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 for ME. Ideology works ALL the time; or else it is a vapid waste of time.
'We' voted for Obama last time, to 'show' we wuzzent RACIST;
'we' voted for Romney this time, to 'show' we wuzzent a BIGOT.
THERE's what our 'ideology' got us!
While I cannot live with a clear conscience if I had
voted for ROMNEY, to save our country,
and then his 'religion' is such to lose men's souls.
Smith is “unwittingly” looking to recap Islam in toto?
Curious theory, but is Smith guilty of worse than a cafeteria style pagan syncretism? The Mormon church was murderous in that day. Are modern Mormon muckety mucks like Mitt expected to keep carrying Mohammed’s “sword”? Not even our own Jim Rob, who could not be accused of a speck of sympathy towards Mitt, buys this. I flagged him on the Mormon influence question about a week ago — an issue which if valid trumps all other issues about Mitt — and the response was meta-meh.
Oh?
This country does NOT have a political problem; but a SPIRITUAL one.
|
Are you still killing your unborn? -- GOD |
How can you miss the point SO completely?
It's between CHRISTIANITY and a unique American HERSY!
How can you miss the point SO completely?
It's between CHRISTIANITY and a unique American HERESY!
The GOPe must believe Mitt quite pliant in spite of his many famous flip flops. If it were I in GOPe shoes, I would be worried about those flip flops especially if they bespoke something I could NOT control, namely the LDS high hierarchy.
Your purity will earn you a medal... keep an eye open for it
It will come in the mail
Asian heresies are superior? Even at its most murderous the LDS never showed a clear parallel to Islam’s jihad for world conquest.
...the presidential campaign of Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith in 1844: “Challenging Democrat James Polk and Whig Henry Clay, Smith prophesied that if the U.S. Congress did not accede to his demands that ‘they shall be broken up as a government and God shall damn them.’
Smith viewed capturing the presidency as part of the mission of the church.
Red herring time?
Have you received a Lack of Commitment medal?
Don't look now, Elsie. But, there, under your bed.
It's a MORMON!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHHHHH!
You're doomed.
If you prefer blue herring I’ll serve that up instead.
Seriously with Obama we get a direct path to Islam. With Mitt, some syncretistic echo of it, maybe. Even if both were the same, why shouldn’t the incumbent be denied more than four years? (Voting for a spoiler wouldn’t do that.)
Seems that the LDS has been dispensing pretty lousy advice to the guy who’s being jockeyed into position to fulfill their wish. Mitt, be sure to flip-flop everywhere you go? And don’t forget to kiss up to gays?
I am as committed as anyone here, but though this is a tiny corner of the universe with like minded people, even we, dont agree all the time.
If you want to play “Im better than you” nobody I know cares..... and they dam sure dont care anywhere else
If you plan to criticize JR, you should ping him to your criticisms. I'll do it for you.
If you still refuse to read the links I posted regarding mormon/muslim ties, please do not comment about mormon/muslim to me again.
I’m not criticizing Jim, but YOU (foxx) for making that kind of deal over it. I still stand by the observation that if Mitt has promised the LDS that he’s going to play mother may I through a Romney presidency, then Houston we do have a real big problem, and it ain’t philosophical or religious. It’s got national security implication. Nobody’s given top secret clearance to Salt Lake City. Jim if I got you wrong in reading you don’t see that as a problem with a Mitt presidency, then I apologize for misreading you.
YOU are responsible for your comments. Do you stand up for them or not? Blame me if it floats your boat, LOL.
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.