by Michael Peirce by Michael Peirce
There was a point before the nomination of John Kerry that I actually considered voting for him. It certainly had nothing to do with the fact that I support a single policy the Democrats favor — indeed in a contest between any Democrat and Satan, I'd probably vote the latter. Usually.
I detest big government and consider the Democrats the party of Marxism, sexual depravity and the torchbearers for all those who would destroy the Constitutional Republic. They are the priests of a new age religion that celebrates license and call it freedom — whose sacrament is abortion and whose oft stated detestation of all things Christian and all things Southern make them my natural enemies.
Why then would I ever consider voting for a democrat? The answer is simple and best expressed in one word: gridlock.
It's long been evident that the Republicans do not stand for anything much different than the Democrats. Both have had power in recent years and have at various times held the presidency and the majority in congress. So a discerning individual can't miss the sad reality of the political arena — the two parties differ only in the degree to which they are determined to destroy all that's best about America.
Let's examine the issues and see where they agree — after all no matter what their stated ideological differences it’s statistically likely that they should agree on some issues once in a while. What is not so likely is that they should agree on almost every issue all the time.
Both parties are well aware that the public education system has degenerated into a pathetic farce ruled by extremist labor unions; that this very system that should educate our children instead endeavors to inculcate into those children a disdain for their parents and their parent's values. At the heart of the problem is federal government interference in the formerly state-run education systems.
Both parties have voted to radically increase the size and scope of the Federal Department of Education — an organization that has caused this country far more harm than Osama Bin Laden could ever dream of. The largest increase of all was sponsored by George Bush and deemed a triumph of bipartisanship. As if bipartisanship were a good thing — all it really means is no choices for us, the citizens.
Both parties repeatedly swear to prosecute this largely illusory War on Terror yet neither party will commit to defending our borders. Since the obvious entry port for terrorists with mayhem on their minds is our Southern border one can barely refrain from accusing them both of outright treason. It is significant that neither party has seen fit to mention this issue in what they both call, with a fine lack of humility, the most important election of our time. Both parties routinely muzzle any rebels within their ranks who dare to do so.
Despite this, George Bush is often referred to as a good wartime president. Please…
John Kerry of course, takes the view that he would be a better wartime president — but that his policies would be identical to those of George Bush. Neither would defend our borders yet we are actually pretending to debate their qualifications on their merits; and yes, their supposed differences!
Yet we all know exactly what will happen the next time some of these muddle headed and ridiculously incompetent terrorists are able to actually pull off the astonishingly simple task of killing a large number of Americans. Democrats and Republicans alike will proclaim the need for more restrictions on our freedom and appoint a by partisan = bipartisan committee to determine just how much more money is required to continue to pursue the same dumb policies that made the attack possible in the first place. If you doubt my word on this you have only to review the findings of the 9/11 Commission.
Since George Bush and his Republican majority came to Washington on a platform that officially deplored abortion one might reasonably ask how many unborn children have been spared the attentions of those depraved murderers who lurk in the "women's clinics" of this country where they are eagerly slaughtering the next generations.
The answer would be sadly, not a single one. No children have been spared, not a one. The legislation that would have prevented that horrendous act of butchery the press refers to delicately as that "special procedure" died at birth, as so many babies do, and as both parties knew it would. A country that permits partial birth abortion has a lot of gall calling upon God to bless our efforts.
America is no longer about what happens in the legislatures — it is about a handful of crazed judges, appointed by dictatorial presidents; who act extra–constitutionally, and rule this country by decree. One would think they were immortal and untouchable but in actuality they could be easily impeached and deposed for betraying their positions and the law of the land but neither party really objects. After all these judges serve the purposes of the Democrats by coming down routinely on the side of all that is evil, and the Republicans by allowing them to pretend to have a moral agenda without having to suffer the consequences of actually having one.
I'm told repeatedly that it is important to retain Bush because of coming appointments to the judiciary including the Supreme Court. It's hard to work up much enthusiasm for that — given his track record of retaining Clinton appointees at various levels, and particularly when one looks at the Supremes who were appointed by his Republican predecessors. Sorry, that argument doesn't work.
Needless to say — Kerry would appoint Lenin to the Court were he available. So the truth of the matter is that we are going to get activist judges no matter whom we vote for.
And then of course, there is the war on Iraq. Once might guess that in a system which consists ostensibly of two parties with quite divergent points of view, that there would be a pro-war and an anti-war party. After all, the war on Iraq had exactly nothing to do with the 911 attacks and could quite legitimately be opposed by people who wish to prosecute the war against terror. But no, both parties are quite happy with that; indeed we recently saw the spectacle of the Democratic Party purging the naysayers.
Being human, I occasionally long to join the mainstream, such as it is. I listen in vain to George Bush’s speeches, hoping that sooner or later he will stop insulting my intelligence with his sonorous streams of sleep-inducing platitudes; but in vain. Near as I can tell from listening to Dubya, he is against evil, and plans to stand the course. Well, me too George, but how about some specifics, tough guy?
Then one day last spring it dawned on me that surely there must be some Republicans in Congress who despise Dubya's big government policies as much as I do — and are only supporting him because it would be political suicide not to do so. And my plan was hatched: I would vote for John Kerry. Should a Democrat propose the policies that Bush has foisted upon us; the Republicans would be up in arms and drive a legislative stake through his socialist heart.
But then came the Democratic Convention. I had thought it unlikely that anyone could ever come across as a bigger bag of hot air than George Bush. As usual, I had underestimated the two-party system. Never in over fifty years of existence had I seen such a pathetic blowhard, and having endured Clinton, Bush I and Jimmy Carter, that is saying something.
Kerry has promised this country that if elected, he will talk about what a hero he was in Vietnam, and will continue to do everything Bush is doing; only he will do it better. His campaign is the most hilarious farce I've yet encountered in American politics. I had thought that Bush was a goner but with an opponent like Kerry the Republicans could run Joseph Stalin for office and win.
And of course there is the issue of Vietnam. I've heard a lot of war stories in my time but never before have I heard anyone actually describe himself as a hero. I find it nauseating — as do most veterans. I also find it disingenuous that both parties seem to want us to focus on Vietnam rather than the real issues facing this country.
So I've had to face the fact that as much I'd love to see Washington brought to it's knees in good old-fashioned gridlock I simply cannot vote for a simpering, pathetic buffoon like John Kerry.
So what to do? Not voting makes sense in many ways — at least it certainly aggravates the politicos since it is after all a way of showing our contempt for them and their lies. If you lean towards the left there is always Ralph Nader. I don't like him or his policies but I respect him for at least stating what those policies are.
The obvious answer of course would be to vote for Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party since he actually has a message and truly is an American Patriot. He would defend our borders and protect the unborn — that certainly resonates with me. However, since Americans allow their television sets to do their thinking for them third-party candidates have little chance. Should one actually win he is still stuck with that horde of contemptible swine that snuffle and grunt at the Washington troughs and would have a tough time rolling back the privileges they have allocated to themselves.
To a patriot though, I see only those choices, since I will not give my stamp of approval to either of those two sad sacks presented to us by what we should, in the interests of linguistic clarity, refer to as the one-party system.
Mr. Peirce [send him mail] fought with the Rhodesian freedom fighters (the Ian Smith side, of course).