In Montana this week the people were offered a choice between righteous freedom or status-quo servitude. Most chose servitude. Their choice to serve the banking dynasty placed candidate Rick Hill in the winner’s circle, placed the banking cartels in control, and it also placed the military-industrial complex in an enhanced role as a conglomerate agent of the banking oligarchy.
The voters made their choice, and while we would normally suspect that the media had deceived the public, in this case, in Montana, that is not quite true. The people deceived themselves.
Montana voters deceived themselves by playing tricks on their minds, hearts, and consciences. They told themselves the same thing millions of Americans have lately told themselves about Ron Paul’s electability. Their war chant has been, “Oh, he’s not electable, so I must vote for the lesser of two evils. I would rather vote for Ron Paul, but he simply has not got enough support to actually win, and Romney does, so I must vote against Obama by voting for Romney!”
Of course there is nothing new in this scenario. This is a part of the pseudo-intellectual process of the mass mind as it plays out in the political arena of American power struggles between one kind of criminal or another.
I report this not to present some earth-shattering new take on reality, but because in the case of the Montana gubernatorial race of 2012 we had two Oath Keepers in the running.
Bob Fanning, of Pray, Montana, and Joel Boniek, of Livingston, Montana, were running as a team for Governor/Lt.Gov., and both gentlemen are card-carrying Oath Keepers. They had the ticket to freedom. They had the platform for independence. They had the plan which would have saved Montana from the coming Federal tyranny. They had the philosophy which would have reinstated Montana sovereignty. They lost, and during their campaign I often heard from self-assured citizens that Bob and Joel were “unelectable“.
Many Americans have no clue about how important it is to vote one’s conscience. Many self-described “patriots” succumb to voting for the lesser of two evils. They will tell you right up front – “I voted for Ross Perot and helped put Clinton in the White House.” Such people apparently still believe that there was some kind of difference between a Bush, a Clinton, and an Obama. Such people could not move themselves to vote for liberty in the 2012 Montana gubernatorial race.
They tell me now, in the aftermath of the primary vote of June 05, 2012, that they had to vote for the “most electable” candidate in order to ensure that an “R” who could beat the “D” in November won the primary.
Such people actually think that it makes a difference, despite the blatant history of the latter half of the Twentieth Century. I often forget that most people do not read, and among those who do read, many read material which tells them nothing or simply entertains them well. So I am not surprised that a “Banksters’ Bitch” won the Montana GOP gubernatorial primary even though two righteous Oath Keepers offered Montanans a real choice for freedom, prosperity, and independence.
I marvel at mankind’s self-defeating self-deceiving deliberations and their machinations. I marvel at the precise psychological surgery which implants in the mind of mankind this notion of voting against the greater of two evils by voting for the lesser of two evils, and all the while dismissing the righteous on grounds that the righteous is “unelectable”.
If everyone convinces himself that “soft” slavery is to be desired over “hard” slavery, and that freedom is not electable, then I suppose what we’ll have is what we’ve got. So there.
However, I take great pleasure in knowing that more than three thousand Montanans are not deceived by the game-playing of the Federal Reserve System’s dog and pony show, the false left-right paradigm, and the treachery of “R vs D” fear-thinking.
But accompanying this dilemma comes also a tangential topic which is rearing its ugly head as we speak. There is this “father-son” dispute affecting two national names and their offspring. The national names are Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin. Senator Rand Paul has endorsed his father’s opponent in the national contest for the White House.
You read that correctly. Rand Paul has just endorsed Mitt Romney!
As shocking as that is, it overshadows a similar dispute in Chuck Baldwin’s family. Attorney Timothy Baldwin, son of Chuck Baldwin, has published his views on why it is okay to vote for the lesser of two evils, and even goes to the extreme of explaining why sometimes it’s the right thing to do. Here is a passage from Tim Baldwin’s screed -
“Lesser of Two Evils”: this is a phrase many people throw around, as if it holds any substance or adds any value to political discussion. It does not; rather, in most cases, it serves to inflame the prejudices and emotional responses of people frustrated with politics. It also offers an excuse as to why people ignore objectivism, realities, and pragmatics. What people fail to acknowledge is this philosophy does not comport to Natural Law.” (Timothy Baldwin, Attorney)
That of course flies in the face of what Timothy Baldwin’s father has said. Chuck Baldwin published in 2008 an essay on the importance of voting one’s conscience. In his essay he notes,
“When asked why they will not vote for a third party candidate, many people will respond by saying something like, ‘He cannot win.’ Or, ‘I don’t want to waste my vote.’ It is true: America has not elected a third party candidate since 1860. Does that automatically mean, however, that every vote cast for one of the two major party candidates is not a wasted vote? I don’t think so. In the first place, a wasted vote is a vote for someone you know does not represent your own beliefs and principles. A wasted vote is a vote for the ‘lesser of two evils’.” (Chuck Baldwin)
I find it astonishing that Rand Paul would endorse the Banksters’ Bitch, Romney, who draws his campaign war-chest from the likes of Goldman-Sachs and J.P. Morgan and Citibank, while yet Rand’s own father is trying valiantly to win justice for the American people in this 2012 Presidential contest.
I find it equally astonishing that young Tim Baldwin would diametrically oppose the vision and wisdom of his father regarding the sacred duty to one’s own conscience in the personal act of voting.
Therefore, I am inviting discussion on voting one’s conscience. What might be your comment?
Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!
SUPPORT OUR BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN
Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath
SUPPORT OUR NASCAR CAMPAIGN