Paul Ryan: More Of The Same
It has happened again. We go through this every four years, and every four years the vast majority of “conservatives” fall for it. This is such a broken record. What did Forrest Gump say: “Stupid is as stupid does”? And wasn’t it P.T. Barnum who said, “There’s a sucker born every minute”? Well, here we go again.
Neocon RINO George H.W. Bush picks “conservative” Dan Quayle. “Conservative” G.W. Bush picks neocon RINO Dick Cheney. Neocon RINO John McCain picks “conservative” Sarah Palin. Now, neocon RINO Mitt Romney picks “conservative” Paul Ryan. As long as there is one “conservative” on the ticket, mushy-headed “conservatives” across the country will go into a gaga, starry-eyed, hypnotic trance in support of the Republican ticket. I’m convinced that if Lucifer, himself, was the GOP Presidential candidate, he would get the support of the Religious Right and Republican “conservatives” as long as he selected a reputed “conservative” to join his ticket. And, by the way, the notable “conservative” wouldn’t think twice about joining such a ticket, either, I’m convinced.
Let’s just get this on the record: since 1960, there have only been two Presidential nominees (from the two major parties) who were not controlled by the globalist elitists. One was a Democrat, John F. Kennedy; the other was a Republican, Ronald Reagan. Kennedy was shot and killed; Reagan was shot. Every other President, Democrat or Republican, has been totally controlled, which is why none of them have done diddly-squat to make a difference in the direction of the country. On the issues that really matter, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are just more of the same!
Ok! I hear all the boos!
So, let me ask you, how many unborn babies in Massachusetts did Romney save? What did Mitt Romney do to preserve, protect, and defend the Second Amendment in the State of Massachusetts? How unlike Obamacare was Romneycare? You’re telling us that the same people who elected and reelected Ted Kennedy elected Mitt Romney, because both men are conservatives? And you expect us to not laugh, right?
Listen folks, a Presidential administration is defined more by foreign policy than by domestic policy. When it comes to rogue domestic policies attempted by the executive branch of government in Washington, D.C., there are many safeguards, checks and balances that the several sovereign states are able to do to resist said policies. In fact, when it really comes right down to it, any federal policy is only so much spit in the wind without the approval and approbation of the states. So, quit bellyaching about what the President says or does, and get serious about what your State governors, attorney generals, State legislators and senators, county sheriffs, and city mayors are doing. However, foreign policy is another matter.
The only checks and balances to a President’s foreign policy decisions reside inside the Beltway, mostly with Congress. And herein lies the problem: both Democrat and Republican congresses over the past many decades have literally abdicated their constitutional responsibilities relative to providing checks and balances to the executive branch and have granted almost dictatorial powers to the White House when it comes to foreign policy.
There is one domestic issue in which there are almost no checks and balances by anyone in the federal or State governments. And this is the outgrowth of this globalist, interventionist, Warfare State that has been proliferating exponentially ever since the Lyndon Johnson administration: the Nanny State, which is a polite way of saying, the Police State.
The Police State is excused and fueled by the Warfare State. We must have the Department of Homeland Security, because we are at war. We must have the Patriot Act, because we are at war. We must have a total surveillance society, because we are at war. We must sacrifice our individual and civil liberties, because we are at war. We must accept drones flying over our neighborhoods, because we are at war. Our bank records must be turned over to the Feds, because we are at war. Our electronic communications records must be turned over to the Feds, because we are at war. The list never ends.
To get an idea of how serious this burgeoning Police State is becoming, read this article in the very Republican-friendly Washington Times. If an article like this appears in the WT, you know the reality is actually much worse. Read the Times article here.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is time to take the blinders off: neither Mitt Romney nor Paul Ryan is going to do anything to change the status quo. Nada. Nothing. Zero. Zilch.
As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney doesn’t have a voting record on these national Warfare State/Police State issues. But Paul Ryan does. And it isn’t pretty!
Jane Aitken wrote an excellent synopsis of Paul Ryan’s voting record that appeared on LewRockwell.com. She noted that Ryan voted for federalizing rules for driver licenses; voted to make the Patriot Act permanent; voted to allow electronic surveillance without a warrant; voted to authorize military force in Iraq; voted to spend an “emergency” $78 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; voted to declare Iraq part of the “War on Terror” with no exit date; and voted against redeploying US troops out of Iraq.
Aitken also wrote, “Congressman Ryan supports the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, federal bailouts, increased federal involvement in education, unconstitutional and undeclared wars, Medicare Part D (a multi-trillion dollar unfunded liability), stimulus spending, and foreign aid.”
See Aitken’s column here.
That’s why I say, on the issues that really matter, Paul Ryan is just more of the same.
Ron Paul is the only Presidential candidate (from the two major parties) since John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan who hasn’t been controlled by the globalist elite. Unfortunately, the Republican machine (with massive support from the national press corps) has made sure—often by unethical and illegal means, by the way—that Dr. Paul will not be the GOP nominee.
So, here we go again!
That said, if I were a betting man, I would put my money on Romney winning in November. Unlike Bill Clinton’s Teflon veneer, the sheen has worn off Obama. Only die-hard Democrats and ultra-liberal independents could stomach voting for him a second time. But the problem is a Romney-Ryan administration will do nothing to change the downward spiral of the nation. They will continue the fanatical interventionist, preemptive war policies of Obama and Bush. They will also continue to build and construct the Orwellian domestic Police State—and as Sonny and Cher sang, “The Beat Goes On.”
Sadder still is the fact that after Romney is elected in November, the vast majority of “conservatives” will do what they always do when a Republican is elected President: go into deep, extended hibernation—lasting exactly four years and awaking just in time to go through the façade all over again. What was it that Forrest Gump and P.T. Barnum said?