Nader's Truce: A 3rd Party Coalition
- by
Erik Fortman
(Posted here by Wes Penre for
Illuminati News, September 2,
2004)
Let me just make this clear
up front: I am a registered, dues-paying member of the Libertarian Party. I
like this year's candidate, Michael Badnarik, who just so happens to live
near Austin, as do I. Every 3rd party
member
and activist, however, knows that the 3rd party industry is all
but defunct. Ralph Nader's paltry 5-ish percent in 2000, added to the other
1% contributed by all other 3rd parties, and you see the dismal
situation. Nader - through the actions of a Democrat in Green fur, I'll bet
- was not given the Green Party candidacy in 2004! (How many people donated
to the Greens between the two elections because of the strength the party
gained with Nader's influence?) With the Republicrats controlling the
Presidential debates; with the new, draconian campaign finance laws; with
fraud-friendly black box voting; with the tenuous circumstance of 527's; and
with the money machine of the
military/industrial/corporate/oil/pharmaceutical/media complex; our abused
system is almost completely demolished. Dissent, change, and pleas go
unheard.
The gloomy situation leads me
to wonder - how can 3rd parties develop an effective challenge to
the two major parties. Voting for the lesser of two evils can never bring
good. Yet, one can't help but noticed the divisions within our divisions.
Take the Libertarian and Constitution Parties, for instance. Nationally,
they have virtually no voice. The crux of the split is abortion. Libs are
against government intervention, and on this one issue, Constitution Party
members want the government to take control United, the two might poll 1%+
minimum every election cycle, instead of under 1%. That would bring some
attention, which could start a snowball.
Perhaps not.
Jumping to Nader; I was told
that he was a Communist, that he wanted the government to take over
everything, that he would steal guns from our cold dead hands. Propaganda
and lies. I have since read Nader, seen him in interviews, and been in
contact with Kevin Zeese, a Nader campaign spokesman, to discuss 'Nader
doctrine.' That, later; I digress. Did you see Ralph Nader on Bill Maher, at
the beginning of August I believe it was? It was the most abhorrent display
- but not by Nader. It was during Maher's round table discussion, and this
one was a good one. Maher had Ralph Nader AND Michael Moore on the same
show. Liberal TV, certainly, but I've heard all three of these men criticize
the Democrats. Bill Maher has even suggested that he is a libertarian.
The discussion was lively,
but it took a sorry turn. Bill Maher and Michael Moore exposed themselves as
unprincipled men who have no self-respect. It went like this. Maher and
Moore asked Nader to please quit running so that Kerry would certainly win.
Ralph Nader, the honest man of integrity that he is, said that the Democrats
were one half of the Globalists' shell-game. "Well, we know that," the
Democratic Duo said, "but
please?" Nader asked them if not he, then who
would be a voice against the IMF, G8, the World Bank, the Patriot Act, etc.
Then, Bill Maher and Michael Moore actually prostrated themselves at the
feet of Nader and began to beg him not to run. Nader respectfully chuckled.
I would have done worse.
What were they thinking?! Do
they forget that Kerry and Edwards both voted for war with Iraq and the vile
Patriot Act. Don't they know that Kerry/Edwards is funded by just as many
special interests as Bush/Cheney. In many cases the global companies finance
BOTH sides. So, if Kerry or Bush wins, the same laws keep being passed to
help the corporations that fund the political parties that pass the laws.
Don't they know that all four contenders are members of the same secret
societies that have been staging wars and oppressing our country for
generations? Do you under stand, Billy and Mikey? Closer to home for Maher,
who has admitted to smoking pot: Kerry and Edwards (both have also admitted
to smoking marijuana) say they do not want to legalize, or even
decriminalize the drug. (High Times: Grow America No.2). If two
intelligent, supposedly 3rd Party supporters (Maher and Moore)
are so willing to throw every principle they claimed to support through the
years out the window, then imagine the mindset of indoctrinated Democrats.
Choosing Kerry over any of the other candidates (Kucinich, Sharpton, Dean -
my choices, in that order) shows the successful brainwashing of Democrats,
just as the choice of Bush over any other contender in 1999, especially
McCain, shows the level of mind control influenced upon Republicans. McCain
really the only one with an respectable Vietnam record, in all honesty.
Kucinich, Sharpton, and Dean were the only real anti-war candidates.
There is more. The two dunces
said the reason why they couldn't support Nader was that he had no chance
whatsoever of winning. That, in and of itself, shows the stripes of Maher
and Moore, who hold onto a losing attitude before the fight is half over.
Nader spokesman Zeese recalled a quote from Eugene Debs - a 3rd
Party candidate who ran for president from prison in 1920. Debs: "I'd rather
vote for something I believe in and lose than vote for something I don't
believe in and win." Apparently, that is not Maher or Moore's
life-philosophy.
But, it is what Nader replied
that dropped my jaw, and saw me emailing his campaign for information. When
told he couldn't win, Nader said something to the effect that we needed to
join 3rd Party forces, and then - maybe. Nader claimed that 3rd
parties have been divided by the same issues that the Dems and Repubs have
been divided over. There is no reason, he continued, that he wouldn't join
ranks with the far right, who believed in guns or were against abortion. The
main issue is fighting the New World Order!
I talked to Nader's campaign,
and yes, he does want to join forces. The biggest concern for him is the
dismantling of the same tyrannical, pyramidal power-structure that the
fringe-right is always ranting
against. With the Illuminati controlling us,
taking us to war after war, engineering our economics, the other issues do
seem a little smaller. This is our lives we are talking about. I asked the
campaign about the charges of Communism. In fact, Nader thinks that the vast
sums of money given to the richest entities through corporate welfare is
already inherently communistic, and is a bane to Small Business. If he had
his way, he would give that money to us, citizens who work to be their own
bosses, who want to better the communities voluntarily. By the time we get
to taxes, we won't need very many. Nader would dismantle the war machine.
Small businesses will provide jobs to people of all races, religions, and
blood types. Libertarian sympathizers will disagree with any give-away
economic policy, because it still calls for taxation and redistribution of
the wealth. I agree. To these brethren, I say the following. They aren't
going to stop taking the taxes yet. So, if they are going to keep taking our
money, shouldn't it be distributed to the small businesses and hard-working
entrepreneurs? The other option is to keep taking it from the
entrepreneurial spirits and doling it out to the richest companies as
bail-outs, welfare, the fifteenth bankruptcy after a multi-billion dollar,
record-setting year, or no-bid contracts. Given these two options, it
shouldn't be hard to choose. Then, once we get the money, build up our
enterprises, the right and left can meet to hash out domestic issues.
Without our European, aristocratic Guvnas twisting and smashing everything
beyond any semblance of sanity and rationality.
Maybe we would finally get to
have real debates over our domestic ills. We certainly wouldn't be at war.
That is a common value that we must latch onto, use as a mantra for
unification. No War! Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, and most the
other 3rd Party field are anti-war. We are not going to get real
reform for the courts, for the schools, or for anything else until we detach
ourselves from this imperialistic urge we have given into ever since the
Globalists took control, right before World War I. Since that time, have we
ever not been at war?
Here's my idea for 2008.
Nader for President. He deserves it. Ralph Nader has been the beacon for the
3rd Party field the last two cycles. He received the highest
percentage of all 3rd Party candidates in 2000, and will do so
again in 2004. So, hands down, Nader should be President. For VP, the
Libertarians would choose. This is not bias. The Libertarians, I believe,
are the oldest 3rd Party, and have the most local elected
officials in office. Michael Badnarik will most likely be on the ballot in
more states than even Nader in 2004. This is due to the Libertarians'
methodically-built grassroots movement.
From here, Nader will break
with tradition and announce his Cabinet before the election. Secretary of
State will be touchy vetting. This office has more power than does the VP.
Jesse Ventura would be a good choice. In fact, if he were to join with us,
the Reform Party could get the VP nod, and the Lib could be Secretary of
State. On down the line. The Constitution Party controlling the Secretary of
Defense's quarters would be logical. They don't want war, and are against
the war in Iraq. However, if someone did attack us, we could count on them
to take Biblical justice. I assure you it would be against the people who
attacked us, and not a rogue country with whom someone's daddy has a
vendetta against. This would take us out of foreign entanglements, thus
slashing the cost of our Defense Department.
On down the line, each 3rd
Party being appointed for high office before the election. Each 3rd
Party represented. Each 3rd Party's constituents will vote for
The Third Party 3rd Party. Then there will be the publicity. Try
as they might, the Republicrats will not be able to stifle this kind of
media attention. It would be at this point that we could give a viable
alternative to lesser evil-ism. Nader could ask disenfranchised Democrats
AND misled Republicans to join The Third Party 3rd Party. They
will be represented by someone, in some high office.
Oh, it would be glorious.
I've been in the music business. I always wanted to throw a concert on the
same day in all fifty State capitals. We could have a Rage Against The
Machine reunion for the California concert. The Dixie Chics (if they havent
been seduced by the Democrats yet) could play in Texas. We could have Nader
speak in New York, Ron Paul rejoining the Libertarians and speaking in
Florida, Buchanan in the Bible Belt. A whole day event, a month before the
election. Then again, I've been told that I dream far too much.
As for 2004, my mind is still
open. It would feel wrong not to support Badnarik. Nader, however, is
calling for a unified front. This is a war. The empire has subverted our
political system. We need a champion, and Nader just might be the one.
* * *
Erik Fortman is an author and musician from
Texas. His new book, Webs of Power: Government Agencies, Secret
Societies, and Elite Legacies is now available. Comments welcomed at
erikfortman@yahoo.com.
