40 votes

Judge Nap: Should You Vote for President?

Can you vote by not voting? In a presidential election year in which the critical issues have been how much personal behavior the federal government should regulate and how much private wealth it should transfer and consume, rather than whether it should do so, many folks who are fed up with what George W. Bush and Barack Obama have brought us and fear more of the same from Mitt Romney are seriously suggesting that they will express their profound objection to big government by not voting for anyone for president.

On the other hand, I know many good freedom-loving people who are fed up with big government but view Romney as the lesser of two evils from whom they expect a turn away from the path of government sector growth and private sector shrinkage on which President Obama has taken us.

The president has stated in his campaign for re-election that he underestimated the weakness of economic forces, and he now knows that no one could have corrected them in the past four years. Essentially, his best argument is that he has consumed his first term learning what to do to correct our economic woes, and he needs another four years in office to put into effect what he has learned. He wants to borrow more and spend more and transfer more wealth.

What he fails to realize, of course, is that you cannot correct a problem essentially created by too much government borrowing and spending with more government borrowing and spending. The president’s values are Wilsonian: Personal freedom and private property can be subordinated to the common good; the federal government knows better than the free market how to bring about prosperity; killing is such an effective tool of foreign policy that the decision to kill cannot be vested in a Congress that can’t produce a budget; and the Constitution is merely a guideline to be consulted from time to time. I am sure he believes that our rights come from the government and not from our humanity.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

We have TWO messasges to send this time, so I'm voting Johnson.

My usual method for casting a vote, when the two major parties hand me Satan vs. Lucifer, is to vote for the visible candidate (minor party or counted write-in) whose STATED positions on the issues important to me is closest to mine and who makes these issues a major part of his campaign. By voting I tell the parties that HERE is a vote you COULD have had, and by picking such a candidate I tell them THAT is the direction you should change to try to get my vote next time.

By that rule, now that Ron Paul is a recognized (and thus counted) write-in candidate in California, I would normally vote for him. (I did this in the 2008 election.)

But this time around we have a somewhat different situation:
- Ron is retiring.
- Ron stuck with the Republican Party.
- The Republican Party proved itself to be totally corrupt in its (sometimes violent) suppression of the Ron Paul supporters. The people who did this are unfit to wield governmental power.
- The Republican Party changed its rules so its current rulers have become a self-perpetuating clique and grassroots reform attempts will fail.

This means we have another message to send, beyond our political positions. We must demonstrate that we will CONTINUE to be a force to be reckoned with, and that we are NOT tied to the party. We must show that locking us out of the party does NOT stop our movement from growing - it just means the party cut ITSELF off from that growth and energy, which will now occur elsewhere. EVEN IF IT WINS THE PRESIDENCY this time around we can show everyone that it has put itself on the same path as the Whigs.

Writing in Ron Paul might send a slightly clearer message about political position than voting for Gary Johnson. But it will send a confused message about our resolve. Voting for Ron will look like just sour grapes, like people who have differing goals, but who aren't willing to work OUTSIDE the Republican Party to achieve them.

Voting for Johnson says "We're not giving up the fight. Now that you've rejected us we'll build something ELSE up to eventually take you down!"

Yes, it's rigged. But even a rigged system can be toppled with enough effort and organization. Further, sometimes being rigged makes it even more vulnerable.

While the Libertarian Party may have some problems, there's nothing wrong with it that wouldn't be cured, automatically, by a big influx of people like us.

So that's why I'm voting for Johnson: To send TWO messages to ALL politicians, and to CONTINUE THE FIGHT to de-bloat the government and get it off all our backs.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

Let The Influx Begin

I reached the same conclusion back in the late 90's, and switched my voter registration to Libertarian. Shortly thereafter I was invited to attend party meetings, and then to join the party, and then to be a delagate to state, and then be a delegate to national. My experience was nothing like what the GOP put the Ron Paul supporters through in that party.

Sure, if we have more members, it may become more competitive to become a delegate, although often another state chapter will invite delegates to join them (without even asking who they support). We're very friendly, and always welcome someone new to argue with. No stealth-tactics needed.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

If All

Of us voted for Gary Johnson. He could very well get that certain percentage he needs in order to get that campaign money in 2016. I don't see why people who are writing in Ron Paul can't just sacrifice a vote towards Gary Johnson. Than in 2016, us Ron Paul people and Libertarians can choose which guy we want to continue the Revolution. I voted for Ron Paul during the Primary. Plus I was a delegate and witnessed fraud at the convention when they passed a ruling to control delegates right to choose who they want. We are never ever ever going to win the Republican Nominee now. They will do the same old crap they did this time around. Next time. We must look third party.

Where Have You Been?

IT'S RIGGED. Get that through your head. IT"S RIGGED! It doesn't matter how many votes someone gets they will lose to the the pigs that are in control. Why is it so hard for people to comprehend that? It's a joke! No amount of voting is going to fix this! We have to come up with a different course of action. STOP playing by "their" stupid rules!


Notice how the Judge doesn't even TALK about the silliness of

writing Ron Paul's name in?


I'm voting for Johnson. He does not fulfill all of my dream candidates stances.. Ron Paul. But, I feel that a message should be made that Romeny and Obama suck. Not voting doesn't leave a mark for anyone to look at. Writing in Ron Paul in states that the vote will not even be counted does the same. There are issues I do not feel comfortable with Johnson on. Those would never come to fruition without congresses and the states approval. So it doesn't bother me to cast this vote. Those other two slime-balls think they are dictators with the presidential orders that they should shove up their A!3.

It's time! Rand Paul 2016!

"Truth, Justice, and the American Way!"

Voted- 3rd party of course

I will not support the lesser of the 2 evils. Never!

so you will

be supporting the greater of 2 evils?

Isaiah 2:4
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Who to Vote For?

Now is the time to vote third party. Both the Democrat and Republican wings of our one-party-system continue to offer us Communism: the Democrats a takeover of our health care system, the disarming of the American people, their homosexual lifestyle, and the killing of the unborn, while the Republicans give us the Nazi Patriot Act, the TSA, the Department of Homeland Terrorism, torture, indefinite detention without charge and now, assassination of American citizens without trial.

So, it really doesn't matter which of these clowns get elected. They are just front men for those behind the scenes. Obama got millions of Americans to vote for him because he promised "change". Bush had become the most unpopular president in our history. Well, where is the change? There is no change. The talk is different, but it's all just professional wrestling. Obama and Romney are on the same team. Nothing is going to change.

That is, unless we elect people tp Congress with some backbone. This is nothing new. For decades, Congress has pretty much allowed the president to do as he pleases. Wage war without a declaration, issue "executive orders", and pretend that they are the law of the land, and now, allow the use of torture, indfinite imprisonment without any charge, and even assassination! Isn't this exactly the kind of thing Hitler and Stalin did?

I will vote third party, not because I expect my candidate to win, but because I refuse to play their game. Forget about the presidency - it's a lost cause. Concentrate on the Congress, and state sovereignty. By that I mean states taking back the powers they have relinquished to Washington.

If I recall correctly it was

If I recall correctly it was Obama who (explicitly) claimed the power to assassinate US citizens without trial. (Not that it matters - and that it DOESN'T matter IS the point.)

I'm voting for Johnston also - even though Ron is a recognized write-in candidate in California and I DID write him in last time.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

Wow! This is an interesting dilemma.

I personally have been leaning toward Gary Johnson though I vehemently disagree with him on certain points. Virgil Goode is another I haven't ruled out. It's obvious that Judge Napolitano is torn as to what to do. He's not the only one. Just before reading this I got my World Affairs Brief in from Joel Skousen who always votes on principle (you can get a free copy of today's entire newsletter at www.worldaffairsbrief.com) and shockingly he has changed his opinion of what to do mostly from the flagrant cheating that he sees happening in progress. It's clear he has thought this through. I've never seen a recommendation like this so I'm going to put this out there for your evaluation. I'll certainly be giving this consideration myself.



Early voting has already begun and despite all the hype about Obama’s strength, Romney is in the lead in several important swing states. But electronic vote fraud continues to loom as a threat and has the potential to deny Romney the victory in key populous states where the voting is close and the Democratic Party political machines are pulling out all the stops to re-elect Obama. In light of all that is stake, I’m altering some of my election recommendations. ...

... The election itself is turning into a major contest between good and evil and I have received numerous email pleas from conservatives around the country—concerned that my negative assessment of Romney (the non-insider who is pandering to the establishment) may do great damage to the country by helping re-elect Obama, giving us four more years of disaster.

I will concede that Obama will do a lot more direct damage to liberty in the next four years than Romney. His Supreme Court appointments will be arch liberals and corrupt lawyers who hate the constitution. He will attempt to push through UN treaties devastating to property rights and gun rights—not to mention his attempts to pass some international tax on all financial transactions – all of which will be tough to stop.

The “benefit” of this kind of evil in the White House is that good people will be more energized to fight. But if Obama succeeds, it may be too late for that increased fighting spirit to do much good or turn things around. And, we may have already passed the point of no return.

The kind of damage Romney would do is somewhat different. Even though not a dedicated globalist, he gives every indication that he will follow his neocon advisors into giving us a much more aggressive foreign policy, which will take him deeper into the globalist war agenda, even if he isn’t knowingly aware of where this is leading. Worse, he will succeed in talking a lot more conservatives into thinking these wars are just and good. They are not.

But, there is a chance—and this is what worries the PTB—that Romney might see too much illegal activity in the government and, like JFK, move to stop it. Then he, like Ronald Reagan, will face an assassination attempt.

Of course, the warpath Romney is treading will bust his ability to make any cuts at all in government deficit spending. But even without war, no president is going to have the votes to significantly cut government spending anyway—not even Ron Paul could do much outside of the president’s direct control—though he would at least veto the worst types of spending. Romney, at best, might lessen the growth of government, but the media will fight him tooth and nail on every issue and even foment social unrest in the streets if he succeeds in passing anything really damaging to their agenda.

As for Romney’s Supreme Court appointments, they will be more “moderate” than Obama’s but his advisors will push him to nominate controlled “moderates.” Always remember that the Senate has always been the big roadblock to a constitutional reform of the Supreme Court. It will never confirm the appointment of a true strict constructionist—someone who will reign in government and limit unconstitutional expansions of power. Romney has already admitted he won’t even try to reverse the abortion killing machine and the court precedents that sustain it.

I’ve always felt that if the dark side of government and media is going to shove globalism down our throats in both Republican and Democratic administrations, then it’s better that a puppet Democrat-president like Obama do it and get the blame rather than a moral Ronald Reagan type that will blacken the reputation of everything a Republican president is supposed to stand for. Under a compromising Romney, conservatives, Christians, and Mormon-Christians who hold that the Constitution is inspired of God, will suffer part of the blame for having supported him.

On the other hand, it is so painful to watch Obama’s cocky, controlled and smirking speaking style, his blatant lying about his Christianity, his wife’s defiant disgust for all things American, and manner in which the media worships his every move, I can’t help but think all of us long for a change.

I have long been committed to not vote for the “lesser of two evils” ever again. However, due to the unique circumstances of the current electoral battle and the tenacity in which the PTB are trying to re-elect Obama, I’m going to modify slightly my election recommendations.

I still think it is important, in states where conservatives will dominate, to send a message to the establishment that we won’t vote for either of the two major parties, which they control at the highest level. We must eventually get a more principled third party to become viable in the US, and the only way to do that is by voting for them in larger numbers.

I know many are planning on writing in Ron Paul’s name, in protest, but that won’t help the third party cause. You can help Ron’s cause better by voting third party, as Ron himself will do. In safe Red states a vote for Romney will neither help nor hinder, as our numbers are relatively small—so you don’t have to worry about “wasting” your vote or jeopardizing a Romney win by turning your vote into a protest. It sends a stronger message to the establishment to vote for a the Constitution or Libertarian Party candidate that has gone to all the trouble of getting on the ballot than to vote with the Republicans. The PTB are very worried about keeping a third party movement from becoming viable and we have to break that lock.

My personal support will go to the Constitution Party who is running Virgil Good for president. In some states, Will Christiansen is on the ballot for either the Constitution or the Independent American party which he heads—he’s a good friend and a faithful constitutionalist as well.

But I also think Gary Johnson of the Libertarian party is a pretty good candidate on most issues, and has a good track record in New Mexico. I personally can’t vote Libertarian due to their positions on abortion and gay marriage, but I think it’s an acceptable alternative for people who are in states where the Constitution party isn’t on the ballot.

In blue states, where the liberals heavily dominate, your vote for Romney won’t do anything one way or another either, so choose a third party to help increase its showing and stay on the ballot. If they don’t get a certain percentage of the vote during an election, they have to go through the arduous petition process to get on the ballot the next time.

However, in closely fought swing states (Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida), I’m going to recommend that people vote for Romney—not because I think he’s going to save us, but to make a maximum effort to thwart the establishment’s attempt to put Obama back in office via election fraud—characterized by the massive registration of non-citizens, the court’s denial of a state’s right to demand voter ID, and outright electronic altering of the vote tally.

I’m so mad because of all the manipulation I’ve documented in the past year, I’d really like to see the rigged election process fail. The kingmakers are limited in how much they can alter the vote tally as compared to exit polls which are usually very accurate. If they fudge the tally for Obama more than about 10% they raise huge suspicions of fraud—which they are reluctant to do. They actively fear people seeing conspiracy in action.

As important as the presidential election is don’t forget to vote for important ballot issues like California’s proposition 37 forcing GMO foods to appear on the label. Take special note of Congressional elections where the democrats are pulling all kinds of dirty tricks to stop up-and-coming leaders like Art Robinson in Oregon and Tim Baldwin in Montana from being elected and to outright defeat some of our most libertarian/conservative Representatives like Justin Amash of Michigan. We need fighters like these to echo Ron Paul’s voice in the upcoming Congress.



Yep, we should vote on Prop

Yep, we should vote on Prop 37, but against it! In a truly free society, businesses should not be forced to label anything.

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out: http://www.LibertyConservatives.com/


In a truly free society every individual has the right to know and to make a choice about what they are putting into their bodies. Monsanto is NOT a person and is NOT covered under the Constitution of The United States of America! True Liberty lovers believe that individuals have the right to chose what they do and the right to what they put into their own bodies "AS LONG AS THEY DO NO HARM TO OTHERS!" Individuals have the right to know if what they are eating can harm them so that they can make a CHOICE whether to consume it or not. You are very confused by the true meaning of the Constitution. They are not voting to ban GMO's in California but rather to require them to LABEL if their products contain GMO's so that individuals can make an intelligent choice. What part of this issue don't you understand?? You are standing for Corporatism rather than the INDIVIDUALISM!!


This isn't doing harm to others. If you believe GMOs are unhealthy, then these people who consume them are being ignorant and therefore it's their fault. It's just the same as if tobacco was unlabeled (although I understand there are some strange people on here that think tobacco is good for you), there would be people who would consume it ignorantly regardless. Do you support the labeling of tobacco?

"Individuals have the right to know if what they are eating can harm them so that they can make a CHOICE whether to consume it or not."
No, they do not. They can make a choice when they choose to purchase the product. Products that are not GM could advertise as GM-free and get more sales, providing a free market solution to this problem.

"You are very confused by the true meaning of the Constitution."
Where exactly does the Constitution of the United States address this?

"They are not voting to ban GMO's in California but rather to require them to LABEL if their products contain GMO's so that individuals can make an intelligent choice. What part of this issue don't you understand??"
I understand all of this issue. If I were to grow GMOs in my backyard and then try to sell them on without labeling them as GMOs (without explicitly lying and saying they were GM-free), I could be arrested. This hurts any small business considering selling GMOs just as badly as it hurts big business. Additionally, it's a waste of taxpayer dollars in a bankrupt state.

"You are standing for Corporatism rather than the INDIVIDUALISM!!"
Just like Ron Paul, who agrees with me on this issue, I stand for capitalism.

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out: http://www.LibertyConservatives.com/

When one party lies to,

When one party lies to, deceives, or otherwise coerces another party in the interest of getting that party to part with something of value, that is fraud. A business that injects poison into its food in order to reduce costs and subsequently lower prices so consumers will purchase their products, it is essentially a party coercing another party into parting with something of value, which in this case is money.

So, if you think fraud should be illegal, then, from what I understand, you should also conclude that businesses should be required to indicate to their customers that the products they are selling are poisonous. Personally, though, I don't think fraud should be illegal because I don't think anything should be illegal. Legality implies the existence of a state.


My take on GMO's is a little different but pretty close

While I believe that it shouldn't be required that a company label its product, GMO's are more like counterfeits. I could say "Butter*" and add "*with added ingredient" on the label, but saying that 70% butter 30% vegetable oil is butter would be counterfeit.

Michael Nystrom's fists can punch through FUD.

I Agree with You

In a free country businesses should not be forced to label anything. For those who have followed the Ron Paul campaign closely know that Ron Paul has been stabbed in the back repeatedly (in the media, and in the Republican Party itself) all through the campaign. It's the clearest sign that we are not a free country and that those who control us WILL NOT allow us to become free. Most of our food is also controlled by big corporations controlled by the very same people who did everything they possibly could to stomp Ron Paul into the ground. For those who are uninitiated as to what GMO is this video is a good GMO 101 for beginners. It's actually a much worse situation than even what you see here. Watch it and keep an open mind:



no one is forcing businesses

no one is forcing businesses to sell products. if they don't want to sell products in a state that forces labeling, they are free to do business elsewhere, right?

That argument could be used

That argument could be used for anything. Raising taxes, over-regulation, don't like it, move to another state! You could even use it as a case for Obama - if you don't like him, no one's forcing you to live in the USA, you can go to Canada or Europe instead!

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out: http://www.LibertyConservatives.com/

I see Judge Napolitano has not even mentioned...

writing in "Ron Paul".

egapele's picture

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

I am still leaning toward abstaining on the presidential vote and sticking only to local elections this time.

Thanks for posting.

I love Rush egapele

"You Can Choose From Phantom Fears and Kindness That Can Kill, I Will Choose a Path That’s Clear, I Will Choose Free Will!"