LESSER
OF TWO EVILS
PART 1 of 2
By Jon Christian Ryter
September 17, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
Congressman Ron Paul [R-TX.], who isn't running for anything (except President in the State of Montana) wants to change the outcome of the upcoming national election. Dr. Paul, accompanied by three longshot presidential candidates at the National Press Club on Wednesday, Sept. 10, opened his speech saying "The coverage of the presidential election is designed to be a grand distraction...The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice..." Offered by Dr. Paul at the Press Club as the preferred candidates you should first consider voting for were three longshot candidates that the Congressman attempted to package as a "third party choice." First was conservative Crossroads Baptist Church pastor Chuck Baldwin. When conservatives speak about Sen. Barack Obama's qualifications to pick up the red phone at 3 a.m., his under-two-years of political experience dwarfs Baldwin's complete and utter lack of anything that could even remotely be construed as political experience. The same can be said about longshot liberal citizen's advocate and environmentalist Ralph Nader who, granted, has been a fixture around DC for more years than most of us have lived. But, like Baldwin, he has no political experience that qualifies him to sit in the Oval Office. And while the office of President is on-the-job training for every new chief executive, the core knowledge of running a nation must already exist in that new President at 12:01:01 p.m. on January 20, 2009 because at that time, its too late for a new president to crack open a textbook called "Politics 101: A Primer On Being President."
And, finally, Dr. Paul's third offering was the group's only radical communist: and Michelle Obama-Light, former 6-term Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney [D-GA] who lost her job after arrogantly assaulting a Capitol police officer for challenging her for not wearing her congressional I D and bypassing the metal detectors in the House of Representatives. Dr. Paul attempted to pull former 4-term Congressman Bob Barr [R-GA] (whose seat was merged with another one and one seat gerrymandered out of existence by the Democratically-controlled State House in 2001). Barr is seeking the presidency on the Libertarian ticket.
Barr, however, declined Dr. Paul's invitation to be part of the "Ron Paul Majority." And, while both Barr and McKinney are more qualified than Obama to lead the nation, McKinney, like Obama, speaks of equality only in the glowing terms of social justice—the redistribution of wealth from the "rich white class" to the underprivileged poor in the nation's innercities.
The need for the "American Majority" National Press Club press conference was triggered by the Palin Phenomenon. The longshot candidates watched scores of anti-McCain independents pick up the McCain-Palin placards as political history was twice-written in one week. First, they watched GOP nominee Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] pick, as his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin [R-AK]. Palin instantly reignited the Republican Party, the likes of which has not been witnessed since 1980.
Second, within 24 hours of the announcement, thousands of disgruntled and formerly-alienated conservatives deserted the campaigns of the long-shot candidates, returning to the GOP fold. They are potential voters that Baldwin, Nader and former GOP Congressman and Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr need—not to win in November since winning, for any of them, is a statistical impossibility. Rather, they need them to reach that magic 5% threshold that qualifies them for matching funds. For them, that's what the battle in November is about. Nostalgic campaign photos for their scrapbooks, the legacy of "also ran" for their grandchildren, and if they pull that magic 5% of the vote, a retirement nest egg from the taxpayers of the United States.
All of them realize they are spoilers who will hand over the election to the candidate who disagrees most with their political ideology because winning is not an option for any of them. And, sadly, none of them care. They just want to run. And, after the last hurrah, those ballots and campaign buttons make good keepsakes for the grandkids who can tell their children that their great-granddaddy was an important man who once ran for President of the United States.
Historically, in the 20th century, only two third party candidates ever achieved achieved double digit votes. Most don't even achieve whole single digits. Former Ronald Reagan speech writer, columnist, author and 2000 Reform Party presidential candidate Pat Buchanan (who snatched three States from the Bush-win column and gave those States to Al Gore, Jr) snagged only 0.4%—less than 1/2 of 1%—of the vote. In 1988 then-GOP Congressman and Libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul netted 0.5%—1/2 of 1%—of the vote. In 1980, Republican Congressman John Anderson, with a Democrat, Gov. Pat Lucey [D-WI] as his running mate, pulled 8% of the vote—probably all from Jimmy Carter since Anderson's National Unity Party pledged to implement a 50¢ per gallon gas tax in an era of skyrocketing inflation and spiraling gas prices. Like all good liberals, Anderson thought he could conserve gasoline by making it too expensive to use. (Tell that to wage earners who use their energy-driven vehicles everyday to go to work and earn a paycheck to feed their families.)
In 1948 the globalists wanted Harry S. Truman to get a full term to protect the fledgeling United Nations (which was, in reality the old globalist League of Nations dressed up in a new red-white-and-blue suit of clothes). The people overwhelmingly wanted Gov. Thomas Dewey [R-NY]. The polls showed Dewey would have an easy win. Enter South Carolina's very conservative Democratic Gov. Strom Thurmond. At the urging of the Democratic Party bosses Thurmond formed the Dixiecrats (the States' Rights Party) to campaign against Truman—he said. Private polls showed that instead of diluting Truman's vote, Thurmond would pull conservative independent blue collar union workers (now known as Reagan Democrats) from Dewey, (which, of course, was the reason the Dixiecrats were formed). While he only pulled 1,275,940 votes, Thurmond took 39 electoral votes, and with less than 4% of the votes cast, he took 4 States away from Dewey. Truman was re-elected. On June 25, 1950, Truman committed the United States to a multinational war against the North Koreans. In 1952, Truman addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations and said: "Today, US soldiers are giving their lives in Korea so that the United Nations can live."
In 1960, the Dixiecrats were reborn to help Catholic John F. Kennedy win over Vice President Richard M. Nixon. This time the presidential "candidate" was Sen. Harry F. Byrd [D-VA]. His running mate was Thurmond. Only, Byrd, who remained a staunch member of the Democratic Party throughout the race, did not seek the office nor did he campaign as the Dixiecrat candidate for the job. There was a fear in the Democratic hierarchy that if he did, Nixon would not only have won, Byrd, not Kennedy, would have come in second in a repeat of the Election of 1912 in which the money mafia, figuratively led by J.P. Morgan, used former President Teddy Roosevelt as a third party sieve to drain votes from popular incumbent President William Howard Taft. Had Roosevelt seriously campaigned he, not his cousin Franklin, would have been the first president to serve three terms. When the dust settled in 1912, Taft, whom the polls showed would win 55% to 45% in a two-way race against Thomas Woodrow Wilson, came in third. Roosevelt pulled 27.4% of the vote. Wilson took 41.9% of the vote and left Taft with the dregs—23.3%. And Wilson not only led the United States in World War I, he crafted the League of Nations that would have obligated the United States to surrender its sovereignty to that European body. And, most important, Wilson gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax through the 16th Amendment, and the destructtion of the Republic with the 17th Amendment.
[Book out of print. Order while supply last: "Whatever Happened to America?"]
In 1992, the Clintons, who were looking at a 55% to 45% defeat at the hands of incumbent President George H.W. Bush, found the ideal third party candidate in Texas billionaire H. Ross Perot. Perot, the media said, had all the money in the world and [a] could finance his own campaign, and [b] could not be bought by the Money Mafia That, of course, appealed to voters who were tired of "business-as-usual" in Washington, DC.
According to the information found in the working papers of Hillary Clinton's Health Security Act Working Papers: Diebold Report, Box 1748 (found in 1994 in the National Archive), the price for Perot's entry into the Election of 1992 was an exclusive no-bid contract for 100% of the IT business related to the institutionalization of the US healthcare industry. The value of the contract? $8.5 billion. In addition to Perot's name were the names of several other wealthy Clinton donors who would benefit from no-bid contracts related to the creation of socialized medicine. Among them were Dr. Roy Vagelos, CEO of Merck & Co., and Maurice Greenberg, CEO of the American International Group [AIG]. Perot—the only third party candidate ever allowed to do so—joined in the primetime debates with candidates Clinton and Bush-41, and stumped like a man determined to win. At least, the American voters who were tired of picking the lesser-of-two-evils from the Siamese Twins, and who joined the Reform Party, thought he was. In point of fact, no third party presidential candidate has any illusions about winning. They know it is a statistical impossibility. Perot's task in 1992—and, again in 1996 against Sen. Bob Dole—was to take at least 12% of the vote. In 1992, Perot amazed the pundits and took 19% of the vote—and the election—away from George H.W. Bush. However, losing the election was not all Perot lost in 1992. He also lost $45 million dollars—his out-of-pocket cost to finance his own campaign. And, since Hillary could not steal 1/7th of the US economy for the liberal bureaucracy in DC that would have "managed" Hillary's government healthcare system, Perot walked away empty-handed in 1992.
When the Clintons asked for an encore in 1996 against Dole, Perot, still charred around the edges of his wallet, demanded the money—in advance—to finance his campaign. Perot was told if he held a nominating convention he could get matching funds. Perot went through the sham of holding one. With only 10% of his theoretical 800 thousand loyal Reform Party members returning ballots, Perot easily won against Reform Party challenger and former Congressman Richard Lamm. He received a check from the taxpayers for $30 million, or $375 for every vote cast in the Reform Party's mock primary. Perot took 8% of the vote in 1996. Many of Perot's Reform Party followers learned, in 1994, that the pint-sized Texan with the ten gallon had cut a deal with the Clintons in 1992. Many simply skipped the election. Some voted for Dole. Others voted for the Libertarian candidate Harry Browne because they didn't like either Dole or Clinton and felt deceived by Perot.
|
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! |
In point of fact, the voters in 1912 who voted for Teddy Roosevelt actually voted to elect Wilson. In 1948, the blue collar conservative union workers who cast their ballots for Strom Thurmond actually voted to elect the man who went to his grave believing the US soldiers who died in Korea gave their lives to make sure the UN survived. In 1960, the anti-Catholic Democrats who voted for Harry Byrd (who wasn't even running) actually cast their votes to elect the man their Protestant moorings told them to reject—John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the president whose advisers authored State Dept. Publication 7277 in 1962, State Dept. Publication 7277 was to start the global ball on complete and total disarmament rolling—beginning by disarming the American people. And, on the international scene, State Dept. Publication 7277 promised the Soviet Union that, in a show of good faith, the United States would begin dismantling their weapons of war—including traditional, non-nuclear weapons—first. (The provisions in State Department Publication 7277 came directly from the game plan structured by the League of Nations in 1920 to end the world of war. When World War II began, only Germany and Japan had enough ships, tanks, airplanes, bombs, and field equipment to fight a war.) For part two click below.
Click here for part -----> 2,
