Lies of Omission

Monday, June 1, 2015

So You Want To Vote Republican?

So you want to know who to vote for in 2016? All right, let's talk this through. First of all, while you don't think you voted for Barack Obama, you did. The fact that you voted at all, or for anyone, validated the vote for Barack Obama. It lent credence to an election that, not knowing that you had been defrauded, it was a legitimate election. It was not.


The reason I brought that up at the outset was to establish context under which all the rest of this post will be written.


One must understand that what we have had for a long time is an acquiescence to voter fraud. What voter fraud does is disenfranchise every legal voter of the nation. When a person votes illegally, it takes one person who voted legally out of the process. It is a one for one exchange. The fact that democrats and republicans alike (no matter what they say to garner one's vote) have acquiesced to the fact that illegal immigrants vote is a slap in the face to every legal citizen of this nation. This fact is attested to by the push by democrats to allow millions of illegal immigrants into the nation and the refusal of the vast majority of republicans to oppose it. The fact that they oppose it when appealing to the legal votes of Americans is irrelevant. Lying is what they DO. They are both either counting on illegal votes, or don't want to alienate the illegal voters hoping that they might get some percentage of those illegal votes if they don't appear to be antagonistic to illegal votes.


So, let's look at the democrat/republican issue. It was a republican president who gave us the Patriot Act, the DHS, TSA, the NSA spy program, etc. It was a republican president that, faced with an economic meltdown, decided to put the average American on the chopping block; to destroy lives and fortunes accumulated over decades to save the very banks and investment houses that caused the economic meltdown. It was a republican president that chose to "violate principles of the free market to save the free market" (what a load of bs).


George W. Bush was a "bad hire" and we have done nothing to improve our hiring process.


Our only criteria should be whether or not the candidate will likely restore liberty. Not some liberty, but the concept of liberty that places the government in the losing position to individual liberty and there are none.


So, let's look at the field of republican candidates. Jeb Bush (more of the above) Mitt Romney (couldn't do it the first time and he looks no better against any other democrat) Rick Perry (I like him in a lot of ways, but the opportunity he had to put the brakes on the feds came and went) Marco Rubio (I like him as well as I do many of these candidates, but the question is will they restore liberty once in office and I do not see Marco Rubio as being someone exceptional, who truly understands that individual liberty is the key and source of all innovation, creation and sustainability as an economic and military super power). Ted Cruz comes to mind along with Rubio. I am a fan of the Hispanic understanding of entrepreneurship, hard work and talent, but that does not make one a republican and while Ted Cruz has established some liberty-minded credentials, it does not wipe away the fact that when it came to putting his foot down on amnesty and Obamacare, he proved himself less than a champion of the liberty cause. One might discount a whole group of other republican candidates with one swipe (Graham, Santorum, Huckabee, Fiorina and their ilk) as just politicians with no convictions other than administering the office. There is no fire for liberty, or understanding of the American ethic or willingness to make the difficult decisions to save the republic. They are merely placeholders in a declining society.


The only other candidates worth discussing are Scott Walker, Ben Carson and Rand Paul. Scott Walker has fought the enemies of liberty in the state of Wisconsin for several years. He went up against the media, the unions and the liberals to establish good government and institute free-market principles in his state and it has worked. If one wants a good administrator, there are few, if any, better than Scott Walker.


Ben Carson is an intellectual and gained famed in a direct confrontation with Barack Obama over Obamacare. As a doctor, Carson is intelligent and thoughtful and has even made traditional republicans like Graham, Santorum, Huckabee and Fiorina blanch at his conservative views. Of those in the field, Carson is articulate enough to carry the liberty message with authority, if he believed in it, which is a question that concerns me. He knows that Obamacare is wrong and can detail its failures like no one else, but does he truly understand the value of individual liberty? Does he grasp the enormity of the changes that need to be made and demanded before we achieve rightful liberty? I don't think so. I just don't, because none of them do. The fact that he has never held public office is not a demerit, but our current president was an amateur as well and did not carry the liberal message as well as he might, what would be the chances that Carson would? If I thought Carson would act as a monarch the way Obama did, but for the cause of liberty, I might be a bit more assured, but I am not.


Rand Paul (only partially because he is from Kentucky) is my personal favorite, though I think his foreign policy is flawed and his isolationism is misplaced. No, we should not get involved in foreign wars unnecessarily, but there is no doubt that foreign nations such as Russia and China are seeking to dominate the US in a variety of areas including natural resources and that they will fund and support proxies in order to diminish the US's ability to wage war. To be unwilling to engage these powers wherever and whenever they encroach the US sphere of influence is unacceptable. Paul is a champion of liberty and the most legitimate candidate for his stance against the NSA spying practices, but the entire Patriot Act should be repealed. I fly internationally a lot, but I do not think that the TSA does anything other nations do not do without that extra layer of government oversight.


It is important to understand one thing about terrorism: one must not accomplish the terrorist's goals by deterring terrorism. It is clear now that those terrorists who flew planes into the twin towers on 9/11 did not destroy America as they hoped, but that we destroyed America in an attempt to deny them the victory. America, as a functioning republic, has been destroyed by our leaders with 9/11 as the excuse, but to believe that they did not thirst for the opportunity is delusional and a republican president pushed the destruction through.


While I admit that some candidates are attractive in the constraints of voting "A" or "B"; we as a people must demand more, or at the minimum not validate such elections with our votes. We must destroy the concept that winning an election is the same as giving consent. We need to be poor losers, because the stakes are much too high. The influx of illegal voters is bound to be substantial and should be challenged legally as a denial of voting rights. It is a civil rights case that must be made, if the authorities are not diligent in exercising their obligations to prevent illegal votes.


Since this is not possible in the diluted social context of today's politics, it is time to declare all elections as illegitimate to be challenged as such and demonstrated against on a civil rights basis. The only way to do so is to refuse to condone such obvious fraud with a vote. The only way to make a case that elections are illegitimate is if there is a substantially low voter turnout by those who consider the process illegitimate. That's how politics is done. That's how legitimate resistance is started, that's how majorities of sentiment are emboldened to action.


This is assuming that there will be another election, an eventuality of which I am not assured.

 

37 comments:

  1. The only reason I can think to disagree at all is that if we can keep another obama out of the office, maybe we can at least slow things down just a little but that is only a maybe.

    IF, and that is a big if, that could happen, it might give us a little more time to find that liberty candidate we so desperately need for the next election.

    If we have another four years of another obama, presumably clinton, I'm not sure there will be anything left to need a liberty candidate for.

    So, we vote in a rigged system or we lose what's left of our Country quicker.

    Real happy choices.

    soapbox, ballot box, jury box, ammo box...not many of those choices left working at this point

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Not some liberty, but the concept of liberty that places the government in the losing position to individual liberty and there are none."

    Nice sitrep.. There's the principle; no wonder all the instances apply.

    Socialism is running out of loot quick, so what could there be for collectivists to try but fascism? Makes perfect sense and the "conservatives" have been shrieking it for a while. Conserve tyranny, ha. Two sides of the same coin, after all.

    So they'll exhaust their choices and then surrender...any that survive, I mean. And then we can go back to our own lives, our rightful lives. Well...not as easy as "going back" since none of us have truly known that, so we'll have to figure it out. Big deal; busy is good.

    5,000 ways to lose and only one to win, but that's the one that's going to happen.

    Eventually...so might as well live like that now, I figure. Living for profit and benefit have been slammed as evil for so long, that it might take some getting used to. But that's what Victory looks like anyway, especially this time.

    Thanks, TL...things seem to go a bit faster when you're around! All good, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Drink the kool aide folks if you believe this tripe. Carson has no record. Walker has flip flopped on every issue-just another Biden. And Paul has demonstrated that he is as trustworthy as Mexican tap water.

    Jindah, Cruz, have demonstrated consistent conservative bona fides. Anyone who could mention Walker in the same breath as Cruz or Jindah gave us Romney, and the other RINOs in the past.

    Nice try. But examining the record desn't support the author's assertions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As most people know who read this blog, I don't usually get involved in the comments. I consider it a place for people to have their say without my input, but in this case I will make an exception for you, Mr or Ms Anonymous, since you challenged my assertions.
      The part that has apparently escaped you, is my appeal to vote for NO ONE. I guess you didn't get that from the first or the last paragraphs. You were able to comprehend the middle, good for you, but since I have been unclear in my post VOTE FOR NO ONE. Is that good enough to get your attention or are we going to have a debate on which republican would be better despite my appeal to VOTE FOR NO ONE?

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. That's right,the game is rigged,its like gambling in Vegas,the house never loses in the long run,all you can do is refuse to play.

      Delete
    4. Read again, enlarge the print and read slowly if you must. You miss the point and TL saying to vote for no one. Maybe if you got out of mommy's basement and took a look around you would better see and understand. Another commenter suggested a stroll back through the archives here and I would second that but am pretty sure you do not have the attention span for that since you missed so easily what TL is saying here. I have never had any respect for those who post under anonymous and then such stupidity in your words truly enforces this.

      Delete
    5. rIGHT VOTE FOR nO ONE. tHIS MAY APPEAL TO ONE OF THE RELATIVES OF THE CYCLOPS. I believe his last vote was for NOBODY.

      I have more trust in Mexican tap water than someone who makes a senseless and vapid argument such as this.

      Delete
  4. Jindal, to my knowledge, has not joined the fray, and Cruz's wife has a relationship with Goldman Sachs; that notwithstanding, hasn't the Ivy League done enough to run this country in the dirt?

    ReplyDelete
  5. We have allowed the electoral process, and government, for that matter, to descend into a circus of media and celebrity. Public service as a concept is positively Jurassic, used only as a thin cosmetic veneer to gain entry to the club of power and riches. Actively not voting is withdrawal of consent; one may argue that doing so costs a voice in your governance. To that I would respond that you are already mute (and most are deaf and blind as well). We have already descended to mob rule, the corpse just isn't quite cold yet. God help us all....

    ReplyDelete
  6. Excellent piece that speaks to the truth,TL. I am so glad to see you back in the game.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I challenge your assumption that we still have the possibility of legitimate elections, as it is my belief that ALL candidates at the state/federal level are preselected by the ruling junta. The election process itself is a sham , meant to undermine calls for violent revolution and stop or undermine any meaningful change. Who is "voted into office" is utterly meaningless when the only people allowed to run follow the "party line" in what is become a de facto one party system. The Republic is long dead, replaced by a military police state that would have made Stalin or Hitler envious. Anyone that sill believes that "voting" still has any valid place in our government is too self deluded to be anything other than a "good German". ---Ray

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you not take time to read what TL was presenting, or are you just a silly shit? Maybe you should read the entire post again, but not just the key words you choose to focus on.

      Better yet, you should read back through the archives for 2 or 3 years, to understand TL's position. You might even realize his views are accurate. Twit.

      Delete
  8. Eminence FrontmanJune 2, 2015 at 6:11 AM

    So far the only one I hear saying the things that need to be said, standing up for an end to overreaching government surveillance and the drug war, is Rand Paul. I am not bothered by his foreign policy stance, and agree that those troops being used for every jingoistic enterprise that pops up should really be safeguarding the border. And although he may represent the Commonwealth of Kentucky in the U.S. Senate, don't forget he is Lake Jackson, Texas born and raised.

    ReplyDelete
  9. joethecuckleburrJune 2, 2015 at 6:17 AM

    Agreed that voting is worse than only useless; it only "encourages the bastards." One thing is clear, we have absolutely NO chance of voting our way out of this mess, and IMHO discussing viability of individual candidates for POTUS only weakens the resolve for one to NOT VOTE.

    Question: Does your reference to the nineteen 911 hijackers mean that you actually think 911 was NOT an inside job and that it did NOT have Mossad fingerprints all over it?

    Your piece didn't leave me as nauseous as anything from Glenn Beck does; but it reminds me of him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An "inside job" perpetrated by the mossad? How's that work?
      By definition, an inside job can't be done by a foreign entity.

      Delete
    2. the MOSSAD is not a foreign entity. It is integral to the Kwa's Zionist Occupation Government. And has been so for many years

      Delete
  10. Right conclusion (walk away, don't vote) although I don't agree with the reasons.

    The Constitutional Republic is long dead; but even when it wasn't, it was based on fraud and tyranny.

    The fraud is that one man can represent thousands; in a jury trial we don't use a single man to represent only two people, the accuser and the defendant, for obvious reasons. Why do we imagine it can work to have a single man represent thousands of conflicting interests? The word "represent" here is mere propaganda, with no connection to reality. And even the Founders violated the Constitution.

    The tyranny is the notion that 51% of voters can impose their will (even if you grant that representation works) on the 49%, and on all the rest who didn't vote.

    With these two factors, it's no mystery why "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground", as Jefferson said.

    Politicians crave legitimacy, and your vote - even against them - confers a sort of legitimacy. Better to withold your sanction. See how well then can control people who have no investment in their game.

    If you must vote, vote for Hillary. Might as well get the Revolution going while we still can contribute to the outcome.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Abstaining from voting will do nothing. The game simply continues... The orioles still played the white sox , and if the game needed a boost from the media, they simply fabricate support.. Much like members of congress giving speeches in empty chambers to the camera. I think the author gives voters too much credit. We are not needed for the game to continue.Whats needed is mass civil disobedience, and resistance.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If no one at all voted the results would still be broadcast over the media. It is all a big show put on to lend authenticity and authority to the process of fed.gov. The fraud WILL continue with or without our consent. Mass civil disobedience is our last and next option.

    Author writes: "It is clear now that those terrorists who flew planes into the twin towers on 9/11..."

    If you believe terrorists flew planes into the towers on 9/11 you are as fooled as the rest and will ultimately follow the rest. Until the greater population comes to the awareness that 9/11 was in fact a false flag attack on liberty itself, not only have we lost the fight but they have us fighting the wrong enemy.

    Divided we are conquered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again, the author's audience is people who are still voting. Obviously you have to start somewhere with these folks, even if non-voting is not the magic solution to all our problems. Anyway you seem to think our consent is irrelevant. It certainly is not. It is the key step.

      Delete
    2. To the audience of voters then; the withdrawal of our consent via mass civil disobedience is the key. Individual acts of disobedience will be crushed; but perhaps the individual crushing is the key to mass awakening. Vote... don't vote. It matters not to the grand charade which is fed.gov.media. I do understand that voting is the lending of consent however.

      "They" have a story to tell and reality will not get in the way. I wish we could get the masses to not vote. It would send a message. What better way than to make the reality of 9/11 a wide reality? That's what did it for me and I used to be a flag waving republican.

      Peace;
      T3

      Delete
  13. "This is assuming that there will be another election, an eventuality of which I am not assured."

    Bingo.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The USA has been destroyed from within...if anything, we are closer
    to the end of the Republic than most would ever admit...

    This political class are all bought and paid for!!

    And then there were none..............

    ReplyDelete
  15. In the concept of "Just War" it is required that to maintain your "righteous cause" before God and man you must exhaust all means that might resolve the contentions without violence. This would include voting for the lessor of two evils if necessary exhaustively. Once that principle has been fulfilled honorably and it has become a heart felt conclusion that further delay means death or enslavement; then violence becomes a legitimate option; even an obligation with the tactic of pre-emption a wise choice.

    So gentlemen; keep voting, the time is not ripe yet. Don't lose heart but get prepared should that day be forced upon us.

    With the above in mind let me add a thought you will agree with if you are wise and will be free or disagree with if you will mark yourself as a slave:

    Americans love freedom to the point of worship. They have made Liberte their God in spite of the warning from our creator that we should have no Gods before Him.

    We love our freedom to fornicate, lie, cheat, steal, sodomize, infantisise, divorce our mates, abandon our children, twist their minds, abuse the name of God and His Son, abandon the fundamental laws of nature and sound government, and pursue wealth to the ends of the earth, etc, etc,....

    So God has sent for a god to rule over us since we have rejected Him. His name is Allah and we will bend the knee to him or die. He is giving us a choice; a benevolent God or a demon to worship.

    If you fight for freedom you will be enslaved; if you fight for the glory of God and the cause of righteousness and justice you will have freedom and prosper. Though it will likely be a long bloody fight so that the lesson is well learned there is more than hope; there is assurance from God that He will lead you into battle. If you will obey.

    Your choice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We are way past the 10 years of our founders patience.

      But, but... when our, and our posterity wrists and ankles are fettered with chains, we'll show them! We'll whip out our tongues and give them a good tongue lashing!

      Regards,

      Curtis

      Delete
  16. If someone wanted a return to the letter and intent of the original U.S. Constitution ....

    why would he run for President, an office which -- under the letter and intent of the original U.S. Constitution -- was to have no authority to effect such a return?

    ReplyDelete
  17. If you actually want to improve things in this country, the power must be taken out of the hands of the federal government. The only way that can be done short of violent overthrow is to restore the Senate to it's proper place as a check on federal power by repealing the 17th amendment.
    This will not guarantee anything at all, but it's guaranteed that nothing good will ever happen if this is NOT done.

    ReplyDelete
  18. If you actually want to improve things in this country, the power must be taken out of the hands of the federal government. The only way that can be done short of violent overthrow is to restore the Senate to it's proper place as a check on federal power by repealing the 17th amendment.
    This will not guarantee anything at all, but it's guaranteed that nothing good will ever happen if this is NOT done.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "We must destroy the concept that winning an election is the same as giving consent."

    Well said

    "The only way to make a case that elections are illegitimate is if there is a substantially low voter turnout by those who consider the process illegitimate."

    I can't condone this, those you do not participate in the process must live with the results of the few that do. It wouldn't matter if three people voted and it was two to one, the election would continue and be ratified.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Or better than NO vote is to vote libertarian in any office that has one. Many say that this is a throw away vote, but better a slim chance than no chance. Or a 3 percenter, or a Tea Party member, anyone but a dumbocrat or a republiKahn.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The people who truly run the country.Tell the vote counters who won. Which is the person who they feel would serve them best. Voting is now a feel good thing for the public. Our no term limit congress will still be there.
    I like Rand Pauls thinking the best, So he won't get elected. Considering that Democrats offer free stuff. , I think Hillery will win.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Occasionally, someone scrubs a little crust away from my eyes so I might see better. It was an honor to meet you and wanna thank you for your efforts. I refuse to believe the Republic cannot be revived, but not without some hard work. The walls of Jericho fell thru prayer, but it took a stone and sword to to kill Goliath.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Your comment about Rand Paul being an isolationist is misguided. Perhaps you should do some research. An ISOLATIONIST is someone with no friends. A NON-INTERVENTIONIST is someone who doesn't butt into his friends marriage. The majority of the worlds problems come from the US government INTERVENING all over the world

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hello Friend, I'm still waiting on a candidate who believes that the business of politics is a position of servant of the people rather than Lord and Master. Call me a dreamer. I've been called worse. Anyway, just wanted to say hello. While I seldom comment, I'm often lurking. Thanks you for keeping up the good fight. I miss the good ol' days when we wrote for the joy of writing and sharing the art and love of words. Scribbler

    ReplyDelete
  26. Money 100 million dollars have been raised from super political action committee for the anointed candidate(s).
    http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php
    Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, Super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates.
    This is same version of bread and circuses only this time we have instant communication to bring it to a new height of folly.
    money is power do you have 100 million in your bank accounts the answer is resounding YES!
    100 million Americans gave one, two. three dollars for a decent candidate.
    Game changer Folks!

    ReplyDelete

About Me

My photo
I am a published and produced writer, a novelist, a freelance writer, a playwright and blogger.