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
Not really, IMO.
He got only about 40% of the popular vote, but 60% of the electoral vote.
This was made inevitable by his opponents splitting their vote up three ways.
It’s you that’s projecting. Your post resembles nothing I’ve been doing for the last five years.
It was blatantly obvious that Newt could not win, he certainly had a chance to at least slow Romney down, instead he doubled down and split the vote. Ron Paul is an idiot.
Palin should have run, no matter the cost, because it was that important.
Please do rag about Romney, and I say that with no irony.
Complaining about politicians is one of the oldest and greatest American traditions, next to freedom.
Mitt has waffled all over the place, in an attempt to garner whatever kudos he can that go with his locale. Why should anyone be surprised that in Massachusetts, Mitt did as Massholes do? The national climate is different, and Mitt will have to fit in or suffer the inglory. In the meantime any thinking person has to give the boy some credit for business sense; he knows up close and personal what helps American enterprise and what poisons it. If he only differed from Barack Obama in that one narrow way it would still be worth the change.
First of all the GOP only controls the House, not all of Congress.
Second, historically it has been very rare for The House to issue a Contempt citation against any Administration and may even be impossible with a split Congress, Senate being majority Dem.
I personally would cite nobama and holder with every breath, but I and we, are not privy to or aware of all the goings on with Congress.
Even if Contempt citation was issued, it would be well beyond the election before anything changed. If nobama re-wins, he will just flip Congress and us the bird and keep on going until either we or the Generals take control by whatever mean is necessary.
Did I not sum up the tone of your statement well? Blaming others for what the Great Herd Of Tea Party Cats did to itself?
No. You obviously have no idea what I’ve been doing or what I think. You’re simply projecting your own perspective.
I’d like to ask, how did Romney get fixed upon as the GOPe Heir Apparent?
It wasn’t just money, or we’d be talking about Donald Trump now, not Mitt.
If nothing else, the fact that there was virtually no infighting in the GOPe over this, bespeaks a level of organization that ought to move Tea Parties to jealousy.
How is taking your statement at its plain, blaming value a projection of any way, kind, shape, or sort?
Well, let's take it one line at a time:
You’re going to blame your deadlocked confusion over the many better than Romney hopefuls on “this way of thinking”?
I'm not deadlocked or confused at all. I never supported any of those you're referencing, and I know explicitly why.
You folks should have foreseen that Obama’s singular abysmality would welcome a worse grade of GOP competitor than usual.
I've been forecasting the continued downward spiral of the formerly grand old party for years now.
And that Sarah declining to run would deprive you of a shoo-in.
I've never supported Mrs. Palin. I disagree with her on certain fundamental non-negotiable matters of public policy.
And done whatever needed to ensure you converged on a satisfactory candidate.
We did. Outside the Republican rigged game.
The GOPe out-organized you. They used you against yourselves in your confusion and division.
Hardly. In the first place I'm no longer a participant in the rigged Republican Party game, and in the second place, again, I've had no confusion over what the formerly grand old party is doing. And those I politically associate with are not divided at all.
So, again, you obviously know nothing about me or what I think, and are doing nothing more than projecting that ignorance my way.
Alahu Akbar!
----------------------------------------------
1 - A LDS perspective on Muhammed (LDS.org)
http://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/08/a-latter-day-saint-perspective-on-muhammad?lang=eng
2 - U.S. Muslims share friendship, similar values with Mormons (LA Times, published in 2008)
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/02/local/me-morlims2
3 - Mormonism and Islam: Commonality and Cooperation Between Abrahamic Faiths (March 10 & 11, 2011 - Utah Valley University)
http://www.uvu.edu/religiousstudies/mormonismandislam/
4 - Ask a Mormon: What do Mormons think of Muslims (March 2010 - MormonWoman.org)
http://mormonwoman.org/2010/03/15/ask-a-mormon-woman-what-do-mormons-think-about-islam/
5 - Mormons and Muslims break fast together (Ramadan 2010 - Deseret News)
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705386347/Mormons-Muslims-break-the-fast-in-Southern-California.html
6 - Islamic Translation Service (Brigham Young University)
http://meti.byu.edu/islamic.php
7 - Muslims attending BYU focus on similarities between Islam, LDS tenets (Deseret News - Dec 2009)
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705353014/Muslims-attending-BYU-focus-on-similarities-between-Islam-LDS-tenets.html
These are multiple sources, post 9-11, all of which are Mormon or Mormon-friendly.
Bet you were unaware of the ties between mormons and islam, weren't you?
***********************************************************
The Islamic Translation Series is designed not only to further scholarship in the study of Islamic philosophy, theology, and mysticism, but, by encouraging the translation of Islamic texts into the technical language of contemporary Western scholarship, to assist in the integration of Islamic studies into Western academia and to promote global perspectives in the disciplines to which it is devoted. Islamic civilization represents nearly fourteen centuries of intense intellectual activity, and believers in Islam number in the hundreds of millions. The texts that will appear in ITS are among the treasures of this great culture. But they are more than that. They are properly the inheritance of all the peoples of the world. Brigham Young University and its Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts are pleased to sponsor the Islamic Translation Series. In doing so, we hope to serve our fellow human beings, of all creeds and cultures.
The texts that appear in this series are among the cultural treasures of the world, representing as they do the medieval efflorescence of Arabic-Islamic civilization-a civilization in which works of impressive intellectual stature were composed not only by Muslims but also by Christians, Jews, and others in a quest for knowledge that transcended religious and ethnic boundaries. Together they not only preserved the best of Greek thought but enhanced it, added to it, and built upon it a corpus of scientific and philosophical understanding that is properly the inheritance of all the peoples of the world. From the mormon university, BYU
From the Islamic studies dept. at mormon university BYU,
As a hard core unherdable cat who thought ONLY outside boxes, I suppose this could have been expected of you.
Good day, sir; depart to your virtual irrelevancy.
A Mormon university treats Islam as a museum curiosity — as most American university antiquities departments do.
Big fat news?
You obviously didn't even look at the other links that were posted showing mormon/muslim ties in order to cherry pick something to dismiss.
Mormon taqiyah.
That's OK...there are others reading this thread.
By Mormon orthodoxy, Islam would be a heresy, same as “normal” Christianity is. If alleged Mormon flirtations with heretical Islam mean a sea change for the whole LDS, the case made for it still appears to be underwhelming. Pretty sure the official Mormon eschatology is that all other faiths will come to embrace Mormonism, so a sell out to Islam seems exceedingly unlikely.
I'm skeptical about Romney having a lot of economic sense. More than Obama, for sure, but that doesn't mean he's good, by any means.
In my profession, I interact with corporate executives frequently. I have been surprised by how ill-informed some of them are on basic economic issues. Remember it's these type of people who often lead the charge in Congress on stupid policies because it is advantageous to their company or industry. Given Romney's enthusiasm about the auto bail-out, cap and trade, and other economic issues, I doubt his economic instincts are that great. His economic solutions always involve government intervention.
If I'm proven wrong about Romney, I'll remind you that I was. If I'm proven right about Romney, you'll have to remember that I warned you about Romney because I don't play the "I told you so" card. I'm really sure that we're being sold a bill of goods in Romney.
I’d have to see what “the rest of the story” is about Mitt’s more liberal economic leanings. Does Mitt have a vision for how GM and Chrysler can be turned back out of the taxpayer funded zoo to live in the wild? Is Romney open to evolving his view on global warming (if not for that widespread belief, cap and trade would make no sense to anyone, let alone Romney)? Romney does seem to be stumping for “tax less” and that has to lead logically to “spend less.”
Pretty sure the official Mormon eschatology is that all other faiths will come to embrace Mormonism, so a sell out to Islam seems exceedingly unlikely.
BTW, the attacks made by Joseph Smith and other mormon leaders were agains Christian faiths. Joseph Smith claimed to be a "second mohammed".
In the heat of the Missouri “Mormon War” of 1838, Joseph Smith made the following claim, “I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’ ”[1]
It is most interesting that a self-proclaimed Christian prophet would liken himself to Mohammed, the founder of Islam. His own comparison invites us to take a closer look as well. And when we do, we find some striking—and troubling—parallels. Consider the following.
Mohammed and Joseph Smith both had humble beginnings. Neither had formal religious connections or upbringing, and both were relatively uneducated. Both founded new religions by creating their own scriptures. In fact, followers of both prophets claim these scriptures are miracles since their authors were the most simple and uneducated of men.[2]
Both prophets claim of having angel visitations, and of receiving divine revelation to restore pure religion to the earth again. Mohammed was told that both Jews and Christians had long since corrupted their scriptures and religion. In like manner, Joseph Smith was told that all of Christianity had become corrupt, and that consequently the Bible itself was no longer reliable. In both cases, this corruption required a complete restoration of both scripture and religion. Nothing which preceded either prophet could be relied upon any longer. Both prophets claim they were used of God to restore eternal truths which once existed on earth, but had been lost due to human corruption.
Both prophets created new scripture which borrowed heavily from the Bible, but with a substantially new “spin.” In his Koran, Mohammed appropriates a number of Biblical themes and characters—but he changes the complete sense of many passages, claiming to “correct” the Bible. In so doing he changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place. In like manner, Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, much of which is plagiarized directly from the King James Bible. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon claims that this same Bible has been substantially corrupted and is therefore unreliable. In addition, Joseph Smith went so far as to actually create his own version of the Bible itself, the “Inspired Version,” in which he both adds and deletes significant portions of text, claiming he is “correcting” it. In so doing he also changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place.
As a part of their new scriptural “spin,” both prophets saw themselves as prophesied in scripture, and both saw themselves as a continuation of a long line of Biblical prophets. Mohammed saw himself as a continuation of the ministry of Moses and Jesus. Joseph Smith saw himself as a successor to Enoch, Melchizedek, Joseph and Moses. Joseph Smith actually wrote himself into his own version of the Bible—by name.
Both prophets held up their own scripture as superior to the Bible. Mohammed claimed that the Koran was a perfect copy of the original which was in heaven. The Koran is therefore held to be absolutely perfect, far superior to the Bible and superceding it. In like manner, Joseph Smith also made the following claim. “I told the Brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than by any other book.”[3]
Despite their claim that the Bible was corrupt, both prophets admonished their followers to adhere to its teachings. An obvious contradiction, this led to selective acceptance of some portions and wholesale rejection of others. As a result, the Bible is accepted by both groups of followers only to the extent that it agrees with their prophet’s own superior revelation.
Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith taught that true salvation was to be found only in their respective religions. Those who would not accept their message were considered “infidels,” pagans or Gentiles. In so doing, both prophets became the enemy of genuine Christianity, and have led many people away from the Christ of the Bible.
Both prophets encountered fierce opposition to their new religions and had to flee from town to town because of threats on their lives. Both retaliated to this opposition by forming their own militias. Both ultimately set up their own towns as model societies.
Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith left unclear instructions about their successors. The majority of Mohammed’s followers, Sunni Muslims, believe they were to elect their new leader, whereas the minority, Shiite Muslims, believe Mohammed’s son was to be their next leader. Similarly, the majority of Joseph Smith’s followers, Mormons, believed their next prophet should have been the existing leader of their quorum of twelve apostles, whereas the minority, RLDS, believed Joseph Smith’s own son should have been their next prophet. Differences on this issue, and many others, have created substantial tension between these rival groups of each prophet.
Mohammed taught that Jesus was just another of a long line of human prophets, of which he was the last. He taught that he was superior to Christ and superceded Him. In comparison, Joseph Smith also made the following claim.
“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.”[4] In light of these parallels, perhaps Joseph Smith’s claim to be a second Mohammed unwittingly became his most genuine prophecy of all.
[1] Joseph Smith made this statement at the conclusion of a speech in the public square at Far West, Missouri on October 14, 1838. This particular quote is documented in Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, second edition, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), p. 230–231. Fawn Brodie’s footnote regarding this speech contains valuable information, and follows. “Except where noted, all the details of this chapter [16] are taken from the History of the [Mormon] Church. This speech, however, was not recorded there, and the report given here is based upon the accounts of seven men. See the affidavits of T.B. Marsh, Orson Hyde, George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, W.W. Phelps, Samson Avard, and Reed Peck in Correspondence, Orders, etc., pp. 57–9, 97–129. The Marsh and Hyde account, which was made on October 24, is particularly important. Part of it was reproduced in History of the [Mormon] Church, Vol. III, p. 167. See also the Peck manuscript, p. 80. Joseph himself barely mentioned the speech in his history; see Vol. III, p. 162.”
[2] John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Facts on Islam, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1998), pp.8–9. Eric Johnson, Joseph Smith & Muhammed, (El Cajon, CA: Mormonism Research Ministry, 1998), pp. 6–7.
[3] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.4, pp.461.
[4] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.6, pp.408–409.
Why Are Mormons (& John Conyers) Funding Islamic Terrorism?
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Mormon Church, is the single largest donor to the U.S. branch of Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), also known as Islamic Relief. In the past year, it donated $1.6 million to the charity.
But Islamic Relief is not just any charity. The Israeli government says it is a HAMAS front group. It is also under investigation by the American government." August 2006
No, it was money and commitment. Trump never wanted to be President, he just wanted attention. Romney, on the other hand, has been dedicated to being President for at least 6 years now (and probably longer).
If nothing else, the fact that there was virtually no infighting in the GOPe over this, bespeaks a level of organization that ought to move Tea Parties to jealousy.
That's because the GOP-e knows that Romney is a true-blue RINO without question. If he was what the Mittbots try to convince us he really is, the GOP-e would have never supported him. The GOP-e know that Romney is the anti-Tea Party candidate and that no Tea Party pressure is going to persuade him. Romney is their chosen tool to quiet the Tea Party Rebellion just like George Romney would have quashed the Goldwater and Reagan Revolutions if he had been able. Opposing conservatives has been a Romney family tradition for two generations now.
If the Tea Party tries to influence Romney, he'll just form a coalition with the RINOs and Democrats and govern from the left just like he wants. He'll be able to count on the Republican sheep who will continue to vote for him because he has an R behind his name. The press will idolize him (until the 2016 campaign when it will shift loyalty to the Democrat nominee) because he stands up to the Radical Right.
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.