Posted on 06/02/2012 8:58:03 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
Some lies are easier to spot than others. “Of course I’ll respect you in the morning.” “The check is in the mail.” “A vote for anybody but Romney is a vote for Obama.”
The people who repeat this last lie are undeniably sincere. They don’t recognize that they’re merely repeating a manipulative platitude, calculated to keep voters within the ideological boundaries of a thoroughly corrupt two party system. The falsehood being parroted sounds almost exactly like it did four years ago except, in 2008, the name “McCain” was used in place of “Romney.”
Once again the GOP faithful are being admonished to fall in line behind a political “choice” that was made for them many months ago. The individuals who made this decision included power brokers and policymakers representing both major parties. When the efforts of party leaders combine with their cronies in the media, corporations and influential moneyed interests, the outcome tends to favors them no matter who wins.
This was what author Carroll Quiqley referred to in his book “Tragedy and Hope” when he wrote: “The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.”
The fact that the likely GOP nominee and the current president share virtually identical stances on foreign policy, the welfare state, and monetary policy should be a strong clue that whichever candidate the voters elect this November, no actual change will occur.
Both candidates demonstrate disdain for the rule of law by their ongoing support of extra-judicial detentions and killings in the name of national security. Neither Romney nor Obama advocates a return to limited government and greater respect for the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. The interests of those who back them are hardly the interests of the American people.
So is it any surprise that the political ruling class keeps telling us that those candidates whose principles reflect greater freedom, constitutionally limited government, and responsible fiscal, monetary and foreign policies are “unelectable?” There seem to be just enough gullible voters each election cycle willing to take these official pronouncements at face value.
If there’s a lesson to be learned here, it’s that most coverage of the presidential election seems intended to distract the people from understanding the real issues.
Thankfully, an increasing number of voters are refusing to accept the false dilemma they’re being offered. These are the citizens who have taken the time to educate themselves politically, economically, spiritually, and philosophically. They recognize that the fraudulent two party system offers no real choice. They understand that the only vote for Obama will be one that comes from a person actually casting their ballot for Obama.
These are the voters who know that any political leader who supports gun bans, socialized medicine and the denial of due process when imprisoning or murdering individuals is unworthy of their vote. Whether that candidate’s name is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama is irrelevant. People who are in the habit of basing their decisions upon principle rather than pragmatism are more difficult to deceive.
Columnist Vin Suprynowizc once asked his readers to imagine that they were citizens of the Weimar Republic in the 1930s. He asked them how they would want to address their grandchildren as they approached the end of their lives. Would they prefer to tell their families “They told us that our only choice was between the Nazis and the Communists. So I had to choose the lesser of the two evils”? Or would they rather say, “I refused to support either the fascists or the Bolsheviks. Because of this, I was shouted down, marginalized and abused for refusing to acquiesce, but I stayed true to my conscience and to my principles”?
The future of our nation doesn’t hinge upon the outcome of this single presidential election. But it has a great deal to do with the long-term character and principles of the voters who will participate in this and future elections. If they can be deceived every election cycle into selling out for an illusory short-term political gain, we will all lose in the long run.
But if enough voters remain true to their core principles and refuse to be swayed from them, there is hope that the greater struggle for liberty and good government can be won
Emperor, you have no clothes
osiuyjnsq. s.
Okay.
Anyone now touting 3rd party is all but pulling the trigger on our national suicide.
I sorry but I've never bought the fear card. I'm only slightly more afraid of a second Obama term than I am of a first Romney term. The next four years are going to be awful regardless of who wins.
How’s that? The quote was from the thread lead-in! Go read it.
What's the religious connotation all about? Don't think we have a political problem? Try ignoring it and we'll have a freedom issue.!
First of all I am not a complete moron, but I do know that the House controls the money. They so far have presided over the biggest spending spree in history.
The House has the Only Constitutional authority to produce spending bills, historically they have been remiss in their obligation.
Second no congress can be bound by a preceding congress, they have all the power they need, they curiously refuse to use it. I know the administration would ignore the Contempt citation, that should net be reason to ignore the fact that they are in contempt,the Senate has nothing to do with it.
The power of the purse was given to Congress for a reason by the founders, Boehner would be unwise to ignore that.
The power of the purse was taken away from the House by the maneuverings of the Democrats -- starting as early as 2009.
When the passed Porkulus, they knew they would likely lose the House in 2010.
So:
1. They styled Porkulus as a one-time-only expenditure. Yet, they built the trillion dollars into each department's budget framework.
2. The 2009 budget was the last budget passed by the House and Senate. There was no effort to write a 2010 budget and the departments went on auto-pilot thanks to base-line budgeting -- with Porkulus built into their base-line. The same happened with the 2011 budget, which was due in October, 2010. The Democrats had complete control of both Houses of Congress, at the time; the GOP had no voice in the matter.
3. When the GOP took over the House in 2011, there was no budget -- but there was a spending plan because of the base-line budget, with Porkulus built in, of course. And another 3-to-7% automatically added to the total. The GOP House developed a budget, after the fact. But the Democrat Senate wouldn't even bring it to a vote. The spending cvontinued unabated.
4. The GOP House produced budgets for 2012 and will doubtless prepare one for FY 2013, which starts in October, 2012. The Senate refused to act on the 2012 budget. And they will refuse to act on the 2013 budget. Spending will continue to be guided by the baseline budget system -- with Porkulus growing annually, thanks to the wonders of compound interest.
5. Under the circumstances, the only mechanisms available to the House to control the budget are the continuing resolutions. They can have no impact on total spending...or on how the money is spent...unless the Senate concurs!
Checkmate. The Democrats have gamed the system and installed a devious plan, based on double-dealing, that has kept the huge deficit spending rolling along unabated.
Yes, they're cheating. And they're irresponsible. And they have subverted the Constitution to their own political ends. But there is little or nothing that the House alone can do about it. That is why we need not only the House, but a dominant majority in the Senate and the Presidency to reverse all the damage that has been done.
Yes, there will be elections afterwards, and no, the country will not change trajectory in any dramatic way. Mind you, the trajectory has been leftist for decades.
You have a point.
Bishop RomneyCARE (author of RomneyCARE and gay marriage)
has no “clothes”. He has no chance and should pull out.
NOW.
I'll reply thusly:
Don't think we have a spiritual problem? Try ignoring it and we'll have VERY big problem!
That is SO yesterday!!
I'll keep that in mind...
Your purity will earn you a medal...
Good!
That'll leave more room for my PICTURES!!
THIS wasn't : Other than Mormon hatred, its hard to see your rational point.
See post 135
There is no argument regarding the House's authority regarding spending, but SPENDING and CONTEMPT CITATION are far different things my FRiend.
In a purely theoretical sense, one could assert that the House could stop all spending authorizations in protest to force a Contempt Citation, but Blue Sky does not prevail in an election year, in deference to those “undecided Independent voters”.
Well, there are many words and statements not directly quoting the thread verbatum on any thread, such as your off the wall ones obviously pushing an agenda or simply trying to get a rise.
As to the spritual degradation in America, yes that is in a sense the root, but no society is static and governance by political means can not be ignored. Throughout our history, there has always been a significant portion of society that seems to have lost their way spiritually, this is not new although anti-spiritualism is definately being pushed by one political side and must be countered by political efforts by our side.
And; they are perfectly allowable; right?
Of COURSE I have an 'agenda'!
Doesn't EVERYONE?
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.
