What a Sellout!

As I have been following the news concerning the “Republican” candidates, a recent development has been that the notion of Romney and Paul forming an alliance could be a real and true development. This notion is out of the blue, and yet I found myself being sucked into it. As I pondered the possibility, I thought of the many other sellouts throughout my lifetime. How many of those who claimed to be proponents of what is right and true were actually the opposite of what they claimed? I wondered whether Paul was finally being shown to be just another fraud. I began thinking that if this were true, Paul would never have my respect and trust again.

But what seemed to be apparent just did not fit with anything that Ron Paul actually said or did himself. So I researched on my own. More and more I concluded that Ron Paul was being set up and misrepresented in order to make people think that Ron Paul was really just like the rest. After watching two videos I was nearly absolutely convinced that this was all a mainstream ploy.

The following two videos can be found at Ron Paul on CNN State of the Union 2/19/12.



In this first video the CNN propagandist tries to establish an association between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. Ron Paul very politely acknowledges that there is a tiny agreement on one issue, that of taxes. He also politely acknowledges that Romney seems to have a better management style than the other two candidates. But then he proceeds, still politely, to state unequivocally that all three of the other candidates are the same and that he is uncomfortable with them on all any of the issues, saying, “But as far as the issues go, I’m uncomfortable with all three of them. I think, I think that they’re the status quo, and that they’re not change. . . . they don’t really want to change anything. That’s what I’m offering.” At this point the woman quickly ends the interview.

In the following clip the same CNN woman attempts to present the notion that the Ron Paul candidacy is an impossible win scenario. Over and over she presses this notion, which the congressman politely shuts down with facts. In polite frustration she closes the interview.



Yesterday I was excited to have my conclusion affirmed by what is stated in this article and interview at Insider Says Talk of Paul-Romney Alliance is “Establishment Trick”.

Here is the video of the interview for ease of access:

Lew Rockwell Dispells Ron Paul VP Rumor as "Establishment Trick"


Wow, this is really in-your-face honest appraisal and apprisal!

Frankly, I am very weary of researching this sort of thing as well as “reporting” it on my blog and in conversations. I really do not like doing this.

However, I am not as weary of this as I am of so-called Christians who perpetually say that they must choose the lesser of two evils. They do this in their church bodies. They do this in their congregations. They do this in their jobs and other secular associations. They do this in their voting practices. They do this in their own life decisions.

So where exactly do they stand regarding the truth?

What exactly marks the typical Christians as Christian?

Where do Christians today actually turn to hear the truth? How is the truth really defined? How much compromise can be made and still have the truth?

In mainstream Christianity the truth is hard to identify. What do “Christians” really believe? What does it really mean to be Pro-Life? What does it really mean to love peace? Where is forgiveness really found? What does love really look like? Does the Gospel actually have a clearly defined and unalterable message?

I really am tired of studying politics. Yet how can I ignore them? How can I simply turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to what is happening around me? How can I not be concerned about the globalist agenda that is in full bloom in every corner of the world and especially in these formerly United States of America? How can wars upon wars and millions upon millions of war tragedies not concern me? How can I not be concerned as I see my neighbors struggling for survival in a country that has unprecedented abundance of resources and opportunity?

Yesterday I stopped at the deli in the supermarket and bought a quarter pound of fried chicken livers. The price per pound the last time that I purchased any, about six months ago, was $3.99/lb. Yesterday the price was $4.99/lb. The lady explained that with fuel costs rising, etc., that prices continue to rise. I reminded her that this already happened with the last fuel price rise and that the prices never went back down. All she could do is shrug, and I acknowledged the futility of complaining to one who has no say in the matter. She just smiled, as most people do when I acknowledge this, be it with a phone customer service person or a bank teller or the grocery store clerk.

But as I paid for my lunch purchase, another lady shared her heartbreaking experience from the day before. She shared that an elderly lady said that she was torn between two choices. The cashier asked her to explain and the lady shared that she did not know whether she should spend her money on food or medicine.

On the Food! The medicine is killing her. But so is most of the food! This is the problem. We are being duped into believing that this is a choice. We are being duped into believing that the government sponsored drug programs are helping us and that we actually need these destructive chemicals and that we should not be concerned about the poisons that are being added to our foods and our water and our toothpaste and even in vaccines. Moreover, we are being told that the Federal Reserve is the answer rather than the cause of our financial woes.

And people continue to watch the same farcical news programs and follow the same fraudulent medical and nutritional advice. They keep looking for salvation from politicians who say one thing and do the opposite. They keep turning for the truth to churches where tolerance of mingled doctrine and practice is called “fellowship” and “faithfulness.”

Then the Christians throw up their hands and cry, “How can this be?”

Duh!

+ + +

Will the Real Candidates Please Stand Up?

Does the past matter? Should the American people be informed regarding the history of those who are running for office?

How can Americans learn the facts? Will the facts be discovered from the news industry? Will they learn the facts from sitcoms and late night TV comedians? Will they learn the facts from so-called conservative radio programs?

Has this not been the avenue that most Americans have traveled? Has anything been learned that helped improve and change the downward spiral that has been observed? Or has the spiral suddenly become a plunge?

For those who think that an half hour video presentation is not an exorbitant investment of time, here is a link to an article and video with a powerful amount of information. All of the information is supplied with the sources. Therefore it can be checked and validated.

The Real Newt Gingrich .

While this video presentation focuses particularly upon Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, it actually addresses the general movement of many in politics over the last few decades, especially at the national level.

If information about the candidates is a desire, this video will supply more than is easily absorbed in a single viewing.

- - -

Joshua Blick or the Same Old Game?

Before the primaries a man came by our house and shared with us his reasons for his candidacy for City Council. He was very personable and polite. He shared very common sense views and concerns. He asked permission to place one of his signs in our yard and we gladly assented.

His name is Joshua Blick.

During the campaign we have received flyers in the mail from both Josh and his opponent. Josh’s flyers tell about Josh and his views and concerns. His opponent’s flyers also tell about Josh and his views and concerns. Reading Josh’s opponent’s flyers filled me with concern and angst because according to these flyers Josh was an entirely different candidate than the man with whom I visited for nearly an hour in my living room.

I was quite distressed and on several occasions considered yanking Josh’s sign from my yard. But rather, I called him to ask from him whether I had heard him correctly when I visited with him.

The man with whom I spoke was indeed the same man that I had remembered. His views are what we discussed. The opponent’s propaganda is false propaganda.

Joshua Blick is a level headed man with enough years of experience in the world to know that the necessary changes in the city’s programs takes working with all of Wichita and cannot be solved by coming in like a tornado through the city. Josh has been visiting with people, with residents, with the local small business owners. He plans to continue visiting and listening. He has a view toward development of the entire city through pursuit of support of local business rather than seeking to steal business from other cities. His desire is to consult with local people to learn what they believe is beneficial rather than hiring outside consultants at exorbitant fees. His desire is to operate within the tax revenue rather than continually spending towards deeper indebtedness. He believes that the local businesses who will be prospering from new development should be the ones who fund the development, not taxpayers.

I am very glad that I did not let a premature reaction to false propaganda prejudice me against a worthy candidate. I am very glad that I did not allow the usual dirty politics to influence me as they were designed to do.

We really need to beware of candidates who operate in deceitful manners. If they are willing to lie to us to get elected, and if we vote for such people, how can we expect any other behavior after they are elected?

As for me, I will be voting for the man who came to my door and presented his good and solid ideas and who returned my phone call and gently and respectfully answered all of my questions.

If you would like to know what Joshua says rather than what his opponent claims that Joshua says, visit Josh’s web site at JoshuaBlick.com. His other contact information is provided at the web site.

As for me and my wife, we plan to support him with our vote, as we believe that his consistency in answering our questions is a far better index of his truthfulness and trustworthiness than propaganda sent to us by his opponent. We agree with the stands that we have heard Joshua declare as his own. Josh has not attacked anyone and says that he plans to continue simply to set forth his own views and beliefs regarding what is right and good for Wichita.

This is the kind of politics that I desire to support with my vote.

Perhaps you will agree.

. . .

VERY Helpful Voter's Guide

Kansas voters in Sedgwick, Butler, Harvey and Sumner counties can go to 2008 Voter Guide for an interactive voter's guide. After entering your address it will list the candidates for whom you will be given opportunity to vote. Included are drop down lists with the candidates' responses on the issues.

Enough Already

Enough already! That is what I keep telling myself regarding the elections.

Is anyone really still considering what to do? It seems not to be so. It seems that people have made up their minds what they will do and now are only arguing with others and with themselves about it.

I really think the real arguing is really that, arguing with selves. Most people have made up their minds to vote for someone with whom they are not pleased. At least this is what I perceive from those who desire a constitutional republic that truly seeks to promote and defend the good of all. By “All” I mean truly that, from the very tiniest and most helpless and without voices that can be heard, to the wealthiest and strongest and most admired in society. Little babies who are in the earliest stages of development and old codgers in wheelchairs with oxygen tanks ALL are people who are protected by the Constitution. Those who believe this to be true, even though the weak and the helpless are often deemed to be inconvenient and burdensome, believe that they nevertheless are created, yes, CREATED equal under the rule of their Creator. Those who believe this are arguing with themselves, trying to convince themselves that someone who does not honor this higher authority quoted in the Declaration upon which the Constitution is founded can be voted for without violation of conscience, without violation of one’s integrity.

The matter is greatly complicated for those who are aware of the third party candidates, especially of those running for the highest civil office in the land. There is one presidential candidate who truly stands apart from the rest. Chuck Baldwin really makes this matter more complicated, especially for those who want to convince themselves that Washington and Jefferson and Adams and Hale and Hamilton and Hancock and Franklin and Jones and the many others who were unwilling to settle for any less than what they counted as true to their convictions really don’t have anything to say to us today. Those who want to convince themselves that such absolutism is no longer possible have to work hard to justify their choice to resist voting for someone like George Washington.

But then maybe people like me are the ones fooling themselves. Maybe such absolutism has never really existed.

What do we observe from such men as the founders of this nation? Did they all agree on everything? Certainly not. Yet they nominated men with whom they agreed. If no such person could be found, they themselves ran for office. Yes, they worked together with whomever was elected, but they voted for what they believed.

Is that different than what most people today are doing, especially among those who profess to have strong convictions?

It certainly seems to be different from what I am seeing and hearing.

Perhaps in my statements I do overstate things, at least with regard to what is possible in the civil realm. But then I believe in the God who says that with Him all things are possible. I believe in the God who created all men equal in terms of their value in the world and in connection with His love. I believe in the God who says that He recreates us to be perfect even as He is perfect.

Because of this, I cannot accept the notion of settling for the lesser of two evils or the lesser of two undesirables. I believe in looking to that which is the very highest and best, even in the political arena. I believe in demanding absolute commitment from a candidate, commitment to protecting and defending the Constitution and to protecting and defending All of “We the People.”

In the past, I was less informed than I am after many years of study and experience. I the past I was less able to discern between candidates. In the past I knew less of the Constitution and of the history that led to its formulation and of the history that shows the many ways in which it has been ignored and abused.

Now I know at least a little more, and I cannot ignore what I have observed and learned. So I will not settle for a lesser candidate even though for all appearances that candidate may have a better chance of prevailing or winning. After all, what good will his victory do me, if he does not truly represent what I believe is right and good?

In this ongoing battle the issue of integrity arises. Perhaps a reminder of the definition would be a fitting ending for this post.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

1. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.
2. The state of being unimpaired; soundness.
3. The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness.

Well, perhaps it is enough already. Perhaps it was enough even before this post. Perhaps it is simply time to vote and accept what is coming.

Perhaps.

The Final Week

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams


One more week to throw a stone or an angry word at the candidate who is worse than your own! Time is running out!

What a different way from what led to the founding of this nation! What a different way from what led to the very careful and arduous writing of our Declaration of Independence and the follow-up document known as our Constitution!

Yet it seems that the general populace was not that much different than today's populace. Otherwise, why would John Quincy Adams have written what is quoted above?

Apparently, the notion that a vote for a principle that is deemed by many as unobtainable and beyond hope for winning the day is a wasted vote may not be a new notion at all. Apparently those who fought for liberty and justice for all faced the same pessimism in their day as we face today. Apparently what they accomplished was accomplished through faith in what was declared to be impossible and hopeless. Apparently their ideals were counted by many as too high to be realistic and their candidates were counted as too far on the fringe to be electable.

So how on earth did they accomplish these things and win the day?

Apparently it was not by being compromising in their actions! Apparently it was not by settling for the lesser of two evils! Apparently they were unwilling to vote for a candidate on the basis of the rationale: "At least he's not the other guy!" or "He's for hope and change!"

It seems that those who accomplished the great things of the past had rock solid principles that they were willing to fight for, even beyond sacrificing their own lives, but also their fortunes and families.

But these heroes did not choose these principles for themselves. They had a basis for these principles. They declared this basis in their Declaration of Independence and debated from this basis in the Constitutional Convention.

Could that be what is missing today? Could it be that the willingness to tolerate compromise, even the eagerness to embrace compromise, found in the churches in our age, could be the cause of the willingness to settle for so little in the sphere of politics?

But then, the way of compromise is easier. Right? Who wants to stand alone with nothing but one's principles as his footing?

There are still a few. Yes, we do still exist.

Are you one those few, too?

Chuck Baldwin on NPR

On the October 18, 2008 National Public Radio broadcast Weekend Edition Saturday, host Scott Simon, interviewed Chuck Baldwin.

The interview is available here.

The transcript of the interview is provided as well as a link for listening to the interview.

However, there is a commentary that precedes the transcript, and in this commentary a very important misstatement is made. The commentary says:

As president, Baldwin says, he would work toward overturning the 16th Amendment, which establishes Congress' authority to levy taxes. In addition, he would like to see the IRS and the Federal Reserve disbanded.

The misstatement is in the report that the 16th Amendment establishes Congress’ authority to levy taxes. This is a false statement. The authority of Congress to levy taxes is established in section 7 of the First Article of the Constitution. The 16th Amendment establishes a tax on income. This was something never intended by the founding fathers and was added to the powers of Congress in 1913. The misstatement implies that without the 16th Amendment that Congress will be unable to levy the taxes necessary. This is a false implication and the reader should beware.

What Baldwin, like Ron Paul, wants to do, is to set the American people free from the slavery created by the taxes upon their incomes, and to set them free from the slavery of having to report every aspect of their lives to the government. Imagine how much more productive people’s lives would be if they were set free from the endless tax forms and regulations. Imagine how much more disposable income people would have if they did not have such large portions of their paychecks withheld from them against their wills. Imagine how such an increase in disposable income would benefit the economy, as people were set free to utilize their incomes as they choose, rather than having the government tell them how much they can keep for themselves, for their families, and for their posterity

If you would like to read the Constitution for yourself, it is available at the following links:

U.S. Constitution Online

The Constitution of the United States of America

House of Representatives Educational Resources

A Chronology of US Historical Documents

Voter Information

Are you ready to vote?

Do you even know who the candidates are? Seriously. Do you?

Check out the list. You will likely be surprised.

Sedgwick County Election Office Current Candidate Listings





At the Sedgwick County Election Office Web Page you can learn more information as well.




Included is a link for the Kansas VoterView, where you can enter your personal information and learn where your polling place is and all of the information regarding districts, etc.




Check it out, especially the candidates. You will be surprised to learn how many candidates are not even mentioned by the media. Who knows. You may even find out that there is someone running who is actually someone you will WANT to support with your vote rather than just choosing a lesser of two evils, or perhaps not even knowing who you are choosing.

Media Bias?

In today’s Wichita Eagle on the front page article entitled “Economy is main topic of final debate”, this drawing of the two candidates was illustrated:




It was formed by putting together the following two graphics drawn and illustrated months ago:






Contrasting this to a photograph of McCain by the same news & graphics source,



Does the drawing seem to be a fair and unbiased representation of McCain?


What is more, why is there NO information ever given about the other candidates, especially the ones making advances in recognition and popularity on account of their clearly articulated and demonstrated commitment to the Constitution?

Then again, perhaps this really is what the people want. Perhaps the people do not really want to become educated regarding what is happening and what the candidates really represent. Perhaps they prefer to line up and hurl insults at the other party or to vote based upon what their favorite celebrities say.




Hmm!

Yeah! Let’s all get out and vote!

Who’s running?

What are the issues?

Who knows?

Who cares?

Just vote.


That’s what America stands for?




HELP!!!

Money as Debt

The following video is posted at GCNLive, a worthy source of news in this current age.

Paul Grignon's Money As Debt
One Of The Most Important Videos You Will Ever See
(on what is happening in the nation and the world today)

After viewing this and observing the “Why” behind the secularly observed slavery of this age, then compare the current candidates being offered in the mainstream.

Then consider that we actually have candidates who are seeking to Reform the nation and to counter those things that currently rule over the populace.

Are not these men and women worthy of full consideration?


What would happen if every person who believed that it is foolish to vote for the lesser of two evils actually voted for someone who stood for something? What if we all actually voted FOR a candidate rather than voting against a candidate? What would happen if we all voted for candidates who actually tell us what they believe and do so consistently rather than checking the polls to find out what we want them to tell us that they believe?

Believe it or not, such candidates of integrity DO exist and are actually on the ballots.




(In the paragraph above, the secularly observed slavery is meant. Sin is the true cause of the slavery of mankind, and of course, the current matters are manifestations of that total slavery which can only be undone through the grace of God through faith.)

A Candidate for President

The Constitution Party had its nomination convention at the end of April and now has its nominee for the upcoming presidential election for the United States of America.

Chuck Baldwin was nominated for President and his Vice Presidential running mate is Darrell Castle, an attorney and Vietnam War Marine Corps veteran from Memphis, Tennessee.

Chuck has published a column in which he states what he will do if elected as the President of the United States. You can read his column at “If I Were President”.

Also of interest is the Constitution Party’s platform.

I have mentioned this platform in a previous post entitled, Constitution Party Platform. At that time I knew considerably less about the Constitution Party, but I have since learned more about it and I believe that I now have a party with which I agree in most areas. It certainly represents what I know of the Constitution far better than either the Democrat or Republican parties and their candidates do.

I offer this post and the accompanying links for any who would like to investigate Candidate Baldwin’s and the Constitution Party’s positions.