Doug Eberhardt

Voting Fourth Party
by Sandra Hamilton

Most of the people that I know are not happy with the political choices they have for President this year. I hear lots of talk about voting against one guy or the other, but not so much talk about voting FOR anyone. There is one man, however, that a great many people wish they could vote for and that is Ron Paul. His supporters have their news page set to pick up all stories about him, they go to rallies thousands of miles away to support a man who is not even in the running anymore, and his support is not waning, in fact, it is growing.

Recently, Ron Paul held a news conference and suggested that people vote for a third party candidate. Notably absent from his side, was the third party candidate Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate. Despite the snub, Ron Paul still stood up for Barr and others in an effort to stop the insanity. If you want change, then you have to change the way you vote. Repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

I spent the day reading articles about Ron Paul’s historic speech. I found it strange that the pundits, who once ignored Ron Paul completely, suddenly were terribly interested in his opinions. It seems that as soon as Ron Paul says something that might affect the anointed ones, they must report. Would Ron Paul’s words make his supporters more or less likely to vote for McCain? Obama? Who will this affect more?

Meanwhile, the comments from Ron Paul supporters were all about which third party member to vote for, who should they support now? Reading between the lines it appears that his supporters are still loyal, only now they are not sure how to remain loyal.

If we are to accept that voting for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil (and I do accept that premise), then why throw your vote around willy-nilly? Voting for a third party candidate simply because they are a third party candidate makes no sense. You still have to use your mind in this election. You still have to choose a candidate to vote FOR.

At this point in this article I had intended to tell people that wish to vote for Ron Paul to do so by writing his name in on the ballot. I have bad news. Research revealed that in most states, a candidate must jump through a bunch of legal hoops to have their names counted as a write-in. The supposed argument is that you are never actually voting for a candidate, just a slate of electors who will go to the Electoral College to vote for your candidate and if those electors are not registered ahead of time, then in fact, you are not voting for anyone.

However, some states have managed to do away with all that nonsense. This is a nice page that breaks down the rules state by state, but as rules are constantly changing, I ask that you please check the rules for your state and not rely on the information in that link. My question is, if some states can allow you to vote for whomever you wish why can’t they all? What is so difficult about allowing the American people to pick the person they want to be President? Why is this so dangerous?

Every year we get these huge get-out-the-vote drives that are designed to legitimize a system and to make you think you have a choice. If you knew you did not have a choice you might balk a little. So they pretend to give you a choice between a statist and another statist and do everything in their power to prevent you from hearing the non-statist point of view and if you dare to learn of it on your own, they will stop you from being able to vote for your particular candidate. They are good at it.

This year I find myself with a huge dilemma. I typically vote Libertarian, but this year I cannot. I do not like the candidate. I choose not to support that candidate. I also do not like the other third party candidates. If I vote against a guy, then I am telling the guy I voted for that I like him. That would be false and I do not want to send that message. If I similarly vote Libertarian no matter who the candidate is, then I am telling the Libertarian Party that I do not care who they choose, but I do care. I do not want this year’s candidate to be President. I initially thought I would just write-in Ron Paul and feel good about myself. It turns out, much to my chagrin, that my state has one of those laws that will not count write in candidates unless the candidate filed certain papers and has not already lost a primary. (They call it the sore loser law. But if the people later discover they like the loser better than the winner, where is the harm in letting them choose?) So if I vote for Ron Paul, it will be counted as a “write-in” but not as a vote for Paul.

I have gone over this multiple times. Do I support the Libertarian Party even though I do not support the candidate? That goes against my principles. Do I choose any other third party to send a message? Again, that goes against my principles. I choose not to vote against people but to vote for them. Therefore, I am left with the decision to write in the name Ron Paul. I think he would make a great President. I know my vote will not count as a vote for Dr. Paul, but it will be counted in the generic category of “write-ins.” When they show the total of people in my state who do not like the choices they were given I will be among them. And that is the message I truly want to send with my vote. I do not accept your chosen few. I am an American and as so I believe I have the right to vote for whom I choose.

Perhaps if enough people also wrote-in their vote, these draconian write-in laws will be removed. In Delaware, for example, (correct me if I am wrong) if you write in a candidate, that vote will count, period. I think we all have that right.

I thought about not voting at all because I do not want to legitimize the system, but those non-votes are simply seen as apathy. I am not apathetic. I am passionate: Extremely passionate for liberty.

So this election, I will be making a statement. I will vote for the man I believe to be the best candidate, I will do my best to expose a corrupt system that prevents most of us from making a real choice, and I will sleep well. If you feel the same way, I ask you to join me. Even writing in “none of the above” sends a message. I ask you to think about the message you wish to send with your vote. If you want change then change.

Peace.

September 13, 2008

Sandra Hamilton is a retired attorney.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/hamilton4.html

Here is what I wrote Sandra in reply to her article:

Hi Sandra,

I think this is a perfectly written article that Lew Rockwell posted!  I wrote an article on another website back in March that Ron Paul should leave the Republican Party: http://www.nolanchart.com/article3131.html – I keep wondering why he won’t make the move to run, but he still thinks he can make a difference in the House being the minority vote against the evil duopoly (even though we know he’s almost always right!).

While the revolution will evolve, and I am writing to further the cause, I just wish I could have my vote count for Ron Paul, but alas, will “feel good about myself” by voting for whom I want to be President, just like you!  Maybe by next election we can get the write-in candidate approved in advance, but then we have that electoral problem whereby Ross Perot received 20% of the votes, but received ZERO electoral votes.  Like “not voting for anyone” indeed! Ugh!

Peace!

Doug Eberhardt

Related posts:

1. A Solution for Ron Paul Supporters?
2. Ron Paul Should Leave The Republican Party
3. Ron Paul Needs to Hire Britney Spears!

I’m always asking myself…”What is the U.S. Government thinking when it comes to foreign policy, and then I set out to try and prove my speculations with hard facts.

After a brief potential conflict in Colombia ended without bloodshed in the U.S. governments quest to police the world, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday that sending a second U.S. aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf could serve as a “reminder” to Iran, but he said it’s not an escalation of force.

We believe you Mr. Gates.  Wink, Wink…

There has been much written on the potential of a conflict with Iran.  It seems things are heating up of late.

It’s not a secret that the MSM has stepped up the rhetoric  just as they did during the run up to the Iraq war as exposed in the BBC Documentary, “Power of Nightmares.”

We’re constantly hearing the following mantra from the media: “U.S. officials continue to accuse Iran of increasing its efforts to supply weapons to militants in Iraq.” It’s no surprise this rhetoric started with a War Street Journal article. (The Wall Street Journal is now owned by Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News Corporation for those that didn’t know – hence the play on names).

Outside of the little speedboats allegedly buzzing U.S. Navy ships, this seems to be the only justification necessary to attack Iran as there has been no proof of any nuclear program found there, just as there wasn’t any found in Iraq prior to it being attacked by the U.S.

Iran and Iraq have been at war for centuries with the latest war just ending 20 years ago.  Saddam was even  threatening Iran as late as 1999.

U.S. leaders don’t agree with the Proverb…… “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” do they?  Well, they did at one time when they supported Iraq and Saddam’s regime against Iran in that 1980 war, but I want to stay current here.  It’s not like the U.S. relies on history before making important decisions like war anyway (Vietnam, Korea).  Sarc off.

Does the following “current” scenario sound familiar?

UN inspectors to return to Iran
Tehran, April 27, 2008

The IAEA inspectors want answers from Tehran regarding intelligence received from Western member states on alleged studies on uranium conversion, high explosives testing and work on a missile re-entry vehicle, which all have potential nuclear weapons applications.

Ex-U .N. inspector: Iran’s next

“Scott Ritter, former chief United Nations weapons inspector, speaks Sunday at the James A. Little Theater on how no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. He also predicted the U.S. will go to war with Iran.

The former U.N. weapons inspector who said Iraq disarmed long before the U.S. invasion in 2003 is warning Americans to prepare for a war with Iran.

“We just don’t know when, but it’s going to happen,” Scott Ritter said to a crowd of about 150 at the James A. Little Theater on Sunday night.

Ritter described how the U.S. government might justify war with Iran in a scenario similar to the buildup to the Iraq invasion. He also argued that Iran wants a nuclear energy program, and not nuclear weapons. But the Bush administration, he said, refuses to believe Iran is telling the truth.

He predicted the matter will wind up before the U.N. Security Council, which will determine there is no evidence of a weapons program. Then, he said, John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, “will deliver a speech that has already been written. It says America cannot allow Iran to threaten the United States and we must unilaterally defend ourselves.”

“How do I know this? I’ve talked to Bolton’s speechwriter,” Ritter said.”

Even though Bolton has bolted, look who replaced him as the U.S. Representative to the UN in 2007:

On April 23, 2007 Dr. Zalmay Khalilzad began as the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

Who is Dr. Zalmay Khalilzad?

The following from Wiki:

“Khalilzad worked for Paul Wolfowitz.  He consulted for Cambridge Energy Research Associates, which at the time was conducting a risk analysis for Unocal, now part of ConocoPhillips, for a proposed 1,400 km (890 mile), $2-billion, 622 m³/s (22,000 ft³/s) Trans-Afghanistan gas pipeline project which would have extended from Turkmenistan to Afghanistan and further proceeding to Pakistan. He acted as a special liaison between UNOCAL and the Taliban regime.

He is one of the original members of Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and was a signatory of the letter to President Bill Clinton sent on January 26, 1998, which called for him to accept the aim of “removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power” using “a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts.”

A White House favorite whom Bush calls by his nickname, Zal, Khalilzad has worked in two other Republican administrations, those of President Ronald Reagan and Bush’s father, President George H.W. Bush.

Khalilzad headed the Bush-Cheney transition team for the Defense Department in 2000 and served as a counselor to former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Connections run deep don’t they?

Lastly, Khalilzad is a Muslim.  More on this in a moment.

Khalilzad told the media, soon after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released its report on Iran, that the Iranian government is clearly going ahead with its nuclear program.”

And what did Khalilzad say over the weekend?

“Iran and Syria must stop the flow of weapons and foreign fighters into Iraq, and their malign interference in Iraq,” U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said Monday in a report to the U.N. Security Council on behalf of the multinational force in Iraq.”

So if a Muslim says it’s ok to attack another Muslim country, it’s justified then right?  This way it can’t be called a Crusade right?

What did the U.S. top military official say last week?

“The U.S. ambassador’s report to the council echoed the assessment last week by Adm. Mike Mullen, the top U.S. military official, who said it is clear that recently made Iranian-made weapons are flowing into Iraq, including to insurgents leading the fight recently in Basra in southern Iraq.”

“But Mullen, who chairs the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he has “no smoking gun” proof that the highest leadership in the Iranian government has approved the stepped up support for insurgents who are killing U.S. and Iraqi forces.”

Anyone care to guess where the “smoking gun” will come from?  My guess is their inside man, Khalilzad, but seriously….does it really matter what the smoking gun is?  Does it really matter what the majority of American people want?

Of the 68 million people living in Iran, 1.3 million are not Muslim.  Many of those 1.3 million people are Christians and Jews.  All 68 million are humans. I guess they’re all just collateral damage just like all those people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and of course, Iraq, the “enemy of my enemy.”

Do we really want 68 million more people upset with the U.S. Government or does it make more sense to ”Love thy neighbor?”

A good start is to ask your neighbor, and give him this book at the same time.

Remember, the antonym to enemy is friend.  If our government doesn’t stop this nonsense, we may not have any friends left in the world.

Doug Eberhardt

Related posts:

1. The Pickens Energy Plan vs. the U.S. Imperialism Plan
2. The Left and Right Love and Need War