<Sigh>........ I understand your thought process......I am sympathetic to it, despite the despicable campaign that Paul (and Romney) ran this year.
As cliche' as it might sound, (and I realize that this sounds "cliche'!"; to abstain from voting, is literally another vote for the Obama Administration, which they are counting upon. It's still too early to determine who will be the Republican nominee. I strongly encourage you, and anyone else who holds the position that they will abstain from voting unless there is a Third Party Candidate, and/or Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, to NOT etch anything into stone, and consider the consequences IF Obama wins a second term! On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:35 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]>wrote: > I'm voting Paul -- or not at all. > --- > one day third party candidates will win and end the corruption that's > inherent in the two party system. > > until then it's more of the same politically corrupt parties > > On Apr 23, 10:04 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > "Sound familiar? > > "Today, every scribbler or babbler in the "Mainstream Media", and at > least three quarters of the pundits in the "New Media", for reasons of > their own, want desperately for you to believe that if America's next > President isn't going to be Barack Obama, then it has to be Mitt Romney. > > ""Elect Socialist Party B to avoid electing Socialist Party A!""A Little > History Lessonby L. Neil [email protected] > > Attribute toL. Neil Smith'sThe Libertarian Enterprise > > In 1964, one of the most formative years in American history, the > "movers and shakers" in the Republican Party were faced with the terrible > prospect of the voters actually getting the candidate they wanted, instead > of whatever member of Skull & Bones and the Council On Foreign Relations > the party elite, in their wisdom, had chosen for them. > > I was an enthusiastic part of a movement then that was almost > indistinguishable from the Tea Party movement of today, pretty much with > all the same virtues and failings: for better or worse, almost exactly the > same general cast of characters. Nevertheless, over the outraged squawking > of the GOP leadership, it was the candidatewewanted, Arizona Senator Barry > Goldwater, who won the nomination that year. > > Goldwater wasn't the first mid-20th century conservative to occupy the > political spotlight. That would be Senator Robert Taft -- a little before > my time -- who was cheated out of the nomination by a corrupt and empty GOP > leadership that had thrown its support to a lifelong Democrat, General > Dwight David Eisenhower, no warrior, and not a man of great moral > character, but a military politician deluxe, whom billions of wartime > propaganda dollars had elevated to virtual godhood. > > Barry wasn't by any means a libertarian, either. The word had hardly > been invented, but there were those of us -- mostly Ayn Rand readers -- who > willingly accepted his shortcomings, largely because the man seemed to be > illuminated from within, by the flame of liberty. There hadn't been anybody > quite like him since the original Founding Fathers. > > That, of course was exactly what had the GOP country-club elite, the > old-money Republicans, quivering with terror. In effect, their fortunes > depended on ignoring the Constitution and violating the rights of millions > of Americans. Aided by mass media that were just as evil, stupid, and > insane -- and just as left-leaning -- as today, they had desperately > attempted to offer up one of their own lofty kind, instead. > > "PLU" the Brits call them -- "people like us." > > It's possible that you're too young to remember that in 1964, the > Democratic "foe" was Lyndon Baines Johnson, a Texas politico famously > "crooked as a barrel of fish hooks", the former Senate leg-breaker who, as > Vice President, took over the White House after Jack Kennedy was murdered > in Dallas. It's worth noting here that it's recently been revealed that > Jackie Kennedy always thought Johnson had arranged the assassination. She > wasn't alone: in college there was an underground play, a parody of what > actors call "the Scottish play" entitled MacBird. > > In 1964, the lines were clearly drawn. Johnson was a socialist who > infiltrated groups of dissenters, X-rayed people's mail, used the IRS to > hound his enemies to death, and was waging what would be a long, drawn-out, > hideous, and illegal war in Vietnam for reasons that still elude > explanation. At the same time, he was expanding tax-supported entitlement > programs that, in the end, still contribute to America's ruin. > > Goldwater wanted to end welfare, balance the budget, and sell off white > elephants like the Tennessee Valley Authority. He was in favor of gun > ownership and self-defense, blaming the incredibly high violent crime rate > at the time (look up "Kitty Genovese") on a failure to respect the > Constitution. One serious mistake on his part -- and despite the fact that > Johnson was the real war-monger, Barry paid for it dearly in the media -- > was that he failed to see that the war in Asia was unjustifiable. He wanted > to end it quickly, with overwhelming force. > > Conservatives today -- even those nominally on our side, the correct > side, of most other issues -- continue making the same idiotic mistake. > > But I digress. > > Johnson was a collectivist. Goldwater was an individualist. The elite > leaders of the Republican Party were, uh, what was the question again? > > You may be old enough to remember Nelson Rockefeller -- this guy was > typical of the lot, who, in fact, the mass media referred to as > "Rockefeller Republicans". An inheritor of his grand-daddy John D. > Rockefeller's billions, former Republican Governor of New York state, > captain of industry, master mercantilist, and pioneering environmental > fascist, some fifteen years after 1964, he died slaving over a hot > secretary. > > Rockefeller and his gang were often called "moderate" because they were > only moderately in favor of the defense of liberty, and only moderately > opposed to injustice. It was to them that Goldwater was speaking when he > uttered the famous words written for him by Karl Hess. The media and his > mostly-Republican opponents said Barry was crazy. (They should have met > Karl!) One magazine that claimed 1800 psychiatrists had diagnosed him as > insane was sued out of its lying existence. > > Rockefeller was the very epitome of the useless parasite who thinks he > owns America -- not just land and buildings, not just farms and factories, > not just railroads and airlines -- thepeopleof the country, you and me, our > friends and families, who exist, in the view of slugs like Rockefeller, > only to make him wealthier. If it happens to be by working their lives away > for his corporations, while half of what they earn is stolen by the > government he also owns, that's just fine. If it's by being sent overseas > by the thousands or millions to kill or die, so he can fill his coffers > with war profit, that's fine, too. > > In the end, although he won the nomination, the Republicans went limp on > Barry. Some even bragged about going on vacation during the election. To > those who knew what to look for, the treachery was plain to see -- and > impossible to forget. Obviously they preferred to see a proto-Marxist win > the Presidency, and destroy the country with an insane war and even more > insane spending, while trashing individual liberty and civil rights. The > 1968 Gun Control Act was passed by the Johnson regime, but that was just > okey-dokey with the Rockefeller Republicans -- they were vehemently > anti-gun themselves. It's clear that if one of them had been elected > instead, it would have made no historical difference at all. Politically, > they were all Johnson clones. > > Sound familiar? > > Today, every scribbler or babbler in the "Mainstream Media", and at > least three quarters of the pundits in the "New Media", for reasons of > their own, want desperately for you to believe that if America's next > President isn't going to be Barack Obama, then it has to be Mitt Romney. > > "Elect Socialist Party B to avoid electing Socialist Party A!" > > And they're saying all the same things about Congressman and doctor Ron > Paul that their moral precursors said about Goldwater, except -- now get > this -- Ron is crazy because he wants tostopa war. > > Conservatives I understand. They're vampires, of a sort, or at least > Aztecs at heart. Most of them never saw a war they didn't like (or would > willingly fight in, but that's a topic for another time). In the 20th > century the poor darlings had to wait for the Democrats to start all the > wars, so that they could cheer on the bloody mass sacrifices. > > Democrats, who pretend to be the peace party, but did, in fact, start > all the wars in the 20th century (with one or two minor exceptions), should > be ashamed -- if they were capable of feeling shame, which a lifetime of > political activity has taught me they are not. > > In addition to Nelson Rockefeller and his brother Winthrop, the gang > consisted of individuals like William Scranton, who wept publicly when > Goldwater was nominated, that old Boston codfish Henry Cabot Lodge, Charles > Percy, Mark Hatfield, and Raymond P. Shafer. These are the four-flushers, > dodgers, and shape-shifters who gave us Richard Nixon. > > And oh, yes, one more: George Romney, Mitt's father, to the best of my > recollection, Barry Goldwater's principal enemy, who taught his son to > stand for nothing so that he could be held responsible for nothing. > > Mitt hates, loathes, and despisesyourindividual right to own and carry > weapons. (He has a D-minus rating from Gun Owners of America.) He has > Secret Service protection already, but he did his damnedest to keep > Massachusetts Bill-of-Rights-free for years. Everybody is aware by now that > he is an original architect of medical Marxism. And if that's not enough, > he's said he'd have signed the NDAA. In the end, exactly like Obama, he > will deliver the United States and all its assets into the genocidal hands > of the United Nations. > > It's clear -- to me, at least -- that if Mitt Romney gets elected > instead of Obama, it will make no more historical difference than electing > his father or any of his old man's friends would have back in 1964. > > Politically, all Romney is, is an Obama clone. > > It is all he ever will be. > > I'm voting Paul -- or not at all. > http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2012/tle667-20120422-02.html > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
