Lewisly Speaking

2012-01-23T07:08:00.000-08:00

SC GOP primary before and after

Debating prowess doesn't matter if you don't try to win the debate

Charles Lewis

On the night before "Cris-rich":

Comment on the likes of Don Wildmon, Sarah Palin, Bobby Harrell et al endorsing Gingrich: now we clearly know who our friends are (and who, in contrast, is just as phony as Newt):
He's demonstrated time and again that he's not on our side
Especially, his first round forfeit at the hands of "Lurch" Kerry in a supposed "debate" on manmade global warming (at a time when the evidence was already overwhelming on our side and therefore he should have mopped the floor with Kerry - especially considering Newt's undeniably super sharp intellect) proved once and for all Newt's a world class pseudocon (always watch what a purported conservative does when he has a chance to actually make a difference).
In nominating Newt Gingrich (and his campaign confirms this in spades) we are ignoring all the ammunition he gives the Democrats and banking on his superior debating skills (and the fact that truth is overwhelmingly on our side) to overcome it all vs Obama. But he had all that going into the global warming debate against Kerry and he lost - by out-and-out forfeit. Fool me once, shame on you; twice, shame on me: are we willing to risk the future of American freedom and survivability on the chance that debate history won't repeat itself (as it generally does)?
It's clear that on eg big government, guns, bailouts, environmental tyranny, and health care mandates he's diametrically opposed to America's crucial interests.
His moral behavior, from Fannie Mae to familial faithlessness, should, in and of itself, cause any Christian leader to back off.
The only plausible (though clearly not worthy) excuse for such an endorsement would be the "he's electable (and not as far left as Romney)" rational. But that's not in play here, since Rick Santorum, whose evident consevative and Christian credentials are far more credible than Gingrich's, is in the race. In the two states in play so far, Santorum won Iowa and outpolled Newt in New Hampshire (and he even led Newt in South Carolina till these charlatans started lavushinging spurious endorsements on Gingrich). So electability doesn't give Gingrich a leg up here.

Even my original choice, Michele Bahmann, is drawing my contempt in this regard. She supposedly is mulling whom to endorse, but has announced she won't name anyone till after SC. This reticence favors Newt heavily, in that it implies she's considering someone besides the obvious Santorum; that someone couldn't be Paul, who's savaged her for her Christianity, or Romney, whom she's consistently battered. So the mystery candidate under consideration is obviously Gingrich. Even if she comes out for Santorum, post-SC reality will most likely make it too late.

The morning after:

Newt Gingrich's attacks on Romney's Bain Capitol connections - from a thoroughly marxist perspective - inexorably defines him as being to the left of Mitt. If you accept the obvious fact, then, that Romney is a socialist (which he most definitely is), then Newt must then be an ultra-socialist (as are, in effect, all the useful idiots in SC who voted for him).

A nominee Newt will not try to defeat his ideological identical (Obama), anymore than RINO McCain tried - or anymore than he himself tried to defeat John Kerry in a man-made global warming "debate" where, instead of accpeting Lurch's head on a platter, he conceded in his opening remarks, then went on tour with Pelosi and company promoting the hoax. He'll be there just to ensure that no genuine candidate (one that would try to win) can occupy the ticket.

This is the harvest that we here in Greenville County, SC have reaped for unseating County GOP chairman Samuel Harms who'd provided for free a half mill in legal services trying to abolish open primaries (an unseating after which I publicly divorced myself from the party). As a result of the party's dropping of the given suit, once again it was the Dems (who had no other primary to vote in - the GOP affair was the only game in town) who chose the Republican nominee.

Naturally, they picked the one with absolutely no chance of defeating the sitting dictator - the one with all the infidelity baggage, the support of the individual mandate and global warming hysteria, etc and the history of conceding in debates where all the facts - plus his superior intellect - are on his side. Democrats, you see, unlike the government indoctrination center-trained Republicans who disgraced themselves yesterday, are not idiots.

I aplogize to America on behalf of my county and urge everyone to work diligently to get Pastor Wiley Drake, Dr Laurie Roth, or whomever America's Party (http://aipnews.com/) endorses on the ballot in as many states as possible.

Caveat: no matter how large your state, do not circulate petitiions (empty or filled out) by mail, as USPS "lost" dozens of shipments of mine with who knows how many signatures in '08 when I tried to get the party - and Alan Keyes - on the SC ballot.
PS: Personal to Ron Paul: seeing as how you, prior to this fiasco of an election, tried to prevail upon Rick Santorum to withdraw and transfer his support to you, now that Santorum outpolled you (17%-13%), shouldn't you practice what you preach and step aside for him? Y'all two's combined 30% at least would have eclipsed Romney.

Paulista for Life

2011-12-24T09:20:00.000-08:00

Ron Paul's refusal, in the most recent debate (in Iowa) to credit Justices Thomas, Scalia, et al with any moral or Constitutional superiority to Kagen, Sotomaior, Ginsberg, and Breyer (his "they're all good and they're all bad" reply makes Kerry's "I voted for the bill before I voted against it" seem forthright by comparison). This may be the most significant tidbit yet on Paul.

Quite a few others have described a phenomenon I've encountered in my dealings with Paulistas (and in my observations of the curmudgeon himself):

If you don't march in lockstep with their views (to include military gay pride parades, "In God We Trust" off the money, "America got what she deserved on 9/11," legalized heroin and prostitution, ad nauseum), you're a brainwashed neocon propagandist. Hence his recent smears of Bachmann and Santorum on Leno.

But you must notice that such a monolithic demand doesn't hold when it comes to leftists. The SCOTUS response, for instance, actually elevates the Stalinist wing at the same time it demeans the originalists. On Leno, while he lambasted the only two conservatives in the race, he had nothing malignant to spew on Romney, Gingrich, or Perry, and he actually praised lefty Huntsman, an Obama appointee with far more in common with "that one" than with the two Paul skewered.

And Paul had no problem endorsing the presidential candidacies of far, far leftists Ralph Nader and Sheila Jackson-Lee in '08. Or lavishing accolades on collectivists like Dennis Kucinich and Chuck Hagel and co-sponsoring, with Barney Frank, a bill legalizing Intenet porn. Meanwhile, an ex-COS for one of the few congressmen I've trusted on the Hill has long informed that if you've got a proposal that just might somehow bear fruit and would like Paul's support, you'd best not bother to apply if you're on the right.

Paul leads Iowa, a few days before the caucuses there, as of this writing, and he and Mitt Romney officially have Virginia to themselves, due to a bizarre new rule there. His chances of winning the nomination (at which point the Obamites will beat him into the ground with his past marginally racist statements - along with his seemingly choreographed walk-off on CNN to avoid discussing them) are frighteningly real.

Many years ago, I heard a street evangelist affirm that homosexuals constitute the one class of sinner a member of which he's never seen repent; he didn't think one ever could. The intervening years have disproven that conjecture, and my Save America Summit actually had a redeemed ex-gay serving ably.

The black hole, on the other hand, of Paulism appears to permit neither light nor adherents to escape. Once initiated, one can no longer maintain ties to one's former Judeo-Christian-based principle set. One embraces, in its place, a jealous god in the form of an America-demeaning, hybrid agenda, from the leftist component of which no deviation is allowed, while, for Marxists from Kagen to Kucinich, the rightist elements are fair game.

Ron Paul, a hard leftist out trolling for conservative souls.

Heaven help us.

US votes itself into perdition

2011-11-09T09:21:00.000-08:00

by Charles Lewis

November 8, 2011. Write that date down. I can't tell you how much of an influence factors like Motor Voter, paperless (easily hackable Diebold) balllots, ACORN-style illegal activites, the New Black Panthers knowing they can intimidate with impunity, and simililar illicit aspects of ths now-banana-republic-style American electoral process contributed to the outcome. Probably quite a bit.

Even so, the results of two "plebiscites" in America are jarring. Particularly in view of the fragile condition of our way of life, under assault from all angles, and especially looking ahead to 2012, whose tallies will surely determine whether freedom and prosperity have any chance of existing here (and in the knowledge that God's blessings will be indispensable), the results are troubling. But first the "good' news:

The voters in a referendum in what otherwise appears a stunningly liberalized Ohio demanded an exemption for the state from the hyper-socialistic centerpiece of the Obama administration, popularly known as ObamaCare. The outcome will amount to nothing in the face of any unfavorable upcoming SCOTUS decision on the matter, but it does send a message. I hope that similar measures appear on the touch screens of the thirty-five or so more conservative states in '12, that election fraud doesn't dampen the counts, and that the victorious party nationwide will be faced with an enormous mandate to cut the horrrendous program off at the knees.

And in Mississippi voters had the judgment to see through the lobbying of outgoing establishment RINO Governor Haley Barber and prohibited him from taking private land and bestowing it upon megacorps who'd pay higher taxes. Kudos.

Now the bad news:

Mississippi voters (we're told) have contradicted what is now well established scientific fact, spat in the face of the clearly espressed will of God, and arbitrarily sentenced (in the long run) millions of innocent pre-borns to hideous execution, in rejecting an initiative that would have officially designated babies in the womb as what they are - people. "Ole Miss" is the only state where such a topic has come within the reach of the electorate, and possibly the only one traditionalist enough that it could. According to the report of the vote-counting cybersystem, the voters said no.

And back in Ohio, the voters are said to have, in effect, pronounced the death knell for public sector employment and foisted on the rest of us a second, Greece-like, California, when they defeated an appeal to bring government workers (who make about twice as much - in both salary and benefits - as their free enterprise-employed counterparts, and, famously, do little or no positive, productive work) a step or two closer to the real world. A rejected ballot item would have ended, to an extent, the ludicrously conflicted-interest practice (even according to socialist prez FDR, BTW) of obligatory unionism (strikes and all) among that group.

Republican Governor John Kasich has been placed in an impossible catch-22. He does not have the funds - under the Obamaconomy - to provide essential services, and is now denied even the distant prospect of narrowing the outrageously out-of-skew compensation gap between government and real workers. That a hard working laborer in the capitalist world would vote to keep someone, employed in an identical capacity (though, doubtless, doing far less actual work, and, likely, plenty of harm) by Big Brother, earning twice as much money and bagging astronomically higher perks than the voter himself is testimony to the effectiveness of a mainstream media mendacious beyond belief, along with the world's worst (and conceivably its most nefarious) "school" system.

This will plunge a dagger into that state's private sector's ability to compete for talent with the leviathan. Government will have to grow (and confiscate profits) to the extent where nearly everybody is either on the dole or working for either the government or some hideously acquiescent "public-private" entity. And soon, enough people will find this "good life" preferable to actually producing something for a living that the government will be obliged to force people to work.

The United States of Pyonyang will have been birthed (which has been the method to our welfare-state madness for, lo, these many decades of Fabian socialism, regulatory recapture, Cloward/Pivinism, Alinskyism, compassionate conservatism - whatever euphemism you prefer to tag it with). We're already seeing this in California, and in the demands of the Occupiers nationwide.

More than anything, this seems to mark the downfall of the Tea Party. Perhaps even more alarming than yesterday's elections is a recent polll that shows nationwide support (in the low twenties) for that amalgam of hard working, generally Christian, patriots (who refrain from inflammatory rhetoric, eschew violence or even civil disobedience,, and leave their rally grounds cleaner than they were when the given rally began) lagging far behind backing (iin the low thirties) for the Occupydiots (who demand an end to capitalism, replaced by cradle-to-grave authoritarian totalitarianism, and have turned the streets of the nation into lawless, contaminated, burned out metrosexual rape zones).

With the economy in worse shape than ever, one would have thought that yesterday would have mirrored, even amplified, the gains of 2010. It just shows that in an NEA-produced culture, the power of indoctrination and mind control is more of a factor than are common sense reality, the testimony of one's senses, or the overwhelming testimony of thousands of years of the history our kids are no longer taught.

Ya gotta hand it to them progressives.

May God preserve His remnant.

Faux conservative groups leading us off cliff for Newt

2011-11-01T08:17:00.000-07:00

by Charles Lewis

Tea Party Nation's Judson Phillips is now urging all partiers to support Newt Gingrich (et tu, Judson?). Phillips thus joined The Patriot Post's Mark Alexander in outrageously giving Newt the highest grades (in Alexander's case, along with fellow phonies Rick Perry and Mitt Romney - all given 6's) among GOP candidates, while relegating Michele Bachmann to a 3.

How soon they "forget" how Newt betrayed us in collaborating with the likes of Billary, Kerry, Gore..

The best way to discern a snake in our midst is to see how he handles himself when victory is within reach. The ones working for the enemy will go out of their way to, in the words of Phyllis Schlafly in A Choice, not an Echo, "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."

Bush II did it when Jayna Davis and Democrat pol David Schippers virtually handed him the donkeys' manes on a silver platter re their behavior after OK City. Bush sent them both packing.

This prompted me to, on a Judicial Watch show on the eve of the Iraq invasion, to predict correctly, that we'd find loads of WMD's, and cover them up. It was too tantalizingly easy to prove the left ludicrously, dangerously wrong and rid ourselves of them. Instead, Bush seemed to do everything he could to feed into the "truther" scenario, which led most Americans to believe the right had perpetrated 9/11 (to justify an Iraq invasion that needed no further justification than the absolute proof that Davis and Schippers had produced that Saddam was behind the destruction of the Murrah Building).

Which, in turn, led to our collectivist congress ('07) and marxist globalist dictator ('09). There are no unintended consequences in national politics. If it happens (and if it's bad), it was designed that way (PLEASE read http://lewislyspeaking.blogspot.com/2011/09/true-nature-of-lies.html, if you haven't already).

Newt's smoking gun was when he "debated" John Kerry on "man-made global warming." He couldn't have had an easier task:

The "hockey stick" graph scandal had destroyed the left's "scientific basis" for the claim,
The East Anglia affair had exposed the degree of collusion through which the climate alarmists were consciously deceiving us.
It was well established that the world had been cooling, not warming, for more than a decade,
It had been revealed that for the years that the earth had in fact been warming, all of the planets in the solar system had heated proportionately,
The document supposedly signed by all the top climate scientists declaring man-made global warming a done-deal, indisputable fact had turned out to be a fraud, with the listing of names (as supporters) of many practitioners who actually rejected the notion (and just happened to have participated in the study), and with very few of the "signees" actually qualified, professionally, to opine on the issue,
Meanwhile, another document declaring the whole matter a fraud had been circulated - with the signatures of many thousands of genuine climate scientists,
The founders of Greenpeace and The Weather Channel had been brave enough to declare the whole thing a scam,
A group of eminent scientists, spanning the globe and representing the full gamut of sub-disciplines, had produced (in the UK) a thoroughly convincing debunking of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/),
A court in the self-same (and ultra-PC!) UK had forbidden Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" documentary to be shown to school children there, without a disclaimer that advised it contained numerous lies,
...just for starters.

The famously sharp-witted Gingrich seemed to have a slam dunk in his sights. With such a brilliant proponent on the dais, Kerry, without a leg to stand on (and with Americans suffering countless economic consequences of the implementation of laws grounded in the given junk science), was dead meat. This could go a long way toward turning the tide of the general debate and rallying public sentiment for opening up America's super-abundant energy resources.

Which is precisely why I wasn't the least bit surprised when Newt waved the white flag in his opening remarks that evening. And then joined Kerry and a coterie of leftwing America haters in a campaign promoting the big lie of man-induced global warming. (I knew the real Newt Gingrich from his belly-flops in the '90's, and, unlike so many those who call themselves, "conservatives," somehow I hadn't forgotten.) It was Gingrich's chance to score one big for our side. Fuggettaboutit.

How many ways can I say this?

Fool me once, shame on you, twice, shame on me.
He who lies, steals, and he who steals, kills.
Trust, once broken, is nearly impossible to restore.

To put one's faith in anyone who's brazenly betrayed us in the past is beyond folly. It's wicked.

America is in virtual death throes. This election is too critical to squander on an impostor. And, par for the course, there's nobody to vote for.

Newt is nefarious. Perry (Gardasil, just for instance) is pathetic. Romney (closing down adoption agencies that didn't condemn children to be raised by sodomite perverts - and so much more) is ridiculous. Paul (voting for out-of-the closet sodomites in the military, thereby in turn chasing out the cream of American youth - ad infinitum) is an affront the principles to which he feigns allegiance.

Jesus. take the wheel.

2011-10-13T14:41:00.000-07:00

Baal worship and Paul worship

by Charles Lewis

http://lewislyspeaking.blogspot.com/2011/10/baal-worship-and-paul-worship.html

http://elusivetruth.blogtownhall.com/

Just a note on the "Value Voters Summit" just concluded in Washington:

One of the participants had said in a recent debate that he's just fine with states that want to legalize drugs - not just grass, but right on through heroin.

He sponsored a bill - in concert with DC's most prominent sodomite whoremonger harborer - to legalize porn on the web.

He voted to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and thus hand our military over to a brigade of "flaming faggots" with their oppressive agenda, with horrific sensitivity training, muzzling of our chaplains, who will force our best and brightest to shower with, and sleep next to, perverts who openly ogle them, subject the most moral and effective fighting force in history to politically correct harassment and demonization, run our heroes out of the service to be replaced by ACORN-like brownshirt-style operatives who'll relish the notion of turning their weapons on patriots and Christians here at home, and force a re-institution of the draft.

He's proudly posed for pics with pimps from perverse places like Primm & Pahrump.

I heard him proclaim his favorite fellow Republican candidate as supeRINO Chuck Hagel and his preferred Dem, mega-marxist Dennis Kucinich.

The ACLU has given him as high as a 67% rating.

He opposes a federal ban on abortion.

He echoes Rosie O'Donnell and Ward Churchill in blaming America (for offering even token resistance to global terrorislam) for 9/11, and equating that atrocity to what we'd feel like doing if China were to occupy us.

He's proposing to impeach Obama - not for the thousands of ultra-impeachable offenses he continues to commit toward the destruction of America and her Constitution, but for killing the leading pretender to the throne of the BinLaden empire, a Yemeni with "birthright" citizenship who openly advocated for our massacre.

He's slammed our freedom-loving allies, from Taiwan to Colombia to the former eastern bloc nations, while advocating for virtually chummy relations with satanic enemies from Vietnam to Cuba to Iran.

In an '08 Value Voters debate (source: heroic Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt), he served up a whopping eight (8) of the twelve un-Biblical answers given by all the participants combined.

He and his loyal surrogates have thrice undercut and derailed the most Christian of prez candidates: a redhot Tom Tancredo in the '08 GOP race, Constitution Party online poll winner (in a rout) Alan Keyes later that year, and one-time Repuiblican frontrunner Michele Bachmann this time around.

The ungodly Howard Stern, unsurprisingly, has endorsed him.

He stridently espouses throwing Israel under the bus.

He's RonPaul, and he just won the DC Value Voters straw poll by a whopping 13% over his nearest competition.

If this is the best patriotic Christian conservatives can do, I no longer feel comfortable even beseeching our God for mercy on America.

All I can do is implore that those readers who still love God and country forward this e-mail far and wide, and stand up against this heinous monster that's hijacked the righteous movement, destroying all earthly hope here, and turned countless conservatives into mindless, soul-less liberals, and that causes erstwhile patriots to lip-sync as he continues to spout his litany of leftwing talking points.

Prayerfully asking the Creator to do what He's gotta do,

Charles Lewis

Follow-up: a little tidbit came in about the true nature of RonPaul's resounding "victory" in the recent Value Voters Summit (DC) straw poll: 600 "ringers" were brought in special for that vote at the end of the event; they'd witnessed NONE of the speeches, including Paul's. (Indications are that Cain - who took 2nd place in the poll by a huge margin over the remaining candidates - was the true winner, in terms of inspirational oratory.)

This does not surprise me in the least, as over the years I've witnessed, on numerous debate broadcasts, audiences apparently going wild over characteristic leftwing comment after characteristic leftwing comment spewing from the mouth of this manchurian madman with the method to the madness. (That included this cycle's initial debate here in upstate SC, where I know for a fact the vast majority of conservatives have no stomach for that type of posturing.)

I have to wonder how many of these professional itinerant groupies really are supporters of the package of Constitutionalist policy positions Paul uses to gain people's confidence and lure them away from their righteousness like the antichrist I truly believe him to be. And how many are ACORN-types interested only in downing the few true conservatives that gain any traction in these races.

Actually, I don't just wonder. I'm convinced. We need to rise up against this calculated, contrived menace, lest it put the final nail in our collective coffin.

The True Nature of the Lies

2011-09-20T04:59:00.000-07:00

by Charles Lewis

[The following was originally written and published in 2003, and supplemented thru May of 2009]

Lewis's rule of no 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.

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 Independent Party (AIP) 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.

AIP 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 AIP's affiliation agreement, and consideration of signing the same would be well worth one's while.

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.

It's just us and God now

2011-09-19T16:38:00.000-07:00

by Charles Lewis

Brethren:

I need the kind of consolation now that only the Holy Father, our Creator, can give.

The latest polls show Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul 1-2-3 among Republican presidential contenders nationwide. None of these three offers a viable alternative to Obama and his satanic collectivism, none, in my view, is sincere, and none would put up anything more than a token fight in the general election campaign - anymore than Dole or McCain did when they obligingly left the gloves on against Clinton and Obama respectively.

Romney had a lower NRA rating than his last communist (read "Massachusetts Democrat") opponent.

He buys into the man-made global warming scam.

He foisted "ObomneyCare" on his state, including mandatory abortion "benefits."

He rigorously and ruthlessly enforced his state's supreme court's outrageously unconstitutional decree (aimed at the legislature, not the governor) to institute sodomite "marriage," causing the arrest of any parent so much as requesting to be informed as to when his government-indoctrination-center-schooled kindergartener was about to be exposed to a unit in queer indoctrination. His actions led to the closing of any adoption agency that refused to sentence orphans to a life of being raised by admitted perverts.

He led his state to financial disaster.

And so on down the list...

Perry mandated - by illlegal executive order - that all 11 and 12-year-old girls received injections of a drug specifically targeting sexually transmitted diseases (thereby sending them the clear message that if they weren't having sex at that tender age they were abnormal), a drug that has a history of causing severe side effects up to and including death. Only a groundswell of public outrage prevented enforcement. (Now he says he's "sorry" he didn't do the exact same thing, only through the legislature, and exhibits the nerve to characterize the abomination as "pro-life" advocacy).

He has a D- in immigration from Roy Beck's NumbersUSA, for a multitude of offenses, from opposing a border fence to giving taxpayer-subsidized in-state tuition (in a package that included citizenship) to criminal alien invaders.

He appointed leftwing activist judges and sadbagged originalists.

Faithful Bilderberger globalist that he is, he tried to ram through the "Trans-Texas Corridor" (aka "NAFTA Superhighway") - a highway system the width of several football fields, off-limits to everyday Americans and requiring the seizure of countless acres of homes, farms, and other private property, leading from Mexico (whose trucks would have unfettered access) to Canada. Only an obstinate legislature prevented this gargantuan atrocity, over his ferocious objections.

He doubled government spending in Texas; he sold off much of the state to foreign interests; he inundated it with fascist, cronyistic "public-private partnerships."

He's up to his neck in "No Chld Left Behind" and government controlled charter schools.

He refused to sign legislation banning intrusive TSA searches and peep shows in Texas.

He vetoed the bill in his state that would have remedied the eminent domain decision, and signed a "thought crimes" bill.

And he promotes himself as a true blue tea-party Christian conservative.

But Ron Paul (fresh off a runaway win in a GOP straw poll in the state of CaliGomorrah) is worse. The other two convince people (people who should know better by now) that their (Perry's and Romney's) records and positions on the issues are in line with the principles of patriotic Americans, sincere Christians, and, ultimately, God, when nothing could be further from the truth.

That's reprehensible. But they don't alter these folks' outlook on these issues themselves.

Ron Paul does. He (with the help of several prominent adherents) transforms the very souls of erstwhile patriots. He gets them applauding rhetoric they abhorred when it escaped the mouths of a Rosie O'Donnell, Charlie Sheen, or Barack Hussein Obama; he transforms arch-conservatives into at least partial flaming neo-libs. The other two leave us unscathed spiritually, just smarting from being burned by the umpteenth fraud. Paul destroys the nature of our beings.

To support this charlatan, one must embrace (read: "swallow whole") all of the following (and much more along similar lines):

- 9/11 was America's fault, for daring to place a few meagre obstacles in the path of islammunist world conquest.

- Tom Tancredo, Alan Keyes, and Michele Bachmann are contemptible, worthy of political obliteration, while Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, Chuck Hagel, and Howard Stern are righteous viable allies.

- Israel, Poland, Colombia, Taiwan, and the like deserve no support from us in combatting the withering forces of international satanism, while Cuba, Vietnam, China, and Iran can and should be our buddies.

- Access to pornography, prostitution, narcotics from marijuana through heroin, and an openly gay "homophobe"-bashing military are on a level with God-given rights

- Drivers licenses for criminal aliens, and even open borders once we get our financial health in order, are sound policy.

Sound like Christian conservative constitutionalism to you? Talk about a "fundamental transformation"...

And these three toxic pols are, apparently, the best we can do in terms of denying Obama a second, and terminal, term.

In a life-or-death election.

In a party supposedly wed to our founding principles.

Even with the great opportunity presented by the emergence of the tea party movement.

And the republic would be dead on arrival upon an Obama reelection.

Maybe it's because I'm old enough to have seen conservatives fall time and again for similar flim-flammery by demagogues who abruptly and eagerly stabbed them in the backs. Whatever it is, it hurts beyond description.

I'm weary of being the little boy in "The Emperor's New Clothes" on these matters.

There's still God, but I don't see so much as a remnant of a remnant of a remnant worth saving - no "ten righteous men," not even one, in terms of the national stage.

And ignorance is no excuse. We're talking about an alarming lack of spiritual discernment, this is indeed a spiritual dilemma. How can there be an excuse when the stakes are of this magnitude?

I now see zero hope among viable GOP pretenders, and, by extension, zero hope for America. There's God, of course, but at this point, with a citizenry hell-bent on self-destruction, what's in it for Him?

If tears could penetrate a computer keyboard, this document would be stained beyond legibility.