Derision. Accusations of lunatic notions. Images of tinfoil hats and basement bomb shelters. Reactionaries. Chicken Littles. When I moved to South Carolina as part of Christian Exodus just two years ago, this was the general reaction to our movement, at least in some quarters, even some conservative quarters, even some Christian conservative quarters. I told my colleagues, however, that it was only a matter of time before national affairs grew so ominous that people would see that we were right in the things we foresaw.

Then a bunch of events started to fall into place. In brief, the "Republican" administration started to act ever more vividly like a comic caricature of the party described in one of the books that began the opening of my political eyes so many years ago - Phyllis Schlafly's classic, A Choice, not an Echo. In that book the peerless Phyllis depicted a party that has long been just there so that those of us who saw through the more obvious demagoguery of the socialist Democrats would vote for a veiled surrogate for that same party - a "me, too" outfit that carried forth the Democrats' agenda "under the radar," then self-destructed on cue so that those Dems got re-elected pretty much by default, and could claim a mandate for their draconian all-consuming government programs.

Mrs. Schlafly showed how a long line of Republican presidents and presidential candidates had fit this paradigm, and I later followed the foibles of succeeding Nixon, Ford, and Bush I administrations with this paradigm firmly in mind. They all fit it to a T. Thus, I (and many of my Christian Exodus cohorts) knew what to expect from George W Bush. Most Americans - with their world famous lack of historical knowledge - most certainly did not.

But by the 2006 elections, the administration's adoption of so many Democratic causes (from National Monuments, wetlands, and endangered species tyranny to Bush's mandatory universal "mental health" screening {and forced drugging} proposal to the Law of the Seas Treaty {including UN taxation of Americans} to the federal takeover of education under {Teddy Kennedy's} No Child Left Behind to affirmative action to the negative income tax {EIC} to the slap on the wrist to Sandy Berger for his major security felony to various continued Clintonista coverups to the acquiescent reaction to the Eminent Domain decision to especially the failure to come anywhere close to securing our borders) had the party's conservative base sufficiently turned off as to sweep into power a group of essentially Marxist tyrants on the Democratic side of the aisle.

What has transpired as a result has greatly amplified the alarm factor among the American electorate. Far from the far-out fear-mongering freaks we in Christian Exodus were once labeled as, we are increasingly being seen as having been what we were - just a couple of years ahead of the curve in terms of realization of the threat under which America lies (do I dare say "prophets?"). I wish it were otherwise. I'd be much happier to have been proven to have been an unmerited alarmist, and slink back into the woodwork, than to see America face what she is facing today.

As for that new Marxist Congress, ushered in by the engineered "ineptitude" of the compliant "opposition party" the Republicans have become, here is but a sampling:

...and too many more abominations to mention in this small space.

The Republicans themselves - especially in the realms of national leadership - do not have clean hands in the wave of frightening developments, either (with the pretty much full support, not surprisingly, of the Democrats):

the Department of Transportation's mandate to the Texas legislature: repeal the near unanimously passed bicameral interdiction of "Trans-Texas Corridor" construction (a major part of the NAU scheme), or lose all federal highway funds (themselves merely Texas taxpayer money filtered - through a corrupt Washington bureaucracy - down to a small fraction of its original value, and with many more strings besides this one),

There is no need to exaggerate in terms of the above cataloguing. The facts speak for themselves, and they are just a small sampling (forgive me if your pet paranoia was left out).

Will President Bush veto these measures (did he veto McCain-Feingold, or pardon the border agents when he pardoned all those drug dealers, or even seek to see to it the agents remained free pending appeal)? These bills and many more like them will certainly pass; the Democrats control both Houses, and they vote in a block, having shot down every single amendment to the thought crimes bill, even one that simply exempted churches from the speak-no-evil-about-homosexuality provisions.

What will America look like once these horrors are in full force? Clearly, it will take the utter coercion of government to enforce many of them - especially the ones that pertain to religious free speech. Will we be distinguishable from Nazi Germany or some Soviet Satellite at that stage?

Christian Exodus was formed by people who perceived this onslaught on the then-horizon. People who observed generation after generation of Republican-appointee-dominated Supreme Courts nonetheless toeing the Democrat, and even Marxist, line in ruling after outrageous ruling. Who saw the nation moving steadily toward bigger government, fewer individual liberties, and deeper foreign entanglements no matter which party was in power (even though the Republicans gave lip service to opposing such things) and discerned a pattern.

Now that pattern has become so stark, so pervasive as to be etched into the American landscape, and into the veritable psyches of those with eyes to see and ears to hear. So much so that it is not surprising that the Christian Exodus gameplan suddenly looks worth the effort to many more than previously were willing to listen.

The hour, unmistakably, is late.  Will you join us?

Enough of this NeoCON job

by Charles Lewis

Pop Quiz:

Can something be a red wagon without being a wagon?

Can I be a political commentator without being a commentator?

Can an administration be "new conservative" without being conservative?

Definition: Neocon: new (as in neo) conservative (as in conservative).

If we call someone whom we know to not be conservative a "neocon" (neoconservative), we ourselves are attempting to con (read "lying"), are we not? Not to mention using the same epithet the ungodly left loves to use. Not to mention in effect ascribing all the evils we aim to ascribe to these folks to real conservatives.

That's right. When we call somebody (and many of us love to use this term in reference to the Bush Administration) "neocon," we are implicitly saying we accept that these folks are indeed conservative. In my view, that is giving them infinitely too much credit (and slurring ourselves in the process, not to mention giving at least our tacit seal to the propaganda of our mortal enemies on the left who use the same descriptive language).

Oh yes, I essentially agree with Joseph Farah, who bristles at the term, "conservative." To be sure, conservatives over time have emitted a lot of hot air and gotten little done beyond holding back the dike temporarily.

Words or phrases like "traditionalist," "Constitutionalist," "originalist," "American patriot," or even "rightist" probably say it better, though none, in my view, is ideal. Until Farah or somebody else can come up with a catchier monicker, I'll grudgingly identify myself as a conservative - someone who believes in constitutionally limited government, God-granted unalienable individual liberties, strong defense, gun rights, freedom of speech, moral absolutes, property rights, the right to life, and so on.

Can somebody tell me what is even distantly conservative about an administration that has:

Charles Lewis is a former charter school director and author of nine published 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.

The recent performance of Newt Gingrich in his global warming "debate" with John Kerry is emblematic of the phenomenon I've been trying to hammer home for several years now - that the folks many call "neocons," but are more correctly referred to as pseudocons are no more than stealth servants of the left. These "Establishment" Republicans can always be expected to stab true conservatives (the folks that elect them) in the back.

American patriots alarmed at the environmentalist assault on our institutions and prosperity (I learned today, for instance, that, in spite of Bush's apparently just-for-show refusal to sign onto the Kyoto accord that threatens to send our civilization back to the stone age, we're more in compliance than are the European nations that constantly scold us for not inking up - this from no less reliable a source than the Wall Street Journal's Steven Moore; but I digress), had some reason to delight at the prospect of a speaker as brilliant as Newt ostensibly defending our point of view.

After all, what with the recent devastating BBC special exposing the global warming hysteria as a purely political movement based on junk science, what with the past several weeks of frigid early spring weather throughout the country as Exhibit A, it would have seemed as though someone like Gingrich would find himself presented with the proverbial sitter at the net. We should have known better.

If the excerpts I've seen are any indication (and they don't even really have to be - they stand as super-significant, even in isolation), Mr. Gingrich essentially raised the white flag, become nothing more than a compliant echo of the loquacious "Lurch," and drawing applause from the apparently stacked audience in the disgusting process.

Kerry himself seemed taken aback in the clip I saw, expressing his sense of gratification that Gingrich had in essence conceded the issue. He then proceeded to nail down Newt's acquiescence to the notion that "urgent" measures needed to be taken in regards to this area of agreement, as his "opponent" nodded his assent. Thanks, Newt.

Will somebody please start paying attention to what I've been saying for so long about major GOP figures simply working for the other side? Like the old sappy song says, "there are such things..."

Like a Nixon, bugging the office of an opponent he's leading by 40 points in the polls, and in the long run destroying the American socialism-resistance movement for a decade, like a GHBW and his needless "yes, new taxes" cave-in that gave us the Clinton years, like GWB refusing to play the 500 declassified WMD-find card (and others similar), the Oklahoma City bombing-qua Iraqi operation card, etc, these faux right wingers delight in gratuitously offering up hanging curves to the Marxist opposition, all to the detriment of those of us who sincerely want to preserve what's left of this once great republic.

They're simply fall guys for the left. They don't have their own "imperialist war for oil" aims. They want us to think they do, just as do the internationalist socialist bosses from whom they take their orders. Then the Pelosis and Reids can step in, by default, and ram us with grassroots lobbying bans, "fairness" doctrines to destroy talk radio, McCain-Feingold augmentations to gut freedom of speech in the Internet (plus UN hegemony over the same), thought crimes laws, ever more open floodgates at the borders (w/ W's approval), and all manner of other tyrannical measures.

Any administration that sends the message (to invader and protector alike) this one has sent in jailing border agents and sheriffs for doing their jobs, refusing to grant pardons, exposing them to beatings at the hands of invader-inmates, and treating them like mass murderers in placing them in solitary with no privileges and only one phone call a month is certainly not working in the interests of those that elected it, don't you agree?

How many uninspected, rickety trucks packed with illegals as stowaways and driven by drunken unlicensed drivers who haven't slept in days do we need gallivanting all over the country, killing innocent drivers, and passengers, and pedestrians with impunity do we need before we start questioning the motives of those that can be laughingly said to govern us?

A couple of unrelated notes:

1 Just wanted to note that John McCain, who of late - in a desperate attempt to gain our primary votes by whatever deceit necessary - has been trying to masquerade as a conservative, joined the Democrat majority in voting to use your tax dollars to bribe pregnant women to murder their babies and hand their corpses over to the "embryonic stem cell" junk medicine mafia. Just thought you oughta be made duly aware.

2. Didn't think I'd be moved to comment on the Imus affair in this space, as I consider the issue an intentional diversion - an engineered vulgar distraction on the order of the long running Anna Nicole Smith and Britney Spears soap operas, designed to give commentators an excuse to avoid talking about the border sellout, the handover of our education system to our animalistic enemies at the UN, the coming mandatory "mental health" screening of us all, the outlawing of Christian expression, and so on. But I do have one thing to say:

That's what you get when you're enough of an extreme couch potato to watch women's basketball.

Sorry, like the proverbial nitwit at the edge of a cliff, I couldn't resist.

And with that, all you nappy headed hos, infidels, and other politically incorrect ne'er-do-wells, ah's outta heah...