The anticipated rise in fuel prices and consumer goods, escalation of failed businesses, new tidal wave of foreclosures, collapse of the European economy, and imminent war with Iran, just to name a few issues, will break the linchpin supporting our economy.

How will this affect the presidential race?

A disastrous economy will destroy Obama’s hope for a second term. He had his chance and blew it. Our country, Mr. Obama, is a constitutional, not socialist republic.

Romney’s wealth and ties to powerful associations causes middle class conservatives to doubt him. Will his wealth insulate him from knowing the pain felt by the failing middle class? Will Romney’s reliance on powerful associations fueling his candidacy taint his executive decisions as president? Romney, of course, is preordained as the establishment’s choice, and republicans need Romney to survive.

Santorum’s right wing, fundamentalist Christian views are tired and ignored by our contemporary generation. What Santorum doesn’t get is that nobody wants to be told how to live.

Gingrich, while articulate and exuding confidence in his ability to maneuver government, will soon exit the race, not so much due to his lack of cash, but by the political establishment’s disdain for him and their attendant refusal to save him, unlike they did for their boy McCain in 2008.

When the dust settles, who remains as our country teeters on the brink of disaster?

The candidate that advocates the correct remedy for our nation is Ron Paul.

Paul substantially lacks Obama-like oratory skills, but despite that, his message will hit a home run this summer.

Paul is an architect with the best plan to rebuild our nation.

Paul will begin the task by substantially reducing the size of government. Oh yes, this will create more unemployment, but it’s time to change the decades old paradigm of protecting government employees over taxpayers.

Paul will remove us from policing other nations and redirect our forces to protect our borders. This is not isolationism; it’s financial survival and protection of our sovereignty.

Paul will respect the constitution and demand that congress abides by it by ending the unconstitutional wars that our leaders have created. Yes, Paul wants a strong military with the ability to pound our enemies into the ground, but he respects the mandate that unleashing that ferocious military monster requires congressional approval as dictated by our constitution.

Paul will untangle us from our government’s intrusion into our lives with its onerous regulation of our freedom. He will mandate that the constitution is designed to protect citizens from government, not protect government from its citizens.

Our nation will survive, but only when we choose to elect a leader, and not a mirage.

1. He is out of step with other Republicans.
Like all Republican presidential candidates, Paul wants to cut federal spending and taxes. But he would go much further than any of the others: Paul would cut a trillion dollars in the first year alone! He would also abolish the Federal Reserve System (established in 1913), which controls the U.S. money supply, issues currency and regulates banking. If his ideas were implemented, we could face a 1930s-style Depression.

Unlike other Republicans, he considers the war in Iraq a mistake, and opposes any efforts to keep Iran from going nuclear. He opposes all foreign aid and military assistance.

Other GOP candidates know all this, but don’t bother attacking him because they believe he has no chance of being nominated anyway.

2. A new group could provide nationwide ballot access.
AmericansElect (http://americanselect.org/) plans to select an independent presidential candidate via the Internet in June of 2012. Ron Paul’s young supporters have the tech-savvy to win this contest.

AmericansElect are now gathering signatures to place their ticket on the ballots of all 50 states. Each potential nominee will select his own running-mate, who must not be a member of the same political party.

3. He has done this before.
In 1988 Ron Paul was the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, so running on a third ticket does not scare him. He has repeatedly refused to rule-out doing so in 2012. At his age (76), Rep. Paul is not worried about blowing his chances for a future Republican nomination. (However, his son Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky would lose some credibility as a loyal Republican if he supported his father.)

Although numerous polls show that many (if not most) Americans are dissatisfied with the two-party system and would consider voting for an independent ticket, I doubt that Ron Paul would carry even one state. But all his votes would come from conservatives, so he might draw enough votes away from the Republican ticket to swing some states to the Democrats. That could be enough to re-elect President Obama.

I predict that Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who is now seeking the Republican presidential nomination, will run on a third-party ticket next November. Here is why:

1. He is out of step with other Republicans.
Like all Republican presidential candidates, Paul wants to cut federal spending and taxes. But he would go much further than any of the others: Paul would cut a trillion dollars in the first year alone! He would also abolish the Federal Reserve System (established in 1913), which controls the U.S. money supply, issues currency and regulates banking. If his ideas were implemented, we could face a 1930s-style Depression.

Unlike other Republicans, he considers the war in Iraq a mistake, and opposes any efforts to keep Iran from going nuclear. He opposes all foreign aid and military assistance.

Other GOP candidates know all this, but don’t bother attacking him because they believe he has no chance of being nominated anyway.

2. A new group could provide nationwide ballot access.
AmericansElect (http://americanselect.org/) plans to select an independent presidential candidate via the Internet in June of 2012. Ron Paul’s young supporters have the tech-savvy to win this contest.

AmericansElect are now gathering signatures to place their ticket on the ballots of all 50 states. Each potential nominee will select his own running-mate, who must not be a member of the same political party.

3. He has done this before.
In 1988 Ron Paul was the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, so running on a third ticket does not scare him. He has repeatedly refused to rule-out doing so in 2012. At his age (76), Rep. Paul is not worried about blowing his chances for a future Republican nomination. (However, his son Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky would lose some credibility as a loyal Republican if he supported his father.)

Although numerous polls show that many (if not most) Americans are dissatisfied with the two-party system and would consider voting for an independent ticket, I doubt that Ron Paul would carry even one state. But all his votes would come from conservatives, so he might draw enough votes away from the Republican ticket to swing some states to the Democrats. That could be enough to re-elect President Obama.

Gerald S Glazer
_____________________________________________________

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

“The Palestinian people does not exist,…only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of the Palestinian people.” Zahir Muhsein, Member of the PLO Executive Committee, 1977

The former House Speaker apparently agrees with Mr. Muhsein that Arabs living in the former Palestine Mandate territory do not constitute a separate people, but are merely a segment of the Arab people in one geographical area. He also agrees that the term “Palestinians” was invented to create an Arab state in place of the Jewish State of Israel.

The basic historical facts are not in dispute. The first time “Palestini” occurs in world literature is in the work of the Greek historian Herodotus, who wrote in the 5th century BCE. The land which is now Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Gaza was named “Syria Palestina” by Roman Emperor Hadrian about 165 CE after he crushed the Bar Kochba Revolt in Judaea. The Arab newspaper Filasteen referred to its readers as “Palestinians” around 1911, and the first Syrian-Palestinian Congress met in 1921. Residents of the Palestine Mandate (both Jewish and Arab) were referred to as Palestinians in Article 7 of the League of Nations Mandate. (Wikipedia)

The British severed the eastern part of Palestine in 1922 to form the Kingdom of Transjordan, now Jordan. In November 1947, the UN voted to partition western Palestine into a Jewish state (Israel) and an Arab state. During the ensuing war the West Bank of the Jordan River was seized by Jordan, and Gaza by Egypt, so Palestine disappeared from the maps of the world altogether. But Arabs continued to refer to all the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean as Palestine, and several terrorist organizations were formed to “liberate Palestine” from the Zionists (Jews). In the course of the 1967 Six Day War Israel conquered both Gaza and the West Bank, bringing nearly 4 million Arabs under Israeli rule. Israel offered to withdraw from these territories in exchange for peace and recognition, but until 1977 no Arab nation agreed. The peace treaty with Egypt made that year left the Palestine question open to subsequent negotiation.

The Arab League had 19 years (1948 to 1967) to establish a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, but did not do so. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), formed by Yassir Arafat in 1964, explicitly denied any designs on the lands held by Egypt and Jordan; the goal was to replace Israel with an Arab state. In 1993 Arafat and PLO agreed to recognize Israel and accept Gaza and the West Bank as the “new Palestine,” but he made it clear to his fellow Arab leaders (but not to Israel or the US) that this was merely a first step toward the ultimate goal of one Arab state in the entire land. Israel assisted in setting up the Palestine Authority (PA) in Gaza and the West Bank, and offered in 2000 to establish a State of Palestine there. Arafat rejected this offer, and his successor Mahmoud Abbas rejected a similar offer in 2008. Meanwhile Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza, which was quickly taken over by the fanatical Islamist Hamas regime, which rejects any peace with Israel.

By building a fence around Gaza and the West Bank, Israel has essentially severed both lands from “Israel proper,” even though several hundred thousand Jews live in the West Bank among over two million Arabs, who call themselves “Palestinians” (even if Gingrich won’t). The US Government, under both Presidents George W Bush and Barack Obama, have sought to establish an Arab state in the two territories, much as the UN proposed back in 1947. Israel also supports the concept, but with several security caveats. Yet Israel and the PA are very far apart on issues such the future of Jerusalem, the West Bank settlements and possible rights of Palestinian Arabs to settle in Israel.

I contend that the PA dares not accept any deal to which Israel could possibly agree, so no State of Palestine will be established in the foreseeable future. Obama foolishly promised the Palestinians a state of their own in 2009, and now he cannot deliver one. Meanwhile, his carping crticism of Israel over expanding the settlements has alienated Jewish voters, who supported him overwhelmingly in 2008.

Although Newt Gingrich has repudiated the position of Republican President George W Bush, his rejection of Palestinian nationhood is politcally smart. This stance will appeal to both Jews and evangelical Christians, and the latter are important in Republican primaries and caucuses, especially in the early states of Iowa and South Carolina. If Gingrich is nominated, he will pull crucial Jewish votes away from Obama in New York and Florida.

In the unlikely event that Newt Gingrich becomes President,. at some point he will have to explain to the Palestinians and their allies in the Arab world why he does not believe they exist.

Gerald S Glazer
_____________________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

The history of the past century would appear to confirm this view. The nations that provoked the great wars of that century were either empires (Austria-Hungary, Wilhelmine Germany and Japan) or fascist dictatorships (Nazi Germany and Italy). Moreover, since World War II the dictatorial regimes that started the War were replaced by democracies, and all have kept the peace. Russia today, although not fully democratic, does not pose the threat to Europe that its Communist predecessor did. Similarly, the new democracy in Iraq is no threat to peace, in sharp contrast to the tyrannical regime of Sadam Hussein.

A drive to replace dictatorship with democracy has swept the Middle East in 2011; but will that mean a more peaceful region in the future?

Egypt, the largest and most powerful Arab state, has been under military rule since the overthrow of King Farouk in 1952 by Col. Gamal Abdul Nasser. Nasser embarked upon an aggressive policy: seizing the Suez canal in 1956, sending troops to Yemen in the early 1960′s, and deliberately provoking two wars with Israel (1956 and 1967), both of which Egypt lost. After his death in 1970, his successor, Anwar Sadat, launched another war against Israel in 1973, but made a peace treaty with the Jewish state in 1977, for which he was assassinated in 1981. The assassins were aligned with the miitant Muslim Brotherhood, which had been ruthlessly suppressed by both Nasser and Sadat.

Hosni Mubarak, who succeeded the slain Sadat, maintained Sadat’s policies of peace with Israel and suppression of the Islamists. But the overthrow of Mubarak earlier this year has given the Brotherhood and allied Islamic parties the opportunity to run for seats in the parliament, and perhaps the presidency. The first round of parliamentary elections last week was won by these parties.

If Kant and Wilson were right, the majority of Egyptians will opt for peace, so democracy in Egypt will be good for Israel and other nations in the region. But polls have shown that most Egyptians hate Israel with a passion, and only the repressive rule of the military has maintained the peace. It is significant that since Mubarak was forced out, the military junta now in power has opened the border with Gaza in response to popular sympathy with the Palestinians. In Egyptian politics, hostility to Israel is a major theme, like anti-communism was in the US in the early 1950′s.

In the western democracies the role of religion in setting national policies has declined over the past century, but in the Middle East the power of militant Islam is rising. At first it was the overthrow of the Shah of Iran by the ayatollahs in 1979, then the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan, now the victories by militant Muslim parties in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt. Unlike Christianity, which espouses “Peace on Earth”, the branch of Islam embraced by Al Qaida, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood extols jihad (holy war) against the infidels (non-Muslims). That is why the conclusions of Christians like Kant and Wilson do not apply to Muslim countries: democracy may well empower jihadists, who will use the powers of government to provoke wars.

The best hope for peace in the Middle East is that the Arab masses will recognize that peace is in their interest, and they will curb the jihadists among them.

Gerald S Glazer

————————————————————————————-
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

The parallels between the two Arab nations are striking. Col. Muamar Gadhafi (aka Khadafy aka Qaddafi) ) seized control of Libya in a military coup d’etat in 1969. The next year Gen. Hafez Al-Assad overthrew President Nureddin Al-Atassi in Syria. Gadhafi intervened in nearby Chad, Assad intervened in Lebanon. Both killed their own people to keep power. At the time of the Libyan Revolution, Gadhafi was grooming his sons to succeed him as dictator. Hafez Al-Assad originally groomed his older son Basil to succeed him, but the young man was killed in an auto accident in 1998. (1) He then prepared his younger son Bashar for his job by giving him increasing responsbilities in the government. Bashar become president when Hafez died in 2000. The same year he married a British woman of Syrian birth.

Bashar Al-Assad has an unusual background for an Arab dictator. Instead of a career in the military or diplomatic service, he chose to become a doctor, graduating Damascus University Medical School in 1988. He then studied ophtalmalogy at the Westerm Eye Hospital in London. Bashar returned to Syria in 1994 and entered the military academy. With his father’s blessing, Bashar ascended the ranks quickly, and in 1998 was placed in charge of Syria’s activities in Lebanon.

As president, Bashar has made only minor reforms in his father’s policies of authoritarian rule at home and hostility toward Israel and the United States. He has maintained an alliance with Iran, and supplies arms to Hezbollah, which probably killed the Prime Minister of Lebanon in 2005. On the other hand, Bashar is strongly suspicious of the Muslim Brotherhood, which Hafez Al-Assad crushed in Syria. In 2008 he authorized indirect talks with Israel (through Turkey), which came to nothing.

Bashar’s armed forces have have killed over 3,500 people trying to stop protests against his regime, yet the demonstrations continue. The King of Jordan, the Prime Minister of Turkey and the Arab League have all turned against him. (2) Texas Gov. Rick Perry has called for a “no-fly zone” over Syria. But the real threat is that his military is starting to crack. The Assad family and all important military and security officials belong to the minority Alawite sect, while most of the soldiers are Sunni Muslim. In the Middle East religious differences are crucial, so a major split in the Syrian Army (like the one in Libya) is a real possibility. If that happens, foreign help for the rebels could turn the tide against Bashar Al-Assad and his Alawite Baath regime.

But Bashar is no Muamar. Gadhafi, who was probably mentally ill, resolved to fight for power to the death, and that is what he got. But I do not believe that Bashar Al-Assad will gamble his life for his job. The fact that he chose a career in medicine and lived in England for several years tells me that this man has a far more pragmatic and cosmopolitan view of life than Gadhafi ever had. The Assads are not crazy, they are calculating. If Bashar Al-Assad ever concludes that his cause is lost, he will pack his bags and move back to London, where he could perhaps re-instate his medical license. (A possible International Criminal Court indictment for human rights violations might be an obstacle, however.)

Of course we cannot tell what kind of regime might follow the Assads, but I am willing to bet that it will be better, rather than even worse.

Gerald S Glazer

————————————————————————————-

(1) Wikipedia

(2) “Syria threatened with sanctions” by Nada Bakri, NY Times, Nov. 25, 2011.

————————————————————————————-
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

You might have applied for a permit to close the street, but who needs that when you are on the side of the angels? You may see yourselves in the image of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), which also used sit-ins and demonstrations to draw attention to its goals, but fortunately Police Chief Ed Flynn refused to play the new Bull Connor, so nobody got hurt here. But in other cities your Occupy colleagues have been beaten and maced by local police. People across the country have become increasingly disgusted with your monopolizing of their streets and parks, and the only way the police have been able to clear these public spaces has been by using force.

The SCLC demonstrators had been systematically excluded from the political process, so they had no alternative to demonstrations, some of which also filled streets and parks. But YOU have not been excluded! Disruptive tactics are not your last resort, but your first choice!

Only three years ago the Tea Party was a bunch of people walking around in funny costumes, but today it is a serious political force. That is because they took an active part in electoral politics. You, too, can work constructively to put your aims on the public agenda right here in Milwaukee in these ways:

1. Join the recall movement to make Wisconsin “Scott-Free.”

2. Run a candidate for County Executive against Chris Abele.

3. Run a candidate for the new position of County Comptroller. (1)

4. Support progressive candidates for the Milwaukee Common Council and County Board in every district.

5. Work to nominate and elect progressive candidates for the US Senate, Congress and the Wisconsin Legislature in the 2012 election.

Gathering valid signatures and campaigning door-to-door is much harder than marching around with signs and sitting down in the street. But instead of antagonizing people, try to persuade them. Even when you don’t win, you spread your ideas and get people interested in them. I did not win my race for the Milwaukee School Board earlier this year, but I did advance my ideas about public education.

Count me among the 99.99% of people who have no desire to occupy the streets and bridges that should belong to everyone.

Gerald S Glazer

——————————————————————–

(1) Candidates for this position must either be a CPA or have an advanced degree in accounting or finance.
——————————————————————–

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

The former Speaker of the House of Representatives, apparently Mr. November in the GOP presidential sweepstakes, has been faulted for accepting about $1.6 million in consulting fees from the failed government-backed mortgage investor Freddie Mac. (1) But it is common for big time politicians to cash in on their savvy and connections after leaving public office, so that is not scandalous. (I would have taken the money myself, had it been offered, and I am pure as the driven snow.) Apparently, Newt has no problem with profligate spending by quasi-public entities such as Freddie Mac, as long as the money is spent on him.

As a contender for the Republican presidential nomination, he would be expected to guarantee his support for the 2012 GOP ticket. (2) But the statement quoted above goes way beyond that: he declared that every other Republican candidate (including those who have no chance of winning the nomination) is preferable to President Barack Obama, which implies that partisanship trumps all other considerations in evaluating candidates.

All the Republican candidates are for a smaller federal government and lower taxes. But aside from that Republican orthodoxy, some differ from each other as much as they differ from President Obama. For example, Jon Hunstman represented Obama’s China policies in Beijing with no problem for nearly three years, while Mitt Romney advocates punishing China for its predatory currency and trade practices. Since Gingrich considers both preferable to Obama, how to deal with China is no big deal to him.

Newt Gingrich considers himself a friend of Israel, and supported aid to Israel while in Congress, yet would rather have Rep. Ron Paul in charge of US Middle East policy than Barack Obama. Obama has been justly criticized for his opposition to Israeli settlements in Jerusalem, but the President has supported over $3 billion in aid to the Jewish state every year of his presidency and gave Israel the $200 million “Iron Dome” missile defense system. In sharp contrast, Rep. Paul has consistently voted against all foreign aid (of which Israel is the largest recipient) and cast one of only 5 votes in the entire House of Representatives (3) against supporting Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. Paul has long been rightly labeled one of the most anti-Israel members of the House, which Gingrich certainly knows, yet he would still prefer him over Obama! Apparently Gingrich’s love for Israel is overwhelmed by his love for the Republican Party.

Herman Cain’s 9% sales tax? No problem! Rick Perry’s desire to abolish the Department of Energy (which includes the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the watchdog over possible radioactive contamination) plus other agencies to named later? No problem! Michelle Bachmann’s hope to eliminate all federal taxes, so the government would have to close down permanently (not just a few days)? No problem! They are all Republicans, so they would all be better than Obama!

Newt Gingrich has a checkered past, including two (out of three, so far) failed marriages, shutting down the US government in 1995, impeachment of President Clinton, a $300,000 fine for an ethics violation while Speaker and his resignation from Congress (4). He has wisely refrained from lambasting his fellow Republican presidential candidates, which will help him pick up the support of those who fall by the wayside. But if he is nominated, his obsessive partisanship and cantankerous personality will probably sink the GOP ticket.

Gerald S Glazer

———————————————————————————-

(1) “Gingrich defends Freddie Mac pay” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Nov. 17, 2011, page 7A. “Freddie Mac” is a popular nickname for FHLMC, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, which was taken over by the US Government in 2008 to prevent collapse.

(2) After Eugene McCarthy refused to promise to support the 1968 Democratic presidential ticket, he never won another election.

(3)The others were Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich, Nick Rahall and our own Gwen Moore.

(4) Wikipedia biography.

———————————————————————–

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

As president, Romney would command the role of front man, presenting the ideals of the party to the American public, including repeal of ObamaCare, reduction of unnecessary regulation by government agencies, gradual elimination of the IRS, protection of our borders and anything else that is reasonable to get Americans back to work—without spending trillions of dollars in the process.

Behind Romney would be Gingrich. As vice-president, Gingrich has the political experience in congress to work both sides of the aisle in the background to obtain consensus for passage of proposed legislation.

Obama learned a hard lesson in his failed presidency, demonstrating to the country his inability to join congress in implementing policies that move our country out of recession.

Vice-president Biden has demonstrated the ability to do nothing but cause controversy. Typical for a phony busted for plagiarizing many years ago.

Sure, Obama got things done say liberals. Anyone could ram healthcare legislation down the throats of Americas when you have a congressional majority. And Obama’s method includes getting a bill passed, even when few representatives took the time to actually read the bill.

Nice governing!

Other than that, Obama does a great job charging up the public’s credit card, but has no clue as to how to substantially curtail spending in order to pay back the debt.

A Romney/Gingrich ticket combines Romney’s business experience of successfully running a company in the black, along with Gingrich’s congressional technocrat expertise.

As a nation, we don’t have time to bicker over how many wives Gingrich has had, or Romney’s religious affiliation. The people who promote those issues should go back to watching The Kardashians.

We need solutions that work. A Romney/Gingrich ticket is gold.

Good news! A new group called Americans Elect (AE) intends to select a presidential nominee by a nationwide on-line vote and put him on the ballot in all fifty states. The organization, headquartered on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC, was founded by mutli-millionaire Peter Ackerman (formerly of Drexel Burnham Lambert) and has 148 employees. AE has already raised over $20 million from just 50 wealthy backers (1). Its board includes former NJ Gov. Christie Whitman and former FBI Director William Webster. NY Times columnist Tom Friedman, who says that the major party candidates are not confronting the real issues, actively supports the group.

AE is now rounding up millions of signatures on petitions to establish AE as a recognized party in all states, so that its ticket will appear on all state ballots. Over 2 million signatures are already in hand, and about a million more will be needed.

Anyone can register as a “delegate” to the AE “virtual convention” in June of next year on the AE website below. In the first round of voting, you can nominate and vote for any legally qualified American to be President of the United States. (2) The top six candidates in this round will be asked to choose a nominee for Vice President, who must not be a member of the same political party, to assure a “bi-partisan ticket.” Then delegates will vote among the six tickets; if any one ticket obtains a majority, it will be certified as that of the AE Party for state ballots. (Otherwise, there will be run-off among the top three, and if necessary another run-off between the top two, tickets to secure a majority.)

Although most democracies in the world have more than two parties with real clout, the history of third party presidential campaigns in the US is not encouraging. Since the Civil War, every president has been either a Democrat or a Republican, and only once did any other party even finish second. (3) The last third-party candidate to receive any electoral votes was Alabama Gov. George Wallace (American Independent), who garnered 46 of them in 1968. Ross Perot, who spent about $63 million of his own money in 1992, took 19% of the popular vote nationwide, but no electoral votes. Our “winner takes all” method of awarding electoral votes is especially disadvantageous to new parties.

Given the long odds against victory, I doubt that any prominent people will participate in the AE Final Six run-off. The requirement that the candidates for president and vice-president be from different parties will effectively prevent AE from endorsing one of the major party tickets. (4) Some AE supporters are touting NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg as an independent presidential candidate, but he has said he is not interested, and I believe him. A more likely nominee would Texas Rep. Ron Paul (whose supporters have the tech savvy to game the AE nominating process), but accepting the AE nomination would put his son Senator Rand Paul (R, KY) in an impossible dilemma, so I doubt that even he would accept.

Somebody is going to win the AE nomination, but he probably will not be a strong candidate, and there is no reason to believe that he will be a centrist. The AE nominee will not win, but just might siphon off enough votes from a major-party ticket to swing some close states the other way as Ralph Nader did in 2000. He just might be back!

Gerald S Glazer

——————————————————————————-

(1) Third Wheel in the New Republic, Nov. 17, 2011, page 8.

(2) www.AmericansElect.org.

(3) In 1912 Former President Theodore Roosevelt ran on the Progressive Party (“Bullmoose”) ticket and finished between NJ Gov. Woodrow Wilson and then President William Howard Taft.

(4) Having a vice president from another party was tried in 1796 and 1864, and turned out badly both times.

——————————————————————————-

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

The earliest documented use of the Christmas tree was in Estonia in 1441. The custom spread to northern Germany over the next hundred years and to England about 1800. (Wikipedia) Since no other religion widely practiced in the United States uses a decorated tree to celebrate a winter holiday, such a tree is clearly a symbol of Christmas and no other holiday. Jews and other non-Christians are not fooled by the ambiguous “holiday tree” designation.

But then, is it legal to display a Christmas tree on government property? In 1988 the city-county building in Pittsburgh displayed a 45-foot high Christmas tree alongside an 18-foot high Lubavitch Chanukah Menorah. The display was challenged in court as an endorsement of religion by local government. On July 3, 1989, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that since the display included symbols of two different religions, the county was not endorsing any one religion, and therefore the display did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. (2) Since about 1980 a similar Menorah has also been displayed in the Wisconsin State Capitol, and a sign by the Freedom from Religion Foundation denouncing all religions as “superstitions” has also been permitted. So Wisconsin’s display would be on safe constitutional ground. I would personally prefer no religious symbols on government property at all, but will settle for the multi-faith (and no faith) display.

While I believe that Scott Walker intended to bond with fellow Christians (the vast majority of Wisconsin voters) by denoting the tree as a Christmas tree, I doubt that it was ever intended as “slight” or “snub” to non-Christians, as Gaylor claimed. Walker has never shown such a tendency, and there is no political incentive to do so now.

Devout Christians believe in the “Second Coming” of Jesus. If J C were to return this year and celebrate his 2,011th birthday by touring the Wisconsin State Capitol, the Christmas tree would mean nothing to him. He would recognize the cross, not as a symbol of faith, but as a symbol of Roman persecution and cruelty. The only religious symbol he would recognize in the Capitol would be the Lubavitch Chanukah Menorah, and he would not call it a “Winter Candelabra.”

Gerald S Glazer

———————————————————————–

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Nov. 8, 2011, page 2B.

(2) County of Allegheny vs ACLU, 492 US 573 (1989)

———————————————————————–

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.