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
Try and catch up. The contempt citation is the only visible evidence that they have not adjurned. I know it will be ignored, but it is a visible action.
Spending bills according to the Constitution must come from the House, a Constitutional duty that the House seems to have forgotten they have, but I am guessing they could reassert that power, and while they are at it they could defund the EPA and a whole lot of other looney alphabet organizations.
Boehner shut Michelle down she insisted that they defund healthcare by claiming he was bound by some house rule, which is complete B$. The house has let a few hundred Billion be spent to begin the implementation of all this regulatory cr@p, so I am guessing that they are not really opposed to the idea.
The same for SCOTUS, they can not morally justify their delayed decision, unless of course as I have stated they have no intention of overturning it. They may however undo the mandate, but that will be easily passed on to the states in some other fashion, and this nightmare will be impossible to undo.
The complete inaction by the House, and they are not powerless, should wake people up but apparently some choose to believe what ever makes them more comfortable. The truth is pretty scarry.
No Congress can be bound by a preceding congress. I know they cheated, so it is trench warfare, we just don’t seem to have the leadership that is willing to do battle. The biggest lie of all is that the GOPe is not all that opposed to this nonsense and I guarantee you that they are already talking about mend it don’t end it. They can start messing with the Courts, they have a lot of weight they can throw around. They might even grow a pair and look at the 80 or so members of the communist party that currently are in the House, but dang can’t do that it would be racist.
There you go again... change the subject when you can’t deliver a good retort.
I suggest we both have a good day while going on our way.
True. But to become "unbound", the Senate must agree.
Ergo, the rule-of-thumb you cite is simply inoperable.
How many time has this House refused to raise the debt limit? Zero. Increased spending would not happen if the House did not want it to. They are either complicit or rotten to the core cowards, you pick.
The GOP starts every negotiation by promising they won't cause a government shutdown.
It's hard to win a negotiation by demonstrating at the outset you won't use your most effective weapon.
I agree the House has botched the debt limit negotiations. But it's important to recognize that's the only effective tool they've been left with to control spending.
A tool is not a tool unless it is used, sort of like an unloaded gun, once the enemy figures out you don't have any bullets in it.
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.