So the politicians who have led our nation to economic ruin are going to put a plan together to save us which entails more of what they have done all along -- subsidize bad economic behaviors. Two of the key enablers who insulated the failing Fannie & Freddie that subsequently messed up the mortgage markets -- Chris * Dodd and Barney* Frank -- fancy themselves as wise market consultants. They are responsible for impeding the Bush administration efforts to remedy the reckless reserve and lending policies of Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac. Where are the congressional tribunals compelling Frank & Dodd to testify about their roles in this debacle?

And while the Bush administration gets credit for trying to fix Fannie & Freddie a few years ago despite the other party's impedance, they too have contributed to our economic downfall. We remember the reckless spending and entitlement policies such as the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, the housing of Katrina "refugees" for months after the storm using hotel rooms in fully functioning job markets plus allowing illegal aliens to infiltrate and take advantage of government health and welfare programs. Nearing the end of his term, Bush and his cohorts herded bank CEOs into a conference and demanded that they take government bailout money as a stipend with some executive pay conditions. Do we want officeholders of such incompetence imposing corporate welfare and control?

Well now after Bush nearly doubled the national debt, had the largest growth in the federal government since F.D.R. and borrowed more than any previous president, Obama wins an election on change from Bush policy. Obama can easily deflect some criticism of his economic policies by pointing to Bush's vast lack of accounting discipline which appears to give Obama an air of credibility. But wait, Obama is just more of the same in particular regard to a stimulus package filled with pork for government bureaucrats and spending programs to ensure support from various Democrat factions. Obama supporters complain about Bush indebtedness while Obama takes a similar course promising more spending packages with future "trillion-dollar deficits for years to come ". Yes, Bush really spent like an L.B.J. Democrat but now that the Democrats are back in power, they aren't going to be outdone by the 'opposition' party concerning the tenets of big government & big spending. So Obama is promising to out due Bush, while the Obama sheep (O-baahahahaha-ma) praise him as a more efficient & fiscally responsible president.

Meanwhile the banks, automakers, mortgage lenders, UAW, Fannie & Freddie have all become beneficiaries of the government's subsidized bubble over the years and are labeled as being too big to fail. The media and politicians blame economic woes on the failure of the free markets and lack of government regulation. Now does any of what has been going on sound like a truly free market considering all the subsidization, accommodating monetary policies, protectionism, coercive taxation, entitlements, bailouts and stimulus packages? No. So it's really the government and all its interference in the markets in so many ways through overregulation, misregulation and absence of limits and oversight on government itself that causes the economy to malfunction.

It is big government with unyielding power that creates the incentive for lobbyists of undue special interests to profligate interference in the economy for their own benefit and it is they who support and perpetuate the campaigns of politicians who will work in their favor. But wait, power-hungry politicians in big government will seek to make deals and legislate on behalf of or threaten to legislate against certain industries or corporations in order to obtain campaign support from particular pools of lobbyists. A truly free market with limited government protects against both scenarios because politicians lack the power to interfere or manipulate in the marketplace and therefore lobbyists do not have great incentive to petition such a properly checked and limited legislature in order to obtain inappropriate favors.

This truly free market within a system of adequate government with proper powers is much less prone to suffering corporate (or general) favoritism, protectionism or predation on behalf of swarms of lobbying locusts. Instead, such a market allows the consumer to determine the winners and losers by allowing the people to vote with their dollars for the companies that provide the best prices or highest quality per dollar. Big business will have to focus on satisfying the consumer instead of relying on protectionism or subsidization to survive against lower-priced competitors. Within such a system it is easier to spot corruption or violation of safety laws since the government is more impartial without the seas of lobbyists and it is less bogged down by having to concern itself with providing advantages, goodies or protectionisms to various industries (or factions).

Shouldn't all of you as consumers keep check on the corporations instead of the lobbyists and politicians? Similar can be said for a vastly simplified tax code that does not create battles for loop holes. Can you imagine as well if the courts were free of ravenous, sue-crazy, ambulance-chasing lawyers?.... (continued)

As the TASS and tabloid media attempt to cover up the success of the surge in Iraq, they also fail to fully question the self-perpetuating manipulation of the two-party state. The bipartisan media hardly gives indepth coverage of third-party options. Usually, only a third-party's spoiler status is mentioned. Intense coverage is given mostly to the entrenched bipoller candidates as if they are our only choices. (PBS, NPR have even less of an excuse for this in cases they come up short!) Unless numbers should occasionally swell for a third-party will the media even bother. Fully informing the public of other choices and questioning the exclusion of independents from debates are not top-priority, hot topics for the press. Thankfully, there are exceptions and the subject is sometimes brought up.

To compensate for a general lack of coverage maybe there should be some sort of big tent, swing voters convention. It would be nice to have various types of of unaffiliated voters assemble to hash out the issues with various third-party speakers, defeated primary contestants and not too entrenched think tanks. How about an impromptu late October rally in, say, Albuquerque NM perhaps?

Basically, haven't you asked yourself how we extract change or obtain a true maverick by settling yet again for another lifelong, grand old Democrat-Republican government?

A significant number of the founding fathers opposed the very notion of political parties. They felt parties fractured the country and denied choosing the best candidate as an individual. One of them was quoted as dreading a day when two parties exclusively fought for control of the nation. Another founder saw things from a slightly different perspective. James Madison said: "...when the variety and number of political parties increases, the chance for oppression, factionalism, and nonskeptical acceptance of [dangerous] ideas decreases ". All the founders' views together are in opposition to any 'traditionalist' claims of how a two-party system is a good option, even when it is not imposed as it is today.

The electoral college need for a majority is not an acceptable excuse for such affairs since some of our earliest presidential elections had electoral votes amongst several candidates. Following in that tradition we should let a greater spectrum of electors coalesce towards the better majority candidate like the party conventions usually do or otherwise settle it by the newly elected Congress. And besides, the electoral college deals with only one office.

Congress, the legislative body, could easily be made up of regional or national third-parties or independents that ideally would cooperatively govern and represent all parts/peoples of the country and not fracture for light and transient causes short of abuses and usurpations. Our nation and even the stalwart Democrats and Republicans would benefit on the issues with a greater spectrum of choice to leverage from instead of polarized politics which will eventually cathode towards a monopole dictatorship.

And with the economic failures of late stemming from the centralized mismanagement by the two-party occupation, we see the need for greater choice and more freedom in both politics and the markets. So as energy is to physics, capital is to economics and we will accordingly apply a wave-particle Austrian economic approach which entails the virtues of the Austrian school (about the minarchist and bounded classical liberal) along with mathematical and statistical analysis to measure the resulting economic enlightenment. Combining this with reservist government brought about by the Commonwealth party or similar would cure many of our ills.

Recent events do show that prosperity is not brought about by the centralized redistribution of honest wealth but instead by the redistribution of political power while preserving truly free and honest markets.

The TASS and tabloid media is now admitting some of the surge successes in Iraq and with the war in general. The drive-by journalists for a long time had continuosly pumped out a defeat mantra concerning Iraq. The domestic anti-victory faction has been having a field day over the domestic front's new tone paralysis. Obviously when it comes to the media we are force-fed propoganda.

Again, we cannot allow defeat in Iraq to the merciless Islamic savages, whose known Rule of Warfare is an undistinguished Destruction of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions worldwide. Yet neither can we allow defeat at our own ballot box by the two-party regime. There is still plenty of time to put together an indie/multi-party electoral force to literally save America.

If you still fear "wasting your vote" on third-party candidates more than you fear allowing the two-party regime to destroy America, then please roll over and yet again vote for the lifelong, grand old repeat failures. 2008 is the last major election of the naughts. Do not waste this opportunity to put real leaders and solutions in office instead of the same promise breakers and their two-party bipoller disorder.

Accordingly our electoral college plank can further real choice and balance in the presidential elections. It incorporates a 'house' and 'senate' structure to the electoral college just like we have in the Congress.