Posts Tagged ‘progressive

29
Sep
11

The Ron Paul Scenario

Let’s imagine, for a moment, that Ron Paul is elected President of the United States–even though we know that voting machines have been shown to be rigged with predetermined outcomes. What then?

I’ve heard some people say that Ron Paul will end all the “bad stuff,” if elected. I’ve heard that he will use Executive Orders to end the Federal Reserve, Department of Education and other “unconstitutional”  agencies and programs (doesn’t go far enough, but would be a good first step). From listening to some of the chatter, some folks are making Ron Paul out to be some kind of Messiah.

Unfortunately, it is not true and those things will never happen.

First of all, Ron Paul doesn’t believe that Executive Orders are Constitutional, so he would never use them. If he did, he would be helping to legitimize the process and open himself up to criticism from his detractors and those who do want to use them (“If you don’t believe they’re Constitutional, why are you issuing them?”), so don’t hold your breath waiting for Ron Paul to use dictatorial “stroke of the pen, law of the land” stuff anytime soon.

Second, even if Ron Paul was elected, he would be overriden by the Legislature at every turn, in the same way that Mark Sanford (former Governor of SC) had around 98% of his vetoes overriden with every new budget. Also, nearly every time Sanford wanted to push through a new idea, eliminate wasteful spending, cut taxes, consolidate agencies or eliminate redundant offices, the State Legislature pounded him from every angle, used the progressive (WIS-TV, The State Newspaper, PBS/ETV, Free Times, etc.) local media to make him look like an idiot for even asking for those things, and then boldly refused to give him what he was asking for–and it was done by both Democrats AND Republicans.

The only reason I could see for The Powers That Be to give–yes, give–Ron Paul the Presidency would be for accomplishing something like eliminating the Electoral College–something the progressives have wanted to do, for decades.

If Paul wins the “Presidential Preference” vote (public vote), the Electors are not bound to cast their votes for the popular choice (the candidate for which the public cast the most votes). If the Electors choose to cast their electoral votes to elect a different candidate, the country will come close to another civil war, with riots in the streets. The cries for eliminating the Electoral College will be heard far and wide, and the People will probably be duped into going along with it–including an increase in police power and presence to control any “civil unrest.” (Not that there should be elections for Masters, in the first place, but you get what I’m saying.)

The end result would be that the Statists have more police power and control, and the Socialist Republic of California has control of every new presidential election.

Remember: No matter who is elected, the State always wins.

In over 200 years of voting, we have only gotten higher (and more) taxes, more regulations, more currency manipulation and wealth destruction, more war, more surveillance (monitoring emails and phone calls, street cameras, tracking our cell phones, etc.), and so much more. Minor “victories,” once in awhile, keep the clueless Sheeple thinking that voting can make a difference, but history shows otherwise, so STOP VOTING! Stop legitimizing the rigged game of politics and keeping it alive! Separate yourself from it, and get “off the grid,” as much as possible.

Personally, I would actually like to see Ron Paul win, for one main reason: When his supporters watch as he is rendered completely ineffective, they will come to realize that voting accomplishes nothing but giving the People more of what they were getting, before. Even Ron Paul, himself, stated that he could “only be so independent.” At that point it will hopefully be easier for supporters of Voluntaryism (http://voluntaryist.com/fundamentals/introduction.html) to share the message of peace, cooperation and real freedom.

So…yay! Ron Paul 2012! Woo-hoo!

Advertisements
20
Mar
09

The Fairness Doctrine

The “Fairness Doctrine” is being pushed by liberals/progressives/socialists, because they feel that their views aren’t being given fair coverage in talk radio. The policy would mandate that conservative talk radio give equal time to the opposing viewpoints.

It doesn’t matter that the socialist viewpoint overwhelmingly rules television networks and the vast majority of newspapers. No, they have to have it all.

A liberal talk radio network was tried, and it went into bankruptcy, because you can’t expect people who are looking for a handout to financially support that kind of business. Because the venture tanked, socialists have to use force to get their views heard where they aren’t welcome.

So, with all this “fairness” in mind, I have one question: Will equal time be given to the anarchist view that opposes both liberal and conservative viewpoints, or does “fairness” only apply to liberals and conservatives? Since we are trying to be “fair,” shouldn’t equal time be given to the view that this liberal/conservative, Republican/Democrat institution of slavery and theft should not exist, in the first place?

If this (horrid, ridiculous, freedom-trampling, radio welfare handout) measure passes, I’ll be waiting for the invitation to use their own policy of forced inclusion against them by using common sense to mop the floor with all of their Establishment ideas – live, on-air.