[Peace-discuss] rp statement on The American Majority

[E. Wayne Johnson]

John,

Do you think that we have Free Markets in the US?

Wayne

John W. wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:32 AM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag 
> <mailto:ewj at pigs.ag>> wrote:
>
>     Ron Paul Statement to the National Press Club - 10 September 08
>     The American Majority
>
>     /The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals
>     and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left,
>     is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic
>     thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so
>     that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any
>     election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in
>     policy./
>     Carroll Quigley – Author of Tragedy & Hope
>
>     The coverage of the presidential election is designed to be a
>     grand distraction. This is not new, but this year, it's more so
>     than ever.
>
>     Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major
>     candidates is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to
>     perpetuate this myth are frequently unaware of what they are doing
>     and believe that significant differences actually do exist.
>     Indeed, on small points there is the appearance of a difference.
>     The real issues, however, are buried in a barrage of miscellaneous
>     nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic pundits hired to
>     perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance.
>
>     The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The
>     real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering
>     the real issues.
>
>     Influential forces, the media, the government, the privileged
>     corporations and moneyed interests see to it that both party's
>     candidates are acceptable, regardless of the outcome, since they
>     will still be in charge. It's been that way for a long time.
>     George Wallace was not the first to recognize that there's "not a
>     dime's worth of difference" between the two parties. There is,
>     though, a difference between the two major candidates and the
>     candidates on third-party tickets and those running as independents.
>
>     The two parties and their candidates have no real disagreements on
>     foreign policy, monetary policy, privacy issues, or the welfare
>     state. They both are willing to abuse the Rule of Law and ignore
>     constitutional restraint on Executive Powers. *Neither major party
>     champions free markets and private-property ownership.*
>
>
> This is a profoundly ignorant statement, and illustrates why I despise 
> libertarians.  BOTH major parties WORSHIP AT THE ALTAR of "free 
> markets" and private property ownership.  And so do libertarians.
>
> I stopped reading right here.
>
>  
>
>     Those candidates who represent actual change or disagreement with
>     the status quo are held in check by the two major parties in
>     power, making it very difficult to compete in the pretend
>     democratic process. This is done by making it difficult for
>     third-party candidates to get on the ballots, enter into the
>     debates, raise money, avoid being marginalized, or get fair or
>     actual coverage. A rare celebrity or a wealthy individual can, to
>     a degree, overcome these difficulties.
>
>     The system we have today allows a President to be elected by as
>     little as 32% of the American people, with half of those merely
>     voting for the "lesser of two evils". Therefore, as little as 16%
>     actually vote for a president. No wonder when things go wrong,
>     anger explodes. A recent poll shows that 60% of the American
>     people are not happy with the two major candidates this year.
>
>     This system is driven by the conviction that only a major party
>     candidate can win. Voters become convinced that any other vote is
>     a "wasted" vote. It's time for that conclusion to be challenged
>     and to recognize that the only way 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.
>
>     We cannot expect withdrawal of troops from Iraq or the Middle East
>     with either of the two major candidates. Expect continued
>     involvement in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Georgia.
>     Neither hints of a non-interventionist foreign policy. Do not
>     expect to hear the rejection of the policy of supporting the
>     American world empire. There will be no emphasis in protecting
>     privacy and civil liberties and the constant surveillance of the
>     American people. Do not expect any serious attempt to curtail the
>     rapidly expanding national debt. And certainly, there will be no
>     hint of addressing the Federal Reserve System and its cozy
>     relationship with big banks and international corporations and the
>     politicians.
>
>     There is only one way that these issues can get the attention they
>     deserve: the silent majority must become the vocal majority.
>
>     This message can be sent to our leaders by not participating in
>     the Great Distraction—the quadrennial campaign and election of an
>     American President without a choice. Just think of how much of an
>     edge a Vice President has in this process, and he or she is picked
>     by a single person—the party's nominee. This was never intended by
>     the Constitution.
>
>     Since a principled non-voter sends a message, we must count them
>     and recognize the message they are sending as well. The non-voters
>     need to hold their own "election" by starting a "League of
>     Non-voters" and explain their principled reasons for opting out of
>     this charade of the presidential elective process. They just might
>     get a bigger membership than anyone would guess.
>
>     Write-in votes should not be discouraged, but the electoral
>     officials must be held accountable and make sure the votes are
>     counted. But one must not be naïve and believe that under today's
>     circumstances one has a chance of accomplishing much by a write-in
>     campaign.
>
>     The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party
>     system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible
>     chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our
>     economic and foreign policy problems. This can be accomplished by
>     voting for one of the non-establishment principled
>     candidates—Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others.
>     (listed alphabetically)
>
>     Yes, these individuals do have strong philosophic disagreements on
>     various issues, but they all stand for challenging the status
>     quo—those special interest who control our federal government. And
>     because of this, on the big issues of war, civil liberties,
>     deficits, and the Federal Reserve they have much in common. People
>     will waste their vote in voting for the lesser of two evils. That
>     can't be stopped overnight, but for us to have an impact we must
>     maximize the total votes of those rejecting the two major candidates.
>
>     For me, though, my advice—for what it's worth—is to vote! Reject
>     the two candidates who demand perpetuation of the status quo and
>     pick one of the alternatives that you have the greatest affinity
>     to, based on the other issues.
>
>     A huge vote for those running on principle will be a lot more
>     valuable by sending a message that we've had enough and want real
>     change than wasting one's vote on a supposed lesser of two evils.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080910/66dfe388/attachment.html