STEALING
THE WORLD
PART 3 of 4
By
Jon Christian Ryter
May 13, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
The blame for what has happened to America, and what will continue to happen until the greedmongers steal this nation—and the world—lies within three groups. The first group is alienated from the other groups who have literally joined forces against them. The first group is, needless to say, the voters. Us. So, first, we need to blame us. All of us. We must carry most of the blame because the destruction of America could not have happened without our apathy. Second, we need to blame the politicians who have allowed themselves to be corrupted by the barons of banking and business and the transnational princes of industry. And, finally, we need to blame the barons of banking and industry and the transnational princes of industry who see themselves as the lords of us all. They believe their money and station in life gives them the right to buy the most compliant governments they can afford to steal. To see the evidence of that truth, we need to look no further than the last election.
Before the Election of 2008 I communicated with hundreds of conservative supporters of lost causes, urging them to vote for John McCain not because I thought McCain was an acceptable presidential candidate, but solely because [a] as a major party candidate, with enough support, he could win; and [b] because he wasn't as bad as the alternative. Anyone with a reasonable mind knew that. Given a super majority in Congress, the ultra-far left Obama was going to implement a socio-fascist government. But it seemed that every Don Quixote conservative was using the same far right patriotic talking points from the same far right broadcast email. I was repeatedly told that they would cast their vote for integrity even though they knew their candidate (whether it be Congressman Ron Paul, pastor Chuck Baldwin or former Congressman Bob Barr) couldn't win. No third party candidate in US politics enters a presidential race with illusions that they can win. Because they can't. That's why its called a "two-party system." Third party candidates are "scrapbook candidates." They are in the race for two reasons. First, so they can tell their grandchildren they were once candidates for President of the United States. And, finally, if they are party affiliated, they are seeking matching funds so they can continue chasing windmills in the next election cycle.
To collect matching funds, major party candidates (i.e., Democrats and Republicans) need only collect at least $100 thousand in total contributions from donors in at leasts 20 States. Third party candidates must take at least 5% of the vote and collect over $100 thousand total in at least 20 different States. (In 2008, Joe Biden, Christopher Dodd, John Edwards, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Dennis Kucinich collected matching funds for their abortive campaigns.[Obama and McCain each received $21,025,000, which was the maximum allowed in 2008.] Strange is that third party candidate Ralph Nader, who took slightly more than a half of 1% of the vote [0.56%], was awarded $411 thousand in matching funds by the FEC. The last third party candidates to meet the 5% threshold and qualify for matching funds was Pat Buchanan who hijacked the Reform Party in 2000 with 5% of the vote through a fluke. The Reform Party split, with Buchanan keeping the Party name. Reform Party dissident John Hagelin renamed his segment of the Reform Party the Natural Law Party. Buchanan's Reform Party took 4% of the vote. Hagelin's Reform Party/Natural Law Party, took 1% of the vote. The FEC combined the totals and decided the Reform Party met the 5% threshold and awarded matching funds.)
You should be grasping the stark reality of our political system. As I said, it's called a two-party system for a reason. Third party candidates can't get elected. Ever. They aren't supposed to. They are the spoilers used by the overlords of the major parties to guarantee that the candidate the barons of banking and business and princes of industry have picked to lead the nation wins the election. In 2008, it was clear from early on that Sen. John McCain was the designated loser. It was unclear until New Hampshire whether the winner was supposed to be Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama. On the eve of the New Hampshire primary as Hillary was racking up her first important win, the money barons pulled their support from her and gave the blank check to Obama. A man without a constitutional right to run, and a man who could never have won more than 35% of the vote in an honest election—if he was eligible to run—Sen. Barack Obama, was picked to win.
Why? As a "man of the world," the money barons knew Obama has no ethical or patriotic loyalty to the United States. The transnationalists knew Obama would not hesitate to sell out this nation to the globalists in the Hague.
Advertisement
Referring to the Tea Party Movement (what I prefer to call a real John Doe Movement what amounts to the little punks taking back their country from the big skunks), Fox News talk show host Glenn Beck noted on his May 5 program that both the Republican and Democratic Parties are shrinking, and the ranks of nonaligned conservative independents is rising. Beck noted that the voters did the quintessential American thing. We said, "enough," and put in the other guy. And now what's happened," Beck observed, "people on both sides are saying, 'Haven't I seen this movie before?'" That's why I like the movie "Meet John Doe." In that movie, the people win. Why? Because, in the movie, the people were smart enough to realize they can pick the candidates within the party that actually win the nominations. Why within the party and not another party? Once again, no third party has the organizational structure necessary to get their candidates on the ballot in every county in every State in the nation. And no third party has the money to actually get the voters out to vote. Change must come from within the two major parties. They cannot be swamped by the tsunami of mass defections from the major parties described by Beck because when the disenfranchised desert, they join fringe groups—each promoting their own candidate.
While those defined as Reagan Republicans made up about 80% of the potential voting block in the 2008 primaries, when their votes were split between nine candidates, the vote was diluted so much that McCain became the GOP nominee with a plurality of 22%. Once again, that happened because conservatives refused to coalesce around the most winnable candidate in the field. In that race, the candidate that should have won the nomination and would have won the election, was Gov. Mitt Romney. Anti-tax conservatives decided to play games with the multiplicity of straw polls throughout the primary season, repeatedly voting for Ron Paul, or voting once and shooting off email after email to others on their email lists to get them to vote for the OB-Gyn from Texas. As a result, Ron Paul's numbers were grossly exaggerated, suggesting there were thousands of supporters for his campaign that simply didn't exist. This anomaly between fact and fiction caused thousands of solid conservative votes that might have kept the House of Representatives from falling into the hands of the watermelons, to never be cast as disillusioned conservatives decided neither candidate was worth their vote.
And, that's why we ended up with "22% John MCain" in 2008. With 11 contestants vying for the GOP nomination, the Rockerfeller-Republican vote (about 30% of the GOP voters) would be divided between Sen. McCain and former New York mayor Rudy Guiliani, with McCain pulling about 93% of those voters. The Reagan-Republican vote was divided between nine GOP hopefuls: Governors Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Jim Gilmore and Tommy Thompson; Senators Sam Brownback and Fred Thompson; and Congressmen Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter. Get the picture? Without the John Doe "little punks" coalescing around one candidate who would be supported by the majority of the voters—and, most of all, had the ability to win, the liberal institution's candidate always wins because there are fewer liberals in the candidate field to split the minority liberal votes (which means the percentage of votes will generally be larger when fewer candidates are vying for that segment's votes). That will always happen because the money barons know, historically, how the John Does of the world think and act. They know the John Does would rather sit out the election than vote for the lesser of two evils.
Glenn Beck viewed the John Doe exodus from the major parties as a good thing. It's not. Once outside the major parties, the John Does can no longer influence the outcome of any national election—except to elect the greater of two evils. Remember the first rule of the two party system. Third party candidates are spoilers who are used by the money barons to assure the election of the "designated winner."
Beck, like the John Does themselves, believe that raw numbers mean something. They don't. If they did, every National election would be won by a Democrat. Elections are always won or lost by the votes of the John Does of America. But I have to agree with Glenn Beck about one thing. When I started digging into the philosophical make-up of Obama last year, I was convinced I had found a closet clone of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini—a socialist Muslim. I was wrong. He is a socio-fascist Muslim. (In fairness to Beck, he only referred to Obama as a fascist and not a socialist.) The wellspring of Obama's mind appears to be a patchwork quilt of what worked under communism and fascism. He appears to have blended those world views and spiced them with the best of Roosevelt and Lincoln.
|
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! |
America went into the Election of 2008 with an easy-to-solve financial problem that was caused, fully and completely, by the far left with the assistance of then presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama during his days as a Chicago community activist and as an Illinois State Senator. The media blamed George W. Bush. So did the American working class because the problem impacted the consumers on his watch. In fact, they blamed every Republican—but not the Democrats who actually legislated the Clinton-era law that forced US banks to ignore the creditworthiness of minority home buyers even to the extent of allowing welfare payments to be construed as real wages and the welfare system as their employer, in order to qualify for mortgages even though, historically, the credit history of the buyer made it clear that the mortgage holder had a poor history of paying rent and utilities regardless where the household "income" came from. For part four click below.
