October 28 , 2004

With less than a week to go before we have what may very well turn out to be a tumultuous election, most Americans still do not see that the only hope for a return to anything like this country was designed to be, is a vote for a third party candidate. Many still believe the answer lies in picking evil, albeit the lesser of the two.

Anthony Gregory most accurately describes the two major party candidates .

"The choice couldn't be clearer. On the one hand we have a man who believes strongly in aggressive preemptive war, the police state policies of the Patriot Act, healthcare socialism, continuing the Social Security scam, the welfare state, "reasonable" gun laws, trade protectionism, the War on Drugs, deficit spending, high taxes, and an omnipotent imperial executive branch.

On the other hand, we see a candidate who fervently believes in wars against countries that haven't attacked us, the draconian measures of the Patriot Act, healthcare collectivism, resuming the Social Security fraud, national welfare programs, "reasonable" gun control legislation, protectionist tariffs, the Drug War, spending through borrowing, high levels of taxation, and an all-powerful presidency resembling the station of an emperor."

Just plug whomever you want, Bush or Kerry, into either description and it comes out accurate. Not a lot of differences between these two Skull and Bones members. Seems like we have evolved into the USSR of past decades with only a minor variance. Instead of having one candidate who represents total socialism, we have two. Like the movie Alien versus Predator, "no matter who wins, we lose."

What leads Americans to passionately support one of two choices who ultimately represent the same position? Is it that every American desires to show up at work the day after, being able to say they were smart enough to associate themselves with a winner? Sounds logical. We seem to have no problem supporting gang-bangers, drug dealers, or other criminals, if they happen to play for our favorite sports team! What is the real difference, in the mind of the wannabees, between wearing the latest NBA champion's jersey or hat and having a Bush or Kerry sticker on your car or in your yard?

Almost 100% of those who vote are doing so because they desire a change in something. The republicans believe they want a change from the socialism of the democrats. The democrats believe they want a change from the policies that contribute to the "rich" of our society. No matter whom you vote for, both dynamics continue to exist. Does anyone find anything wrong with millionaires/billionaires campaigning on the differences between the "haves" and "have-nots?" Like they know what it is like to be a "have-not." If they believe so strongly in helping the poor, why do they not give their own money, set up foundations with their millions or billions to assist the downtrodden, instead of devising ways to do it with money they propose to steal from others?

History has shown that both major parties move quickly to adopt the policies of any "outsiders" in the political process, as soon as they begin to attract a following, and then trash those who sought results outside the "system." Nowhere has this been more obvious than the republicans blaming the loss of the 1992 presidential election to Clinton on those who voted for Perot.

Because of this, many believe their vote for Ross Perot in 1992 was wasted. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Regardless of how you want to look at it, for whatever reason, Perot threw the election. By dropping out of the election in July, and then reentering in the fall, he eroded much of his support, yet still managed to garner almost 20 million votes.

Anyone who cannot see the connection between the support for Perot and his Reform Party and the "Contract for America" adopted by the republicans in 1994 is not paying attention. This move by the republican leadership brought about one of the largest reversals of tactics in political maneuvers in decades, leading to an unprecedented win in congressional elections in 1994. With 20 million people demanding change, the politicians had to adjust. This move to the right brought about a move toward conservatism even within the socialist loving democrat party. Bill Clinton was forced to move toward the right in his welfare reform and other positions to insure a win in 1996. This would never have happened had it not been for Perot and his following in 1992.

Yet, the republicans and the democrats quickly withdrew their support for a return to the Constitution as American voters dropped their protest movement and the Reform Party died. Once they were able to bring the disenchanted back into the fold, it was back to business as usual.

A look at the promises in the "Contract for America" shows neither party supporting those political ideals and goals today. See what the results of voting for the lesser of two evils have done for us over the past decade. Jefferson was right. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

The lesson is clear: if we have any desire to bring this country back to the idea of a Constitutional Republic, we can only do so by supporting someone outside of the two major parties. Most politicians will only follow the Constitution when forced to do so by the voters. Like anyone else in the criminal element, they will gorge themselves on the wealth of others when they assume no one is watching, or cares.

George Wallace told us some 40 years ago there was very little difference in the two major parties and that is even more correct today. A good question to ask yourself would be: What is the Constitutional, as opposed to the philosophical, differences between the two?

For those of you who believe a vote for a third party candidate is a "wasted" vote, or a vote for either Bush or Kerry, you are wrong. A vote for a third party candidate is a vote for a return to Constitutional government and a repudiation of the current unconstitutional warfare/welfare state now in vogue in both the democrat and republican parties. The wasted vote is one you cast for either of those parties, for it does nothing to take us back to the Constitution.

Archives

The Constitution Is Not The Answer

Prognostications For 2004

The Fix Is In…Again

Watch Out Gun Owners: The Republicans Are Selling Us Out Again

Who Profits From Insider Trading?

There Ain’t No South—It’s Just North Of Mexico

“How The Hell Did These People Get In Our Army?”

Massive Gun Owner Sell Out Of Basic Rights

Republican Presidents And War Crimes - Nothing New Here

It Depends On Your Definition of "Support The Troops"

We Are Not Even Fighting The War We MUST Win

Random Thoughts

Indians Should Know Better

The Land of The Free and The Home of The Brave?

Challenge to Focus on the Family

Kerry Would Rather Lose The Election Than Stop The Killing

Gun Patriots: In 2004, Will We Support The Constitution, Or Ignore It

I Should Have Voted For Gore

Complete Archives for Michael Gaddy