Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
None of the Above Clinton? Obama? McCain? Attack of the killer centrists! With these wonderful options, and no real third party choices, I'm voting for none of the aboveby The Jeffersonian Diplomat
(Libertarian)
Sunday, May 4, 2008
It is obvious that both the Democrats and Republicans have abandoned the principles of liberty. The Republicans have all but nominated McCain, and the Democrats are in the midst of a death-match between Clinton and Obama. Regardless of who wins that race, the general election will be two candidates of war and socialism. Yes, there may be third party options, but none seem to be able to capture the excitement of the revolution. That is why I will be voting for "None of the above." Democrats have correctly pointed out that John is the McSame as the Bush regime, perhaps worse. He has posited that we could be in Iraq for 100 (even 1,000) years. He's no fiscal conservatice, either. He's the author of so many abhorrent bills, he was considered a possible running mate for John Kerry. So the Republicans are nominating yet another left wing warhawk to represent the so-called conservative party. The Democrats are no better. Clinton and Obama have been trying to "prove" themselves to the warhawks, with statements on Iran and Pakistan. Scarier still, they employ rhetoric that says we need to broaden the "war on terror" to "domestic terrorists" and "extremists." If you look at an FBI pamphlet from the Phoenix branch, this includes Common Law followers and "extremist" defenders of the constitution. In other words, while McCain will continue to murder foreigners, the Democrats will bring the war home. Most Americans are fed up with both parties. Yet most Americans will undoubtedly vote for the one they believe to be the "lesser" evil. It's just the way things go. Most voters are sissies, and just vote for whomever they are told. While there are millions of revolutionaries and other disenfranchised voters, it won't be enough to overcome boobus americanus in the presidential race. Moreover, some will vote for the Libertarian, some will vote for Nader, and some will vote for the Constitution party. If yet another independent throws his hat in the ring, it will further dilute the vote. If we are true to the rEVOLution, we must consider the congress to be more important. How can we expect to give power back to a congress who won't take it? Would Ron Paul be more successful if he had some allies in both houses? As president, virtually all he can do is veto. Dr. Paul's poor hand would fall off with these parties in congress. So let's say we focus on congress. Why not vote for a third party? Well, we've already established that the idiots outnumber the principled. Moreover, there may be too many "third" options for one to gain any electoral votes. So a few million voted libertarian this time. It will not change our system to suddenly being favorable to third (and fourth) parties. The candidate and party will just fade back into obscurity. But imagine what would happen if several million voters wrote-in "None of the above"? A third party candidate getting a few million votes might be newsworthy, but a few million "None of the above" write-in votes certainly is. It would be a large no-confidence vote to the two parties. It would provide a way for all those who are disenfranchised to make their voices heard. Not only can the anti-war left, paleoconservative right, and libertarian factions unify in this vote, but the millions of seemingly apathetic non-voters would be more likely to join the cause. How does it happen? It's simple. Tell everyone you're going to write in "None of the above" in the 2008 presidential election. Explain your position. Post it to blogs, newsgroups, website comments, YouTube, etc. Perhaps we can get some radio show hosts in on it. The wonderful thing about the campaign, is it's specifically anti-partisan. It's something that will appeal to more than just the political show hosts. Imagine if Howard Stern, Mancow, and other shock jocks used their pull to help organized the largest political "prank" in American history? Imagine if Alex Jones and other "fringe" political radio hosts did the same thing? Imagine if YOU got everyone you knew was pissed off at the system to vote "None of the above" this November? If nothing else, look at this. November 4th, 2008 is election day. Imagine the news on the next day:
Remember, remember the Fourth of November, The Election Day Treason and Plot, I know of no reason Why Election Day Treason Should ever be forgot.
Vote None of the Above in 2008!
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 10 thumbs so far
2008 The Jeffersonian Diplomat, all rights reserved.
Published: Sunday, May 4, 2008
Last modified: Sunday, May 4, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of The Jeffersonian Diplomat only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. The Jeffersonian Diplomat is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Wow! Let's spin-quote a movie that glorifies terrorism! You are soooo cool.
From now on let's also have a riot if our candidate does not win! Hell what the fnck is this Africa?
Congress voted for military action in Iraq. They did not declare war on Iraq, because it was not the Iraqis themselves that we were targeting. Would the declared war have made any differance? No.
"Not only can the anti-war left, paleoconservative right, and libertarian factions unify in this vote, but the millions of seemingly apathetic non-voters would be more likely to join the cause."
You obviously need to take a course in political science. These groups want different things all together and do not trust Ron Paul to deliver.
I loved the spin off V for Vendetta. The movie wasn't promoting terrorism but freedom. Saying fighting back against the government portrayed in the film was "terrorism," is as ignorant as saying people opposed to Hitler were terrorists.
Clinton, McCain and Obama are all very detrimental choices. Why not let the rest of American voice an opinion? None of the above. They are all fools. Most of the country is of the same opinion.
You seem to imply that a Congressional Declaration of War would not have changed things, actually the purpose of the Founders for placing such a responsibility in the hands of Congress was to prevent one man, like this President, from making an idiotic and misguided decision.
The Founders though, and indeed they were correct, that if the weight of the responsibility of the horrors of war was placed upon the shoulders of the members of Congress then perhaps they would be far more reasonable then if it were placed in the hands of one man. They knew their history, they knew that that scourge of war usually came at the hands of individual leaders around the world, with their individual lust for power or resources or wealth. To place that responsibility in the hands of many, spreading out the decision making process through a Concurrent Majority of both Houses of Congress there was a check placed on the power to make war indiscriminately and without good cause.
So Mrs. Clinton did not have any part of saying OK to Iraq? Did Ron Paul have no say as well? It seems to me that Congress did vote for it as well as the UN.
How many stupid wars were declared by congress again?
Posted By: Steve Schulin
Date: 2008-05-04 18:02:49
Declaring war isn't a prerequisite for being involved in a war. For example, when FDR requested Congress to declare war, he wasn't asking their opinion of whether he as commander-in-chief could act in accordance with the fact that we already were at war. A declaration of war triggers many other legal requirements. If you want to hear a thoughtful discussion of why the Ron Paul type of view on declaration of war is a really poor one, tell the next pollster who asks that you favor Alan Keyes. He's the only candidate with extensive foreign policy experience, and apparently the only one with adequate understanding of what's at stake in this debate. The major parties have failed miserably in their leadership in recent years. Alan Keyes can win this election, but it'll take a lot of folks to choose to stop taking the pablum that's being passed off as choice between Democrats and Republicans.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 The Jeffersonian Diplomat, all rights reserved.