My mother went to Arlington National Cemetery today to put flowers on my father’s grave. While there, she noticed a funeral just ending, and the people walking in her direction. She asked about the deceased.

23 years old, killed in Iraq, buried today in Arlington National Cemetery. 23 YEARS OLD. McCain can NOT be president. Period.

Under no circumstances could I pull the lever for a candidate who favors the legalized murder of the unborn. Period. -JZ

As long as you live in a nation thats intent og global hegemont no matter what candidate you pull the lever for, you will be supporting death. The qualifier of being unborn is moot.

It’s loony to put abortion that high up. Abortion is wrong, but the government creates far more evil with mass immigration.

Frank, are they still allowing you sharp objects? Come on now, just hand me the spork, don’t wave it around like that, you’re going to put out your eye....

The argument in favor of voting Republican so as to assure the presence of pro-life justices on the Supreme Court is further complicated by the fact that by so doing inadvertently we may be voting in favor of the very “unitary executive” that increasingly has rendered our democracy a relic of the past. The seating of Alito was almost assuredly that. The objection now isn’t simply one of registering an anti-war sentiment, it is also one resisting a implicit Faustian deal involving support for a kind of Caudillo in return for the lives of the innocent we seek to protect. The ReichsChurch leadership has so hideously distorted the substance and public face of “pro-life” as to render electoral support for it a self-destructive act. I will not vote - and have not voted since 1992 - for the simple reason that as a conscientious Catholic I have been disenfranchised.

John Lowell

I’m not so sure that Frank is that far off.  After all, the government isn’t forcing women to kill their children, at least not directly.  The over turning of the laws of the states restricting abortions was unconstitutional to be sure, but permitting people to do something isn’t the same thing as forcing them to do it. 

It seems that it is much more the duty of the government to prevent a foreign invasion, and in this duty, which can only be done by the state and its governmental administration, there is an abdication of duty.  In future, it is possible that the policy of open borders will lead to the break up of the nation-state and much suffering even including mass death by various causes.  It is the duty of statesmen to prevent such preventable evils.  Recall that the English politician, Enoch Powell, gave a famous so-called “Rivers of Blood” speech making a similar argument.  By contrast, stopping abortion is something that at this point, must really be done by appeals to one woman at a time.

Dear John,
Thanks for offering a reasoned case. As I see it, the immigration issue is about saving the country; the abortion issue is about whether the country is worth saving. A decent statesman needs to worry about both questions.

However, the two work in tandem insofar as most of the immigrants we admit will vote for the Left for at LEAST two generations --which means that open borders equal open abortion clinics. So a vote for amnesty is a vote for abortion on demand.

But John, seriously—Machiavelli or Calvin?

Dear Charles,
A much more attractive choice than we’ll face this year. BTW, I’d pick Machiavelli, hands-down.

Being a French Legitimist, I will not vote come November anyway.  I certainly agree, though, on Machiavelli; or, for that matter, on Calvin.

no matter what candidate you pull the lever for, you will be supporting death

Then it seems the only option is to not pull the lever.

Don’t blame me - I voted for Ron Paul.

Macchiavelli or Calvin?

Macchiavelli did not have the totalitarian impulse to make us
holy, whether we wanted it or not. His opinion as to freedom was
that people meant to things with it, one the ability to carry out
their daily lives and prosper, and the other to be included in power.

Macchiavelli advised the ruler to protect the first kind of liberty,
and to curtail the second.

Hmmm.. I have to get back to the Evil Overlord list. There are
some recommendations on how to keep power that makes me think that
a truly competent Evil Overlord (bent on keeping power, not just
being evil) might at a certain point be undistinguisable from a
benevolent ruler (ObTanyaHuff plug: the short story “A Woman’s
work” where she shows that Queen Arrabell, while quite ruthless,
is also beloved by her people).

Wisconsinn has a very strong prolife community.It is a liberal state with a very low abortion rate.There are a lot of prolife Lutherns Catholics and Evangelicals here.We have a 50-50 chance to overturn Roe in this state.However a vote for McCain is a vote for endless war and death and more justices like Souter,Kennedy,Powell,Blackman Burger,Stevens,OConner,Stewart,Brennan etc.Ron Paul and Jesse Helms had it right resrict Roe by taking away the jurisdiction of the court in these cases and then fight the battle in every state, thats how the original abortion laws got on the statute books.Reagan and Rockefeller gave us the first legal abortion statutes in the sixties.I can’t ever vote for the Republicans again for president unless we have a real prolife candidate.Vote the Constitution party,I am.

“Even if (as I believe) it’s a mortal sin to vote for Obama, that doesn’t mean we have the moral right to vote for McCain.”

What Roman Catholic in their right mind want to participate in a political system that could possibly result in losing ones salvation?  Just stay away. How is it that voting for one protestant candidate over another protestant candidate is a mortal sin? They both are bad choices.  Both are against the One True Faith.  So technically voting for a Ron Paul as opposed to a Obama still would lead one to hell: These candidate are enemies to the One True Faith:

“It is the duty of all citizens who have the right to vote, to exercise that right when the common good of the State or the good of religion and morals require their votes, and when their voting is useful. It is sinful to vote for the enemies of religion or liberty...” [Moral and Pastoral Theology, vol. 2, Chapter V, 4th Commandment, p. 90 (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1935, 1959)] Fr. Henry Davis, SJ

But refusing to vote is also a mortal sin:

“205. Voting is a civic duty which would seem to bind at least under venial sin whenever a good candidate has an unworthy opponent. It might even be a mortal sin if one’s refusal to vote would result in the election of an unworthy candidate.” [Moral Theology (Dublin: Mercier Press, 1929, 1955)] Father Heribert Jone, OFM Cap.

To vote is a mortal sin, to refuse to vote is a mortal sin. Democracy must be truly absurd. Or are Catholic Moral theologians the ones that are absurd?

“In the 2008 election, both parties are pro-death. We really don’t have a vote.”

What would the penance be for the following:

Bless me father for I have sinned I am not a registered voter……

Or:

Bless me father for I have sinned I voted for enemies of religion……..

Damned if you, damned if you don’t…

How easier it was for the Faithful to be governed by a Monarch.

Michael,

You say:

“To vote is a mortal sin, to refuse to vote is a mortal sin.”

You pose here a false dilema, a personal interpretation of the opinion of a moral theologian in any case. Not to engage in a kind of catechetical positivism, but we are asked there only to “exercise” our right to vote in fulfilling our civic duties, not specifically to vote, per se. One might easily consider an abstension an exercise in my view, although the ReichsChurch ideologues - you know, those at FirstThings, and many of the EWTN crowd - would have you believe otherwise. I can recall a rather blatant - and offensive - interpretation of this same teaching by Archbishop Chaput in 2004 - in which one was seen as duty bound to vote for the lesser of two evils, all of which served solely to encourage the uncritical election of Republicans. And there was the intolerable Catholic Answers guide, something worthy of the mindset of torture encouraging websiteers, Jimmy Akin and Christopher Blosser. Stay home; you’ll be in better company.

John Lowell

I agree with the last post by John Lowell.  When mass Democracy serves up morally unacceptable choices, stay home.  Still, I may vote a write-in candidate.  As McCain is not a serious conservative and I am a registered Republican I’m toying with writing in The delectable Samantha Brown of the Travel Chanel. Unlike McCain, she’s perky, doesn’t plan on invading any place that I know of, and if I elected, I suppose we might all expect a mint on our pillows every night.  A ridiculous choice deserves a ridiculours response.  All due respect to Ms. Brown of course.

I’ve been thinking of writing in Cthulu. Lately I’m more inclined to pull the lever for my man, Borat.

I, like, so totally don’t get the notion of having to vote for either Obama or McCain. Since when are those our only two choices?

Oh, I forgot. They’re our only two realistic choices. The game of practical, “realistic” politics is a Machiavellian game, John. I would have thought you’d have caught on to that.

Along these lines, I hope that I do not violate copyright laws or other applicable restrictions if I reprint this from Fr. Peter Scott in the Questions section of “The Angelus” of June or July, 2007 (of course, he is referring a traditional Catholic, or any Catholic, if you prefer):

Can a Catholic vote for a candidate who condones an unjust war?

The Catholic Church does not tell Catholics to avoid all involvement in politics simply because there is injustice, greed, ambition, just to mention some of the evils involved. The Church teaches us that all our involvement in politics ought to be motivated, inspired, and directed by the Church’s social teachings, and in particular by the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Voting, as well as involvement in political campaigns, must have as its ultimate motive these higher, supernatural principles, that the law of God, the Ten Commandments, and the rights of the one true Church be acknowledged publicly in society.

Manifestly, we are presently very far removed from achieving these aims. It does not mean that we should do nothing. It does mean, however, that whatever we do will necessarily involve the toleration of many evils, which we in no way desire or will. However, it can be permissible to tolerate the lesser of two evils for a proportionate reason, and such toleration can be for the common good, precisely because it is the lesser of two evils. Thus it is possible to vote or even campaign for a candidate whose platform contains evils with which we do not agree. Everything depends upon a hierarchy of the most important values and issues taking priority over lesser ones.

For a Catholic, there can be no doubt that the issues that take the highest priority must be the moral issues, and not personal or economic issues. The whole continuation of society as we know it depends upon this, and those who deny the most basic principles of the natural order are bringing about an unheard of perversion. Consequently, it is permissible and prudent to vote on the one single issue of proscribing abortion, or forbidding same-sex marriages, or putting an end to euthanasia, or freedom of the Catholic Church to run educational institutions. All of these issues are of the utmost importance. Consequently, it would be permissible and prudent to vote for a candidate who promotes an unjust war, on the basis of one or other of these issues. Consequently, it is likewise permissible to vote for a candidate who is known to be a Freemason, although Freemasonry is an evil society condemned by the Church and opposed to the Catholic Church, if he maintains an important principle of the natural law such as the evil of abortion.

Lesser issues are also of moral importance, such as the justice or injustice of a particular war, or the paying of a just wage to employees, maintaining the right to private property by limiting government intervention, and so on. All other things being equal, one could vote on the basis of such issues. However, it would be wrong to vote for a candidate who has a correct position on one of these issues, but a perverse and wrong position on a more important issue.

Consequently, it would be manifestly immoral and sinful to vote for a candidate who pretends to be Catholic, but who in fact is pro-abortion, pro-gay, or pro-euthanasia.

Voting in local and national elections can only be considered a moral obligation when the candidates propose a solidly Catholic, non-liberal platform that truly promotes the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is not obligatory to vote for a lesser evil, but simply prudent and permissible. However, it would certainly be obligatory to use the democratic process in place in the unlikely event that it could be used to introduce Catholic candidates who do not accept the propaganda of modern liberal democracy.

***

In view of the above, and the likely candidates in the upcoming US election, I am thinking at the moment that I will not vote at all.

Oops. Should have read the last few posts before posting my own. I agree with Mr. Lowell, although I don’t think abstention is an acceptable solution when there are worthy candidates available. The Constitution Party is going to run someone eventually. Vote for him or her. I’d even favor writing in someone over abstaining.

A tip of the (virtual) hat to T.O. Meehan. Glad to see that I’m not the only Samantha Brown fan here.

Incorrect. We have a candidate. Bob Barr in 2008!

“Thou shalt not steal”
“Thou shalt not kill”
To vote for ANY government is to of necessity do the above by proxy. If you vote for Marxists (either bourgeois or proletarian) you can add “Thou shalt not covet.” The abortion debate is merely a specialized case of the State’s claim to the right to murder its citizens at will.

James,

A Catholic, I have been reluctant on past appraisal to buy into what I sense is the Rushdoonian influence lurking in the background at the Constitutional Party. Not meaning to be unkind, I would rather stay home and scent my politics with the rose petals of St. Therese than identify with some recovery or implimentation of Old Testament Law. Over time, I’ve become quite settled in my Schindlerianism, I’m afraid, requiring as it does of me no more or less than a seeking of the form of the Son in the world.

Regards.

John Lowell

Elect Congressman Ron Paul (remember him?) as the next President of the United States. He is still in this contest and will restore the constitutional rights of the American people usurped by the Bush administration. He will stop the police action and illegal occupation in Iraq immediately and put an end to American imperialism and nation building around the world. He is a pro-life candidate, advocate of free trade, non interference in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations and will lead the federal government back to fiscal responsibility.

There is no difference between the major parties or candidates any longer. John McCain will go on waging war and misusing our military for non-defensive purposes; sacrificing the youth of America for his global domination agenda. Obama or Clinton will exacerbate the worsening economy and spend our dwindling treasury into financial abyss.

The majority of congressional representatives have abandoned their constitutional responsibility and act and think as self-serving elitists, totally out of touch with their constituency. But Americans have the power to sweep away the corruption that festers in Washington.

We need to start by electing a president who is a true public servant. Someone who will be a champion for, “We the People” and the rule of constitutional law, not “Me the Monarch”.

Dr. Paul is a principled man and can be counted on to do what’s best for our nation. Vote for him this November.

Perhaps it is time for an article/thread on who one will write in, in the general election.
The write in, as a form of protest vote, can be an art form all its own. For me, as one who wrote in Goldwater in 1976, I am starting seriously (or not so seriously, as the case may be) to consider my options. Fortunately they are many and contemplating them is a lot of fun.

I for one find this debate to be silly.  Such quixotic thought might make for interesting conversation in the vacuum world of academia, but is illogical and impractical in the real world. 

When I was a child my father taught me an invaluable lesson that has served my well both personally and professionally.  When faced with a difficult decision, I was instructed to grab the yellow pad and make a list of the pros and cons. He was teaching me to think logically rather than emotionally.

While not the ideal candidate, John McCain is clearly a better alternative than either liberal Democrat candidate.  A no vote or vote for a third party candidate who has no chance of wining, while pleasing to one’s emotions, is a cop out.

“I’ve been thinking of writing in Cthulu. Lately I’m more inclined to pull the lever for my man, Borat.”—JZ

We used to have T-shirts with Chthulu in a seer-sucker suit making the Nixon double-handed “V” signs which read, “Vote Chthulu, never choose the lesser evil.”

Seriously, though, the act of voting is an act of violence against those in your community as you are fundamentally only choosing who will be in charge of the property stolen via taxation. So, by extension, you are condoning the violence previously committed. 

How any Catholic can submit to this system I have no clue?

Voting is not a right.  Rights are inherent to individuals, handed down from their creators.  Governments, created by those who have rights, can only have delegated powers and grant privileges.  Voting is a privilege.
Governments cannot grant rights as they have none to grant.

Don’t vote for any of them.  Ron Paul is about the only approximately reasonable candidate around.  If you don’t want to vote for him, vote for yourself....after all it’s your money.

Ta,

I have a very good, Macchiavelian, reason not to vote
Republican.

Republicans have been doing “bait and switch” on the subject
of abortion for ages now. They keep promising it, and promising
it, but never deliver it. They just hold it as a carrot in
front of us to keep us pulling the plow for their projects.

Now, we need to put them on notice that we are not jackasses,
and that our anger can have serious consequences for them. Let
them know that promises are no longer good enough. If the Democrats
are more sympathetic, then we may switch, if not, sit on our hands,
but we will not be playing the fools any more.

In politics it is deadly to go around with a sign that says “Rip
me off, I enjoy it.”, which is what we have been doing.

<<Republicans have been doing “bait and switch” on the subjectof abortion for ages now.>>

Exactly.

When someone says “but the Democrats will legalize ABORTION”, my response is: “it’s already legal, you dipshit, and the Republicans haven’t done anything to change that reality!”

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that there is any difference between the Republican and Democrat candidates anymore - there’s not.  The difference we should all recognize is that the Republicans don’t mean what they say, and the Democrats can’t accomplish what they want.  I honestly believe, from the deepest of my heart, that either Hilbillary or Osama would be so inept in the “Oval Office” that nothing would get done in four years, as opposed to John McCain, who would accomplish quite a bit.

Which would a reasonable person want: an inept liberal Democatic presidency, or a strong, “accomplished” Republican-McCain presidency?

Mind you, I have no faith in either of the identity-politics elected Democrat candidates of ever winning enough Electoral College votes.

We are stuck with McCain.  God help us.

“A messianic huckster who treasures a visceral hatred of Whitey”

Now why would you insult your readers with such puerile nonsense? I sense a profound lack of confidence in the rest of your essay, whereby even the labeling of abortion as “the legalized murder of the unborn(an equation, by the way, I’m not writing in to argue with)doesn’t,in your mind, adequately make your muckraking bones for you. So you over- compensated.  You dropped crazyass right wing simplicities like “A messianic huckster who treasures a visceral hatred of Whitey,” the way Israel dropped cluster bombs in Lebanon.  The world asks for restraint, John.  From Israel,...from you.

Andy Capp:

You say that with a Democratic President nothing will get done
but that will McCain, they will.

The problem that what will get done will be a continuation of
the Bush Presidency. Do you think that McCain will send the neocons
packing?

Of course, the neocons can get into a Democratic Presidency, but
to an ineffective one…

I know what Macchiavelli would advice.

Making good time is not a recommendation when you are traveling
in the wrong direction.

Before you pop off like that, Mr. Nolan, I suggest you look up some of the facts. Read just a little of Steven Sailer has uncovered about Obama’s church of choice… a black nationalist congregation whose pastor (Obama’s spiritual mentor) thunders against whites. Just to get started, go here:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/080120_obama.htm

Then read what the closest person in Obama’s life has had to say about racial issues. Here’s a good place to start:
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=1182

I have zero patience for racialists or racial nationalists of any color. Neither should America.

I heard Barr and Paul were meeting to talk about forming some sort of alliance. Either
a third party run or maybe Paul plans on giving Barr his mailing lists and endorsement for
next election. Barr is a good man.

Re: Mr. Zmirak regarding spork:

By supporting a pro-choice candidate, a man is not committing murder. And a candidate who allows abortion isn’t committing it either, only allowing such evil. It is the doctor who commits the actual procedure as well as the mother who requests it who are at fault.

Similarly, legalising drugs creates much harm, including murder, but it is the drug dealer who is at fault.

While abortion and certain drugs ought to be banned because they are both sinful and undermining of the virtue of a community, mass immigration destroys the nation to which it belongs. It is one thing to create a temporary problem for a nation but quite another to wholly destroy it. And chaos as well as ethnic tensions, both resulting from the mass immigration, surely lead to murder…

Abortion is far more politically correct to oppose though, to be sure. All one has to do is point to the commandment. With all due respect, I think this is why many oppose the one and not the other, though I certainly don’t know you well enough to judge you. It is irritating though how strongly abortion is opposed by people who seem to ignore other duties.

Politics is about forming coalitions and can be about damage control.

There is so much evil in America today, that the greatest evil has to be fought off first. And this is why I said it was loony to oppose abortion so highly. Abortion is important, but it is of lesser importance than other evils.

And if standards are set against supporting any candidate who tolerates any evil policy, there won’t be but a handful to support. If the least evil isn’t supported, a greater evil will be more likely to win.

@John

I do not think that the press is so much in love with Obama, as that they hate Hillary
enough to embrace anyone who might take him down.

As you said before, hartred of the Clintons cuts off the flow of blood to the brain.

@Frank

Indeed, refusing to choose the lesser evil, may lead
to allowing the greater evil to triumph.

I am sure that in Germany in the thrities there were plenty of
candidates which could have been considered the “lesser evil”. Those
who refused to choose them, on the ground that choosing the lesser evil
was wrong, share responsibility for the Third Reich.

The quip “Cthulhu for President, if you are tired of choosing the lesser
of two evils” is not an invitation - it is a dire warning, as to how
dangerous the greater of two evils may be.

Abortion is an intrinsic evil but so is torture. McCain was a victim of torture but is embracing it to win support from the majority of people who favor torturing people. At Least according to the latest polls.

About the only thing we hear from our Bishops is to be against abortion and give us money to pay off the lawsuits. The only thing I hear in parishes is who gets the tickets to go to the Papal Mass at the Nationals Stadium.

Cthulu sounds like the best option to me.

I must admit that I had to look up Cthulhu. My first guess was some sort of African basketball star. Given a choice between the right honorable Cthulhu and Senator McCain I’d have to pick Cthulhu.  Cthulhu is a big, fictional war monster.  McCain is a monstrous real life war monger who will prosecute actual wars with my money.
Samantha Brown is a superior candidate to either as she is unlikely to start any wars, is far more photogenic (think of the campaign literature!) can get along with foreigners and looks great in a bikini.  I am printing out bumper stickers for distribution to friends. Perhaps Ms. Brown would consider Cthulhu as Secretary of Defense.
By the way.  I will probably vote for Ron Paul in the Primary Election.  I was under the impression that we were discussing the general election at this point.  The more of us who vote for Paul the more McCain will understand that he is on notice so to speak with the base.

T.O. Meehan,

But Ron Paul wishes to let the states decide on abortion, gasp.

At a later date though, an amendment could always be passed. It’d be easier to campaign state by state rather than taking on the country as a whole.

And if only, say, 15 states legalise abortion, one or two will become major aborters - and no one wants to be known as the baby slaughter center of the US. So, one by one abortion might be fought off in each respective state.

Not only is states’ rights constitutional, it seems to save the most lives.

---

McCain is opposed to torture I thought?

Adriana,

is there a lesser of two evils this round? I was speaking more in the abstract, but I honestly can’t see a penny’s worth of difference between these two candidates.

McCain will want more and more wars, but Obama might really too.

---

I’ll probably vote for Bob Barr (LP candidate) unless the CP chooses someone good.

Regarding abortion in general:

I heard an argument attributed to Rothbard saying this: that the mother had no choice as to whether the baby would be allowed to develop within her. As such, she ought to have the right to abort.

While I obviously disagree with this since the mother did choose to have sex, I can’t say I disagree regarding cases of rape…

In the case of rape, it perhaps isn’t right for a mother to be put through so much against her will. This is partly why the pro-life craze scares me: I’d hate to, say, have my wife or daughter (I have neither atm) become impregnated against their wills, esp if such threatens their lives…

The pro-life movement also tends towards a global perspective, and sovereignty surely trumps pro-life:

If a neighboring country legalized the killing of Christians, Jews, children, or any class of person not convicted of a capital crime, it thereby commits an act of war that would justify invasion.

Source: American RTL Action (a link can be found in the first link of the following article)

A good recent article on this matter: States’ Rights: The only hope for the unborn

“Under no circumstances could I pull the lever for a candidate who favors the legalized murder of the unborn. Period.”

Does this include candidates who accept all those rape/incest/fetal deformity/my mistress’ fetus exceptions?

Also I doubt Colorado could pass a strict anti-abortion law.  It was the first state to “liberalize” its law in 1967.

It would probably help break the pro-choice monopoly among aspiring Democrat leaders in the state.

@ Adriana “I know what Macchiavelli would advice.”

“Without doubt princes become great when they overcome the difficulties and obstacles by which they are confronted, and therefore fortune, especially when she desires to make a new prince great, who has a greater necessity to earn renown than an hereditary one, causes enemies to arise and form designs against him, in order that he may have the opportunity of overcoming them, and by them to mount higher, as by a ladder which his enemies have raised. For this reason many consider that a wise prince, when he has the opportunity, ought with craft to foster some animosity against himself, so that, having crushed it, his renown may rise higher.” Macchiavelli

hmmm...make the Serbs your enemy?.....

Michael Warning,

That quote could also justify a leader crushing a political opponent in some glorified but minor political victory.

Machiavelli gave us knowledge of power, and power can be used for good or bad. The saying guns don’t kill people, people kill people can be applied to Machiavelli’s teachings as well.

For a Christian, there are limits to how power may be pursued, but Machiavelli’s teachings may be used within those limits.