I have come to the point in life where I believe those elected as President are merely empty suits doing the bidding of the international banking interest that operates behind the scenes pulling the strings of policy that emanates from every White House administration. As such, I have for some time not really taken these elections seriously since I believe the fix is in no matter which major party candidate wins.
If people want to understand the reasoning behind this conviction I would encourage them to consider the truth in this video.
Still, having admitted that, I want to take a peek at just a few excerpts from Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech.
“We are a nation of immigrants.”
And again later,
“When every new wave of immigrants looked up and saw the Statue of Liberty, or knelt down and kissed the shores of freedom just ninety miles from Castro’s tyranny, these new Americans surely had many questions.”
The is the official myth that Americans have been propagandized into believing since the Immigration Act of 1965. This unofficial American creed supports both the ridiculous assertion that “diversity is our strength,” and the attempt to officially codify multiculturalism as the basis of our social order.
First of all, the statement is just not true. Despite thirty-plus years of mass immigration set off by the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 — an act dedicated to overturning the White, Anglo, Saxon, and marginally Christian essence of the American nation — the vast majority of Americans are still American-born children of American-born parents. The idea that “we are a nation of immigrants” is also historically false as scores of millions of Americans are neither immigrants nor had parents who were immigrants.
Also the idea that, “we are a nation of immigrants” flounders on the reality that a nation of immigrants would not and could not be a nation. Were we literally a nation of immigrants we would be a Hodge-Podge of heterogeneous peoples having nothing in common except living in the same geographic area. A nation of immigrants would mean a nation with nothing to unify the varied religions, ethnicity, and people group history of the multitudinous immigrant groupings inhabiting the nation. Of course, such a irregularity of a nation of immigrants, would give us not a nation, but a anti-nation. Such a anti-nation would be characterized by balkanization, tensions, and distrust between the various immigrant groups.
This is not to deny that immigration has been important to our country. It has. However, originally most of that immigration came from people groups that were already homogenous in significant ways with the host culture they would eventually be assimilated with. However, the kind of immigration that we have been looking at since 1965 promises to overthrow the essentially British culture and largely Christian underpinnings that have informed this nation. (See David Hackett Fisher’s “Albion’s Seed.”) What the mantra of “we are a nation of immigrants” is effectuating now is the work on the part of the State to dissolve the historic faith and culture by electing a new people. It shouldn’t be surprising that those who identify with the historic faith and culture do not like hearing the multicultural mantra that “we are a nation of immigrants.”
With that statement, Romney might also be signaling not only an appeal to the Hispanic vote that Republicans believe they so desperately need, but it also may be communicating that a President Romney would support some kind of amnesty program for the current 15 million illegal aliens currently present in these united States. That the Republican establishment desperately desires some kind of amnesty program is a certainty.
Elsewhere in his acceptance speech Romney said,
“I wish President Obama had succeeded because I want America to succeed.”
I am fairly sure that this was placed in the text in order to counter Rush Limbaugh’s now famous statement, spoken shortly after Obama’s inauguration, “I hope he (Obama) fails.”
Limbaugh took incredible heat for that statement. I think we can agree with both Limbaugh and Romney here. Because Obama is a Marxist it was necessary for any Patriot to hope he failed. Who would want a Marxist leader to succeed in his plan to implement Marxism? We could also say that we wished Obama had succeeded in the sense that it would have been nice if his policies had been a success, even though everyone knew it advance that Marxism never succeeds except for the elite ruling class.
Romney went on speaking of his wife, Ann,
“I knew that her job as a mom was harder than mine. And I knew without question, that her job as a mom was a lot more important than mine.”
This is a bone thrown to counter the Democrat accusation that Republicans are waging war on women. However, it is a falsity. A Mom’s job is not more important than a Dad’s job, just as a Dad’s job is not more important than a Mom’s job.
Romney went on and on supporting the idea of Feminism. He said he chose a female as his Lt. Governor. He said he chose a female chief of staff. He talked about all the female Republican governors. God speaks in Scripture that ruling women are a sign of being cursed (Isaiah 3:12).
Elsewhere Romney soft-pedaled his Mormonism,
“We were Mormons and growing up in Michigan; that might have seemed unusual or out of place but I really don’t remember it that way. My friends cared more about what sports teams we followed than what church we went to.”
This is Romney’s way of saying that his Mormonism is nothing to be concerned about by Evangelicals and Catholics. Clarity requires me to insist that attending a Mormon Church is not the same as attending a Christian Church since Mormonism is a different religion.
Romney revealed what may very likely become a theme in the campaign,
T”he President hasn’t disappointed you because he wanted to. The President has disappointed America because he hasn’t led America in the right direction. He took office without the basic qualification that most Americans have and one that was essential to his task. He had almost no experience working in a business. Jobs to him are about government.”
This is the whole, “Obama is a nice guy but he was inexperienced and ill equipped to do the job as President” routine. I don’t buy that Obama is a nice guy. I don’t consider Marxists of any stripe in any position to be nice people. Obama has already revealed his fangs in the campaign by approving the add that connected Romney’s work at Bain Capital with the death of a man’s wife. Obama is more than incompetent. Obama is malevolent.
Now, I believe Romney to be every bit as malevolent but I believe he believes that he can’t win by attacking Obama as a socialist.
Romney said,
“And it means that we must rein in the skyrocketing cost of healthcare by repealing and replacing Obamacare.”
I’m all for repealing Obama-care. I get nervous when I hear Romney (the author of socialist Romney-care in Massachusetts) talks about replacing Obama-care. Replacing with what? A better “more efficient” socialist health care?
Finally we look at Romney saying,
“Every American is less secure today because he has failed to slow Iran’s nuclear threat.
I get nervous at the thought of Romney and saber rattling with Iran. Why would I want to vote for someone who may very well get us even further in the slough of the Middle East?
