vote -- will still be managed by members of "the Establishment."
"The Establishment" is not conservative. "The Establishment" is not Christian. "The Establishment" has no loyalty to the U.S. Constitution. The Establishment's preferred candidates will be the nominees of the Republican and Democrat parties, whose leadership is dominated by the Establishment.
You have been trained by the Establishment to never vote for a non-Establishment or third-party candidate because you would be "wasting your vote." You have been trained by the Establishment's schools and media to believe that any action you take that does not conform to or perpetuate the ideals of the Establishment is a "waste." To be outside the Establishment is to be on "the fringe." If your neighbor finds out you voted third-party, you'll hear those heart-breaking words: "What are you, some kind of extremist?"
- You believe in restoring the Constitution? You're a "kook."
- You believe in the Second Amendment? You're a "gun nut."
The Establishment promotes candidates that support the Establishment agenda and "mainstream" thinking. This is why the Republican and Democrat nominees are look-alike candidates:
Nobody becomes the nominee of either the Republican or Democrat parties without the support of the mainstream media, which is controlled by people who are committed to the secular socialist ideals of the the Establishment's "New World Order" and oppose "fringe" candidates. This is why "the perfect candidate" -- which we define as someone who opposes the secular socialism of the Establishment and champions capitalism, the Constitution, and Christianity -- will always be portrayed as a "kook" and dismissed in favor of a more "responsible" candidate -- one who believes in a "mixed" economy (socialism paying lip-service to capitalism), a "living" Constitution (one which means whatever the Establishment wants it to mean), and a
"pluralistic" (Christ-free) society:
The Establishment believes in international secular socialism. A vote for either the Republicrat or the Demoblican will promote international secular socialism. Both nominees support this worldview, not the worldview of America's Founding Fathers.
Your vote for the "lesser" of two Establishment evils says "I SUPPORT INTERNATIONAL SECULAR SOCIALISM."
You do? Is that the message you want to send with your vote?
Books to Read
Refusing to Vote for "The Lesser of Two Evils" Will Change Your Life
Any American who feels he has discharged his civic obligations by voting for a puppet every four years needs to take a civics class (but not in a government-run school). More important are the elections every 2 years for Congress, and more important still are acts of letter-writing every month to Congressmen, and especially to bureaucrats when they open the door to public opinion before passing dictatorial regulations. A letter or phone call is viewed by politicians as carrying the weight of six times as many voters.
- If you vote for Rudy Giuliani, and he wins, you'll be inclined to think you've "won" because Hillary lost. You've "saved America from Hillary." You'll slack off for the next four years. When Giuliani pushes us further into the New World Order, you'll be silent, because you voted for him.
- If you vote for a candidate of principle ("the loser"), you know you'll have to be vigilant. You know that sending a message with your vote every four years is not enough. You will be dedicated for the next four years to fighting the New World Order. You'll be on your guard against both Giuliani and Hillary and the entire Establishment. Voting for a "loser" will change your life.
- Your willingness to speak up on Election Day by voting for a "loser" is a symbol of your willingness to stand up for true principles during the next four years. If you can't even cast a secret ballot for the candidate that stands firmly for good, how can you take greater risks the rest of the year?
- Voting for the mainstream candidate is like staying "in the closet."
- If you can bring yourself to vote for a "loser" (the candidate of principle) in this election, in the next election you'll be able to work for those principles, actively trying to convince other Americans to stand for principle and "waste" their vote.
If you want to energize grass-roots conservative action and see pressure put on government and against the trend toward secularism and big government, the best thing that could happen to America would be the election of Hillary Clinton to President if it were obvious to all that she were elected precisely because so many conservatives refused to vote for "the lesser of two evils." Truly good men -- not just "lesser evils" -- will be elected to fill the halls of Congress in 2010 (just two years later) and prevent the Security and Prosperity Partnership from abolishing the USA.
If you vote for a false conservative, what "message" are you sending? That you support the Republican Establishment? That you don't support "extremism" and radical Constitutional principles? On the day after the election, should it turn out that your principled, "extremist" candidate got 23% of the votes, could a stronger "message" be imagined? Every vote you cast for your man of principle counts for 2 or 3 votes for The Establishment's Man.
Votes for a man of principle send shivers down the spine of the Establishment. Votes for either of the two mainstream candidates ensures the safety of the New World Order.
The thing that makes Hillary Clinton so dangerous is the "Unitary Executive" theory created by "conservative" George W. Bush., and the powers she will inherit from this "conservative."
The LONE ARGUMENT
against voting for a man of principle
It's the only argument floating around that hasn't been directly answered in the links above:
"If we elect a Republican, at least he won't appoint liberals to the federal courts. If we elect a Republican he will put at least one conservative on the Supreme Court."
This strategy has proven to be a failure. Seven of Nine Justices on the Supreme Court are Republican-appointed, but nothing has changed. Roe v. Wade has not been overturned, nor have a hundred key cases since at least the New Deal been overturned, even though they were completely unconstitutional decisions which completely undermine conservative Christian constitutional values.
- Republican Judges are Pro-Choice
- Bush Appoints Pro-Abortion Justice: Alito Report Card
- Partial Birth Abortion has not been abolished: Gonzales v. Carhart Analysis
- Republican-Dominated Court destroys federalism and private property rights, cornerstones of our liberty.
- Republican judges vote to murder the helpless.
But maybe THIS time a Republican President will actually nominate a pro-life strict constructionist for Supreme Court Justice -- surely that be would better than anyone that Hillary will nominate?
Has your good sense been
Once you've become familiar with the history chronicled in the links above, this scenario will be self-evident rather than prophetic.
A Republican President will nominate for his first Supreme Court Justice a man of dedicated conservative principles who takes a hard pro-life stand. He would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. This inclination will become a great controversy, and the Senate will vote against confirming him.
BORK! goes the Republican nominee!
Just as the Senate -- controlled by the Republican Establishment -- voted AGAINST convicting Bill Clinton!
Is it all coming back to you now?
The Republican President then nominates another David Souter. This nominee is the same person that Hillary Clinton would have nominated the first time around, and the "moderate," "centrist" Supreme Court nominee is quickly confirmed. Millions of people who voted Republican say nothing, and only those who voted for a man of principle write to their Senator criticizing the politics of BORK!
- "Even assuming George W. cares about judicial restraint, his election probably will have zero impact on the Court's anti-Constitutional drift."
- Don Feder,
Jewish World Review June 26, 2000 /23 Sivan, 5760
- The Supreme Court Is Not A Good Enough Reason To Vote For Bush
It's time to STAND UP and
"WASTE" your vote!!
P.O. Box 179
Powersite, MO 65731