Ever since he decided to make a run for president of the United States his next reality TV production, I've worked to make sure true conservative still prey to the GOP delusion don't get taken in by Donald Trump's Clintonesque bid to con them out of their votes. I did so despite the fact that, at first, people I work with closely didn't take him seriously. But for the past decade I've spent a good deal of time among grass-roots conservatives deeply angered by the repeated betrayals of the GOP's quisling leaders. I knew that their open declaration of war against conservative candidates in the 2014 GOP primaries moved that anger from red to white-hot.
I have also worked for years with people angered by the GOP quislings' surrender of the sovereignty and security of America's continental borders. I therefore knew that the boisterous rhetoric with which he highlighted his supposed opposition to Obama's dramatically open aggravation of that surrender would inevitably draw applause from such people.
But because of Trump's background of sympathy with the very policies that roused their anger, I found it impossible to believe in his inflammatory rhetoric. I immediately suspected that, like his TV productions, it was stagecraft, intended to draw an audience – which, of course, it did. Because the whole tenor of his life and career contradicted his rhetoric, I assumed it was just a con. Thanks to that assumption I was determined, from the very first, to do everything I could to warn the goodhearted people he meant to deceive against being taken in by him.
So in the past few months I've written a fair number of columns detailing the facts and logic that support my conviction that a Donald Trump presidency will mark the final triumph of the elitist faction's strategy to overthrow America's constitutional government. Note well that I don't oppose Trump simply as an individual. I oppose him as the shrewdly calculated focal point for the final offensive through which the elites who have hijacked America's present party system mean to consolidate the victory they think they have already won.
Lately, of course, for reasons of political expediency, Trump's alleged opponents have taken up most of the themes I've written about. However, at first, that same expediency (or, as Ben Carson would call it, "pragmatism") led Dr. Carson and Ted Cruz to flirt with Trump. They did so ostensibly to avoid alienating potential voters who were applauding Trump's rhetorically tough stand against illegal immigration. But it was (and still is?) also with a view toward a possible alliance with him, which could have attracted both votes and financial backing.
TRENDING: 'Art of the Deal': How Trump turns COVID issue into 'win-win'
In some form or other, that alliance is, of course, likely to be the inevitable result if Trump wins the GOP nomination. Even if Cruz and Carson were the anti-establishment champions they have been cast to play, they are still pledged to support the GOP's eventual nominee. If Trump is working a long con against conservatives, where will this leave those who sincerely believe in the views he is only play-acting?
It will leave them exactly where they have been since at least 2008 (but quite probably since Reagan's tenure ended): with no choice that doesn't abandon the substance and aim of the form of government America's Founders sought to establish on the principles of America's Declaration of Independence, and to implement via the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
Is this, then, to be the choiceless fate of what were once the free people of the United States? Tragically, too many of them seem to think so. Against reason, experience, conscience and common sense they accept the notion that they have no choice but to play their role in the elitist faction's anti-constitutional script. Yet, as I point out every time someone asks, "Well, who are you supporting?" the wisdom embodied in the U.S. Constitution instructs us in another way, one in which our choice depends on our own initiative.
The election for president of the United States is supposed to depend on the outcome of elections focused at the grass roots, elections that allow the people to make (i.e., decide upon, lift up) choices from among people like themselves, people they get to know at first hand. The Electors thus chosen are the ones to whom the Constitution gives the actual power to vote for and select the chief executive officers of the national government.
This arrangement offers an alternative intended to remedy exactly what has now occurred – a takeover of our national politics by elitist forces hostile to the republican form of government the U.S. Constitution aims to guarantee. But to make use of this alternative, people must ask a simple question: What does it take, in my state, to field a slate of candidates for the office of presidential elector, a slate bound to no party, but pledged to seek out and elect a president and vice president with the proven commitment and capacity faithfully to implement a platform that respects the nation's founding principles and restores, in aim and policy, the exercise of God-endowed unalienable rights the just powers of government exist to secure?
To answer this question people will have to research, devise and implement an alternative, in light of the election laws and regulations of their respective states. If and when they do so, it will not only offer a General Election alternative to sensible people who reject the partisan sham. It also offers a fallback position to people hoping against hope that the present treacherous political process isn't irretrievably lost to the defenders of liberty. After all, if someone like Ted Cruz is really opposed to the GOP's quisling establishment, he will more than likely end up being defrauded by the elitist faction media and party bosses.
Like the others, Cruz has pledged not to run "third party." But the Electoral College Strategy is based on platform, not partisanship or allegiance to some candidate's national ambition. It's based on finding trustworthy individuals in our states and local communities to represent us in making the final decision about who should be president. It does not involve starting a political party, or fielding a national candidate for president.
Why not build an alternative that requires potential candidates to support the initiative of grass-roots voters, instead of the elitist sham that makes people into servile tools of candidates fabricated to serve the faction that seeks to overthrow their sovereignty as a people?
Media wishing to interview Alan Keyes, please contact [email protected].
|