Paul Ryan: More Of The Same by Chuck Baldwin, August 16, 2012
Archived column: click here.
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.