A response to Janet Folger

First of all, let me tell you, I love Janet Folger.

I love her spunkiness. I love her commitment to God. I love how she manifests that commitment in her life. I love how her mind works.

But I absolutely, fundamentally disagree with her about voting for John McCain, a politician who has been at war with her and her values for at least the last eight years – maybe longer.

Somehow I doubt she has actually read my book, "None of the Above," because she completely misrepresents what I say in it. Because I know she is a woman of character, I suspect she just assumed all she needed to read was the title.

She claims "voting for the lesser of two evils" is what we should expect to do in every vote we cast. First of all, just because no one but our Lord Jesus Christ was ever perfect does not mean we are all evil. It does not mean, as she suggests, that Ronald Reagan was evil. Ronald Reagan may have been a sinner like all of us, but he was a righteous man, I believe, redeemed by faith who was a good leader – the best president in my lifetime hands down. It's really a kind of moral relativism to suggest the opposite. As evidence, she cites his appointment to the Supreme Court of Sandra Day O'Connor.

I concur that appointment was a terrible mistake. But it was not one Ronald Reagan made knowingly. In fact, as I have explained before, Ronald Reagan was conned into making that appointment by someone he mistakenly trusted – someone Janet Folger and most Republicans mistakenly trust. His name is Kenneth Starr, the man who subsequently covered up the most heinous crimes of the Clinton administration. I will review that history here, because it is germane and because it is an important historical footnote unknown by the vast majority of Americans – and probably to Janet Folger.

In 1981, Kenneth Starr was a young Justice Department lawyer who authored "a hurriedly prepared, error-filled memo," according to Robert Novak and Rowland Evans, that convinced President Reagan to go through with the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the court – despite tremendous opposition from those who believed she was unfit and unworthy of Reagan's support. The memo gave O'Connor a clean bill of health on abortion by "using legal gymnastics to explain her Arizona legislative record," wrote Evans and Novak. He wrote that she had "no recollection" of how she voted on a 1970 bill to legalize abortion when, in fact, she was a co-sponsor of the measure that was defeated 6-3 in committee. Starr misrepresented that O'Connor was something of a friend and associate of Arizona pro-life leader Dr. Carolyn Gerster. In fact, Gerster told Evans and Novak: "I had an adversary position with Sandra O'Connor" and called her "one of the most powerful pro-abortionists in the [Arizona] Senate."

There is not a doubt in my mind that President Reagan would have rejected O'Connor had he known the truth about her. That's not an excuse. That's a fact.

Janet Folger accuses me of advocating "doing nothing" through my "None of the Above" campaign. Rejecting evil is not "doing nothing." It's the kind of action Edmund Burke had in mind when he said, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." I have never been an advocate of doing nothing in the face of evil. I am a consistent advocate of rejecting it and defeating it.

For Janet Folger, the issue comes down to life. So let's focus on that issue. She says McCain has a 25-year pro-life voting record. I wish her standards were just a little bit higher before proclaiming that honor on John McCain.

For instance, what did John McCain say about Sandra Day O'Connor, the Supreme Court justice whose single swing vote preserved abortion on demand as the so-called "law of the land"?

Here's what he said upon her retirement: "Mr. President, today we have learned that one of our nation's finest jurists will step down from our highest court. Despite her departure from the Supreme Court, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will leave a lasting mark on American jurisprudence characterized by fairness, balance and integrity.

"Justice O'Connor's career and service to our nation have been truly remarkable. This country will miss her presence on the Supreme Court dearly.

"Some have said that no other individual in our nation's history has come to the Supreme Court under greater expectations. Not only did Justice O'Connor meet these expectations, she far exceeded them. When President Reagan nominated and the Senate unanimously confirmed Justice O'Connor in 1981, she became the first woman to sit on the Supreme Court and, over time, she grew to be one of the crucial swing votes on the court – her decisions driven both by her conservative sensibilities and also by her practical nature."

His tribute goes on and on without so much as a mention of her illogical, twisted perversions of the Constitution that resulted in the deaths of the babies Janet Folger loves so much. If you want to read the statement in its entirety, I make it available for you here. This is the man we expect to appoint pro-life justices to the U.S. Supreme Court?

So here we condemn Ronald Reagan for making a Supreme Court nomination of someone he was fooled into nominating, but we have nothing but praise for a presidential candidate who lauds her without equivocation at the end of her career.

Janet Folger, I fear, is making one of the worst mistakes you can make in politics – listening to what politicians tell you in an election year rather than judging them on their political track records.

McCain's track record is not that of a consistent pro-lifer – at least not by my definition.

In addition to praising O'Connor, who has untold blood on her hands through her abortion fanaticism and obstruction and distortion of the Constitution, McCain also voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer to the U.S. Supreme Court. Oh, I know the old story. "It was a matter of senatorial collegiality. A president should be able to appoint Supreme Court justices of his choice," McCain supporters say. No, the confirmation process is designed to ferret out those nominees who do not support the fundamental tenets of the Constitution. Neither Breyer nor Ginsburg did or do. This should not have come as a shock to McCain given Ginsburg's previous job as political director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

But I'm supposed to forget all that – let bygones be bygones. I should trust in McCain's pure pro-life record.

Does Janet Folger forget what McCain did in the last eight years – specifically his formation of the Gang of 14 in the U.S. Senate? This was his partnership with Teddy Kennedy and his ilk to block President Bush's most honorable and worthy judges. He was successful, too. Many of those great men and women withdrew their nominations after waiting interminable periods for the Senate confirmation that was denied them. Why is it that McCain felt he owed Bill Clinton his judicial nominees but not President Bush?

Do you see my problem here?

McCain is an enemy of the Constitution. He is an enemy – the worst kind – of life itself. The enemy who portrays himself as your friend is sometimes the most effective enemy of all. He's the enemy inside the gate. John McCain has been called by the New Republic, a liberal Democratic-leaning magazine, the most effective U.S. senator at promoting the Democratic Party agenda. That's because he's devious. That's because he fools Republicans. He fools conservatives. He does it over and over again and they never see it coming.

Now those fools are about to make him president of the United States!

I urge you not to be a part of the charade – not to be a part of this evil. Do not reward John McCain for his countless betrayals of the Constitution and your trust.

Read "None of the Above" for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about John McCain and Barack Obama. And vote "None of the Above." It's the right thing to do.