GOP leadership and its prominent operatives are wholly complicit in the fundamental transformation of America
You Don’t Negotiate With Terrorists – or Democrats
Leaving aside for the moment the likelihood that parties and party politics in America will become moot within the next few years (owing to the emergence of a single party or the country’s dissolution into civil war), conservatives and libertarians are finding themselves at an unpleasant crossroads. While some observers gave up on the leadership of the Republican Party long ago, it is now becoming apparent to rank-and-file Republicans that the GOP leadership and its prominent operatives are wholly complicit in the fundamental transformation of America.
While these might not be on board with the “fundamental transformation” as referenced by candidate Obama in 2008 (his being a dedicated Marxist and all), they are indeed working in concert with Democrats to bring about a monolithic socialist state. Worse, many said Republicans have been masquerading as staunch conservatives and are acknowledged as such, so they are accepted by committed conservative voters.
As the parchment upon which the Constitution is written approaches 451 degrees, some are now being openly accused of their treason, because the causes and effects thereof have become apparent. A preponderance of conservatives and libertarians have recognized the deeply malignant designs of the Obama administration, with which there is no good faith negotiation. Thus, they do not expect anything that even resembles weakness from those who claim to be opposed to the course the President has set.
Like the decision of Ohio Governor John Kasich to accept Obamacare funding to expand his state’s Medicaid program. There are few acts that could be viewed more readily as capitulation to the Obama regime than this. Informed conservatives and libertarians have been aware that Obamacare is the death knell for liberty in America since before it was passed into law. Kasich campaigned as a fiscal conservative, and the support of the Tea Party was instrumental in his election. In so doing, he has stabbed these constituents in the back. Kasich was heretofore considered by many conservatives to be one of the faithful.
Another treachery that has gained wider implementation is the proclivity that prominent “conservative” politicians and operatives have for marginalizing grass-roots conservatives like the Tea Party.
Recently, a furor in conservative circles erupted over the Conservative Victory Project, started by Karl Rove and the super-PAC American Crossroads. The goal of this group is ostensibly to protect incumbent Republicans against primary challengers and avoid losses like the GOP saw in 2012. Conservatives and Tea Party members have accused Rove of putting the establishment ahead of conservative principles by supporting weak establishment candidates who lose, and sabotaging viable conservative candidates.
Which he is clearly doing. Rove points to real conservative candidates his organization has supported, but his flawed prognostication, stymieing of grass-roots efforts, and inconsistent signals to the base speak to someone who is more wedded to the establishment than principles. We cannot forget that he was “the architect” for the uber-establishment faux conservative George W. Bush.
Conservatives know that the stakes are too high for these boilerplate political games, so why don’t so-called conservatives like Rove, Kasich, Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, and a host of others?
The answer is clear, and the operative term is “games.” The machinations of the GOP power brokers in recent years haven’t been those of ineptitude or spinelessness, they have been those of collusion. These high-profile Republican operatives are oligarchs of the same mold as their Democrat counterparts. Personally, they may hold slightly different political views, but these are analogous to two people who prefer different varieties of cheesecake.
For decades, people have scoffed at the idea that powerful Republicans were indeed compromising American interests in favor of various global socialist agendas, even as evidence continued to mount. Charges that were leveled 30 years ago have been validated, yet the scoffing continues. In 1992, President George H. W. Bush signed the U.S. onto the United Nations’ Agenda 21. This is now widely recognized as an insidious means by which the economies of Western nations – America in particular – might be crippled under the pretext of “sustainability.” At this point it is quite clear that Agenda 21 is sinister, yet prominent faux conservatives titter right along with liberals at this notion.
This is but one example of where that which once appeared to be fringe conspiracy theory is now reality. When I was growing up in the 1970s, there were those who spoke of the dangers of the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, and other agencies, even as Republicans of the day claimed membership therein. Now the agendas are out in the open rather than the ramblings of “fringe elements,” but the proponents of globalism have gained so much ground that there may be no stopping their progress in America short of civil war.
So what’s a conservative to do? If there is a chance of reversing this process at the ballot box, with whom should constitutionally-minded conservatives and libertarians align themselves, particularly considering the fact that there are still so many of their number who trust the GOP?
I tend to agree with colleagues who have concluded that the federal government is lost, and that we must concentrate our efforts – at least in the short term – on our state governments. Vis-à-vis Obamacare, for example, it has been rightly asserted that refusal to cooperate on the part of the states will be an effective counter to its implementation. Ruthless scrutiny with regard to who we send to the state house as well as to Congress, eschewing even thwarting the campaigns of party establishment hacks, is another way we might retain a measure of liberty within the states in which we reside. Unless and until the Federal government initiates a full-blown police state, the statists may still be neutralized via the current political infrastructure.Erik Rush -- Bio and Archives | Comments