Eagle

Home

News
Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report

DONATIONS

Articles
Testimony
Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Books
Order Books

Cyrus
Rednecker

Search

About
Comments

Links

 

Openings at $75K to $500K+

Pinnaclemicro 3 Million Computer Products

Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

Get Your FREE Coffeemaker Today!

Corel Store

20 years


ongressman 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.

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.

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.)

Like it or not, you now have a very real clear and candidly honest explanation of how the US political system actually works. The Founding Fathers didn't plan it that way. The money barons behind the party system did. The system mandates voting for the "lesser-of-two-evils"—because one of the two major party candidates is always going to win. That's why our political system is called "the two-party system." It wasn't named that because we only have two political parties since, clearly, we have many more than that. It was called the "two-party system" because, at the top of the ticket (indulge me while I repeat myself) only one of the two major party candidates can win—always!. Third party candidates (those who are graced with any meaningful media coverage) are the designated sieves whose job it is to drain off enough votes from the "lesser-of-two-evils" to guarantee that the "greater-of-two-evils" (i.e., those more snugly in bed with the barons of banking and business and the princes of industry) gets elected.

How do you change it? You must change the system from within by starting at the local level and electing mayors, city council members, county commissioners, then state legislators and governors. Once the people create a new political "foundation," they are ready build a political party by electing congressmen and senators—and, ultimately, presidents. In other words, "party building" begins from the bottom up. When you build a house, you don't start with the roof, you start with the basement.

When the GOP kicked off the Republican National Convention at the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul on Sept. 1, 2008 disgruntled Ron Paul supporters, anti-Fed, anti-government, anti-tax anarchists and patriot movement activists met for an "alternative agenda" rally at the Target Center in Minneapolis a day later. Promoters of the rally claim they sold over 10 thousand tickets to the 7,500 seat auditorium, but according to the media that was counting, many of the seats remained empty throughout the rally, even when the rally's superstar, Dr. Paul, spoke.

Dr. Paul's "Rally for the Republic" pledged to bring the Republican Party back to its roots. In his speech, Dr. Paul called for an end to the income tax, the Federal Reserve and, he said, the military draft, which was suspended in April, 1975. (In 1980, President Jimmy Carter reinstated draft registration by Executive Order.) Several Republican delegates skipped the speechmaking at the GOP convention to attend the Rally for the Republic" When he spoke, former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura told the Paul loyalists that the two major parties were destroying the nation. The speakers denounced the use of paper money, the "Orwellian policies" of the current administration, the Federal Reserve, its chairman, and the war on drugs.

When you want to create a new political party structure within a two-party system you have to destroy one of the two parties already within that system to accomplish your task. Dr. Paul's Rally for the Republic" was not a wake-up call to revitalize the Republican Party, it was the opening salvo to destroy it from within by urging conservatives to desert the GOP standard-bearer and vote for third party candidates—Constitution Party Chuck Baldwin, Libertarian candidate Bob Barr, or Green Party candidates Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney. (Ron Paul made it clear it didn't matter which third party candidate they voted for since he knew none of them can win.) After all, you can't bake a cake until you break a couple of eggs. After the sweepers cleaned away the dregs of confetti and busted balloons from the floors of the Target Center and the Xcel Energy Center, the Ron Paul loyalists returned to their homes and tucked away their latest memories in scrapbooks and electronic images on their computers, content in the knowledge that the Ron Paul Revolution was alive and well.

The Palin-surge changed everyone's campaign tactics. In fact, Gov. Sarah Palin changed the entire dynamics of the election. The response by disgruntled and disillusioned Republicans, self-described Independents, moderate Democrats who were displeased with both Democratic nominee Barack Obama and GOP nominee McCain, and most of all, women of every stripe, was as instantaneous as it was overwhelming. Overnight the Palin Phenomenon catapulted the McCain-Palin team into the lead. The Palin-surge was not a convention bump. It was the reincarnation of the Reagan Revolution. As Obama's post-convention bounce died like a concrete basketball, a Washington Post-ABC News poll showed McCain-Palin surging from a 19 point deficit to a plus 7-point lead in the key battleground States. ABC News reported a 20-point swing towards McCain-Palin among white women. USA Today-Gallup showed Palin brought the ticket a 10-point advantage from likely voters. Polling from every source shows an incredible trend favoring McCain-Palin.

Prior to Palin, thousands of conservative voters (who sat out the Election of 2006 and allowed Congress to fall into the hands of the far left) decided, once again to either sit out the election or cast a meaningless protest vote for change in some other election some other time by voting for one third party candidate or another, knowing it would allow the far left to get an even tighter grip on Congress, and allow the far left to implement any draconian, totalitarian legislation it wants, without debate or compromise from the other side of the aisle.

By Friday, Aug. 29—the weekend before the GOP Convention, the Palin Phenomenon had taken hold. Obama's bounce dribbled out of the gate, and if you wanted to catch the bouncing ball, you would have had to reach down and pick it up off the floor. As Obama-Biden tried to breathe buoyancy into a bubble that had already burst, the "Rally for the Republic" discovered their foot soldiers were already marching to the beat of a different drum from within the Republican Party.

Ron Paul supporters, who also saw the reincarnation of Reagan in Sarah Palin, were sending checks and pledging to support the McCain-Palin ticket. The base of disenfranchised Republican or, at least, conservative voters were thinning out. Dr. Paul's claim that his loyal supporters "...represent a majority of the American people. We deserve to be in the debates," was a little thin. In reality, in 2004 the Constitution Party, with Baltimore lawyer Michael Peroutka heading the ticket and preacher Chuck Baldwin as his running mate, pulled 134 thousand votes nationwide. The Libertarian Party took around 438 thousand votes nationwide. Nader, clustered 464 thousand votes in 2004 running on both the Reform Party and Green Party tickets. Looking at these three tickets from 2004, the third candidates collectively took approximately 1,036,000 votes. This year, because of Sarah Palin, they will take somewhat less. Dr. Paul insists the independents who will cast their votes for all of the third party candidates, collectively, will be between 2 million and 3 million people. His numbers are pure hyperbole based on speculation and not statistics.

Ron Paul's strategy appears to be to group all of the third party candidates into one entity called "third party," and argue that because each of those candidates has an individual constituency, that "third party" should be allowed to join the debates. In the Election of 2004, voters cast a total of 122,105,050 votes. Less than 1% of the votes, or 1,036,000 of them, were cast by third party voters vying for the Constitution Party, Reform Party, Green Party or Libertarian Party. Breaking the totals down individually (since Ron Paul proposes that the actual candidates and not a surrogate representing "third party" be allowed to debate) we found that votes for the Constitution Party candidate totaled 0.001% (one thousandth of 1%) of the sum. Simply put, Chuck Baldwin is not a viable candidate. He's a political statement, and not a very loud one. In 2004, the Libertarian candidate took 0.0035% of the vote. He faired much better than the Constitution Party candidate, but he would have had to increase his vote-getting 300 times just to get 1% of the vote. Nader, running on two tickets in 2004, fared better—but not by much. His candidacies netted 0.00385% of the vote. Again, a political statement not a viable candidate. And while the voters are protesting the dual party Siamese twins, the greater-of-two-evils is ruining the country because conservatives split their vote and let a stakeholder with less than 50% of the vote win the election.

When Ron Paul addressed the media at the National Press Club on Sept. 10, he called upon the voters to reject both Barack Obama and John McCain and vote for any of the four third party candidates he was promoting: Baldwin, Nader, McKinney or Barr. (In all likelihood there will also be a Prohibition Party candidate, a Communist Party, USA candidate, a Socialist Workers Party candidate, a Natural Law Party candidate and, of course, Lyndon LaRouche will always be with us. "[Our electoral] system]," he said, "is driven by the conviction that only a major party candidate can win..." The statistics above prove conclusively that is the case. Without a nine-digit budget, it is virtually impossible for any presidential wanabee to even become a presidential hopeful. "Voters become convinced that [any vote other than a vote for a major party candidate] is a wasted vote. It's time for that conclusion to be challenged and to recognize that the only way to not to waste one's vote is to reject the two establishment candidates and join the majority, once called silent, and allow the voices of the people to be heard." Dr. Paul, who speaks collectively for less than 1% of both liberal and conservative voters, does not seem to realize that this constituency does not represent a "majority" even when you take off your shoes to count.

Libertarian candidate Bob Barr, who refused to be a part of Ron Paul's 'ship of fools," held his own press conference an hour later, said he decided not to join Paul's group for fear it would link him to the other candidates and "dilute" his candidacy in the upcoming election. Barr added that he did not oppose Paul's "statements of principle." However, to Barr, suggesting that those voters considering him could vote for any of the third party candidates was not an option he wanted to promote since he did not become the Libertarian candidate to make a political statement or to share the voting booth with Baldwin, or even worse, with environmentalist public citizen advocate Nader or socialist McKinney—or worse, citizen candidates on $100 budgets like self-employed technology researcher Jon Greenspon, trucker John K. Bootie or health insurance salesman John Blyth. I guess when your campaign is toilet-bound from the day you announce, being named "John" brings you halfway to your destination before your campaign starts. Layman candidates can count only on the votes of a handful disillusioned voters who would otherwise case their protest write-in votes for Beetle Bailey, Mickey Mouse or Homer Simpson.

If you want to change the two party system, you must work within that system to change it. In 2004, over 122 million people cast their vote. One million of them threw their voice away because screams in a closet are heard by no one. Change is a generational thing. You don't implement change at the top of the pinnacle because while he has a powerful vote, the President still only has one vote. Congress has 535 votes. But to change who casts the votes in Congress, you must start at home. All politics is local. That's where it all starts. Jon Greenspon, John Bootie and John Blyth should not have been running for President. They should have been running for city council or Mayor. Granted, there's not much glory in those jobs, but that's where the political foundation of our nation is built. Control local politics and, eventually, you will control the White House. Don't fight the system—change it.

 

Just Say No
Copyright 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved
.