Take our user survey and make your voice heard.

Here
and
Now

opinions

U.S. presidential candidates 3 peas in a pod

14 Comments
By Chuck Baldwin

I realize that is extremely difficult for some people to think outside the box. The vast majority of people are prone to be followers, to "go with the flow," to follow the path of least resistance. This appears to be the nature of human nature.

Therefore, I think I understand the reasoning of many who are so reluctant to step outside the two major parties and vote for a third party candidate. I seem to recall that I, too, was just as hesitant (though not for nearly as long as some people) as they are.

We have all heard it before: He doesn't stand a chance; it's a wasted vote; we must work within the party to make it better, etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Now, I will be the first to admit that the deck is stacked against an independent candidate succeeding at any political level. The two dominant parties do not like competition. And they have made it EXTREMELY DIFFICULT for third parties to have a fighting chance to prevail. My brief experience in third parties convinces me that the old state parties of Eastern Europe had nothing on America's two major parties, when it comes to dominating and controlling elections.

The media, too, is a co-opted and controlled environment. They refuse to cover minor parties and then attempt to justify their manipulation by saying something along the lines of, "We won't let you participate until you reach 'X' percentage points." But, of course, their refusal to give an independent candidate any time to present his or her views directly contributes to the lack of percentage points.

I believe that any candidate who has obtained ballot access in enough states to theoretically obtain sufficient electoral votes to win the election (an arduous and expensive process all by itself) should automatically be included in any and all debates and should be given an equal opportunity to present his or her views to the public. Anything less than this is deliberate manipulation of the election. And that is exactly what the two major parties and their collaborators in the mainstream media are doing.

That aside, one would think that sooner or later the American people would wake up to what is happening right in front of their eyes. One would think that they would realize that no matter which party wins the White House or wins control of Congress, most things stay pretty much the same.

All this talk of "conservatism" or "liberalism" is -- for the most part -- nothing more than campaign rhetoric. It means absolutely nothing. No matter which party wins, the federal government continues to get bigger and more intrusive. American manufacturing jobs and industries continue to be outsourced overseas. Our military personnel continue to be used as the personal militia for the United Nations. Our borders remain open to illegal immigration. The creation of a North American Union marches forward. Construction for the NAFTA superhighway continues unabated. The tactics of the IRS get more and more egregious. Americans continue to work harder and longer for less return, while politicians and CEOs of multinational corporations get richer and more powerful.

It just does not matter one whit which major party "wins." The American people, freedom, limited government, and the U.S. Constitution lose! One would think that at some point the American people would say "That's enough" and stop drinking the Kool-Aid from these two major parties. And if there was ever a year when the time appears right for such a revolution, one would think this would be the year.

Look at the three leading candidates: they are three peas in a pod. There is no substantive difference between them. Neither Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, nor John McCain have any desire to stop illegal immigration. On this issue, there is no difference between McCain and the Democrats. None. McCain even voted to grant Social Security benefits to illegal aliens. He joined with Senator Ted Kennedy to provide amnesty to illegal aliens.

Take the war in Iraq. The only candidate among the top three who even hints at bringing our troops home is Obama. And if anyone believes that he is serious about it, I have a bridge I would like to sell you. Neither of the two major parties has any interest in bringing our troops home. No matter which party wins the White House, our troops will continue to be used for U.N. missions all over the world. We will continue to stick our nose wherever it does not belong. We will continue our utopian plans of nation-building, empire-building and international meddling.

No matter which of the two major parties captures the White House, the CFR will dominate the president's cabinet appointees. Good grief! John McCain, himself, is a member of the CFR Even in the area of federal judges, McCain was one of the original "Gang of 14" Republicans who joined liberal Democrats in opposing the selection of strict constructionist judges to the federal bench. Anyone who believes that McCain will appoint someone such as Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia is living in a fantasy world.

Regarding the Second Amendment, Gun Owners of America rates John McCain with an F-. It doesn't get any worse than that, folks. On gun issues, John McCain is not the "lesser of two evils." Not in any manner, shape, or form.

Just recently, McCain committed himself to supporting the U.N.-sponsored global warming treaty. As with so many of McCain's policies, this one is right out of the Democratic playbook.

Regarding the loss of America's sovereignty and the merger of the U.S. into a regional or hemispheric government entity, noted columnist Cliff Kincaid writes, "McCain's strange rhetoric about 'North, Central, and South American life' reflects a view that nation-states are disappearing and being replaced by regional alliances and institutions. He referred to 'the powerful collective voice of the European Union,' as if the U.S. response would have to be submersion of our voice in a larger hemispheric entity. But McCain seems to be calling for something beyond even a North American Union (NAU) of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. He talked about 'creating the new international institutions necessary to advance the peace and freedoms we cherish,' as if they would be built on top of the EU and the NAU.

"Earlier, McCain had declared, 'With globalization, our hemisphere has grown closer, more integrated, and more interdependent. Latin America today is increasingly vital to the fortunes of the United States. Americans north and south share a common geography and a common destiny.' But why should trade with America's neighbors necessarily lead to a 'common destiny?' This implies a political merger of the U.S. with other countries."

Does that sound like McCain is the "lesser of two evils" to you? Have you heard Clinton or Obama talk like this? Again, in regard to the loss of America's sovereignty and independence, there is no "lesser of two evils" between the major parties.

Can conservatives, Christians, and constitutionalists really go to the polls this November and vote for someone such as McCain? Do they really not see what John McCain would do to this country? Do they really believe that Clinton or Obama would be any worse? If they do, they are living in a fantasy world.

Take the issue of abortion. McCain has made a career out of opposing pro-life candidates and causes. Just recently, Jill Stanek wrote a revealing column regarding the duplicity of John McCain's position on the life issue.

See Stanek's column at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64177

McCain has steadfastly opposed the Republican Party's pro-life plank. He has even stated his opposition to overturning Roe v. Wade. He said, "But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support the repeal of Roe v. Wade . . . ."

How long will conservatives, Christians, and lovers of liberty continue to blindly follow these two parties? Can they not see that our constitutional republic and our liberty is hanging by a thread? Do they not realize that Democrats and Republicans alike are willful participants in the destruction of our way of life?

Ladies and gentlemen, please wake up! Get your heads out of the sand! Our country is imploding and we keep electing and re-electing the same scoundrels who are culpable. The media provides them cover. Many of our pastors and Christian leaders provide them cover as well. But it is the people of this country -- you and me -- who have the power to actually do something about it.

How about this year -- just this once -- let's think for ourselves? Let's vote our principles. Let's forget what the pundits and experts say. Let's quit allowing the radio and TV talking heads to tell us who to vote for. And let's not be afraid to vote outside the two major parties. No, check that. Let's make a commitment to vote outside the two major parties.

The two major parties have had 150 years to improve our country, to make our country a better place in which to live. What have they done with all this power and opportunity? They have brought us to the edge of destruction.

I believe it was Albert Einstein who said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Americans have been electing Republicans and Democrats over and over again, and we have been getting the same result. Let's try something different this year. What do you say?

© Japan Today

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

14 Comments
Login to comment

The entire U.S. Constitution (which does not mention political parties or lobbyists or executive privilege) needs to be rethought. Things like electoral votes and 4-year terms for presidents with no effective means of removing men not qualified for the job stand out as vestiges of late 18th Century U.S. society and fail to serve the needs of today. U.S. Supreme court justices should not enjoy lifetime appointments. In fact, they should be obliged to campaign for the position too. Let the people, and not the president, decide who should try their important cases.

The U.S. system has become antiquated. It's time to start sweeping out all the dead wood. The first and most meaningful change would be to switch to a parliamentary system, where the government can be removed by a simple vote of non-confidence. This would also make it possible for new parties to develop. Then Americans could join the other advanced economies and enjoy political gridlock --such as 8 prime ministers in 16 months (like italy).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Beelzebub, you are quite right. Of course the two-party monopoly is not going to let it happen. The US is dominated by industries that will remain no matter who is in the white house. Besides big oil, there the military industry, the medical industry, the insurance industry, the war industry, the auto industry, the gun industry and the prison industry. The place will continue to be a world troublemaker while refusing to properly care for its people, unless they are in prison.

As for Chucky, the author of this scatter-brained piece, the least said the better. Except that in his own dumb right-wing way he has stumbled on a terrible truth, namely that whoever becomes president has to do the system's bidding.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In my opinion, the U.S.S. Amerika could learn from many other advanced civilizations, and have One Election for All Positions on Fixed Days Once every Four Years, and save us ALL the endless mindless blathering drama. Once the POTUS is no longer the most powerfully positive person in the world, like say 10 years ago, this whole process should have press blackout worldwide. Enough of this bellybutton gazing. Who the HECK do y'all think you ARE? Life is what happens when U.S.S. Amerika thinks it's voting!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just follow the link at the end of the story. He is a politician himself, seeking donations.

He is, after all, the candidate of the CONSTITUTION PARTY.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What is this man rambling on about? Attacking the Republicans and Democrats for throwing up the same old policies every time, and then attacking John McCain because some of his views stray from the traditional Republican line?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why don't all you take a break and get life. You read something that is close to the truth and you panic out. Give your self a break

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I like none of the three, and will vote for none of them, McCain included.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

motobujohn...huh? Where is this "panic" in any of the posts? All I see is an acceptance of the fact that the U.S. two-party system, but it certainly is no-worse than the alternatives. Japan's one-party structure sure isn't working.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I realize that is extremely difficult for some people to think outside the box."

This sentence reeks of arrogance that I find almost impossible to describe. This is the sort of thing that an competent editor should have cut from the get-go. This is the sort of arrogance that should pretty much preclude the writer from ever being published, ever again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

it's ironic how a democratic system features an electoral college that can override the popular vote count. is that a democracy?

as for central and south america, count them out. they know what happened to mexico, which once encompassed all of the west including parts of texas.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jerseyboy..if you don't open your eyes then you can't see the panic. I'll leave that up to you how you want to take it. My main concern was that most folks state that the Democrats are the best, or the Republicans are the best and will only vote that way. When asked why they are Demo or Repub most answeres are "My daddy was and it goes way back in our family history." I have always voted a split ticket. I read the guys back ground, hear what he has to say and vote accordingly. None of this one ticket because I am a Demo or a Repub.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We also have the Libertarian party candidate. Four peas in a pod?!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

it's ironic how a democratic system features an electoral college that can override the popular vote count. is that a democracy?

as for central and south america, count them out. they know what happened to mexico, which once encompassed all of the west including parts of texas.>

America is a consitutional republic not a democracy, meaning that the popular vote doesn't have complete dominion over the governmen.this of course keeps the country from being somewhat controlled from sudden random emotional sediment from the masses. Say if we were to abolish the electorial college and have a true popular vote who would actually benifit? well of course the urban/city people would the poor rural/ farmers would in fact be out voiced and thus lead to a unequal representive electorate, which is why we need the electorial college.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The author is a failed presidential candidate. So it's obviously the system that needs changing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites