Log In | Register
In the year 2008, most Americans would acknowledge that their national politics has degenerated into quite a sorry state in recent years. Name-calling and mudslinging, detraction, slander and libel have never been so commonplace. Not a single solidly-pro-life candidate is likely to win Republican nomination, much less Democratic nomination, for the presidency. People are being asked which candidate they like or trust instead of which candidate measures up to their core convictions. A significant minority of allegedly pro-life Americans is even placing a candidate's support for the "War on Terrorism" ahead of his position on abortion. Finally, thanks to the endemic corruption of our modern political system, the presidential candidates likely to be nominated do not come close to truly representing the American people.
Much to the dismay of Republicans and Democrats alike, the smooth-talking, unpopular, immoral, dishonest, corrupt, pro-abortion New York Senator Hillary Clinton rises like a death star from the ashes of her more infamous husband's presidency. A consummate politician, Mrs. Clinton has created a sparkling image of an experienced, capable leader by throwing a wet blanket over her embarrassingly disreputable past as well as over her present shady connections. This woman's candidacy for the highest office in the land exemplifies media and propagandist power at its best.
Well-known Christian evangelist Pat Robertson endorses Rudy Giuliani—an arrogant, vengeful, adulterous Catholic heretic who supports abortion and sodomy—for president, arguing that the latter will "cast a hopeful vision for all Americans." Even worse, popular fellow so-called "Catholic" radio speaker Sean Hannity (a supporter of artificial contraception) chimes in for his New York buddy Giuliani, trusting that despite his pro-abortion and pro-homosexual positions, the former mayor will actually place pro-life justices on the Supreme Court! Giuliani's arrogance proved to be his undoing.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney presents a bird's nest of contradictory stances and voting records on abortion, reminiscent of John Kerry's reputation for flip-flopping. Despite a national debt near $10 trillion, Romney plans to further increase US defense spending, a position less than one in five Americans support. More time is being spent discussing his Mormon faith than his record and issue positions. And Romney's grandiose Big-Brother health care plan—already tried in Massachusetts—comes even closer to Communism than that of Mrs. Clinton. Yet this slick-talking multimillionaire can supposedly fix our economic recession. Give me a break, please.
Arizona Senator John McCain opposes abortion (except in cases of rape and incest), but he supports federal funding for the abortion-causing embryonic stem-cell research hoax. McCain also supports the illogical "War on Terrorism" and the destructive war in Iraq. A Vietnam veteran and POW survivor, McCain has a quiet strength and admirable integrity. His stance against torture of foreign prisoners and his immigration plans may be refreshing. However, Washington bureaucracy and McCain's own entrenched political connections ensure that he will not deliver badly needed reforms.
Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson has been held up as a conservative, a Republican icon, even "a new Ronald Reagan," yet his issue positions, background and personality bring nothing of the sort to mind. The elderly-looking, uncharismatic and seemingly emotionless divorce Thompson is ambivalent on abortion, pro-sodomy, disagrees with Americans on most other issues, and in general has failed to connect with voters. Unlike Reagan, who climbed up from relative poverty, lacked higher education, and broke into national politics from the outside, Thompson graduated college and university and then pursued careers as a lawyer and Washington lobbyist. In defense of Thompson, Sean Hannity repeated many times on his radio show late in 2007, "All of his past girlfriends loved him." That is the most ridiculous reason I have ever heard of to convince people to support a presidential candidate; just because a man is loved by girls does not mean he is fit for the presidency.
Illinois Senator Barack Obama has fired the American imagination with the possibility of our nation's first black president. Unfortunately, his extreme stance on abortion—rivaling that of fellow Senator John Kerry—categorically disqualifies him in pro-life America. US voters love a fresh face offering fresh hope after eight years of a highly questionable and tumultuous presidency. In their blind enthusiasm, little do many people realize that Obama is slowly being ensnared by the Washington establishment. A number of mega-corporate lobby groups have thrown their money into his basket, and he has openly discussed the possibility of a future US invasion of Pakistan. Although Obama portrays himself as an agent of change, exactly what changes he would implement (except more abortion, more taxes, more government health care and more illegal immigration) remains unclear. Furthermore, the youthful-looking Obama is inexperienced and does not seem to grasp the full seriousness and weight of the presidency (leading to the derisive nickname "Senator Tiger Woods").
Finally, the only presidential candidate who comes close to seriously representing a large majority of the American people has been all but forced off the mega-corporate-owned media's radar screen. Dr. Ron Paul is a genuine Christian and a genuine patriot who stands for the right to life, true marriage, limited government, corporate taxation, secure borders, and gun ownership; he is against the Iraq war and opposed to the illogical and fruitless "War on Terrorism;" he speaks openly of abolishing personal income taxes, paying down the national debt, and eliminating the Federal Reserve. That Ron Paul is by far the most popular Republican contender, even among Democrats, without compromising any of his beliefs, speaks volumes about his integrity and refreshing common sense. Predictably, Paul's radical difference from the other candidates—including his position that "foreign aid is unconstitutional"—has won him various labels and nicknames bestowed by the media such as "eccentric," "extremist," "Doctor No," "libertarian," "Constitutional literalist," and "Christian fundamentalist." I concede that Paul may be a little extreme, but perhaps America needs a little dose of extremism to get back in the right direction. As former "extremist" Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater said, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." The fact that the aged Goldwater himself has recently endorsed Paul for president is highly significant.
If Paul were nominated by the Republican Party in a free and fair country, he would pull massive numbers of votes from Republican, Democratic and Independent voters to win the presidency hands down against any Democratic rival. Sadly, he has no chance of achieving this nomination in real-life America today. He might try for a third party nomination but is unlikely to get that either because even in third place he could easily upset both front-runners and manage to be elected president of the United States.
As I write this, Hillary Clinton and John McCain are the odds-on mega-corporate and media favorites. If Mrs. Clinton bags the Democratic nomination and picks Barack Obama as her running mate, she could significantly increase her electability. Much also depends on who wins the Republican nomination, and who that candidate selects as his running mate. No matter who the presidential and vice-presidential candidates turn out to be, many pundits expect a close election—due largely to the abortion issue—and I agree. As someone unfamiliar with the inner workings of the Republican and Democratic campaigns and who has followed only three presidential elections, however, I hesitate to predict much more than that.
From all of the above data, I have begun to gather that this 2008 presidential campaign is a nightmare. But we have not even mentioned the specter of deliberately orchestrated electronic voting machine fiascos. We have arrived at the point where preprogrammed machines, not free and independent voters, are poised to elect a President of the United States.
How can we the people possibly hope to rescue the corrupt, remote 2008 presidential campaign from this quagmire? What can we do peacefully to rid the United States of this seemingly all-powerful, all-encompassing, monolithic system? Various answers are available. The first is unconditional surrender to the enemy: sit at home and don't bother participating in the system by voting or supporting any candidate. This solution does no good for anyone. The second option is to choose the lesser of two evils: vote for McCain or Romney instead of Clinton or Obama. This is the easiest option which contains the most compromise, and most Americans—having succumbed to the psychological warfare of the top candidates' streaming colorful ads—prefer it. The third possibility is to vote for a third-party nominee who represents you better than either of the leading candidates. This course is more rewarding but requires a bit of courage to stand out from the crowd, and one in ten Americans typically opts for it. The fourth choice is to find the candidate who represents your convictions the closest (either Ron Paul or somebody else), and write his name on the ballot with cheerful and complete disregard for his actual chances of winning the election. This choice, which is the most rewarding of all but requires unusual courage, is the option I took in 2004 and will take again in 2008. (My preferred candidate in both elections was "Average Joe" Schriner.) If enough Americans had the courage to follow this course of action, the entire rotten presidential election system would begin to teeter.
But, say cynics, what good would this accomplish? Rigged voting machines will simply delete those ballots containing write-in votes without leaving a paper trail. Besides, they point out, it is difficult for individual Americans to swim psychologically against the roaring tide. They realize that ninety percent of their fellow Americans are voting for one of the two leading candidates, and a feeling of intense isolation holds them back.
To this I respond that the need for a new organization to unite Americans who are dissatisfied with the current election system has never been greater. The time for such an organization to be established is now—and the time will be ripe with the discontent certain to follow this presidential election.
