News Articles Internet Articles (2009) Free Christian Books Free Natural Health Resources
|
The primary party presidential
candidatesSen. John Forbes Kerry and U.S. President George
W. Bush have an identity crisis. Other than the fact that one is
a tall, lanky liberal (posing as a moderate) from Massachusetts and
the other is a tall, lanky moderate (posing as a conservative) from
Texas, there isn't a whole lot of discernible difference between them
in the minds of the already decided voters. And just as an aside, Warburg became the "model" for the Daddy Warbucks character in Joseph Tipton's Little Orphan Annie. It is important to remember that America's elite families don't belong to secret societies like Skull & Bones and The Society because they are up to something sinistereven though they might very well be up to something sinister. Because of their vast wealth and/or blueblood status, they are taught from childhood that they were born to rule. The secret societies to which they belong are fraternities of an elite ruling class in a nation that we've always been taught is a classless society where all men are created equal. It is just that some members of our society are, perhaps, just a little more equal than the rest of us. With wealth comes privilegeand power. The wealth of the wealthiest of these scions dwarfs the wealth of those we are led to believelike Bill Gatesare the richest men in the world. Unlike people like Bill Gates or the Walton family that owns Wal-Mart, these families are so rich that there is no instrument by which their wealth can be measured. That 's largely the secret they are hiding. While the Kerrys and the Bushes are not among the wealthiest Americans, both families qualify for membership in that elite privileged group, thus their indoctrination into fraternities like Skull & Bones. Hardcore conservatives view Bush as a neo-conservative due to the passage of the USA Patriot Act. In the hands of the wrong president, the Patriot Act could, and likely will, be used as a political devise to stifle what remains of free speech and constitutionally-protected protest in America. Of all of the things George W. Bush did during his first term that will cost him votes, this was probably his biggest tactical blunder. Kerry, who is a socialist practitioner of moral relativism, is posing as a middle-of-the-road moderate because he knows that the American people hate liberal ideologuesespecially ones as far to the left as him. But Kerry isn't fooling anyone except perhaps the welfare crowd who really doesn't care anyway. They know if Kerry gets elected, he will become their personal Robin Hood, stealing from the pockets of the middle class to support the "victims" of moral relativism who believe the middle class "haves" are morally obligated to financially support the have nots. So the fact that Kerry has a political agenda that is antithetical to the historic Christian-conservative interests of the American people means nothing to them. The conservatives also know
that while serving in the Mekong Delta for four months, Lt.
jg John F. Kerry manipulated the system by having his own men recommend
him for undeserved and unearned medals and commendations that he could
use to further his political ambitions. Conservatives, many of whom served in Vietnam or in other military actions, were equally unimpressed with Bush's safe berth in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. That may be due in part to the fact that they are unaware that 2nd Lt. George W. Bush did everything he could to be transferred to fighter pilot duty in Vietnam. Powerful forcesperhaps in the form of his mother goading his father to use his influence to make sure her son remained out of harm's waykept Bush stateside as his requests for transfer to Vietnam were never acted upon. But, they were initiated by Bush. In one instance Lt. Bush was told the military was using different fighter planes in Vietnam and that he couldn't go because he wasn't qualified to fly them. The major political parties in the United States have become institutionalized over the past eight decades with the power to govern increasingly shared by the illegal bureaucracy that was created by Franklin Roosevelt and the special interest groups that, since 1920, have financed the successful politicians who won the seats in Congress and determined the political agenda that would be enacted. The transfer of power from the people occurred when the wealthy American utopians wrenched control of the political process from the people shortly after World War I using money, influence, and their control of the media to accomplish their objective. From that perspective, there is now little difference between a Democrat or a Republican. Today, both major parties represent those special interests first and the people second. It is only during an election year when votes count more than dollars that politicians remember the electorate with exaggerated solicitude as they promise the voters solutions to all of society's ills through the largesse of Uncle Samwith the taxpayer's own money. Congress consistently over-promises, overspends and overtaxes the American people. For that reason alone it is
no wonder that small factions of Americans rose up and formed alternative
political parties in an enervated attempt to have their voices heard
beyond the office water cooler or the Internet. And, its no wonder that
those Americans dogmatically defend those alternative party candidates
with a wistful although forlorn hope that their candidate would somehow
get elected. Liberal ideologues, on the other hand, are never deluded
into believing their long shot candidates will overwhelm the primary
party candidates. It won't happen and they know it. What they will accomplish,
if not this election, then the next, is to force the Democrats to hammer
their issues into planks on the Democratic platform. Alternative party candidates have always been a troublesome problem for the power brokers behind the seats of government because early in our history the bankers and the industrialists couldn't stop popular candidates like Andrew Jackson from getting elected. By 1912 the money barons had mastered the art of harnessing third party candidates. From that point forward in American history, third party candidates have been adroitly used by the power barons to guarantee that the major party candidate they were backing received enough electoral votes to secure the White House. That is generally accomplished today by granting or denying all of the other third party candidates space in the media or at the podium during the presidential debates. Much to his dismay during
the Election of 2000, Reform Party presidential nominee Pat Buchanan became the invisible candidate the moment he won
the Reform Party's nomination for President in what was later
called a "split ballot." Even though the headlines in most
of the major newspapers At the same time in 2000, Hagelin was also the presidential candidate of the Naturalist
Party. When the election was over, Hagelin disbanded the Naturalist Party and set up what he termed a "complementary"
government called the US Peace Government. Its purpose, Hagelin says was "...to prevent social violence, terrorism and war;
and to promote harmony and peace." Nader's candidacy
in 2000 instilled a breath of life in the Green Party. There
are now 300 thousand registered Green Party voters. There are Green Party candidates running in 44 States. Matt Gonzales won 47% of the vote in the San Francisco mayoral race and Green Party candidate Jason West won the mayor's race in New Paltz, New York.
Even though life was infused into the Green Party by Reform
Party nominee Ralph Nader in 2000, the Green Party rejected the idea of endorsing him in favor of
On the other side of the political
spectrum we have the conservative Constitution Party whose adherents
misguidedly believe their candidate, Michael Anthony Peroutka can somehow magically win enough popular votes to actually win the electoral
votes needed to topple both major party candidates. Their ardor is based
solely on Christian faith Thousands of born again Christians will likely rally around the Constitution Party much the same way thousands of Christians rallied around Pat Robertson's presidential candidacy in 1988. Robertson, unlike Peroutka, knew that third party candidates were nonentities. He campaigned against George H.W. Bush for the Republican nomination, and endorsed Bush when he was unable to rally traditional Republicans to support his candidacy, knowing that if he fractured the Christian conservative base he would be responsible for electing Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis that year. Just as Nader and Cobb and Medea Benjaminwho succeeded in converting the Green Party into a political sanctuary for moral relativism feministsrepresent the unelectable liberal left, Michael Peroutka and Chuck Baldwin represent the unelectable conservative right. Extremism, whether on the right or the left, plays well only with the zealots within those fringes but can't attract a sufficient political base to actually win an election. Political zealots are generally more interested in the ideology of their political statement than they are in winning the election. Most zealots think nothing of wasting their votes on men who can't get elected; choosing instead to use their votes as political statements. In a political statement issued on May 14, 2004, Peroutka promised his constituents an "abortion free America by January, 2005." Peroutka said, "...if elected, I promise that abortion will end my first day in office." He continued, by saying "...It is, by the way, within the power of the President to end abortion tomorrow, as I would from my first day in office..." Like most presidential candidates, Peroutka began his campaign for the White House with a promise he knows he can't keep. (And, if he doesn't know he can't keep it, he shouldn't be running for President.) Since the Constitution does not provide the President with legislative or judicial authority, he lacks the authority to overrule the United States Supreme Court by banning abortions in the United States. If a President could ban abortion rights by Executive Order, Ronald Reagan would have done that on January 20, 1981, followed by a similar decree by George W. Bush on January 20, 2001. When President George W. Bush entered the Oval Office shortly after noon on January 20, 2001, he began the task of attempting to undo a series of Executive Orders issued by former President Bill Clinton. The first Executive Order signed by Bush removed federal funding of abortionthe most any President can legally and constitutionally do in this area. Bush then attempted to undo a series of Executive Orders signed by Clinton that implemented the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol (the UN's Global Warming Treaty) that was never ratified by Congress, as required by the Constitution of the United States before a Treaty can be acted upon by the Executive branch of government. Bush ran into a legal buzzsaw. The Democratic leadership filed suit against the Bush Administration in federal court arguing that Bush's decision to deconstruct the programs of the Clinton Administration was merely a mean-spirited partisan political ploy that would harm the health of the American people and violate the Clean Air Act. The US District Court agreed and ruled that, in this one instance, an incoming president could not vacate the Executive Orders of a former president. What Bush was trying to do was prevent international environmental laws from being enforced by the United States Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] since he knew those laws would drive not only jobs, but employers, from the United States. Using judicial activism,a Clinton-appointed US District Court judge stopped Bush by negating his Executive Order. The jobs-drain continued at warp speed and there was nothing the Bush Administration could do about it. Thanks to a liberal judge. Bush's actions in the opening days of his presidency, and the Democratic response to those actions, more than anything, explain the stark differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties for those Americans who believe that because the political parties have become institutionalized over the years, and because powerful special interests control much of what happens inside the beltway, that there is no longer any difference between Republicans and Democratsor more appropriatelybetween the right and the left, between conservatives and liberals, or even more accurately, between free market republicans and state-controlled economy socialists. Nothing could be farther from the truth. America is losing its national identity because the people failed, since 1932, to recognize the subtle ideological differences between the right and the left when the candidates seeking the highest office of the land appear to be blood brothers. The culture war that the Democrats
could not win in Congress has now evolved into a class and culture war
that is now being waged quite successfully in the federal courtrooms
of liberal judicial activist judges thanks to deconstructionist members
of the US Senate who very deliberately place judicial activists on the
federal bench. The Even with the GOP in control of the US Senate, there is not much chance of any Republican president's conservative judicial nominations getting a fair hearingor a confirmation vote. Since committee membership is based on the ratio of seats held in the chamber, the only way this can change is for the American people to elect more Republicansnot simply conservatives, but conservative Republicansto the US Senate since the two major parties control all "seating arrangements" on the various committees. The Judiciary Committee is one of the two or three most powerful committees in the US Senate since all federal judges must be approved by that committee before they become a permanent addition to the federal bench. Federal judges who are "seated" by recess appointments serve only until the next session of Congress. If they make the mistake of becoming activist judges with a judicial philosophy in opposition to the majority party, their nominations never see the light of day. Only another recess appointment will keep them on the bench until that president's term in office ends. But, in the interim, these temporary judges can do a lot of damage to the Constitution and the rule of law. The invisible use of judicial activism to rewrite, or unconstitutionally "legislate" laws that could never be successfully enacted by Congress have changed the very concepts of the rule of law in the United States by allowing judges to unconstitutionally legislate social reform from the bench. When you are looking for the differences between the Democrats and Republicans, you need look no farther than the abrogation of the rule of law by liberal federal judges. You will see what I mean when we look at two watershed issues that found themselves before the US Supreme Court. In the first instance activist judges legislating from the bench created a new law that outlawed an inherent rightfreedom of religionthat is not only guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, but the Constitution states that Congress (the lawmaking body) cannot write any law that in any way abridges or obstructs the rights of the people to practice their religionanywhere and at anytime. Of course, you could say that Congress didn'tthe Supreme Court which is supposed to protect the sanctity of the Constitutiondid. However, adjudicating a law is no different than penning one. In the second example the justices, again legislating from the bench, created a new law that granted women a new right. The right to kill their unborn children. In this case, the justices simply created a right that did not exist. They have spend 31 years trying to find a home clause to bind that right to the Constitution since none exists. That's why Chief Judge Richard N. Posner of the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit calls the 1973 Roe v Wade decision the "Wandering Jew of Constitutional Law"because the right to kill your unborn child does not exist anywhere in the Constitution. It was a law the globalists needed passed because the brain trust in the Rockefeller Foundation was convinced that, by the year 2000, the world would be so overpopulated that half its population would be starving and the means to radically curb the perceived population explosion had to be legislated. It was not legislators but judges that decided, in 1947 in Everson v Board of Education (330 US 1, 18) that "...The 1st Amendment has a created a wall of separation between church and state. That wall must be kept and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breech." (The first mention of that wall of separation occurred in 1878 in Reynolds v United States [98 US 145, 164] when the high court rewrote the 1st Amendment through legal interpretation. They upheld that decision in Pierce v Society Sisters in 1925. In Everson 22 years later the justices entwined the fate of the States in their decision by coupling the 14th Amendment into their distorted view of the 1st Amendment. The following year, in 1948,
an atheist, Vashti McCollum, a Champlain, Illinois housewife
argued that an Illinois state law that allowed students to be excused
from school one afternoon each week to attend Bible classeswith
the consent of their parentsfor There actually was no constitutional issue at stake in McCollum v Board of Education (333 US 203). So the Supreme Court created one. The State was completely neutral in the issue. The funding came from the local churches throughout Illinois, so it cost the State nothing. Those students who wanted to attend, and whose parents allowed them to attend, were granted leave. So there was no religious instruction taking place on school property. Those who did attend the classes remained in their classroom. The State of Illinois entered the equation only because they allowed those students attending classes to be excused from school for three hours one afternoon each week. The initial argument of the Supreme Court was that tax-supported properties (i.e., public schools) could not be used for religious instruction. (Strangely, today Muslim groups are now distributing the Koran in America's public schools and teachers are now forcing their students to read itnot as a book of religious training, which it is, but as a book that explains the cultural distinctions of Islam. And, there is no protest from the ACLU.) When the high court realized that there was no religious education happening on school property, they modified their position, arguing that the close cooperation between the school board that controlled the "tax-supported property" and the religious community violated the establishment clause. Interestingly, that year the globalists were becoming increasingly concerned that religion and patriotism were too closely linked. There was a growing consensus that as long as the American sense of national patriotism remained at such a high level, world government could never be achieved.
The globalists, within our government and without, believed that the traditional family with strong religious values generated a type of proud patriotism that led to what Huxley described as extreme nationalism. It was believed if those tethers could be sufficiently weakened, the American people would be more receptive to world government. Thus, the "motive" for the UN to legislate a new morality in America that started with the removal of God from the school and from the lives of our children. Clearly the 1st Amendment prohibited Congress from doing with the stroke of a pen what the judicial activists succeeded in doing with the slam of a gavel. God has effectively been removed from the lives of the American peopleand we can see those changes on TV, at the movies, and in the attitudes of people on the streets of our cities and towns across this nation. When you ask: "What's the difference between Democrats and Republicans?" this is the difference. Democrats fill our courts with judges who practice moral relativism. Liberal judges, with a legal license to rewrite the laws cast by Congress through interpretation, are judicial activists who practice social justice. Judges appointed by conservative Republicans adhere to the rule of law. Quite simply, that's the difference. The second prerogative concerned
the judicial legislating of an unbridled right to abortion in the United
States that was never, nor could ever be, enacted by Ronald Reagan tried
hard to appoint Robert Bork, the most knowledgeable constitutional
jurist in the United States, to the high court. Because Bork was a staunch rule of law constitutionalist in an era when the globalists
needed social justice revisionists on the court, the liberals trotted
out every liberal with an axe to grind in an effort to kill Bork's
nomination. George H.W. Bush faced the same gauntlet when he
nominated Clarence Thomas to the high Bush-43 found the Senate Judiciary Committeeunder the control of Democrats for half of his first termto be an unyielding battleground. The only judges he got confirmed during those two years were "compromise" nominations since the conservatives he nominated never even got hearings. Those nominations have pretty much been "dead on arrival." President George W. Bush is now recycling some of his nominations that couldn't make it through the confirmation process under the Judiciary Committee when it was chaired by Senator Joe Biden. Only nominees acceptable to the liberal Democrats ever got a hearing. The liberals aren't afraid that conservative judges will throw out Roe v Wade. Liberals are afraid that conservative high court judges will overturn moral relativism decisions, and lower court judges will not be allowed to mitigate all of the sins of the last three hundred years by meting out undeserved social justice. So, when you ask: "What's the difference between Democrats and Republicans?" just rememberonce again here is the difference: Democrats fill our courts with judges who practice moral relativism. Liberal judges, with a legal license to rewrite the laws cast by Congress through interpretation, are judicial activists who believe that social justice trumps the rule of law. Judges appointed by conservative Republicans adhere to the rule of law. Quite simply, that's the difference. So, when you back Democrats or conservative third party candidates, you are voting to give Democrats more power to appoint more liberal judges who will rewrite our laws faster than Congress can write them. And, when Congress writes laws to curb the power of the judges, the judges will simply declare those laws unconstitutional. |
|
|