If people are obliged to support one person who doesn't represent them in order to stop another who also doesn't represent them, they end up with a government that doesn't represent them. The American Founders rightly identified representation as the defining feature of our republic (see, for example, James Madison in Federalist N. 10, "a republic by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place. …") Now, thanks to the "choice of evils" crowd, we are being skillfully maneuvered into a voting mentality that effectively destroys it. ("In Good Conscience")
The elitist faction that engineered Barack Obama's occupation of the White House is clearly determined to overthrow government of, by and for the people founded upon the God-acknowledging principles of America's Declaration of Independence and established by the Constitution of the United States. Though, at the very least, a large plurality of Americans oppose the elitists' moral and economic deconstruction of liberty, the results of Florida's just completed GOP primary vote suggest that, as in 2008, the sham electoral process of the twin-party system will offer them no more than a Machiavellian "choice of evils" in the 2012 general election. They can have Mitt Romney, the proven crypto-socialist former governor of the ailing socialist Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Or they can rely on Newt Gingrich, who frothed with enthusiasm for Alvin Toffler's literally elitist "Politics of the Third Wave". Among other things:
Advertisement - story continues below
Toffler's writings call for abolition of the United States Constitution and the concept of national sovereignty. Toffler calls for a world government, which will be ruled by technocratic elites. There are entire subchapters in the book titled "the sub-elites" and the "super-elites." The Third Wave lays out a society similar to Huxley's Brave New World, but sprinkled with some Republican lingo. Toffler suggests religion should be replaced with loyalty to government and refers to religion in our current system as "cults." The book describes a society where abortion, homosexuality, and divorce are not only accepted but idolized. After all, Toffler proclaims the need to reduce world population, which the aforementioned would indeed facilitate. Gingrich calls Toffler his mentor, which explains Gingrich's connection with the militant environmental movement. In 2007, Gingrich wrote ... "A Contract with the Earth," [in which ] Gingrich describes himself as a "green conservative" and states that environmental issues transcend politics and cannot be dealt with using conventional governance.
How can the GOP's partisan apparatchiks and dutiful talking bobbleheads deadpan the suggestion that either one of these elite faction marionettes represents a conservative alternative? This is, of course, a rhetorical question, but I think it actually has an instructive answer.
In the general sense, the word "conservative" is linked to the idea of preserving the status quo. But after more than 70 years of steadily advancing government domination and dependency, socialism has become the status quo. Behind labels that are deceptive (like "liberal" or "moderate") or were downright silly and illogical (like "big-government conservative"), its elitist prevaricators have routinely deceived, demoralized or confused America's common-sense opposition to socialism. They have constructed and now mean to consolidate a socialist reality that has already made thralls of many Americans, and which they now intend by fear and force (of dictatorial law and circumstance) to impose upon the rest.
Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and the GOP elitists they represent may therefore honestly call themselves "conservative" in the sense that they mean to preserve these socialist gains. In the tactical sense, they may even call themselves Obama's opponents, insofar as they oppose what they regard as Obama's tactless and counterproductive efforts to force the pace of socialist consolidation. But people like me can and will not be taken in by their cleverly truthful lies. We understand conservatism to mean preserving the Constitution of the United States; respecting the God-acknowledging principles on which it is constructed; and maintaining the moral character and understanding by which it is conserved in the hearts and actions of the people. As we oppose socialism, we oppose the conservators of its inroads against liberty, constitutional government and the equality of God-endowed unalienable right, whatever partisan disguise they employ.
I believe that this is the heartfelt desire of the genuine grass-roots conservatives who were moved by their love of God and His righteous endowment of human liberty, to protest the elite-engineered assault on America's character, institutions and livelihood unmasked by events in the fall of 2008. This assault has come to a head in the bipartisan ovation of silence, evasion and dereliction that permitted (and continues to permit) Barack Obama's contempt for the U.S. Constitution to go effectively unchallenged. The conclusion is irresistible that the GOP permits this contempt because, being nothing more than a partisan wing of the elitist faction, it shares the view espoused by Obama and by Gingrich's oracle Alvin Toffler, that both the nation and its Constitution are obsolete.
Advertisement - story continues below
So if the "choice of evils" is again the best the twin-party sham can do in 2012, genuine conservatives have no choice but to reject both the choice and the partisan process being stage managed to produce it. As I suggested in a previous column, people who claim that it is their goal to preserve the Constitution would do well to look to the Constitution for a way to turn the flank of the elitist assault now threatening to overthrow it. The Constitution makes no mention of parties, but it does implement a scheme of representation elections are meant to serve. Where true representation takes place, it is the people themselves who lead, choosing from amongst themselves those who exemplify, and can therefore represent, their character, their faith and the convictions that govern the right conduct of their lives. Clearly, implementing the scheme of representation today will require intelligence, innovative thinking and hard work; it will require both intellectual and moral courage; it will above all require a willingness bravely to take the initiative, instead of timidly waiting for those who fancy themselves your "betters" to take it for (or away from) you.
Have years of partisan dependency done for our citizenship what years of welfare state dependency has done for the lives of all too many individuals and families now enthralled and impoverished by the elite-imposed reality of socialism? Must we, like fledgling birds, wait for our elite masters to bring new leaders into our otherwise helpless reach? Or can we reject the false notion that elections are about choosing new "fuehrers" (that's right, fuehrer is the German word for leader) and remember that they are supposed to be about people of good conscience who take the lead in order to find and select from amongst themselves those fit to be their representatives? Americans are the only folks I can think of who have consistently proven that they possess the exceptional combination of moral spirit and practical virtue required for this task. Are there any left among us?