Joseph Farah is wrong â€¦ dead wrong

Let me first say that I have a great deal of respect for Joseph Farah. When he built WorldNetDaily, he helped break the liberal stronghold on the media and blazed the trail for "a Free Press for a Free People." No kidding. He's also the guy who decides to run my column every week. And if you're reading this in WorldNetDaily, it's because he decided that I could vehemently disagree with him and he's big enough to publish it. But if my column perishes, it perishes; I must speak out.

In his column "Why McCain is worse than Obama," Farah said: "Tell me where I am wrong." Happily. But Joseph Farah isn't just wrong. He is dangerously, devastatingly and dead wrong.

How "dead wrong?" About another 50 million dead.

Farah said what I hear all the time from callers on my radio program: We can't vote for "the lesser of two evils." Guess what? Until Jesus Christ's name appears on the ballot, that's exactly what we do in every vote. This may shock some of you, but as wonderful a leader as Ronald Reagan was, he, too, wasn't perfect. Disagree? Then I have three words for you: Sandra Day O'Connor.

Farah claims, "By actively rejecting both candidates, Americans can make their voices heard in a powerful new way in 2008 – by demonstrating a serious demand for more and better political choices in the future." No. If we stay home, or throw our vote away with a third party, all that does is hand the power to those who hate us and everything we hold dear – while they write us off as "insignificant." If you don't like the candidate, that means we didn't do a good enough job in making our voice heard in the primary election. Whose fault is that? Ours.

When Americans do nothing, evil triumphs. Just ask Edmund Burke. (He's the guy who said: "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.")

Here's the biggest mistake in Farah's reasoning: "Choosing between two candidates who have, in the final analysis, very little difference between them on the most important issues of the day is no choice at all." He couldn't be more wrong.

Let's forget political posturing for a moment and get back to the basics like life and death. The question we need to ask is which candidate – which course of action – will … protect the most lives?

John McCain knows the scientific fact that life begins at conception. That question isn't above his pay grade. He has a 25-year pro-life voting record and he's not ashamed of it. He is wrong on embryonic stem cell research, but as he pointed out at Saddleback, he understands that the breakthroughs in pluripotent adult stem cells makes the embryonic stem cell research "academic," unnecessary and mute. That takes the issue of embryonic stem cell research off the table and removes the obstacle for pro-life voters.

Let's take a look at Sen. Barack Obama who said the first thing he would do is sign the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act," or FOCA, and wipe out every single pro-life advance we have made in three and a half decades in all 50 states. That includes things like notifying parents before an abortionist rips apart their grandchild. But why should Obama care? He said if his daughter got pregnant, he would view his grandchild as "punishment." And when we talk about punishment, being dismembered alive is a bit more severe than sending someone to their room.

Obama's first act of signing FOCA would also wipe out all bans on sucking the brains out of living, kicking, half-born babies. No problem for Obama. This guy thinks infant brain sucking is such a good idea, he actually used it as the subject of a fundraising letter (against all those "extremists" who think infant brain sucking is bad). So much for protecting "the least of these."

While we're still discussing Obama's first act on his first day of office, let me mention that, contrary to every abortion mantra, he's going to "get government into the abortion business" by forcing you and me to pay for the slaughter. So much for the freedom of choice.

Every single pro-life law we have ever passed would be gone in one day – Obama's first day.

Then he'll go after the babies that escaped the abortion industry's best efforts to kill them and allow them to be thrown in the soiled laundry room as Christ Hospital in Illinois was found doing. He voted four times against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act while in the Illinois Legislature. And calling everyone who reveals those votes a liar won't change the facts. (Hear eyewitness Jill Stanek discuss it on my Faith2Action radio program.)

Then there are the judges. They have taken over the country. They've stripped babies of legal protection and redefined marriage, just for starters. But by most estimations we are now only one vote away from restoring protection to the "least of these." You heard it yourself in the last debate: In addition to his dislike of Scalia and Roberts, Obama wouldn't have appointed Clarence Thomas to the bench. Interestingly, Obama would have bypassed the "historic" nature of only the second African-American appointment to the United States Supreme Court because he didn't agree with his positions. But now we're being asked to "ignore the issues" for the "historic" prospect of electing the first African-American to the presidency – something Obama himself wouldn't have done if given the chance with the Supreme Court nomination of Thomas.

Obama wouldn't appoint the best people to the Supreme Court, and McCain wouldn't appoint all of the worst people, naming: "Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter and Stevens." I couldn't have picked the ones not to appoint better myself.

Here's where this whole thing rests: There may be as many as three – count 'em – three appointments on the high court. Don't believe me? Do the math. In the next term, Stephens will be in his 90s. The only thing worse than a Stevens on the court is a "young" Stephens on the court, and that's who Obama would choose. In addition to the almost inevitable retirement of Stephens, five – count 'em – five other justices will be in their 70s next term.

Here's the bottom line: If McCain is elected, we WILL get the judges we need to bring this slaughter to an end. All of our efforts and all of our labors that have taken us this far will have been worth it. If Obama is elected, we will not only see the court stacked against us with life-long appointments, we will lose every single advance we have ever made in every state, city and county.

You want to protest? Get a sign and march. We're out of time. Besides that, I'm sick of marching – I want to win: I want to restore protection to children in my lifetime.

I've given my life to the pro-life movement, and I don't have another life to give it. Neither do the 50 million children whose lives were stolen from them. If we don't take what may be our last chance, I don't believe we're going to see another one. If we choose protest over influence, Obama will not only make sure that another 50 million children lose their lives, but he'll make sure we won't recognize what's left of our nation when he's through with it.

Without even mentioning Obama's "support" of the California Supreme Court's tyrannical corruption of marriage, and a host of issues I'll address in future articles (should there be any), the choice set before us in this next election is life or death.

I urge you to choose life, that we and our children may live. That choice is John McCain. Any other choice will be lethal … literally.