In the past few days, I've read a lot about the front-running Presidential candidates. I number those at 3: Hillary Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama and John McCain.
Sen. Hillary Clinton: a checkered past involving S&L collapses, money laundering and possible assorted "hits" (Vince Foster, et al), the Senator "from" New York, is now lagging in polling. Maybe Americans have had enough of the Bush and Clinton families. Supports naturalization of CrimMigrants, including those, mostly Asian, who've violated H1-B visas. Accepts large donations from AIPAC (America-Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel PAC) and has spoken at their national meetings. She has lost much of her appeal at the polls, perhaps in part due to her crying incident, but who knows why? She will, I believe, be out of the running unless the media sells her harder.
Sen. Barack Obama: half-Black African, half-White. Currently supports most of the same things Clinton does. Wants to allow women to make their own decisions about partial-birth abortion. That would allow abortion at the point where we're dealing with viable human beings, and murder. He would "confront" China on our massive debt, on which they're holding most of the paper (if China calls in our debt, we go bankrupt, period). He wants something called "class-based" affirmative action, not just the race-based kind (although he insists he's for "equal rights" while supporting race-preferential programs). In other words, he wants everyone to have the same amount of income.
There are two ways to do that. You can "bring up" the lower income brackets (which are disproportionately non-White), and this idea has been trotted out in a dozen different suits, from Head Start to "No Child Left Behind". No possibility of success. Or, you can bring the upper echelons down. This can be done primarily through preferential or punitive taxation. Certain industries not in line with the President's policies get hammered, others, perhaps owned by certain individuals, get a boost. And of course, all the (disproportionately White) neo-Yuppies in their McMansions get crushed, in plummeting real estate prices, escalating property tax and personal credit costs, rising utility and toll costs, and so on.
Sen. John Sidney McCain: called "Insane McCain" by more than a few. McCain was by all accounts a pilot who stayed on course right into anti-aircraft fire. He was captured, with broken arms, and subjected to years of confinement and apparent torture. There are many veterans organizations which oppose McCain's candidacy, which seemed a strange thing until one reads the negative accounts of several of his co-captives. Be that as it may, it's witness testimony from potentially hostile witnesses and thus not a reason for me to be deterred.
What does deter me is McCain's history of serious waffling, his affiliations with Democrats on bad legislation, and his support of the continuation of the War Without End in Iraq. Soon, we should say under a McCain administration, to include Iran? Yes, it will. Then we can square off with the Russians over their primary source of foreign oil becoming an American domain.
John McCain changes his mind about important issues more often than a "vid-iot" changes cable channels. For a good look at his political bipolar disorder, check YouTube.
McCain has also sponsored legislation to limit free political speech (McCain-Feingold), and has worked with Ted Kennedy on three versions of an Amnesty bill to benefit the 20-30 Million CrimMigrants. If the government included them in their public publications, the population would officially be 330 Million, of which 45 Million would be "legal" hispanics*, and 30 Million more would be the illegal invaders. That places the physical hispanic percentage of the population at almost 23% right now. It also readjusts even the generous FedGov allocation of 65% White populace to 59% overall (we know that most Asians and almost all Blacks are legal citizens, so their numbers remain the same).
In 1964-65, a lying Ted Kennedy told America that reversing the immigration ratio from 90% European, 10% other nations, would not change the demographic makeup of the country. All three current mainstream candidates support naturalization of 20-30 million people, an unearned reward to those who broke the law coming here, with the support of "your" government and business community. All three of them support continued involvement in the undeclared War.
One candidate doesn't support any of this bullshit. However, the time for that candidacy is passing. So, a note on the Ron Paul candidacy.
Dr. Paul is the choice of many people of all political backgrounds. His pro-Constitution position, which should be the norm for anyone who considers his (or her) self competent to be the leader of the United States of America, endears him to freedom-loving voters.
However, Dr. Paul's personal priority is not in winning this particular election. He has stated, and continues to, that he will not, under any circumstances, run as an independent, or third-party, candidate. He will not leave the Republican party, so he can continue to run for Congress in his Texas home district. This means, to me, that Dr. Paul would prefer to retire from service to our country as a humble, and well-liked, Representative. Certainly, Dr. Paul has earned this, and at 72 years of age may have no desire to end his campaign as a thoroughly beaten candidate in the final contest in November. He lags behind the media-fueled mainstream contenders, and is a victim of the American fool's mentality of believing in backing a "winner".
Because Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination, because not enough voters will write him in on the Republican ticket, because he will not abandon the Republicans, and because he's a realist, Ron Paul is already finished.
But there IS something we can ask Dr. Paul to do. We can ask that he nominate his successor in the fight, a younger Constitutionalist who is not tied to the G.O.P., and can run on a third-party ticket. Maybe someone in their 40's, with a good deal of life experience but plenty of energy left. If this generation's greatest champion of the magnificent legacy of our Founders, and beloved elder statesman, put his imprimatur on someone, we'd know that person had the country's best interests in mind.
So, at this point, I would urge the good doctor to pass the torch. It would give the country time to get behind the new bearer of those true, Constitutionally-correct ideas and practices. That person could carry on the battle of Order over Chaos, and confront the pretenders to the Oval Office on both issues and conduct.
Maybe, just maybe, we could save the country for those who follow us, and make politics a more honest, forthright, benevolent and selfless endeavor. OK, one out of two is fine.
Note: "Hispanic" is a weasel-word of the Feds which avoids classifying Mexican tribesmen or mestizos (mixed Asiatic (AmerInd)-European blood) as a separate racial group, even though every American of any race understands that they are. Instead, they are "placed" in one or another group. Therefore, a pure Mexican national can call himself "White" although he has no European ancestry. This concept was preceded by a similar inclusion of Arabs, jews and gypsies in the Census Bureau's "White" classification criteria. It's also a good reason why Whites are not called "European-Americans" anywhere in official literature; to do so would admit that near-Eastern Asiatics are not "White" by definition.