The most important reason to vote Republican, so we are told, is that the war on terrorism must be won. Ranger Bush and his posse of neocons, with their shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later foreign policy, are the only ones capable of tracking down the bad guys and making the West safe once again.

With regard to the upcoming election, those who believe we should vote for the "lesser of two evils" would like us to consider which candidate is better qualified to ensure our safety and the safety of our children. Should we trust John Kerry, a left wing, terrorist-sympathizing, anti-war nut who betrayed his fellow Vietnam veterans, or George W. Bush, a compassionate, principled, conservative Christian leader who is the one man standing in the way of America becoming an Islamic theocracy?

When terrorists attacked our shores on Sept. 11, 2001, conservatives everywhere expressed their relief that George Bush, and not Al Gore, was in charge. Finally, we had a president who would take control and prove himself worthy of the title Commander in Chief.

Unfortunately, the "lesser of two evils" philosophy requires one to overlook the current administration's obvious shortcomings in the area of homeland security. For example, the mere fact that no one has been fired or held responsible for the lapses in security that allowed those attacks to occur in the first place should be enough to raise a few eyebrows.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice once intimated that it was beyond anyone's imagination that terrorists would pilot commercial airliners into buildings. She later amended her remark in her testimony before the 9/11 Commission: "I probably should have said, I could not have imagined, because within two days, people started to come to me and say, 'Oh, but there were these reports in 1998 and 1999.' The intelligence community did look at information about this."

As the president's National Security Adviser, one could reasonably assume that part of Rice's job would be to study available intelligence on possible attack scenarios. Exactly what kind of national security advice was she providing?

Let us give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt and assume that 9/11 was a complete surprise. What conclusions are we to draw from the administration's reaction to the deaths of 3,000 Americans? When it was learned that hijackers armed with nothing but box cutters brought down the World Trade Center, why weren't airline pilots immediately granted permission to carry firearms? When Congress finally did approve a bill to allow guns in cockpits, why did numerous administration officials drag their feet to implement the plan? And why is the Transportation Security Administration, an agency created in direct response to 9/11, continuing to delay pilots from obtaining the necessary training?

The only explanation is that those in power do not believe in the ability of Americans to defend themselves. Both Democrats and Republicans refuse to validate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and there is no one in the current administration actively defending the inalienable right of American citizens to keep and bear arms.

What this means is that we cannot rely on the "lesser of two evils" when it comes to homeland defense. In the three years since the 9/11 attacks, no prominent Republican has acknowledged the fact that one or two armed pilots or passengers on those planes could have saved 3,000 lives. Since 2001, not a single federal gun law - virtually all of which are unconstitutional - has been repealed. In fact, the Bush administration has stepped up enforcement of such laws, undermining the very nature of the Second Amendment.

Thanks to the efforts of President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft, Project Safe Neighborhoods was launched to help end gun violence. It was designed to foster "unprecedented partnerships among federal, state, and local law enforcement," and so far has seen a 32 percent increase in federal gun crime prosecutions.

This may sound like good news, but what supporters of projects like PSN fail to understand is that the Constitution forbids the federal government to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Any comfort taken in the increase of federal gun prosecutions is comfort taken in the usurpation of the Constitution and an expansion of power the federal government was never meant to have. When you consider that the president supports the current assault weapons ban and that administration officials like Deputy Attorney General James Comey believe "gun possession itself is a crime of violence," you have to wonder why we continue to keep these people in power.

Politicians seem to be telling us that government should have a monopoly on self-defense. In addition to exercising control over the lives of Americans, the federal government seeks to subdue other nations as well. It is disconcerting, to say the least, when an administration actively curtailing the right to keep and bear arms at home then begins to promote a policy of pre-emptive warfare abroad.

Of course, this is nothing new. A prime example of the doctrine of pre-emption, according to conservative columnist David Horowitz, was our country's entry into World War I:

The First World War, in fact, was a pre-emptive war from the American point of view. America did not enter the war because it was attacked (it wasn’t), nor did Germany declare war on the United States. For three years Americans had watched the war from the sidelines. It was a European conflict in which America had had no national stake. Then, in 1917, the United States decided to go to war to prevent a German victory, claiming that its goal was "to make the world safe for democracy."

The problem with this strategy is that it is imperialistic in nature, and the future consequences are never certain. Because of our "victory" in World War I, conditions in post-war Europe gave rise to dictators like Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini, and in less than 25 years the U.S. found itself caught up in a much longer, bloodier war. Hindsight may be 20/20, but we seem to have a problem learning from it. Like the British Empire our forefathers once opposed, we have decided to ignore the consequences of our actions and forge ahead with the divine authority to civilize the rest of the world.

Unfortunately, this only serves to foment anti-American sentiment in all parts of the globe. Sure, there haven't been any attacks on our soil since 2001, but terrorism around the world has continued to increase following our invasion of Iraq. What else can we expect when we start attacking nations that pose no threat to our own?

This is what the "lesser of two evils" promises: A state of perpetual war, which will stir up hatred for the U.S. abroad, and a continuing moratorium on the right of self-defense, leaving Americans virtually defenseless at home.

The proof is in the solutions offered by Republicans, policies that hold the state in higher regard than the individual. We are told the federal government needs more police powers and more money. We are told our political leaders must have the ability to wage pre-emptive warfare. We are told that certain liberties, like the right to a fair and speedy trial and the right to keep and bear arms, are a secondary concern when it comes to national security. Every proposal offered by the "lesser of two evils" calls for an expansion of the welfare/warfare state, and the justification for this government growth is that our survival depends on it.

This reasoning, however, is at odds with the very founding principles these so-called "conservatives" claim to be defending. It ignores the warnings of founders like Benjamin Franklin, who said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

If the dismantling of our constitutional republic is necessary in order to win the war on terrorism, then why are we fighting at all? Why fight to preserve the nation when the very methods used to save it lead to its inevitable demise?

That the "lesser of two evils" philosophy is a myth has never been clearer, as Republican politicians are responsible for the current state of the federal government. They have the White House. They control both houses of Congress. The judges they have appointed and confirmed dominate the highest courts in the land. They have been given every chance to honor their oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," yet they have failed miserably.