My WND column this week is intended to answer the folks who’ve contacted me asking about my reaction to the so-called debate that took place between the elitist faction’s candidates for President. Considering the question, I feel like a healthy patient being asked to show the symptoms of a disease I don’t have; or an orthodox Jewish vegetarian being asked what I thought of the pork pie competition at the State fair. Or, perhaps more to the point, I feel like an authentic American conservative being asked to evaluate a Canadian election (They’re all socialists now.)
Listening to Obama and Romney is like listening to a man who got away with beating his first wife to death, as he tries to convince a victim of ongoing spousal abuse that she should end her marriage to the abuser and marry him instead. Deploying all the arts of gentle persuasion, he promises to make her comfortable and secure. He passionately condemns her abuser. In the midst of it all his would-be sister in law steps into the room. She has been eavesdropping at the door (You know the type: a meddlesome sibling who hired a private investigator to get at the truth). “What a load of *r*p,” she angrily exclaims. “Didn’t you batter your first wife to death just a few years ago?” “Do you think I’m the sort of man to do a thing like that,” he evasively replies, “and I would certainly never do it again.”
The analogy is a bad one, of course, since no one who remotely resembles the sister-in-law would ever be allowed to pose a challenging question like that at one of these elitist faction send-ups. The lead-in to a report about the debate at Lifesitenews.com tacitly admits this:
Last night, the nation’s voters witnessed a presidential debate on domestic policy that did not include a single question about abortion, marriage, the HHS mandate, creeping encroachments on religious liberty, or the one-to-three justices the next president may appoint to the Supreme Court.
As with the rigged GOP primaries, the scripted purpose of these “debates” has little to do with the eventual outcome of the vote. It has everything to do with suckering Americans into dutifully playing their assigned role in the melodrama intended to lend a false aura of legitimacy to a form of government in which the principle of consent has been discarded, along with the goal of representing the people. As part of their role they must choose from a menu that offers the culinary equivalent of a stage kiss—good looking but tasteless stylized food, incompatible with the natural constitution of their body politic.
For all the people who keep asking me what I think of the travesty of choice currently being passed off as a Presidential election, my question is this: Why are you willing to validate this farce with your apparent interest? If you say “the future of the country is at stake” I’ll ask you again, “why then are you willing to help people destroy the country by validating this farce with your apparent interest.”
Romney’s surprise performance is not the only one. Even more noteworthy is the fact that both wings of the elitist faction media are flapping energetically to deliver the message that Mitt Romney “won” the debate. (Not hard to do in a wrestling match carefully choreographed to that end.) Obama was “mysteriously” lackluster. The mystery disappears, however, once you accept the fact that the two horses belong to the same racing consortium. So the consortium’s owners jockey Obama to let Romney run ahead out of the gate. They do so because this first encounter was meant to induce gamblers to take an interest in their next meeting, especially the ones inclined to take a pass on both of them. Romney is being touted because the people most reluctant to go to the betting windows are the ones who usually take an interest in horses trained at the stable where he was groomed for the big stakes portion of the racing season.
His “strong” performance is calculated to pique their interest, and overcome resistance from those familiar with his past performance. In fact, the owners of the consortium are counting on the hype generated by his “victory” to draw newbies to the track, newbies conveniently unfamiliar with the fatal flaws his record reveals.
Analogies aside, the future of American liberty is at stake in this election year, but not in the choice between Romney and Obama. The real choice is to accept the elitists’ Spartan version of “republican” government, or, having caught on to the travesty of liberty it is meant to impose, to find a way to make clear that we reject it. (FYI: Those privileged to be citizens of ancient Sparta voted in elections in which choices were restricted in most cases to alternatives preselected by the consensus of an exclusive Council of Elders.) As I say in my WND article, if Americans mean to save the liberty that has until now been the defining characteristic of their country, WE MUST REJECT THIS MOCKERY OF OUR SELF-GOVERNMENT BY REFUSING TO VOTE FOR EITHER OF THE CANDIDATES PREFABRICATED TO IMPOSE IT UPON US. Are you content with the choice of socialism either way? Or do you have the prudent patriotism and faithful courage needed to demonstrate the political will required to stop it?
[WILL YOU SAY NO TO OBAMA? WILL YOU SAY NO TO ROMNEY? WILL YOU SAY NO TO SOCIALISM, WHATEVER PARTY LABEL IT WEARS? WILL YOU JOIN IN GIVING AN UNMISTAKABLE, VISIBLE POLITICAL MANDATE TO THE GOP’S “PLATFORM REPUBLICANS”? IF YOU WILL CONSIDER THE “PLATFORM REPUBLICAN” VOTER STRATEGY FOR THE 2012 ELECTION, JUST SEND ME AN EMAIL AT ALAN@LOYALTOLIBERTY.COM. PUT “YES I WILL” IN THE SUBJECT LINE. NO FURTHER MESSAGE IS NEEDED. OF COURSE YOUR ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS AND SUGGESTIONS WILL BE WELCOMED. AS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS APPROACH DEVELOPS, I’LL SEND EMAIL UPDATES TO THE REPLY ADDRESS YOU USE. ALSO, PLEASE SHARE THIS IDEA WITH OTHERS SO THEY CAN CONSIDER IT FOR THEMSELVES.]