About Me

Name:Charles Lewis
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Up CLose with the Real Bad Guys

Samir Kantar was released from an Israeli prison yesterday and returned to his Hezbollah comrades in Lebanon (itself a former Christian nation, since absolutely ravaged by that terrorist menagerie), in what was sardonically portrayed as a "prisoner exchange." In return for the unleashing back on the civilized world of Kantar and four similar demons, Israel received the two soldiers whose kidnapping two years ago provoked a war between that nation and Lebanese Hezbollah - Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser.

[This five-for-two "swap" was actually more in line with reason than previous "deals," in which the ratio has often been 500 (terrorists) to 1 (Israeli).]

There was just one hitch in the "mega-trade" (the same one present in some of the above referenced prior "transactions") "Prisoners" Regev and Golwasser were returned somewhat dead - no doubt having been tortured to slow, agonizing deaths. Contrastingly, the Hezbollah "players" were whole, sound, and healthy, having lavished in Israeli prisons, where their lives were likely much better than the squalor in which Hamas forces its Palestinian subjects to live (for purposes of keeping them desperate enough to continue their campaigns of suicide attacks).

Kantar's words, upon his return: "We swear by God ... to continue on your same path and not to retreat until we achieve the same stature that God bestowed on you [referencing a fallen heinous comrade - now ostensibly busy deflowering his 70-odd maidens - at whose grave the words were spoken]."

That Kantar had been considered worthy of release taxes one's imagination, in terms of how despicable must have been the crimes of those still imprisoned. Kantar had shot an Israeli father on a beach in front of his 4-year-old daughter, then drowned him, as she was forced to watch. Next he bludgeoned the girl to death via quite a few blows with the butt of his rifle.

He wasn't finished. He proceeded to the family's home, where he sought out more victims. The girl's mother and 2-year-old sister were hiding in a small storage area adjacent to a bedroom. The toddler began to cry, and the mom held her hand over the little girl's mouth to silence her, accidentally smothering her to death. A few minutes later, Kanter killed an Israeli policeman.

And this was one of the types Israeli Traitor-in-Chief Ehud Olmert felt worthy of release - in exchange for Israeli corpses. Actually makes a sick sort of sense. Israeli corpses - both sides seem to agree - are worth more than these scumbags are, alive and kicking.

Some reflection is in order. These are the sort of people that presidential candidates like Obama, Paul, Baldwin, and Barr tell us we should sit down with and talk to. The ones we supposedly provoked into attacking us on 9/11.

The kind of vermin whom the last three of these candidates depict as victims of American "imperialism."

The genre that Obama finds so minimally threatening he advocates dismantling of our defenses and ceasing of any future upgrades.

The term, "animal" is too generous for swine like Kantar and his millions of clones worldwide. "Monster" says it better, but there really isn't an English word that adequately describes them.

Perhaps "monster" does suffice to characterize the aforementioned "leaders" who would appease them.

I'm not sure.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pigskin Politics

In case you haven't noticed, America's political goalposts keep moving further to the left every election cycle. When I voted for George Bush (I told friends I did so only because I was convinced he didn't want me to - so appalling were his antics seemingly designed, in true RINO fall-on-your sword fashion, to get lifelong open communist John Kerry elected - and I wasn't going to let him get away with it), I told myself that was as far left as I was going to let my personal goalposts get pushed.

Well, John McCain is so far left he makes George Bush look like George Gipp (as in "the Gipper," himself a football hero). So far left that if either he or Obama wins, there is no more America.

Paths to citizenship, lack of a fence, and intimidation of border agents - via incarceration - to the point that they dare not do their jobs in many circumstances mean we're about to turn, demographically, into one of those South or Central American countries electing communist dictators as presidents. And there goes free speech, the web, property rights, gun rights, the sanctity of marriage and of life itself, American sovereignty, and the "oil-starved-while-we're-sitting-on-top-of-the-world's-greatest-potential-supply" economy, as well.

Either way. Wrap your mind around that, and drive through the ball carrier.

Just as surely as Obama will run us out of the stadium, McCain will push us into the stands. Either way, it's over; the game is lost. Our children face a future of gas price-induced starvation and/or communist or Islamofascist one world slavery, with Christianity a capital offense.

Sorry, GOP fans, it's no more, "Hold that line!" for me. America desperately needs to "Push 'em back, push 'em back, Waaaaaay back!' and fast.

Alan Keyes blew out the field in the '96 Republican debates so badly that even in the ultra-liberal DC area where I resided he ran up the score in an informal WMAL on-air poll. Consequently, he has not been permitted, in general, in debates ever since.

He is absolutely down-the-line Reaganite Christian conservative. He even knows the communists, Islamists and world federalist socialists (and not us) are the world's bullies. And he doesn't blame America for 9/11. And he's an all-pro icon in the movement.

And he's running. He has organizations in all 50 states, a chance for ballot access in most of them and official write-in status in the rest, a brand new party (America's Independent Party), umbrella affiliation under existing 3rd parties where appropriate, independent status where that fits the bill, and the unabashed locker room prayers of Christians and conservatives nationwide.

The clock is ticking; it's past the 2-minute warning, and we are not giving up. Find out how you can get involved by going to
http://www.selfgovernment.us/aip/. It ain't over till the final gun. Immaculate receptions have happened before; "hail, Mary's" have connected.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Pauldwin," Barr echo 'Bama

A "who said it" game on the conservative alternatives to the Marxism of "ObamaCain"...and why the only one I can support is Alan Keyes

by Charles Lewis
Moderator
SaveAmericaSummit

Multiple Choice:  Who said it?:
On the California Supreme Court ruling that overturned the expressed will of the electorate and mandated same sex marriages:
 
"The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our nation was founded."
(a) Barack Obama, (b) Hillary Clinton, (c) Bob Barr, (d) Nancy Pelosi, (e) Rosie O'Donnell    [answer: c]
 
"Vietnam is our friend!"
(a) Barack Obama, (b) Hillary Clinton, (c) Jeremiah Wright, (d) Ron Paul, (e) Angela Davis    [answer: d (in last GOP presidential debate)]
 
On relations with Russian dictator and former KGB Chief Vladimir Putin, who has threatened our allies in Europe if they cooperate with our purely defensive SDI program (for which the only conceivable motivation for opposing is that Putin wishes no impediments to his ability to wipe us out with his huge arsenal of nuclear ICBM's):
 
"We should not be antagonizing Russia by attempting to expand NATO. There is no reason why Russia could not become a friend and ally of the United States. Free and fair trade with Russia and a noninterventionist foreign policy in Europe would do much to endear American interests to Russia."
(a) Barack Obama, (b) Hillary Clinton, (c) Chuck Baldwin, (d) Al Franken, (e) Oprah Winfrey    [answer: c]
 
On China's threat to devour our freedom loving ally, Taiwan:
 
"That's a border war, and they should deal with it"
(a) Barack Obama, (b) Hillary Clinton, (c) Raul Castro, (d) Fidel Castro, (e) Ron Paul    [answer: e]
 
"The Soviets had the technology. They were 90 miles off our shore, and they had nuclear weapons there. But we were able to talk to them. We took our missiles out of Turkey. They took the missiles out of Cuba. We should be talking to people like this. It's the lack of diplomacy that is the greatest threat, not the weapons themselves."
(a) Barack Obama, (b) Ron Paul, (c) George McGovern, (d) Jimmy Carter, (e) Bill Clinton    (answer: b)
 
"In the first place, our troops are no longer fighting a war, they are an occupation force, which occupies a sovereign country ... The Iraqi people resent our occupation as much as we would resent another nation stronger than ours invading and occupying America ... I'm sure many of us would also become 'insurgents.'"
(a) Barack Obama, (b) Dennis Kucinich, (c) Rosie O'Donnell, (d) Jim McDermott, (e) Chuck Baldwin    [answer: e]
 
"On my first day as commander-in-chief, I will direct the Joint Chiefs of Staff and our commanders on the ground to devise and execute a plan to immediately withdraw our troops..."
(a) Barack Obama, (b) Hillary Clinton, (c) Angela Davis, (d) Ron Paul, (e) John Edwards    [answer: d]
 
On the US presence in Iraq: "I'm in line with ... a complete withdrawal as soon as possible."
(a) Barack Obama, (b) Hillary Clinton, (c) Bob Barr, (d) Osama Bin Laden, (e) John Kerry    [answer: c]
 
"The United States invaded Iraq under false pretenses..."
(a) Barack Obama, (b) Ron Paul, (c) John Kerry, (d) Ibrahim Hooper, (e) Osama Bin Laden    [answer: b]
 
"Failing to understand why 9/11 happened and looking for a bureaucratic screw-up to explain the whole thing-- while using the event to start an unprovoked war unrelated to 9/11-- have dramatically compounded the problems all Americans and the world face ... The real reasons are either denied or ignored: oil, neo-conservative empire building, and our support for Israel over the Palestinians."
(a) Barack Obama, (b) Ward Churchill, (c) Rosie O'Donnell, (d) Ron Paul,, (e) Louis Farrakhan    [answer: d]
 
On border agent political prisoners Compean and Ramos:
 
"I would have prosecuted them."
(a) Barack Obama, (b) John McCain, (c) Lindsay Graham, (d) Antonio Villaraigosa, (e) Bob Barr    [answer: e]
 
 
Appeasement is a life-and-death issue, and Baldwin, Barr, and Paul all flunk the test.  And let's not call these guys "isolationists."  I'm an isolationist - I want no foreign nation or organization to have the slightest influence over American affairs; I'm a lifelong America firster, I've never rooted for anyone other than an American ina sports event, and I don't want us involved in external affairs where our urgent interests are not at stake.  But these aren't isolationists - they're appeasers, just as surely as is Obama.

Look, folks, if there really were a move to establish an American empire, most of the world would be lined up to be a part of it, just as they're lined up at the border trying to sneak in.  All my life till these ideological hybrids came along, "Yankee imperialism" was a term used only by the commies and islamofascists - used only when we dared lift a finger to try to slow down their imperialism.

What I find most unsettling is that these candidates - much of the rest of whose platforms do indeed offer sound constitutionalist alternatives to the Marxism of the Republican and Democrat standard bearers - regularly spout this traditional red rhetoric without it seeming to bother them one whit.  I find it so unsettling it sends chills up ad down my spine - so unsettling I cannot convince myself they're really on our side.
 
Alan Keyes is the one true conservative presidential candidate who doesn't demonize America at a time when her sons and daughters are in harm's way.  I'm supporting his national independent candidacy.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

10 steps that would make energy affordable and save America

...but that our pols prohibit (apparently because they oppose that outcome)

by Charles R Lewis,
Moderator, SaveAmericaSummit

America now appears on the brink of a veritable dark age, just when she can least afford one. Driven by out of control and out of sight energy prices (with the cost of food and just about everything else inexorably following suit), her prosperous lifestyle is steadily seeping beyond the reach of her sleeping masses.

And this is occurring just at a time when the apparent impending election of one of the three remaining marxist presidential candidates figures to plunge this nation into the hell of absolute socialism, which will drain the lifeblood of the incentive-based system that has made us great, gut our First and Second Amendment liberties, and destroy what is left of our rugged individualist demographic.

It's happening even as our tradition of innovation is at stake, as our congress prepares to destroy traditional patent protections in favor of a ChiCom pirate-friendly system. ...And as that same congress is poised to override a presidential veto of a farm bill packed with unprecendented corporate welfare for big agribusiness.

Most importantly, it's taking place at a time when we need to be financially sound as we take on the threats of Islamoafascist terror, aggressive Chinese expansionism, KGB-based Russian opposition to our purely defensive SDI system, and UN one world totalitarianism (to which Bush would have us submit, via UNCLOS, and Obama wants us to surrender totally via his Global Poverty Act).

Yes, the timing for the coming era of not being able to afford to drive (and therefore to work), or even to "eat what we want to" (in Obama's scornful words) is perfect. In the name of "saving the planet," we are destroying America, liberty, the Christian west, and western civilization in general, which are that planet's only hopes.

The consistency of this outcome makes it painfully clear that this is the real objective. Otherwise our political leaders would allow at least some of the following:

1 The drilling for oil on Alaska's north slope, 1,000 miles from civilization. where we have enough oil to place us on the level of a major OPEC nation. The natural gas pipeline project of a few decades back did nothing to hurt flora and fauna. The enormous increase in supply of oil could not help but drive prices way down (at last check, it was 15¢ a gallon in oil-rich communist Venezuela).

2 The drilling for oil offshore, especially in the Caribbean, where the Chinese and Cubans are currently stealing it from under our noses. That's within sight of parts of Florida, no less.

3 The insistence (about to be abdicated via Bush's attempted ratification of the UNCLOS - or Law of the Seas - treaty) that the vast petroleum resources under the North Pole, to which we were first to arrive (long the standard for such claims) is ours. This is critical, as that treaty will doubtlessly lead to the ceding to Russia (with its huge supply of nuclear ICBM's) of not only this massive oil supply, but the strategic polar region itself.

4 The building (which hasn't happened for well over three decades) of new oil refineries and updating of the ones we have. At this critical time, our refinery output is actually declining.

5 The conversion of coal (which we have in an abundance that could make us the equivalent of Saudi Arabia in this field) to gasoline. Again, it's the "environmentalists" qua anti-Americans in our midst who are blocking this huge opportunity.

6 The conversion of shale - of which we are said to have the potential for over a trillion barrels - to gasoline. In Utah and elsewhere, we are blessed with the world's greatest supply, and we now have the technology to start expoiting it. But the very real prospect of $15 a gallon gas (and food riots) isn't enough to budge the environazis who control our government.

7 The building of more (squeaky clean environmentally) nuclear plants (something else we haven't done in over three decades). France runs almost exclusively on this highly economical technology. If you haven't noticed, electric bills have tripled in recent years, and are on the verge of skyrocketing again.

8 The building of many more hydroelectric dams. The snail darter/spotted owl genre of excuses continues to block this safe, clean option.

9 The exploitation of our massive natural gas resources. Home heating gas prices have gone through the roof at a rate that dwarfs even the increased costs of electricity. Natural gas is a far cleaner commodity than oil, yet the environmentalists find rationales to block it.

10 Taking the handcuffs off our auto manufacturers and innovators in terms of fuel efficiency. Back in the '70's, there was a lot of rustling about emerging technologies with the potential to get over 100 mpg, a technology that was summarily squelched. Environmental regulations (which tend to merely replace one pollutant with another - usually more toxic - one) greatly reduce the mpg of most cars. A dozen years ago, I purchased a Hyundai stick shift that was the cheapest model on the market, and it got literally 45 miles per gallon on the highway. Try finding one like that nowadays.

It would seem that all of the above is a no-brainer. Far from this, it's not even part of the discussion, for the most part. This is the result of a major disinformation campaign - mostly on the part of our mainstream media and "education" system, especially in the three major areas outlined below. To accomplish the above, we need to stop listening to the lies and liars hereby listed:

1 The global warming alarmists. The founders of both Greenpeace and the Weather Channel have decried the man-made global warming threat mantra as totally fallacious and politically driven. Over 31,000 American scientists have recently risked their careers to stand up to the Al Gore crowd. We are now in the midst of a decade of cooling, with this year in many respects the coldest on record. And over the period of the decades where we were warming, all of the other solar system planets warmed as well (it's the sun, stupid).

Carbon is good for the environment, as it nourishes the plants that nourish us. And 800 years ago, when the world was much warmer than it is now (and when the technology on which the liars blame the recent warming did not exist), there were no environmental catastrophes, and civilization flourished. There were even functional farming communities in Greenland, which is now buried under massive ice.

2 The tree huggers and the "personhood for animals" mafia. The polar bear population has quintupled in the past few decades. In one particiularly egregious recent example, an owl was declared endagered - removing millions of Tucson-area acres from potential development - just because its numbers were modest on the US side of the border, while at the same time the critter was ubiquitous in Mexico.

The Bush administration administered no meaningful punishment to the perpetrators of the linx hair fraud. It goes on and on, and the results always cripple humans, supposedly for the sake of wild animals that were created to adapt at any rate, and do not need our help.

3 Those who perpetuate the myth that oil is a depletable fossil fuel. America's foremost investigative reporter, Jerome Corsi, wrote, with Craig Smith several yeers ago, Black Gold Sranglehold, which pretty well established that oil is abiotic (non-fossil) and that it is formed in the earth's core, where it is virtually inexhaustible. More recent information has only lent support to this contention. A huge Brazilian offshore discovery has just about proven it beyond doubt.

Thus, the argument that even if we exploit all the above listed resources we'll eventually run out and have to face what we're facing now is specious. We have every reason to go after this God-bestowed benefit with every tool and all the energy we can muster.

Instead, what we get from our "leadership" are calls for even more government intervention in the affairs of private stockholder (you and me, especially via our retirement plan investments) owned oil companies and their profits (negligible compared to the share government gets in taxes)...oh, and a clamoring for even higher energy taxes, explicitly to control our behavior, in terms of consumption.

That's right - less freedom, bigger government, more restrictions on industry and the profit motive, and even higher prices are the answers forthcoming from our government. And - except in terms of nuclear plants - John McCain is no better than Clinton or Obama (who adamantly oppose all ten of the above steps) on these issues.

The incoming administration - at least if it's a Democrat or Republican one - will usher in a Mad-Max-like era of economic and social chaos in America that will far eclipse that of the great depression. And that's a best case scenario. This is a pity, as we could completely avoid this if we took a few common sense, liberty-based steps.

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CP convention, part 2 - and a ray of hope

This follow-up to yesterday's How to rig a convention, relegate your party to permanent irrelevance. and maybe kill your country doubles as a reply to a sincere brother in Christ who had expressed some lingering doubts.  For obvious reasons, I have withheld his name:
Brother,
 
I apologize for having been so abrupt with you this afternoon, but I was at the time hopelessly submerged in about 375 e-mails that had piled up during my trip, and was reluctant to cover ground I'd thought we'd seen the last of in our rear view.  I didn't even bother to read your piece; I just saw you didn't agree on a few of my points and were still receptive to Chuck.  Now that I'm out from under that pile - and now that I've perused your e-mail - I do want to respond:
 
1    True, there are areas where Chuck seems to depart from Paul.  Chuck's uncompromising position on abortion is one, and that's extremely important.  But then Paul himself has been sold to us as an ally on abortion, when a close look at the fine print of his record (or even at his YouTube interviews) shows quite the contrary - all the way up to letting the states decide, and then nullifying that by voting against the legitimate fed role of prohibiting the transporting of minors across state lines for one.
 
The only other area where I've heard Baldwin depart from the Paul platform is in terms of gays in the military (and I'll give him credit for that, as well).  Both want to jettison "don't ask, don't tell," but Paul wants to replace it with "tell, don't do anything" and Baldwin wants to go back to the old, sound policy.
 
But I do not think they diverge on much else in terms of Paul's "values" issues record, which, as you know, is "apPauling."  I assert this with full confidence, in that Paul couched most of it - right up to his defense of the Terri Schiavo atrocity - in constitutionalist rhetoric, and, remember, Baldwin has repeatedly told us we weren't Christians if he didn't back Paul.  If Chuck were really with us on this plethora of issues, there's no way he would have been that adamant in his support for Paul.
 
2    In terms of foreign policy (which is the part of Paul I find most objectionable, due to its apparently consciously gross illogic and utter variance with the facts), Chuck is 100% on board with Ron.  Chuck virtually never opened his mouth at the convention without at least at some point referencing the ludicrous notion of an "American empire" or demonizing the "military industrial complex" that has kept us free up to now.  Again, with our progeny in harm's way in the face of the world's real imperialist monster - the communist,islamofascist-UN 3-headed variety - this amounts to treason, as far as I am concerned.
 
And, remember, his Obama-like plans to abandon both oil-rich Iraq and Afghanistan (where he actually exceeds Obama's surrender outline) to the terrorists (causing over 4,000 deaths of America's finest to have been in vain) is an area where he vowed at the convention that he will not compromise.
 
It's at this point I always get the "Ron Paul gets more military donations than any other [single] candidate" mantra thrown in my face (along with allusions to his support among Christians and border groups likes Ms. Nightengale's).  And again, my aversion to atrocious (or worse, self-serving) logic is activated.
 
Those arguments commit one of the simplest fallacies in the (elementary) book - confuting correlation with causality.  True, his support in those areas could be a result of his support, conversely, for those groups' causes and/or well being.  But they could just as easily be the result of his being an effective politician.  This would be far from the first time a pol got the backing of a block of voters whose interests he in reality opposes (one only has to look as far as Obama, who in some polls projects as getting a majority of the evangelical vote, to encounter a stunning example).  Even a cursory look at Paul's record in terms of those issues (see The Ron Paul (and Chuck Baldwin) Matter) shows that it is the "effective politician" explanation that fits the facts.
 
3    At the convention (which amounted to a virtual testimonial to Paul - you had to be there), Chuck was repeatedly presented as the "next best thing" option, including in Baldwin's own speeches.  One speaker articulated it as directly as one could ever do so, stating that he was sure everybody would love to have Paul as the nominee, but that Paul has declined, so they were left with selecting the man Paul would throw his support to (Chuck, it goes without saying, although the speaker did, in fact, explicitly "say").
 
Chuck's an unabashed Paul surrogate, a clone, a body double, a virtual puppet.  Or at least that's how he was sold at the convention.
 
4    The behavior of Baldwin (via his operatives) both before and during the convention paints a picture of deceit and ruthlessness worthy of the prototype Ron Paul groupie I've come to know and hate.  I outlined a little of what went on with the platform committee in my account of the convention; since then, I've gathered more specifics:
 
The Keyes people were made to feel totally unwelcome, in no uncertain terms, from the start.  Literally everything they proposed was rejected out of hand and without discussion.  A couple of eminent Constitutional scholars from the Keyes camp found 5 or 6 planks that in themselves were unconstitutional.  They offered re-writes that would have precisely accomplished the party's objectives, only constitutionally, and they were rebuffed.
 
On foreign policy, the Keyes reps were able to ingeniously re-word certain clauses in areas of divergence so that they should have been at once acceptable to both sides.  The committee refused to even look at these changes (remember, it was the party itself that had invited Alan to run, and he'd won by a landslide, among rank-and-file Constitutionalists, in an on-line poll).
 
The Keyes folks even found one clause where their only proposed redaction was the correction of a grammatical error (subject/verb disagreement, or something like that).  One would have thought that, even in a rigged process, the Pauldwinistas would have been happy to accept this correction - both to make the party look less illiterate and to make it appear they were willing to give some in at least some areas.  (That, apparently, was not their objective; rather, it seems to have been to leave the Keyes forces with no illusion that they would get any quarter at the convention.)  Even that change was summarily rejected.
 
Finally, the Keyes faction, I understand, tried a test.  They presented a proposed plank that was word for word identical to one from the Constitution Party's '04 platform - the one that was serving as a point of departure for this year's, and which was altered, as a rule, cosmetically, if at all, in the final '08 product.  Even that submission was turned down, simply because it came from Keyes (or appeared to).  I can tell you, as an ex-basketball coach, it was at this point that I would have pulled my team off the court.
 
As for the convention proper, I have little doubt that the last minute addition of several fringe candidates (who, collectively, were to garner only about a vote apiece in the tally of over 500 - some of them got none whatsoever, according to my observations) was a Baldwin/Phillips ploy, designed to clog the calendar and limit Keyes to minimal time.  You see, the lengthy, gratuitous Phillips assault on Alan's character that opened the nomination process both gave Chuck a big boost and started Alan out in negative territory.
 
Then Baldwin was allowed his own speech, in which he was able to demonstrate his "magnanimity" toward Alan (right - after his longtime best buddy attack dog had done all the damage), followed by four other faux "candidates" all of whom used their 15 minutes essentially to provide convincing (from the standpoint of coming from feigned rivals) endorsements of Baldwin.  In retrospect, and realizing the depths to which the Pauldwin campaign customarily has sunk, I believe this was all planned out.
 
Then Alan had his "chance" (with his promised 20 minutes evidently reduced to at most 16 or 17, according to my watch).  That's about 15 minutes for Alan, after 2 hours of solid Chuck, with a profusion of pot shots - unanswerable in the tiny space Alan was given - thrown in for good measure.  And, boy, did he make the most of it, even with the handwriting on the wall.  Indications were that he had "overcome."
 
But then Bircher John McManus's 45-minute thinly veiled anti-Keyes speech, which immediately preceded the balloting, was offered up to quell the groundswell.  Plus who knows how many would-be Keyes delegates had been excluded in the same arbitrary way I was tossed from the South Carolina CP?  I can tell you for a fact that, at least in SC and at the southern regional office (which doubles as the Florida party), nothing but self-serving, Ron Paul KoolAid drinking logic was applied, at least in my case.  Both groups, by the way, voted unanimously for Chuck,
 
Even in an area where, in yesterday's piece, I gave credit I felt was due (Jim Clymer's scolding of Howard Phillips for his tantrum against Alan), I was later disabused.  It seems the Baldwin camp got a hold of the video of the rant, and have circulated on the Internet as supposed prima facie evidence of Keyes' unfitness.  The very thought of this abominable display being anything but burned and buried is both disgusting and mind boggling.
 
Finally, there's the matter of Baldwin's offer of the second spot on the ticket.  In my opinion, after the uniformly shabby treatment Alan had received at the hands of Chuck's brigade, this offer was most likely perfunctorily extended, perhaps so that Chuck could say he tried to mend fences.  Or perhaps, as I posited in the previous piece, it was intended to head off any possible independent or other party run (the one I pray for) on Alan's part.  In any event, one could scarcely expect anything but an "are you kidding me?" reaction.
 
But in Alan's post mortem remarks in his suite to his faithful, what let us know he would decline any such overture was his emphasis on his grave differences in critical policy areas with the Paul/Baldwin forces.  He made it clear that he agreed with my long-held view that the "Pauldwin" policies would leave us utterly friendless and facing a world united in pursuit of our extinction.  In retrospect, it seems he sensed the VP offer that was coming, and he was letting us know that to him, who had no purely personal ambitions, such an offer would be unacceptable.
 
I do want to express my pleasure in the fact that this closing meeting ended with Alan in a prayer circle with four SaveAmericaSummit pastors (all of whom had been chosen to offer benedictions before the assembled delegates at one time or another) and my humble, unworthy, sinful self.  I've since heard encouraging news about a continued Keyes candidacy.  I believe I can speak for SAS as a whole in saying he can count on our continued wholehearted support.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How to rig a convention, relegate your party to permanent irrelevance. and maybe kill your country


by Charles R Lewis
 
It's April 27, 2008, and America's faint flicker of hope is walking a tightrope over an abyss of one world totalitarian socialism.  Beneath one side of the chord lies the in-your-face, virtually identical Marxist, oppressive policies of the three-headed HillabaMcCain, a hazard by now identifiable, ironically, to just about anybody outside the government-schooled American majority.
 
The other side appears at first glance more inviting to the rest of us, but it's a disguise, the work of the RonPaul/AlexJones axis, which gets our confidence by informing us of a large body of urgent facts unavailable in the mainstream media or even the conservative talk circuit, then betrays that confidence by
 
(1) converting us into hypocrites who blind ourselves to the alarmingly un-Christian policies of that faction's central figure (see http://lewislyspeaking.blogspot.com/2008/04/ron-paul-and-chuck-baldwin-matter.html),
 
(2) coaxing us into giving great power to the far left via our chanting of the most agonizingly illogical, most distant from the truth traditional mantras of the communists about our country and her military and weapons industry that are just about the only institutions that have kept us free lo these many decades,
 
(3) brainwashing us into swallowing whole the group's fatal foreign policy, which amounts to feeding our friends (such that remain) to our enemies, and
 
(4) upending the candidacies of the few genuine visionary patriots (Tom Tancredo. Alan Keyes) in the race.
 
If you doubt any of the above (especially the last point), I wish you had been with me (along with several other SaveAmericaSummit - SAS - members) in Kansas City this week at the Ron Paul Cult Lovefest referred to euphemistically as the Constitution Party (CP) National Convention..  The pertinent speeches consisted essentially of the message that the party had wanted to nominate Libertarian Populist Ron Paul, but that he'd turned them down, and that therefore they chose to nominate Paul's hand-picked surrogate, even though that individual had next to zero credentials.no name recognition or following, and no chance of mustering any significant endorsements, and figured to just maybe get as much as 1% of the popular vote in this year when America has everything to lose and no candidate for conservatives to support.
 
...Which might make sense on some level if the party didn't have the brilliant, solidly constitutionalist, and fabulously eloquent Dr Alan Keyes (whom the CP itself had wooed to leave the GOP specifically to seek the party's presidential nomination) on hand, ready and willing.  Keyes is noted for being excluded from the Republican debates the three times he's run for that party's nod - for the simple reason he tends to win them all hands down, according to most observers (and because he's a genuine patriotic Christian conservative, and the GOP simply can't have that).
 
Keyes is a national conservative icon (he had won the party's online poll - among rank and file members - by a landslide).  Major wags (with names like Farah, Coulter, Boortz, Limbaugh, Schlafly, Levin, Dobson) who've burned their bridges with John McCain, pretty much all know and revere Alan Keyes and would at some point have had to endorse him, if only to maintain their credibility.  And behind them would almost certainly have followed masses of disaffected and disenfranchized conservatives, and a new major party just might have emerged.
 
But instead, the CP chose Pastor Chuck Baldwin, whose claim to fame is having garnered all of 150,000 votes nationwide as the party's vice presidential nominee in '04, and whose presidential aspirations can be best characterized as a wish to become the Neville Chamberlain of the War Against Islamic Terrorists And Their Bolshevik And Globalist Sponsors (WAITATBAGS, if you will).
 
The handwriting was on the wall from the start this week for Alan, witness his icy reception at the platform committee meetings, where the Keyes people tried in good faith to reconcile his minor differences to the satisfaction of both sides.  As Keyes recounted it, not only was the committee unwilling to change one jot or tittle, it wasn't even willing to discuss any of them.  I'll give you one example:
 
SAS had asked its reps on the committee to try to insert the concept of "oil" (ever heard of that?) into the energy plank, from which it was missing.  A delegate from Alaska (the one state that was to give all of its votes to Keyes) beat them to it, and our Greg Thompson emerged satisfied that the "unintended omission" (as CP National Chairman Jim Clymer had described it in an on-air chat with me a couple weeks earlier) would be remedied.  The document, however, was later distributed with the same flaw.
 
At the platform's presentation for general approval, I went to the microphone to address this.  I told the assemblage that I wasn't asking for specific mention of ANWR (or the rest of Alaska, with its vast reserves and willing populace), or the Caribbean (which Cuba and China are currently depleting), or the North Pole (rightfully ours, but which President Bush is busy trying to cede to Russia, via the Law of the Seas Treaty), or our failure to approve the building of a new refinery in over thirty years...Or even, given the fact that Dr Jerome Corsi - who'd helped discover that petroleum is not an exhaustible "fossil fuel," but a virtually infinitely available substance from the earth's mantel - was to speak the next day, that the currently accepted premise is a lie concocted apparently to restrict our movements in the coming police state...
 
No, I was just asking that the word "oil" be added to the platform's list (consisting of just about every other form of energy). of energy forms which the platform stipulated should be free from government prohibition of the exploitation.  I did, though, pose the question as to how high gas prices had to get before the party decided it was time to allow us to drill for our own soil instead of ransoming it from the terrorists and communists.  A voice rang out from across the  ballroom (which an unconfirmed report later told me was that of CP founder Howard Phillips - more on him later) to the effect that I should not be allowed to speak, as I was not an official delegate (more on that state of affairs later, as well).  The matter died there.
 
As the issue had been raised and rejected in committee, we have nothing to conclude but that the Constitution Party is firmly against domestic oil production.  Its overall position on energy is approximately that of John McCain.
 
A platform thoroughly hostile to Keyes (whose views on the issues match those of SAS better than do those of any other candidate of any party this election year) having emerged, it was time for the presidential nominating process to begin.  Phillips, who had been scheduled to address the convention on general topics, also wished to give the nominating speech for Baldwin.  He was told he could combine the two speeches, in opening the nominating process.
 
Phillips proceeded to launch into a lengthy diatribe that amounted to a vicious, capricious character assassination of Dr. Keyes.  He accused Keyes of being everything from a neocon to a carpetbagger from the Republican Party who just wanted to exploit the CP for his own ends (conveniently forgetting that it was the party that had invited Alan).  And the fact that Alan didn't want to simply hand over Iraq to the terrorists - well, that went totally against what the party was all about, you see.
 
The venomous tirade was so over the top that Clymer (a respect-worthy, gentlemanly individual) actually took time to apologize for Phillips' "denigration of an honorable man."  But seeds had been planted.
 
Phillips' soliloquy had taken up so much time - and there were so many frivolous candidates who had filed (the only two serious ones were Keyes and Baldwin, but it seemed that at this ad hoc affair all comers got equal time) that an extremely streamlined process had to be contrived to keep the program on schedule.  The 9 or 10 candidates met with Clymer, and it was decided that each would get 15 minutes combined for nominations (if desired) and their own presentations, with Keyes given an additional five minutes, to compensate for the Phillips calumny.  Each of the candidates chose to dispense with the nominating speeches and do all of the talking for himself.
 
Baldwin got his "15 minutes of fame" first, and no less than 4 of the other "candidates" used some of theirs to essentially present seconding speeches for Chuck (and lobby, in some cases, for the slot as his running mate).  This meant Chuck got approximately 2 hours of favorable speeches.
 
Then it came time for Keyes to speak.  (By my watch, he was denied the full 20 minutes promised, and seemed to have been given only fifteen.)  One can only imagine the pressure this man may have felt, at having to cram so much into so little time, and under such duress, at that.
 
As usual, this superior orator of our time spoke without notes.  He resisted being put on the defensive, answered none of the Phillips inventions and quarter truths directly, and simply gave his speech.  He presented his incredibly well thought out positions on the issues, and let that speak for itself.  He didn't sugar coat anything, and took on areas where he diverged somewhat from the CP line, explained the constitutional basis for his stances, and always emerged sounding sensible.  His words put the lie to the Phillips contentions that he was not in line with the Constitution or the party's principles that derive from that document.
 
As the speech went on, Keyes' passion built to a crescendo.  It was pitifully little time to present even a fraction of what he needed to say, and one would have thought that at least the unexpected subtraction of about five minutes might have thrown him.  Not Alan.  The thing went off like clockwork and ended with a dazzling display of thoroughly substantive and totally cogent verbal pyrotechnics.
 
He got a standing ovation (from about half the crowd).  Given the circumstances, it was the most moving speech I ever heard.  (Mine were far from the only eyes there that could not remain dry.)
 
After this segment came a "question and answer" period, with all of the questions coming from Mary Starrett, from whose writings I have derived the knowledge that she is very much in the "Pauldwin" camp.  Predictably, she lobbed slow-pitch softballs to Baldwin and reserved the tough ones for Alan.
 
She asked the latter about his "dream" cabinet, and he did not cop out, providing a "someone like so-and-so" list.  He mentioned first Chief Justice Roy Moore, which drew applause, although his (very reasonable, in my view) reference to Duncan Hunter in terms of DOD met with surprising silence (another harbinger, as Hunter, while in tune with CP on nearly all issues. is not a surrender monger.
 
Baldwin's reply to a question on his non-negotiable positions included, predictably, an allusion to immediate pullouts in both Iraq and Afghanistan (who needs Barack?).  He also advanced his customary commie-style accusations of an "American empire mentality" (a grating theme he harped on practically every time he opened his mouth at the convention).
 
Keyes handled Starrett's curve ball on foreign aid (which the CP has traditionally opposed under any circumstances) adroitly, saying as charity, never (not a function of coercive obtained taxpayer funds, but rather of the church), for the advancement of America's strategic interests, yes.  His thorough knowledge of the Constitution once again showed, as national security is clearly a valid function of the feds.
 
Once again predictably, it was Baldwin (among all the candidates) who got the honors of fielding the last question, a veritable tee-ball that he obliging hit out of the park.
 
Then it was a few minutes of scheduled "mingling" time for the candidates and delegates.  This process displayed Alan Keyes at his most remarkable.  Varying crowds of a dozen or more stayed around the man for something like 5-7 hours, hanging on his every word.  He answered every question - including some hostile ones I heard from people wearing Baldwin buttons - with class and polish, and invariably seemed to disarm all doubters with his incredible on-his-feet reasoning and the obvious care with which he'd constructed each of his positions beforehand.
 
The performance conjured images of a Michael Jordan with his in-flight improvised moves, or a master jazz musician, able to think 16 bars ahead in the construction of a solo.  I held out hope that this genius of statesmanship had turned things around.
 
The next morning came the presidential polling of the various state delegations.  Phillips' speech had originally been scheduled for this hour before this tallying; he was replaced by a John Birch Society official, who delivered what amounted to yet another Baldwin endorsement.  Only worse.  It was what the Phillips attack would have been if he'd done it more shrewdly.  The Bircher's talk consisted mostly of listing various ills the CP wished to correct.  Fair enough.  But within each list, the one he emphasized by far the most heavily was inevitably the one where there was a shade of difference between the CP stance and that of Keyes.
 
This happened consistently enough that it could not have been by accident.  And this was the taste left in the delegates' mouths going into the individual state caucuses leading into the balloting.  And this balloting produced an approximately 3-1 Baldwin win.  And with that disappeared the Constitution Party's one chance of becoming anything but a distant also-ran.  And along with that - apparently at least - disappeared America's final chance at saving herself electorally.  Sad.
 
Oh, and for those of you unaware of why I wasn't a delegate, I was not eligible because I'd been kicked out of the state party by the chairman of the South Carolina CP, ostensively (according to the similarly incoherent southern region director, whose Florida delegation, like South Carolina's was to go 100% for Baldwin) because he (the SC chair) determined that I had gotten myself elected Secretary of the Greenville County CP (unanimously, by the way) illegally (since the chairman didn't approve it - he couldn't have, as he wasn't present to approve them either, meaning theoretically the other three officials elected at the same meeting should have been booted,as well, except they weren't).  (Never mind that I submitted the completed, perfect minutes of that meeting in record time - if you're totally confused by now, you know how I felt.)
 
I was told in the end that the South Carolina chairman has dictatorial power to do as he pleased with membership status in the state (a little ironic for a party dedicated to the rule of law, something not lost on the national credentials committee chairman, with whom I later spoke).  One would have thought that, at worst, I would have been relieved of my county Secretary duties, but, no, I was totally out of the state party, while remaining a member in good standing in the national.  It was eventually revealed that my removal had everything to do with my having publicly criticized party icon Ron Paul (himself never a member of the party at any level, by the way).  And my non-state-membership status kept there from being any possibility of my being a delegate, meaning I had no voice at the convention, in spite of the hundreds of hours I'd worked trying to build the party toward viability.
 
This may have some bearing on the explanation as to how Keyes could have won the on-line rank-and-file poll with huge numbers and with Baldwin barely registering, whereas the delegate poll at the convention was complete contrary.  I know of no other cases as bizarre as mine, but I have little doubt that in many states (the states set their own rules in terms of delegate selection and even the diverse ways in which their votes are counted at the convention), a  "Ron Paul litmus test" was applied is this totally arbitrary process..
 
A meeting with Keyes in his suite with his supporters produced an extended gem of an analysis by this master of such extemporaneous presentations.  Not at all bitter, Alan endeavored - successfully - to bolster our spirits.  Mine were lifted in the knowledge that God was still producing greatness among His flock, and the sense of privilege I felt being in the presence of this giant among men.
 
His reflections on how he always seemed to get so close to the breakthrough he sought, only to be asked to endorse some policy - in this case the CP's insane appeasement doctrine - that if he accepted it would mean death (in this case for America).  I later conveyed to him that my life experiences had been amazingly similar, but that I was not giving up and implored that he not do so either.  I thanked him for being an inspiration to me, and expressed the hope that I could in this way return the favor.  He thanked me warmly, and a group of us prayed with him before we left.
 
I understand that Baldwin later approached Keyes about the vice presidential nomination.   A Keyes acceptance would have put an end once and for all to even the fantasizing about a way out for this nation (via an instant third party, independent run, or whatever).  With Keyes subsumed in the Baldwin campaign and forced to adopt those objectionable policy positions, he'd be useless, and there would be likely nowhere else to turn.  And the ticket still would not get the necessary endorsements or mainstream support - not with Baldwin so out of the conservative mainstream, what with his Jane Fonda view of America.
 
Thankfully (and unsurprisingly), Dr Keyes chose not to prostitute himself.  And I can still dream about America's survival a little while longer.
 
A couple of closing notes:
 
Communism and Islamism are - by their inherent nature - about destroying American, western, and Christian civilization, and killing or enslaving us and our progeny.  They declared this from the start (both centuries ago and recently), and have since busied themselves 24/7 in pursuing these aims, on every front imaginable.  They each have declared all-out war on us, and nothing they have done since has given the impression that either of these declarations is hollow.
 
Under such conditions, I cannot for the life of me conceive of an action we might take against these enemies that could reasonably be considered "pre-emptive," "interventionist," or anything but self defense.  (Bush's Iraq affair, by the way - in which our troops' hands are utterly tied, in which we court martial them for acts of heroism, and in which we are standing idly by while the millions of Assyrian Christians there are annihilated, does not qualify - for these very reasons and others similar.)
 
Secondly, if Uncle Sam ever did decide he wanted to colonize the world, I reckon the vast majority of the world would kill to be included in the empire.  Or haven't you noticed that most of that part of Latin America that hasn't already invaded is lined up at the border to join their compadres that have?
 
My fear is that within the next couple of years (at the most) our problems will reach a critical mass where the demand for entry will be exceeded by the demand for escape.  Pray that some miracle keeps that from happening.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The True Nature of the Lies - Why Conservatives Are Divided

by Charles Lewis

Lewis's political rule of thumb:

In a managed-media-controlled society, every consequential governmental act has a political motive.  That motive is generally identical to the results of that act.  If you want to know why such a government has done something, follow the results.

The "absence of WMDs" in Iraq has been the pivotal political issue of recent American history. It's created the generally accepted impression that the Bush administration falisified evidence to justify an invasion, leading in turn to the Democrats' takeover of Congress, an impending unprecedentedly leftwing Democrat presidency, and even the acceptance of this leftist spin on the affair by a segment of the "enlightened right," leading to the Ron Paul phenomenon.

The "no-WMD" outcome has also meant saved face and enhanced the credibility and power for the United Nations (in harmony with an administration pushing UNCLOS and North American unification).

I'll demonstrate that these have been the intended effects of this "RINO" administration from the start.

What W has succeeded in doing (like other Surrogate Democrat prezzes before him, like "Daddy Bush" and "Tricky Dick") is systematically divide and de-energize the conservative base. He has about a third of us turned into "neolibs" - mouthing the left's "war for oil, imperialist neocon" rhetoric. Another third is willing to follow Dubya off the cliff like the lemmings who followed his dad and Nixon. No matter the nature of the mental gymnastics required to defend whatever lethal absurdity (as in ChiCom "Freeportgate" and the Dubai ports affair) he offers, these toadies march in lockstep.

That leaves a final third (from Joseph Farah to David Severin to Bill O'Reilly to yours truly) having wondered out loud why Bush has concealed the WMDs and Al Qaeda connections we've found. W - an internationist by breeding, is consistently dividing conservatives into opposing camps and setting the table for the return of the overt Marxist party (whose bidding he has done "under the radar") to power.

Bush rolls out the red carpet for criminal Mexicans and Salvadoreans who will get driver's licenses (not to mention "paths to citizenship") and "motor vote" virtually 100% Democratic (without even an attempt in a 2-term Republican presidency to repeal this Clintonista "motor voter" legislation that likely nets the Democrats about 5 million illicit votes per election cycle). Meanwhile he's persecuting true refugees from Cuba (who come from the identical stock that won 2000 for him in Florida) under Clinton's "wet foot, dry foot" policy - capsizing their boats, sending them home (to be tortured to death) even when they land on our soil, and prosecuting brave Americans who help them - as smugglers or murderers.

And hs regime tips off Mexico on Minuteman locations - and issues mandates for Border Patrol agents to refrain from investigating reports from Minutemen of illegal crossing citings. But the WMD thing is the most critical issue, the one that has us most confused and divided.

The Surrogate Democrat hypothesis is an apt one for both Bushes, and for Nixon/Ford. Nixon was no conservative. He instituted a socialistic wage/price freeze, initiated our racial spoils system, abandoned Taiwan and recognized China, and surrendered southeast Asia to the communists.

His lemming's cliff involved sending political hacks to burglarize the office of an opponent he led by 40 points at the time. And most conservative politicos either went down with this pseudo-con's ship or joined the bandwagon of condemning his "rightist" excesses. The net result was major losses in ensuing elections for the conservatism in which Nixon (contrary to the media hype) never partook.

All this should not have been a surprise if we recognize that Nixon, as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) - our internationalist "invisible government" - could have been expected to work against US interests, including handing a "mandate" to the "Dems" to wreak their more open brand of havoc.

By the time GHW Bush later took a similar dive ("Yes, new taxes"), it should have come as no surprise. Another CFR member, Daddy Bush had expelled just about all of the true conservative operatives he had inherited from the Reagan Administration, reverted to the Rockefeller school of Republicanism, and sold his conservative base out just about every way possible. But again, essentially out of aversion to the "alternative" Democratic Party (by then pure Marxist), conservatives tied their hopes to this pseudo-con, went down hard in the '92 elections, and suffered 8 years of Clintonism for their troubles. (Read Phyllis Schlafly's '64 classic, A Choice, not an Echo for documention of a long succession of prior "me too" GOP presidents and candidates who similarly fell on their swords for their Democratic "rivals.")

This current administration has eclipsed all records - even adjusted for inflation and population - for "entitlement" (read "welfare" program) spending. The same socialized medicine program that was so radical that Hillary could not get it through a Democratic Congress a decade ago has now become a reality under the "opposition" party, with fully 1/3 of our 300 million "insured" by the government.

A bi-cameral majority was not enough for W to pass ANWR drilling - even with gas prices out of reach of a many Americans and with us essentially at war with our principle foreign suppliers. But he spared no arm twisting to ram through CAFTA, which ceded about 1/3 of our sovereignty to Vicente Fox-types.

An unprecedentedly socialistic farm bill, the abolition of the 1st Amendment via "campaign finance reform," the unpunished lynx hair fraud, the non-endangered Tucson area owl off-limiting 1.2 billion acres, continuation of the Feinstein-Schumer "assault rifle" ban, breaking of a campaign promise to reverse Clinton's draconian National Monuments Order; the retention - with disastrous results - of Clintonistas like Norman Mineta, Joe Wilson, and George Tenet, the Patriot Act (facilitating future Democratic abuses), the cave-in on U of Michigan preferences, abolition of restrictions on supercomputer sales to China, Bush's approval of Clinton's destruction doctor-patient privacy, the pass given Clintonista spy Sandy Berger, his "guest worker" amnesty, ad infinitum all tell a dismal tale.

Even more telling have been W's policies re the UN's takeover of our sovereignty. He has gotten us back in UNESCO, implemented the UN's One World agenda via No Child Left Behind, aggressively promoted ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty, accepted the Supreme Court's eminent domain decision (an imposition of principles of the UN's Agenda 21 "Sustainable Development" tyranny), and carried the ball for the World Health Organization, via his plan to test all Americans for "mental illness."

Rep. Ron Paul's proposed amendment (opposed by the "Bushites") to the last of these initiatives that would have at least required parental consent for the testing of children was roundly defeated. Republicans voted no by a 55%-45% margin, as did all but one Democrat. This may be the first time in history that the opposition party sided with a president by a much wider margin than his own party. (This provides stark insight into a motive for Bush wanting to sabotage congressional GOP candidates and replace them with Democrats, which I contend is one of the main reasons he's done a "bellyflop" on Iraqi WMDs, which has indeed produced that transformation of power.)

On the eve of the Iraq invasion, I heard, on the Judicial Watch program, of the systematic suppression of the research of Jayna Davis (in The Third Terrorist), which proved that the Oklahoma City bombing was essentially the work of Iraqis (with Nichols and McVeigh thrown in as "lily whites"). This suppression occurred first with the Clinton Administration, which wanted to do anything it could to pin whatever it could on "conservative" forces within the country. The lengths to which Mrs. Davis showed that the Clinton administration had gone were unspeakably scandalous and corrupt. Yet the cover-up was perpetuated by the Bush Administration - which seemingly had much to gain (a virtual death blow to the credibility of its "rival" party; justification for the invasion) by exposiing it. Even the staunch support of lead impeachment counsel David Schippers had failed to yield the slightest attention.

[When supposedly conservative Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R, CA) later held hearings on Olahoma City, he called only 2 of Jayna Davis's 20+ key wtiness (and ignored her list of questions for the FBI) and focused on a debunked theory - mirroring the Clintonista lies that rescued "Bubba" from rock bottom poll numbers and carried him to victory in '96 - alleging involvement of the hard right.]

All of this made no sense in the context of the two-parties-at-each-others'-throats model. But it made perfect sense under the one party (Democrat policy supported by Surrogate Democrats masquerading as "Republicans") model I knew to be true. I was moved to call the show and predict that we would find WMDs and not reveal that we had found them.

At this point it was our credibility against that of the UN, whose "inspectors" had assured us there were no such weapons. Knowing Bush's allegiance to the UN's designs on our sovereignty, freedoms, and prosperity, I could not see him showing the UN up by exposing any WMD's or terror links we might find.

Such revelations would have destroyed the UN's credibility, seriously setting back its schemes to take us over. But if we could be the ones to lose credibility ,,, well, we've witnessed the political devastation, both at home and abroad, that this very oucome has created - especially within the conservative movement itself.

The 1st weeks of the war only reinforced my convictions. 12 servicemen who uncovered one site took sick, with symptoms typical for chemical exposure (http://www.redstate.com/stories/war/more_chemical_weapons_found_in_iraq). The administration immediately dismissed these illnesses as "battle fatigue." (Battle fatigue? After about a week of war? And among 12 out of 12 GI's?) No less left-wing an outfit than NPR then reported our finding missiles "ready to fire" armed with warheads initially testing positive for chemicals (http://www.planetark.org/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=20419). This report was immediately shut up via a designation (according to the Washington Times) of "classified." We heard nothing more.

In the bowels of a site previously "inspected" by Hans Blix's motley crew, we found radiation "off the scale." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's reaction was an extremely curious, "all first reports we get turn out to be wrong." (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83455,00.html) Not "some first reports aren't entirely accurate," but all of them are always wrong. Sure enough, everything "turned out" to be, ostensibly, false. Funny Rummy should have known in advance they all would be wrong, and funny that we even look if we know in advance we'll always come up dry.

A later barrel find (based on a tip by locals) tested positive twice in the field for Sarin and mustard gas. One of the admin's "experts" abrupty pooh-poohed the findings and predicted that the stuff was rocket fuel (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=79505&page=1), which it "sho nuff" "turned out to be" - to the preclusion of laboratory testing. In "reaction," the administration promised not to divulge any further positive preliminary results - we had heard the last from this administration on WMDs in Iraq. Chalk up one more for the United Nations.

Funny how "conservatives" who are so willing to swallow whole the Marxist line about the Bushites' designs on conquering the planet for the USA seem so oblivious to the obvious. Is it possible that a cadre so unscrupulous, so willing to fabricate the justification for going in in the first place would not be willing to take the easy step of planting WMDs to perpetuate the ruse?

Little by little, some major figures began to notice the pattern. Bill O'Reilly verbalized how he could not fathom the Bushites' silence on Salman Pak, where we found a half-buried airliner, complete with manuals on how to hijack one and use it as a weapon.

On the eve of the '04 elections, John Loftus (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1169244/posts), perhaps the most knowledgeable American on middle eastern intrigues, revealed that Libya - apparently spooked by the fate of Saddam and the Taliban, and in conjunction with 'fessing up to its own WMD projects - had revealed that Iraq's entire nuclear program had undergone an eleventh hour transfer to Libya, personnel and all. Loftus, a Democra