Thursday, August 11, 2011

Why would anyone vote for them?

OK, so Rick Perry declared that he's running for President. A little while back Michele Backmann declared her candidacy for President. Now, why would anyone vote for them?


Rick Perry has been documented as saying that he wanted Texas to secede from the Union. This is a man that does not BELIEVE in the UNITED States of America. And now he's running for the highest elected office in the country. Why? He doesn't believe in it. What's the purpose? Was he lying then? Or is he lying now? If he gets elected, what does he plan
to do? Rip up the Constitution and dissolve the United States of America? Each State will then fend for itself? Each State would then create laws and regulations that would suit themselves and not the greater good. States that don't care about their citizens (would Texas fall into this category?) would be able to attract more businesses because of the lack of laws and regulations that protect the citizens. But then these same states would end up with critical labor shortgages because those citizens that could, would move to States that were more in-line with protecting their citizens. But where would the jobs be? What would Rick Perry's America look like? Would we end up with a theocratic nutcase running the country like the character representing the President in the movie "Escape from LA"? Why would anyone vote for someone who doesn't believe in democracy or in America?



Then there's Michele Bachmann. This is the candidate who is totally against a centralised government. This is the candidate who advocates against any kind of government program, except those that she and her family wish to take advantage of. We know what her standards are...everything for her and nothing for anyone else. What kind of America would we have under her? One where SHE decides who is worthy of getting a government program and who isn't? Remember, the Tea Party is
solidly based on hyprocracy. Just think back to the photos of the Tea Party demonstrators carrying signs that said "Keep Your Government Hands Off of My Medicare". OK, so maybe the Tea Party is solidly based on hypocracy AND stupidity. And Michele Bachmann is the leader of the Tea Party Caucus in the House. Hmmm. She's another one that doesn't believe in democracy, freedom, and liberty. Wasn't she the one that stated on national TV that Democrats were un-American and should be investigated because certain elected officials didn't agree with her ideas? Can you say...McCarthyism? She's against centralised government and the programs that go with it...except when it comes to her. She has collected more money from these programs then the normal US citizen, but she justifies it by saying that she deserves it.

Yes, Backmann's version of democracy...everything for her and nothing for anyone else, escept those that SHE decides are worthy.


So, again, why are they running for President? They don't beleive in democracy, in America. Liberty is just a word they use in their sound bites but really they don't understand what it actually means. I happen to agree with John Dean in his assessment of the current Republican Party. He wrote in his book, Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches, that the GOP views public office as a stepping stone to personal wealth. That's all it is. The fact that they have to deal with and cater a little to the public is just a small inconvenience. The Presidency to them is a position where they can help themselves by helping those who will increase their wealth. Be this the wealthiest 1% or the Top 1% of the corporations. These candidates want to sell off America to those that will benefit them most. Does anyone remember, during Baby Bush's administration, the outsourcing of America's and official's security to Blackwater? If not, then maybe they should read Jeremy Scahill's book, Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.


I think that they're running for President in order to acquire more wealth at the cost of the public good.

No comments: