What is Your opinion of a candidates convictions?

As an internationalist liberal, a former Democrat of more than 45 years, having voted for John F. Kennedy and continuing my endorsement of JFK's staunch support of American sovereignty, I would demand that a candidate for any office, especially that of the Congress or the presidency, have a solid record demonstrating permanent convictions of:

    -Adamant support for American sovereignty (as required by our Constitution), by opposing any treaty that would in any way, or in any quantity, diminish American authority over any aspect of the American nation. Any elected politician who supports any transfer of any portion of American sovereignty to an international organization, such as the United Nations, the World Court, the International Monetary Fund, or any other entity, is absolutely in violation of his/her pledge to support and defend our Constitution.

    -Unending efforts to continue the decentralization of political power; . . that is, place "ultimate power in the hands of the people themselves", as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently stated. Over the past 20 years the opposite has been the fervent agenda of both the national centers of the Democrat and Republican Parties; actually making every effort to consolidate all power within a few in Washington, thus diminishing the rightful power of the average American citizen in his own locality; making government the master of the people (as in socialistic civilization), rather than the people being master of the government (as in democratic civilization).

-Adamant support for the individual sovereignty of each and every American citizen by opposing the subjecting of any American to the whims of the (anti-American) International Court of ¿"Justice"?

- Unwavering opposition to any member of the American Armed Forces ever being placed under the command of any foreign government's military units, such as the United Nations "peacekeeping" forces. UN actions in many African nations have kept much of that continent in nearly constant warfare, turmoil, terrorism and eradication of ethnic groups of people during the past 45+ years (since the Eisenhower Administration). Most Americans have no idea that their tax dollars sent to the UN, whether for humanitarian aid or UN military functions, have been mostly diverted to profiteering and to surreptitiously inciting to violence in many parts of the world from Palestine to Haití, and many places in between.

-Support for authentic democratic movements anywhere on the planet. Surprisingly, most of those elected officials, today representing themselves as "Democrats", rabidly oppose democratic rights and freedom for the people of Iraq, just as they opposed the democratic majority in Vietnam. Why? Murtha, Kerry, Pelosi, E. Kennedy, Carter, … among others, have consistently made excuses to again abandon the people of Iraq.

All three of the current presidential candidates, Obama, Clinton and McCain, apparently support the treaties now under discussion in the U.S. Senate, all proposing surrendering much of our remaining American sovereignty to the (unelected) foreign bureaucrats of the United Nations. Thus all three of these candidates are in violation of their pledge to support and defend the Constitution. Personally, I certainly will never vote for such people. Let us recall that of the 191 member "states" of the UN, less than 50 are authentic democratic civilizations; the remaining absolute majority of about 140 votes in the UN, are not only anti-democratic and anti-American, but viciously break up any attempt by the people within those nations to ask for democratic freedoms.

To fully understand the situation in the Middle East (Iran, etc.), one must understand the Eisenhower and Carter actions that brought us to the current "hate Americans" attitude. In effect, the Carter betrayal of the Shah's gradual democratization reforms in Iran made it possible for the current anti-American theocracy to take control, and to grow to become the major enemy of America today. American policies of Eisenhower and especially since the 1970s, financing many opposing factions in the Middle East through "foreign aid", dividing people against each other, is recognized and detested by most people of the region.

By simply halting the American monetary support of the military postures and "balances" in coiuntries all around the world, most of the infighting among competing agendas would collapse due to lack of funding. Thus, American military personnel could be brought home. While on this subject, why do we still maintain, more than 50 years after the end of WW II, American forces of well over 100,000 in Germany and Japan, and after more than 40 years, more than 30,000 of our U.S. military personnel in Korea? Congress Member Ron Paul understands the history and the funding of wars, thus he called for ending the battles of Iraq and Afghanistan by ending the financial capabilities of our enemies. If, as Obama and Clinton demand, we simply "run away", but continue the funding and compromises, the terrorist efforts will continually expand until we are fighting here in our cities and countryside. Neither does the McCain position help to end the violence; so long as our "foreign aid" continues financing opposing factions, the warring will continue.

We need far better national defense at our borders and seashores: Bring home between 60% to 80% of our military personnel and equipment now stationed in Japan, Germany and Korea as reinforcements for our Border Patrol and Coast Guard, both overwhelmed by the hordes (millioes) of invaders coming from many countries around the world into the USA through violations of our democratically enacted laws.

In that there are no Democrat candidates that fit the above requisites, this writer will be "writing in" Ron Paul on my ballot in November.

A. Benton Edmons, editorialist, The Centrist Democrat International

Bellflower, CA, USA