I was looking for some interesting news when, suddenly, I found myself on a webpage called "Bavaria For Ron Paul." To those who may not know, Bavaria is a state in Germany. I was intrigued by this show of foreign support for Paul, the libertarian-leaning U.S. Republican Party candidate, and soon discovered that the website was not the only one of its kind. There are a whole bunch of international Ron Paul sites, most of them European (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13).
It made me stop to think: how many people had I talked to over the last few months who were living in the United States and eligible to vote, but could not be challenged to lift a finger to help change the course of American politics? And yet, here we have people running a site called "Bavaria for Ron Paul", trying to engage the public. It is such a bizarre contrast.
Many Americans bitch about the country's problems but, after a few days of campaigning for Ron Paul, it became clear to me that most people simply shrug their shoulders when they are told about a chance to make a difference. This was especially frustrating, because Paul seems to stand for everything positive - country, values, Constitution and small government - a guiding compass that has been absent in America for a very long time.
Of course, Americans have their reasons not to get involved. Many are afraid to abandon one mainstream candidate for fear that the other mainstream candidate, the worse of the two front-runners, will win. So, they select what is often referred to as the "best of two evils". The irony is that, if all of these people put their doubts and fears behind them and supported who they really wanted to, both of the "two evils" would lose!
Unfortunately, because of the lack of support for Paul, it appears Americans will have one of following three "evil" candidates as their next president:
Are these honestly the choices we have? If you support one of these three simply to pick the "better of two evils" - for example because of their position on micro-issues like abortion or gay marriage - then you are an embarrassment to the fate-saving grace of democracy. What sort of future do these candidates pave for us besides a trip further down the spiral?
It made me stop to think: how many people had I talked to over the last few months who were living in the United States and eligible to vote, but could not be challenged to lift a finger to help change the course of American politics? And yet, here we have people running a site called "Bavaria for Ron Paul", trying to engage the public. It is such a bizarre contrast.
Many Americans bitch about the country's problems but, after a few days of campaigning for Ron Paul, it became clear to me that most people simply shrug their shoulders when they are told about a chance to make a difference. This was especially frustrating, because Paul seems to stand for everything positive - country, values, Constitution and small government - a guiding compass that has been absent in America for a very long time.
Of course, Americans have their reasons not to get involved. Many are afraid to abandon one mainstream candidate for fear that the other mainstream candidate, the worse of the two front-runners, will win. So, they select what is often referred to as the "best of two evils". The irony is that, if all of these people put their doubts and fears behind them and supported who they really wanted to, both of the "two evils" would lose!
Unfortunately, because of the lack of support for Paul, it appears Americans will have one of following three "evil" candidates as their next president:
- Obama: puppet to the Federal Reserve money-lenders and will probably bow down before AIPAC; the unofficial voice of the ever-expanding, non-white minority and will not pledge to the flag; won't keep the influx of migrants along the U.S. southern border under control, does not believe in the constitutional heritage of this country. His emphasis on federal action calls for more centralization and government control.
- Clinton: puppet to the Federal Reserve money-lenders and will probably bow down before AIPAC, considering it funds her campaign; terrible liar and political snake; won't keep the influx of migrants along the southern border under control, does not believe in the constitutional heritage of this country. Her emphasis on federal action calls for more centralization and government control.
- McCain: puppet to the Federal Reserve money-lenders and war-monger; will likely send American sons and daughters to die for more Israel-benefiting, corporate moneymaking causes in the Middle East while our nation decays from within; he obviously bows before AIPAC, which funds his campaign; will offer no help for the middle class or the poor; won't keep the influx of migrants along the U.S. southern border under control and fails to preserve the very demographic that votes for him, which is Christians of European ancestry. His emphasis on federal action calls for more centralization and government control, just like the other two candidates.
Are these honestly the choices we have? If you support one of these three simply to pick the "better of two evils" - for example because of their position on micro-issues like abortion or gay marriage - then you are an embarrassment to the fate-saving grace of democracy. What sort of future do these candidates pave for us besides a trip further down the spiral?
