Posted on 03/12/2003 12:49:04 AM PST by JohnHuang2
| If we told you that America has evolved into a hypocritical society, would you believe it? If we told you that, while we pretend to be a moral people, we actually accept and practice corruption as a way of life, would you believe it? Since it is not nice to call people names without first proving your point, here is a simple question: Would all of these charlatans, liars, and lowlifes be representing you in our government if you were not their partner in crime? How did they get there? Obviously, you voted for them. If corruption offended you as much as you think it does then why do you think of politicians generally as crooks? Would they be holding office if not for you? When President Nixon was accused of running the most corrupt government since Ulysses S. Grant, all the polls showed that a huge percentage of the people never doubted it but he won the next election more easily than an elephant eating peanuts. If you think that he was corrupt, and you believe that you are somehow different, you owe it to ask yourself to ask: Did any of the crimes of Bill Clinton stop you from voting for him? Somehow, it is inconceivable to think of ourselves as morally corrupt; however, when something serves our self-interest, our moral conscience somehow gets lost in space. If a person is great for the economy, who cares if he is corrupt or even raped one girl! We all live in a collective lie preaching and espousing a morality that we never practice. This is why, in the highest offices of our government, we accept the lowest behavior. As an employer, you would not hire a waiter for a restaurant if you found one lie on his application. However, Al Gore, while campaigning for president, created more fantasies than the Wizard of Oz. He had faith in our corruptibility. President Carter, America's symbol of the highest moral values and the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, makes personal speaking appearances for the paltry sum of a hamburger and a bottle of beer. With this, they include an apology to him for having to speak in an empty building. On the other hand, President Clinton, whose total lack of morality resulted in his impeachment while in office and his subsequent disbarment from the practice of law (because he is too big of a liar to be a lawyer), is paid $150,000 per speaking appearance. His popularity is not an accident! While we absolve ourselves of responsibility, the truth is that we are actually the enablers of public corruption. We not only accept it, but actually idolize it, glorify it, and envy it. But there is no shortage of examples of our partnership with corrupt behavior. Take Senator Lieberman, for instance. This great man of principle and morality sees nothing immoral about having no principle. He was celebrated for his bravery in taking to the Senate floor to denounce President Clinton for reprehensible and obscene behavior and desecrating the high office of the President of the United States. But when asked if this meant that Clinton should be thrown out of office Lieberman responded, "No, what does one thing have to do with another?" His obsequious followers in the press immediately hailed him as the new moral conscience of the United States Senate. The truth is that he really should have been hailed as the biggest hypocrite of this century. The press is not alone in this irresponsible charade. It also proved again that the American people are just as easily corruptible. That is why Senator Lieberman is now among the front in line for his party's nomination for the presidency. In reality, if we practiced morality instead of preaching it, Senator Lieberman should be in front of the line at the unemployment office. It is hard to believe that there are examples of hypocrisy that are worse than this, except when you mention the name Clinton. But this time we are referring to Senator Hillary Clinton, who makes President Clinton look like an honest man. For instance, after the Special Prosecutor completed his investigation of Mrs. Clinton, he concluded that she was guilty of committing perjury and obstruction of justice. However, he decided not to indict her. He publicly stated that she was much too popular among the American people to expect a jury to find her guilty. He felt he could not get a verdict against Mrs. Clinton, but, at the same time, he unintentionally delivered a devastating verdict against the morality of the American people. Jackie Mason is a comedian. Raoul Felder is an attorney. |
You probably will not like it but it was from a french conservative diplomat during the Revolution: Joseph Marie De Maistre (1753-1821).
Welcome!
Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it.
Hoo-yah!
And just for the record...
Did any of the crimes of Bill Clinton stop you from voting for him?
Yes, they did.
The two major parties have arranged the electoral system in a fashion that secures their interests against all possible forms of competition. Whether or not you approve of any of the minor parties, the way they've been systematically locked out of the electoral process is indefensible. It has more to do with the fears of the major parties than anything else. But there's worse.
Every election at the federal level, and nearly all at any lower elevation, must be won by someone. The voting public has no way of saying: "None of the candidates is acceptable," except by abstaining from voting. Note in this connection that abstaining from voting is pilloried everywhere as something akin to treason -- and the loudest denunciations come from the major parties themselves.
Let the voters vote for "None of the above," with the proviso that, if "None of the above" gets a plurality, the office will be kept vacant and its powers unexercised until a subsequent election returns a plurality for some other candidate. This would have two salutary consequences:
Even a showing of a few percent for "None of the above" would send a powerful message to the major parties, warning them that their act is seriously out of shape. If vote percentages rose generally, it would express an important fact about the electoral system overall -- i.e., that the electorate sees too little difference between the major party candidates to support either over the other.
For further thoughts, please see:
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
...the future's so bright, I gotta wear shades...
One problem that for me, as a heavy manufacturer, is the whiney, sky is falling.....everybody is getting cancer cries of the American people. No environmental regulation is too expensive or impractical for the hypocritcal Americans.
Why should they be? They can buy Chinese or Mexican products and not have to experience the costs associated with environmental jihadism. The science behind alot of the regulations is about as solid as the morality of killing innocents to serve Allah and the religion of peace.
The American people have been slumbering away as the manufacturing base, energy base and their independence has been legislated away all in the name of clean air and water. It will be interesting to watch how concerned Americans will be with the environment when they are scrounging for shelter and food and work. Then maybe they will realize what hypocrites they have been.
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.