Areopagus
27th August 2005, 06:21
http://www.radioliberty.com/nlmar05.html
Professor Quigley explained the American political process:
"The chief problem of American political life for a long time has been how to make the two Congressional parties more national and international. The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy." [25]
The Power Elite sponsors candidates that run for office in both political parties, and one of their candidates almost always wins. That's why both parties support NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, Free Trade, subsidized trade with China, the transfer of national sovereignty to international organizations, expensive social programs, government medicine, massive government spending, illegal immigration, world government, and the war in Iraq.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Ohara/debbie29.htm
AMERICA'S TWO-PARTY SYSTEM IS A HOAX
"Political purity" is not an option so we're told by many who defend the Republican Party. We must learn to compromise. While I'm not against compromise when there is no principle involved, clear violations of the U.S. Constitution and/or biblical principles cannot be tolerated on any level. When we allow those principles to be compromised we are virtually saying that there is no right or wrong. Evil and illegal compromises are made every day by members of both parties, but they know they have nothing to fear from the people because most Americans are more loyal to one of the two political parties than to any moral principles. Party loyalty has played a large part in both the moral and economic decline of our country. For a Christian there are definite rights and wrongs that are set in stone. It is not that people who vote for "third" parties are not willing to compromise when possible, but they find voting meaningless unless they have a chance to vote for a candidate of good character.
Professor Carroll Quigley was not some "right wing radical" who was trying to make the establishment look bad. A mentor of former president Bill Clinton, Quigley was in the know about how America was being intentionally transformed from a God-fearing free country to atheistic socialism by wealthy individuals working together behind the scenes of government. These individuals figured that if they could give the people two candidates with the same socialist goals but still call one a "Democrat" and one a "Republican", they could give the people the illusion of choice while keeping the country headed in the same direction no matter who was elected to office. We can see that the American people have fallen hook, line and sinker for this tactic, because at this moment we have a Republican president who has been able to push more social programs than many Democrats would have even dared, but he still receives the support of most "conservatives".
I resoundingly agree with Dr. Blumenfeld's comment that the daunting problems facing conservatives are in a large part caused by the fact that "the vast majority of Christians still put their children in atheistic public schools, thus helping our secular-humanist monster create more dumbed-down brainless American adults." Most people I know that call themselves "conservative" are socialists and don't realize it. That's why they don't see how really far left the Republican Party has gone. The dumbing down process has been a great success.
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/05/23/featureronpaul.htm
Q. Sir, on May 6th, on the floor of the house you asked the question: "Are the American people determined they still wish to have a Constitutional Republic." How would you answer that question, Sir?
A. A growing number of Americans want it, but a minority, and that is why we are losing this fight in Washington at the moment. That isn't as discouraging as it sounds, because if you had asked me that in 1976 when I first came to Washington, I would have said there were a lot fewer who wanted it then. We have drifted along and, although we have still enjoyed a lot of prosperity in the last twenty-five years, we have further undermined the principles of the Constitution and private property market economy. Therefore, I think we have to continue to do what we are doing to get a larger number. But if we took a vote in this country and told them what it meant to live in a Constitutional Republic and what it would mean if you had a Congress dedicated to the Constitution they would probably reject it. It reminds me of a statement by Walter Williams when he said that if you had two candidates for office, one running on the programs of Stalin and the other running on the programs of Jefferson the American people would probably vote for the candidate who represented the programs of Stalin. If you didn't put the name on it and just looked at the programs, they would say, Oh yeah, we believe in national health care and we believe in free education for everybody and we believe we should have gun control. Therefore, the majority of the people would probably reject Thomas Jefferson. So that describes the difficulty, but then again, we have to look at some of the positive things which means that we just need more people dedicated to the rule of law. Otherwise, there will be nothing left here within a short time.
Professor Quigley explained the American political process:
"The chief problem of American political life for a long time has been how to make the two Congressional parties more national and international. The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy." [25]
The Power Elite sponsors candidates that run for office in both political parties, and one of their candidates almost always wins. That's why both parties support NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, Free Trade, subsidized trade with China, the transfer of national sovereignty to international organizations, expensive social programs, government medicine, massive government spending, illegal immigration, world government, and the war in Iraq.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Ohara/debbie29.htm
AMERICA'S TWO-PARTY SYSTEM IS A HOAX
"Political purity" is not an option so we're told by many who defend the Republican Party. We must learn to compromise. While I'm not against compromise when there is no principle involved, clear violations of the U.S. Constitution and/or biblical principles cannot be tolerated on any level. When we allow those principles to be compromised we are virtually saying that there is no right or wrong. Evil and illegal compromises are made every day by members of both parties, but they know they have nothing to fear from the people because most Americans are more loyal to one of the two political parties than to any moral principles. Party loyalty has played a large part in both the moral and economic decline of our country. For a Christian there are definite rights and wrongs that are set in stone. It is not that people who vote for "third" parties are not willing to compromise when possible, but they find voting meaningless unless they have a chance to vote for a candidate of good character.
Professor Carroll Quigley was not some "right wing radical" who was trying to make the establishment look bad. A mentor of former president Bill Clinton, Quigley was in the know about how America was being intentionally transformed from a God-fearing free country to atheistic socialism by wealthy individuals working together behind the scenes of government. These individuals figured that if they could give the people two candidates with the same socialist goals but still call one a "Democrat" and one a "Republican", they could give the people the illusion of choice while keeping the country headed in the same direction no matter who was elected to office. We can see that the American people have fallen hook, line and sinker for this tactic, because at this moment we have a Republican president who has been able to push more social programs than many Democrats would have even dared, but he still receives the support of most "conservatives".
I resoundingly agree with Dr. Blumenfeld's comment that the daunting problems facing conservatives are in a large part caused by the fact that "the vast majority of Christians still put their children in atheistic public schools, thus helping our secular-humanist monster create more dumbed-down brainless American adults." Most people I know that call themselves "conservative" are socialists and don't realize it. That's why they don't see how really far left the Republican Party has gone. The dumbing down process has been a great success.
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/05/23/featureronpaul.htm
Q. Sir, on May 6th, on the floor of the house you asked the question: "Are the American people determined they still wish to have a Constitutional Republic." How would you answer that question, Sir?
A. A growing number of Americans want it, but a minority, and that is why we are losing this fight in Washington at the moment. That isn't as discouraging as it sounds, because if you had asked me that in 1976 when I first came to Washington, I would have said there were a lot fewer who wanted it then. We have drifted along and, although we have still enjoyed a lot of prosperity in the last twenty-five years, we have further undermined the principles of the Constitution and private property market economy. Therefore, I think we have to continue to do what we are doing to get a larger number. But if we took a vote in this country and told them what it meant to live in a Constitutional Republic and what it would mean if you had a Congress dedicated to the Constitution they would probably reject it. It reminds me of a statement by Walter Williams when he said that if you had two candidates for office, one running on the programs of Stalin and the other running on the programs of Jefferson the American people would probably vote for the candidate who represented the programs of Stalin. If you didn't put the name on it and just looked at the programs, they would say, Oh yeah, we believe in national health care and we believe in free education for everybody and we believe we should have gun control. Therefore, the majority of the people would probably reject Thomas Jefferson. So that describes the difficulty, but then again, we have to look at some of the positive things which means that we just need more people dedicated to the rule of law. Otherwise, there will be nothing left here within a short time.