I'm not sure if any of you have seen this or not. I haven't had time to read all the post lately. It's kind of long, but makes some good points. I don't agree with him on bringing the troops home, I would rather fight on their turf than ours.
Three Peas In A Pod
By Chuck Baldwin May 16, 2008
This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080516.html 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 Obama, Clinton, nor McCain have any desire to stop illegal immigration. On this issue, there is no difference between McCain and the Democrats. None. John 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 C.F.R. will dominate the President's cabinet appointees. Good grief! John McCain, himself, is a member of the C.F.R. Even in the area of federal judges, John 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 John McCain is the "lesser of two evils" to you? Have you heard Hillary Clinton or Barack 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 John 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. John 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?
*If you enjoyed this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php (c) Chuck Baldwin
MBTV
Forum Index
Help
Calendar
Contact Info
Register as a member
