The In-Your-Face Amnesty

by Charles Lewis

You see, the thing is this isn't a real nation.

In a real nation that rejected amnesty and citizenship for invaders nearly a decade ago - laughing at the ludicrous claim that there were only "12-20,000,000" of them in said nation - one wouldn't see even nominal opponents of such legislation parroting that "11,000,000" nonsense - especially after all these years when, not the invaders, but the border agents who've tried to do their jobs, know they face imprisonment, doubtless exponentially increasing the illegals component.

In a real nation, the swirl of major scandals (Benghazi, IRS, Fast & Furious, Ammo-gate, Camp Bastion, Snoopergate...) enveloping an administration like Mr. Obama's would, by now, have made his legislative agenda grind to a halt.  Even his partisans in Congress would have backed off, to save their skin, and certainly he could never get a single opposition party vote on anything he proposed..

In a real nation, the juxtaposition of "IRSecution" with the revelations of at least dozens of individual addresses throughout the country where literally multiple thousands of "crimmigrants" at each location were sent literally multiple millions in checks by the IRS would set off alarm bells that would make amnesty bills a veritable third rail.

In a real nation, no Supreme Court would remove citizenship as a requirement for voting, and ban states from doing anything about the "criminaliens" who cast multiple ballots, removing the credibility of any election result in that "nation."  But even in one where that happened, its occurence this close to an amnesty vote would have sent shockwaves that would have doomed such a bill (particularly one that gives, in reality, say, 50-100,000,000 such invaders - including those who've committed multiple serious crimes - legal voting privileges, and only weakens border security) to virtual unanimous defeat.

But, seen in the light of the fact that this isn't a real nation, it all (even the 15 "Republican" Senators who joined forces with the Democrats in ensuring America's destruction yesterday - thus, ironically, preserving their chances for re-election in the new, "unreal," demographic) makes perfect sense.  Expect the "Republican" House of Reps to pass something - anything, even something sensible - in short order, and expect it to morph into the Senate version in some sort of bicameral reconciliation committee and be rubberstamped by "Betroehner" and company there in fanstasyland.

The net effect of such a travesty is a brazen endorsement - an unmitigated stamp of approval, if you will, of all of the tyranny involved in all of those scandals, and an open invitation to ramp them up.  The only thing I can perceive up that ramp is a North Korean-style totalitarian genocide state.  Get used to it.

However, don't lose hope.  If this isn't a nation, that opens the door to us forming one.  Maybe we can call it the United States of America, and maybe we can shape it into a real nation.  To be sure, the Massachusettses and Vermonts and "left coast" states - along with a New Mexico, Maryland, or Illinois in between, and, most certainly of all, Washington, D.C., are over the cliff and won't be on board.  Though there are certainly loads of precious souls living in these areas, the loss of these would be tantamount to cutting off a cancer.

The ones that would constitute a RUSA (the R standing for "real") would have most of the natural resources (as in the Dakotas, Texas, Oklahoma, Alaska...), plus all the Bible Belt regions.  And, Heaven knows, we need a bunch of blessings.

But we'd have to act fast - before a combination of the rampant election fraud that's already determining so many of the contested races, combined with the inundattion of new "unreal" voters to which the "Gangrahamnesty" law will open the floodgates permanently transform the voting demographics of even these "real" states to something unrecognizable.

That's right, fast.  And occupy, and be ready for the return of Jesus Christ to make all of this academic.

The Showdown for the Survival of America

• Speaker Betroehner's diabolical scheme to ram through Gangrahamnesty follows the paradigm of the raising of the debt ceiling a couple years back:
• Pass something positively palatable (as in close the borders first) in the House,
• Send it to joint committee, to blend it with a Senate bill so disastrously pro-amnesty, pro-citizenship, and anti security even Marco Rubio (for political purposes, doubtless) is expressing grave reservations,
• Produce a virtual clone of the Senate bill and present it for confirmation,
• Put withering pressure on GOP House members, who - like Col West on the debt ceiling - fall in line and rubberstamp, and
• Combine it with ObamaCare, our rigged election system, the Obrownshirts, the war against Christianity, etc, to deal the death blow that finishes America off.
• America's own gang of three (Steve King, Louie Gohmert, and lame duck Michele Bachmann) has sniffed this out and recruited a base of about 70 "renegade" GOP congressmen, who plan to openly defy Betroehner, Rove, and the whole the neoRockefeller Republican establishment (losing all future national party funding, decent committee assignments, etc) for putting their nation above the Republicrat Party, thereby sacrificing their political lives.  To wit:
• Invoke the "Hastert Rule," which forbids an acquienscent GOP House from conspiring with the Social(ist) Democrats and passing a bill with less than half the votes of House Republicans,
• Muster, however small, a majority in the Republican House that refuses to pass any immigration bill (not even that red herring "palatable" one) whatever, thus keeping the matter out of the grubby hands of that joint House-Senate committee, and
• Saving the Republic, for the time being, at least.
• The Senate bill will:
• Provide welfare benefits even beyond the extravagant ones that already have crimmigrants living better than most hard working Americans,
• Net, according to Heritage, well over half a million dollars apiece (in 2013 dollars) to the average crimmigrant over his "career,"
• Break the proverbial American bank, and
• Establish in perpetuity a collectivist electoral majority for the Democrats in America.
• If the good gang of three somehow pulls this off, those who help them will have no future in the Republican Party.  This would open the door for their mass migration to what could be a viable third party (America's Party, or, less likely, the Constitution Party, or some variation of a new "Tea" Party?) that, with plenty of help from God, could wrest America from the Republicrats' clutches.  I can dream, can't I?

In Search of God's November Blessings

by Charles R Lewis

Let's take stock:

• We have a Republican House of Representatives that made a great show of "repealing" Obamacare 33 times - knowing the vote would be useless in the light of a Democrat Senate and White House.  But when it comes to something completely in their power that would stop the abomination in its tracks, they refuse to exercise their prerogative of defunding it (thanks, evidently, to the "leadership" of John Boehner).  One has to ask the question whether these guys are really on our side or just want us to think they are,

• We have a GOP candidate with a gubernatorial record - on same sex marriage, gun bans, government takeovers of health care, abortion, judicial appointments, ad nauseum - that's at least the equal of any Democrat's in terms of constitutional carnage.  Anyone who thinks we can expect a SCOTUS justice any better than, say, John Roberts, is in deep denial.

Speaking of Mitt Romney, just in the past few days alone he's stated that the likes of:

• The groundswell for freedom of speech and religion that led to the Chick-Fil-A Day record turnouts and

• Concerns about the indications of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration at the highest levels of the State Department

are "not part of [his] campaign,"

and confirmed his position that:

• The Boy Scouts should accept (can you spell "S-a-n-d-u-s-k-y?") gay adult scoutmasters.

And the latest polls show him trailing President Obama by 9 points, and dropping.

Maybe it's just me, but under the circumstances, it appears America needs a miracle from God to survive in any meaningful sense past 2012.  This is not rhetoric; I'm dead serious.

If we're going to get that blessing, are we going to achieve it by Christians casting cowardly votes, purely out fear, for an unrighteous candidate who's plunging in the polls and every day giving indications he doesn't want their votes?

In California this week, an unprecedented event is taking place when that state's American Independent Party decides on a candidate for its guaranteed ballot line.  Competing for the honor are all the most prominent conservative third party hopefuls, including the Constitution Party's Virgil Goode and America's Party's Tom Hoefling, plus several notable write-in hopefuls, including former Southern Baptist Convention VP Wiley Drake (no, "Leftertarian" Gary Johnson doesn't qualify).

The verdict will be issued on Sunday, August 12, 2012.  The victor will be in a position to consolidate support among third party patriots as no other candidate has ever been.

If I am a Christian in any sense beyond the sense in which electoral tackling dummies of the ilk of John McCain and Mitt Romney are "conservatives"...

If the word "faith," if my concept of a just and omnipotent Creator, has any definitive meaning in my life...

If I have the vision and the realistic grounding to read and interpret the graffiti as described above and elsewhere:

then I will back that candidate.  I urge, I beg,  I plead with fellow believers to do likewise.  And I pray to Jehovah that He accept our offering and act accordingly.

Fast, Furious, and without a Hitch

Charles Lewis


It tickles me how loathe the public is to see patterns, and how reticent the Right is to point them out.  For instance, why do even some of the scandal's ostensively harshest critics seemingly absentmindedly refer to the Obama DOJ's ignominious Fast & Furious as a "failed project?"  


I'll review the facts as best one can piece them together through the fog of disinformation, stonewalling, and executive privilege, and you tell me whether the picture painted is one of a failed operation or rather one that went like clockwork, but for the fact that it was discovered:


1  We had an administration determined to undermine the Second Amendment, with the misnamed "assault weapon" category its first target area.


2  This administration arrived claiming that such weapons, bought in US gun shops, constituted the bulk of the artillery that was resulting in a huge body count in the drug wars south of the border.


3  The idea was to short circuit the availability here of such arms, and maybe shut down many, most, or all American gun dealers in the process, based on the above pretext.


4  Trouble was the vast majority of such weaponry had entered Mexico from points outside the US, and even what little did enter from here (if any) was not the result of purchases from gun dealers.


5  Thus confronted with an agenda without a "good crisis" to propel it, the administration decided to "fulfill the prophecy," by intentionally getting huge caches of such arms into the hands of the worst and most violent of the cartelista narcotraficantes down Mexico way, and hope that it produced a blood bath that would be traced to gun dealers stateside.

6  The result, predictably, was hundreds of corpses among the Mexican populace and at least a couple of our guys to boot.


7  Had the truth not leaked out, this would have set up exactly what the government had sought all along - the impetus to impose draconian strictures on the American self defense industry.


Somebody tell me where the "failure" is in any of this (up to this point in the account, at least)?  As an operation, it was flawless.


It's not the operation's fault if, after the project's rousing success, word got out that the Obama/Holder scenario wasn't the real one.  If I return a punt 90 yards for an apparent touchdown and, as I'm crossing the goal line, one of my teammates commits an illegal block in the back way out at the thirty yard line so that the play is called back, was my run itself "failed," or did something out of my control cause the failure?


Nope, Fast & Furious almost certainly produced pretty much exactly was it was designed to produce, and, for its part, at least, it put the regime in perfect position to capitalize in spades.  It was only the unforeseen revelation that forestalled total victory.


I say "forestalled" and not "thwarted" because when it's your instant replay camera, you get to salvage a lot of blown plays.  What's that coming down the field?  A UN small arms treaty ready for rubberstamping by just enough closet RINOs to push it past the 67 votes necessary for ratification?


Oh, and count on them (or whoever's turn it happens to be) to pile on with LOST, "rights of the person," "rights of the child," "affordable health care" (oops, that betrayal's already old news), and whatever else this runaway one-time republic is slated to endure.  So it's "all good," isn't it?


In a just world, somebody would be facing a Nuremberg-style tribunal for premeditated mass murder.


And in a sane one, not one of those Hispanic Caucus types that walked out of the House in protest of an attempt to "hold Holder" at least nominally accountable for an atrocity where about three hundred of their "raza" compadres were intentionally slaughtered (to facilitate a tyrannical agenda among the gringos) would be re-elected this November.


But, then again, this world is nothing if not unjust and insane...

Handwriting on the Washington Wall

by Charles R Lewis


Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun, Warren Burger, William Brennan, John Harlan, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter. Lewis Powell, Potter Stewart. Charles Whittaker, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, and now, most prominently, John Roberts: a list of the Republican-appointed Supreme Court Justices who have participated in 2½ generations of shredding of your Constitution and dissolution of your freedoms.  These wolves in sheep's clothing have given the left victories in every crucial case over a period of more than a half century.  And the close of the latest SCOTUS session underscored that the fix is still in.


If you go back as far as I do, you should have learned by now that, no matter who appointed whom, nothing substantially good is going to come out of America's usurping "highest of the three co-equal branches."  Even if you just go back to the recent Rehnquist Court, if you were paying attention you noticed that an assemblage where the GOP-appointees outnumbered the Dems 7-2 still consistently gave the left victory after victory - from Kelo vs New Haven, which gave local governments the ability to steal people's property and give it to others who would produce more tax revenues, to McCain-Feingold, which essentially outlawed free speech in electoral campaigns, to various anti-Christian rulings, the Court gave America's enemies pretty much exactly what they wanted, time after time.


At the prevailing ratio back then, the left needed three "crossovers," and got them in the persons of Souter, Stevens, and (taking turns, as if consciously to preserve their images as "centrists," all the while giving the statists 5-4 victories) either O'Connor or Kennedy.


Flashing to the present, Roberts has completed the conversion of America into a hardcore socialist dictatorship with his convoluted rubber stamping of what I call, "Robomacare," "Robamatax," or even "Robomneytax," in recognition of the inspiration for the plan, who gives America the most vexing presidential electoral "choice" yet.  And don't forget, Kennedy is still on the Court for whenever it's his turn once again to sell us out.


Something's wrong with this picture.  America is being "played."


Supposedly, Republican presidents weren't going to appoint any more Warrens or Souters.  With the goal posts already moved light years to the left of the Founding Fathers' playing field, it was crucial that the "mistake" not be made again.


Roberts, we were led to believe, had been thoroughly vetted and didn't have a Roe vs Wade, a Miranda, a school prayer ban, or a primary runoff prohibition (the one that, ironically, got both McCain and Romney - both despised by the party's conservative rank and file - nominated without winning majorities in individual states, thanks also to seemingly planted "conservatives" who divided that vote and refused to drop out even when it was clear their presence could only result in Mitt's nomination) in his (Roberts') deliberative psyche.


Right.  Even Ann Coulter (currently Romney's self appointed spinmeister) warned us about Roberts very early in his confirmation process.  Now Robomneytax, part of a string of rulings where America lost the farm thanks in large part to Roberts,  lets us know exactly where he - along with America's rationale for trust in Republican appointees - stands.


Beware a president with (D) or (R) after his name, Mitt Romney - who appointed only nine of his fellow Republicans among his thirty-six bench appointments as governor of Massachusetts - especially.


So vote Libertarian, right?  Yeah, for Gary Johnson, who'll push to legalize every drug through heroin, and is pro-abortion (though against the death penalty for serial murderer-rapists, etc), pro-gay marriage, pro-prostitution, pro-open borders (oops, I'm a Christian and a patriot).


Constitutionalist?  Even that party couldn't find anyone better this year than a guy (Virgil Goode) who's spent about as much of his political career as a (D) as as an (R).  He championed the toxic "Equal Rights Amendment" in its heyday, has voted for huge farm subsidies and race-based spoils, and said recently he'd cut defense and not touch entitlements.  No, thanks.


Once again, that leaves America's Party, at least as viable as the aforementioned two "third parties," and ideologically pure, with a rigid policy pledge that will hold all candidates' feet to the fire, on penalty of immediate withdrawal of support.  Tom Hoefling, longtime head of the Alan Keyes braintrust, is the candidate this time around, Keyes (the previous banner waver) having retired from elective politics.


There are a couple others - Wiley Drake and Laurie Roth - with similar issue positions (I can personally vouch for all three, but Hoefling has a big head start on the others in terms of ballot access and party apparatus, and figures to be on by far the most ballots).  Yes, it's a longshot, but America is far enough gone that a candidate like Hoefling, with ballot access very likely in the vast majority of states, appears well worth our consideration, especially if the voters therein ever wake up to Romney.


Romney - you remember him, the one with a lower gun rating than his Democrat gubernatorial opponent, the one who introduced socialized medicine on the state level, imposed gay propaganda on kindergarteners, caused Catholic Charities to be shut down for not adopting out orphans to sodomite couples, and promised he'd never interfere with "a woman's right to choose," the one whose reaction to the Obamnesty executive order was, essentially, to assert it didn't go far enough, the one who was the only Republican candidate absent from most of the "Values Voters" debates - is not the one to save an imperiled America.  No way no how.  


Fool you repeatedly, shame on you.


Desperate times call for desperate measures.  Ask yourself if a vote for McCain was worth it.  Ask if he even tried to win.  Ask yourself if Romney is in any sense a better candidate or even better on the issues than McCain, or, for that matter, Obama.


And, most importantly, ask yourself what your God would have you do.  And pray for America and your children and theirs.

The True Nature of the Lies

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.

Palm Sunday, Good Friday, Tea, and OWS

by Charles Lewis

It used to be that one thing related to this Resurrection season had me utterly stumped.  How is it that on a Sunday the streets of Jerusalem were filled with a multitude passionately, even lavishly welcoming an Individual whom it recognized as its long awaited Messiah, only for the same streets to be overflowing, a few days later, with a horde demanding His execution, even choosing to spare a vicious criminal's life over His?  It simply didn't make sense, and the Bible didn't explicitly account for it.

But after observing, in recent months, the contrast between the actions of the various Tea Parties, 9/12 groups, etc. and those of Occupy Wall Street, ACORN, et al, I find it all falls into perfect place.  It's nothing more than the difference between the mentality of a multitude and that of a mob.  A distinction between individuals - in however huge a number - that have made conscious, rational decisions to serve good (and/or have been led by the power of divine grace) and a collective swarm manipulated by an outside, evil force.  It's a dynamic as real now as it's always been.  It's called human nature.

The Minutemen, the Patriots, the Green Mountain Boys, the original (Boston) tea party types, who, collectively, formed the foundation for the most free and moral culture the world was to know, were motivated by a higher, essentially spiritual, calling, just as were the countless believers who laid palm fronds at the feet of our Savior.  Not so with the French masses who stormed the Bastille. Their  legacy, unsurprisingly, has been one of nightmarish tyranny and bewildering instability.

I used to wonder what happened to the folks who'd celebrated Jesus's arrival - once the chips were down and His survival was at stake.  Why didn't they counter the mindless bloodlust of the rabble, fight fire with fire, as it were?  But then I've long wondered why our side can't get organized around a cause at the drop of a hat, the way the evildoers always seem to.  With no justification to speak of, they typically produce an army of ruffians seemingly willing to put their lives on the line making life unbearable for the rest of us.  With our people, even when our backs are to the wall (actually, especially with our backs to the wall) so much as a modest, meek quorum often seems virtually unattainable.

The explanations are manifold.  First, man's sinful nature makes him eminently controllable by evil, particularly when he assembles in large groups, which function as human herds.  The enemy is the ultimate expert at exploiting this.  The Sanhedrin were a first class example.  Orchestrating mob behavior toward an unholy agenda was what they did for a living.

Sanhedrin still function in our midst.  They call themselves "community organizers" nowadays.  They adhere to "rules for radicals," and their Machiavellian skills have been finely honed, with their subjects having been meticulously prepped by the government indoctrination center system.

The crowd calling for Christ's condemnation (and this is key) was made aware which side the powers-that-be's bread was buttered on and immediately fell in line, secure in the knowledge that there would be no consequences to pay.  As much now as in New Testament times as well Old, a people is destroyed for lack of knowledge, especially of Scripture.  I imagine quite a few became disenchanted (ignorant of Isaiah 53 and the need for the fulfillment of prophecy) when a vulnerable Yeshua allowed himself to be captured, scourged, and humiliated by His inferiors.  Without the grounding of Biblical truth, we, too, can become disillusioned at the dizzyingly rapid unfolding of ominous events.

The Bible isn't clear on the point, but I reckon that the Thursday and Friday fanatics weren't, at least for the most part, the same souls who'd hailed the Master's arrival the previous Sunday.  There were, perhaps, a few overlaps - much in the sense that some of my conservative colleagues have expressed a misguided affinity (in terms of a perceived common enemy?) for the occupier movement, but certainly these defectors included none who were truly led by the Holy Spirit.  And those righteous ones who might have been motivated to stand up for the Son of Man would have sustained the withering wrath of the Roman army and others, and they knew it.

The current analogy is stark.  OWT-ers know that the present regime approves of, encourages, and feeds off their anti-social actions, that they have nothing to fear from those one percenters presently in power.

This was made clear from practically day one, when the DOJ vacated an already consummated slam dunk against the New Black Panther Party vis a vis its brazen, armed intimidation tactics the prior Election Day in Philadelphia polling places.  (And it's continued unabated through the dearth of reaction to that same NBPP's recent, outrageously felonious advancement of a bounty on the head of a Florida Neighborhood Watch captain.)  The kid glove handling of the rampant crimes of the "occupee-ers" just reaffirms this state of affairs.

As for their patriot counterparts, such assurances are as far from reality as one can get.  The tea partiers are aware that even the slightest foray into occupier-type behavior would be met - with the media's complicity - with overwhelming force; they'd be summarily mowed down.

Mobs are governed by the collective mindset, whereas by definition the decision to serve God and His righteousness is an individual choice.  "Collective salvation," which President Obama so enthusiastically touts, is as much an oxymoron as "welfare rights," "property tax," or (and I know I'm going to lose some folks here) "Christian rock," whereas collective damnation is the way of the world.

The controlled chaos of the callers for crucifixion has been present in every country that has succumbed to Satanic communism and its various subsidiaries and surrogates.  The elite call these operatives "useful idiots."  Once the despots are in power, such "sheeple," rightly perceived as potential troublemakers, are the first to be eradicated, even before the entrepreneurs.

In the end, may I remind you, it is not our calling to overpower the enemy with street tactics.  What if the Sunday celebrants had risen up and overwhelmed the bloodthirsty Thursday throng and prevented the crucifixion?  No Lamb of God, no atonement, no salvation.  There is, likewise, prophecy that must be fulfilled in these times, much of it downright disturbing.  It is our calling, however, to remain faithful, to seek His guidance, and to tell the truth.

God still has a plan for His flock.  The absolute futility of our capacity as humans has always been lesson one.  He Who sees the end from the beginning will not forsake those who persevere to the end.  May I wish a serene, hopeful, and Spirit-filled Resurrection Sunday to all my brethren.