When our Government offers us two choices—FREEDOM DEMANDS A THIRD!


ARE TWO CHOICES REALLY ANY CHOICE AT ALL? Whether to Accept, Acquiesce, and Adjust or… Demand another Bowl of Porridge?

         I, together with millions of other Californians, have to make a choice, between now and next Tuesday June 5, which is a choice only in theory, because in fact our choice makes almost no difference at all.  Almost….06-01-2012 ARE TWO CHOICES REALLY ANY CHOICE AT ALL

         The decision we have to make is whether to vote in the California primary or not.  Personally, it’s a significant decision for me only because it’s a matter of “commitment.”  (You know, as in, “should I be committed to an insane asylum if I think that I can make a difference from the outside…”)

Let’s see, for U.S. Senate, for example, we know it’s going to be Dianne Feinstein vs. either Orly Taitz or Al Ramirez….. (either a committed member of the establishment with lots of experience in screwing the people of California or one of two aspirants with no experience aspiring to do the same…all major supporters of the credit-based economy and central banking).[1]  For Congress, in my West Los Angeles 30th Congressional District, Globalist lifelong friend of Big Pharma, Big Banks, and Big Oil, Democrat Henry Waxman might just lose this time….even under top two….(but only if a Tsunami combined with an earthquake and a meteor striking Beverly Hills or Malibu all hit simultaneously on election day…. And Dianne Feinstein’s position is only slightly more precarious.)

The only possible reason I could have to vote in the California June 5 primary would be to vote for Ron Paul, but supposedly Mitt Romney now has the election “sewed up” after his win in Ron Paul’s home state of Texas—although honestly I cannot think of a single person I know who would actually admit voting for Mitt Romney.  How do things like this happen?  How have we ended up, for a quarter of a century at least, since 1988, with such pathetically insignificant choices: Colgate vs. Crest, Bush v. Dukakis, Bush v. Gore, and now Obama v. Romney.  Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dum, at the absolute best, but more typically, Dumb & Dumber….

Mitt Romney is the ONLY Republican candidate who was COMPLETELY acceptable to Obama and all liberal Democrats, and completely unacceptable to most Republicans.  Of course, from my perspective, except for Ron Paul, most Republican candidates should be unacceptable to most Republicans, it’s just that Mitt Romney makes no pretense whatsoever of being anything but an “extremely moderate” conservative….which is to say that Romney favors everything that the New World Order Democrats want, he just thinks….

I cannot finish that sentence because I have accumulated no evidence whatsoever that Mitt Romney thinks at all.  From one standpoint, of course, this makes him, at least in W.S. Gilbert’s comic 19th Century perspective, the perfect politician, I guess (as when Sir Joseph Porter sings, in Pinafore,  “I always voted at my party’s call, and I never thought of thinking for myself at all (Chorus: And he never thought of thinking for himself at all) I thought so little they rewarded me by making me the ruler of the Queen’s Navy (Chorus: He thought so little they rewarded him by making him the ruler of the Queen’s Navy).”

Of course, I suppose, everyone who knows me will probably suspect I don’t want to vote because of “sour grapes”: I had tried to get on the ballot and my people were literally locked out of one county (Tulare), all of their signatures disqualified in another (Fresno), and so the signatures that should have qualified me to run were never counted by the Secretary of State. 

But on the other hand, the reason I wanted to run is that I wanted to offer people a choice—a REAL choice: (1) Vote for Feinstein & Watch Her Help Obama Shred what Remains of the Constitution or (2) Vote for Charles Edward Lincoln III and put a man in the Senate who will NEVER support ANYTHING EXCEPT what is allowed under the Constitution—and if that should mean filibustering every bill until they shoot me or drag me out, then at least I would have kept true to my campaign promise: I am the spirit of eternal denial—the Man who ALWAYS Says “NO” to Unconstitutional expropriation of property, “NO” to usurpation of rights, “NO” to any derogation from the letter and spirit of the Constitution, “NO” to the incarceration of huger percentages of society, “NO”, in short, to the Brave New World Order which Bush, Clinton, Bush, & Obama have worked so hard these past twenty-five years to bring in…

At 52, I am old enough not to get terribly upset at minor setbacks like this.  So my people were all locked out and I couldn’t get on the ballot.  I should have planned better and prepared for such contingencies.  It isn’t as though I had spent even the $5,000.00 on running for Senate that is the minimum expenditure required to be subject to Federal Elections reporting laws.  I was waiting to get on the ballot, which I thought was a sure thing.

11 years ago, I got much more upset when a relative cut me out of a rather large family inheritance which I had been expecting most of my life.  That’s another story of no possible relevance here except that I was SOOO upset at being legally cheated and defrauded, with no remedy in a court system controlled by, well, the very people who had defrauded and cheated me, that I went to the Rector of the Church where I was once a choirboy and acolyte, the Church of the Incarnation, and asked him what he thought of this outrage.

Of course, BEING the rector of the Church, he knew everyone in my family and after listening to me rant and then inviting me to pray with him for a while, he counseled that I “accept, acquiesce, and adjust” to the circumstances.

Today I am writing to inquire whether the people of California agree with that Texas Rector who advised me “acceptance, acquiescence, and adjustment” are warranted. In particular I want to know whether “acceptance, acquiescence, and adjustment” are warranted when the matter is not money, which after all, is a totally transitory, temporal, and truly trivial thing, but FREEDOM, without which money, property, and life itself, mean almost nothing. 

My grandfather Alphonse, who died in 1980, had always advised me “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:” (Matthew 6:1-20).  But without freedom, we cannot even make such moral choices: one of the undying tenets of socialism has always been that those who do not accept the benefits of social welfare in society must be expunged, extinguished.   As George Bernard Shaw (an early 20th Century critic, playwright, and English Fabian Socialist) once reputedly commented to the effect that if people once refused to live a good life under socialism, they would undoubtedly be given multiple chances, but they would ultimately be painlessly put to death…..

Socialist society simply cannot tolerate REAL diversity—that’s why “diversity” in the Socialist-dominated schools and universities is such a joke: what they mean by “diversity” is homogenization and “shake-and-bake” conformity of thought, style, appearance, and every other lifestyle process[2].

And it is because the California “top two” has been enacted, and seems likely to continue to force mindless conformity down the throats of the people of this State and the rest of the Union, that I have accepted Melinda Pillsbury-Foster’s urging that I reopen my campaign, and file suit in order to do so—if I can find even a few hundred or better a few hundred thousand people in California or elsewhere who will back me in this[3]

The choice between the two Presidential candidates is strikingly meaningless this year: Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are both graduates of Harvard Law, neither of whom were born in Massachusetts, neither of whom are “mainstream” Christians in any sense, both of whom are post-FDR, post-LBJ, post-Nixon-Eisenhower establishmentarian “liberals” committed to perpetuating centralized banking, socialized medicine, and every other kind of welfare.

The choice between Dianne Feinstein and Orly Taitz would be reasonable clear: Orly is younger and significantly more attractive, but nowhere nearly as competent in English as Sarah Palin.  Orly’s corrupt backing and support appears to be mostly private sector (especially from her husband) while she may have some corrupt public sector support, while Feinstein’a corruption appears to be mostly public sector while she definitely has some corrupt private sector support (especially from HER husband).

The choice between Feinstein and Ramirez would be that Ramirez has a Hispanic surname, and so, no matter how “white” he is culturally and socially, some people would vote for him just because of his Hispanic surname.  This could now be called the “Barack Obama” factor: by dint of a slightly dark complexion and some African ancestry and relatives, Obama was elected in part by enthusiasm for having the nation’s first “Black” President—even though Barack Obama’s life history is precisely as typical of Black Americans as mine….except that, having been born in the “Deep South” region of East Texas, my socio-cultural background probably has MORE in common with many black people today than Barack Obama’s ever could have.

Feinstein’s two leading Republican opponents, however, have made clear that they support stimulus to the California economy through increased central bank lending to business, and nothing else.

The absolute worse thing about California “top two” election law is that it EVEN bans write-in candidates, and I think it is that premise that I have now decided it is critical to challenge in Court: WHEN NO OUTSIDE, NON-ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDATE HAS ANY CHANCE TO RUN, WE KNOW THAT THE ELECTION SYSTEM IS CLOSED.

The California Elections Code §8605 now provides:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/2012-elections/calendar/pdfs/section-5-write-in-candidates.pdf

Write-in candidates can only run in the Presidential Primary Election. A write-in candidate from the primary election is eligible to have his or her name on the ballot in the general election only if that candidate is one of the top-two vote-getters at the Presidential Primary Election.

In the old Soviet Union there was always one ballot and one set of Candidates, the Communist Party Candidate.  Even under Stalin and in Hitler’s Germany, however, it was always possible to cast a blank or invalid ballot.  Less than 1% of the population did so under Stalin but some millions of such ballots were cast in Germany in the 1930s.

Under the non-partisan “Top Two” in California’s general election now, THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA HAVE EXACTLY THIS SAME OPTION and nothing more.  They may not even write in the name of “MICKEY MOUSE” in protest (and Mickey has done better and better in each election since 1940 when he first appeared as an alternative to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s third term, especially among Democratic voters in the South who could not bring themselves to vote “Republican” for anything…).

I suggest that we demand the right to open up the ballot in the general election to Third Party Candidates and write-in candidates.  Ultimately all politics are local in nature: if we cannot even attempt to form coalitions and assert power within our neighborhood, town, city, county, or district, we can certainly do nothing meaningful on the nationwide level.

American Politics has become ABYSMALLY overfocused on the Presidential elections to the exclusion of coverage of almost all other elections from mainstream television and even internet presence.  It is time to return power to the people by restoring legislative power EXCLUSIVELY to the Congress.  Unless there are members of the House and Senate who will stand up and protest against the use of Executive Orders and Agreements to abrogate old and institute new rules having the full force and effect of law, we will soon be living in a Stalinist-Hitlerian Globalist Unitary dictatorship. 

Melinda Pillsbury Foster, running her own iconoclastic and anti-establishmentarian campaign for President, has urged me to run and fight for ballot access in the General Election, since the Primary has become a farce, and I can do no other than accept her invitation.

So please have a look, everybody, at:

http://charleslincoln4senate.com/ and

http://pillsbury-foster4president.com/About-Melinda.html

http://howtheneoconsstolefreedom.blogspot.com/

TOP TWO IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH: DEMOCRACY NEEDS A THIRD CHOICE—MAYBE SEVEN OR TEN!

         Looking at Greece a couple of weeks ago, there was worldwide consternation when a small democracy, but by significant coincidence the birthplace of democracy as a word and legislative concept in the entire world, when elections failed to produce a working government, and it was necessary to call new elections. 

         I thought back with longing on the indecisive elections of 2000—why couldn’t the United States have called New Elections when the infamous Florida “Hanging Chads” could not be counted and the vote was nationwide just a hairs-breadth of a percentage difference between Bush and Gore?  Why did the United States, once the world’s (at least nominal) beacon of Freedom and Democracy, leave the matter to its least democratic branch, the Supreme Court, to be corruptly decided by Republican appointees?

         While 9/11, and the subsequent repression of civil and constitutional rights in the USA, probably would have happened under Gore as easily and as readily as under Bush, the substance of the lies might have been slightly more articulate, and the appearance of an inevitable outcome would have been MUCH less if Florida and perhaps the whole United States had simply rescheduled an election. 

How exactly would that have injured anyone in this country?  ANYONE?  Uncertainty of electoral results is good, because it means people are paying attention to REAL results and NOT counting the “hanging chads” by party prejudice or Supreme Court order.  The cost of a second election in Florida would have been no greater than the cost to bankrupt Greece of its second election, and if, to the United States as a whole, it were 50 times as much, how much greater is the price of liberty?

The dishonest quest for order is the most insidious ultimate enemy of honest Freedom, and that is exactly why California needs more than the “top two” options which can be purchased by the “top two” advertising budgets of government insiders who may already have too much sway over the mainstream media as it stands today. 

My fellow Californians—no matter where we are from, let’s take this Beautiful and Rich State Back from Ugly “one party” domination.   Even when two candidates are allowed, the choice is still no more a matter of real freedom than freedom to choose brands of toothpaste, soap, or the color of your shackles.


[1]        I have been registered to vote in California since December 2009, I think, or possibly January 2010, but I have never yet voted in this state.  I had expected to be on the primary ballot, running for U.S. Senate but the “powers that be” did not will it. The last vote I cast in any election was, sadly enough in November 2008, in Austin, Texas, when I voted for the Libertarian Candidate for President, Bob Barr.

That is sad in part because Bob Barr and the Libertarians got such a dismal percentage of the vote, but it was also sad because the mainstream choices were Obama and McCain—Obama who was a classic “Central Bank Loving” Marxist and McCain who was a classic “Corporations Should Control all Elections” Republican.

Bob Barr was  a much weaker candidate than I’m hoping former New Mexico Governor Greg Johnson may be.   Alana, the beautiful wife of one of my good friends and long-time clients in Texas, commented that her husband George was going to vote for “that funny guy with the thick glasses who gives such long-winded speeches I always fall asleep” but she couldn’t remember his name so she wasn’t 100% sure whether she could vote for him or not.

[2] As Alvin Toffler once wrote in his 1972 book Future Shock: the conservatives of that time were the most outrageous individualists, resisting and refusing to assimilate themselves into any social trends, yelling at young “hippies” that they should “conform”, while the “hippies” yelled back at the old reactionaries that they needed to discover freedom and live like the 1960s youth who all conformed to the latest trends in hair length, blue jeans, tie-died shirts, drug usage, and sex life in generational lock step unimaginable at any time previously in history.

[3] I already have a licensed attorney (James D. White) who had agreed to take my case to the California Courts “if it were a cause” (and so long as I assured him I was not a “Bush-Republican type of Texan—having been on W.’s “hit” list even while the younger George was Governor, on account of my civil rights activism against Central Texas Sheriffs and Police Departments “Deep in the Heart of Texas” I didn’t have any problem giving him such assurance).  Mr. White jointly decided that pre-primary election—it had not matured into a cause yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s