Many voters on both sides of the political spectrum are currently experiencing ‘Stockholm syndrome’.
Mitt Romney has a terrible record as governor of Massachusetts, and so does US House Representative Paul Ryan. And yet now that they are on the campaign trail they say a few nice things that make us feel good, and the republicans support them.
The same is true with the Democrats. Barack Obama has been a terrible president, and yet his supporters still root for him as the lesser of two evils, even though he passed the NDAA act and kept our troops over seas.
George Bush was supposed to be a moderate conservative and yet he massively increased spending, the debts, government and he started two wars. Obama is a continuation of that presidency, and Mitt Romney is an expansion and continuation of that further. And yet we see people on both sides clinging strongly to their statist candidates because they are afraid of what ‘the other side’ might do if elected to office. Rather than realize that their own party is as damaging to their livelihoods and freedoms as ‘the other side’.
We are now expected to vote through fear of what the other side might do if allowed to get office, rather than realizing that both are wrong and will only harm us.
The republican establishment showed last week that it is not interested in your constitutional rights, they laid out in plain sight this year that they are only interested in unbridled power. The RNC prevented Ron Paul from speaking, and shut down any chance of him being nominated.
We have heard that “we need to vote in Romney in first! Then we can influence him!” which sounds like something Nancy Pelosi would say “we need to vote for it first before we read it”.
We’ve now got people thinking that Mitt Romney is a good manager and thinking outside of the box for picking Ryan as a fiscal conservative, which is completely unfounded, given his voting record.
Paul Ryan is not a good man, and is beginning to show his colors again while campaigning. Remember that Paul Ryan practically begged for the auto bailouts:
Mitt Romney chose to shun Ron Paul, who, if only he’d been allowed to speak, and his delegates been allowed to share their voices and concerns, may well have put their support behind him. Instead he choose to put up Clint Eastwood, whom I admire greatly. But Mitt Romney’s Dirty Harry stunt backfired. The liberal media of course derided the speech, but interestingly, so did the conservative media including Glenn Beck. This has helped to expose the fallacy of the left/right media paradigm, and has exposed that they are all corrupt. Not only that, but Clint Eastwood’s speech overshadowed Mitt Romney’s highly edited, polished and robotic speech which was very vague and didn’t specify how to actually fix the economy or return lost liberties to the nation.
It’s very telling of what the republican establishment is doing, when they’d rather have an old man talk to a chair in front of the crowd, than allow another old man to talk about the future of the party and how to restore liberties. I liked the things that Clint said as much as the things Ron say’s, but I’ll stick with Ron on not endorsing Romney.
In a time when information is available everywhere, ignorance is a choice.
I would encourage you to learn about the candidates, what they stand for, and to look at what the power structure is doing in each party.
The republicans are already showing their true colors again. They did nothing good for the country during the Bush administration, and now that they are close to having full power of the house, senate and presidency, they are showing once again what fumbling fools they are. They are simply a milder version of the democrats. Think of Bud light and Budweiser, there’s not much difference in the two of them.
Many people who are over sixty years old believe that anyone but Obama will be good for the country, but they cannot support their arguments with facts, only rhetoric, and memories from the good old days of Eisenhower and Reagan. On the opposite end of the spectrum you have the people who are under forty, almost all of whom support Ron Paul, and are beginning to understand that both parties are deeply flawed and do not follow the constitution.
The liberals were infiltrated by statist ideas a long time ago, and it has become very obvious. The infiltration of the right is less obvious, but it has happened.
The Overton window is a political theory that describes as a narrow “window” the range of ideas that the public will respond to as acceptable, and that the political viability of an idea is primarily defined by this rather than individual preferences of a given politician. It is named after its originator, Joseph P. Overton, former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. At any given moment, the “window” includes a range of policies considered to be politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can recommend without being considered too “extreme” or outside the mainstream to gain or keep public office.
So how do we escape the perpetual downward trend of statism? The first thing to do is to recognize the problem. This chart will help you figure out where you stand on liberties and freedoms:
Take the quiz and see where you rank!
Libertarians offer an alternative answer to our current problems. You might even be a libertarian yourself.
There is only one escape option left for the nation right now, and that is a 3rd party candidacy. Ron Paul was our last chance to steer the republican party from within.
FROM DR RON PAUL
As we enter the fall political season, we will hear a great deal of rhetoric from both major political parties and their many candidates for office. It’s important for us to remember, however, that words can be made meaningless by misuse or overuse. And when we as citizens allow politicians to obscure the truth by distorting words, we diminish ourselves and our nation.