First of all, I want to commend this writer on such a well thought out and well written article. Kudos, my good man, kudos.

Second, while this is one of the better articles that I've read in a long time, there are a few things stated in this exposition that I, simply must take issue with, if I may.

(1)The writer states in the 6th paragraph:

"What this immense concentration of power in our politics has given us is extreme partisanship rather than leadership that develops creative and innovative thinking. In many cases, a real solution to any problem is not always so one-sided. The partisanship however, has become so severe that neither side is willing to consider the ideas of the other, and the end result is usually ineffective legislation that produces no long term solution and winds up wasting time, money, and resources."

I'm not at all sure that, "this immense concentration of power in our politics has given us...extreme partisanship rather than leadership that develops creative and innovative thinking." I'm not sure that's what caused it. Besides, I contend that "bi-partisan" thinking is nothing more than "consensus" thinking, and, is to be avoided at all costs. I contend, that a "consensus", by its very nature, guarantees an absence of "leadership". I contend that extreme partisanship is a good thing, and, something to be sought after by any "real" leader or political party.  In addition, I believe that with "real" leadership you will get "creative and innovative thinking."

We have consensus thinking concerning global warming. We have consensus thinking concerning homosexuality and abortion. We have consensus thinking concerning drilling in Anwar and off our coasts. And, on and on and on. How well has consensus thinking been working for America?

I'll take it a step further, and challenge the writer to prove me wrong when I say that, "for every solution that our politicians have come up with, recently, using bipartisan means; with "real" leadership, there would have been a better solution.

Think McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Liberman, or, the "Gang of 14 Solution".

You say, "The partisanship however, has become so severe that neither side is willing to consider the ideas of the other, and the end result is usually ineffective legislation that produces no long term solution and winds up wasting time, money and resources."

I contend that because we have no "real" leadership in Congress, there is an absence of "creative and innovative thinking", therefore, our politicians are reduced to "bi-partisan group think", or, "consensus thinking", which results in "ineffective legislation that produces no long term solutions and winds up wasting time, money and resources". I contend this is a distinction well worth considering.

In other words, I contend that we don't need more bi-partisanship in the Congress. What we need is more "real leadership". More "true leaders", if you will, who possess those "creative and innovative ideas", that the writer so ably alludes to.

(2)The writer states in paragraphs 9-11:

   

"Our precious birthright, given to us by the founding fathers, envisioned a nation of free men and women. They pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to give us an inheritance of freedom to make our own choices and to pursue our own personal vision of happiness. They did not guarantee an outcome, only an opportunity. That inheritance has been stolen from us by the elites who now control our government and the two major parties.

There cannot be any real solution to the challenges ahead without a basic, even extreme restructuring of the power base in our politics. The hold that the two major parties have on power must be broken before any substantial improvements and changes can be made. Electing another elite, from either party, will not accomplish what needs to be done.

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. How can we hope to have a different result if we once again fall for the lies of the elites and elect one of them? Their goal is power, and every election is to them a chance to increase that power. It is never about real, effective governing, and bi-partisanship is not their intent. In any case, it doesn't really matter which of these parties win the White House."

Note, the writer says,"That inheritance has been stolen from us by the elites who now control our government and the two major parties." I agree with his statement but not the insinuation.

Then he says, "There cannot be any real solution to the challenges ahead without a basic, even extreme restructuring of the power base in our politics." I say, "really"? Next, he says, " The hold that the two major parties have on power must be broken before any substantial improvements and changes can be made." I say, "oh, really...that's the only solution?" Next sentence:"Electing another elite, from either party, will not accomplish what needs to be done." I say, "Oh, how true, it'll take that and much,  much, more."

Paragraph 11: ..."How can we hope to have a different result if we once again fall for the lies of the elites and elect one of them? Their goal is power, and every election is to them a chance to increase that power. It is never about real, effective governing, and bi-partisanship is not their intent." I say, "We can hope to have a different result if we go about it with different objectives in mind then just those stated by the writer." And as for their goal being "power" and "increasing that power", I say, "that's the way its suppose to be...suppose to work...in the 'real' world of politics." And once again, "Real effective governing comes, automatically, with 'real' effective leaders, and, bi-partisanship should never be a goal."

Last sentence in that paragraph:  "In any case, it doesn't really matter which of these parties win the White House." Now the writer is telling one of those lies that certain people tell over and over, in the hope that it will be believed. Shame on him. Of course it matters. It matters with Supreme Court and other judicial nominies, it matters in what gets vetoed and what doesn't, it matters when considering if, and, how we're going to approach fighting the remainder of the war that we're involved in, and, it matters in a whole host of other areas, that, for brevity's sake I won't mention. Suffice it to say that, the writer knows better. However, in order to lead us where he wishes to take us, he must promulgate this fib. And, just where is he leading us?

(3)Last paragraph in article:

The writer says, "We must think and act differently if we intend a different result. It will take courage and faith to do that which we have been taught not to do, elect an independent President. We must take action. If we fail in the task, how than can we ever reclaim our inheritance?"

Gee, what a good question! The writer says we need an independent President who is not a Republican or a Democrat. The writer gives no clue where we might find one, let alone one that the electorate would go for in large enough numbers to get him or her elected. Jeez, what a predicament!

How about this novel idea: instead of waiting for an election year to roll around before we decide to try to make changes; we stay engaged and "vigilant" like our forefathers suggested. Elections should really be the culmination of all the hard work that has gone on before them. Most voters, except the most ardent, disengage after an election.

Or, how about this: instead of trying to get a third party candidate elected- which has never been done in spite of what some contend about the Republican/Whig fiasco-why not take an easier route and just use what's already available? To put it to you another way: if the "Left" can successfully take over the Democratic Party and run "loons" for candidates, why can't the conservatives take over the Republican Party and run credible "Conservatives" who honestly believe in the restoration of "The Republic"? Or, do we all believe , like the writer, that only "independents" have enough "love of country," and "integrity,"and common sense to do our nation good? 

I've got more faith in the American people, at least some of them, and, our present system of government, then, I think the writer of this article does.

The Bible says, "When there is no shepard, the sheep will go astray." And, "When the people have no vision, they perish." Sad, but true, those in our country who do have some vision are out to do us-"WE THE PEOPLE"- no good. On that, the writer and I are in agreement.

                                                                         Texas Tommy

PS. My compliments, once again, on an excellent article. What a joy to have read and considered it. Thank you so very much.

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

---

I would like to thank Texas Tommy Two-Shoes for his compliments about my article, and also for his thoughtful critique.  He invites a reply, so here it is.

His first point of contention has two parts, the first is:

(I'm not at all sure that, "this immense concentration of power in our politics has given us...extreme partisanship rather than leadership that develops creative and innovative thinking." I'm not sure that's what caused it.)

There can be no doubt that the partisanship seen in congress today is more extreme than at virtually any other point in our history, and this is acknowledged by many historical political writers.  For his part, Mr. Two-Shoes admits to the lack of leadership, so then, is there a cause and effect?

I contend that the two parties have engineered the election process to keep power to themselves.  They are in fact so successful, that the commonly accepted myth promoted by the DEM/GOP/MSM machines is that "we the people" have no other choice.  In this atmosphere, the elites who run the two parties are convinced of their own invulnerability.  Without fear of losing all power (each might lose an election but is ever confident in victory the next time), the two parties seek to keep and increase that power. 

If the Democrat party was to admit that the GOP had a good plan (in all cases we can reverse these positions), they would be giving away power.  Therefore, no credit is given to the other side.  We need only witness the huge outcry of protest when Senator Obama stated that during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, the Republicans were the party of ideas.  That talk was quickly shut down. The concept of giving credit to the opposition is not appreciated.

This immense power then, leads to the extreme partisanship.  If leadership was being offered by either party, and again Mr. Two-Shoes admits there is precious little of that, then both parties would find ways to work together to solve our nation's problems and meet the challenges.  There would be the innovative and creative thinking I suggest that would produce desirable results, but we do not see that happening.  In effect, the "leaders" of both parties would lead!

The second part of his first point is:

(Besides, I contend that "bi-partisan" thinking is nothing more than "consensus" thinking, and, is to be avoided at all costs. I contend, that a "consensus", by its very nature, guarantees an absence of "leadership". )

And,

(I'll take it a step further, and challenge the writer to prove me wrong when I say that, "for every solution that our politicians have come up with, recently, using bipartisan means; with "real" leadership, there would have been a better solution.)  He then lists a number of "bi-partisan" pieces of legislation, McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Liberman, or, the "Gang of 14 Solution".  I agree with Mr. Two-Shoes here, except that he is confusing methods with results.

Mr. Two-Shoes states his belief that "bi-partisan" or "consensus" thinking guarantees an absence of leadership, and the legislation mentioned is intended to prove that point.  The opposite however, is what really happened.  Had we had real leadership, the bipartisan effort would have produced solid legislation rather than the mess we were given.

In fact, I reject the idea of blind bi-partisanship and actually believe that the real innovative and creative legislation I call for will come with leadership if the partisanship were out of the way.

In Mr. Two-Shoes second point of criticism, he agrees with me about the tremendous power of the two parties, but disagrees with my solution.

(Then he says, "There cannot be any real solution to the challenges ahead without a basic, even extreme restructuring of the power base in our politics." I say, "really"? Next, he says, " The hold that the two major parties have on power must be broken before any substantial improvements and changes can be made." I say, "oh, really...that's the only solution?" Next sentence:"Electing another elite, from either party, will not accomplish what needs to be done." I say, "Oh, how true, it'll take that and much,  much, more.")

In response, I will say that if I have proved my point that the extreme partisanship has replaced the innovative and creative leadership I call for, then it follows that in order to get to that leadership, we must break the hold on power that feeds the partisanship!  Is that the only solution?  I see no other, and Mr. Two-Shoes offers no plan to bring the kind of leadership we need to our politics. 

He then goes further in offering opinions without support.

(I say, "We can hope to have a different result if we go about it with different objectives in mind then just those stated by the writer." And as for their goal being "power" and "increasing that power", I say, "that's the way its suppose to be...suppose to work...in the 'real' world of politics." And once again, "Real effective governing comes, automatically, with 'real' effective leaders, and, bi-partisanship should never be a goal.")

Mr. Two-Shoes says we need only "different objectives" to obtain different results, but he offers none that we can discuss.  Instead, he claims that this power seeking is the way things should be, that it is the essence of party politics.  He denigrates bi-partisanship saying it should never be the goal.

In this, we come back to the heart of the matter, that party politics and partisanship are not working.  Countless surveys of American public opinion show that the people are tired of this fighting, recognize the seriousness of the times, and want the parties to work together to solve problems and meet the challenges.

Also, in his second point of criticism, Mr. Two-Shoes  puts forward the statement that I am lying about something, presumably that I do not believe what I say when I state that it makes no difference which party holds the Whitehouse.

(Now the writer is telling one of those lies that certain people tell over and over, in the hope that it will be believed. Shame on him. Of course it matters. It matters with Supreme Court and other judicial nominies, it matters in what gets vetoed and what doesn't, it matters when considering if, and, how we're going to approach fighting the remainder of the war that we're involved in, and, it matters in a whole host of other areas, that, for brevity's sake I won't mention. Suffice it to say that, the writer knows better. However, in order to lead us where he wishes to take us, he must promulgate this fib.)

For bevity's sake, I will only respond to the examples stated.  With the SCOTUS, Mr. Two-Shoes decried the Gang of 14 Solution proposed by Senator McCain.  Now the reason for this was to get away from the extreme partisanship and get something done.  I did not agree with that plan, but Senator McCain felt forced to do something, and two conservative justices were confirmed, I expect to Mr. Two-Shoes delight. 

As for appointments, Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor to the Court.  This woman, with total disdain of our Constitution, publicly stated that it should be interpreted in light of the laws of other nations, and while now retired, lectures around the nation at prestigious law schools promoting this idea which I consider treasonous.

As far as the power of the veto, President Bush took 6 years before he found the sacred pen, long after much damage was done to our country by the increase in big government, including the dreadful McCain/Feingold bill alluded to by my critic earlier.

Concerning the Iraq war, no matter who is President, he or she will not be able to simply disengage, campaign rhetoric notwithstanding.

When I state that it doesn't matter which party wins the Whitehouse, it is because both parties have moved our nation leftward, a direction I oppose.  In fact, the Democrat party is now firmly in the EU Socialist mode of governing, and its two leading candidates are hard core socialists.  As for the GOP, it too has moved left, now occupying the space heretofore held by the "regular liberal Democrats".  The presumed nomination of Senator McCain as the GOP standard bearer is sufficient proof to anyone following this Presidential campaign.

Finally, Mr. Two-Shoes rejects the idea of an independent President.

(The writer says we need an independent President who is not a Republican or a Democrat. The writer gives no clue where we might find one...)

There are any number of independent candidates if one cares to look.*

(How about this novel idea: instead of waiting for an election year to roll around before we decide to try to make changes; we stay engaged and "vigilant" like our forefathers suggested. Elections should really be the culmination of all the hard work that has gone on before them. Most voters, except the most ardent, disengage after an election.)

How does Mr. Two-Shoes propose to keep the voters engaged?*

(To put it to you another way: if the "Left" can successfully take over the Democratic Party and run "loons" for candidates, why can't the conservatives take over the Republican Party and run credible "Conservatives" who honestly believe in the restoration of "The Republic?)

Unfortunately, as I explained, the GOP has been taken over by the center-left, and conservatives have been shut out.  The immense dissatisfaction with Senator McCain bears this out as I suggested above.

(Or, do we all believe , like the writer, that only "independents" have enough "love of country," and "integrity,"and common sense to do our nation good? 

I've got more faith in the American people, at least some of them, and, our present system of government, then, I think the writer of this article does. )

I have never stated that only independents love their country, and I have great faith in the American people, not just some, but many, and it is to them that I address this article.  We, as the rightful owners of this great nation, need to reassert our authority, and in order to do so, we need to reject the present system Mr. Two-Shoes admires by breaking the virtual lock on power held by the two parties.  As long as the elites who run the parties remain convinced that we will always hold our nose and vote the lesser of two evils, we will not make the changes we need!

Again, I want to thank Texas Tommy for his compliments as well as his ideas. 

*Readers will note the asterik applied to two of the above statements.  Those two ideas would require much more space than is allowable here.  I think I may already be over the limit. I would like to state at this point that all of the concerns that I presented in this article and the thoughtful criticisms offered by Mr. Two-Shoes are more fully discussed and explained on my website.  For those of you who might be interested, you can check that out at   joeolivaforpresident.org.   Thanks, I hope you find it informative.

---

Dr. Ron Paul is still on the ballot, go to his web site and review his position statements, they are far better than the Democrats or Republicats that are front runners. He is a strict constitutionalists you may not agree with all of his views but I don't believe there is a person in this country you will find upholds all your ideals.

Joe you are right, the Elites pull all the strings, through divide and conquer, etc. and they have only their hand-picked puppets in place to be our next President. Word is spreading and people are waking up like never before. I can't get your link to work, tho.

Thank you so much Mr. Oliva. My husband and I have said that all along. Also, the whole Independent concept has been put forth by Lou Dobbs all year. The problem is who is going to run to win? Who can take them on?

A  good  question patriotparty, I  still believe if Fred Thompson had  run as an independent he  would  still be int he race...I also  think Lou Dobbs  would have done well, other  than those  two, I have no idea, but I sure as heck  hate to have to vote for any  of the leftist  running  now

I agree Ron Paul has a good constitutional grasp, but the country takes him for a Kook, and he wont run Independent.  I agree I really wanted Fred Thompson to compete, but his heart just was'nt in it.  The Lord has always sent America a leader in her time of need.  I just hope he will again.  I hope we have not lost his favor with our Presidents treatment of Isreal, and our deplorable behaviors the last years.

In 1994, Newt Gingrich came up with the Contract With America. That was a great political tool, and that would be a great addition to a third party alternative.  The idea is to ask normal folks to list what they want the government to do for them, and then choose only those items which get over 75percent approval.  Items such as a secure southern border, and no sharia law allowed against women even if they are willing victims.

Personally, I would suggest removal of the attorneys from trial jury selection, and even improvements like passing an IQ test before serving on a jury. And my favorite which will never see the light of day, mandatory annual lie detecter tests for every elected, appointed, or employed public official. Why not get honesty into government ?  What a concept !

If we do start such a movement, we should stick to it no matter how many years it takes to achieve critical mass.  Even 5 percent of the electorate is worth pandering to for the votes, so THEY will make promises to get our votes. We must base this movement on ideas and ideals, not on personalities. As my bumper sticker says, UNITED WE STAND.

---

patriotparty1 said: I agree Ron Paul has a good constitutional grasp, but the country takes him for a Kook, and he wont run Independent.  I agree I really wanted Fred Thompson to compete, but his heart just was'nt in it.  The Lord has always sent America a leader in her time of need.  I just hope he will again.  I hope we have not lost his favor with our Presidents treatment of Isreal, and our deplorable behaviors the last years.

Ron Paul is  not considered "a kook" by the country - this is a label the media has created. The powers that be could not have someone as honest and forthright as Ron Paul as our President - because he does not back down from his principles (and never has) - so they set out to destroy this Statesman. When they couldn't find any "dirt" on Dr. Paul - they then began to attack his supporters, calling us all kinds of names and trying to make us seem like 911 conspirators, kooks, etc.

All of the people I have met in the Ron Paul Revolution have been very nice, professional, passionate, and sincere in their beliefs. They are TRUE Americans. Ron Paul has NOT quit the presidential race (although the media has lied about that too). Anyone who has a mind of their own and has checked out his campaign platform - becomes part of the Revolution.

I for one am a true Patriot and I stand with other Patriots to bring back our nation to greatness. We have let a few politicians ruin this great nation and now it is time to oust their greedy ways.

Americans always stand together in fighting for our freedomsand the Ron Paul Revolution is just another way we are preparing to do so.

Do not believe what the media is reporting - go check it out for yourselves.

www.ronpaul2008.com

God Bless America!!

Amador - I'm with you!

Our corrent government could care less what the American people want. Their agenda is BIG GOVERNMENT - CONTROL - POWER.

We have strayed so far left - I fear if something isn't done we may never come back.

To add to your improvements - how about the requirement of being tested before you are allowed to vote - you MUST know something of substance about the candidate you are voting for!!!!

One of my bumper stickers says "DOES ILLEGAL STILL MEAN ILLEGAL"???

Ron Paul is an honest man who the lobbyist do not even try to bribe.

 

Nice to know I'm not a lone voice in the wilderness anymore. I've been pushing this meme for several years. The elites wont give up power now, if you push them you may well wind up like Vince foster. They know they are on the verge of owning the entire western world outright. The one thing they didnt count on was the invention of the internet. This has thrown their plans back at least two decades. The first major setback they had was when an AZ sharrif got on TV & told BJ clintoon he'd have civil war if he pushed the Brady bill, then offered to shoot feds if they came collecting guns. The second was the hundreds of thousands of old WWII vets that called senators & congressmen country wide over McCains amnesty bill and made the first ever mass second ammendment.......offer........... Message recieved indeed. You ALL know in your heart of hearts where this is going. Don't think THEY haven't thought this through and have a plan for certian public........reactions. We cannot be allowed to become the new Beruit, this must be thought through before uncontrolled spin-off organisations get marshall law enacted. THEY have a plan for THAT scenario that will move their agenda forward. In the end THEY may do black opps that get marshall law enacted no matter how controlled we are. It wouldn't be the first "Tonkin bay" incident our government manufactured.

Joe I couldn't agree with you more. You are right on with this article. Any man whose income is confiscated by taxation, the proceeds used to subsidize other men, is a slave! These so-called party elites live at the expense of everybody else. The party elites are perverted! They have turned from the proper purpose of the law and are following an entirely contrary purpose! The law has become the weapon of every kind of greed.

Thank you, Mr. Oliva, and Texas Tommy, for a great article and the beginning of what I expect will be a great discussion. In 1976, I had just graduated from college, and I voted for Jimmy Carter. I was young and idealistic; it took about three years before I saw reality. In 1980, I voted for Republican I saw on the ballot, and I have done so ever since. In 2006, I perceived that there were many "RINOs" in the Republican Party, but I still believed that conservatives constituted at least half of the party, and could control the other half. I still voted Republican. This year, perhaps I should say that I am disillusioned. Starting with President Bush's pushing for the "Immigration Reform" - which I still believe is more accurately called "Amnesty" - and then McCain getting the nomination this year (I know he doesn't have it officially yet, but it certainly seems like he has it locked up), after McCain had pushed so hard for Amnesty, this is the straw that's breaking the camel's back, for me. McCain's history of other liberal legislation (McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy come immediately to mind) is yet more evidence - to me - of his status as a RINO. I am wavering as to vote Republican again, if only to keep Shrillary/Obama out of the White House, and to fight the War in Iraq, and possibly Iran, to win. (I emphatically do not want to see the War in Iraq end the way the War in VietNam did.) Or should I take Rush Limbaugh's advice and vote for almost anybody but McCain, possibly even a Dumbocrat? The reasoning being that - on nearly every issue other than the War in Iraq/War on Terrorism, the legislation proposed in the Oval Office is likely to be virtually identical, whether McCain sits in there, or one of the other two; the liberal legislation proposed by a President with an R after his name is much less likely to be opposed by Republicans on Capitol Hill, thant if the identical legislation were proposed by a President with a D. It's been hard enough in the last twenty years to find Republicans with backbones, we need to reinforce them anyway we can. I have been just itching for a viable third party candidate, if only to avoid voting for RINO McCain. And now this comes along.... Mr. Oliva, I would very much like to look at your website, but when I click on it, my browser tells that the website was not found. Please, get something fixed - our country may depend on it!

There is only one peaceful way to slow the elites down, the mass of dis-affected conservitives must convince Rush, Sean, Hugh Hewett etc....... to push a write-in campaign. One Candidate must be choosen for the write-in or its just another excersize in spoiler politics a la Ross Perot. Newt is the obvious one since Thompson ruined his cred. But Newt is not showing any interest. Ron paul IS seen as a loon and frankly he IS on foreign policy. Anyone seeking national salvation in RP is deluding themselves about the rest of the countries views of RP. He is un-electable.

My goodness... where do I begin. Well, first, perhaps I should thank Mr. Oliva for his article. I believe most of it identifies with our nations political problems. However, I do not believe it addresses solutions in any real practical manner.

Getting control of elections calls for two specific actions: People like us running for office and/or buying the bozos already in office. I want to focus in on the buying aspect first.

Everyone in office today are in office because they are bought and paid for by someone: Even Ron Paul. However, the difference from Ron Paul and all other elected officials is a perfect embodiment of the two actions above... A true constitutionalist is running for office and he is paid for by those who generally think like him; and in this case those people are the general populace. The beauty of this is that it is only the populace for which accountability is expected by the elected official.

By contrast, McCain, Hillary, and Obama are bought by multinational corporations, banks, and a host of other elitist special interests. If we want THEM accountable to us, we, the People that is, must pay a higher price than the special interests. I never see that happening.

And then, there is the People like us who need to run for office. Now, I will admit that I should be the first to throw my hat in here. And like many of you, I am sure we all have our reasons for not running. But, this does not negate the import of this fact. Patriots need to run for office. PERIOD!

I have heard it said that one excuse for not running for office is because the core of voters will not throw their money to someone they think cannot win or, the special interests throw more money to win elections than the Commoner. This is true on both counts.

However, the key to overcoming this is first, we change the perception of voters by our message. Ron Paul always said that his popularity was not in the person but, in the message. The message in the campaign is the key to overcoming both barriers; which subsequently can be reasoned that if the message can change the influence of the core voters, it may trump the extra money special interests throw toward their sell-outs.

There you have the solutions in a nut shell folks:

1. A message based upon the principles of Liberty

2. A person to carry that message toward an elected office

3. A populace to support that message with money

This is the clean way of doing business. The dealing-with-the-devil way is to buy the crooks already in office. And I think nobody wants to pay that price.

Now, the question comes down to, "How do we mobilize this?" Well, I have all kinds of plans for that. But, the last time I "laid down the gauntlet" on an idea that someone else generated, only a couple people responded to action. I find it so ironic that we spend hours at our computers talking about the problem, and even generally agreeing with what the problem actually is, but when a solution is presented, the forum becomes strangely silent.

our problem, the People, is that we are not a well oiled machine when it comes to running for office, money, and lobbying-you know, all those things we call action. As a matter of fact, we are not even a machine yet. We are still a bunch of parts that have not been assembled. As I like to illustrate: We are just like a nebula: A collection of swirling, circling, and clashing gases and matter with no direction. And just like a nebula, we have a few stars forming in the middle (patriot organizations), but none enough to gravitate into a full-fledge galaxy. As I have expressed in many articles and responses to these forums, the People need symmetry.

Arrowhead>>>---apathy--->

---

Neither writer's comments have offered a solution to this dilemma at hand, neither embrace a Democrat, Republican, or Conservative party.............then where do we go from here? Is there a dark horse lurking behind a curtain somewhere to jerk us all up from our knees to our feet before any more lies take place in the media to sway us to oblivion as to what is planned for our "United" States of America?????

---

I would take exception to Rivenburg's comments on Ron Paul's foreign policy position. And Mr Rivenburg, I would be willing to debate the finer points of your position with nothing more than an attempt to show that by contrast, the foreign policy we have and have had has ruined our moral authority in the eyes of the world.

Arrowhead>>>--elitism, empire building, interventionist foreign policy--->

---

To Mr. Oliva - Kudos for a cogent and accurate summation of our nations situation.   Texas Tommy - my pardon if I am mistaken, but your response to Mr. Oliva appeared, to me at least, to be an appeal for the status quo to persist, based on the assumption that our political situation will correct itself.   Can't say as that makes any sense at all, historically speaking.   History shows that Freedom must be nurtured and grown and protected, by whatever force is required to preserve it.   It seems these days, however, that few are willing to pay any significant price for their Freedoms.   It is taken for granted by many, that we can let the statists have their way and some how remain free.  

In the minds of millions of Conservative Americans, there is little to recommend any attempt to " save " the Republican Party from itself.    The individuals that hold power in the RNC have no intention of relinquishing that power and the lofty positions that political power warrants them.    You will find that singular attitude at every level of the RNC.   They are in charge and we commoners are not.    They are the Government and we are not.   A polite but absolute stance on their part, especially when talking to some commoner that presumes to question their genius.   That is the truth of both the DNC and the RNC Party elites.   This shared Party attitude of superiority, a truth that is not arguable in any reasonable manner.   It is a primary shared trait between the DNC & the RNC.   They are the Government and "We The People" are not.   

There is only one manner in which Conservatives, from either of the existing Party structures, will ever recoup any leverage in our current political struggles.   Only by walking away from both of these increasingly leftist political entities will we find the leaders and build a political structure that might save our children and grandchildren from the coming fight against a Socialist tyranny.   And make no mistake this is a battle, as significant as any that free American men and women have ever faced.

There is only one question that remains absolutely pertinent to this dialogue.  Are there enough Americans today, prepared to place their future, their property and their lives on the line for Freedom?   As we stand today,  we are all, right this minute, gambling these particular "commodities of liberty", on what is obviously a failed poilitical system.   And gambling not just our own Freedoms and Liberties, but those of our children and grandchildren; and those generations yet unborn.   

I am as responsible as anyone you could find, for allowing the present political morass to reach this level of calamity and disaster.  So are you - and every other Conservative that has ever voted for the "lesser of the evil candidates available".   Cowards one and all, are we.   Will we remain cowards???

If we, as Conservatives and Patriots,  truly want to take a whip hand in this situation, we must do those hard and scary things, that so many refuse to contemplate.   Conservatives must act in concert - as Conservatives; we have to pool our talents and our resources and our determination to build a political force that can not be ignored.   A new association of like minded Conservatives, not content with going along to get along.   If we don't get it right and soon  -  we may be reduced to being observers of our government - instead of participants.

Dwain Cleveland