[Peace-discuss] rp statement on The American Majority

[John W.]

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:51 AM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:

 John,
>
> Do you think that we have Free Markets in the US?
>
> Wayne
>

Very free indeed to those who can afford 'em.  Why do you ask?





> John W. wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:32 AM, E. Wayne Johnson <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/20080910/3f350c64/attachment.html