Front Page News
Client Portal

Search Our Site

Create an Account

I have not endorsed a presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan because in every election in my lifetime, the prevailing argument has always been the lesser of two evils.  But if you are voting for the lesser of two evils aren’t you still voting for evil?  As a devout Christian I do not wish to vote for any evil.  Outside basic Christian values, I have gravitated to two things that dominate my political loyalty; the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers, and opposition to what is now called globalism, the transfer of power from nations to regional governments and then to a world government.  Political party is not my base for determining truth.

I have never supported the lesser of two evils voting practice because both candidates were “evil” using these barometers.  But what if one candidate is many times more “evil” using these criteria than the other?  Historically, lying or abuse of power concerns could be exposed in a free press and perpetrators could be removed either by impeachment or in a subsequent election.  The nation could recover.  But what if we no longer have a “real” free press and one side clearly dominates and excludes information?  What if we reached a point in “evilness” that recovery is very unlikely, and a president uses the power of government to punish or silence political opposition, as did Richard Nixon with the IRS?

What if our outgoing president, Barack Obama, already defies the Constitution with executive orders circumventing the law-making powers of Congress and is already using the IRS against Tea Party groups?  What if he has politicized the Department of Justice (DOJ) allowing it to overlook irregularities such as the secret tarmac meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton on an airport runway in Phoenix Arizona over DOJ’s possible prosecution of Hillary.  This, and the politicization of the FBI resulting in its subsequent failure to recommend prosecuting Hillary on her 33,000 national security bleach-bit deleted emails as it would have anyone else doing the same thing and giving all those pleading the Fifth Amendment on the email scandal immunity from prosecution.  Political corruption is obviously at its highest level in U.S. History.  What if justice in this country has already been politicized?

What if the establishment media is also politicized to the point that it is just an extension of the Clinton campaign and only Fox News and talk radio are willing to share the Wikileaks emails, what would be, in any other election, devastating to Clinton?  Her voters may never know of these scandals.  The New York Times, Washington Post, and Boston Globe are openly Clinton advocates and important feeds to many smaller newspapers as well.  The following televised news sources are openly favoring Hillary Clinton for president: CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS and ABC.  Could not an election be managed by such media exclusions?

The Obama Administration attempted to silence the email disclosures.  Secretary of State John Kerry, on October 18, unsuccessfully used his influence to get the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to cut off Julian Assange’s Internet access putting an end to the transfer of the Clinton incriminating emails flowing therefrom.

If the Obama Administration has corrupted and politicized the IRS, DOJ and FBI and Hillary is his designated replacement, what hope do we have that she will correct these present examples of misuse of power and not continue to use these agencies, and the politicized media, to further defy the Constitution and punish her enemies?  None.  She benefited from these tyrannies.  More likely she will continue their use adding dozens more agencies to the list as evidenced by her assistance in the scandals of the nineties, the last time the Clintons occupied the White House.  Millenials have been largely denied coverage on these scandals: Whitewater, Filegate, Cattle Futures, Travelgate, profiting from the Lincoln Bedroom, Chinagate, White House Looting, Pardongate, and using the IRS on adversaries.

No person in America’s political history has had more scandals attributed to him/her than Hillary Rodham Clinton.  WND TV, in May 2015, listed the number of passed scandals at 22.  Right now there is Benghazi, the 33,000 bleach-bitted security emails, DNC attempts to derail Bernie Sanders, and the Clinton Foundation plus a half dozen others stemming from the WikiLeaks revelations.  Scandals follow her like flees on a dog, often two or three simultaneously.  There exists nothing that suggests that such will not continue.  She has always ridden the fine line between legal and illegal.

Now Trump has many “warts,” is not a particularly religious man, is not politically polished or verbally refined, and is sometimes offensive to those around him, but there lacks concrete evidence that he is any more “evil” than any of his predecessors.  So the real issue is not the lesser of two evils but one “evil” verses many “evils” and we cannot assume that we could recover from the damage to the Constitution, the dive into world government, and the resultant compromised Christian ethics that would result in the next four years from a Hillary victory.  The disparity of evil between candidates is greater than ever before, which now necessitates our choosing the “evil” of one over the “evils” of the other.  In this sense every vote not for Trump is a vote for Hillary.  This election may be a matter of saving the Constitution and our national survival.  Are non-Trump voters willing to accept responsibility for damage to these entities?

 

The Lesser of Two Evils

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

LibertyUnderFire.org