Many Ron Paul supporters will vote for him if he runs as an independent. But some among them have stated that, if he isn’t on the ballot, they will send the Republicans a so-called message by either not voting at all or – I’m not making this up – by voting for Obama.

Given Paul’s prospects, the first approach smacks of naiveté. The other two are madness.

Have these people forgotten that the president serving from 2013 through 2016 will certainly nominate at least one or two Supreme Court justices? If Obama wins, he will most assuredly nominate younger justices who will be as radically progressive as possible. If progressives retain sufficient power in the Senate, these nominees will be confirmed.

The resulting progressive majority in the Supreme Court will ensure that Obama’s agenda will be protected by the Court for years beyond the 2016 election, even if a conservative or libertarian wins the White House then or later.

Thus, infringement of religious, property and free speech rights, health care destruction, voter fraud, forced union membership, massive over-regulation by unelected and unaccountable czars, unjust taxation, and reverse racial discrimination in law enforcement would all have the Court’s blessing. And how many other attacks on our liberty will he contrive should he win?

Let’s really go tinfoil here: What guarantee is there that, in this scenario, the twenty-second amendment will be honored in 2016?

The Obamacrats have already trampled other constitutional restraints, most recently freedom of religious expression by forcing religious people to fund and provide coverage for contraceptive services that violate their consciences.

If that precedent is allowed to stand, as it surely will not if any Republican is elected, then what’s to stop the progressive Democrats from making Obama president for life, or rigging future elections to guarantee victory for adherents to their philosophy? How long will these remain illegal under an executive branch that rules by fiat rather than the Constitution?

Will nefarious ideas such as these be aided or hindered by a politicized Supreme Court that will likely create precedent out of thin air to support them, as the Court did with Roe v. Wade?

Have Paul’s supporters forgotten that progressive Democrat poll workers in Florida tried to skew the 2000 election in favor of Al Gore by manufacturing votes for him while disqualifying wholesale the mostly Republican absentee ballots of military personnel overseas? That the only remedy to this fraud was a majority of Supreme Court justices choosing to enforce the law’s requirements for honest returns?

Have they forgotten that ACORN was accused of pro-Obama election fraud in multiple states, that pro-Obama activists openly intimidated voters at a Philadelphia polling place, and that investigations into both cases were arbitrarily terminated by the Obama “Justice” Department?

Do they want to see this kind of corruption made official national policy, if not the law of the land? If Obama wins, what are they willing to bet that it won’t happen? This history will not only be repeated if we choose to forget it; it will be magnified.

Moreover, they have seen the Obama administration’s hostility to both liberty and libertarian values, and its open contempt for the Constitution. Granted, neither Santorum, Romney or Gingrich is Paul’s equal on adherence to the Constitution. But it is folly to reject one of them if he can beat Obama, who has proven himself to be far more destructive to liberty than any of them.

What of commitment to liberty? These notions are like choosing to rejecting treatment for cancer because there’s no total cure for it. I say these good people are more committed to Ron Paul than to reversing to any degree whatsoever the spread of Obamian despotism.

A vote for Obama, and any action that helps him, even if motivated by spite, advocates further spread of the cancer that consumes our freedom. Which is more important to Paul supporters: Their hero? Or halting tyranny? They cannot have it both ways.

Obama won in no small part because some Republicans and, likely, Libertarians acted on notions such as these and withheld their vote for McCain because a candidate more palatable to them was not nominated. Some Paul supporters will repeat that error and will, if successful, ensure the antithesis of their beloved liberty.

Most definitely, an Obama victory will enthrone tyranny, and quite possibly eliminate future recourse to overcome it. Paul is certain to lose, and independent votes for him will improve Obama’s chances for victory.

How much damage are Paul supporters willing to do to their country to make a point? In the end, how is that really any different from the malignancy of Obama’s policies? Hopefully, they will have their priorities right come November.