I’ll take Hapless Pretender behind Door Number 3.  Roy Beck rates Hapless excellent on stopping legal immigration and McCain Obama amnesty.
I do agree worse is worse and Obama is worse.

Brave steps, mate.  For whatever might be said of this missive, it can’t be said that you are a sideliner.

Mr. Zmirak forgets that the Tsar was the “God-Annointed”, with all that implies for the Christian from the reign of Tiberius onward.
Christ told the Pharisees to render under Caesar what was his, and St. Peter warned the Christians to “honor the king.” A serious elaboration of Christian monarchism was erected on this basis, and served for many centuries to justify the rule of emperors and kings, ruling, it was thought, by the providence of God.  A Christian may be, and arguably in America must be, a republican.  A candidate in a republic must be judged by rational measure.  Does Zmirak think that God established the Republican Party, and exercised his choice of McCain in the primary struggles?

I found this analogy offensive and insulting--to Nicholas II, of course, a far better man than John McCain.  I’ll be staying home next Tuesday.

Fire!

And in four years when this country is in ruins, we will elect someone who might actually fix things.

Somehow I don’t understand the compassion of someone who insists on euthanasia by slow starvation and dehydration instead of a quick, lethal injection, or even hemlock.

And I don’t understand why all this respect for the rule of law and judges.  Perhaps all the Christians, many of whom will have guns will quietly enter the cattle cars to the “camps”.  But I doubt it.

If the constitution and country cannot survive four years of Obama (after 8 years of Bush and his renditions, secret prisons, torture, etc.) then it is already dead and it really doesn’t matter and even more does not deserve any respect or patriotism, or perhaps the 4th degree knights should start acting with chivalry instead of civility in defending the weak against those who would murder them.

And either God is in control or he is not.  The kings in Jerusalem were told not to rely on Pharaoh - not to go after chariots, gold, or wives.  Whom do you trust?

I’ve read of the saints of old, and I doubt anything will be worse in the worst case than they had to suffer through.  Both the church and the tree of liberty are built on the blood of those who hold that blood less precious than their faith.

Perhaps there will be a sorting, but if fear of what can only be imagined can cause the endorsement of such an evil, I don’t know whether you will end up with the sheep or goats.

I thought the aim was heaven, not the highest level of hell.

Mr. Phillips had me convinced a vote for Baldwin made sense.

Not any longer. Not after this sensible arguement.

I’ll get drunk and vote for McCain

Excellent, John, excellent! 

The “Rasputins” analogy is spot on!

If McCain is Nicholas II; are Peggy Noonan and Kathleen Parker the Tsar’s wife and mother urging him to remain “imperial” rather than submitting to the will of the people?

(By refusing to vote against the bailout.  And, by refusing to support the American people against the globalists and lobbyists?)

Perhaps, before one decides to vote for McCain as opposed to Baldwin.  Shouldn’t one consider the likelyhood of Obama winning in one’s state?

For instance, I live in NY (very “blue” and “winner take all”..electoral votes). It’s a given that NYC will tip the vote in BHO’s favor. Therefore I have the luxury of voting for Mr. Baldwin without advancing the Obama agenda.

very dissappointing and full of neo-con history regarding Nicholas II and Rasputin. Sad.

I’m not impressed by this argument, but then again, I think America’s foreign policy and its place in the world at large is a more crucial issue at this point than abortion. Re-fight old battles if you like; you’ll only lose again, wasting the effort you could have put into projects that could have been more successful.

Not funny, Mr. Zmirak.  Your piece is not funny at all.  Is there any electoral potentiality this year that does not end in bloody civil war in my lifetime?

I agree with Zmirak that Obama would be categorically worse than McCain. The only way Obama might be better than McCain is if McCain would plunge us into war with Iran and Obama wouldn’t. But how do we know that for sure? We do know for sure, as Zmirak points out, that Obama will be worse than McCain on abortion. McCain will not do anything positively good, but neither will he do something intentionally bad. (Unless you count funding stem-cell research which is a related issue.) There may be very little difference between the parties in actual effect, but there are differences in rhetoric. One celebrates (abortion, homosexuality, class envy, reverse discrimination, etc.) what the other is at least squeamish about. If Obama wins, the rhetoric wins too. And I am afraid that once we go down that path there will be no turning back.

That said, I’m still voting for Baldwin and I think every other right thinking conservative should also. I recognize that voting third party (assuming a greater share of those votes would have gone to McCain, a safe assumption I believe.) makes an Obama victory more likely, but I am not morally responsible for the masses. I am only morally responsible for myself. I can not morally, IMO, vote for a dangerous interventionist for President. Nor can I endorse with my vote amnesty, bailouts, etc.

People are over thinking this. As Austin Bramwell noted, your vote will not change the outcome, so vote your conscience.

Though not a citizen of imperial Rome, i’ll offer my 2 sestertii worth anyway.

As bad as Obama is (and will be as president) McCain would be no better, not concerning abortion, anyway.

Do we all have such memories?  Didn’t the repubs have the presidency and control of both houses?  Did they do anything about abortion then?

No. 

Nor will they ever.

There really is no difference between the republicans and democrats and they just change seats every once in a while in a big game of musical chairs that you guys call elections/democracy.

What a farce!

The Tsar and Rasputin are a problem, and not just because they are boobs ruining the nation.  They inspire the revolutionaries to boldness.

How is the mass murderer Obama, who would slay millions via abortion, any different than the mass murderer McCain, who would slay millions by arial bombing (or worse)? And how would this change from the current situation, where most American furvently support one or the other?

Choosing the “lesser” of two evils is still deliberating choosing evil, and saturating it with cowardace as well. It is the path of damnation for every one who sets upon it. Vote for Tweedeldum, vote for Tweedeldumber, you are damned either way.

What are the chances of FOCA passing, even with 60 + Dem Senators?

The bill has 19 co-sponsors, including Obama (and Lieberman!)

Unless he’s an utter weasel, Sen. Bob Casey, Jr. will oppose it.

Will enough Dems feel secure enough in their own seats to give Obama this devil’s triumph?

Or is this FOCA talking point just another way of persuading pro-lifers to stay on the reservation?

I’m confused: is Obama Kerensky or Lenin?

How is the mass murderer Obama, who would kill millions via abortion, any different than mass murderer McCain, who would kill millions via arial bombing? Well, I guess the one has never personally performed abortions, the other has personally dropped bombs on the defenseless. And how would either change the status quo, where both types of mass murder are being routinely done IN OUR NAMES, BY OUR TAXES?

Choosing the “lesser” of two evils is still deliberately choosing to do evil, only saturating it with the stench of cowardice (the normal odor of American Males generally speaking.) It is the path of damnation for all who set upon it. For any who would not be damned, it is well past time to withdraw our consent: not to vote, to paralyze juries, to give no information to any Governmental Agency at any time, and never pay a $ in taxes not forced from us by the barrel of a gun.

Damn this murderous Government, and damn any one who is a willing participant in it.

I think the Republicans have to loose this year. Indeed, I think the whole GOP needs to implode, which a Obama\Democratic will hopefully induce. The GOP is rotten to the core and there is no saving it. Personally I think the utter collapse of the Republicans and the neocons, along with the a couple years of socialist rule by the Democrats will provide a great opportunity for a true conservative movement to rise out of the ashes and deliver its message to the American people.

The analogy that occurs to me is actually Stalin vs. Trotsky, circa 1925.

Poor Nicholas II… an anointed monarch being compared to John McCain—ha !  The man and his wife and children were murdered by a bunch of satanic regicides, John.  He does not deserve to be dragged through the mud.

Paul N. wrote:

How is the mass murderer Obama, who would slay millions via abortion, any different [from] the mass murderer McCain, who would slay millions by [aerial] bombing (or worse)?

Abortion has killed more Americans *every year* than every American-led war since the beginning of this nation’s history. Our war dead total about 1 million. Every year, was kill 1,500,000 babies from abortion. We have killed about 40 million so far. So in terms of sheer numbers, there is no comparison.

In terms of the intrinsic evil, deliberately targeting the most vulnerable, the most innocent in the place where they expect to be the safest--their own mothers’ wombs--can never be justified. Add to that the fact that fetal pain experts say that fetuses feel excruciating pain during abortion procedures (take your pick: saline, suction, dismemberment, D&X;), then it becomes all the more imperative that we do whatever we can to protect them--including, painfully enough sometimes, compromising on our political candidates.

then it becomes all the more imperative that we do whatever we can to protect them--including, painfully enough sometimes, compromising on our political candidates.

Compromising on our political candidates?  Did you say, <i>compromising on our political candidates?

Point being, voting for Senator McCain isn’t even remotely close to doing “whatever we can to protect them.” And even then, are you not just talking about protecting late term children in the womb?  Because 1) John McCain is going to obey SCOTUS precedent on Roe v. Wade and 2) he couldn’t get an anti-Roe justice on the court even assuming he wanted to.

Told you so John. Methinks you protested too much.

1. Comparison with Nicholas is bad for the above-stated reasons
2. This article is based on the premise that you and the people that read this article are enough to swing the election (they aren’t, not even close).
3. The consequences of submitting so easily to a pseudo-conservative such as McCain is not well considered in this article.  How much longer does the conservative opposition live with such shady characters notorious for pushing this country “moderately” into a radical future getting our support, whether it’s grudging or not.

There’s no dignity in it and it’s wrong.  You can’t vote for McCain and pretend you’re hard to get.

A Jacobite am I and will ever be!
‘tis the hapless pretender always for me!

BTW, Tsar Nicholas is a schismatic martyr-saint who may simply become a saint should the Third Rome ever recover communion with Old Rome. It is very impious to make any comparison between the anointed Temporal Vicar of Christ and THAT ADULTEROUS HERETIC from Arizona.

Mr. Zmirak,
I envy your goodness. The article was another gem, but I had already resolved to vote for Senator McCain. Thank you for re-inforcing my views. I would enjoy to have a Sprocket Beer or two with you. Thank you and…
Be Well,

Isn’t George W Bush Nicholas II rather than John McCain? Anyway, neat analogy John Z.
Sad that you favor what you call a “crooked bumbling oligarchy prone to starting futile
wars” and are planning on voting for it again! I suggest to you an Italian Nicolas
named Niccolo Machiavelli for your political studies. He explains better than I can
why a vote for McCain is a vote for catastrophe.

Tsk, tsk, John.

You take counsel from despair and therefore your analogy fails.

“History tells us that steps such as this aren’t where religious persecutions end. It’s where they begin.”

Do you fear persecution then?

Do your fears shape your counsel?

Persecution of the type you describe would clarify many things for many people.

While you cannot make an omlette without cracking some eggs, you cannot have redemption without first the suffering.

The verdict is clearly in. This column endorsing Bush already has 32 responses. The Hart endorsement of Obama has 18. Jack Hunter’s endorsement of Baldwin has just two. Meaning the Baldwin endorsement is clearly the least objectionable.

Baldwin 2008.

Senor Doug wrote:

1) John McCain is going to obey SCOTUS precedent on Roe v. Wade and 2) he couldn’t get an anti-Roe justice on the court even assuming he wanted to.

Yes, but McCain won’t sign FOCA into law, will he?

Marchmaine: Persecution would indeed clarify things for many people--but at what cost? Siding with the mob meant permanent overthrow of a tsarist autocracy in favor of, eventually, the Soviet Union. And what exactly has that taught Russia? Has she ever recovered? I don’t quite understand your glib response, unless it comes from not taking the issue of abortion very seriously…

Tom K- very witty.

It may be worth remembering that there were TWO Russian Revolutions, the second of which was financed by its mortal enemy, Germany. 

Russia had been moribund for some time, and was in the process of losing a HUGE war on its borders.

It’s a pretty analogy, but there’s little real difference between the candidates.

In McCain’s La Raza speech, he insists he’s more reliable than Obama on amnesty.

McCain used to be pro-abortion didn’t he?

Esmerelda Pearl:

Just remember that in New York you need to write Baldwin in.

If the radicals win then head to the Don, put on our White uniforms and fight them there
as new force to defeat the radicals rather than the corrupt, old elite. Slavianka!

Of course in order to win, we would have to figure out what that new force is or would
become and that hasn’t happened yet. Know this about about the radicals, they know
exactly who they are and what they stand for and what they will do. Oh and they are
extremly well organized and utterly ruthless.

Don’t make the same mistakes as the Whites. Find common principles to unite around or
you’ll wind up dead or in exile.

Nice try at an anology but did you have compare St. Nicholas the Martyr to John McCain?
How sick.

Sir,

Kerenski was not Lenin.

Roe v. Wade happened 34 years ago.

Most of this time, your beloved Republicans had a possibility to do something about Roe v. Wade.

Do not even get me started about the problematic Wade the Roe v. Wade (google it, if you have the time)

Not being a citizen of Rome myself, I sometimes wonder whether there is any reason for a republican administration to have Roe v. Wade overturned - after all, that would be slaughtering the goose that lies golden eggs, would it not?

I’m voting for Baldwin because:
1) Baldwin is the only person with total integrity running, even while I disagree with several of his issue positions.
2) In terms of strategy, because Obama deserves his chance, one which, if the laws of economics are to be believed, will play out as fifteen Warholian minutes of universal love and adulation, followed by a four year slide into infamy (sorry folks, socialism doesn’t work, Mises prooved that in 1920!).  So after the 2008 bloodbath and its horrendous aftereffects GOP idiots like Palin will have to pay attention to people who actually know something about economics.  Ron Paul 2012!

The Republicans with their Democratic allies have been leading the country to a fascist almost Hitlerian state. We are a Reichstag fire away from completion. The Constitution s dead in a lot of the country already anyway. Bush is more Hindenburg than Nickie.

I guess being “conservative” means taking the National Socialist path. If we can’t have the Republic back go with what you know.

The verdict is clearly in. This column endorsing Bush already has 32 responses. The Hart endorsement of Obama has 18. Jack Hunter’s endorsement of Baldwin has just two. Meaning the Baldwin endorsement is clearly the least objectionable.

I think the unanimity of endorsements and the cohesive solidarity of agreement with them augurs well for the future electoral success of our “movement.”

I am not morally responsible for the masses. I am only morally responsible for myself.

But we are morally responsible to the masses and we are morally responsible for impeding the evil that is placed before us. We either accept reality or we summon hell.

http://heirsinhope.blogspot.com/

Mr. Zmirak ownes himself a coward in this article.

It’s time to stand up like men, vote for Baldwin, (if one feels absolutely compelled to vote) and dare them to do their worst.

Let’s bear in mind that abortion laws mean nothing and Obama will be discrediting “progressivism,” once and for all.

Mr. Zmirak

I am French-Canadian, so, please excuse my English.  Your reference to the guards at the Tsar’s St-Petersbourg palace brings an another possible comparaison.  The Swiss guards in Versailles in 1790 or 1791, Louis XVI should have ordered them to fire against the mob coming from Paris.  France’s monarchy at that time was not perfect, as Russia in 1917, but this regime, as imperfect as it could be was, at least, humane, not madly ideological.  As Canadian, I have no rights to give an opinion on your élections, but, also as a Canadian, I have interest on those elections.  I am not a fan of John McCain but if he is elected, it appears that he will be far weaker than Barack Obama because the Republicans will not be able to control both the Senate and the House of Representatives.  The “check and balance” of your system will may be, sometimes, calm down the president as well as the Congress.

The Bush administration has been this country’s Weimar Republic and Obama will of course willingly play the messianic savior.

“But we are morally responsible to the masses and we are morally responsible for impeding the evil that is placed before us.”

Agreed. By voting for Baldwin I am impeding the evil of Obama and McCain.

Honestly, get to the voting booth, you deadbeats! Of course John McCain isn’t as good as Tsar Nicholas II, but that’s not the point. With Obama, we may lose the freedom to even oppose the evils of homosexual “marriage” and legalized abortion that McCain is better, though far from ideal on.

This is serious. When John here, the SSPX, the Remnant, and about fifty stalwart bishops all urge you to cast a ballot for someone as mediocre as McCain to prevent Obama, the Vicar of the Devil on Earth, from becoming the most powerful man on earth, you do it! Ask anyone from the USCCB to the SSPX: it’s our duty to vote; staying home on Tuesday or voting for Baldwin or Barr (who also support artificial contraception, which violates natural law) is merely an exercise in Traditionalist haughtiness. For reason of preventing the election of Obama, and for the sake of McCain’s good spots, I have already sent in my McCain absentee ballot.

Mr. Zmirak,

Your characterization of Tsar Nicholas II is insulting to faithful Orthodox Christians.  But perhaps that was your point, given past jabs at Orthodoxy.  If they ain’t a Catholic monarch, preferably Hapsburg....

The martyred tsar was sainted by the Church.  He lived a pious life and was regarded as a cultivated man.  To smear him in this way, even if you do not respect the eastern wing of traditional Christianity, is a sign of poor education and ill manners.

Rock Tonsignant’s point is well taken from a pragmatic point of view.  it’s refreshing to hear from a foreigner who abjures butting in, then proceeds to deliver a cogent point. 
Rock, I think many of us commenting on this site just can’t vote for McCain for moral and or philosophical reasons. Personally I refuse to cast a vote for another pseudo-conservative serving foreign interests.
Perhaps one day I will appear on your doorstep when the USA collapses and Quebec is an independent country. I am already an internal refugee, having escaped the Peoples Republic of New Jersey.  As a remote descendant of Chevalier William Alexander de Mehegan, it will be a kind of Irish family tradition.

Well, for correction, the SSPX makes clear in their voting guide that a McCain vote is licit, and the bishops naturally can’t campaign for McCain, but their attacks on Obama have gone unaccompanied by criticisms of McCain.

To those of you offended by my comparison of McBush to Nicholas II: I didn’t mock the Tsar as a human being or a Christian, but as a failed ruler whose mistakes ushered in a terrible persecution of the Church. Canonizing someone doesn’t retroactively grant him natural virtues he lacked. No doubt, the Tsar died tragically and bravely, at the hands of atheists who killed him for being a Christian ruler. Like Louis XVI. If the Church were to canonize him, I wouldn’t rush about rewriting history books to make him seem like Constantine the Great.

I’ll stipulate that even saintly popes made horrendous prudential mistakes, some of which led to disaster. What of it? What has that to do with sanctity, one way or the other?

And for God’s sake (literally!) Lighten up.

Bush has performed much like Brechnev (or Andropov, or Chernenko!) did in the Soviet Union. On the other hand, Obama is USA’s Gorbachev, while McCain represents the doomed hardliners. USA’s “Russian revolution” was in 1933 or in the 1960’s. This empire too is now about to come apart. It was never as evil as the other one was, but evil nonetheless.

Wow.  Somehow I’m lifted up from dispair by the commenters’ spirited defense of the Holy Tsar Nicholas being compared to that vile Arizona commoner.  Not all Americans have lost their sense of justice!

Judging by history, abortion is a pretty lame reason to vote Republican.  Since 1980 every president except Clinton has been Republican, and they’ve all been pro-life.  Between them all they haven’t stopped a single woman from obtaining an abortion who can pay for the procedure.  There is no reason to believe McCain will do anything else than talk a good line either.

The fact of the matter is this is a rationalization for supporting the lesser of two evils.  But it’s worth repeating that less evil is still evil.  It’s also mediocre.

Your answer to who is responsible for all this is SATAN and his MASONIC BROTHERHOOD

Thanks to Mr. Zmirak for the article.  I was going to vote for Chuck Baldwin on election day until very recently.  I changed my mind when I realized how relieved I would be if the winner turned out to be McCain.  For once, the Republican Chicken Littles may be right--an Obama presidency might well be something this country could not recover from, as bad as a McCain administration would likely be.  Before deciding on voting this way, it seemed to me that a rejection of a Leftist black nationalist with terrorist friends would be a positive sign for our country.  I hope that’s what happens, though I have no illusions about how bad a president McCain will be.

The fact of the matter is this is a rationalization for supporting the lesser of two evils.

No, the fact of the matter is that Obama has promised to sign FOCA into law. McCain has not, and will not. That’s the difference. And it’s what people don’t seem to be getting…

This is just the most absurd thing I have ever read! You people have way too much time on your hands to think up all sorts of paranoia.  Lay off the crystal meth for a while.  Unreal..

By the way, I seem to recall that in the 60’s all the liberals were hailed as “Pinko-Commies” for protesting the Vietnam War.  Hmm, nothing came of that either.

You all are losers!

“No, the fact of the matter is that Obama has promised to sign FOCA into law. McCain has not, and will not. That’s the difference. And it’s what people don’t seem to be getting…”

No?  Will FOCA force women to have abortions who don’t want them?  If not, then my statement stands.  All the Republican presidents put together haven’t stopped one woman from having an abortion who wants one, and can pay for it.  What is it that makes you think McCain will succeed where Reagan and both Bushes have failed miserably?

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over yet expecting different results.

You have here a GREAT article, Mr. Zmirak, and I wholeheartedly concur with your assessment.  I just wish that you had written some more articles like this earlier, as Buchanan has been doing.

I agree with the sane people here like John, Pat,and Taki, and am supporting McCain. I live too close to Chicago to let a leftwing machine hack like Obama near the presidency. Bush has been a disaster but do you really think Gore and Lieberman would have been any less warlike and better on the economy? I could never vote for a proabort like Obama. The Surpreme court has been one vote away from returning abortion as a question to the states for 16 years. The next thing the court will push down our throats is gay marriage. Obama has no answer on the economy but more affirmative action and income leveling. I used to be a very rich man and I say it is very difficult to acumulate anything with the kind of marginal and direct taxes Obama wants.
The public employee unions will run roughshod over the rest of us.He is a greenhorn on foreign policy and will be worse than McCain at least in my opinion.

Esmerelda Pearl: Just remember that in New York you need to write Baldwin in. --Glaivester.

Will do.  Thank you! :o)

No to McCain and Rasputin was not a monk - more like a charismatic lay healer.

http://aconservativesiteforpeace.info

Your excellent article is very helpful to me. I really would rather vote for Chuck Baldwin. I too genuinely grieve to vote for “the lesser of two evils.” But there can never be perfect (non-evil) political choice in a sinful world. To insist on everything or nothing in this poor, fallen world will be to always get nothing.

Oh, and John, old friend—forget not—Czar Nicholas II is “Saint” Nicholas of the Royal Family.

With all due respect to Mr. Zmirak, I suspect the more accurate analogy for the current struggle would not be Tsarists vs. Reds, but rather Mensheviks vs. Bolsheviks.

That all depends on who is leading the mob.  As this country slouches into third-world dystopia we may see things that make the Bolshevik revolution look like a picnic.

The average White person never asked for this, never wanted it; but if we want to survive we must unapologeticly act in our interests.

People keep looking at abortion (from both sides) as though there was some on/off switch in Washington that a president could flip if he wants to.  Even if you are tired of hearing arguments about supreme court justices, they still stand as convincing reasons why presidential action has not happened, but could.

Also, things like a partial-birth abortion ban Have saved babies.  Will a republican vote certainly save millions of babies?  I hope no-one thinks that.  But even preserving the status quo on this issue is saving lives.  The earlier we can push that protection, the better off we will be.

Also, no-one here has mentioned the point about doctors and Christian health care workers that took up a lot of space in John’s article!

Also, things like a partial-birth abortion ban Have saved babies.  Will a republican vote certainly save millions of babies?  I hope no-one thinks that.  But even preserving the status quo on this issue is saving lives.  The earlier we can push that protection, the better off we will be.

All the partial birth abortion ban did was to ban one particularly gruesome procedure among many.  Accordingly, it does as much to stop abortion as outlawing hanging does to stop capital punishment.  In both cases there are still other methods of accomplishing the same goal.

Pray tell, exactly how is “pushing the status quo saving lives”?  Again, the partial birth ban is the only ban the only curtailment on abortion that has occurred since Roe V Wade in 1973.  Again, not one woman has been stopped from having an abortion who wants one and can pay for it.

Churchill was right when he said the best argument against democracy is listening to the average voter.

As a Dutch citizen I dont pretend to be a know-it-all on the USA-elections (I find e.g. the concept of voter-registration and the mess it generates baffling) but I do think I can give my 2 cents. Besides our troops being in Afghanistan, too, this question of ‘lesser evil or principled small-vote’ is universal to democracies. With the US-system being ‘winner takes all’ it means the principled ‘small vote’ basically entails a vote for the ‘front-runner’ in the elections, in this case Barack Obama (BO). There are several reasons I, as a Catholic, would vote for McCain. I’ll name a few. First of all there’s FOCA, which would be veto’d long enough by McCain till the 12% approval rating Congress & Senate could be changed to a more palatable Rep majority - with BO this isn’t going to happen, to put it mildly. Secondly, the biggest obstacle to positive reform is the number of liberal judges (with e.g. Ohio voter & Berg lawsuit expulsion nonsense as a result); there are several SCOTUS and lower court appointments ‘due’ within the coming 4 years and while McCain would probably not be able to appoint conservatives at first due to the House and Senate left Democratic majority, again the appointments could be ‘locked-up’/stalled till the majority changes or, at worst, moderates will be appointed as a compromise. If BO becomes president, he’ll gleefully appoint more judicial hacks and the slow process of replacing hacks with judges will be set back for years. Thirdly, the idea that BO is a peacenik is ABSURD. His team is interventionist and he intends to bring back (a form of) the draft to gain the man-power (2nd and 3d debate on the education credit; don’t forget his Springs’ civilian security force just as well funded & strong’ either) He clearly prefers unilateral action against allied Pakistan, while McCain recognizes the sovereignity of Pakistan & the volatiltiy of the region. Biden was proud of being an interventionist (VP debate), even though ‘his’ Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo don’t stand out as sterling examples of wise actions. BO’s team on foreign policy is reputed to be led by Susan Rice and Anthony Lake, who are both strong interventionists and in favor of military intervention in Darfur - completely forgetting that to make that ‘stick’ the regime of ‘Mahdi-born’ Karthoum will have to be toppled (which, given it’s symbolic importance will inflame Muslims and Africans alike); bringing Afghanistan to the 21st century is a piece of cake compared to Sudan. Furthermore, so far ACORN and other BO front-organisations have been helped by liberal judges to make a total mess off the elections, and also given BO’s support for banning the secret ballot in unionisation votes (EFCA), a BO win could very well mean that elections will (at best) become a joke. Also, the menagerie of radical influences in BO’s social circle is baffling. Do Americans really want to have e.g. the rabid Rev. Wright as their president’s spiritual guidesman? Last but certainly not least, BO has (tried to) squash any dissenting opinion with lawsuits, Missouri Truth Squads, hoodlums messing up radio-programmes & webblogs and totally in the tank for him media-outlets doing proctology exams on civilians like Joe the Plumber - and that was during the campaign. Anyone can imagine what he’ll do when he gets his super-majority, and how this will affect the ability to ‘mount a revolt by the true conservative cavalry’ some people are hoping for. Thank you for your time.

@Dunnyveg
“All the partial birth abortion ban did was to ban one particularly gruesome procedure among many.”

And that’s not a step up?  Should we just do nothing until everything gets banned at once?  I know it’s not “outlawing abortion” as we’d all like, but the point is to save as many unborn lives as possible while waiting for the aging supreme court situation to improve (and Obama shows no sign of changing them for the better on this issue).

Cutting out publicly funded abortions is another way to reduce the numbers, and has helped significantly.  Don’t pooh-pooh the very significant work pro-lifers have done since Roe vs Wade.  Annual abortion rates have dropped almost every year in the US since 1981, in part because of funding cuts.

Also, you still don’t address the fact that religious hospitals, doctors and nurses could be forced to give direct material aid to abortion (or leave their fields) with FOCA.

Obviously I want Rove vs Wade overturned, but I also want abortion limited as much as possible until that day.  I think we have the best shot at both with the republicans this year.

(and thanks NetherLands, for your comments. It’s always good to hear a foreign take on the election!)

@ john,

Thank you for saying what I’ve been for months.  McCain is evil, case closed.  I could never vote for him.

About Nicholas II, though.  He was not a bad guy, but he had no vision for Russia - he was a dope who couldn’t adapt to changing times and got killed for his troubles.

And Zmirak is wrong about the role Rasputin played in Russia.  He was not as influential in policy making as people seem to think.  He was well-connected and the Tsarina loved him, yes, but hardly wrote national policy.  Most of the time he was just better informed than anyone because he was in the Tsar’s inner circle.

Why wouldn’t a defeated and invigorated Republican party be able to undo what Barry Half-White does in 4 years?  Or do you think that Obama will seize control of the reams of power and appoint himself president for life?

If Obama can’t induce red-staters and right-wingers to grow a pair, then he and his people deserve the presidency and the country, and we would all be wise to stop thinking in political terms (or at least in incrementalist political terms) and in preservationist ones.  The point now is to build a remnant and prepare it for the hostile future that awaits it.

“All the partial birth abortion ban did was to ban one particularly gruesome procedure among many.”

“And that’s not a step up?  Should we just do nothing until everything gets banned at once?”

Your argument for the incrementalist approach is at least rational.  And it is certainly a step up, though largely symbolic.

My larger point is that it will never be banned unless we change tactics.  For starters, that means getting the courts out of ALL social issues.  And such a move isn’t even on the table for any of the republicrats.

Nothing of any consequence has been done to stop abortion since Roe V Wade, and McCain will do nothing to change the status quo.

Let me go a step further.  Obama has two constituencies:  People thoroughly disgusted with Bush and the Republicans.  This group tends not to have strong partisan or ideological affiliations.

Obam’s core constituency is a bit more ominous.  They are the alienated, immigrants, and descendants of immigrants.  These hyphenated Americans want to take our country and remake it in our own image.  And if McCain is elected, he’ll open the borders to ensure that the balance is tipped against us, and our country won’t be ours anymore.  Somebody like Obama will be the best we can hope for.

“Cutting out publicly funded abortions is another way to reduce the numbers, and has helped significantly.  Don’t pooh-pooh the very significant work pro-lifers have done since Roe vs Wade.”

You make a good point here.  And since I don’t like government handouts of any form, I’ll agree with you.  But abortion is not so expensive as to preclude any motivated individual from obtaining one.  Just look at the black and Hispanic abortion rates compared to the white rate.

Again, McCain will do more damage on the immigration front than will Obama.  We’ve already lost California and New Mexico, and Florida is next.  When Texas goes, the last chance for a conservative government goes with it.  And McCain will guarantee this happens with his open borders policies--something Obama more than likely will not be able to pull off.

A vote for McCain is playing with fire.  And we’re all going to get burned.  It’s time we look at the long term, and it’s not pretty.

Re:  Nicholas II

Catholics do not recognize Nicholas as a saint, and as Americans we do not owe any fealty to the Russian monarchy.  I rather think that entrance into WWI was more catastrophic for Russia (which was not a mere passive victim in the initiation of the conflict, regardless of other country’s admitted malfeasance) than McCain’s bombings of a few Iranian nuclear sites would be fore America.

I believe that not destroying the Russian Empire is relevant to not destroying the United States of American. If the destruction of Russia reminds us, it was the awful waste of humans unmercifully murdered because Marxism (socialism) had to show the world that it could do more damage than it did during the Reign of Terror in France. The Reign of Terror was not grand enough. If the Tsar (John McCain) prevents (or forestalls) the largest Reign of Terror from occurring it will say no to Robespierre, Lenin (Rasputin) Putin et al. There would be two groups that would be spared during John’s reign as Tsar, (1) millions of babies, and (2) millions of Christians. Remember we inherited abortion from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as we inherited mindless murderous Statehood from the French. Obama would merely be the one who enables world socialist to complete what was started in Paris in 1789, and Russian in 1917.  Comrade Obama 2009.  The murderous onslaught of the innocent is in your voting hands.

Read Deuteronomy 28-31.
Whichever of these two cretins takes office, the Nation as a whole is on the receiving end of God’s wrath for what we have done.

Thanks, Dunnyveg.  I understand your take a little better now, and think I somewhat agree.

This raised an eyebrow though:

“Obam’s core constituency is a bit more ominous.  They are the alienated, immigrants, and descendants of immigrants.”

Christ worked with the alienated, so I think you must mean that in another way than I can think of at the moment.

And I’m fourth generation polish.  I’m not sure where you take up issues with immigration, but most of our families came over here with nothing at some point in history.  People have always complained that the Irish/Italians/Polish/Mexicans etc are going to end the good life here.  But when Jesus said to defend the widows and aliens, he wasn’t thinking about men from mars.  I think we should make room for those willing to work for a living here.

Or are you just concerned that they are fitting in less to our society than others have?  That’s a valid concern.