Kasich throws away his vote by writing in John McCain, who isn’t even running. What could possibly be his motive? —Controlled Opposition. Rush Limbaugh said this, yesterday:
“The theory behind “controlled opposition” is this: that Republican elected elites work with the Democrats by controlling just how much actual opposition to the Democrats there is.
“And in this way, by maintaining controlled opposition, Republicans are able to stay in close association with Democrats. Controlled opposition is a way of limiting how strident and successful conservatives are in opposing Democrats.
“Here’s the bottom line. It’s no more complicated than this. John Kasich does not think that it’s important to defeat Hillary Clinton. Who cares why! All you need to know is that. If John Kasich, the governor of Ohio, who has… Since he’s the governor, he has the mechanisms to get ground game activity going to facilitate the Republican nominee.
“If he wanted to, he could do a lot to help Trump in Ohio. Instead, he is choosing not to. So John Kasich — and he’s not alone. John Kasich has made it clear that defeating Hillary Clinton and Democrats is not his primary objective. I don’t… What more do you need to know?
“The Never Trumpers have done the same thing. The Never Trumpers have made it clear that, in their worldview, defeating Hillary is not the most important challenge in this election. Defeating Trump is. Keeping Trump out of power is viewed by many Republicans as the primary objective.” [End of quote.]
I say this: I used to think that Never Trumpers took the path of opposing Trump because they were unaware of what an enormous threat to America a Clinton presidency would be.
Silly me! I spent weeks writing articles telling those who may not know, just how traitorous and America-hating Hillary Clinton is. I wrote, giving proof by her past actions, that she would do predictable, terrible things to our country.
I pointed out that—if you know nothing else—you do know that Clinton will continue what Obama has been doing, and we all reject his destructive actions.
Didn’t work: The Never Trumpers don’t even bother to read beyond the headlines of my pieces. Anything critical about Hillary holds no interest for them; they’re not even curious if they could learn something they didn’t know.
Like Rush said: They don’t care if Hillary Clinton wins. For whatever reason, all they care about is Trump NOT winning.
Maybe some of them are still angry about Trump’s treatment of Ted Cruz; aren’t we all?
But Cruz has asked them to vote for Trump to keep Hillary out. He gave a powerful reason: If she is elected, she will continue the “willful blindness” of the Islamist threat. FYI: this has the potential—and the intent—to destroy America.
But: many of them just ignored Ted Cruz’s plea.
Well, if that “willful blindness” argument doesn’t get to you, then you don’t care what happens to America. You can make all the rationalizations you wish: “both candidates are the same”; “I can’t vote for the lesser of two evils”; “Trump will do the same things Clinton would do”; “I’m voting my conscience.”
All these arguments make no sense, if you think about them for even one second. Voting your conscience is probably the worst of them. It dictates that you should vote for the candidate you like best, even if he can’t win, and even if voting for him will help Hillary Clinton win.
How could one’s conscience dictate taking this course? It’s like a man with a broken leg, who doesn’t want to choose either using crutches or a cane because they both stink, so instead he’ll do what he’d most like to do: keep walking without any assistance. No matter that he’s going to fall on his face; he’s followed his conscience.
In America, we cannot sit back as observers and let the candidate who would destroy America win the election, content that we’ve voted for the best candidate, the one who most perfectly represents our ideals. For me, that would be Darrel Castle, the Constitution Party candidate.
There’s just one problem: he can’t possibly win. We have to rethink what voting your conscience really means: to choose from among those who can win, the candidate who will be best for America. There are only two viable candidates: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
If you’re really following your conscience, it’d be impossible to allow Hillary Clinton to win and—for just one example of what she will do—bring in many more Muslim immigrants, with the intent of having them destroy our culture, as they are doing in Europe. She’s already worked with the world’s largest Muslim organization, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), to pass UN Resolution 16/18, which calls upon nations to “Adopt measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.” [See 5(f).]
Living under such a dictum means if you try to warn of our coming destruction, by holding a Mohammad cartoon contest, say—or even just speak out about the danger—and terrorists react by killing people, then YOU are at fault—not the terrorists. This is called “the test of consequences.” [H/T Clare Lopez.]
Clinton worked hard on this, and she will continue, as president, by appointing a SCOTUS justice who would make an exception to the First Amendment for speech that could incite violence—or even just incite hatred. Geert Wilders is on trial in the Netherlands for that very thing.
But that can’t happen here as long as we have our precious First Amendment—the most important protection in the Constitution, IMO. If your conscience would allow such a thing, then there’s something badly wrong with your conscience.