A few years back, in one of my books, the following phrase appeared: “How can it be claimed that this country’s election process is free and open when the options made available are chosen by a selection process that is neither free nor open?”
Clearly, where the DNC is concerned and given that Democratic-committed voters have, at the present time, only a choice between damaged and dangerous, the case is closed and my observation proven. In the case of the Republicans the public has a front row seat to the game of anointing evidenced by the open-season maneuvering in opposition to anyone that dare challenge the power-centric gilding of the elite (Bush).
It should be clear by now that not only was Jeb Bush the heir-apparent it is equally clear that the ballot-of-candidates was heavily stuffed with stand-ins whose sole purpose was to be a front-line defense for him and despite his miserable polling numbers/performance he still standing and remains heavily funded and why? Simply put; because the machine believes that by unleashing a barrage of attack-ads the opposition will cannibalize itself; that if they can narrow the field down to Trump & Cruz/Rubio they can fracture the delegates and Bush can come into the convention and, with the narrowest of margins, take the nomination.
Now then, an aside for a moment; other than Carson, Cruz & Trump how different are the others in their rhetoric and political franchise than the system that clearly the American public overwhelmingly opposes? Why then, would one of these candidates come to the current political climate/stage and assert their candidacy on/with positions that clearly are incongruent with the best interests of the public they should be appealing to?
The key points of this missive rests in the answer to this question which is:
(1) They aren’t interested in the best interests of the public; they’re interested in appealing to and preserving a system of governance where they’re in control and do as they wish.
(2) They are only interested in preventing the loss of control, regardless of the damage it causes or the losses it accrues to the American public, of a power-system that uses you as a form of fuel.
So you see, this country’s elections are not free and open; not even close! Yes, Carson, Cruz or Trump may not be the best of all possible candidates however, they are clearly the best of the choices made available. If only for one reason (and there are several good reasons that they are however, I find no reason to support any of the remaining four) and that is because they represent the very first opportunity, in the last 30 years (at least) where the American public has the opportunity to truly throw a wrench into a system designed to fail the American people.
You have a choice, marginal as it is, however promising in that it might very well mark the beginning of an end to aristocratic rule so desperately needed. It’s amazing to think of how much there is to gain if one’s willing to lose control!
The following are a select group of responses to questions/comments received after the original article was published. We believe you will find them of interest.
#1: This type of article is imbedded with a risk, the type of risk that exposes the level of damage done by the political elite to the public conscience. If you read the entirety of the comments nearly 63% descend into a political divide and never bother to consider a best course of action if order is ever to be restored to the political process; the underlying theme of the article.
To be clear, TIMF will never take a political position, but it does aim to stake a position on political divisiveness particularly when it runs contrary to the intended design of this Nations form of Government and the fundamental principles upon which it is built; these principles are the fulcrum whose stability should be the concern of every American precisely because they are not or should they ever be a function of politics.
Curtis C. Greco, Founder
