[This article is a response to a friend's Facebook post describing his reasons for voting for the Governor against the President in the upcoming election, and another friend's argument against his reasoning, who asked me to back her up.]
[Ed Note: Emphases ours]
The President inaugurated in 2013 has sworn or will swear an oath to follow the Constitution. Both major party nominees support laws and government organizations and programs that find no support in the Constitution. Neither major party nominee will obey his oath to the Constitution. As I swore an oath to support the Constitution, I cannot in good conscience vote for someone I know will break his own oath to support the Constitution. If you have never sworn an oath to support the Constitution and the oath-breaking of the person you vote for does not bother you, then this issue would not prevent you from voting for one of the major party nominees.
Both major party nominees have atrocious positions as to blood-letting.
The President was awarded a Nobel peace prize for doing nothingand has since blundered into military adventures across much of North Africa and deep into the Middle East. Does anyone actually believe that the CIA inspired and funded the so-called “Arab Spring” without the President’s approval? Our arming of the jihadists in Syria, Egypt, and Libya enabled the
jihadists to overthrow leaders who were friendly to us, like Mubarak, and who we had
successfully cowed into submission, like Gadhaffi. For this reason, the jihadist threat in North Africa and the Middle East is now worse than it was when the President was inaugurated. The Governor’s speech at Virginia Military Institute shows that he intends to continue the same tragic foreign adventures of the last twelve years: so we lose more American soldiers, cause more collateral damage, and expose ourselves to more blowback. Both also support continued use of predator drones as arms of the American empire. Sure, what happened in Benghazi seven weeks ago was bad, but don’t worry, things will only get worse under either major party nominee. (In the Governor’s defense, if jihadists attack one of our imperial installations across the world and our people call for help, the Governor would give them the help they need.)
Similarly, the President has taken a leading role in the tragedy that is the abortion industry’s war on women. Not only do abortionists violate their patients (who–of course–are all women) when they invade the sanctity of the womb to do their vile work, but [fully] half of those who enter an abortuary don’t leave. And many of those who don’t leave are women. When the media spend time on this subject, they tend to focus on the rhetoric. Don’t be fooled into thinking that the rhetoric matters, as an abortionist could give a rhetorically wonderful pro-life speech while going about his business.
The records of both major party nominees are atrocious. We don’t need to dwell on the President’s support of allowing the abortionist to “terminate” a “non-viable” child who survives an abortion. But the Governor’s [actions were] pro-choice for most (if not all!) of the time he was in office. Although the Governor says that he has changed his views on this subject, we don’t have a crystal ball and can’t tell what he will actually do if he is elected. Given his record, how far can we really trust his instincts? (In the Governor’s defense, we like his rhetoric on this subject much more than that of the President.)
If you vote for either major party nominee knowing that he will engage in a foreign policy that endangers American lives here and abroad as well as foreign non-combatants, you are morally responsible for their blood.
Similarly, if you vote for either major party nominee knowing his record, not only against foreign lives, [but the lives of our own women and children] you are morally responsible for their blood. I could not live with myself if I looked into the mirror and saw with my mind’s eye the blood of the innocents dripping from my fingers. If this doesn’t bother you, then this issue would not prevent you from voting for one of the major party nominees.
Let’s be Practical
Practically, my vote would not make a difference. According to conventional wisdom, the State of Washington is solidly for the President. I have heard third-hand that insiders with the Governor think he may win this state. If the Governor wins this state, he would only do that with a massive electoral victory throughout the nation. For this reason, my vote for the Governor or otherwise won’t matter. Similarly, the Governor will almost certainly win Idaho. If the President wins Idaho, your vote for the Governor or otherwise won’t matter either. The only way this would actually matter is if the voter lived in a ‘swing’ state. For this reason, the practical effects of my voting do not prevent me from voting for the one candidate who I am sure will keep all of the candidate’s political promises and never change any of the candidate’s political positions: I am voting for no one for president.
“And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”
Therefore, vote your conscience.
This is the fourth of four parts, voting for conscience or voting by triangulation…
The whole series: