PDA

View Full Version : Why do we continue down the same path?




DARoberts
12-18-2007, 06:44 AM
Have you noticed that regardless of which political party is in the majority, the will of the people is not only ignored, but actually disdained, and the country continues to be led down the same path as it did when the previous political party was in the majority? No time has this phenomenon been more clearly illustrated than with the 2006 election cycle.

Last November, the Republican Party was swept out of its position of power because the majority of the American people disapproved of the war in Iraq. Now, almost a year after the Democratic party has taken the reigns of the congress, the war in Iraq continues unabated.

Why is it that our elected representatives casually ignore the wishes of their constituents? Believe it or not, there is an explaination.

At the 1992 Democratic National Convention, then governor Bill Clinton gave praise to one of his mentors, Carroll Quigley, a professor of history at Georgetown University and advocate for world government. In his 1966 book, entitled "Tragedy and Hope", Professor Quigley reveals a
sinister motive behind this phenomenon.

Quigley wrote:

"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.... But either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will have none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."

As we head into our upcoming presidential election, the verasity of professor Quigley's statement has become evident. The so-called frontrunners of both parties are indistinguishable when it comes to foreign policy, especially regarding the Middle East. All offer only lip-service to immigration and border security. The war in Iraq is not only going to continue, they're now making noises about spreading the war to Iran. All are beholden to the interests of globalism rather than the interests of America.

However, there is one candidate that has broken away from the mold and is offering Americans a true alternative. Texas Congressman Ron Paul distinguishes himself from the rest of the candidates in that he views the Constitution as the government's ultimate authority and gives his allegiance to America, not to foreign interests. It is obvious that this platform is unacceptable to the powers-that-be.

Because Ron Paul's message is striking a resonate chord with Americans of all political stripes, a concerted effort to downplay, discredit, and even smear the congressman has been undertaken by the hierarchy of both political parties and the establishment media, beginning with the first debate between the Republican candidates.

In the now infamous exchange with the media's annointed frontrunner, Rudy Guiliani, Congressman Ron Paul suggested that the interventionist foreign policy that has been undertaken by the government for the better part of the past century, may have contributed to the terrorist attacks of 9-11.

To which Giuliani responded:

"That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq, I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th,"

Yeah, you can bet that he's heard some pretty absurd explanations for
September 11th, starting and ending with the official explaination - that we were attacked by those who hate our freedoms and our democracy.

But wait, the absurdity doesn't stop there.

Now that it has become evident that the impending mushroom cloud that would have resulted from Saddam Hussein's stockpile of weapons of mass destruction was nothing more than a ruse on the American people to gull them into supporting a globalist designed war on Iraq, the war has now morphed into a humanitarian mission designed to establish freedom and democracy within a country populated by those who supposedly hate freedom and democracy.

Now, that's absurd.

D A Roberts
Gate City, VA

EvilEngineer
12-18-2007, 06:47 AM
Welcome to the boards.

burningfur
12-18-2007, 06:47 AM
I've always said the two party system sucked and I always will.

I'm sick and tired of these two parties and everyone else is too. That's why they've both shrunk considerably. People just don't care because whatever happens the politician will always put him or herself first, not the liberty and freedoms of the people.

---

+1 mate.

EvilEngineer
12-18-2007, 06:53 AM
I've always said the two party system sucked and I always will.

I'm sick and tired of these two parties and everyone else is too. That's why they've both shrunk considerably. People just don't care because whatever happens the politician will always put him or herself first, not the liberty and freedoms of the people.

---

+1 mate.



Yup, and it's so frustrating to see Ron Paul, a real hope for change come along, and to have to fight through all of this media spun crap.

reaver
12-18-2007, 07:04 AM
A good time to drop a great read.

MN Patriot
12-18-2007, 07:39 AM
Two's company, three's a crowd. That is why the founders created the seperation of powers in the federal government, legislative, executive and judicial. One will be a check on the other two.

yes, we do need a credible third party.

murrayrothbard
12-18-2007, 07:41 AM
Winner-take-all voting pretty much guarantees two dominant parties.

hellah10
12-18-2007, 07:45 AM
nice read

welcome to the boards

DARoberts
12-18-2007, 07:53 AM
I hereby grant permission and encourage the dissemination of my post to other interested parties, internet forums, and media outlets.

D A Roberts

DARoberts
12-18-2007, 12:06 PM
<Bump it up>