by Charles Lewis
[The following was originally written and
published in 2003, and supplemented thru May of
2009]
Lewis's rule of lack of unintended consequences in
post-modern politics:
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 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 his 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 of 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 exposing 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 Oklahoma City, he called
only 2 of Jayna Davis's 20+ key witnesses (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 Democrat, at that point predicted that this coup
would sweep Bush to victory in those '04
elections.
One expected W's party to
emphasize this as, if nothing more, an "October surprise." It never happened.
But we were not quite ready to elect a candidate with a 35-year history of
open communist collaboration, lying, and disdain toward America. The
GOP - with its charging entourage of "RINOs" (constituting 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 and 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 us of Nasirah, Iraq, where he saw convincing evidence that
flooded tunnels, sealed off by 5-foot concrete walls, were the depositories of
chemical and biological weapons that locals said they were. He recalled his
frustration at being stonewalled by both the David Kay and Charles Duelfer WMD
panels, in spite of months of pleading by himself and other
agents.
Pentagon operative John Shaw (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/18/233023.shtml?s=tn) told of how he and others had uncovered hard evidence that
the Russians had removed (to Syria and elsewhere) huge amounts of WMDs in the
run-up to the war (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/002204.php).
The US government had gone to great lengths to see to it that this was not
publicized . This report dovetailed with the stories of Iraqi Gen. Georges Sada
(http://www.nysun.com/article/26514), and even
Saddam's half brother, Gen. Barzan Al-Tikriti (http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/talk_tikriti.htm), neither of whose contentions and
allegations have drawn the slightest note from the
administration.
Later, Sen. Rick Santorum (R,
PA) uncovered (through the Freedom of Information Act) data that showed we had
found and destroyed about 500 other DMVs in Iraq (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/santorum-wmd/). This info had to be pried loose by a legislator (as opposed to
revealed - triumphantly - when it all happened). 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 (kept from general consumption by the mainstream media), all this became
so plain that some Bush apologists began taking it as a given and inventing
bizarre alibis for the suppression of these stories. The best they seemed to be
able to do was claim that the finds would implicate Russia, France, and Germany
(as they almost assuredly would), and that administration did not want to
alienate these countries, as it was looking for their help in an upcoming Iran
campaign.
These explanations do not pass
the imbecility test. These deceitful governments would be more
obligated to help us if we exposed their real motives for opposing the Iraq
invasion, exposed these folks for the high stakes colluders with Saddam that
they were. The metamorphosis in public opinion that would occur would far more
than make up for any reticence on the part of this trio of nations. It would
likewise stanch much of the present flow of venom against us
worldwide.
Many of us know that there are
no real choices at the national level between the 2 parties, and that the agenda
both follow is basically the overt Marxism of the Democrats. That Republican
opposition to this is essentially token, and that 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.
Thus, a Republican
administration like the current one would never willfully score a knockout punch
for pro-American conservatism, and can only be expected to self destruct on cue,
just as former ones have. 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 immigration policy
is not a "ploy for votes." Voters of all persuasions (particularly
Republicans and Independents) oppose amnesty schemes (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.
Besides, Bush has to
know that the more non-Cuban Latinos he lets slip in, the more ground his party
will lose to its leftwing rivals - especially in the absence of Motor Voter
repeal. A reasonable hypothesis, then, is that he wants to lose that
ground; the fact he's shut off the Cuban faucet, coupled with his behavior vis a
vis Portgate, Freeportgate, and WMD-find suppression (plus 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
and tax exempt foundations that have 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, aimed at destroying our
economic infrastructure and disarming us. It's not interchangeable with the many
accurate (and sufficient) ones we have long had at our disposal: invisible
government, CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergers, etc. Our troops
and weapons industry have kept us free these many
years.
3. It's not "corporate
America" that deserves our scorn, but multinationals, including traitorious
American-based corporations who've armed the likes of China, with passes &
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
perpetrators of expansionism. It's amazing how neolibs no longer
condemn the still very active communist imperialism (China, Russia, North Korea,
Latin America... ) or Islamist imperialism (Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia,
Indonesia, Malaysia..) - only our own supposed quest to spread the American
system worldwide (if only this were the extent of our
worries).
5. These Republican traitors
are not "neocons." The left loves this supposedly derogatory term.
"Neocons" simply means "new conservatives," something we need a lot more of,
especially the fully informed sort. What we're dealing with are
pseudocons - imitation conservatives.
6. We shouldn't talk about
"globalists" (though this particular term is not especially
inaccurate). The rowdy 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 don't
need to be 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 Dubya 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 here 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.
Instead of harmonizing with
our sworn enemies on the left, we need our own anti-administration chorus -
based on the truth, that there are Democrats,
and then again there are Surrogate
Democrats.
Epilogue -
5/09
The July, 2007 transfer to Canada of 550 metric tons of
yellow cake uranium found in Iraq (http://www.nysun.com/editorials/iraqs-yellowcake/81328/)
should have put to rest once and for all the
pivotal Valerie Plame / Joe Wilson "Niger yellow cake fraud" affair. But, as in
all the other finds cases, this was handled quietly and without
fanfare.
As artfully as was intended, the
"unjust war" impression was thusly fully infused, the RINOs dutifully fell on
their swords, the Marxist Democrats took over congress in '07, and they got
their president and supermajorities in '09. Like clockwork. And America's
descent into North Korean style communism and poverty is well under way.
Once again the compliant
Republicans had set the table for their more openly Bolshevik masters. Even
George Bush's TARP fiasco helped spread the silverware; Mr. Obama has repeatedly
excused his incredible spending spree (toward paying back political debts,
funding his extreme left projects, decimating our freedoms, and taking over
industries) on the basis, essentially, that the previous administration's hands
were also dirty.
In the 2008 campaign cycle, the
Constitution Party had a great chance to step into the void. It had its
first opportunity to field a potentially viable candidate, in Alan Keyes, who
won its rank and file online preference poll by a veritable landslide. But the
"good ole boys" of the party bought into the shell game described in this
article, including adoption of the age-old communist "America is
imperialist"-style lexicon.
At the KC convention, which I
attended, Keyes was pilloried specifically for not adopting this meticulously
engineered viewpoint (if one doesn't stand for something, one will fall for
anything, and Keyes, with his fortification of core principles, definitely
stands for something). And the party - at a critical juncture in American
history - lost its chance to make a difference, and relegated itself to fringe
status, at least on the national level.
It was out of this experience
that longtime Keyes associate Tom Hoefling, along with a few other Constitution
Party exiles like Keyes and myself, decided it was time to found a new
party. One with "9/12" type principles - that would hold its candidates' feet
to the fire on these and never field a candidate in a race where an endorsable
one from another party was already running. One that would rise from the ashes
of the compromised, corrupted GOP and offer a trustworthy home for
conservatives, constitutionalists and patriots.
The new America's Party (AP) now has organizations in all fifty states, and already more
registered voters than any party but the Republicans and Democrats. It has
established strong ties to the National 912 Project, and participates actively
in the various "tea parties" and "state sovereignty" movements.
AP recognizes the urgency of
America's condition, and is appealing to the help from God that can still pull
us through. A visit to http://aipnews.com/, perusal of AP's
affiliation agreement, and consideration of signing the same would be well worth
one's while.
