Will your vote give liberty a fighting chance, or not?

In the past several weeks I’ve written a slew of articles pointing out and analyzing the liberal/leftist/socialist pattern of Mitt Romney’s career.  I’ve analyzed the negative impact Romney’s victory is likely to have on the substance of what it means to be a conservative in America.  I’ve explored its fatally damaging implications for the perpetuation of the American constitutional republic.

In reaction against these articles people who intend to vote for Romney rely heavily on the notion that we have no choice but to do so because Barack Obama obviously means to destroy America’s liberty and the institutions of self-government established to implement it.  Yet in fatally important areas (meaning areas where policies like Obama’s will be fatal to the Constitutional Republic) Mitt Romney has consistently advocated or implemented policies that are like Barack Obama’s. This he has done with respect to:

1. mandatory acceptance of homosexuality by military personnel;
2. homosexual marriage;
3. the neglect of respect for God-endowed unalienable right to life (e.g. Romney’s leadership of the purge against Todd Akin because Akin follows the GOP platform in opposing the murder of children  conceived in the course of a rape);
4. the implementation of socialism in the health sector (Romney/Obama-care);
5. the abuse of executive authority without constitutional or legal warrant (Obama’s abuse of executive order, Romney’s unconstitutional, unlawful imposition of homosexual marriage in Massachusetts);
6. subservience to judicial opinion in violation of the constitutional separation of powers; and so on.

I wholeheartedly agree with the  view that Barack Obama is out to destroy America. Since well before he won the 2008 Presidential election, I have done my best to rouse Americans to the danger he represents.  My experience in that effort is precisely why I reject Mitt Romney; and why I refused to support John McCain in 2008; and why I distrust and disbelieve the GOP’s Party and Congressional leadership.

From the very beginning of Obama’s political ascent they all refused to acknowledge and take seriously the readily apparent truth about him:

1. that he is a committed communist/socialist hardliner, deeply hostile to the concept of government limited by respect for God-endowed right;
2.  that he and other elements of the elitist faction are deeply hostile to Christianity because it encourages people to practice and insist on respect for God-endowed right;
3. that he and other elements of the elitist faction actually prefer Islam to Christianity because it encourages its practitioners to be fearful and submissive to any authority any government claiming to derive its authority from submission to its tenets;
4. that Obama is the first anti-American to occupy the White House. He and other elements of the elitist faction he represents mean to subvert America’s  moral, economic and military strength and overthrow the sovereignty and self-government of the American people

On all the key issues that draw attention to this truth about Obama (the issue of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility; opposition to raising the debt ceiling; opposition to surrendering Congress’s constitutionally reserved  initiative with respect to money issues; opposition to military detention of persons without due process; etc.)  the GOP leadership has not just refused to work with people who were sounding the alarm about Obama, they have  aided and abetted media forces intent on ridiculing and marginalizing their concerns.

Despite the GOP leadership’s compromising laxity, Obama’s words, actions and policies roused strong resistance and opposition among Americans at large.  It became clear that Obama would face a very tough re-election battle.  So what did the GOP’s elitist faction leadership do? They engineered (that’s a polite way of saying rigged) the nomination for someone whose whole career suggests that he is likely to push forward along the same socialist path. (And please, don’t cite Romney’s success as a businessman as proof that he’s a conservative.  Falling prey to that fallacious reasoning, we have to accept the conclusion that George Soros does not promote socialist elitism.)  In this respect there is a salient difference between Obama and Romney.  Thanks to the GOP label and the undeserved support it still garners from conservatives, Romney is less likely to encounter strong, successful resistance as he implements the socialist agenda.  He may take us to socialism without a fight.

The nomination of a RINO like Mitt Romney follows a pattern I have called attention to before.  The GOP’s elitist faction leadership routinely seeks to elect RINOs in regions inclined to vote Republican.  They purposely abuse the trusting votes of their conservative constituents in order to build the seniority and power of politicians who do not represent them. Thanks to revulsion against Obama’s aggressive leftist policies, the GOP regained control of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010.  The salience of that revulsion indicated that the GOP’s conservative base would be highly motivated by their negative feelings to turn out strongly against about Obama.  Shouldn’t the GOP’s leaders would have looked for and united behind someone who represented this revulsion?  They would have done so if they had any respect for the principle of representation.  Instead they engineered the nomination of someone whose record shows him to be a toned down version of Obama, a “moderate” in what I have elsewhere observed to be the original sense of the term.

America’s experience with Obama has, for many Americans, revived their sense of the meaning of the term “un-American.”  Right now the elitist GOP leadership is trying to cater to that sense by portraying Romney as the more authentically American alternative in 2012.  But in their strategy, Obama’s “un-American” qualities have to do with personal characteristics, including his subservient groveling in the face of the terror and violence that originates in the Islamic world; his supposed incompetence in dealing with economic matters; and his encouragement of the mentality of hedonism and dependency rather than sturdy self-discipline and self-reliance. (Of course, hidden beneath the emphasis on personal traits may be a stealthy willingness to appeal to curtailed but still significant prejudices that are the remains of America’s troubled racial history.)

In adopting this strategy the Romney Republicans studiously, stubbornly refuse to admit that Obama’s “un-American” qualities arise from his deep commitment to a fundamentally un-American ideology.  The socialist ideologies (communism, National Socialism, Fabianism, etc.) exist in the context of a comprehensively materialistic understanding of human affairs.  In that context, the notion of Creator-endowed rights, indeed the notion of Creation itself, has little meaning and no authority.  So to socialists the understanding of God-endowed human rights on which the United States is founded makes no sense.  But Romney Republicans refuse to mobilize voters against Obama on account of the character shaped by his un-American ideology.  That’s because, like Obama, they represent the elitist faction’s socialist consensus.  They therefore aim to implement an agenda that uses socialist approaches to consolidate power in the hands of the elite few.  They aim  to overthrow government of, by and for the people as a whole.

It makes no sense to say we are fighting Obama because he is the dedicated tool of this un-American socialist agenda, and then vote to replace him with someone more than likely to impose the same agenda, but without stirring a fight.  By accepting this nonsense what we are really saying is that we have no choice but to surrender our identity as a free people, entitled to govern ourselves.   Are we willing to let elitist faction force us to act on the assumption that socialism is inevitable, an assumption that leaves us no choice but to follow Mitt Romney quietly down the path of socialist elitism, or despite our futile resistance, be forcibly taken there by Barack Obama, against our will.  Of these alternatives which is the lesser evil?  I guess that depends on whether one speaks from fear, or with the kind of faithful moral and physical courage that made America great and may, even at this late hour, keep Americans free.

[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.]