Just in, Ralph Nader running for President!

interesting.......

he won 0.3% in 2004 and suddenly he's the top story on all the news programs.

I hope Nader reminds "the left" about the benevolent "front-runners":

Clinton, Obama, and McCain all voted in favor of…. (sing along with me)

• …the “Patriot” Act, which is anything but patriotic or constitutional.
• …the Defense Authorization Act of 2007, which unconstitutionally grants Herr Bush the discretion to declare martial law for as little reason as to restore public order. Now, martial law can be declared not just for insurrection, but also for natural disasters, public health reasons, terrorist attacks or incidents, or for the vague reason called “other conditions.” The “law” also grants the Dictator-In-Chief authority to commandeer the National Guard without congressional approval or the approval of the Governors for use as a police force within the borders of the United States, including using Guard Troops in other states for such purposes.
• …the Real ID Act of 2005 which mandated that all states’ drivers licenses conform to a new National ID standard, complete with micro-chip embedding. Real ID for drivers licenses takes effect in 2009, while passports are already Real ID compliant as of 2005.
• …$500+ billion to continue the U.S. Military Occupation of Iraq (and Dick’s Private Empire).
• And lastly, Clinton, Obama, and McCain all voted against immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Somehow this accounts for "change" in 1984.

Oh yeah, and maybe Nader will cost McCain-Lieberman the election this time around, since many believe that he cost Gore-Lieberman the election in 2000.

"We don't have to start a brand new revolution...All we have to do is restore the original Constitution." -Ron Paul

The guy is a damn socialist. I almost gagged on my breakfast this morning when he said he welcomes support from dems, reps, LIBERTARIANS?, hahahaha!

Give me a break.

I have become the dreaded one issue voter. I will only vote for the true small government candidate. Nader is NOT that.

For what it's worth. I am supporting Nader, will still vote Paul in the Texas primary. I have donated $400 to Paul which is a lot for me. Both candidates speak of restricting the Military Industrial Complex, and foreign interventionsim. Paul and Nader probably agree on more issues than they disagree. Similar to the Kucinich parallels. We must restrict Corporate Power. No other candidates are sincere about adopting this message.

There was a very informative program on PBS about Nader and whether he is a spoiler. Nader has done more for the American people than I could imagine. From car airbags to nutrition labeling on foods. He's got my vote! Hopefully you will research and join me.

Last time he ran, this is what I called his party - Green on the outside, but red on the inside.

He may be anti-corporatism, but he sure seems to be a devout socialist of another flavor (Marxist?) from what I've seen.

I'm glad he's running. I don't agree with him on much, but I like him none the less!

http://dowlingreport.com/?p=140

The Dowling Report
Ralph Nader Shills Self For John Edwards

Dowlingreport.com

James Dowling

I use to think Ralph Nader was cool. I thought that he was a crusader for the rights of the American people, fighting the scoundrels who abused the Constitution and fighting the warfare state every opportunity he got; a true patriot. I read his books and somewhat idolized the man. If I were old enough, I would have voted for him in the four times he ran for President. Yet it seems that my assessment of the man was wrong; I was young and naïve. Ralph Nader has pledged his full support behind John Edwards—the rabid statist, socialist, and CFR Boy Friday.

The Politico reports:

Ralph Nader unleashed on Hillary Rodham Clinton Monday — criticizing her for being soft on defense spending and a chum of big business — and expressed his strong support for John Edwards.

But Edwards is an establishment stooge, welfare-warfare statist, and a darling at the CFR. Surely Nader, with the brainpower the man possesses, would be able to figure this out by now. Alas, no. Either Nader is a dumber old sod than we give him credit for, the geezer is going senile, or Nader is just another left-gatekeeper keeping us from truly kicking out the bums that have been destroying the republic and our rights for far too long.

The Politico article goes on to report:

In an 11th hour effort to encourage liberal Iowans to “recognize” Edwards by “giving him a victory,” the activist and former presidential contender said in an interview that Clinton will “pander to corporate interest groups” if elected.

Nader specifically accused Clinton of failing to challenge military spending because “she is a woman who doesn’t want to be labeled as soft on defense and she doesn’t want to be shown as taking on big business.”

Reading that prattle makes me cranky. I am sure John Edwards is going to dismantle the military-intelligence network, send the corporate death merchants packing, bring us back to a constitutional non-interventionist foreign policy, and dismantle corporate welfare. I also have an igloo to sell you in the Mojave!

In the aforementioned Politico article, Ralph Nader shows just how big a left-gatekeeper he really is:

Nader, a four-time presidential candidate, called Edwards a Democratic “glimmer of hope.” He has long criticized Democrats as indistinguishable from Republicans, chiding both parties as slaves to corporate financing and interests.

It was Nader who famously — or infamously to many Democrats — siphoned off enough liberal votes from Al Gore in 2000 to hand New Hampshire and Florida, and as a result, the presidency, to George W. Bush. Since 2004, however, Nader has been increasingly controversial within the political left. He was booed at a national conference of progressives earlier this year.

Is socialism, constant war, the dismantling of the Constitution, and the CFR a “glimmer of hope”? I think not! Lets be fair— it is if you are a socialist and a supporter of one world government, as Nader seems to be. Does Nader support almost everything that he preaches against (corporate welfare and constant warfare)? Does he believe the sinister machinations of the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Foundation serve the best interests of the American people? Or is he just deluded and in need of the shining light of the Ron Paul Revolution?

According to Carroll Quigley, the late CFR historian and mentor to Bill Clinton, the CFR is the American branch of a sinister clique, based in England, which believes that all national boundaries should be eliminated and a New World Order established to govern the new “World State”. Professor Quigley writes in his book Tragedy& Hope: A History Of The World In Our Time:

The CFR is the American Branch of a society which originated in England, and which believes that national boundaries should be obliterated, and a one-world rule established.

Rear Admiral Chester Ward, a former CFR member, also spoke about the sinister plans of the organization:

The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common — they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty of the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government.

To be fair —John Edwards is not a member of the CFR. He just hangs out with them and makes speeches at their headquarters in New York City. Last year Edwards made a speech to the CFR true believers and made them swoon with envy. He also co-chaired a CFR task force with Jack Kemp. Edwards is nothing but an establishment stooge and consummate insider.

People like John Edwards and Ralph Nader are the very reason we are in the mess that we are in. They serve as wolves in sheep’s clothing while we are the sheep. John Edwards and Ralph Nader talk the talk when they have to. But when the political curtain is lowered they will be serving this nation’s sovereignty and our Republic on a silver platter to the globalist and banker elite. It is time we dump these losers into the junk heap and support the only true pro-peace, pro-constitution, and pro-national sovereignty candidate in the race—Ron Paul.

It’s a no-brainer!

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 2nd, 2008 at 10:37 pm and is filed under Commentary, James Dowling. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

The Dowling Report is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).

In one way I think this is good for the Ron Paul campaign, a lot of his political enemies wanted to tar him as the third-party spoiler. Now with Nader in the ring, that campaign will probably soak up all the negative press on that topic.

Hucka-been says this is good for the Republican party, but I disagree, political momentum has shifted since 2000/04, and he's basing this statement on past performance. Wrong. I'm basing my opinion on the fact that there are many more "disaffected" republicans than ever before, what with McCandidate and his shady past/present/future. The democratic camp will galvanize entirely to Hillary or Obama, once the convention is over, so there will be fewer disaffected democrats. So in this sense the Nader campaign may also soak up some disaffected republicans that could/would/have supported Ron Paul, which is a negative.

Since Ron Paul and Ralph Nader do agree on a lot of topics, maybe they can find some synergies between their campaigns, maybe even going so far as to "blackout" the old media and party spin masters, to give the regular people a larger voice.

What about a combined ticket? That would require Ralph Nader to switch parties, because Ron Paul has said many times that he won't, and as we all know, he is a man of his word.

Sleepdog

Anyone care to predict whether this will hurt us for the nomination? I don't know of any green party members who have joined the revolution, but I'm sure they're out there.

accept for the whole soveriegnty thing........... other than that little difference.

oh yeah, and i get creeped out by environmentalist people because of the theme that humans should be killed off to protect the earth. i never know who believes that and who doesn't. i just get that same ol' creepy feeling.

is a paid spoiler, i question his sincerity in really wanting to help the country.