Posted by
Charles Lewis on Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:39:52 PM
by Charles Lewis
Don't get me wrong. I do not support any of the "neocon" (really pseudocon) impostors garnering the approval of the internationalist powers that be in the GOP presidential sweeps. None of the socialist, fascist, big government tax and spend, "globalist", anti-bill of rights, open borders types like Giuliani, McCain, Romney - all posing as conservatives for our votes, meanwhile (hypocritically) supporting McCain-Feingold's eradication of the First Amendment (and extending it to the Internet), UN control of that Internet, the North American Union, gun bans, No Child Left Behind, the Prescription Drug boondoggle, mandatory universal mental health screening (and drugging), eminent domain tyranny, socialized medicine, abortion, gay narriage, the Schiavo murder, and so on. Pity the conservative elctorate doesn't fully see through this.
As for the "non-serious" candidates - the ones squarely in the clutches of the establishment, perhaps a little better on some of these issues (though terribly weak on others), but hardly viable in any event - no need to discuss them, other than in passing. I'm referring to Brownback, Gilmore, and Thompson. All they're doing at this stage is taking up marginal poll points that should be aggregating to a hypothetical "unification" candidate for true conservatives in the party to help fend off the above mentioned RINOs.
That leaves four candidates - Tancredo, Paul, Huckabee, and Hunter - who deserve and consideration at all, in my view. Hunter probably irrevocably severed his lifeline to my potential support in the first debate, when he endorsed Al Gore's fabrications on global warming and presented an "energy independence" model that mentioned nothing about increased domestic oil pumping or more refineries. And Huckabee's F- rating from Club for Growth is a huge strike against him (though his endorsement of the "Fair Tax" with its elimination of the IRS may keep him in the game).
As for the two seated on the sidelines observing the carnage, don't talk to me about Newt Gingrich. He had long since sold out his constituency via his cozy "adulterous" relationships with the Clintons and Kennedys of the anti-America left. His recent unbelievable, unforgivable sellout of our interests in his hyped global warming "debate" with John Kerry (where he fully surrendered from the outset) just reinforces this.
And Fred Thompson? He's been writing numerous opinion pieces in prep for his obviously impending entry. Naught but cautious platitudes. Not a word about the real issues - open borders, the political imprisonment of border agents, the banning of natural supplements, the NAU...not even the Fairness Doctrine, grassroots gagging, the gun grab, or thought crimes. Be forewarned.
That leaves Tancredo and Paul, two of my longterm political heroes. Tancredo has parlayed an almost singlehanded opposition tot he giveaway of America to invaders who don't value any of her philosophical underpinnings into the most prominent leadership role in a formidable pro-borders coalition. And he's a staunch traditionalist Christian conservative on every major issue. Paul, on the other hand, has long been the strongest - and at times, seemingly, the only - voice against the ongoing trashing of the Constitution and the rapid erosion of individual liberties in America. With the exception of the recently deceased Charlie Norwood, these have long been my absolute favorites on the Hill.
...Which is why I was puzzled when Paul announced his candidacy (as did Hunter, considered an ally of these two) just a couple days after Tancredo's long awaited announcement. My paranoia (I've long since decided to not trust any politician - no matter how patriotic he seems - longer than it takes me to inhale and exhale once) was piqued. I saw these moves as, conceivably, specifically designed to draw support away from Tom and clear the way for "Rudy McRomney."
And it's happened. Add the poll numbers for "Duncan Paulcredo" and you have an imposing candidate, clearly capable of defeating these Rockefeller Republicans. Spearately, however, they're still labelable as "fringe."
Except in terms of the polls on the debates themselves. Paul won the first debate, both according to CNBC, and WorldNetDaily, the leading website on the right. And he gathered an incredible 37% on the latter vis a vis the second debate, finishing a close second (to Romney) in the Fox News text message poll, as well.
Tellingly, Tancredo, who showed the variance of his positions with those of Paul by taking umbrage with the latter's implication that Osama's 9/11 attack was justified, was able to finish only second in the WordlNetDaily poll (with 25%). This means that - among the most conservative in the electorate - there is a tendency to accept the far left's (equal to Paul's) view of America as Great Satan over the traditional patriotic one.
This was only amplified by arch-conservatives' apparent acceptance (or calculatied ignoring) of Paul's praise - in the course of the debate - of our "investment" in Vietnam, a genocidal communist slave labor hellhole.
I can understand conservatives' utter disenchantment with mainstream Republicans, who, as I write, are in the process of negotiating away our culture and our future, in terms of the most massive immigration amnesty in this world's history.
However, this goes far deeper. True conservatives were able to witness the airing of the chief differences between their two greatest congressional champions (both oppsed to that "mainstream"), in the Fox debate.
One, Tancredo, stood up for America and Christianity in the Reaganesque manner. The other (Paul) parrotted the age-old Marxist rhetoric of "American imperialism" and delivered, uncritically, the talking points of the America hating left and Islamofacsists.
And, by about a 3-2 margin in the most reputable, true conservative site on the web, they chose to support the latter. I find this"apPauling."
What can account for this? Phyllis Schlafly, still in my view the purist voice on the critical issues facing America, taught me way back in 1964 (in A Choice, not an Echo) the true nature of most of the Republican presidential nominees and victors. Their "opposition" to Demcratic one world totalitarian policies is a chimera. Time after time their administrations had been little more that "me-tooers" of the Democrat's agenda, following this up with supposed gaffes and "blunders" that delivered elections into the hand of the Democrats themselves, who then claimed mandates and ran roughshod of the American identity.
I kept the lessons of that book in mind through the years. I saw the same pattern as Nixon (hardly a conservative) illogically self-destructed with the Watergate burglary against an opponent he led by 40 points in the polls. This ushered in the sordid era of the anemic leftism of Carter, the Church commission, and so on. Later, GHW Bush (again anything but a conservative) squandered huge electoral goodwiill with "yes, new taxes after all," paving the way for the atrocities of Clntonism.
This time around, it's "no WMDs" - itself the lie of the millennium. And the American people - including the majority of true conservatives - have fallen hook, line, and sinker. As far as I know, only yours truly harps on the point that this administration (currently, you'll note, playing footsie with the Teddy Kennedy clique and the Democratic Congress that this issue rammed into power) has done everything in its power to suppress anything that would have justified the Iraq invasion in the public's mind, including:
- Jayna Davis's convincing discovery of the Iraqi Republican Guar'd execution of the Oklahoma City bombing, and the Clintonista's knowledge and cover-up of this, which resulted in the routing of the '94 Contract with America Republicans,
- our discovery - at Salman Pak in Iraq - a complete 9/11-style training camp,
- several early apparent WMD discoveries, which prompted Rummy's comment that first reports were supposedly never right,
- the revelations of huge WMD caches by the likes of John Shaw, David Gaubatz, Iraqi General Saba, and others - all relentlessly quashed by the Bushites,
- Sen. Santorum's uncovering - via Freedom of Info act - of 500 WMDs in Iraq, this abruptly silenced by the administration's dispatch of a spokesman to pooh-pooh its significance,
- Jack Cashill's recent noting of the immediate shut-up of comments (reported by the BBC at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3872201.stm) by Energy Secy Spencer Abraham that revealed (momentarily, before its summary squelching) that we'd found 1.7 tons of enriched uranium in Iraq.
It's not hard for people on our side of the turmoil to see how the Bush Administration has sold out its constituency at every turn policy-wise. Likewise, Schlafly's exposé of the traditional apparently deliberate folding (she called it "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory") of previous GOP standard bearers for the sake of their "Skull and Bones" style brethren on the more openly lefitst side of the spectrum is a treasured part of our political glossary.
The fact that the Nixon and Bush ! debacles fit the same pattern should be self evident. Why can't we see that the supposed-no-WMD nonsense (which has already led to the election of Marxist congress on the verge of trashing the 1st and 2nd Amendments, erasing our borders, and even outlawing natural supplements) is simply another case of the same deception?
Why do we have to, instead, accept the left's version of things on Iraq, via our swallowing whole of the Ron Paul mantra? The communists (for whom the Islamofascists, in my view, are just the surrogates they've always been) would love to continure to trample the rest of the globe, unincumbered by any opposition from us, then lower the boom here. This is the same rhetoric they've always used to try to get us to "mind our business" while they expand their empire. Only now this rhetoric is coming from the most trusted among our own ranks.
If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. Apparently the majority of even enlightened conservatives does not possess the philosophical underpinnings to resist this malicious anti-American propaganda, and it's shutting the door on our last opportunity to salvage this great nation.
I implore America to turn away from PIed Piper Paul. Tom Tancredo embodies everything Paul stands for, and does not have this fatal flaw. We need to unite behind this courageous American.