"Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum won big victories in Tuesday night in GOP presidential contests in Minnesota and Missouri and leads the race for the victory in Colorado."

When I checked the news yesterday morning, I saw the story about former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney winning the Republican primary in Nevada. The mainstream media is making it look like Romney has already clinched the nomination and has "crushed" his rivals. Even before the Nevada election, they produced a poll showing Romney favored by 50 percent of likely voters and Gingrich by 25 percent--a 25-point difference between the two candidates. In the actual election, Romney won 44 percent of the vote, Gingrich 26 percent. That's only an 18-point difference. I get the sense that the mainstream media is pushing Romney and trying to ruin the other contenders, especially Newt Gingrich but also Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Why? Well, for one thing, I think it's because Mr. Romney is a great friend of the Establishment--what our founding fathers called the "moneyed interests." For years now, major corporate enterprises in this country have been manipulating our government (both parties), the economy and the media to promote their own interests. The American people are fed up with this corrupt setup and they want real change, hence the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements. But the Establishment hangs on tenaciously and won't give up without a fight. Its members have come up with a pretty smart plan to keep their sinking enterprise afloat: Hey, lots of Americans are unhappy with President Obama, so let's promote a Republican alternative to Obama who is a friend of ours. That way, whether he gets elected or Obama gets reelected, we'll be safe. On the other hand, Gingrich, Paul, and Santorum are friends of the American people, and each represents a threat to the Establishment in some way. All three are staunchly pro-life and anti-Obamacare, which threatens the abortion, pharmaceutical and insurance industries; in addition to that, Paul would abolish the Federal Reserve and income taxes, dramatically downsize the federal government, and end our foreign wars, which would utterly destroy the Establishment. Paul and Gingrich have huge followings, so the mainstream media, which is controlled by the Establishment, is going to do everything it can to try to keep those men from getting anywhere near the White House.

Another reason Romney gets so much media attention is because he is very media savvy and has a lot of money to spend on marketing himself. This guy is not just a politician; he's a practiced businessman, a self-made multimillionaire, and he knows how to sell a product and make mincemeat of the competition. In this case, he's trying to sell himself to the American people as the best candidate for president, spending tens of millions of dollars on glossy ads to exalt himself and push his rivals out of the way. He's very slick and polished. Romney is a rich man, but I have serious doubts about whether he is an honest man. Please forgive my frankness, but Romney seems fake to me. His Establishment connections (notably the one with Obamacare) make him a definite enemy of the Tea Party. As a pro-life president, Romney would be a significant improvement over Obama, but beyond that, I don't see how his presidency would differ much from that of Obama's. When you get down to the important issues facing our country, Romney is surprisingly vague on many of them. His plan for rebuilding our economy, for instance, remains a mystery to me. (Perhaps I need a course in Romneynomics--can anybody out there help?)

On the other hand, Ron Paul has a fine reputation as an absolutely 100 percent honest and consistent man, a man of integrity and truthfulness, who is not part of the Establishment and never has been--and that's saying a lot in today's corrupt political environment. Predictably, that dooms him to chronic mainstream media blackout. However, because of his reputation, Paul still manages to raise millions of dollars through the use of alternative media, especially the Internet. I don't agree with all of his issue positions, but I think a Paul presidency would be enormously beneficial for our country, getting us back to the Constitution and in line with what our founding fathers intended. The reality, though, is that he probably won't win the Republican nomination for president getting "only" 15 or 20 percent of the primary vote in each state.

I think our best choice this primary season is to get behind Newt Gingrich for president. Although he has a few Establishment connections, he is an honest and consistent man like Paul, which can be verified by checking his thirty-year-long voting record. He is a representative of the Tea Party on the issues. He would defeat Barack Obama, defund Planned Parenthood, repeal this Obamacare monstrosity, cut taxes and downsize the government. That's good enough for me. And I believe there is a good chance--despite all of Romney's money and connections and show-biz glitter--that Newt will eventually overtake Romney and win his party's nomination for president. There are still forty-five state primaries left, and I think he can do it. In short, I think this is a classic case of Mother Angelica's axiom, "Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good." Ron Paul is the perfect, Newt Gingrich is the good. The bitter irony is that if we try to hold out for the perfect, taking support away from Gingrich and giving it to Paul, we may wind up with Mitt Romney as the next president of the United States--or even worse, another four years of President Obama.

"Returns from 95 percent of the state’s precincts showed Gingrich with 41 percent of the vote to 27 percent for Romney. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum came in third with  17 percent, Texas Rep. Ron Paul came in fourth with 13 percent."

"Texas Governor Rick Perry, viewed as a potential 2012 Republican presidential candidate, ventured far from his home state on Sunday to address a largely Hispanic group at an anti-abortion rally in Los Angeles."

"President Barack Obama warned on Tuesday that a federal government shutdown would seriously disrupt the U.S. economy, after Republican and Democratic leaders failed to make headway on a budget deal."

"Republicans took power in the House of Representatives on Wednesday with promises of a leaner, more accountable government..."

"The U.S. bishops are welcoming a Monday decision [Aug. 23] from a federal district court judge that blocked Barack Obama's executive order to expand federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells."

Lots of recent battles--and victories--in the pro-life movement in 2010.

And they deserve it, if you ask me.

"Disenchanted voters in both parties turned against the establishment on Tuesday, choosing a conservative "Tea Party" newcomer over a handpicked Republican favorite and dumping veteran Democratic Senator Arlen Specter ahead of November's midterm elections."

This is a travesty.

Hurray and congratulations to Senator Scott Brown, the new Republican senator from Massachusetts!

Filipinos, Africans Tell Obama: "Stop Paying to Kill Our Children"

"President Barack Obama plans to unveil reforms on Tuesday aimed at thwarting future attacks like the attempted Christmas Day airliner bombing, as he seeks to limit political fallout from the incident."

"Republicans seeking a comeback from recent losses may pick up the governor's seats in Virginia and New Jersey on Tuesday in campaigns that tested the limits of U.S. President Barack Obama's influence."

"Pope Benedict XVI has named two prominent U.S. geneticists as members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Dr. Francis S. Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Edward M. De Robertis, a professor of biological..."

"The U.N. Security Council, at a summit chaired by U.S. President Barack Obama, unanimously approved a resolution on Thursday calling on nuclear weapons states to scrap their arsenals."

"Democrats pushing for a drastic overhaul of the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system prepared for fresh battles on Thursday after President Barack Obama set out new details on his top policy priority."

As a concerned American citizen, I feel compelled at this time to express some strong personal convictions about what is happening in the United States right now with health care reform. In recent months and especially in the last few weeks, this has swelled into a big issue, almost rivaling the economic crisis in media attention and in many Americans' minds. Why?

Well, for one thing, everyone recognizes that the U.S. health care system is in dire need of reform (and frankly, just about every other system in this country run by the federal government is in the same boat). The percentage of Americans who lack health insurance has grown substantially in recent years, medical costs have skyrocketed, and many people are not getting the health care they need. Health care is a complex multifaceted issue that involves both the public and private sectors and directly affects all Americans sooner or later. Thus, reform of this system is a big project likely to draw wide attention.

But more than that, health care reform is in the spotlight right now because the administration of President Barack Obama has made it a priority. "Health care reform can not wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year," as President Obama famously declared near the middle of his first year in office. The president has been pushing Congress to quickly pass new legislation that would supposedly deliver better and more accessible health care to the American people.

I have to wonder, though: Why such a rush to health care reform? You can't fix a broken system overnight, whether it's the economy or health care. Reform is a major undertaking that requires careful research and accurate analysis of the situation, together with a generous period of honest public discussion and debate concerning short-term, medium-term and long-term measures that should be taken to correctly address the situation. Moreover, these elements of reform need the foundation of common moral and ethical guiding principles.

None of these requirements are being met in the current rush to draft and pass health care bills. As a result, U.S. health care reform is on the road to disaster.

So again, why this hurried effort by the Obama administration to enact health care reform? The administration has its reasons for hurrying. One is that they have a semi-secret agenda to accomplish, and this agenda collides head-on with the will of the American people. Whether the mainstream media will acknowledge it or not, there is in fact a fundamental issue even more important to Americans than the twin heavyweights of economic recovery and quality health care. That issue is the right to life of every human being, especially the most innocent and defenseless--the unborn child in the womb.

In Washington, health care reform is being touted merely as a ruse. It serves as a convenient vehicle to advance the Obama administration's ever more urgent hidden agenda. That agenda is to increase federal funding of, and expand public access to, abortion. And this is the most important reason why health care reform has drawn the scrutiny of Americans right now.

The urgency of this semi-secret agenda from the viewpoint of its proponents becomes clear when we look at trends in recent years. Since 1993, the annual number of abortions and abortion providers in the United States has been in steady decline. U.S. voters across this country (a majority of whom are women) have built and continue to support a vast infrastructure of state restrictions on abortion, from parental notification laws to bans on state funding for abortions to sonogram viewing and waiting period requirements for pregnant girls prior to their scheduled abortion procedure. These laws, together with adoption, crisis pregnancy care centers and various outreach programs, have been wonderfully beneficial for women, for their unborn children and for society itself. Meanwhile, polls have confirmed that an increasing percentage of American citizens oppose the legalization of abortion through the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973. As of this writing, survey reports indicate that a majority of the American people are pro-life.

However, in Congress the overall trend with abortion has been moving in the opposite direction, especially since a Democratic majority came to power in 2006 in the House and Senate. In 2007 Representative Jerry Nadler and Senator Barbara Boxer introduced an infamous joint resolution deceptively named the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). The contents of this revolting abortion bill are so evil and frightening that it could only have come straight from Hell and been conceived by the Devil himself. It would have, at one stroke, demolished all state restrictions on abortion. Moreover, this draconian bill would have far surpassed Roe v. Wade in elevating abortion to the status of a "fundamental human right" subject to unlimited government funding and support. Apparently our Congressional representatives intended to remove every legal barrier and provide every possible incentive for Americans to murder their offspring.

So a rift has opened up between the American people and their federal government on the issue of abortion, and in the past few years this rift has been growing increasingly wider. The Obama administration may have given up on FOCA due to massive public opposition (thank God), but it is still bound and determined to enact at least some of FOCA's provisions into law--for example, the sickening concept of "abortion coverage" as a "health benefit"--whether the American people support them or not.

And what is driving this wicked agenda to ram abortion down our throats? The answer is money. Abortion is still a big, $100 million-per-year business that makes a handful of people and companies in the U.S. quite wealthy. But with the gradual nationwide decline in demand for killing "services" and a fervent pro-life ethic among the younger generation of Americans, abortion providers face the real threat of going out of business altogether sometime within the next decade or two. Thus to salvage a sinking enterprise, the multimillion-dollar abortion industry has turned to the rich and powerful federal government for a hand--just as the financial institutions have turned to the same government for rescue from annihilation since late last year. In both cases, the government has generously responded with legislation and fiat money. This administration is not serving our interests but the interests of rich and powerful lobby groups on Capitol Hill. In my estimation, the Obama administration is the most corrupt administration in American history.

This is another reason for the race to health care reform: President Obama and his cronies don't want Americans to find out the truth behind their new health care policies. In a democracy, corruption has to hurry or else it can't achieve its ends. Too much research, analysis, discussion and debate--essential for proper reform and healthy for democracy--would expose this corrupt agenda and result in its doom. The "hurried" and "evil" aspects of health care reform both result from the driving force of corruption. Transparency and accountability are crucial for the correct functioning of democracy, yet little of either is evident with our government's rapidly coalescing health care plan.

So given the divergence between American respect for life on the one hand and governmental obsession with death on the other, our leaders are forced to pretend that they are representing the wishes of the people while they pursue an agenda contrary to those wishes. How long they can keep up this charade remains to be seen in these uncertain and unpredictable times. However, a few things are certain. The American people want affordable health care reform that respects life. Their elected representatives want a health care plan that pads their own pockets and funds murder. Sooner or later, either the abortion industry or its puppet government or both will cave in. But the pro-life movement in this country is strong, it is steadily advancing, and it is destined to win.

"With control of the health care debate slipping from his grasp, President Barack Obama pitched his ambitious plan to both conservative talk radio and his own liberal supporters Thursday -- and denied a challenge from one backer that he was "bucklin' a little bit" under Republican criticism."

This is the most lame article I have ever read from the major media. You can read it in fifteen seconds and don't forget the little raspberry at the end.

"In Los Angeles, on Saturday, September 27, the Mexican superstar of Latin America, Eduardo Verastegui and several of his friends joined the 40 Days for Life prayer campaign outside Family Planning Associates, an abortion business at 601 S. Westmoreland Avenue."

Dems Virtually Admit Palin Will Win Debate -- Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., a prominent Obama supporter, "played up Palin's debate experience from her race for governor as she argued that Palin has sharper skills than she's being given credit for."

"Mexican film star Eduardo Verastegui has recorded a video message aimed at Hispanic voters that slams Barack Obama's record on abortion."

(ffeineandsugar:) "The nice people at the Arizona Republic consider what could happen to lead to Obama and McCain ending up with a tie vote in the upcoming presidential election. Several plausible scenarios arise. Do I think its likely? No. Do I think its possible? Yuppers. And then what?"

As the Barack Obama campaign train sailed through South Dakota and Montana last Tuesday, it knocked Sean Hannity's "Stop Obama Express" to the wayside.

In my opinion, a "Stop Hillary Express" would have made a lot more sense. America does not like Hillary Clinton--that has been a well-known fact from the very start of her campaign in mid-2006. She could never count on the support even of a majority of Democrats. If you can't win the support of your own party, how can you present yourself as a credible representative of that party?

Mrs. Clinton is an artifact of the 1990s--when radical feminism was in vogue, when abortion was popular, when America was too comfortable for deep religious faith and moral conviction, when good looks and smooth talk were enough to get elected to the highest office in the land. That era has passed into the dustbin of history--and Mrs. Clinton should have passed into it as well, except for her unyielding thirst for power at any price and the slew of US mega-corporations from Wal-Mart to Diebold investing in her candidacy. who has been pretending that she could somehow lead our country into a brighter future.
---
I'll continue this post later. Until then, I look forward to the unraveling of the unholy alliance between Hannity and Hillary.

Hurray and thank goodness! A long overdue goodbye to Mrs. Clinton.

"Looking to bring finality to the Democratic presidential campaign, Barack Obama worked furiously Monday to win over enough superdelegates to clinch the nomination with the final primaries Tuesday."

Verse 1: "As it is written in the AP Manual, "Behold, I send my press corps before thy face, who shall prepare thy way". And so it came to pass that pundits went forth into all that country, preaching a vote of repentance for the forgiveness of sins."

"Says Voters Need to Be Ready to Meet Abortion Victims in Next Life"

This year West Virginia won't tell us much about the outcome of the Democratic primary. But it is a reminder of how this is not the first time we've seen a culturally alien candidate out to prove themselves to voters.

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.

Each year, it seems, the Grand American Puppet Show is getting longer, and the assortment of characters more diverse and talented. This time the curtain was lifted in the middle of 2006, more than two years before the Grand American Puppet Choice Day—er, excuse me, Election Day. The first two characters to appear on stage were New York Senator Hillary Clinton, representing the Democratic Party, and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, representing the Republican Party.

Indeed, with the bold and surprising appearance of the latter, all pretensions to making the quadrennial presidential race look like anything more than a puppet show were stripped away. Governor Schwarzenegger is not eligible for the presidency because he is an immigrant to the United States and our Constitution forbids immigrants from becoming president. However, such inconvenient realism and outmoded respect for tradition—as well as that obnoxious entity called the law of the land—must not be allowed to interrupt a good show. Since the national audience at large did not know whether to laugh, cry or cheer for Schwarzenegger, he has receded to the back of the stage—but only temporarily. More on him later.

Meanwhile, Senator Clinton has basked in the spotlight on the left side of center stage for more than a year now thanks to piles of money from her loyal puppeteers (narrow special interest groups). Somehow her lackluster performance has managed to draw applause from no less than forty percent of the jaded American audience. But this should not be taken to imply a positive judgment in her regard. The popularity Clinton has attained is more a reflection of American war weariness, disillusionment with the neocon-hijacked Republican Party, a desire for change, and her demagogic manipulation of these feelings than it is a reflection of her own skill.

Though he must take second place to Hillary Clinton, North Carolina Senator John Edwards is the most accomplished puppet of all. His splendid wealth as a lawyer and his cadre of devoted puppeteers have kept him on the stage. While Senator Edwards' beaming smile and ethereal manner have delighted spectators, his hypocrisy has triggered more than a few cases of nausea and vomiting. It is plainly obvious to almost his entire audience that Edwards is a corrupt playboy living in a world far removed from the average American, who says one thing and does another, who cares for nothing so much as enjoying his life and wealth. Since he is the leading puppet, Edwards would make the worst possible president.

Delaware Senator Joe Biden, who is also a lawyer, is fairly well-known for his attempts to reach the dead center of the stage. Senator Biden serves on numerous Senate committees where he has the opportunity to lead debates and introduce legislation. On almost every Senate bill, whether it deals with abortion or the minimum wage or defense spending, he has voted both ways or refused to vote, making it hard to pin down his positions on the issues. Biden's act has chiefly consisted of two features: precariously walking the tightrope near center stage on all issues and keeping an eye on the performance of his more admired fellow puppet Obama. With this dangerous combination of moves, Biden fell to the stage floor and is likely to never fully recover.

Another Democratic candidate may be more appealing in some ways, and even sincerely straining to be more than just a puppet, but he is also out of touch with his audience in important areas. The fact that Illinois Senator Barack Obama hails from the Midwest rather than from the tightly-knit, super-rich, over-educated East Coast intellectual establishment is a major plus that has brought him cheers. Yet while Senator Obama has captivated Americans with his youth, his vision for the future of America and the prospect of breaking the two-hundred-twenty-year-long chain of white presidents, his support for abortion and homosexuality has alienated the growing number of morally conscious Americans, resulting in many catcalls. Early in 2007 the popularity of Obama's performance threatened to push Hillary from left center stage, but her puppeteers quickly came to the rescue with more funds.

Finally, Tennessee Senator Al Gore is down but not out. After spending eight years across the street from the Chief Puppet's Mansion (the White House), the temptation to power will likely urge him to claim a spot on the stage. Senator Gore has had lots of time to polish his ability as a puppet. He seized a golden opportunity to expose this talent to the entire nation and world when he refused to concede the 2000 presidential election, a sparkling recital which drew praise and derision. In recent years Gore has established a considerable reputation for his efforts to raise public awareness of global warming and his dedication to replacing American dependence on petroleum with alternative energy sources. Like many Democrats he also sings the song of plenty, smoothly promising to guarantee every American the necessities of life with a heap of taxes garnered mainly from the rich (but not, of course, from the pockets of Gore or his rich cronies). These acts have won significant applause from like-minded Americans. However, Gore's demagoguery seems to be a reflection of that of Edwards.

In general, the Republican contenders for president have been even more lackluster. Unlike Senator Clinton, who has steadily held a place in the spotlight, the Republicans have taken turns occupying the right-hand area of center stage. The prime selling point for Arizona Senator John McCain is that he has the distinction of being the only well-funded candidate with a reliable record of opposition to abortion. In addition, Senator McCain is a genuine Vietnam War veteran who spent five years in the hellish conditions of a Communist prison camp. He was the first serious Republican hopeful to draw the audience's interest in 2006 with his condemnation of torture of al-Qaeda suspects abroad. Despite McCain's backing for the Bush administration's "War on "Terrorism" policy and its war in Iraq, his Congressional efforts at immigration and campaign finance reform have earned him a reputation for bipartisanship. Moreover, the soft-spoken, smiling man can aver a greater amount of integrity than any of the other candidates. While his combination of heroism, principle and charm seems irresistible, McCain's age and the fact that his honesty keeps him from fulfilling his puppet potential have nudged him towards the rear of the stage.

McCain was followed by Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who has spent lavishly on his campaign in an effort to win the hearts and cheers of American spectators. By flashing his own cards of integrity and commitment to values, Governor Romney gradually elbowed McCain to the side. The hard core of American neocons has cheered him on with uncontrollable excitement. Nevertheless, from the large majority of Americans Romney's act has drawn a rather subdued reaction—and not just because he is a Mormon. His record of egregious flip-flopping on the issue of abortion and his calls for a further increase in defense spending fail to resonate with most Americans. Romney is a puppet of neocon warmongers and war profiteers whose patriotism and hatred for terrorism is confined to their pocketbooks.

In turn, Romney has vied with New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, a power-hungry demagogue whose leadership record is nothing short of abysmal. He has defended all uses of excessive force by the New York police, declared the air at Ground Zero safe when the fires were still burning after 9/11, and attempted to serve an illegal third term as mayor. Though his puppeteers have created quite an impressive performance that some Americans have applauded, he is far too similar to President Bush on foreign policy matters to ever be elected by a plurality of the American people. His presidency would be focused on expanding public access to abortions and on a disastrous foreign policy of war for oil, both of which only benefit the rich entrepreneurial (puppeteer) class.

The most recent Republican candidate to rule the stage is former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson. His apparent surge in popularity is a result of excessive positive attention from the mega-corporate media. However, the strikes against Mr. Thompson are many: he is a lawyer, a longtime Washington lobbyist for big businesses such as General Electric and Westinghouse, a staunch advocate of the "War on Terrorism" and the war in Iraq, and he served as legal defense for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was convicted of lying to federal investigators about the Plame affair. The appearance of Thompson on right center stage suspiciously coincided with the climax of Libby's trial, his conviction, and his pardon by President Bush. While this man is generally pro-life and favors limited government, the familiar moves of his dance and his ties to the same puppets that are controlling the current Bush administration have led to persistent boos from the overwhelming majority of the American people.

Americans are clapping for these mediocre puppets because no better performers have been invited or admitted to the stage. The puppeteers are not interested in offering a presidential candidate dedicated to rock-solid moral values and imbued with common sense who actually will meet the needs of America, as that would ruin their silly presentation. Take Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, for example. He is a fervent pro-lifer, a defender of traditional marriage, a champion of fiscal discipline, had the common sense to turn against the Iraq war after supporting it for several years, disapproves of President Bush's domestic wiretapping program, and favors stricter border security. On all these varied issues, Senator Brownback can count on steady backing from a clear majority of American voters. Because he is in general a committed, principled statesman rather than a puppet of special interests, he has been shunned by the puppeteers and all but forced offstage. The fact that Brownback was even briefly admitted to the rear of the stage in early 2007 was recognition of his approval of NAFTA, his vote for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and his reception of a $50,000 bribe from the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee in the 2004 election season.

The Republican and Democratic parties, which run this show, are taken far too seriously by tens of millions of Americans. Indeed, one should not expect gaily reveling parties to conduct the urgent business of the country. Both the Republican and Democratic charades are meant to divert American attention from the well-greased lobby networks busily moving and shaking national politics. Neither has the true interests of the country in mind. The parties are the subtle opiate of the masses, serving as channels for popular discontent to forestall rebellion and revolution—the most dreaded enemies of our freedom and democracy, according to the rich puppeteers. Yet most Americans still cling to the parties as if to salvation because each one represents some of the policies our country needs. At the same time, a steady diet of puppets and parties does not make for a healthy nation.

In 2006 the puppet extravaganza took an interesting twist when longtime Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, a registered Democrat who supports abortion and the Iraq war, officially left his party to become an "independent" senator. Thus Senator Lieberman is the only puppet to occupy dead center stage, even though the central limelight is off for the moment. Neocons love Lieberman for his continual defense of Israeli policies and the Iraq war, and he is respected by Republicans and Democrats as a thinker willing to cross party lines—although in fact he is a pawn of special interests on both sides. No one has been discussing him as a presidential hopeful and he has not mentioned a desire to enter the race. However, the affable Lieberman may be a politician anticipating the future, a puppet quietly waiting for the right moment to storm the stage and do his dance. With so many special interest groups tied to him, he is almost certain to step out from the shadows and "surprise" Americans in the 2008 Grand American Puppet Show. Lieberman's unusual renunciation of political affiliation could well be a ploy to gain widespread American support in a run for higher office. Recall the 2004 event, in which Howard Dean was expected to win the Democratic primary but instead we received the surprise of puppet extraordinaire John Kerry. My guess is that Lieberman will either be selected by Hillary or the Republican candidate as a running mate, or that he himself will win the Democratic nomination for president and take Hillary as his running mate.

Furthermore, this upcoming 2008 Election Day will be more of an authentic Grand American Puppet Choice Day than any previous presidential election. The 2006 Congressional election served as a dry run for this makeover. In more than a dozen states across the country on November 7, 2006, newly installed electronic voting machines failed to work properly, and secrecy holders were dispensed with. Even worse, the citizens were deceived by mysterious signs stating that their polling place had been moved. All these unprecedented elements are part of a grand scheme to transform the presidential election into a true farce and prevent the people from choosing their demagogue. In 2008, American voters will attempt to choose a particular puppet as president, but the already tested forms of trickery will be employed to swing the election in favor of the opposite puppet. This puppet will then have the audacity to claim that he (or she) is the choice of the American people.

This is where California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger could come back onstage and begin stealing the show. Perhaps he will wait to put on his act until the 2012 American Puppet Show rolls around. Like Giuliani, Governor Schwarzenegger is an ambitious, self-centered politician as well as an exceptionally cunning demagogue who would love to gain the most powerful political office on earth. But in order for him to do so, a Constitutional Amendment allowing a legal immigrant to become president would have to be passed by two-thirds of the United States, or thirty-four states. Schwarzenegger realizes that few states would agree to change a longstanding, widely accepted law that our nation's founders established for sound reasons. Therefore, voting tricks to the rescue! Schwarzenegger's puppeteers fiddle with the voting machines and, voila—to the nation's semi-bewilderment, the Presidential (Puppet) Immigration Status Amendment passes. From that occasion onward, Americans will have, for all practical purposes, lost control of their nation.

With each quadrennial American Puppet Show in recent decades, Americans have been subjected to a more and more entertaining spectacle. The 2008 extravaganza is certainly a cut above previous shows. Just as Nero fiddled while Rome burned, our presidents now enjoy the fine life while uncontrolled big business and technological development speed America down the highway to disaster. When the next Grand American Puppet Choice Day finally rolls around, Americans may find themselves so dazzled, bored, and stupefied that they will reject not only the finalists, but the entire masquerade. The greatest tribute to the talent of the Grand American Puppets on Puppet Choice Day would be a hearty burst of laughter from all three hundred million Americans.

Faced with a slew of generally groundless rumors, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama reminds the American Jewish community of his consistent support for Israel.

"As befits American culture, politics is all about slick selling to the masses. Hillary Clinton is selling Day-1 help to victims and sufferers. Barack Obama is selling effervescent hope to yes-we-can dreamers. This media hyped horse race is like a fight between diet Coke and diet Pepsi, artificially sweetened candidates devoid of real nourishment."