Lies the government told you by Andrew Napolitano (big screen ebook reader .TXT) 📕

Court justices who would overturn it. Yet, in August 1999, McCain stated, “[C]ertainly in the short term, or even in the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to undergo illegal and dangerous abortions.”67 I do not doubt that McCain is personally pro-life, but his stance against abortion is not nearly as realistic as his campaign made it out to be.

In selecting their running mates, both Obama and McCain chose candidates whom they hardly knew. John McCain asked then-Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska to be his running mate just six months after meeting her for the first time.68 Before inviting her to his home in Sedona, Arizona, to offer her the job formally, McCain had only spoken to Palin once on the phone about the position.69 Obama, who had only been a Senator for two years prior to the start of his presidential campaign, chose veteran Senator Joe Biden as his running mate. The two colleagues appeared to be good friends, but it is clear that Obama picked the experienced Biden merely to counter his image as a young, naïve candidate.

We did not hear about the similarities between the two candidates, however, because the campaign was not about real issues that matter to people. I think we will remember Reverend Jeremiah Wright much better than Obama’s proposed healthcare plan. At one point during the campaign, it seemed for a moment that William Ayers was Obama’s running mate. We will all remember that John McCain has more than one house, but most likely fewer than ten.

When it was all said and done, America voted for Obama not because of where he stood on the issues, but because he was not a Republican, and he had the ability to captivate his audiences. America voted for change, but neither Obama nor future Democratic or Republican candidates will disrupt the current two-party monopoly in this country. In the end, the ruling parties preserved their power.

Campaigns do not have to be about real issues because the colossal Democratic and Republican Parties have adopted them all. It may help to think of them as huge superstores that have everything you could ever want. They cover all the issues, but just frame them a bit differently. In the end, no matter how you slice it, the two-party system in this country ensures that we more or less maintain the status quo.70

The people getting shut out of the system are candidates who limit their campaigns to the issues, and the voters, who more often than not choose the lesser of two evils. Due to the two-party monopoly, third parties, like the Libertarian and Green Parties, are perceived as radical, fringe groups with no chance of success. Ralph Nader was ostracized by the Democrats for helping George W. Bush win the 2000 election, rather than commended for opposing the “Republocrat”71 regime.

Congressman Ron Paul is a “Republican” for the purpose of running for office because it would be unwise for him to label himself a “Libertarian.” Paul ran for president in 2008 as a Republican, even though he shares little in common with the present Grand Old Party. People around the country have come to know Ron Paul as a libertarian and constitutionalist because he, unlike mainstream politicians, speaks his mind truthfully, understands our financial systems dutifully, and follows the Constitution faithfully.

Congressman Paul also suffered from an institutional preference for mainstream candidates. The last major presidential candidate who loved the Constitution and ran offering to shrink the federal government was Senator Barry M. Goldwater (R-AZ) in 1964. Even though Ron Paul raised more campaign dollars in one day— over five million dollars on November 5th 2007—than any other candidate, the Republican Party establishment and much of the national media labored mightily against him.

The only chance for a third-party or independent candidate to achieve electoral success is if he or she is a well-known and powerful politician, has a boatload of money, or both. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut was a lifelong Democrat who switched his political affiliation to “Independent” after losing his last Democratic primary. Due to his popularity and influence in Connecticut, Lieberman then defeated his Democratic opponent in the general election.

Governor George Wallace of Alabama ran as an “American Independent” in 1968, on a segregationist platform. Due to the racism then prevalent in the South, Wallace carried five States, won forty-six electoral votes, and received 14 percent of the popular vote, but fell far short of victory.72

Ross Perot is the most notable independent candidate of the recent past; a wealthy businessman who spent an exorbitant amount of money to make Governor William Jefferson Clinton and President George H. W. Bush nervous during the 1992 presidential election. Perot recorded nearly 19 percent of the popular vote, but won no electoral votes.73 Clinton won the election with only 43 percent of the popular vote.74 Perot’s minor success relative to the money he spent shows that in the current system, there is little hope for third-party candidates—even fabulously wealthy ones.

The limited success of third parties has produced a feeling in this country that it is foolish to vote for nonmainstream candidates. People are said to be “wasting” their votes on candidates who cannot win. Voting for third-party candidates is like buying store-brand potato chips when Doritos are staring you right in the face, or like purchasing hybrid cars before they were cool. Voting on the issues needs to become popular again. We must move beyond the emptiness of major party candidates and vote for candidates based on their stances on the issues, and what they are going to accomplish for us while in office.

It is evident that as Americans, we have very little influence on the political process. The federal government and state governments have gone to great lengths to leave the impression that our votes count, but have continuously diluted our power. If exercising the right to vote were truly effective, the government would not