True, but that lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal Mitt Romney isn't one of them, in fact, he is the exact opposite.
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
"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."-- John Adams, Letter to Jonathan Jackson (2 October 1780), "The Works of John Adams", vol 9, p.511
And yet it happened. The electoral college system virtually guaranteed it. It’s possibly America’s biggest constitutional Achilles’ heel.
It would be interesting to puzzle out how the constitution could be rejiggered to welcome third parties without ending up with the perpetually shifting micro-coalitions of Eurotrashia.
In the meantime, the occasion to call out heroes is during the primaries. Open or closed, the GOP turnout for same this year stank worse than Barack Obama.
Can’t y’all take a bit of iron-y in your Geritols?
I bitterly clung with the best of them through the primaries. I was hopping up and down for Sarah Palin to enter the race. Then I cheered for Herman Cain. When he got Ratted out (I still wonder if any of those scandal allegations had any truth to them — more like women he did a favor did not want that to go unpunished), then Santorum was the champ — in Iowa and that’s it, and the One State Wonder petered out. Gingrich seemed promising with his experience at Contract With America. And now we saw a civil war of pot shots between Santorum and Gingrich aficionados, when either one would have been vastly preferable to Romney. If this reflects what happened in the outer world, then Tea Partiers have much to learn about being organized. Whatever the faults of “GOPe,” uncoordination was not among them.
The bed is made now. I’d rather go with the Mitt pillow than the Barack one.
At least until yesterday or last year or last month or whatever
Some much financial clout and so little time to spend it.
The answer to the “puzzle” is simple. It is for the American people to begin to look exclusively at, and judge candidates solely by, adherence to the first principles of the republic, not something so trivial as a mere party label.
New tagline...
Primaries are the time for the interesting action.
America’s response to finding the Mr. Wonderful most likely positioned to beat Barack Obama (whether we like it or not that was within the GOP) was a monstrous MEH.
Hey dude why not can the pretense and just write in Jesus Christ on your ballots. In every position. Everything else is a “tolerable” evil.
It wouldn’t be very biblical, of course. We know when the government is on His shoulders it won’t be due to any human election.
That way of thinking is what got us to where we are.
No thanks.
What the hell is GOP-E?
It’s been on half the threads on FR for a year and I have never seen an explaination of what it is!
I disagree. The word "party" does not appear anyplace in the constitution or in any amendment to it.
We have a "party-not-mentioned" system, so to assert as so many have that it is a "two party system" is only to repeat an opinion about a current way of doing things.
Proof that this is so is that the Constitution only requires a plurality for election to the presidency.
I prefer this "fraudulent two party system" to a possible one-party system.
If 'bam stays in, this is a real possibility.
Vote for Romney and you vote for a president, not a dictator. If 'bam wins it may not be so. Remember this.
Don't make 'best enemy of the good.'
ABO
GOP establishment
Inaccurate.
A majority of the Electoral College is required for election.
If the EC cannot come up with a majority, then the President is elected by a majority of the House, voting by state delegation.
In both cases, a majority vote rather than a plurality is required.
The President could theoretically be elected by the EC though winning something around only 25% of the popular vote. But then the popular vote is totally irrelevant to the election of the President.
Why don’t you lazy bastards type it out?
Actually it is the pussies bending over to the GOPe flavor of the month that got us here....
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.