|
What a crock of Baloney.� Lies and
distortions are so appealing to the uninformed. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Hughes Jonathan Very true Terry. Here is the article
that interested me more than the first one. It addresses the 'vote for
the lesser of two evils' theory: THE LESSER OF TWO DANGERS
We are way past the need to surmise which presidential
candidate from the one-party charade is the "lesser of two evils."
With Kerry's stunning admission that he too would have invaded Iraq - even
knowing that Iraq had no WMD, no connection to 9/11 and posed no danger to
America - the final merger of the Bush/Kerry ticket is now complete. Consequently, short of a "second party" election
miracle, we will be swearing in a warmongering, big-government-loving socialist
in January. Since a simple coin toss could determine which half of the
Bush/Kerry ticket is the lesser evil, that question is a non-issue. What we
really need to understand is which one of them will be the least dangerous to Will both halves of the Bush/Kerry ticket propose the same
amount of massive government programs for jobs, schools and global imperialism?
Without a doubt. Will both halves of the Bush/Kerry ticket support increasing
the crushing load of taxes, the income transfer schemes, the exploding debt and
the oppressive regulations that are choking off our productivity? They
certainly will! Will both sides of the Bush/Kerry ticket support a further
erosion of our freedoms and the destruction of our borders? You can count on
it! It is a given that either half of the Bush/Kerry team will
continue the relentless attack on our culture with an equal fervor. So what we
need to start focusing on, is which one of them has the least chance of being
able to pull it off. From 1992-2000
the Sure, the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 was a
complete ruse, but when The evidence is fairly conclusive; when an unabashed
socialist Democrat is in office, the Republicans at least pretend to act like
the opposition party. But when an unabashed socialist Republican like Bush is
in office, the Republicans lose their collective heads and give him everything
he wants. How else could Bush have gone almost four years without a single
veto? George Bush has proved himself to be incapable of abiding
by the oath he swore to defend the Constitution. Under his leadership,
4,000,000 (that's four million!) American children have been murdered in the
abortion holocaust, the budget has been completely busted, the debt has
exploded, our freedoms are threatened as never before, and we were dragged into
an illegal war that has led to thousands of casualties and hundreds of billions
of dollars squandered from our (bankrupt) national treasury. By any objective measure, George Bush is unfit to lead this nation for another four
years. Is the prospect of a Kerry presidency every bit as
abhorrent as four more years of Bush? The mere thought of it is absolutely
sickening! But Kerry is likely to be the least
dangerous of the two because historically, "conservatives"
would regain a little of their backbone and deny him the ability to finish the
job of destroying this nation. Of course, rather than trying to figure out the
"lesser evil," or the "lesser danger," the right thing to
do is to vote for a candidate who will defend
our Constitution, defend our
borders, protect our unborn and restore our liberties. The right thing to do is to vote for Michael Peroutka, the
only real American patriot running for President. He has committed to
"promote a civil government in these The right thing to do (and I know this may sound a little
crazy) is to vote your conscience and let God
worry about the results! � 2004 David Brownlow - All Rights Reserved Jonathan Hughes From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Hughes Jonathan wrote: I am not sure about this guy. I have
looked at a few more of his articles (the link is at the bottom of my first
post). Sounds like he has an axe to grind. He makes too many off
the cuff remarks without backing them up. Makes for fun reading if one
goes in already agreeing with him but I would like to see his concepts worked
out. Jonathan Hughes Everyone has an ax
to grind. The question is not, " Is he showing partiality? The
question is,"Are the facts presented lies or truth? This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential
and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please
notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy
any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than
the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your
cooperation in connection with the above. |
- RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Party Hughes Jonathan
- RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Party ShieldsFamily
- RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Party Hughes Jonathan
- Re: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Party ShieldsFamily
- Re: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Party Knpraise
- Re: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Party Judith H Taylor
- Re: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Party Judith H Taylor
- Re: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Party Knpraise
- RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Party Hughes Jonathan
- Re: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Party Knpraise
- RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Party Hughes Jonathan
- Re: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Party Knpraise
- RE: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Party Hughes Jonathan
- Re: [TruthTalk] Constitutional Party [EMAIL PROTECTED]

