Internet Articles (2015)
or some strange reasonthe logic of which escapes mewhenever presidential elections roll around, the evangelical leaders of the United States always show their biasesand their prejudice. Regardless how qualified the candidate, if he is not a traditional Christian from their perspective, the evangelical leaders of America will speak out against him and advocate for any other candidate believing, somehow, the theological beliefs (or lack thereof) of the non-traditional candidate will poison the wellspring of thought in this nation. The more important the evangelical, the worse the bias. While this bias has always existed in the most Christian nation in the world, the bias against non-traditional candidates popped up for the world to see for the first time in 1960 when a Roman Catholic was favored to win the White House. The man was John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
The leadership of the Democratic Party knew that traditional Democrats and moderate independents who were fundamental Christians would likely cast their votes that year for Republican Vice President Richard Milhous Nixon. Nixon was an evangelical Christian. The evangelical communityand even influential liberals in academiafeared the notion of a Catholic president. In Christian America, fundamental Christians had a monopoly on the White House. Even though Kennedy distanced himself from Catholic positions and advocated for complete separation of church and state, he continued to hemorrhage in the polls. In September, 1960, Nixon held a one point lead over Kennedy.
As the heavily-populated northern Democratic States raced towards more New Deal socialism in the 1930s, the Southern Democrats remained anchored to populism and traditional values. The Democratic hierarchy knew that family values Southerners would not vote for Kennedy. They feared that Democrats would elect Nixon in 1960. The party convinced Sen. Harry F. Byrd [D-VA] to reactivate Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat Party and run against Kennedy. While the liberal northern media denounced Byrd as a populist who split the Democratic Party, the party bosses knew that what Byrd was doing was diverting votes which, they believed, would otherwise guarantee Nixon a victory by giving the defectors a third party candidate to vote for. Byrd did in 1960 what Strom Thurmond did in 1948 to keep the Southern Democrats from voting for Republican Thomas E. Dewey.
Had Byrd not been in the race, Nixon would have won the popular vote by a margin of 173,518 votes. But Kennedy would have still prevailed with 303 electoral votes to 234 for Nixon. Byrd won Mississippi's 8 electoral votes and split Alabama's 12 with Kennedy. Byrd also gained one from Oklahoma. He was re-elected to the US Senate in 1964as the Democrat-of-good-standing he had been since 1933.
Those across the South who cast their votes for Strom Thurmond in 1948, Byrd in 1960, Alabama Gov. George Wallace in 1968 and 1972, former Congressman John B. Anderson [R-IL] in 1980, Ron Paul [R-TX] as a Libertarian in 1988, Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 and Pat Buchanan in 2000 were actually voting to place the Democrat in the White House. In the United States, since 1832, there have been 136 third party candidates. But it has not been since 1912 that the nation's most influential moneymen learned how to manipulate those whose names would appear on the ballot, and control the voting apparatus to assure that those they designated as the winners and losers would play their roles to completion. Of the 136 third party candidates who have run since 1832, only 12all of them since 1912have received any appreciable press. Among those who did not was Pat Buchanan in 2000 since Buchanan was pulling votes from the designated winner of that election. Ralph Nader, who was pulling votes from Al Gore, Jr., received a considerable amount of press during the campaign since he was pulling votes from the designated loser. From the moment he won the Reform Party nomination, Buchanan became the invisible man. Even the news story announcing that Buchanan won the nomination did not contain his name. It was an article announcing that the loser, John Hagelin, was forming a splinter party and would compete with Buchanan for the votes of the Reform Party loyalists. If there was ever any doubt about whether or not a third party candidateor an unanointed primary party underdogcan win the presidency, Buchanan learned in 2000 that it is not even remotely possible.
The American people have been led to believe that, through a pre-election vetting process, they actually select the candidates who seek the office of Presidentand that they also select the nominees. The fact is, they do neither. While a myriad of candidatesfrom senators, to governors, to congressmen to private citizensopt to run for the office of President, and pay the prescribed filing fees that make them eligible to run, they are not considered to be serious candidates until they have been vetted by the money barons. The money barons pick the designated winners and losers since you can't have a winner until you determine precisely who the losers will be.
The hands-on influence of the money barons has not been this visible since 1912 when there was as much at stakethe creation of the money barons' privately-owned banking systemthe Federal Reservethe right to tax the incomes and accrued assets of the American people and, most important, removing the States from the equation of power in the federal government. In 2008 there is even more at stakeerasing the US borders and merging the United States with Canada and Mexico to form an American Union like the European Union. The globalists are determined to make this happen during the tenure of the 44th President of the United States. It will be the second step in the seven step process to create world government. .
One by one, with the major donor campaign funds of all of the wanabees of 2008 dwindling like the water flow in a crimped garden hose, the wanabees were forced to drop out of the race because they were siphoning off too many delegates. If the drain continued, they would keep the designated winners from getting the delegates they required to anoint them before their party's national convention. The money barons like to hedge their bets. There is far too much at stake in 2008 to rely on "convention chance." While they control the Super Delegates in the convention, they do not control the minds and impulses of many of the rank and file delegates who, in a brokered convention, will vote the interests of their States and not the whims of the national party bosses. Only the union-controlled industrial States can be counted on to loyally follow the Party line.
Currently, 224 of the Super Delegateswho are influential members of the DNC, State party bosses and members of Congressare committed to Hillary Clinton. Of them, 14 are from either Michigan and Florida and, according to the rules established by the DNC, can't vote at the Democratic Convention in Denver on August 25-28 because they held their primary before Super Tuesday. That reduces the voting power of her Super Delegates to 210. Obama controls 132 Super Delegates. Three hundred sixty-three are uncommitted. Clinton, who just lost four key primariesincluding Maine which she was expected to winwill attempt to leverage all of the Super Delegates, even those committed to Obama, to support her bid for the White House. Political pundits watching this ploy play out said if the Super Delegates arbitrarily throw their support behind Hillary when she is trailing in the delegate tally, it will fracture the party and it will be Democrats who sit out the election.
Obama prevailed in what could be called the Potomac Massacrethe primaries in Washington, DC, Maryland and Virginia that give the junior Senator from Illinois seven straight wins. In addition, Obama has taken the lead in the delegate head count1,223 delegates to to 1,198leading his opponent by about the same margin Hillary was leading him only a week ago. Hillary Clinton is now scrambled for endorsements in Ohio, Pennsylvaniaand especiallyTexas, in what the Clinton Campaign is calling Hillary's "Firewall Primaries." Could Texas be Hillary's Alamo? Forty-five percent of America hopes so although most believe John McCain could beat Hillary but not Obama. In truth, McCain can't beat either of them. A McCain nomination is a Democratic coronation. The Democrats will win the White House and increase their lead in both the House and Senate.
For the first time since she launched her presidential run over a year ago, Hillary Clinton is running scared. Clinton fired her campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle over the past weekend and gave the job to her former former Rose Law Firm secretary who also served as her White House Chief of Staff, Maggie William. Politically, the move made no sense since, going into Texas where Hillary needs the Hispanic vote to win, firing her Hispanic campaign manager and replacing her with an African American woman with absolutely no experience as a political strategist, is tantamount to playing Russian roulette.
What Hillary Clinton needs heading her campaign at this critical moment isn't an inner-circle Clintonoid whose only claim to fame was misplacing the subpoenaed Rose Law Firm billing records until a day after the statute of limitations for prosecuting Hillary during the Ken Starr investigation of the Clintongates, and as the Clinton official who accepted a $60,000 check from Peoples' Republic of China-connected bundler Johnny Chung, who gave Williams the check at one of the White House coffeesa felony under federal campaign laws. (Chung was convicted of bank fraud and tax evasion for the illegal funds he funneled to the Clintons during Chinagate. Sen. John Kerrya close friend of McCainalso took Chinese money in 2004 when the Federal Election Commission revealed that Chung donated money to Kerry in 2004. Also on Kerry's donor list were Chinagate figures John Huang and Mark Jimenezboth of whom were convicted with Chung in the fundraising scandal.)
McCainwho calls himself a true conservativeangered because he lost the nomination to George W. Bush, voted for Al Gore for president in 2000. (Which really shouldn't surprise anyone since, in the Senate, he generally votes with the likes of Kerry and Teddy Kennedy against his own party.) With the handwriting so clearly etched on the wall that regardless which designated winnerObama, McCain or Clintonwins the White House, its clear to a large majority of conservatives that there will be a Democrat in the White House.
Focus on the Family head Dr. James Dobsonwho campaigned hard against Mitt Romney getting the nomination because he was a Mormon, and campaigned against Fred Dalton Thompson because he didn't think Thompson was committed enough as a Christian to lead the nationhas done a complete about-face with respect to Romney. Last September Dobson challenged Thompson's candidacy by accusing him of being wrong on the issues that concern Christians most. Neither Romney nor Thompson had been dishonest with the potential conservative voters, yet Dobson still threw his support behind the Baptist preacher who consistently lied about his positions on the "issues that concern Christians most"only because he was a Baptist preacher. Dobson's argument, like the argument of most Americans right of center is that American citizens should never compromise themselves by voting for the "lesser of two evils."
When the results from Super Tuesday rolled in, McCain had 719 of the 1,191 electoral votes he needed to claim the prize. Unless a miracle happened, McCain was going to win the nomination long before the GOP Convention in Minneapolis in September. Mike Huckabee, the Baptist preacher who said he was praying for that miracle, couldn't have won unless everyone else dropped out of the race. Huckabee's problemlike McCain'sis that he supported amnesty for illegal aliens. Huckabee's key donors: Wal-Mart and Tyson's Foods needed cheap labor. He fought to get it for them. Huckabee's biggest problem is that he is "McCain Light."
Dobsonwho was in my opiniob singularly most responsible for the defeat of Romney and Thompsonsaid, "If McCain is the nominee, I'm sitting out the election." Later Dobson said he would vote for Romney in the general election. Dobson also was forced to admit that, in every national election, the voter is obligated to vote for the lesser of two evils since the pristine candidates who represent everything fine and pure can't get elected. If you doubt that, look at the delegate tally for the Republicans as of Feb. 12. John McCain has 821 delegates. Romney has 288; Huckabee, who intends to stay in the race until the primaries in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania (so he can surpass Romney before bowing out) has 241 delegates; and square-shooter Ron Paul has 14 delegates). Before Super Tuesday, working very closely with Boston businessman Bill Barnstead and a couple of other groups of businessmen around the country, we saw what was coming down the pike and urged conservative votersthose supporting both Huckabee and Ron Paulto collectively get behind Romney in order to stop McCain. I think I received an email from half of the Huckabee and Paul supporters in the country telling me that good conscience would not allow them to vote for the lesser of two evils. Many said they would support the candidate they had been backing, and if McCain won the nomination, they would sit out the election "...to teach the Republican Party a lesson." Of the conservatives attending CPAC that I personally polled, close to 75% said they would vote for someone other than McCain and roughly 15% said they would sit out the election.
Which, of course, is precisely what the Christian right did during the midterm election in 2006. As a result, the GOP lost control of both the House and the Senateand, with that, any chance of appointing conservative judges to the federal bench or any chance of enacting legislation that would be beneficial to the American middle classor more specifically, to them personally. Over the past eight years, the Christian right has forgotten that in liberal jargon, "taxing the rich" means taxing anyone with a job who doesn't work for McDonald's or Wal-Mart. Which ever Democrat gets electedand that includes McCainexpect higher taxes.
Michael Reagan saw Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Guiliani instead of Mitt Romney as the lesser of three evils since Robertson also knew McCainwho is every bit as liberal as Hillary Clinton when she's not wearing her moderate maskwas the designated winner in the GOP race. Robertson, who has been a presidental candidate himself, knows the office of President is not even remotely a theological position (even though George W. Bushwho professes to be a born-again Christianhas done more than any president to promote Islam as a state religion in the United States). Reagan believes Robertson was motivated by which candidate would be most likely to stop Hillary. Robertson was convinced that Rudy Giuliani would be more likely than McCain to stop her. While he was convinced the former Massachusetts governor would as well, Romney's Mormonism was too much of a hurdle for Robertson to leap. Robertson favored Thompson, but with Thompson lagging in the polls from the moment he jumped into the race, Robertson opted for the media frontrunner who lacked the ability to excite anyone except the left.
Ben Boychuk, the moderator for RedBlueAmerica.com and an editorial writer for Investors' Business Daily, said it best: "Nobody likes choosing the lesser of two evils. But that's politics. Nothing is ever pure. You vote for the candidates you have, not the candidates you want to have. Unfortunately for conservatives, Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan weren't available this year."
Sadly for the nationand for the Constitution and the Bill of Rightsconservatives have not learned from the past. Liberals have. Because liberals are so far from perfect, they are smart enough to acknowledge that their candidates never will be. They understand something else the conservatives can't graspfinding the consensus to govern requires compromise. Conservatives sadly want it alland are willing to settle for nothing if they can't have it their way. And, more often than not, that's exactly what they getnothing. The bureaucracythe unconstitutional fourth branch of governmentwas built by the New Deal Democrats and honed to perfection by Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. A hundred years of tinkering with the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary by social progressives have pretty much wiped out the Bill of Rights. If McCain, Clinton or Obama is elected, what is left of it will be goneas will this nation's borders and its sovereignty.
Clearly, Ron Paul can't win. Huckabee can't win (in fact, all he wants to do is get ahead of Romney before dropping outthinking that will put him in a better spot to become McCain's running mate). It's time to vote for the lesser of evils. Voting for Mitt Romney will not give him the nomination (which can't happen because the numbers just aren't there. There aren't enough delegates left). And, as Bolychuk pointed out, since neither Silent Cal nor Reagan are available, the Republican base desperately needs to find a leader with true conservative roots that can lead the Republican Party back from the brink of despair. David Keene, Paul Weyrich, and about 50 heavyweight conservative leaders suggested that man is Mitt Romney. Since we have run out of arguing time, the conservative voters have a choice. They can stop McCain from winning enough delegates to own the nomination when he goes to Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, or they can continue to vote for Huckabee and Ron Paulwho are now irrelevantand watch McCain lock up the delegates he needs by the end of June. Since there are not enough delegates left to give Romney the nomination, voting for Romney simply gives new life to everyone except McCain. A brokered convention means McCain can't win, and opens a floor fight that gives conservative America a shot at nominating a genuine conservative as the standard bearer of the Republican Party.
Step three: merge North, Central and South American into a hemispheric union. Step four: merge the African continent, Australia and New Zealand into an African Union. Step five: merge Asia and Indonesia into the Asian Union. Step six: merge the various regional currencies into a single global monetary unit (theoretically) to minimize the risk of currency fluctuations. Step seven: once your control the financial fate of every person in the world, global governance will be achieved with a world government headquartered in the Brussels, Belgium. Missing from this equation is the Muslim world