Posted on 09/11/2008 10:57:32 PM PDT by joanie-f
Most conservatives decry the ‘bread and circuses’ atmosphere of modern politics, principally because the consistent focus on meaningless pursuits takes the citizens’ focus away from the important issues … even crises … that must be considered, and faced, if we are to remain a free society.
Our Founders continually warned that liberty, and the republican form of government that is best suited to ensure it, can only be maintained through an informed citizenry.
Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, are necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties.
Many of us consider the ‘bread and circuses’ nature of modern American society to be most frequently exhibited in our adulation of the Hollywood crowd, professional sports figures, and reality programming, the accumulation of creature comforts, the me-oriented nature of the citizenry, the need to ‘be entertained’, etc. … with an incremental de-emphasis on genuine heroes, the importance of personal character and responsibility, and a sense of civic duty ... which includes being educated about our history, and concerned about our future as a free society.
I completely agree that all of the above trends have increased in intensity over the past fifty years, and that, if they continue to gain momentum, our very lives, liberties and sovereignty as a nation are in grave danger.
A sub-level of this toxic trend has become glaringly apparent over the past few weeks of the election campaign.
Our republic is facing potentially deadly crises the likes of which there is no historical precedent:
... and on and on, ad infinitum ...
One would think that, with one of the (if not the) most crucial presidential elections in the history of our republic approaching in fewer than eight weeks, the crises mentioned above would be foremost on the minds of every American who intends to step into the voting booth on November 4th. And, even more importantly, one would think that the American media (the self-appointed purveyors of information and education) would be hard at work seeking, and reporting, the candidates’ opinions on, and proposed solutions to, all of the above.
Yet what do we predominantly see and hear in all of our media outlets? What are we being subliminally told is of utmost importance in this crucial election?
Many of my conservative friends, all of whom are true patriots, have voiced the opinion over the past few days that they are glad Barack Obama and the left are ‘getting a taste of their own medicine’ via the production of the new RNC ad that plays off of Obama’s lipstick/pig gaffe, and they are pleased with all of the attention his gaffe, whether innocent or purposeful, is receiving.
I could not possibly disagree more vehemently.
By producing such an ad, and even debating Obama’s intent – indeed, by even giving credence to this story – conservatives are accomplishing three fatal outcomes:
(1) they are legitimizing the bread and circus atmosphere in this election process
(2) they are stealing a worthless page out of the left’s playbook
(3) they are spending major campaign funds on nonsense advertising that would be better spent educating the public about issues of critical importance to our republic
On my list of 'Things I Want the Voting Public to Know about Barack Obama That the Media Aren't Reporting', there are 8,563 items ahead of the fact that he may (or may not) have referred to his opponent as a pig.
I think the McCain campaign, and the RNC, should be telling us about those 8,563 things in their campaign ads, and leave the lipstick remark to those who believe it has some importance in the grand scheme of things. The fact that they have wasted the donations of loyal Republicans on such nonsense is infuriating to me.
The media, academia, and the political left profit from such abject stupidity. It allows them to fill the airwaves with such drivel, and to scrupulously avoid discussion of Barack Obama’s dark, longstanding connections to anti-American zealots and his agenda to impose his Marxist/black separatist ideology on a populace that has been programmed to be preoccupied with ‘looking the other way’.
Half of the American electorate is ready to put such a man in the White House. And I believe that ninety percent of that group possesses no real knowledge of his infamous background or his ultra-left-leaning agenda.
Why have so many of our countrymen fallen into such an ignorant stupor? Because, for fifty years, we have allowed the leftists in the media, our institutions of ‘higher education’, and Hollywood to incrementally turn our focus away from the enemy within ... and toward tattletale pranks and kindergarten pursuits.
I don't give a rat's patoot what derogatory label one candidate may affix to another. What I do care about is whether that candidate intends to dismantle the noble foundations upon which my country was built.
And the media be damned.
We're going to pay a terrible price for allowing ourselves to be so pliant in the hands of those who most certainly do not have our best interests at heart.
~ joanie
“It is not. The Reagan pro-life platform which has been in place since 1984 recognizes the personhood of the unborn, and their protection by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Yes it is REPUBLICAN ideology that wants STATES not the FEDERAL government to determine issues like this. Bush Sr. abandoned this or was it GWB. You cannot ASSUME the Republican platform will have a PRO LIFE plank. BTW did you know the platform CHANGES for the Republicans? We don't have the same one since Reagan. You sorely need to look at a Republican website that discusses this stuff. I'm quite sure that it was Geroge Bush SENIOR that allowed for abortion in the case of rape and incest. THAT CHANGED the platform from Reagan in regard to abortion. Look it up.
“A position McCain and Palin do not hold.”
PERSONALLY LIVES what she knows is right - don't kill your baby!
“The fact that you didn't kill you baby is not a pro-life credential. If it were you would have to consider Hillary Clinton “pro-life” because she didn't kill Chelsea.”
Stop it already!
Sarah Palin had the IMMEDIATE choice of killing Trig while he was in her womb. He was “defective” according to abortionists. Unlike Hitlery, Chelsea was not considered “defective” - there is absolutely no comparison. Sarah had an “excuse” to terminate the pregnancy. Hitelery wouldn’t have - accept if she simply didn't want that. At least use LOGICAL comparisons.
Hitlery makes no bones about it. She verbally ENDORSES ABORTION. Sarah Palin is VERBALLY AGAINST abortion and LIVES what she believes. Sarah has stated she is AGAINST abortion.
“You don't realize it, but you're making a pro-”choice” argument, not a pro-life one. “
No, YOU are.
You still don't understand Republican CORE ideology.
Republicans want decisions at the STATE level. They want to respect STATES RIGHTS.
Demoncrats want decisions made at the FEDERAL LEVEL to trample STATES RIGHTS.
It's AWLAYS BEEN THIS WAY.
Maybe you’re not a Republican - that's okay but understand some of the differences between Republican ideology and Democrat ideology and what a political platform and plank is. That might help clear up your confusion.
Again, as a Republican I have now moved the issue of abortion to the FEDERAL LEVEL. I no longer have confidence for STATES to make the proper ruling on this. I want ABORTION BANNED at the FEDERAL LEVEL so NO STATE can offer LEGAL ABORTIONS. I find the issue of the unborn and those about to be born that important.
The emperor is naked. Sarah Palin, by advocating a position that puts state prerogatives ahead of the unalienable right to life, has proven not to be pro-life, in fact. Just exactly like John McCain, who, by the way, is the one running for President of the United States.
You are very confused.
If they’re protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, as the Republican platform asserts, they are protected on every square inch of American territory. Why can’t you understand this simple fact? Even “Justice” Blackmun, the author of Roe, understood this.
>IOW, lay the blame right here. It is FreeRepublic, and places like it, that are supposed to require much of our own- If we do not, no one will.
But then, it is so much easier to attack the other side, and falsely inflate our own...<
Here I was thinking I was the only one saying, “Look in the mirror first.”
VERY CONFUSED.
“If they’re protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, as the Republican platform asserts, they are protected on every square inch of American territory. Why can’t you understand this simple fact? Even “Justice” Blackmun, the author of Roe, understood this.”
The Republican platform changed under George Bush SENIOR.
George Bush SENIOR allowed for abortion in the situation of rape and incest. Why do you keep IGNORING THAT?
I really don't understand your “logic” ... which isn't logical to say the least ... .
If you really believe the 14th Amendment protects human life than WHY was the outcome of ROE/WADE to ALLOW abortion?
You get it coming and going. A persons’ THOUGHTS on this are fine but the LAW is that ABORTION IS LEGAL when it NEVER should have been made LEGAL. You need to also explain about why Bush SENIOR allowed for abortion in his platform. You have things all jumbled up and confused.
Find a good Republican website.
Read what core Republican ideology is.
Look up what a Republican platform and plank is.
Look up what George BUSH SENIOR did on abortion.
Look up Roe/Wade.
Look up what the 14th Amendment IS and WHAT it means.
Maybe you'll have answered your own questions.
I don't have time for you circular logic and changing subjects when you're being cornered as WRONG.
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
*****************
Agreed.
Keep up the good work, narses!
Yawn. Go take a basic civics course. Try layering on political science and basic logic. Semantics would be good too. Then come back and try again. That you can even try to claim that the most pro-life ticket the GOP has ever had is pro-abortion shows a serious derangement of fact and fiction in your synaptic process. Get help.
Thank you. The issue has NEVER BEEN MORE CLEAR. The choices have NEVER BEEN more stark.
Would those of you whom I would describe as ‘purists’ prefer to elect (in this election cycle, in which there are now only two viable candidates):
(1) A President who will not necessarily seek to appoint judges who will outlaw abortion, and who wants judges who will allow the voters of each state to set their own abortion policy.
(2) A President who will appoint judges who will not allow the voters to decide to ban any type of abortion, including partial birth abortion – who voted NO on prohibiting minors to cross state lines for abortions, who voted NO on notifying parents of such abortions, and who voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive.
To my mind, (2) represents a wickedness that is not definable or comprehensible.
The bottom line is that this election may prove to be the most watershed election in our history – stacking the Court with life-term judges who will determine the nature of the abortion issue for decades to come.
In spite of your fervent desire to support the innocent unborn, and your crusade to see to it that we have leadership that shares your passion in that regard, YOU ARE GOING TO GET ONE OR THE OTHER – (1) or (2). By refusing to support (1) your are ensuring (2), and by doing so you are most certainly not doing any favors for millions of future innocent murder victims. In fact, you are ensuring a dramatic increase in their numbers.
~ joanie
*******************
Never.
The recognition of this great truth goes all the way back to Plato....
Horatio Bunce is a striking example of responsible citizenship. Were his kind to multiply, we would see many new faces in public office....
joanie-f, thank you so very much for the link to "Not Yours to Give." I'd never seen this account from Davy Crockett before. It's simply outstanding, and I hope anyone reading these lines will take the opportunity to read it as well. We need more Horatio Bunces these days, to put it mildly.
"Enforced" charity isn't charity at all. Your paraphrase of Obama's remarks at the Columbia "service summit" — "In an Obama administration I will see to it that citizens perform extensive community service, in co-operation with their government" — ominously indicates that the sort of public "charity" Obama has in mind is virtually indistinguishable from public slavery. It would entail a virtually limitless projection of government power against the people.
How much do you want to bet that, under an Obama administration, all genuinely private charities would be repressed, and especially the likes of e.g., the faith-based Salvation Army and Catholic Charities, et al? Because (1) they are religiously-affiliated charities; and (2) they'd be "rivals" of the (secularist/atheist) government-enforced programs, and therefore must be eliminated, perhaps on the excuse that they represent a "duplication of services and thus need to be coordinated with the government to assure maximum efficiencies."
Truly, America would become a "brave new world" under an Obama administration. And the Constitution would be sacrificed to the overweening lust for power that characterizes the self-selected "elites" who arrogantly assume that the American people are unfit to govern themselves, and so they will tell us how we are to be governed. They will rule; and we must submit. With the Constitution gone, the pernicious "rule of men" would extinguish our free society.
Obama is their Trojan Horse....
Wake up America!!!
Thank you so much for your beautiful essay/post dear fellow patriot and sister in Christ!
“To my mind, (2) represents a wickedness that is not definable or comprehensible.”
I can define it. It is Satanic. Aulinsky dedicated his tome to Lucifer. The Luciferian elements in our society want to put each of us outside the pale of God’s love. They believe killing babies does that.
>That requires taking back the government and gradually rebuilding the culture—a matter of decades, not months.<
What would result from removing all nudity and filthy language from TV. If your screen showed the American flag when you first turned on the TV would people still watch TV?
If we had some states allowing it and other states not to allowing it, the number would certainly decrease. Not everyone will travel 1000 miles to murder a baby.
Why don't you link us to that, if you're so sure?
McCAIN [to Bush]: Do you believe in the exemption, in the case of abortion, for rape, incest, and life of the mother?
BUSH: Yeah, I do.
McCain: [But you] support the pro-life plank [in the Republican Party platform]?
BUSH: I do.
McCAIN: So, in other words, your position is that you believe there’s an exemption for rape, incest and the life of the mother, but you want the platform that you’re supposed to be leading to have no exemption. Help me out there, will you?
BUSH: I will. The platform doesn’t talk about what specifically should be in the constitutional amendment. The platform speaks about a constitutional amendment. It doesn’t refer to how that constitutional amendment ought to be defined.
McCAIN: If you read the platform, it has no exceptions.
BUSH: John, I think we need to keep the platform the way it is. This is a pro-life party.
McCAIN: Then you are contradicting your platform.
Source: GOP Debate on the Larry King Show Feb 15, 2000
Now, who are you going to vote for this election?
So, in other words, you've joined the camp of those who blame those who won't compromise foundational principle for the inevitable outcome of their own compromises.
Joanie, you don't get representatives who will represent your principles by supporting those who despise your principles. This is so basic that I'm frankly shocked that you've allowed yourself to go down this illogical path.
The only reason that the pro-life movement can't stop abortion is because self-proclaimed pro-lifers continue to fall for this scam which, in the final and most important pass, finds them exerting their electoral energy and franchise on behalf of the other side.
We don't even need a moral majority to turn this around. All we need is a moral plurality that won't compromise.
If all pro-lifers would unequivocally take this stand, the politicians would turn around so quickly it would make your head spin.
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.