The true nature of the lies

What the American right must do to keep this President from causing it to implode

by Charles Lewis

It finally has reached the saturation point, that critical mass where one would think that to just about anyone with eyes to see or ears to hear it is clear that Bush did lie about WMDs - he lied when he said we found none, lied to protect his bosses in the One World movement - at the UN and elsewhere. Ask David Gaubatz, John Shaw, Richard Miniter, and others whose proof was suppressed by this "Surrogate Democrat" administration.

Why on earth, right? By their fruits ye shall know them, especially in high level politics. An apparent "no-WMD" outcome means saved face and enhanced credibility and potency for the United Nations, and loss of support and political capital for the United States. And if you really, really understand the arcane dynamics that have held sway in the upper echelon of the American power structure for generations, you cannot help but conclude that this was the precise intent.

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 same "war for oil, imperialist neocon" rhetoric as Howard Dean, Al Gore, and Michael Moore.

Another third (the Limbaughs of the world) 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 (ChiCom "Freeportgate" being one of the latest in an unebbing flow - not to mention the substituting of control of nine of our defense plants to Dubai in place of the now moribund ports deal) he offers, these toadies will find a way to rationalize it out, and in so doing manifest as the buffoons the left wants them to appear.

That leaves a final third (from Joseph Farah to David Severin to Bill O'Reilly...) wondering out loud why Bush has concealed the WMDs and Al Qaeda connections we've found.

That Bush would in fact conceal such discoveries makes perfect sense in light of the fact that he's the internationalist that he was bred to be, while the hypothesis being advanced by the American left in harmony with such "neolibs" (my term for those erstwhile conservatives suddenly willing to adopt the left's version of things) makes no sense under any reasonable scenario of which I am aware. But the point is W is consistently dividing conservatives into opposing camps and setting the table for the return of the overt Marxist party (whose bidding he has done all along "under the radar") to power.

Look at how Portgate divided the right and gave the Democrats an opportunity to preen, disingenuously, as the party of national security. And now, just to add injury to insult, Bush turns over our maritime nuclear detection to our biggest enemy.

Look at how Bush is rolling out the red carpet for criminal Mexicans and Salvadoreans who will get driver's license and motor vote virtually 100% Democratic (without as much an attempt in 6 years of Republican rule 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.

[Recent revelations of the tip-offs to Mexico on Minutemen locations - along with mandates for Border Patrol agents to refrain from investigating reports from Minutemen of illegal crossing citings - underscore this duplicity more forcefully than ever.]

But the WMD thing is the most critical issue, the one that has us most confused and divided.

Let us digress and see if we cannot demonstrate that the Surrogate Democrat hypothesis is an apt one for both Bushes, and for Nixon/Ford. Recall that 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. He was the most liberal president we had had up to that point.

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) never partook.

All this really should not have been a surprise to those who recognized that Nixon, as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) - as part and parcel of our internationalist "invisible government" - could only have been expected to work against this nation's interests, including handing a "mandate" to the Democrats to wreak their more open brand of havoc.

By the time GHW Bush later took a similar dive ("Yes, new taxes") it certainly 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, whose platform was by then pure Marxism, conservatives tied their hopes to this pseudo-con, went down hard in the '92 elections, and suffered eight years of Clintonism for their troubles.

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 a third of our 300 million "insured" by the government under Medicaid.

A bi-cameral majority was not enough for Bush to get ANWR drilling through - even with gas prices now positively beyond the reach of a large portion of Americans and with us essentially at war with our principle foreign suppliers. But he spared no amount of arm twisting to ram through CAFTA, which ceded about a third of our sovereignty to Vicente Fox-types.

From day 1 the pattern was set and adhered to. An unprecedentedly socialistic farm bill was followed by the abolition of the 1st Amendment via "campaign finance reform," the lynx hair slap-on-the-wrist, the case of a non-endangered Tucson area owl off-limiting 1.2 billion acres, approval of maintaining the Feinstein-Schumer misnamed "assault rifle" ban, the breaking of a campaign promise to reverse Clinton's draconian National Monuments Executive Order; the retention - with disastrous results - of notorious Clintonistas like Norman Mineta, Joe Wilson, and George Tenet, the Patriot Act (which set the table for future Democratic abuses, and which would be far easier to accept as useful if the administration were demonstrating the slightest concern about border security), the cave-in on University of Michigan preferences, his abolition of restrictions on supercomputer sales to China, his 4/18/01 approval of Clinton's measure destroying doctor-patient privacy, the pass given Clintonista spy Sandy Berger, his "guest worker" amnesty, ad infinitum.

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 in classrooms throughout the country via the national curriculum inherent in No Child Left Behind, aggressively promoted ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty, offered no criticism of 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, in terms of his plan to test all Americans for "mental illness."

Of particular interest, Rep. Ron Paul's proposed amendment to the last of these initiatives that would have at least required parental consent in the case of the testing of children (an amendment that the administration opposed) was roundly defeated. Republicans did so by a 55%-45% margin, while, out of about 200 Democrats, only one supported the amendment. 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.

On the eve of the Iraq invasion, I listened as Larry Klayman and Tom Fitton's Judicial Watch program exposed the systematic suppressing of the research of one Jayna Davis (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, and the lengths to which Mrs. Davis showed that that administration had gone were unspeakably scandalous and corrupt.

But the revelation that struck me most was that the Bush Administration - with everything to gain (from a virtual death blow to the credibility of its rival party to justification for the then-impending invasion) - rather than helping disseminate this bombshell, had stonewalled it every bit as much as the Democrats had. Even the staunch support of lead impeachment counsel David Schippers had failed to yield the slightest attention.

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.

You see, at this point it was our credibility against that of the United Nations, whose "inspectors" had assured us there were no such naughty weapons. Knowing Bush's allegiance to that body's designs on our sovereignty, freedoms, and prosperity, I could not see him showing them up by finding WMDs and Al Qaeda links and such and being up front about having found them.

Such revelations would have destroyed so much of the UN's credibility here that it would have set back its takeover plans by many years. On the other hand, if we could be the ones to lose credibility, well, I do not have to speculate on the consequences - we have witnessed the political devastation, both at home and abroad, that this has created. Especially within the conservative movement itself.

[More recently, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher - a supposedly staunch conservative Republican - announced hearings on a combination of Jayna Davis's huge volume of highly vetted revelations and a thoroughly debunked theory - mirroring the campaign of Clintonista lies that pulled that president out of unprecedentedly low performance ratings and carried him to victory in '96 - alleging involvement of the hard right. Incredibly, according to Mrs. Davis Rorhrabacher is calling only a token two of the 20+ key witnesses she lined up, failed to pass on a list of suggested questions for the FBI that she has prepared at his request, and instead is concentrating on the "vast right wing conspiracy" theory]

The first weeks of the war only reinforced my convictions. Twelve servicemen who uncovered one site took sick, with symptoms typical for chemical exposure. The illnesses of these troops was immediately passed off as "battle fatigue." What a coincidence that this should happen on a 12-for-12 basis so early in the conflict. No less left-wing an outfit than NPR then reported our finding missiles "ready to go" armed with warheads initially testing positive for chemicals. 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." Rumsfeld's reaction to a spate of reports that included the above incidents, as you may recall, was an extremely curious, "All first reports are wrong." Not "some first reports aren't entirely accurate," but all of them are always wrong. Sure enough everything turned out 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, yet never made it to the various labs for final testing. One of our "experts" curiously chose the hours after the two positive pre-tests to pooh-pooh the findings and predict that the stuff was rocket fuel, 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 one up for the UN.

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 truth - that the administration was going out of its way to downplay important, smoking-gun-level discoveries. 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, perhaps the most knowledgeable American on middle eastern intrigues, revealed that Libya - apparently spooked by the fate of Saddam and the Taliban, and in 'fessing up to its own WMD projects -1 had revealed that Iraq's entire nuclear program had undergone an eleventh hour transfer to Libya, personnel and all. Loftus, a Democrat, at that point predicted that this coup would sweep Bush home in those '04 elections.

One waited for the party to emphasize this as, if nothing more, an "October surprise." It never happened. But the country was not quite ready to elect a candidate with a thirty-five year history of open communist collaboration, lying, and hatred and disdain toward America. The Republican Party - complete with its charging entourage of "RINOs" that constitute the vast majority of at least its Senate retinue, won in spite of its best efforts not to.

Later the highly credible Richard Miniter, in Misinformation, catalogued large amounts of chemical/biological weapons we had uncovered - finds the administration had never bothered to tell us about. This prompted Joseph Farah's WorldNetDaily to exclaim, in headlines, "Why doesn't Bush just say it?"

Then the solid evidence of cover-up began to emerge. David Gaubatz, formerly of the Army's Office of Special Investigations, told of his experiences in Nasirah, Iraq, where he saw convincing evidence that flooded tunnel sites, sealed off with five-foot concrete walls, were indeed the depositories of chemical and biological weapons that local informants said they were. He now recounts his frustration at being stonewalled by the Iraq Survey Group, and by both the David Kay and Charles Duelfer WMD panels, in spite of months of pleading by himself and other agents.

Next, at the Intelligence Summit this February, Pentagon operative John Shaw told of how he and others had uncovered hard evidence that the Russians had systematically removed (to Syria and elsewhere) huge amounts of WMDs in the run-up to the war. Once again the chilling part was not that this had happened, but that the US government had gone to great lengths to see to it hat this did not come out. This, of course, dovetails completely with some of the stories of former Iraqi General Georges Sada (and now, apparently, even former Saddam southern commander General Al-Tikriti), neither of whose contentions and allegations, just as bewilderingly, have drawn the slightest comment from the administration.

[More recently, Senator Rick Santorum (R, PA) was hear to trumpet the discovery of formerly classified information that showed we had found and destroyed about 500 other DMVs in Iraq. As remarkable as it is that this info had to be pried loose by a legislator (as opposed to revealed - triumphantly - when it all happened), it is perhaps even more remarkable that the Administration itself once again offered no comment - except through an unnamed "Pentagon source" who downplayed it. And Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham's 2004 revelation (reported in the BBC) that we had removed 1.7 tons of enriched uranium from Iraq] was also swiftly and summarily squelched.]

Among those privy to these stories (nearly all so adeptly kept from general consumption by the mainstream media) all this is so plain now that some Bush apologists are taking it as a given and inventing bizarre alibis for the suppression of these stories. The best they seem to be able to do is claim that the finds would implicate Russia, France, and Germany (as they almost assuredly would), and that administration does not want to alienate these countries, as it is looking for their help in an upcoming Iran campaign.

These explanations simply do not pass the imbecility test. How much more obligated these deceitful governments would be if we exposed their real motives for opposing the Iraq invasion, and exposed these nations for the high stakes colluders with Saddam that they were! And the metamorphosis in public opinion that would occur at these revelations would far more than make up for any reticence on the part of this trio. It would likely turn the coming midterms around and, to at least some significant degree, stanch the present flow of venom against us worldwide.

There is no alternative but to take what we know about conspiracies and kingmakers and follow it to its logical consequences. Most of us have long since known that there are no real choices at the national level between the two parties. That the agenda both follow is basically the overt Marxism of the open policies of the Democrats. That Republican opposition to this is essentially token, and that, in fact, the GOP is able to institute certain facets that the Democrats could never get away with introducing, given the critical eye of conservative opinion (including, tragically, that of large segments of the "religious right") tends to not be focused anywhere near as much on Republicans.

The logical conclusion is that a Republican administration like the current one would never do anything to score a knockout punch for pro-American conservatism, and can only be expected to self destruct on cue, just as former ones have. It's so simple as to be inescapable.

What we cannot do is allow this president to get us accepting precepts (or mouthing the rhetoric) of the left. Once we have done that, his mission, in my humble opinion, is accomplished.

Let's get a few things straight before we on the right lose all notion of common principles and self-destruct just the way those who want to divide and conquer us wish:

1. Bush's squishy illegal immigration policy is not a "ploy for votes." First, voters of all persuasions (particularly Republicans and Independents) oppose amnesty schemes like his (not to mention his refusal to either accept Congress's mandate to increase border manpower or allow the military to patrol the frontier) - by wide margins.

But beyond that, Bush has to know that the more non-Cuban Latinos he lets slip in, the more ground his party will lose to its leftwing opponents - especially in the absence of Motor Voter repeal. A reasonable hypothesis, then, is that he wants to lose that ground; the fact that he has shut off the (pro-Republican) Cuban faucet, coupled with his behavior vis a vis Portgate, Freeportgate, and WMD-find suppression (not to mention the curious self destruction of antecedents like Bush I and Nixon) make this hypothesis seem far from far fetched. And in light of what we have long known about the secret societies that control world politics, it is downright plausible.

2. The term, "military industrial complex" is not a synonym for the international banking cartel that has been engineering our doom for so long. Neolibs cite Eisenhower's cautionary reference during his administration, but Eisenhower was a CFR member who did not even call himself a conservative, a Rockefeller Republican very much along Nixon/Bush lines, and thus not anyone who would ever reveal the true nature of what goes on behind the scenes.

Besides, our military is and has long been hamstrung, gayed, feminized, demonized, sensitivity trained, forced to fight the UN's battles and even wear its insignias; our industry is mostly outsourced or foreign owned, practically dead in the water. "Military industrial complex" is jargon of the Marxist left, designed to help destroy our economic infrastructure and disarm us. It is not a term that is interchangeable with the many accurate (and sufficient) ones we have long had at our disposal: invisible government, CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergers, and so on.

3. It is not "corporate America" that deserves our bashing, but multinationals, including traitorous American-based corporations who have armed the likes of China, with a pass and perks from whatever party's administration happens to be in power. "Corporate America" is a leftist slur depicting capitalism as evil.

4. We are not "imperialists." "Imperialist" is a Marxist anti-American term. We're the victims of a one world takeover (imperialism, if you will), not the perpetrators of expansionism. It is amazing how neolibs no longer condemn the still very active communist imperialism (China, Russia, North Korea, Latin America, elsewhere) or Islamist imperialism (Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia, others) - only our own supposed quest to spread the American system worldwide (would that this were the extent of our worries).

5. These Republican traitors are not "neocons." Cindy Sheehan and her Hugo Chavez-admiring ilk love this supposedly derogatory term. "Neocons" simply means "new conservatives," something we certainly could use a lot more of, especially the fully informed sort. Rather, what we are dealing with (and have been for years) are pseudocons - imitation conservatives.

6. We should not be talking about "globalists," even though this particular term is not especially inaccurate. The rowdy professional demonstrators of the anti-capitalist far left - the kind that love to riot and tear up cities where the G8 meets - are fond of this term. Not that the G8 is up to any good, but neither are these thugs, and we do not need to be either associated or confused with them. Not when we have tried and true, unambiguous terms these degenerates would never use in any critical contexts - terms like "internationalists," and "one worlders."

7. Iraq is no "war for oil." If W cared about oil for American companies, he would have railroaded through ANWR as he railroaded through CAFTA, and gas would not be $3 or so a gallon with no end in site to the carnage. Iraq - as it is being carefully contorted - is a war for the humiliation of America, a war for the destruction of our credibility, a war to strengthen the UN's grip on us.

The deposing (and, yes, disarming) of Saddam and the enfranchisement of his formerly oppressed people, the incredible acts of heroism and goodwill of our incomparable troops are then seen, ironically, to be collateral (and, yes, beneficial) effects of a much larger campaign to bring us to our knees.

Every time we use the above rhetoric of the left instead of the perfectly adequate conservative Constitutionalist terms I offer there as substitutes, we are raising the hackles of numerous patriots who otherwise might be marching shoulder to shoulder with us. If American conservatives and Constitutionalists can see things in such a context they can heal their internal differences and become the type of united force that is so desperately needed at this point in our threatened nation's history.

The bottom line is (a) Don't defend this administration. You won't if you keep in mind that the evidence tells us that's what they want us to do - so that 70%+ of the population (per the latest polls) thinks we're boobs at best. (b) Don't join the leftwing chorus against the administration either. If you realize that this, too, delights the movers and shakers of this administration (who are only too happy to do what they were hired to do and drive us to the left with their antics - so that the left gains yet another "mandate," this one tantamount to our national demise) you can hold steady on this one, too. We need our own anti-administration chorus - this one based on the truth, that there are Democrats, and then again there are Surrogate Democrats.

Charles Lewis is a former charter school director and author of nine textbooks in mathematics and phonics. He has been a frequent contributor to such websites as EdWatch.org and freedomfoundation.us, and is currently National Outreach Director for Christian Exodus.