Posted on 09/07/2014 5:02:44 AM PDT by Nextrush
The only interesting things about Douglas Carswell's swtich from the Tory Party to Ukip are that it took him so long and that he has acted alone. Any thinking person has been able to see for years that the Tory Party hates conservatives. It is a roadblock, not a road, championing the elite against the people.
It is kept in being only by the BBC and various dodgy billionaires, who provide it with airtime and money out of all proportion to its real support. It has no actual aims except office at all costs.
It was no actual policies either, only negative smear campaigns, falsely portraying Ukip as mad Nazis, or Ed Miliband as some kind of Trotskyist loony.
The party leader has never pretended to be anything other than what he is-the heir to Blair. That is why so much of the Left-wing prefer David Cameron to Ed Miliband......
And yet those who could make a difference still cling to the Tory nurse for fear of finding something worse. Well, what could be worse than bankruptcy, uncontrolled immigration and war?
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I'll try to rewrite some of his lines into the US situation.
"Any thinking person has been able to see for years that the Republican Party hates conservatives. It is roadblock, championing the elite against the people."
"It is kept in being only by the Fox News Channel and various dodgy billionaires, who provide it with airtime and money out of all proportion to its real support. It has no actual aims except office at all costs"
"It has no actual policies either, only negative smear campaigns, falsely portraying Tea Party conservatives as racists or corrupt, or all Democrats as way out Communists."
"And yet those who could make a difference still cling to the GOP teat for fear of finding something worse. Well, what could be worse than bankruptcy, uncontrolled mass immigration and war?"
Both political parties use people of the Left and Right as pawns to gain power and do the bidding of elites who want things like open borders and cheap labor, rules to knock out competitors and so on.
The big parties are jointly leading us down a road of higher debt, more spending and higher taxes to sustain an unsustainable system of government at all levels that is heading towards inevitable bankruptcy.
Beat me to it, although that is good because you did a far better job at it than I would have.
Very well said.
> “Peter Hitchens wrote this column about the UK situation, but I think it applies to the US where the Republican Party despises its own grassroots voters.”
My thoughts exactly.
“...portraying...Ed Miliband as some kind of Trotskyist loony.”
But I thought Ed Miliband IS a Trotskyist loony?
Bump
The propaganda of the big party (D and R) political machines always exaggerates the extremes of its enemies so the voters think they are the right choice.
Miliband is socialist-elitist, but so is Cameron. He isn’t Joe Stalin. You have to believe the other guy is extreme so you’ll vote for the Republican who wants illegal immigration and or just raised your taxes because he’s “better” than the “way out there” Democrat.
excellent re-wording
“It has no actual aims except office at all costs”
so as to line their own pockets
There are two obvious things that my incumbent Republican governor (Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania) has done to line pockets.
One is to raise gasoline taxes by 28 cents a gallon for highway and bridge projects lining the pockets of businesses involved. In turn, the business people are giving campaign cash to him this year. I read a campaign finance report myself last night seeing it.
Another cash cow for my RINO governor is signing off on Medicaid expansion in PA under Obamacare. This means state contracts with private insurance companies. No doubt people from there will show up on future campaign finance reports.
Heck, the gas tax hike “infrastructure” projects got labor union endorsements for my Republican governor. The Boilermakers union and a Laborers union in the Pittsburgh area came out for Corbett.
That's putting it in a nutshell, although war does have its purpose and may be what it takes to end the constant attacks of Islam.
Islamic State is a real enemy, but watch out about other wars we may be drawn into.
Putin is bad but he’s not Hitler or Stalin.
The political-business elites may want a “market” in Ukraine for defense companies or they may be PO’ed by Putin for outlawing gay propaganda aimed at children. Russia helps Iran and even though I support Israel they have a political lobby (inc. McCain, Graham, Schumer, Feinstein, Menendez) with the potential to be hostile to Russia over Iran.
Hitchens was writing in his article concerning the situation in Ukraine as a war not to get drawn into.
If the UKIP can be successful in the UK, then we should stop playing novice and form the Tea Party into a real political party.
We are guilty of doing the same thing over and over, and you know that old saw.
The difference could be that the UK is in much worse shape than we are as far as civil liberties, immigration policies, multiculturalism, etc.
I suspect that many Britons are now living in fear of what is to come to them in the form of terrorism as a result of their past policies.
We apparently have not yet reached the point that our average citizen understands what awaits them.
It is time for the Tea Party to be a real party.
Great work!
I took a quick glance at some of the RINO’s like Cochran and Graham noting the big money behind them.
The elites get what they want from the politicians and will in the future including “immigration reform” but that will have to wait for the election to be over.
“Months of brainwashing were cancelled out by this sharp personal experience of the ‘Yes’ campaign’s instinctive and necessary dishonesty. If it didn’t lie about its real aims, it would never get any support. The whole thing was rigged from the start (as Mr Cameron’s would be).”
This is what scared the crap out of me with Ross Perot’s plan for an electronic Town Hall (where the people, or “the volunteers”, as he called them, would directly vote on issues) - the fact that people who live REAL LIVES don’t have the time (and often the capability) to filter through the propaganda. So whoever controls what the people are spoon fed, and the wording of the questions, then controls the outcome of votes.
Example Question for the masses: “Should people who are in the United States without proper documentation be: (A) deported to a country that has one of the highest crime rates in the world, where they face certain death; or (B) pay a fine, be allowed to stay in the United States, learn English, contribute to society, pay back taxes, and, after meeting all of the preceding, be allowed to become US citizens? Please choose (A) or (B).
Slightly exaggerated, but not that much. A few things worth noting for the above:
1) Even in Honduras, with the highest murder rate in the world, the vast majority of people live their lives in peace.
2) What is the definition of “Learn English”? Does that mean learn to read some English words at a 2nd grade level, or be able to converse comfortably in English? Who gets to decide that?
3) How much is the fine? Does everyone pay it, or are their hardship exceptions? And note that nearly everyone from Central America will be a hardship exception. Also, will federally-funded groups like ACORN be allowed to step-in and pay the fines for these people, using federal money.
4) Who calculates “back taxes”. Back taxes are easy for the IRS to calculate if the employer is properly informing the IRS of your wages (i.e., 1099 and W4 forms, etc.), but how does one calculate back taxes for someone that has been paid under the table...maybe take their word for it?
5) How long until these people become citizens, and what happens to the ones that choose not to become citizens? Do they still get to stay here and have kids (can’t send them back, after all)? Do their kids become citizens, even if not born here?
Other than the “certain death” comment, the above “Electronic Town Question” is almost identical to a polling question that seemed to come out of NOWHERE 3 hours after Eric Cantor (top Amnesty pusher in the Republican Party) was defeated in his primary. And guess what, the majority of people answered exactly as the pollsters had hoped, which was Answer B.
So you say, well, we have a First Amendment, so the debate will open and people can argue back. Well, not in England in 1974, per this article - the media was 100% on one side and would not allow the other side to get its word out. I suspect that England also has “Campaign Finance Laws” to permit “fairness”, but actually intended to silence all but the media. Sure, you can stand in your front yard and scream your side of the argument until you’re blue in the face, but good luck competing against media outlets that reach 200 million people in this country.
Wow, great article. He TOTALLY NAILS IT about the EU pushing to start World War 3 with Russia.
Too bad WAY TOO MANY AMERICANS are also taking the bait...when it’s OBVIOUS here the only reason for such a position is to get the voters minds off Amnesty and Healthcare for the November elections, and help Democrats hold on to power.
The GOPe made so much political noise about amnesty that Obama had to back off until after the election.
But they (the GOPe and Obama) will sneak in amnesty anyway they can after November.
The big money elites that support both major parties demand it.
China isn’t the great place business thought it would be so jobs will come back to America we are told. But will American citizens be getting those jobs.
I know that we tend to (understandably) think the worst here, given our president, but maybe something else is at work.
We were PROMISED Amnesty first, early in the year, then over the summer, and now November. But it still hasn’t happened. The president also promised gun control by executive order once the Senate shot down the legislative route. The president did issue that order, but it was very limited - it was more like improving tracking records of dangerous people...not banning AR-15s or requiring people to now register, or even closing the so-called “gun show loophole”. He found that there was little he could do by bypassing Congress, at least on gun control. I suspect that the career attornies at Justice told him of his EO limits and that to directly ignore their advice would have meant big trouble...why else would he have done next to nothing? Not to help Dems, as Congress already voted it down and we were eons away from the next election.
Maybe something similar with Amnesty. Maybe it was all a bluff? Maybe he ALWAYS KNEW that his options are very limited (basically looking the other way regarding illegals). Maybe he knows that any EO can be undone by the next president, and may well be undone if that president is Tea Party. Something to consider if you bring the Illegals out from the “shadows” and then document where they are. Obama simply cannot deem Amnesty for those breaking unless those people go home (i.e., amnesty only works for people that broke the law prior - if they are near when President Cruz is sworn-in, they would still be breaking the law and can still be prosecuted for still being here on that day).
So maybe that is his problem. The Hispanic leaders have been led (suckered) to believe that Obama can do what Congress will not do and grant a general amnesty that allows these people to become citizens, with no fear of a future president undoing it. But since he cannot, the president would only get grief from those leaders if he takes action before November...so he need to delay doing anything, so the Hispanics will keep thinking he can do something that he cannot do.
Remember, the gun control people were not happy one bit, once they found out Obama could do next to nothing for them, relative to what Congress could do.
“If the UKIP can be successful in the UK, then we should stop playing novice and form the Tea Party into a real political party.”
Hitchen’s key point -that the establishment of either major party (both here and in Britain) is concerned only in maintaining power and individual perks - is spot on.
The key difference between us and the Brits is that they have a parliamentary system, in which it’s much easier to establish a third party. In the Brit system, a third party (like UKIP) can start out small and still have some legislative clout.
Not so here. Our real problem is that voting third party (whether it’s the current Libertarians or a future Tea Party) generally tends only to play into the hands of the Democrats.
My personal philosophy has always been to do what I can to make sure the Democrat doesn’t get into office. Many - perhaps most - Republicans are bad, but there are at least some who are reliable conservatives. But every single last Democrat is a scum enabler of an organized criminal enterprise.
After Cochran and Mississippi, my inclination to cut marginal Republicans some slack is sorely strained. I still hate to do anything to make it easier for donkeys to solidify their power, which they surely will do using the Chicago model. But I’m at a loss to see how we institutionalize traditional conservative principals without voting for squish Republicans or throwing away votes on non-viable third party candidates so as to throw elections to hopelessly corrupt Democrats.
If anybody’s got a workable strategy, I’m all ears.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.