In a recent interview on Louder with Crowder, Steven Crowder and David Limbaugh discussed the political ramifications of the #NeverTrump movement. Understand, both have taken reasonable and principled positions on the issue and made some great points worth responding to during a information rich interview (strongly recommend watching it). The goal here is to respond to the overall argument, as well as dealing with the two strongest arguments presented for #NeverTrump voters to break ranks and vote for Donald Trump in November.

Dr. Limbaugh hit all the key concerns that ideological conservatives in the #NeverTrump movement have about Donald, that he’s not conservative, that he’s not credibly anti-Establishment, that he and his supporters are offensive to the point of being pathological. All of those reasons, as Steven and David both openly admitted, were credible reasons to not support Donald’s candidacy. So let’s leave these points as mutually given.

It’s early in the discussion when Dr. Limbaugh posits the single strongest argument for voting for Donald, which is that a Clinton presidency would unquestionably be a disaster, and not voting only helps Hillary’s campaign. Unequivocally, ideological conservatives in the #NeverTrump camp whole-heartedly agree on this point in principle. Unfortunately, the simple fact that this is literally the strongest argument to vote for Donald undermines the entire argument.

If the strongest reason for voting for someone is that their opposition is somehow objectively worse, baked into such an argument is the supposition that the option being presented, in this case voting for Trump, is also objectively bad, otherwise another stronger argument would be presented. Such a “lesser of two evils” argument is already extremely tenuous when applied to propping up a semi-friendly fascist regime over an openly hostile socialist dictatorship in some third world country. The argument becomes totally untenable when applied to American politics for reasons we’ll discuss later.

When the difference between terrible option A, a pathological liar Democrat, and horrible option B, a pathological liar Republican, is a matter of labeling, not logic, what we’re really arguing about is which option we fear less. The result of such a decision is as functionally irrelevant as the choice between being shot in the left temple as opposed to in the right temple. The rational answer to the second proposition is the same as it is for the first: “Neither.“

Later, Steven brought up a really interesting point that, as Christians, he believes that we must leave room for Donald to credibly “come to Jesus“. To support the supposition that certain gestures by Donald could represent a political shift toward conservatism, Steven brought up the list of Supreme Court nominees that the Trump campaign released in mid May.

Even Ben Shapiro noted in previous discussions with Steven Crowder (seriously, watch his show, if you don’t have fun watching his show, the problem is you), Donald not only demonstrated a total lack of familiarity with the list, indicating he had nothing to do with putting it together, he even admitted that he considered the list to be only “a guide to nominate” SCOTUS justices, not necessarily a campaign promise. As Ben Shapiro aptly put it, “I don’t think he’s telling the truth.“

That aside, there are two major problems with this “come to Jesus” argument. The first is, as was already mentioned, Donald is simply not credible, so no statement he makes can nor should be taken as any indication that he means anything by the statement at that time. As a Scottish farmer who Donald Trump infamously tried to force from his own land so Trump could build a golf course, Michael Forbes, said, “Trump’s a compulsive liar. If he was to tell the truth, it would kill him.“

The second counterargument of the “come to Jesus” argument is that the Christian forgiveness is a personal action. If Donald lies about and abuses a Christian, that individual has a Christian duty to find the faith to forgive Donald for his lies and abuse. There is, however, no Christian principle or duty upon the individual to further subject themselves to Donald’s subsequent lies and abuse.

In fact, there is a very good Christian argument to be made that a Christian duty exists to protect society from exactly such a dishonest and abusive person, even if he is supposed to be indistinguishably better than a political alternative. We certainly do not have an obligation to allow such an individual to become the president of the United States in our name, where his many obvious and documented character flaws can harm more Americans.

Now, to a broader point. If we are truly at the point where the argument for voting for one candidate over another is which one will least rapaciously violate our constitutional rights, which necessarily implies they will both utterly fail their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution and the Natural Law underpinning it, then we have reached an impasse beyond which no ideological conservative can in good conscience go.

As has been discussed in an earlier article, the only duty that is imposed upon individuals in any of the founding documents is “to alter and abolish” any government that has become despotic (Declaration of Independence). If that’s the case with both Donald and Hillary, then We the People have a real duty to reject both of them outright. If the principled ideology of the Declaration of Independence still applies, then principled conservatives “must throw off such Government” and then “provide new Guards for their future security.“

This is something Steven and Ben Shapiro discussed briefly, and that’s where many of us in the #NeverTrump movement are. By the principles of Natural Law, we, as citizens, have no obligation to allow the government to abscond with our rights because “the two major political parties say so“. The political parties have no grounding in the Constitution or Natural Law, and if they both fail to provide viable candidates in regard to constitutional principles, then per the terms of those same constitutional principles, they are disqualified.

We are under no obligation to recognize the legitimacy of a government under either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump any more than both Thomas Jefferson or James Madison were obligated to recognize the legitimacy of the British crown. It is almost entirely certain that we have not yet reached the point of the necessity of a violent insurrection, but we are certainly to the point of the necessity of political resistance against a lawless political system.

This is clearly not the position of the entire #NeverTrump movement, nor is it even the position of David Limbaugh, Steven Crowder, or even the ideological conservatives within the #NeverTrump movement, but it is the position of Liberty is For The Win.

Please follow both David Limbaugh (@DavidLimbaugh) and Steven Crowder (@scrowder) on Twitter.

#VoteForLiberty

Be Brave. Be Free.

Liberty is For The Win!

---

We just checked, and it turns out that fighting for Liberty isn’t free, because it requires time and energy to research, prepare, and propagate this message for you. Please drop just a dollar a month into the proverbial tip jar and become a Patriot Patron. Of course, don’t forget to like, subscribe, and share. Keep this fight for Liberty going! – @LibertyIsFTW