Election 2012: Standing Up Against Political Establishment and Manipulative Media


If you have been upset over Obama’s Dream Actand have supported the GOP’s political poster boy, Mitt Romney – Guess what?
As I predicted from his past behavior, Romney is softening his stance on the issue of illegal immigration as he recently promised Latino leadership he had a “long-term fix” and “short-term relief” all against his position when he was campaigning to win the Republican presidential nomination in the primary elections. Romney is making the mistake of trying to please ALL the people, instead of using the Constitution as his guideline that is designed for ALL the People and limiting government intrusion upon our freedom of choice, property rights, and i
According to the Wall Street Journal:
Mr. Romney spoke of bipartisan solutions he would pursue as president. He pledged to reallocate green cards to allow families to stay together, let those with advanced degrees remain in the US and create a path to legal status for young, undocumented immigrants if they join the military …

First, those degrees were obtained because those illegal immigrant students were brought into the United States before their birth by their parents illegally – a scheme that become common with illegal aliens to circumvent our immigration laws in order for the family to stay in America.

Second, when anyone speaks about “bipartisanship” today, it means giving into political entities instead of adhering to constitutional law as the ultimate guideline. 
In Romney’s past political policies, he has said one thing and then done another. It is for that reason that many voters do not trust him, yet are forced to promote him because he is, so far, the only choice they have on the voting ballot this November that is running against Obama – clearly, once again when American voters must choose between the lesser “evil”.
Romney is an example how primary elections are manipulated by political elite establishment and the mainstream media. Romney’s character reference is not negative, however, he hasn’t the personal strength to stand up for limiting government and returning rights and liberties, like personal property rights, individual liberties, and freedom of choice – back into the hands of We the People.
The “Ron Paul Revolution” has escalated among the people, ignoring who the political establishment has promoted and the bias media has chosen to ignore in hopes that less publicity from mainstream media will destroy Dr. Paul’s success. If you look at the big picture, Ron Paul is the real “people’s choice” and has gained support from state delegates at state conventions. Dr. Paul has chosen to fight against the Republican establishment who has not supported him in his strive to return the federal government back to a constitutional republic government in which the Constitution is not “interpreted” but instead adhered to, mainly in exercising limited powers established by the framers of the Constitution for good reasons.
MSN/NBC reports that the Texas Congressman’s supporters have filed a lawsuit against the RNC (Republican National Committee) as reported by Sam Favate at Wall Street Journal, as well as almost all of the state parties …
claiming that they gave Mr. Romney inappropriate assistance during primaries and harassed supporters, including use of violence and intimidation, AP reported.
It is what I have tried to relay to fellow Americans for some time – our election system is monopolized by the two traditional political parties, manipulated by the elite establishment leadership and the media; which does not represent the People’s choice or allow the people to make their own decisions. If a candidate does not receive the publicity required to reach out to voters, how can the people determine if that candidate is a good choice or not?
The delegation system in elections has long been in need of reformation. In the case of those filing lawsuit against the GOP establishment, the RNC is accused of –
dressing security type people in dark clothing searching out supporters of a Candidate Defendants do not approve of to harass and intimidate said Delegates from voting their conscience.
The GOP establishment has made it a point to ensure that Dr. Paul looks like a radical. What they are really saying is that they like Washington to be remain status quo and don’t like anyone rocking the boat as to the what has become the traditional way of operating OUR government and not according to what the Framers had established in 1787.
The lawsuit is also:
…seeking clarification from a federal court in California over whether delegates at the national convention can vote for any candidate of their choice, even if those delegates were won by Mr. Romney. The suit alleges that the RNC violates federal law by requiring them to sign pledges to back a certain candidate, restricting delegates’ voting options and illegally limiting their vote. [National Journal]
Of course, as CNN reports, the RNC calls the lawsuit “frivolous”. The same people who has called Ron Paul’s campaign “radical”.
Since when does a candidate get pegged a radical because he/she promotes the enforcement of the Constitution of the United States and the reformation back to what the Framers of our Constitution had in mind. Dr. Paul’s advocacy is similar to what occurred when our Constitution was being finalized and prepared for ratification by the states forming a republic union.
In 1787, during the debate over the ratification of the Constitution of the United States, a group was formed called the Anti-Federalists. There arguments were:
  • Anti-Federalists feared that the aristocracy of the time was being bias and tending towards their own personal advocacy.
  • While the Constitution clearly showed a foundation of a limited federal government, there wasn’t anything in writing concerning the People’s rights and liberties guaranteed in a bill of rights.
  • The Convention had gone beyond its authorized power to amend the Articles of Confederation established so the American government could operate during the American Revolution, which in turn illegally formed a new government; the biggest concern being that state governments would be completely subordinate to national power.
  • Anti-Federalists pointed out that the framers of the Constitution did not equally divide the powers of government among the three branches of the national government.
  • Anti-Federalists were fearful of allowing the federal government the power to regulate commerce.
These important issues were justified, but the media and others dubbed them as “anti-federalists”, when in fact, there concern was as noted in the aforementioned bullets.
Even Benjamin Franklin stated in a speech to the Constitutional Convention on September 17th, 1787:
I cannot help expressing a wish that every member … doubt a little of his own infallibility.
Those Anti-Federalists were Pennsylvanians from a state that was the second to ratify the Constitution of the United States. Recommendations from the anti-Federalists to amend the Constitution were initially ignored, not discussed, and not recorded into the convention’s journal; thus was the reason why the dissenters sent anonymous letters under pseudo names to ensure that their concerns were publicized and providing public awareness as to the process and actions being taken to form a government and to ensure the rights and liberties Of the People.
The main grievance of the anti-Federalists was the omission of a bill of rights from the Constitution. Initially the Convention rejected it because each state had its own declaration of rights, and it was under consensus of the Convention members that every citizen had certain inalienable rights that need not be enumerated. The anti-Federalists wanted it in writing, so in the future, courts would have a guideline for making decisions when a person’s rights were infringed upon.
Jefferson deemed “Radical”
Thomas Jefferson was not considered an anti-Federalist, and he praised the Constitution and supported it; however, he was in complete agreement with those who advocated a written bill of rights to be added to the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to James Madison, dated December 20th, 1787 that helped to convince Mr. Madison that the Constitution required an addition, which later would be the first ten amendments that has been called the Bill of Rights. Mr. Jefferson eloquently and wisely wrote:
I like much the general idea of framing a government which should go on if itself peaceably, without needing continual recurrence to the state legislatures. I like the organization of the government into legislative, judiciary, and executive. I like the power given the legislature to levy taxes, and for that reason solely I approve of the great House being chosen by the people directly. i…yet … does not weigh against the good of preserving inviolate the fundamental principle that the people are not to be taxed but by representatives chosen immediately by themselves. …
I will now tell you what I do not like. First, the omission of a bill of rights, providing clearly and without the aid of sophism for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction of monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact by the laws of the land and not by the laws of nations. To say, as Mr. Wilson does, that a bill of rights was not necessary because all is reserved in the case of general government, which is not given, … all is given is not reserved …
I have the right to nothing which another has a right to take away; and Congress will have the right to take away trials by jury in all civil cases. Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse or rest on interference.
Representative Ron Paulhas the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson and has proven over many years in government that he just doesn’t talk the talk,but walks the walk. He, and now his son, Rand Paul, are modern constitutionalists, anti-Federalists, if you will, that are against what our government has become – for various reasons and self-serving individuals and organizations that have overridden and polluted the original concept of limitation of powers of the central federal government and that all states of the union shall abide by and protect For the Peoplethose Bill of Rights that Thomas Jeffersoninsisted by put into writing. We can see how grateful we should be that Mr. Jefferson and other wise men of the time, formed a committee called a Constitutional Convention in order to discuss and work out the principles and standards that formed our government and created a great nation based upon a democratic republic that stands upon a firm foundation – a document that surpasses any in wisdom and truth than any other conceived by any civilization.
Election after election, appointment after appointment; serious issues and problems with the federal government and sometimes state governments occur because of those elected. That means while we can certainly blame certain politicians for not performing their required tasks on our behalf and in adherence to the Constitution of the United States, we must ultimately and initially blame ourselves for not ensuring that persons with character, integrity, and knowledge of the Constitution combined with loyalty to protect the laws of the land and the people’s bill of rights have been elected to operate OUR government.
Our nation continues to plod along making the same mistakes and not correcting problems or solving issues because of one major underlying reason: We the People, the majority, elect the same type of individuals and make our selection for all the wrong reasons.
We should not vote for anyone because they seem to be a nice person. History shows full well that who seems to be a good person, if not knowledgeable of our Constitution and knowing its mechanics and reasons for implementation; using those articles and amendments as the basis and justification for any legislation being passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States.
The same goes for the judiciary. Judges elected must be impartial and strictly use the guidelines written by legislative law. Supreme Court Justices must be the “cream of the crop” of the American judiciary, and they must be loyal and true to the articles and amendments of the Constitution. Their personal political views must never interfere with the articles and amendments of the Constitution; nor must they ever use a foreign constitution or law in making their decisions in cases brought before them.
The President of the United States is tasked to make appointments of Justices that are impartial and constitutionally minded. The Senate, tasked to approve those nominations, must ask the right questions in order to determine what a judge proposed to be a justice knows about the Constitution and he or she truly knows they must be loyal to the Constitution and not any political entity or even the President who nominated them.
The judiciary was never meant to “legislate from the bench” – where their decisions become the basis for government policy, for it is the legislative branch that is tasked for such things.
The only candidate for the President of the United States that meets this criteria is Ron Paul – not Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. While President Obama is totally out of control, does not respect Constitutional law, and puts his political club (DNC) above the well being, rights and liberties of the American people; as well as the national security of our nation – to include putting foreign governments and peoples above the rights and liberties of United States citizens.
The only fault I have ever detected in Ron Paul has nothing to do with his character, his government record; but instead his nature. He is a perfectionist, and this has seemed to intimidate some Americans. But one thing remains true and constant, and cannot possibly unfold if he is not elected to be the next President of the United States, is that Americans need a constitutional republic and a government that the people can once again rely upon – not for “free” stuff or at the expense of fellow American taxpayers, but what We the People and our chosen officials can maintain in the spirit and wisdom that the Framers and Founders created in 1787.
The Constitution was made to be “flexible” in the sense of being useful over time and as technology and issues changed; but not a “living constitution” where interpretation relies upon fads of society, and the judiciary transgresses against the powers of the legislative body. Amendments and the required two-third majority vote as well as ratification by states was set in place in case there were issues to be addressed and changes or recension be enacted. Case in point would be abolishing slavery and the right for women (and all citizens) to vote, as two good examples. That is what amendments were designed to do – correcting and addressing issues to ensure fair laws of the land, where everyone has liberties as long as they do not transgress against the liberties of others.
We the People have allowed a growing minority to infiltrate our government and educational institutions that disregard the importance and greatness of the Constitution of the United States; who look to other foreign nations as models instead. Those “models” are following an historically proven path of self destruction because THEY did not follow the wisdom of the Framers and Founders of our nation.
The United States was once a supreme example of how people and government should interact, the government being for the people and not the other way around. Those that have not adhered to that wisdom of American founders have given into the minority who believes they are the elite, modern aristocrats, who believe they are above the law and qualified to govern every facet of their people’s lives.
If that is what you do not want in America’s future, combined with an economical breakdown we may never recover from, than you must educate yourselves to make the necessary changes for it to become as such.
Value, the Golden Rule, is important in any successful society; which in turn, produces candidates for election that respect values, the will, rights, and liberties of the People; and perform their duties with the nation and its people foremost in their minds. Whether decisions are made in foreign treaties, diplomacy, or commerce – the United States, We the People, must be in the forefront of their policies and decision making.
The American people have long been in favor of helping other nations and its people in times of disaster; but as government policy has evolutionized domestically into providing charity at the expense of taxpayers without their permission – so has our government provided charity taken from earned funds of the people for people of other nations; even when Americans are in need of jobs and economic disaster has oppressed them.
All of these things can be corrected and transgressions against our Constitution and the Bill of Rights through the inner strength, determination, and advocacy of virtues and values that has long served human civilizations that ever wanted to be successful.
Its up to YOU and I.
We the People.
If you want true “change” – don’t vote for the same types of candidates or allow the media and political establishment to manipulate your freedom of choice or your personal lives. Their rhetoric of being for the People has proven to be just talk with an underlying self-serving agenda behind it.
America doesn’t need “Democrats” or “Republicans” – We the People need Constitutionalists.
What say you?
Read and study:
  • How the Framers conceived the framework of our Constitution.
  • Why the articles and amendments are important.
  • How we gradually lost personal property rights and freedom of choice.
  • How we can regain those rights and liberties and have a limited government in order to achieve it.
I suggest that you borrow from your library or purchase a hard copy or Kindle edition the following suggested reading material:

i It is to be noted that while the House of Representative members were voted for By the People, Senators were chosen/voted for by state governments; until this was later changed by an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Advertisements