The Party of Hypocrisy

Voters in Kinston, NC, abolished political parties from participation in local elections.  The electorate could then choose from among candidates on the basis of their individual track records and stated intentions; there would be no knee-jerk support for one party or another.  Political contributions would be to individuals rather than perceived group ideologies or anticipated paybacks.

Then lo and behold, in swoops O-bumaHolder and the party of live-as-we-dictate.  The crowd of Obumites that sniveled, whined, and whimpered when the Supreme Court ruled that political speech cannot legally be rationed has now subverted that ruling by forcing political speech to be divided by party line.  Experience shows that independent candidates rarely win elections.  

Forcing the political debate into two channels rations, or limits, political speech by confining the contest just to official party lines.  Rather than having an open marketplace of political ideas discussed and debated, rather than allowing voters to select from candidates whose philosophies might embrace parts of the platforms of both major parties and other sources, these totalitarians have imposed quotas on political ideas by limiting the number of voices in the conversation.

An attempt to move away from the antiquated and ineffective two-party system has been quashed by political appointees who oppose the principle of one-man-one-vote representation.  Preventing open discourse among all available ideas is merely a means of ensuring that some voices are not heard. That it is done under the claim of universal representation typifies Theftocrat hypocrisy.  It also reeks of segregation and elitism.

May your gods be with you.