”If America Is To Endure As A Nation….”

[Danno 1,228]

Romney Vs. Obama:”If America Is To Endure As A Nation….”

By Patrick J. Buchanan

"Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors,

speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs,

and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence."

So wrote John Jay in Federalist No. 2, wherein he describes Americans as a "band of brethren united to each other by the strongest ties."

That "band of brethren united" no longer exists.

No longer are we "descended from the same ancestors."

Indeed, as we are daily instructed, it is our "diversity"—our citizens can trace their ancestors to every member state of the United Nations—that "is our strength." And this diversity makes us a stronger, better country than the America of Eisenhower and JFK.

No longer do we speak the same language. To tens of millions, Spanish is their language. Millions more do not use English in their homes. Nor are their children taught in English in the schools.

As for "professing the same religion," the Christianity of Jay and the Founding Fathers has been purged from all public institutions. One in 5 Americans profess no religious faith. The mainline Protestant churches—the Episcopal, Methodist, Lutheran and Presbyterian—have been losing congregants for a half-century. Secularism is the religion of the elites. It alone is promulgated in public schools.

Are we attached to "the same principles of government"?

Half the nation believes it is the duty of government to feed, house, educate and medicate the population and endlessly extract from the well-to-do whatever is required to make everybody more equal.

Egalitarianism has triumphed over freedom. Hierarchy, the natural concomitant of freedom, is seen as undemocratic.

Are we similar "in our manners and customs"? Are we agreed upon what is good or even tolerable in music, literature, art?

Do we all seek to live by the same moral code? Abortion, a felony in the 1950s, is now a constitutional right. Homosexual marriage, an absurdity not long ago, is the civil rights cause du jour.

Dissent from the intolerant new orthodoxy and you are a bigot, a hater, a homophobe, an enemy of women's rights.

Recent wars—Vietnam, Iraq—have seen us not "fighting side by side" but fighting side against side.

Racially, morally, politically, culturally, socially, the America of Jay and the Federalist Papers is ancient history. Less and less do we have in common. And to listen to cable TV is to realize that Americans do not even like one another. If America did not exist as a nation, would these 50 disparate states surrender their sovereignty and independence to enter such a union as the United States of 2012?

Nor are we unique in sensing that we are no longer one. Scotland, Catalonia and Flanders maneuver to break free of the nations that contain their peoples. All over the world, peoples are disaggregating along the lines of creed, culture, tribe and faith.

What has this to do with the election of 2012? Everything.

For if America is to endure as a nation, her peoples are going to need the freedom to live differently and the space to live apart, according to their irreconcilable beliefs. Yet should Barack Obama win, the centralization of power and control will continue beyond the point of no return.

His replacement of any retiring Supreme Court justice with another judicial activist—a Sonia Sotomayor, an Elena Kagan—would negate a half-century of conservative labors and mean that abortion on demand—like slavery, a moral abomination to scores of millions—is forever law in all 50 states.

President Obama speaks now of a budget deal in which Democrats agree to $2.50 in spending cuts if the Republicans agree to $1 in tax increases. But given the character of his party—for whom Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, food stamps, Head Start, earned income tax credits and Pell Grants are holy icons—any deal Obama cuts with Republicans in return for higher taxes will be like the deal Ronald Reagan eternally regretted.

The tax hikes become permanent; the budget cuts are never made.

In the first debate, Mitt Romney said that in crafting a budget that consumes a fourth of the economy, he would ask one question: "Is the program so critical that it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?"

If a President Romney held to that rule, it would spell an end to any new wars of choice and all foreign aid and grants to global redistributionsts—such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It would entail a review of all U.S. alliances dating back to the Cold War, which have U.S. troops on every continent and in a hundred countries.

Obama offers more of the stalemate America has gone through for the past two years.

Romney alone offers a possibility of hope and change.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/romney-vs-obama-if-america-is-to-endure-as-a-nation

[Penny Lane 8,159]

For if America is to endure as a nation, her peoples are going to need the freedom to live differently and the space to live apart, according to their irreconcilable beliefs.

I am all about freedom and choice, but let's not pretend that's what Romney stands for. Freedom for the people who agree with him, sure, and live by his standards of normal. Choice for ... well, not women, I guess.

[decocker 7,198]

so basically, this guy is crying because all americans don't have the characteristics he would prefer. cry me a river..

Are we similar "in our manners and customs"? Are we agreed upon what is good or even tolerable in music, literature, art?

really? because culture is uniform.

:wacko:laughballs.

[Dakine10 5,452]

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Pat Buchanan. I think everyone knows what his vision for America is. Fortunately most normal people have moved beyond that.

The best way to accomplish his goal would be to buy a remote island somewhere, and invite his like-minded freinds and well wishers along. Now that would be a place that would need Kip's giant wall around it. Only it wouldn't be to keep people out.

[Danno 1,228]

Pat Buchanan. I think everyone knows what his vision for America is. Fortunately most normal people have moved beyond that.

The best way to accomplish his goal would be to buy a remote island somewhere, and invite his like-minded freinds and well wishers along. Now that would be a place that would need Kip's giant wall around it. Only it wouldn't be to keep people out.

Are you shooting the mirror because you don't like what is in it?

[JohnR! 5,495]

You fail to disclose the Federalist Papers were a series of pieces by Hamilton, published in the media as a means to persuade the people of New York to ratify the Constitution. It was propaganda then, as is now the proto-copy you use as the basis of your post.

That "band of brethren united" no longer exists. - It never did. America was never meant to be an oligarchy.

No longer are we "descended from the same ancestors." - We never were. Immigrants to America were primarily Europeans, which in themselves come from a multitude of backgrounds.

And this diversity makes us a stronger, better country than the America of Eisenhower and JFK. - Incorrect. This diversity is no different than that of always. The diversity of today is the same, therefore we live in the same country as Eisenhower, JFK and those before them. We are no better nor worse.

No longer do we speak the same language. - We never did. In fact, there was a time that German was lingua franca in Pennsylvania.

As for "professing the same religion," the Christianity of Jay and the Founding Fathers has been purged from all public institutions. One in 5 Americans profess no religious faith. The mainline Protestant churches—the Episcopal, Methodist, Lutheran and Presbyterian—have been losing congregants for a half-century. Secularism is the religion of the elites. It alone is promulgated in public schools. - The First Amendment guarantees everyone freedom of/from religion. America was born and remains a secular state. If you don't like secularism, feel free to practice whatever religion suits you.

Half the nation believes it is the duty of government to feed, house, educate and medicate the population and endlessly extract from the well-to-do whatever is required to make everybody more equal. - Actually that is a fallacy.

Egalitarianism has triumphed over freedom. Hierarchy, the natural concomitant of freedom, is seen as undemocratic. - It is only seen as undemocratic by those who want to sell the notion that your freedom should match the size of your liquid assets.

Are we similar "in our manners and customs"? Are we agreed upon what is good or even tolerable in music, literature, art? We never were. Generation gaps have always existed. Many forget their youth and spend their last days trying to deny the young their chance to experiment life and grow into adulthood as those who came before them. Chronocentrism has replaced common-sense and empathy.

Do we all seek to live by the same moral code? Abortion, a felony in the 1950s, is now a constitutional right. Homosexual marriage, an absurdity not long ago, is the civil rights cause du jour. - You forgot to include interracial marriages and black suffrage in the list of felonies in the 1950's, not to mention drinking from a whites-only fountains and separate seating on public transportation and places.

Dissent from the intolerant new orthodoxy and you are a bigot, a hater, a homophobe, an enemy of women's rights. Not true. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, there seems to be an issue with most Americans, when those beliefs result in limitations on the rights of others. You can hate women all you want and be a homophobe. It is not a crime until one acts upon those feelings as a means to deny those - and others - their constitutional rights.

Recent wars—Vietnam, Iraq—have seen us not "fighting side by side" but fighting side against side. Only for those who believe a diverging opinion is considered fighting side against side.

Racially, morally, politically, culturally, socially, the America of Jay and the Federalist Papers is ancient history. Less and less do we have in common. And to listen to cable TV is to realize that Americans do not even like one another. If America did not exist as a nation, would these 50 disparate states surrender their sovereignty and independence to enter such a union as the United States of 2012? - But it does, Blanche... but it does... You can indulge in reveries, but it is far more expeditious to deal with reality.

Nor are we unique in sensing that we are no longer one. Scotland, Catalonia and Flanders maneuver to break free of the nations that contain their peoples. All over the world, peoples are disaggregating along the lines of creed, culture, tribe and faith. That has been the case, for centuries, and interestingly so one of the many reasons which brought people to the shores of America.

What has this to do with the election of 2012? Everything.

For if America is to endure as a nation, her peoples are going to need the freedom to live differently and the space to live apart, according to their irreconcilable beliefs. Yet should Barack Obama win, the centralization of power and control will continue beyond the point of no return. Yet should Mitt Romney win, the centralization of power and control will continue beyond the point of no return.

His replacement of any retiring Supreme Court justice with another judicial activist—a Sonia Sotomayor, an Elena Kagan—would negate a half-century of conservative labors and mean that abortion on demand—like slavery, a moral abomination to scores of millions—is forever law in all 50 states. Abortion is already legal in 50 states, as a result of the SCOTUS ruling on Roe v. Wade, a ruling reached by the conservative justices of whom you speak, back in 1973. If you don't agree with abortions, you are not required to have one.

President Obama speaks now of a budget deal in which Democrats agree to $2.50 in spending cuts if the Republicans agree to $1 in tax increases. But given the character of his party—for whom Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, food stamps, Head Start, earned income tax credits and Pell Grants are holy icons—any deal Obama cuts with Republicans in return for higher taxes will be like the deal Ronald Reagan eternally regretted. However, contrary to Reagan and Romney and Obama, the CEOs of several companies have admitted themselves that they see no way to reduce the deficit without more taxes. You can blame 'the government' for everything all the while forgetting that 'We The People' elected those who contracted these debts on our behalf and with our proxy.

The tax hikes become permanent; the budget cuts are never made. If the tax cuts are made permanent the deficit will never cease to increase.

In the first debate, Mitt Romney said that in crafting a budget that consumes a fourth of the economy, he would ask one question: "Is the program so critical that it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?" Which begs the question whether we should borrow money to give oil companies subsidies and to pay the share of those who, like Romney himself, have the prerogative to stash their money in foreign bank accounts as a means to evade US taxes.

If a President Romney held to that rule, it would spell an end to any new wars of choice and all foreign aid and grants to global redistributionsts—such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It would entail a review of all U.S. alliances dating back to the Cold War, which have U.S. troops on every continent and in a hundred countries. Romney will not hold to that rule - or any other - since he does not have a plan to present to the American people.

Obama offers more of the stalemate America has gone through for the past two years. That may be true, but fact remains that Romney offers nothing but bullet points which look good on paper. So far no plan, no details. He offers a lot of hot air.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Are you shooting the mirror because you don't like what is in it?

Nope. My mirrors fine. Little smudge once in a while, but not hard to clean up.

Now Pat's on the other hand. IDK. I imagine it was shattered long ago from that ugly hate filled visage. Or maybe just got used to it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Hope and change with Romney?

[Danno 1,228]

You fail to disclose the Federalist Papers were a series of pieces by Hamilton, published in the media as a means to persuade the people of New York to ratify the Constitution. It was propaganda then, as is now the proto-copy you use as the basis of your post.

That "band of brethren united" no longer exists. - It never did. America was never meant to be an oligarchy.

No longer are we "descended from the same ancestors." - We never were. Immigrants to America were primarily Europeans, which in themselves come from a multitude of backgrounds.

And this diversity makes us a stronger, better country than the America of Eisenhower and JFK. - Incorrect. This diversity is no different than that of always. The diversity of today is the same, therefore we live in the same country as Eisenhower, JFK and those before them. We are no better nor worse.

No longer do we speak the same language. - We never did. In fact, there was a time that German was lingua franca in Pennsylvania.

As for "professing the same religion," the Christianity of Jay and the Founding Fathers has been purged from all public institutions. One in 5 Americans profess no religious faith. The mainline Protestant churches—the Episcopal, Methodist, Lutheran and Presbyterian—have been losing congregants for a half-century. Secularism is the religion of the elites. It alone is promulgated in public schools. - The First Amendment guarantees everyone freedom of/from religion. America was born and remains a secular state. If you don't like secularism, feel free to practice whatever religion suits you.

Half the nation believes it is the duty of government to feed, house, educate and medicate the population and endlessly extract from the well-to-do whatever is required to make everybody more equal. - Actually that is a fallacy.

Egalitarianism has triumphed over freedom. Hierarchy, the natural concomitant of freedom, is seen as undemocratic. - It is only seen as undemocratic by those who want to sell the notion that your freedom should match the size of your liquid assets.

Are we similar "in our manners and customs"? Are we agreed upon what is good or even tolerable in music, literature, art? We never were. Generation gaps have always existed. Many forget their youth and spend their last days trying to deny the young their chance to experiment life and grow into adulthood as those who came before them. Chronocentrism has replaced common-sense and empathy.

Do we all seek to live by the same moral code? Abortion, a felony in the 1950s, is now a constitutional right. Homosexual marriage, an absurdity not long ago, is the civil rights cause du jour. - You forgot to include interracial marriages and black suffrage in the list of felonies in the 1950's, not to mention drinking from a whites-only fountains and separate seating on public transportation and places.

Dissent from the intolerant new orthodoxy and you are a bigot, a hater, a homophobe, an enemy of women's rights. Not true. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, there seems to be an issue with most Americans, when those beliefs result in limitations on the rights of others. You can hate women all you want and be a homophobe. It is not a crime until one acts upon those feelings as a means to deny those - and others - their constitutional rights.

Recent wars—Vietnam, Iraq—have seen us not "fighting side by side" but fighting side against side. Only for those who believe a diverging opinion is considered fighting side against side.

Racially, morally, politically, culturally, socially, the America of Jay and the Federalist Papers is ancient history. Less and less do we have in common. And to listen to cable TV is to realize that Americans do not even like one another. If America did not exist as a nation, would these 50 disparate states surrender their sovereignty and independence to enter such a union as the United States of 2012? - But it does, Blanche... but it does... You can indulge in reveries, but it is far more expeditious to deal with reality.

Nor are we unique in sensing that we are no longer one. Scotland, Catalonia and Flanders maneuver to break free of the nations that contain their peoples. All over the world, peoples are disaggregating along the lines of creed, culture, tribe and faith. That has been the case, for centuries, and interestingly so one of the many reasons which brought people to the shores of America.

What has this to do with the election of 2012? Everything.

For if America is to endure as a nation, her peoples are going to need the freedom to live differently and the space to live apart, according to their irreconcilable beliefs. Yet should Barack Obama win, the centralization of power and control will continue beyond the point of no return. Yet should Mitt Romney win, the centralization of power and control will continue beyond the point of no return.

His replacement of any retiring Supreme Court justice with another judicial activist—a Sonia Sotomayor, an Elena Kagan—would negate a half-century of conservative labors and mean that abortion on demand—like slavery, a moral abomination to scores of millions—is forever law in all 50 states. Abortion is already legal in 50 states, as a result of the SCOTUS ruling on Roe v. Wade, a ruling reached by the conservative justices of whom you speak, back in 1973. If you don't agree with abortions, you are not required to have one.

President Obama speaks now of a budget deal in which Democrats agree to $2.50 in spending cuts if the Republicans agree to $1 in tax increases. But given the character of his party—for whom Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, food stamps, Head Start, earned income tax credits and Pell Grants are holy icons—any deal Obama cuts with Republicans in return for higher taxes will be like the deal Ronald Reagan eternally regretted. However, contrary to Reagan and Romney and Obama, the CEOs of several companies have admitted themselves that they see no way to reduce the deficit without more taxes. You can blame 'the government' for everything all the while forgetting that 'We The People' elected those who contracted these debts on our behalf and with our proxy.

The tax hikes become permanent; the budget cuts are never made. If the tax cuts are made permanent the deficit will never cease to increase.

In the first debate, Mitt Romney said that in crafting a budget that consumes a fourth of the economy, he would ask one question: "Is the program so critical that it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?" Which begs the question whether we should borrow money to give oil companies subsidies and to pay the share of those who, like Romney himself, have the prerogative to stash their money in foreign bank accounts as a means to evade US taxes.

If a President Romney held to that rule, it would spell an end to any new wars of choice and all foreign aid and grants to global redistributionsts—such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It would entail a review of all U.S. alliances dating back to the Cold War, which have U.S. troops on every continent and in a hundred countries. Romney will not hold to that rule - or any other - since he does not have a plan to present to the American people.

Obama offers more of the stalemate America has gone through for the past two years. That may be true, but fact remains that Romney offers nothing but bullet points which look good on paper. So far no plan, no details. He offers a lot of hot air.

That is a handy method of debate -throw out so much ####### that no one knows where to begin with it.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

That is a handy method of debate -throw out so much ####### that no one knows where to begin with it.

What is Romney's economic plan?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What is Romney's economic plan?

Hope and change.

[Danno 1,228]

What is Romney's economic plan?

NObody cares what his plan is..... you keep asking and I keep explaining we know one thing.

Two guys are running, one has never had so much as a paper route or lemnade stand and look where it has gotten us. Romney is like really rich, he knows how to make money and he knows how to "do business", he is the "fixer" when it comes to turning things around and has a record and portfolio that reflects it.

Lets try experience for a while and see what happens, it's not like we have choice "C" anyway.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

NObody cares what his plan is..... you keep asking and I keep explaining we know one thing.

Two guys are running, one has never had so much as a paper route or lemnade stand and look where it has gotten us. Romney is like really rich, he knows how to make money and he knows how to "do business", he is the "fixer" when it comes to turning things around and has a record and portfolio that reflects it.

Lets try experience for a while and see what happens, it's not like we have choice "C" anyway.

There's a reason I keep asking.

People like you claiming he'll fix things.

Usually people who believe someone can fix something actually have a reason behind believing this.

You can't tell me HOW he will fix things. Just that he will. Doesn't work for me.

[JohnR! 5,495]

That is a handy method of debate -throw out so much ####### that no one knows where to begin with it.

I thought so too, but I deemed better to use reason instead of responding in kind to the ####### Buchanan is pushing.

[JohnR! 5,495]

What is Romney's economic plan?

It is a blank canvas... :rofl: