Concerning the “lesser of two evils” at the poling place.

 

I have always favored the expression “lesser of two evils” as it was one of my father’s favorite sayings. In honesty though I am more likely to use it to the least unpleasant of two undesirable options, i.e. spend the money to repair the steering on an old tractor or to spend more money to acquire one that would be an upgrade. Neither option is truly evil in the moral sense. It is also common to use this expression to describe the choices on the election ballet. Recently though a friend who is unfailingly pro-life, shared some voter information attempting to promote a third party candidate over incumbent Republican Shelley Moore Capito, because of her stand on abortion, in the margin of the photocopied paper he had scrawled in big letters “Capito is evil.” Some argue that the lesser of two evils is still evil, and that as Christians we must demand that our candidates unfailingly support our views on social, or as I prefer to say moral issues, or we should not support them regardless of who they run against, leave the ballet blank or vote third party even if doing so gives the advantage to an extreme liberal who opposes everything we stand for. I would look to the following quote from Abraham Lincoln to counter that point of view:

"The true rule, in determining to embrace or reject any thing, is not whether it has any evil in it; but whether it has more of evil than of good. There are few things wholly evil or wholly good. Almost every thing ... is an inseparable compound of the two; so that our best judgment of the preponderance between them is continually demanded."

 

With that in mind I would like to deal with some of the issues where some conservatives are hesitant to support Romney over Obama.

Romney used to be pro-choice. To summarize the evolution of the Romney position early in his political career Mitt was personally pro-life but policy wise was pro-choice. Over time Romney’s public views have changed to be more reflective of his personal views or to quote Gov. Romney “when I became governor I laid out in my view that a civilized society must respect the sanctity of life. And you know what? I’m following in some pretty good footsteps. It’s exactly what Ronald Reagan did. As governor, he was adamantly pro-choice. He became pro-life as he experienced life. And the same thing happened with George H. W. Bush.” Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 certainly were pro-life stalwarts but if that is not enough for you consider who he is running against.

Barack Obama is the pro-abortion dream president. He is far beyond the pale as it relates to abortion and is literally not pro-choice but pro-death. I say this without reservation.  “Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.

On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, "then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.238 , Aug 1, 2008” (http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm#Voting_Record)

Also the President has: Voted against banning partial birth abortion, Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP, Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion, Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines, Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions, Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives, been Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance, and has a 100% positive rating from NARAL. Furthermore it is not enough to outlaw any restrictions on abortion or even support situational infanticide the President insists that not only abortion but all forms of contraception MUST be provided by insurers providing services for religious groups which oppose as part of their firmly held beliefs those practices. If that is not enough he appointed 2 of the most radical leftist activist judges ever to sit on the US Supreme court, and you can bet they will never “pull a John Roberts” and betray their liberal ideology.

To summarize: Obama wants to gut the 1^st amendment and make religious freedom subject to the discretion of the secretary of HHS, Romney does not.

Obama wants infants who survive abortion to be tossed in the trash or killed by a second doctor, Romney does not.

Romney’s position on abortion has evolved into a pro-life stance but Barack Hussein Obama has never wavered from his radical ant-life position.

Who holds a position we might reasonably call evil? So even if Romney is only the lesser of the two it is the pro-lifers duty to stop Obama at all costs.

 

The second concern is Romney-Care. To be frank this is the key reason I initially supported Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachman in the primaries. While Romney’s argument that states have the authority to reform healthcare any way they wish, but that the federal government does not have the authority to do the same is correct. Still it is possible that we won’t agree with all of Pres. Romney’s proposals to replace Obama-care after it is repealed, but if Romney is President with a Republican house and senate, it will be repealed. Romney did propose and sign bad legislation in Massachusetts, but he is not so narcissistic as to believe that he knows best what Texas or West Virginia should do in their own unique and sovereign states.

 

If you want 2,000 pages of a freedom crushing anchor around our necks as we drown in a sea of tens of thousands of pages of regulations and billions in new taxation, then sit out the election, or leave the top slot blank. Better yet aid Obama by voting third party.

To use Lincoln’s litmus, when it comes to healthcare reform with who does the preponderance of evil lie? Barack Hussein Obama.

Finally some hesitate to support Governor Romney because he has stated a belief in manmade global warming in the past. It is reasonable that the Governor has over time saw the fraudulent science and as a result seen the light.

What Mitt Romney will not do is to use the EPA as a pseudo legislature to enforce his radical socialist policies. Romney does not want the price of energy to skyrocket (Obama does and has said so).  Romney will not order the EPA to reinterpret “the navigable waterways act” to include mud puddles and drainage ditches as Obama has. Romney does not want to destroy the coal industry and force the closure of hundreds of coal fired power plants as Obama has, helping to create power shortages in numerous states. (These plants have the boilers fouled so they cannot easily be restarted) Ohio and Pennsylvania coal miners can you see this?  Farmers, Obama may promise not to cut subsidies but the EPA now has the authority to order the same spill containment regulation for milk as they do for oil in the Gulf.  If you have a pond, then Obama wants the authority to tell you what you can and can’t do with your land. Not to mention the price of fuel.

I can’t guarantee that Mitt Romney won’t propose some bed environmental policy, what I can guarantee  is that Barak Obama will continue to use the power of regulation to crush industry and agriculture, to control the liberty of each citizen and funnel billions in tax payer monies to green energy scams.

 In a second term I cannot bring myself to imagine the abuse of power and usurpation of liberty we will see. Romney is what we got, personally the choice of Ryan for VP, his support of free speech following the Benghazi attacks, and his debate and convention performances have set me at ease and lead me to the conclusion Romney may be as good a President as Ann Coulter says he’ll be. The bottom line though is that no one else can defeat Obama. If we the people, and it falls to us ultimately, are going to save our country, electing Mitt Romney has to be step one. A conservative house and senate are equally important.

Don’t crush the hopes and dreams of generations of Americans past and future because Romney wasn’t your first choice.

To my friend, I make the same argument in favor of Shelley Moore Capito. We should  engage in the primary races to get the best candidates we can, then in the general election we may necessarily have to support a candidate who is misguided on some issues, even important ones like abortion, in order to keep true evil at bay.

Until next time, keep on the firing line!

PS I constantly pray that God will open Mrs. Capito’s eyes and that she will repent and embrace a true pro-life stand.