By AB Dawson 12/21/00

With the Election over and the electoral college votes in, it’s safe to say that George W. Bush is the President elect.

Throughout my daily travels, I speak to a wide variety of individuals of many backgrounds. From top executives to folks who clean the offices at night. One theme comes out loud and clear. That there is not a cognizant understanding of what actually happened in Florida. While it is also clear that many don’t have the time to listen to all the nonsense, most have the time to get the correct information but limit themselves to only a few narrowly defined sources.

One would think that by watching the major TV news outlets and reading the local and national papers and periodicals, each would have all the information to understand the story behind the story. But most do not.

To understand the total picture one must look at both sides of the story. This cannot happen if you limit yourself to just the mainstream national media. Because, as most already know, the national mainstream media has been taken over by the liberal socialists. One must also find other sources not limited to the national mainstream media such as Internet sources, conservative cable news shows, talk radio and other national conservative periodicals. The sad part is that all do not have access to these sources or the inclination to listen to all sides of the stories.

I hear the same mantra repeated over and over by the National media and repeated again by those who are not inclined to listen to both sides.

1. Every vote should count.
2. Blacks were denied their voting rights (in Fla.).
3. Bush stole the election.
4. People were confused by the process and or the ballots and called their congressman.
5. We should abolish the electoral college.

Let’s take "Every Vote Should Count".

Every vote did count. In some cases the vote was counted four times.

1. The original vote.
2. The mandated recount.
3. A hand recount in Selected Heavy Democratic counties.
4. A second recount in Selected Heavy Democratic counties using different standards.

In every case Bush stayed the winner. Which leads us to the next question: Who stole or was stealing the Election.

Bush stole the election.

With Bush winning the original count and the official recount, he rightly won the election. He did not steal the election in any way. As to who was stealing what, eyes should look to Al Gore and his unprecedented move to recount until he got enough votes from heavy democratic counties. When that failed to produce a win, the rules were changed to count all manner of indents, hanging chads etc. until he pulled ahead. Then , I believe the press would take over and declare him the winner. Make no mistake, the plan all along was to keep counting until the vote was somehow changed.

It’s interesting to note that Al Gore’s recount fiasco was probably brought about by the Democrats bungling instructions to the senior community to punch the wrong number corresponding to Pat Buchanin. The Dems when realizing their mistake called the Texas phone marketing company to call about ten thousand Fla. voters and ask them to call the precinct or their congressman to complain that the ballot was confusing This setup the main premise that somehow the voters were cheated in Bush’s favor.

It’s also interesting to note that while the inventor of the voteomatic machines said that in a close election a hand count might be necessary, He also said that dimpled chads are impossible to make if voting correctly. It has been found that by inserting more than one ballot in the machine or by stacking cards together on a hard surface and using the stylus it was possible to make dented votes. But both of these methods are cheating the system and in fact you would be voting more than once. I can’t think of a time that I have voted and have been handed more that one ballot by the election official.

Of course the race card had to be played as it was during the campaign with the outrageous campaign ad for Gore blaming Bush for the dragging death of a black in Vidor Texas. It was not a surprise for the Jessie Jackson contingent to stir the pot in Florida.

That Blacks were denied their voting rights by some conspiracy has been proven false. Blacks had the same opportunity to vote as everybody else had. Yes, lines were long but that’s no reason to go home. Some voting machines were said to have been older but in working order. What happened was that many were confused not by the instructions but because they were first time voters and had not been instructed in the voting process. It has always been the voters responsibility to do the research before he enters the polling place. If he messes up it is his responsibility to correct the problem before he leaves the polling place. He may ask for a new ballot if they punched more than one candidate for any office or help from any of the volunteers in how to work the process.

For those that preach this mantra we can say that they are not well informed as to the disadvantages to elect by popular vote. In a nutshell popular vote would disenfranchise most all of middle America. Federal elections would be decided by coastal large population centers. Much has been written about this and an excellent current article can be found at The New American Magazine web site at http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/01-01-2001/vo17no01_electoral.htm

Bottom line is your vote does count. Next time, know that your vote may be the deciding factor in any election in which you might participate. I think gone is the mentality that my vote won’t make any difference.

by AB Dawson 12/06/00

In separate court cases the Gore camp seeks to throw out thousands of votes by Florida voters. Cases in Martin and Seminole counties through a technicality would have the judges throw out thousands of votes by citizens in those two counties.

Even though Al Gore is not directly involved in these suits, he is actively encouraging them for obvious reasons.

Make no mistake, this is a direct attempt by the Gore Camp to steal the election even at the expense of legally cast absentee ballots. Of course the ballots returned consist mostly of military people and the fact that most military people cast their vote for George W. Bush is a big factor in the Gore thought process.

We see now that this is turned into the scorched earth mode. The voter be damned Al Gore will by any means win.

All of this is pretty underhanded in this writers view.

by AB Dawson 11/21/00

With the election continuing past the Tuesday deadline for certifying votes, select partisan counties continue to hand count votes. Three to one democrat election officials counting and finding (surprise) more Gore votes than Bush votes, defies statistical analysis.

However you cut it, with hundreds of chads on the floor after these counts and the county officials taping in chads for Bush and leaving chads punched and the divining of intent of the voters by partisan officials, it’s no surprise that Gore is gaining votes!

Gore partisans tried to change the rules on the fly by asking for the "dimpled" chads to be counted as gore votes and then banned the press from viewing the election.

Outraged voters by the thousands should be calling every congressman , senator and the vice Presidents office to protest the disqualification of thousands of military votes by the democrats. The Democrats, knowing full well that the majority of military votes would be for Bush masterminded the elimination of every vote possible.

It has been learned that the Gore campaign has been quietly investigating the Florida republican electors to see how they might be persuaded to change there vote for Bush to Gore. In other words BLACKMAIL! No change from the Clinton administration tactics here. Gore says that he is his own man, and his administration would be a new beginning. From these actions we believe not. More than ever these actions are most despicable, to deny our servicemen their vote, while protecting our rights, they are given none.

Dems hire telemarketing firm to influence voters.
Election eve calls to Palm Beach voters urge recount.

by AB Dawson
11/13/00 19:40

A Texas telemarketing firm, Telequest, hired by the Democratic Party to influence voters in Palm Beach, Florida said it was hired to call 10,000 voters in the last 45 minutes before the polls closed to tell voters that they may have voted for the wrong presidential candidate.

Congressman Robert Wexler said he had received hundreds of calls from his district concerning a questionable ballot. In reality voters were told by the telemarketing firm to give their names to the polling place if they thought they had made a mistake with their vote and were even told to return to the polling place to leave their names. The names given Telequest , about 2400, were then forwarded to the Democratic National Party. If the voter had not voted it instructed them to vote for number 5 for Gore Leiberman.

As suspected by this writer, this upwelling of "concerned voters was bogus, a put up job by the Democrats. The whole situation was planned to throw a monkey wrench into the process to subvert the voters will, to steal the vote from Bush.

Gore tries to steal vote in Florida
Marxist tactics used to divide voters

by AB Dawson
11/12/00 17:00

Bush wins in Florida. Yet the gore campaign continues to use the Marxist technique of division, sowing doubt in select groups to divide and conquer. The Communists use this method to use pressure from the top and from below. From the top the Gore campaign continues to fan the flames, from the bottom a group of party hacks and rebel rousers continues to move through the streets and news outlets to fan the flames from the bottom. This is a classic Marxist technique used to subvert a nations political processes.

Who are these private people that have filed private lawsuits? Are they lawsuits that were filed without any pressure from the gore campaign or are these party hacks controlled by the national democratic party. It is this writers opinion that these lawsuits should carefully scrutinized by the American people. If the lawsuits are found to be nothing more than a move by political hacks to subvert the political process then the penalties should be severe.

Another technique used by Marxists is to try to change the rules of the game after the game is over. Cries from the left to elect the president by popular vote and the "will" of the people are the "standard" of "from above and below" methods mentioned above. With this latest "hand" count, the Democrats recount now moves out of the political realm and into the subversive. Hand counts are very subjective and un-scientific and being taken in highly democrat voting districts is highly suspect. The democrats refuse to say when this "process" will end. No doubt only if the count finally goes their way.

With other states now going to Gov. Bush and with still others going to close margins, rumors of the military not receiving ballots is leading to the question, "Did the Clinton administration try to influence the election by denying military personal mail in ballots?" Knowing full well that the military is fed up with the Clinton administration it would not surprise this writer.

It’s time for the American people to rise up in one voice and put a stop to this subversion. Call your Senator, and congressman and tell them enough of these Marxist tactics

8-18-00

It all started this past Monday. Early in the doings, the Boy Scouts were participating in an opening ceremony. The California Delegation jeered and booed these boys, presumably because they want queers not Scouts. The news media stonewalled the incident – of course, what else might we expect.

About 5000 unwashed tried to have a noisy rock festival outside the Staples Center because they are not in favor of anything that the rest of us can understand. The police quieted the band by unplugging the electricity driving the amplifiers then chased the goofs away.

Hillary stuck her face in the spotlight to campaign for a 3000 mile away political seat. She impresses this writer as being a snake on two feet. Do understand that if she manages to slither into the U.S. Senate we will all be negatively impacted by her planned actions – even those of us who do not live in New York.

Then it came time for the hollow shell remains of Bill Clinton to take center stage. When it comes to ego, his has not deteriorated in the least – he still thinks he owns the limelight. When it comes to his finely honed ability to misrepresent, he was as good as ever. He still, with a straight face, takes full credit for anything good that has happened and quickly off loads responsibility for the rest on others. He bid farewell to the screaming liberals and told them that Gore is a good man.

The entertainment celebrities continue to support the far-left liberal agenda. They even go so far as to chip in significant campaign contributions only to be insulted over the use of their mansion for a party party. Somehow, these very affluent people have apparently been suckered into a guilt feeling. After all they have more material wealth than they can count while there are those in our society who have very little. I have no problem with them assuaging their guilt but do have serious objections to their mechanism. They simply want a run amuck liberal government to drain your and my resources through oppressive taxation and inefficiently spend the money on the underclass and their other favorite flawed programs. From my prospective a better plan would involve each one of them going into the streets and fetch up a homeless or two and take them to their mansion to live. They also like to tell stories about what a wreckage the State of Texas has become since GW started running as the opposition. They further make a game out of attacking GW over the fact that the Texas criminal justice system (not GW, by the way) sent a string of killers to their maker. We, in Texas rest more securely knowing that Carla Faye Tucker will never again swing that pick-axe; that Mrs. Beets will not murder another husband or two; that Gary Graham will never again prowl the Houston streets looking for another honkey to waste; and all the others in that list have had their crime career terminated. We still have a big bunch on death row – maybe the Hollywood Celebrities, who so vocally object, could use a house-boy.

Then it was time for some of the old re-treads. We got to hear the old tired garbage about the Kennedy’s and Camelot. Ted spoke at length in traditional Democratic words and phrases. He looked like the Pillsbury Doughboy wearing the shirt that had been shrunk by the waters of Chappaquiddick.

Joe Lieberman checked his brain, his spine, and his principles at the door – this was a requirement in order for him to be there. And, he said he was proud to be there! Joe had been accused of flipping on issues from time to time. We all know that he had harsh words for Slick during the impeachment brouhaha, but miserably failed the test when it came time to vote. Whatever good feelings we may have had in the past for Joe Lieberman, his character, his patriotism and conservative commitment to the Constitution – they just took a flop. Joe Flip-Flop has become a hard core liberal in the hopes of rising to the level of Vice President. And if it should work, then he will surely believe that it is the proper approach.

The Gore family ran about trying to be certain that we understood that he has a family. Amazing, we did not say that we thought he was a tree stump, only that he acted much like one. By the time that Al Gore got to the stage and began to speak, I had the definite feeling that I was watching Stupid Al on Married With Children. They showed Tipper again – no tight sweater, no big knockers, and no red hair – I came back to my senses to realize that this McGovern Democrat really exists today and has a following. He made a light weight slap at Nixon. If we had it to do over again, I surely would not want to see McGovern and the flower children perform. And by the way, Nixon’s stunt pales in comparison to those of Gore’s mentor, Mr. W. J. Clinton. Gore plowed forward suggesting that he envisions a big government program for everything imaginable so long as the goodies are delivered to the "right people". By the way, all of us who are the successful working class are expected to pick up the tab for this folly. What, pray tell, does this dumbo see as the flywheel of this great country. Of course, his prospective is seriously different from yours and mine. He has yet to realize that there was anything wrong with being the mule for Clinton’s Chinese money!

There were a myriad of other speakers and a constant flood of Liberal Democratic rhetoric. On balance, the Democrats must report business as usual – no changes. They are still driven by evil forces to do evil things to our great nation all at great constitutional and financial  expense to you and me.

By A.V. Horton
10-2-00

Anyone who has been paying even a small amount of attention with a tiny bit of valid thought knows this monster exists at the core of the Executive Branch of our government. This monster is a freedom eater that munches along full speed each and every day with the intent to destruct your and my freedoms. It is done with malice and forethought – do not for one instant believe that Al Gore is stupid, even though he does a formidable job of being ‘The Great Pretender’.

Gore, Clinton, Reno, and the huge group of Liberals in Congress knows exactly for whom they diligently work, and it is not for the citizens of this great land!

Thanks to America’s 1^st Freedom magazine for the graphic.

By A.V. Horton
10-2-00

Clinton recently ordered that oil be taken from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. He advertised that gasoline and heating oil prices can be lower as a result of this move.

There are serious flaws in this story:

1. Getting Al Gore elected is not a valid use of the strategic reserve even though the Liberal Democrats think that it is.
   
2. The petroleum in the reserve is crude oil. It is of no use to the consumer until it has been refined. The refineries in the U.S. are currently operating at about 96% of their capacity. Our refineries are typically designed to run about 93% of their capacity around the year on average. The other 7% is used for routine and emergency maintenance and other events (tanks full or tanks empty, for example) leading to short term low production levels. Historically, this industry has determined that 93% is about all there is for long term operations. The result is that there is currently no available refining capacity in this country to refine additional crude oil.
   
3. A major portion of the oil in the reserve was put there in the late 1970’s. World crude oil prices were about $15-20 per barrel in those days. We bought many millions of barrels of crude oil from Mexico at $34 per barrel to fill the reserve. The politicians of the day were using this over priced purchase to prop up the faltering Mexican economy. The American taxpayer shouldered this burden and did not even know it! Now, Clinton and Gore have some sleight of hand scheme for the oil companies to obtain the oil now and replace it later with money flowing around in undefined fashion. They, no doubt, also have a scheme for short-term downward manipulation of refined products pricing leading to the election. This writers bet is that the taxpayers will be bonked again by the time the dust settles.
   
4. The only valid solution to this problem is a comprehensive energy policy in this country designed around the interests of Americans. Such a policy must include drilling for oil and gas. Our political leaders from both parties, under pressures from the greenies, have failed miserably to date on this issue.

Bush and Cheney have oil industry knowledge resulting from their having worked in the industry. They have been seriously attacked for this work history. Gore simply enjoys the benefits that accrue to him through sizeable stock holdings in Occidental Petroleum. His father (Senator D-TN) was a close friend to Armand Hammer of Occidental who was illegally involved with Russia during the cold war years. The Gore Occidental holdings were, no doubt, delivered as thanks for political assistance – probably to keep the illegal doings under wraps. It seems apparent that the needs of we Americans have a far better chance of being served by Bush than by Gore.

A.B. Dawson
10/5/00

During Tuesday’s debates al Gore just couldn’t refrain from telling more … well … lets just call it what it is, lies.

Al did not go with James Lee Witt to Texas in 1996 for the fires in Texas.

Al grossly misrepresented a situation in Florida about a young student, Kailey Ellis, not having a seat in a science class.

Al's claim that the richest 1% get the majority of the tax breaks proposed by "W".

The facts in these statements are on the record. The larger problem is if Al Gore will lie to a estimated 90 million people on the biggest debate of the year, what would he do as President in a critical foreign policy crisis or worse?

How would he be truthful to congress? Would he make stories out of thin air to influence lawmakers to suit his own political agenda? Would congress repeatedly have to check the facts before making a decision? When seconds count it could mean lives.

Would Al Gore lie to further his political agenda? This writer says YES! He continues to do so in this political campaign.

I believe this is a serious character flaw. As we all know by now, character DOES matter. Because if character is in place, we can always trust that person to do the right things. It then becomes unnecessary to continually double-check his answers.

Does lying indicate character? Of course not, lying only causes more deception to cover for the lies told before. Can we trust a liar to be president? Not again!

The following is the original article from Liz Michael 

Why I Am Voting For Bush

by Liz Michael, www.lizmichael.com 

(For immediate release)

One vote can mean a lot. It gave Thomas Jefferson the presidency, saved Andrew Johnson's presidency, gave Marcus Morton the Massachusetts governorship, and in 1993 approved the largest tax increase in history. That vote belonged to Al Gore, interestingly enough. On November 7, a small number of Americans who care will go to the polls and cast a vote in probably the closest Presidential election in 40 years. Who gets that vote, and who gets your vote, could prove to be critical. I am voting for George W. Bush. And it isn't even a hard decision for me.

Why DO People Vote?

Why DO people vote, and how do they vote? People vote almost always for one of four reasons. Those reasons would be:

1. Because the candidate (or proposition) represents their views about 80% or more.

2. Block voting. This includes party lines, racial lines, gender lines, union orders, whatever.

3. To vote the lesser of two evils, or

4. To oppose a great evil.

Now, I need to clarify that voting the lesser of two evils, and voting against a great evil, are two different things. I think one of the problems certain people have understanding those of us who will vote for Bush is because they see Bush as another evil, and they THINK we're voting the lesser evil. I want to address that question last, and it will become crystal clear that I don't see George W. Bush as the lesser evil in this election.

Firstly, I will frankly admit that I am not voting for Bush because he represents 80% of my political world view. I am a small government, conservative libertarian, and Bush is certainly not small government or libertarian, and he frankly isn't all that conservative as Republicans go.

Secondly, I do not engage in block voting. Never have, never will. I am too independent thinking to ever vote anyone's party line. Albeit I will frankly admit that whenever I have voted for a Democrat, I have usually lived to regret it.

Al Gore, the Great Evil

So let's document the primary reason I am voting for Bush. Bush is the only man who can beat Al Gore and Al Gore is the Great Evil in this election to be avoided at all costs. Now, I frankly don't like Al Gore. But I don't like most politicians. I think Al Gore is as big of a liar as Bill Clinton, but then again, most pols are. What precisely IS so evil about Al Gore?

1. Al Gore wants to shred the Constitution. He will lead an all out assault on our civil liberties, on our first amendment and our fourth amendment rights. And also, and most importantly our second amendment rights. A victory by Al Gore will be a message to both American politicians and the American people that the Second Amendment is dead, and the government can feel safe in riding roughshod over all civil liberties including gun rights.

But an Al Gore win will be more than just a message. Al Gore will undercut the ability of the American people to rebel against the government. You see, the second amendment is not about hunting ducks and deer. The second amendment is about preserving arms ownership in private hands so that the people may thwart the enemies of this nation. Every intrusion you have witnessed under the Clinton administration you will see tenfold under a Gore administration.

The militia clause of the second amendment is clear. The founders knew two things. Firstly they knew that domestic tyrants would abound, and would have to be put in their place. This is why the Revolution was fought. This is why the Civil War, or as some of us unreconstructed Southrons would say, the War of Northern Aggression, was fought. It is why the next Revolution shall be fought. The advocates of gun control are in reality fighting against the next American Revolution in advance, through a crazy quilt of laws that make firearms sales and ownership difficult.

But it wasn't just domestic tyrants that the founders had in mind. They also envisioned a day when Americans would probably have to fight a war on this soil against foreign invaders. In such an invasion, having arms only in the hands of the military would prove disastrous. But having arms privately owned among the whole populace would be a great asset to a nation, and may well save a nation from conquest. The advocates of gun control know this, too. The advocates of gun control seek to weaken this nation so that foreign invaders may easily conquer it. They may deny it all they want, but 90% of the time, you scratch the surface of a gun controller, you find someone anxious to weaken the ability of this nation's people to defend themselves in the event of a foreign invader.

Isn't Bush As Bad As Gore On Guns?

The concept that Bush-Cheney would be as bad as Gore-Lieberman on guns is laughable on its face. Bush has an established record granting the shall-issue license to concealed carry of firearms in the state of Texas, and Dick Cheney has one of the most pro gun owner records EVER for a U.S. Congressman. The National Rifle Association nearly brags about the Bush-Cheney White House and the leverage they would have in it.

Should the need for a Revolution arise, I feel we will be in better position to conduct it after a Bush Presidency than after a Gore Presidency. Should this country be invaded by hostile foreign forces, we can better avert those forces locally under a Bush Presidency than under a Gore Presidency. This is a no brainer, in my opinion. Is Bush perfect on guns? No. But the difference between Bush and Gore on guns is so stark that it cannot be lightly dismissed.

2. The economy. Under Al Gore's proposed agenda, the so-called reinventor of government would nearly triple its size, and undoubtedly increase taxes drastically to pay for his pet programs. You will have less money to spend of your own. Moreover, Al Gore's environmental agenda will result in increased government power and bureaucratic terror over anyone who conducts a business or owns property. Even your freedom of movement is jeopardized, if Al Gore gets his "Earth In The Balance" wishes fulfilled: your automobile, with its internal combustion engine, is on his hit list. It is his desire that gasoline taxes skyrocket: conveniently, these higher taxes will help to feed his vision of expanded government. Fewer businesses. Greater unemployment. Less freedom.

Economically, Al Gore is a depression waiting to happen. But even THAT'S not the worst of it. With increased taxation and increased regulation will come increased persecution of the innocent taxpayer by the IRS, and more Americans in prisons. Clinton's record of using the IRS to punish his political opponents is notorious. And Clinton is, in Gore's eyes, "one of our greatest Presidents". You do the math.

3. Educational freedom. Gore's war on vouchers is actually only a key strategy of a bigger plan. Namely the National Education Association, and other teachers' and school administrative unions, inflicting their omniscient will over every American family and every American child. Never mind that 72% of black Americans support vouchers: Gore and the NEA don't give a rat's ass about something as vital as a black child's education.

Don't think this will stop at the public schools. Private schools, parochial schools, and home schooling are also on the hit list of these monopolistic megalomaniacs. If you are a home schooling parent, these people will have you hauled into court and have your children taken away from you. And these people are Al Gore's best friends.

4. The Supreme Court. This reason is the one the Libertarian Party discounts as a wash. Again, this is laughable on its face. Gore will appoint justices who believe, as he does, in a "growing Constitution". In other words, his appointees will shred the Bill of Rights, and leave you with less freedom. I am more optimistic about Bush's choices, who at least have a good chance of being strict constructionists like Clarence Thomas, who will halt this cancer upon the American republic known as the "Evolving Constitution".

5. Foreign policy and the military. Gore is, like Bill Clinton, sold out to the Communist Chinese. Do I need to even remind people of the Chinese financing of the 1996 Democratic campaign, which Gore was a key and instrumental part of, and of the subsequent sale of nuclear secrets, of which the Los Alamos affair was but the tip of the iceberg? Furthermore, using the connections his father developed with Occidental Petroleum's Armand Hammer, he is sold out to the Russians, and should we ever have to fight the Russians, with its nuclear arsenal quite intact, this is the wrong man to be running our government.

How bad will Gore be for the American military? Gore sold his 1991 Gulf War vote to the highest bidder. According to former Senator Alan Simpson, Gore offered to support whichever side "would offer him the most and the best speaking time." The night before the vote, he barked at the GOP Senate secretary, "Dammit, Howard! If I don't get 20 minutes tomorrow, I'm going to vote the other way."

What is the Clinton-Gore military record that we can expect more of under Gore? Eight years of magnificent neglect. Sorties over Yugoslavia funded by cannibalizing operations and maintenance accounts. A burgeoning inventory of increasingly capable Third World coastal submarines vs. a naval budget for subs scheduled to be reduced to zero by 2005. The reduction of the military budget to two-thirds of what it was in 1985. Twenty percent of carrier-deployed F-14s which do not fly. Forty percent of Army helicopters rated insufficient to their tasks. Army gas masks with a 50% failure rate. Insufficient flying times for pilots. Brigade officials pressured to falsify readiness ratings. I don't think our military could be in any worse shape if the Soviets had been running it for us, willfully sabotaging it. Of course, Moscow is no longer the Soviet capital: apparently Washington is.

What if the eventuality I mentioned earlier in the gun control segment, came to pass, and foreign troops managed to set foot on our soil? Who will compromise the government more? Who will compromise the people more? Even Ralph Nader in the White House wouldn't be nearly as dangerous as Al Gore under these circumstances. I'm no globalist seeking a Pax Americana maintained with American military might. But can't you plainly see the erosion of the American military under Clinton-Gore is not by accident but by design?

Now some will argue that Bush and Cheney are beholden to the New World Order ... my response... even if that is so, I would rather have the Bush NWO right now, with the US somewhat on top and in control of it, than have the Clinton-Gore NWO that would likely bring us Chinese and Russian troops marching down our streets.

However, consider the following. George W. Bush professes to be a very religious man. As a religious man, I consider his heart may just be open to a divine message to do what is right for his country, and not what is right for some of his financial backers. I see no other candidates open to such a concept. And while I do not presume to be the judge of Albert Gore Jr.'s soul, I just don't sense in him anything remotely approaching a willingness to follow a divine call.

The Best Shot At Beating "The Great Evil"

In short, to oppose the great evil, we must vote for the candidate who has the best shot at taking out that great evil. No other candidate but George W. Bush even remotely has that capability. In short, with Bush, far from being "a lesser evil", most of our problems will either be stopped in their tracks or moved in the opposite direction, as opposed to Gore, where they will pick up momentum like an oncoming freight train.

Additionally, I know that the big media machine will help move Gore's evil agenda. I don't think Bush gets the same bounce, so if he's pushing something evil, the media probably won't be all over themselves trying to help him do it. Bush represents a better balance of power from our standpoint.

What About The Third Party Candidates

Now, lest any of you say that I'm a GOP loyalist, so of course, I'm saying that, in the Massachusetts Senate race, I am saying completely the opposite. The only way remotely possible to defeat Teddy Kennedy is with the Libertarian, Carla Howell. I believe EVERY REPUBLICAN and EVERY conservative Democrat, and ANYONE who cares about civil liberties AT ALL should vote for the Libertarian there. Am I a Republican loyalist? Not by a long shot. I think half the GOP Congress deserve to be thrown out on their traitorous asses. I just don't think they should be replaced by Democrats.

However, let's look at the third party field this year. In my opinion, it's the worst that it ever has been. Ralph Nader, who is getting most of the third party play, is not as much of an outright danger in government as Gore, and perhaps, would instill a touch of honesty to Washington, but is still a liberal, and would still inflict disastrous economic liberal policies upon us.

Patrick Buchanan is a dangerous megalomaniac, who in a zeal to get $12.5 million conducted a scorched earth campaign upon a minor party, virtually destroying it: we should not even entertain the concept of Buchanan anywhere NEAR the White House, given how he has shown his true colors.

Harry Browne isn't seriously running for President: rather, he and his party hacks in the national Libertarian Party are raiding sympathetic libertarians and pocketing the money, a repeat of the most disgraceful display the so-called "Party of Principle" has ever had. Does it surprise us that it is headquartered in the Watergate Hotel?

John Hagelin thinks our national problems can be alleviated by all of us chanting "OHM" and being brainwashed into Transcendental Meditation. 'Nuff said.

Howard Phillips, although I think he is a legitimate good guy, has forgotten that the purpose of the founders was a free country, as opposed to a Christian one. And as such, I fear he would unknowingly lead us into the very kind of government the historical New World Order has always been: a Christian theocracy. Having seen the Holy Roman Empire and the Church of England, I can confidently say I want none of that.

Sending a Message

Sending a message is fine, when the election is a foregone conclusion. For example, in the Feinstein-Campbell California Senate election, we all know that Feinstein is going to roll. So voting for Gail Lightfoot is a strong option to consider. And let me say that I know Gail Lightfoot, and she is a friend of mine: trust me, Tom Campbell is no Gail Lightfoot and is no libertarian. John Kyl, in Arizona, faces no Democrat on the ballot: message-sending isn't a bad idea there either. And Presidential elections go state by state. If you live in Texas, for instance, Bush will win Texas. So sending a message by voting for someone else causes no harm there. And if I had a candidate I could vote for among the third parties, maybe I'd think about sending a message.

But looking at the third parties this year, why bother even thinking that way? George W. Bush is in my opinion, the clear moral superior of them all anyway. Is he perfect? No. No man is. Does he agree with me 100%? Not even close. Would I completely trust him as President? I don't think I would even completely trust MYSELF as President. Could he betray us? Yes he could. But Al Gore and Bill Clinton already HAVE. And as such, I think Bush stands head and shoulders above all Presidential competition in 2000.

President Gore

One more thing. Many of you know that I rather shamelessly advocate the "Time Honored Tradition" of the founding fathers, namely violent revolution when necessary. But in truth, I would much prefer this country be restored by ballot box rather than cartridge box. And that is my final reason for supporting Bush: to avoid the Revolution.

Mark these words carefully. A President Bush may delay the need for the Revolution. Should the deity decide to utter the right words to President Bush at the critical time, there is a chance that a President Bush will heed the wisdom, and make a Revolution not necessary. I can envision a President Bush heeding the divine.

I cannot envision President Gore doing any such thing. With President Gore, a full revolution, in all its bloodiness, is inevitable. Even if it does not happen on his watch, President Gore will oppress us with policies that will leave freedom loving Americans with no recourse but violent revolution against the federal government, and no successor will be able to prevent it, in all its stark bloodiness. I don't simply predict it. As one of those freedom loving Americans, I can guarantee it.

With that in mind, have a pleasant November 7th, and choose carefully.

(Copyright 2000, LizMichael.com, All RIghts Reserved. Permission to reprint granted nonexclusively so long as the author and web page are referenced.)