They Win – Tails You Lose
by Michael Peirce
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.
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.
then would I ever consider voting for a democrat? The answer is
simple and best expressed in one word: gridlock.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
this, George Bush is often referred to as a good wartime president.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
© 2004 LewRockwell.com