web analytics
≡ Menu

Will Americans vote from fear or bravely to conserve what they love?

[The following exchange was occasioned by the weekly column published today at WND entitled “Libya: Romney’s “Todd Akin moment?”]

THE COMMENT

Alan, We love you for your strong moral stances, pro-life etc., but the amoral marxist islamist fool in the White House needs to be fired immediately. The alternatives to Romney already lost the primaries for whatever reasons, Rove probably had a lot to do with it. If you cant even win the Republican Primary, how in on earth can you hope to win the general election. Diehard purists like you are partly to blame for many losers in the primaries. Now you are trying to cut votes from Romney because he isn’t perfect. Romney is now the only way to fire Obama. Do you or do you not actually want to fire Obama? Or do you want to see our more immediate destruction by Islamists, communists, abortionists, preachers of sodomy to our kids, etc. Humans are flawed. Romney is human, and he is possible. You have some pull in religious right circles. Use it to fire Obama and his mini demons in the senate.

MY REPLY

Like many conservatives, I am no longer a GOP Republican. The manifestly manipulated outcome of the elitist faction’s sham GOP primary process in no way implicates or restricts my choice in the general election. Also, what matters is not whether you love or hate me, Obama, Romney or anyone else.  The question is, what objectively conserves what we rightly love about our country. I believe the “Platform Republican” approach I advocate offers the best hope of doing so.
As for Romney and Obama:  Obama is a lifelong socialist who openly pushed to consolidate the government’s control of key sectors of the U.S. economy, starting with the health sector.  As part of his socialist program he included provisions intended to force individuals and institutions to pay for or provide goods and services in violation of their unalienable right to liberty, and their unalienable right to make conscientious decisions, in conformity with natural right, about their own actions and associations.    He openly professed his support for so-called abortion rights and “gay” marriage; forced the acceptance of open sexuality in the military; governed by fiat, through executive orders, in open defiance of the constitutional separation of powers; and supported provisions of law that purport to give the Executive branch the power to use military force to apprehend and even execute American citizens and other persons, without due process of law.  Roused by his manifest push to establish socialism and discard the moral tenets of America’s identity, Americans loyal to the principles of the Declaration of Independence have organized politically to resist his imposition of tyranny, with notable success.

Romney professes to support all the moral goods that Obama is assaulting.  He professes to support constitutionally limited government.  He is touted as someone who would accordingly eschew liberal judicial appointments in order to appoint judges and justices respectful of constitutional government. Yet in his record as a public official the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence from his speeches and actions shows actions that were much the same as those of his opponent.   He instituted a socialist approach in the health sector, including provisions that forced individuals and institutions to pay for or provide goods and services in violation of their unalienable right to liberty, and their unalienable right to make conscientious decisions, in conformity with natural right, about their own actions and associations.  His socialist plan also included government funded abortions, excluded from Obama’s plan on account of strong resistance.  In derogation of constitutional provisions explicitly detailing the separation of governmental powers, Romney abused his executive authority to compel officials subject to his authority to perform gay marriages.  He appointed people as judges and justices a majority of whom were known for their liberal views and inclinations. Like his opponent, he avowed his support for provisions of law that purport to give the Executive branch the power to use military force to apprehend and even execute American citizens and other persons, without due process of law.  He declared it his intention to maintain the policy of accepting open homosexuality in the military.

Looking at these two candidates, one voter says: “I hate Obama.  He’s anti-American and I will vote for anyone in order to get him out.”  Another says “I reject socialism.  It’s anti-American and I will not vote for anyone who will bring it in.”  Both these voters profess to act in defense of America’s identity.  The first votes from personal hatred, with an explanation that is at best suspiciously ad hominem.  The second votes with a conviction of principle, with an explanation based on rational consideration of available evidence.  The first accuses the second of being a “diehard purist”.  The second refrains from accusing the first of diehard personal bigotry, and from any other ad hominem remark. He simply relies  on reason and factual proof to justify his stand.

If enough voters act like the first, they may remove from office one individual they consider personally offensive to America, replacing him with another whose record suggests that he is objectively similar to the one they have removed. But they will also set the precedent of being stampeded by fear and hatred into casting a vote that doesn’t represent them.  If enough voters act like the second they may permanently thwart an ideology that, whether it is openly or stealthily imposed, has consistently proven fatal to right and liberty.  And they will set the precedent of exercising rational, independent judgment, based on factual evidence as, from principled love of country, they cast a vote that represents them.

Which body of voters best conserves America’s identity, and the exceptional hope for mankind it is supposed to represent?
(BTW, I think it fair to point out that the use of ad hominem attacks and fear to bully people into voting for Romney’s socialism is a foretaste of the tactics that will be used to silence opposition as he implements socialism.  Using these tactics, he is more likely than Obama to succeed in implementing his socialist approaches. In the process his supporters will tag principled conservatives with derogatory epithets intended to demoralize them and marginalize their influence. People simply willing to accept this as a “lesser evil” are so anxious to see Obama fail that they don’t mind letting socialism succeed.  But if they don’t hate Obama because of the threat from his anti-American socialism, why do they hate him?)

[ 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 [email protected] 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.]

Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth? (Galatians 4:16)
Share
{ 32 comments }
{ 32 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment

Copyright Regulations

All original material on Loyal To Liberty is copyrighted and you will need to observe these regulations when you plan to distribute or use content from this blog. Copyright Regulations for Content on Loyal To Liberty You are free to share, distribute or transmit any work on this blog under the following conditions: * Attribution: You must attribute any content you use to Loyal To Liberty by including a link back to the specific content page. You must not suggest that Loyal To Liberty endorses you or your use of the content on this blog. Even with attribution, you do not have permission to republish the entire blog post on a website. Only excerpts of less than 500 words from each blog post may be published on other websites. A link back to the specific blog post must be included. * Noncommercial Usage: You may not use this work for commercial purposes unless authorized to do so by Alan Keyes. * Derivative Works:Within the limits heretofore specified, you may build upon the contents of Loyal To Liberty as long as proper attribution (see above) is made. If you want to syndicate or distribute the full blog post on your website, permission must be obtained before you do so. For permission, please email [email protected]
%d bloggers like this:
\"Google