From: "Linda Muller"
Date sent: Sun, 12 Dec 1999
Subject: [BRIGADE] How to Defeat the Duocracy
Dear Brigade,
From Romelle Winters - New Hampshire Brigade.
GO PAT GO!!!!!!
Linda
-------------------
Date sent: Sun, 12 Dec 1999
From: Romelle Winters - rwinters@ttlc.net
To: linda@buchanan.org
Hi Linda, I sent the following to friends when they questioned Buchanan's
alliance with Fulani. Romelle Winters Fremont, NH
As governments age, things begin to happen. Like everything else, decay
sets in and the status quo starts to fall apart. When things start to
become unbearable the seeds are sewn for a revolution. This can be bloody
or unbloody. Without the revolution the government must become more
repressive to keep people in line. You eventually reach a point where
change takes place -- revolution or tyranny.
It is up to the leaders of the revolution to define causes and to align
supporters. But let us not talk in obscure terms, let’s bring this down
to our country in our day.
We have two parties that have, through the years, grown more and more
alike. On paper, their philosophies are disparate; in reality there is
little difference. It is vital for them to keep separate philosophies on
paper because that is what ties their supporters to them.
We have the Democrats, who espouse liberalism. We can go back to
Wilson to see the beginnings of their socialist bent, but it is with FDR
that it came into fruition. The New Deal was a conglomeration of
socialist programs that were promoted as a way to bring the country out of
the Depression. It is the basis for the big government idea that has
permeated our society since FDR. It advances the notion that the
government is the “nanny” of the citizens and its function is to help
them. It is quite obvious that this power must grow and grow. There is
no cut-off plan that says, we will help the people until they earn X
number of dollars. Or we will help the people buy their first home. It
promotes growth. It hires people who begin to have strong vested
interests in the expansion of government, thus their jobs rely on the
advancement of that system. When the government has expanded to its
limits, they promote a world government which then grows and grows.
The second party, the Republicans, claim to support individual rights. On
paper, they say that government is there only to protect the rights of the
people to be free. This was working quite well until its leaders became
entrenched. The Founding Fathers never envisioned officials feeding at the
government trough for decades and decades. They hoped citizens would not
use it as a way to wealth. “Get in. Stay a while. Get out.” was their
intent. However, the greed of some is not to be reckoned with. More than
wealth, the power of office-holding is more than some can resist. When
Bob Kerrey of Nebraska left the service he remarked to a friend that he
wanted to be rich.
He felt there was only two ways to accomplish this, family wealth or
politics. (Apparently he hadn’t heard of hard work.) After a while,
greed and power
became all-important to the elected officials and in order to keep their
hold on the power, they became big government advocates -- often while
condemning that concept.
We have now reached a point where the leaders of both parties have one
goal in mind -- getting re-elected. They have become corrupt and will
sell out their constituency with few qualms. They have become political
animals making the difference between the two parties almost nonexistent.
Both sides realize this. They also recognize the danger of a third party
and begin to entrench themselves through election laws. They set up the
regulations so that a third party cannot easily enter the foray.
Campaign finance and other restrictions discourage third party endeavors.
They have, through restrictions, prevented a strong third party challenge.
Let us look at the benefactors of each party. The Democrats have:
homosexuals, teachers, unions, free traders, pro-abortion, feminists. The
Republicans have bankers, pro-lifers, families, Evangelicals, a few
Catholics. Each of these groups has its own agenda. They are specialized
and don’t care a whole lot about the others. The homosexuals are not
interested in free trade. The pro-lifers are not interested in bankers.
As long as the chosen party pacifies its adherents in their own concerns
they will maintain support. That is why the Republican platform is so
different from its practices. They feel they must keep in the pro-life
plank to keep those voters, all the while ignoring most of the pro-life
issues; they can’t be too strong for fear of losing the pro--abortion
bankers, etc. Lately, when the pro- life people complain about the choice
of candidates and the lack of interest in the platform, the officials
arrogantly tell them they have no place else to go.
Enter Ross Perot. Bucking the entrenched system, the Reform Party was
able to garner 19 million voters. How? By showing how bad the two
parties have been in protecting jobs. The reaction was one that is seen
more and more often directed at Buchanan. “He’s crazy.” The ad hominem
arguments grew more and more vitriolic and by the next election Perot’s
numbers fell. (This is not mentioning that Perot was not a good
candidate. It would have happened anyway.) Republicans pulled their
errant members back in line by telling them that a vote for Perot was a
vote for Clinton. The Perot voters, not the poor choice of candidates,
were blamed for Clinton’s win. Today, the Republicans are talking about
the possible Supreme Court seats and trying to rope in pro-life people by
laying a guilt trip on the possibility of a pro- abortion court swing --
as if it already isn’t there. Of the nine judges -- only two can be
counted on to vote pro-life. Since Scalia and Thomas are not among those
suspected of leaving we would only be replacing one left wing child-murder
supporter with another. (Remember, Bush’s father appointed Souter. He
claimed he didn’t know what his views on life were, but we in New
Hampshire knew.)
We are now at a crossroads. Either we put in a decent person as a third
party candidate or I fear we will have a bloody revolution involving UN
troops. So exactly how does Pat form a coalition? Remember what I said
about each group not really caring about the others?
Pat needs to put together a large contingency based on his beliefs. He is
fair trade -- he will get the rank and file union members who are
discontent with their leaders with their promotion of NAFTA and GATT . He
will get the true pro-life leaders and people who know he will never back
down on that major issue. He will get Lenora Fulani who will bring many
black votes and those others who see the destruction of open immigration.
She had her name on all of the ballots the last election. Even Perot could
not make that claim. She knows that Buchanan is pro-life and still joined
him knowing that he supports her position of interest. Pat will get each
special interest group who will tie back to him with their own thread of
advocacy. I don’t think the anti-NAFTA and GATT people all care about
life, but they know they can trust Buchanan on their concerns. The Reform
Party is, as I said before, an abandoned unfinished house waiting for a
strong leader to put on his mark. The structural shell is there and the
Brigades will not have to start from scratch.
Buchanan speaks of needing a new vision. (Not that stupid vision-thing of
Bush, pere.) As he said, we are over the cold war. We are faced with
different kinds of threats and we need innovative ways of dealing with
them. Our old exclusively pro-Israel stand is going to have to take into
account the large number of Arabs and other Moslems. We need to look at
the environment, but with a vision that takes into account the promotion
of human life. We need to get along with each other without giving up our
sovereignty. We need to reign in the UN or leave it. Personally I think,
an emasculated UN where diseases can be traced, etc. would possibly be
useful. Or one where education of humanity is of importance. But not the
tyrannical beast it has become, siphoning off our hard earned dollars for
the bail-out of Wall Street bankers.
In other words, we need to appeal to a very broad group of people in order
to get enough support to defeat the duocracy we have become in this
country. We are fortunate that God has given us a leader who is a man of
God. It is up to us to batter down the Gates of Hell. I feel that the
election of another Republican or Democrat will be the downfall of this
country.
What will we get with a Buchanan presidency? The Oval Office will be used
for the benefit of the country (no Monica surprises there). We can look
with pride at a man who will restore integrity to the office. Shelley
Buchanan will return dignity to the title of First Lady. What more can we
ask in this world?
