Why It's Critical That We Vote Third Party

I've been very intrigued by the articles posted recently by Stephanie and Rick. In a Sunday School class last week, I had many similar observations regarding the state of our Union. It's interesting that people from opposite sides of the political spectrum agree so well on what the problems are that confront us. Stephanie's explanation of moral hazard in the financial industry is spot on. Rick's list of current national problems reads almost exactly like something I would have put together.

The fact that political opposites agree on the malaise indicates to me that it is neither a republican- nor Democrat-caused problem. It is an establishment-caused problem. Neither of the major parties, together with their knights and fair ladies in shining armor, has any idea how (or at least intent) to fix it. That's why it's critical that we vote for someone in a third party for president this year.

Please watch Ron Paul's 10-minute presentation below, and let me know what problems you see with his logic...




I don't see any holes in Congressman Paul's logic, but maybe it's because I'm as blind as the me-too Obama followers and the die-hard McCain fans. (Offense is only intended by that statement if you decide to take it.)

It's as if the Doctrine and Covenants of the LDS Church says this

10 Wherefore, [somewhat] honest men and [partially] wise men should be sought for diligently, and [the lesser of two evils] ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.

Fortunately, it doesn't say that at all.

When it comes to solving Stephanie's and Rick's list of current problems--putting a stop to unprovoked military action, stanching economic moral hazard, encouraging alternative energy, getting the media to talk about issues instead of "he said she said", breaking the fascist monopoly among government and the financial, pharmaceutical, and energy sectors, healing apathy, and fixing the education system in America-- McCain and Obama have been nibbling around the edges, and that's all they'll ever do. History has shown us that.

The two major-party candidates do not have any solutions to any of these critical problems that Stephanie and Rick have clearly and correctly identified.

Ron Paul does. Unfortunately, when he was running for President not enough people listened. But it's still not too late.

The only way we can get off of high-center vis-a-vis the same tired, worn-out slate of never-solved problems is to put people in public office whose best interest is NOT in NOT solving them.

This "NOT NOT" test disqualifies both Obama and McCain.

Break the stranglehold.

Vote third party this election.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Black Columnist's Take On Obama

I get tired of all the race, gender, political-correct garbage we are forced to deal with nowadays. I personally believe that if our society were truly enlightened then we would treat people as we want to be treated ourselves, and we would give opportunities and jobs and scholarships to those with the most qualified skills/accomplishments. Rather than call our situation 'informed' based on the number of ethnicities and genders represented, I think a situation will only be truly 'informed' when it includes the merits and ideas that are representative of the best available.

I think it is time to look at Obama by himself out from the shadow of Jeremiah Wright, Harvard, the color of his skin...Lets look at Obama, the politician.

This article was written by a journalist who happens to be black. I believe that his approach is the way we all should be in reviewing politicians: erase all the stereotype descriptors and focus on the essentials of what the politician is and stands for. Then you will know what you will end up with. The other stuff is just fluff and doesn't amount to anything.

If you'd like to read the article on the New York Sun site, click here. Or you can read it below.

Beyond Obama's Beauty
By KENNETH BLACKWELL
February 14, 2008
"[C]ivilizational war is real, even if political leaders and polite punditry must call it by another name."
— Robert D. Kaplan in the December 2001 issue of the Atlantic Monthly

"It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first frontrunning freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.

We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender.

Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.

The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.

Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton.

Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.

Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."

Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong Il, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists — something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich."

How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" — hijacked — Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban — ban — on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.

The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.

But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and — yes — they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.

It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war. "

Mr. Blackwell, a fellow at the American Civil Rights Union and the Family Research Council, is a columnist for The New York Sun, and a contributing editor for Townhall.com.

Read More...

Summary only...