I know I can't be the only one to see it. Our media, including Fox News, is doing everything in their power to "guide" us to the candidate they want elected. That would be Mitt Romney. I've see the ads. You know the ones, where Mitt Romney says he's pro-choice, he won't get in the way of a woman's decision about abortion. Then he turns around and suddenly he's pro-life. The footage where he says some guns need to be banned, then turns around and says he's pro 2nd Amendment. Then there's RomneyCare, that everyone knows was a blueprint for Obamacare. He can say it works on a state level, but is unconstitutional on a national level all he wants. He is Obama Light. He is NOT a conservative.
I haven't made up my mind yet who to vote for. They all have good and bad points. I haven't even eliminated Ron Paul. I know a lot of people that like Michelle Bachmann. Why has the media eliminated those 2? Why did Cain get driven out of the race?
If you do a little research on Obama, that's how he won his Illinois Senate seat. He eliminated the competition. Why has no major media outlet attacked Romney? FoxNews brought it up a little, but they let Romney wiggle out of it and let him get by with his excuses.
Have you ever researched the term Guided Democracy online? While I don't entirely trust Wikipedia, here's the definition from them of Guided Democracy:
"Guided democracy, also called managed democracy, is a term for a democratic government with increased autocracy. Governments are legitimated by elections that, while free and fair, are used by the government to continue their same policies and goals. Or, in other words, the government has learned to control elections so that the people can exercise all their rights without truly changing public policy. While following basic democratic principles there can be minor deviations towards authoritarianism. Under managed democracy, the electorate is prevented from having a significant impact on policies adopted by the state through the continuous employment of public relations techniques." [Reference numbers removed.]
And for those of you who are a little fuzzy on the definition of autocracy:
"An autocracy is a form of government in which one person is the supreme power within the state. It is derived from the Greek αὐτοκρατία: αὐτός ("self") and κρατείν ("rule"), and may be translated as "one who rules by himself". It is distinct from oligarchy ("rule by the few") and democracy ("rule by the people"). Like "despot", "tyrant", "strongman" and "dictator", "autocrat" is a loaded word with a negative value judgment." [Reference number removed.]
This is the form of government that Indonesia has, a guided democracy. Basically put, you are free to vote, but we'll decide on who you vote for. This is controlled in our country by eliminating the conservatives, whether Democrat (yes, I believe there are a few of those left) or Republican. It is also the premise behind President Obama wanting more power, and trying to eliminate our checks and balances.
Herman Cain scared the bejesus out of the establishment politicians. Rick Perry does, too. They are both unconventional, swear they'll change things, and that's what scares the establishment. Just like the insider trading not being called insider trading when Congress does it. I read an article on The Blaze that said the two major members of congress that DON'T do insider trading are Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul. I have to admit that I personally didn't care much for Ron Paul, until I heard that. I know it takes courage to not go along with the crowd. I've been a teenager that didn't go along with the crowd, but it wasn't easy. We have a congress full of grown men acting like teenagers affected by peer pressure. "There's no law against it, and besides, everyone is doing it." I have to say the same thing my mom told me: If everyone was jumping off the Mississippi bridge, would you do it?" And yes, I've used that analogy before and someone asked me which bridge on the Mississippi. I grew up in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. We only had one bridge across the Mississippi. We didn't call it the Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge. We called it the Mississippi River Bridge.
But, it's early and I haven't had a full cup of coffee yet, so I digress. Just because CONGRESS hasn't made a law saying it's illegal for CONGRESS to trade on information they are the only ones in possession of, doesn't make it morally right. Of course there's no law against it. Congress is the one who makes the laws. If they made it illegal, as it is for the rest of us peons, how would they come into Congress with a modest amount of money and leave millionaires or billionaires?
The establishment doesn't WANT anything to change. They want the same policies in effect. That's why they're pushing Romney. Romney has a record of saying what he thinks the public wants to hear. He made the decision to be a little more liberal as Governor of a liberal state. Now he's running for President, and sees the reaction of the country to liberals, so he's hiding behind conservative rhetoric.
I have two theories. 1. The establishment wants to run someone who won't change things, or at least not by much, so they're guiding us to who they think that will be. 2. They truly don't believe any of the candidates have a chance to win against Obama, and know he can only legally serve one more term, so they want to run someone they don't really care gets tarnished by the run. They'll put their chips behind a true conservative in 2016.
I don't really believe the second one, as much as the first one. I would like to see a list of the Tea Party candidates (those supported by the Tea Party in 2010) and what their finances looked like before they got into Congress, as opposed to now. How many of them have been corrupted by the power they attained? Why hasn't anything ever changed? Have you seen President Obama's approval rating? I believe it's at something like 39%? I know it was lower than President Carter's at the same time in his term. With approval ratings like that, how could he possibly get re-elected? Hasn't just about everyone been saying, "Anyone but Obama?" So why is the media concentrating on a moderate so that, in their words, he has a chance to beat Obama? Why does the media, including Fox, say that we need someone who is capable of beating Obama? I've heard of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. I've also heard of Hitler's tactics of tell a lie often enough and people will believe it. The media is going out of the way to tell us that only a moderate can beat Obama. Is that why over 50% (I think it was something like 60%) of the country identifies themselves as agreeing with Tea Party values? Even Democrats are moving more conservative.
I don't have a solution on how to change our path away from becoming a Guided Democracy except through education. If you like this blog and agree with it, please share it with as many as you can. Just keep my name with it.
Lori Ann Smith
Fighting for Freedom with my last breath
