In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. (Matthew 2:18)
The past few days brought news of deeply disappointing decisions by two supposedly pro-life Republicans, Kansas Senator Sam Brownback and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Both seem intent on proving, in their different ways, my contention that the Republican Party's wrongheaded commitment to unprincipled electioneering turns potentially good leaders into bad ones. Senator Brownback stunned and outraged his pro-life supporters by announcing his intention to vote to confirm Kathleen Sebelius as the new Secretary of Health and Human Services. She is notorious for her ruthless advocacy of abortion including the very late term abortions that properly defame her friend and financial backer Dr. George Tiller.
Given Barack Obama's infamous willingness to countenance infanticide (the murder of infants who have the temerity to survive an abortion attempt), it's no surprise that he would think her an appropriate choice to head the Department that will implement his plans for the government induced abortion of the U.S. health care sector. But because of his strongly professed personal conviction and his newly professed Catholic faith, Senator Sam Brownback was expected to be in the forefront of efforts to derail the Obama-Sebelius death train. But he has his eye on the gubernatorial seat Sebelius is planning to vacate. With the obtuse logic that typically prevails in Republican circles these days, he appears to have decided that the surest way to win it is to show his contempt for the faithful people who worked their hearts out to carry him to an overwhelming (69%) victory in his 2004 re-election bid. He could have invested some of that political capital to make a strong stand for innocent life. But in tune with what appears to be the Republican ethos of our times, the Senator seems now to believe that a good politician uses principles to get votes. He doesn't risk votes for the sake of principle.
What a contrast with the Democrats who worked over Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and others who refused to tiptoe gently around their immoral sensibilities. How is it that those who advocate the murder of innocents stand with passionate conviction to denounce anyone who questions their depravity, but those who claim to champion God's command that we respect innocent life seem ready to back off the moment some excuse is available for their retreat, or a little opening is offered to their ambition? It seems that Yeats had it right. "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."
In the same vein we see Sarah Palin elevating a former member of the board of Planned Parenthood (America's chief purveyor of abortion) to the Alaska Supreme Court. She wins headlines from the media claque for bucking the pressure from the faithful pro-lifers whose applause for her supposed pro-life stance helped to overcome that same media's ridicule and contempt in the recent national election. This marks at least the second time she has used her gubernatorial position to take a step that contradicts her supposedly conservative moral stance. When she vetoed a bill passed by the Alaska legislature that would have preempted regulations extending benefits to the same-sex partners of state employees, she mistakenly claimed she had no choice but to obey the liberal Judges who purported to order the change. Now she says that Alaska's constitution left her no choice but to accept the objectionable candidates the Alaska Judicial Council handed her. Unlike her predecessor, Governor Frank Murkowski, she apparently couldn't be bothered to make a fight of it, much less take that fight to the people.
We're told of course that politics is the art of the possible, but that seems to mean only what makes political advancement possible, rather than what might possibly advance the things these politicians pretend to believe. Once upon a time, it was the vocation of political leaders to use their talents and abilities to champion new and better possibilities. That's what Lincoln did as he developed the arguments that attacked indifference to the injustice of slavery. That's what Teddy Roosevelt did as he raised his voice to promote the importance of virtue and decency in America's public life. It's what set Reagan apart in the years when he refused to back away from his rejection of socialist big government policies, or his staunch opposition to communism.
Today we recognize that statesmen like these stand head and shoulders above the crowd of timid timeservers all too common in every generation. Unfortunately, despite what we should learn from them, we are too willing to accept media profile as a substitute for real character and conviction. Whatever their talk, whatever the facade created for them by media consultants and sixty second spots, actions still offer the acid test of political leaders. When push comes to shove, these so-called Republicans disappoint, retreat and betray again and again. Yet judging by the reaction of some of the die hard defenders of their unprincipled (lack of) leadership, it's less objectionable for them to abandon their posts than it is for folks like me to point out that they have abandoned them.
In the end we are forced to accept the possibility that they have taken conservative stands because they thought it would be good for their election chances, not from a sincere conviction that it is vital for the good of the nation whose people they are supposed to serve. The tragedy is that we are in the midst of the kind of crisis, of liberty and economic survival, which cannot be met except by leaders of true conviction, the kind of conviction that inspires people to stand firm against the blandishments and threats of those who are the enemies of both liberty and survival. It is clear we shall not find such leaders any longer in the party that twice raised up their kind to save first the Union and then our free economy, for a time. Those who have the will to conserve the now imperiled principles of liberty must think anew, and act anew to create a political vehicle that will call forth from amongst the people themselves steadfast and truly faithful representation. This alone will revive the hope of lasting freedom, not only for us but for the generations yet unborn whom their pretended political advocates have betrayed more than once too often.
Some people, now including a National Committeewoman from North Carolina, have expressed the view that Michael Steele is unfit to be leader of the RNC. I think this assessment is only partially correct. What is left unsaid of course is that the GOP is unfit to claim leadership of the conservative base that is the mainstay of Republican electoral hopes. Steele's erratic performance isn't a matter of personal inadequacy. He's a capable and generally well-spoken individual. He suffers however, from the fact that the Republican Party has ironically become a perfect illustration of the "house divided against itself", the Biblical metaphor Lincoln immortalized in our political history the last time the United States passed through a period like ours. The unprincipled materialists in the Party's big money base, and the otherwise insubstantial politicians who depend upon it for survival, are at war with the grassroots conservatives. Both love America for its freedom. But when a grassroots conservative uses the term, he means liberty, the chance to do as much and go as far as talent and/or hard work will get you; the opportunity to live under laws that reflect your sense of decency; and the character that takes the responsibilities of self-reliance and citizenship seriously. When the unprincipled materialists speak of freedom, they mainly seem to mean freedom of action (the opening to do whatever it takes to preserve what you've got and get more.) Taken in the latter sense, freedom has no substantive meaning or value. When it's useful it's good. When it's not useful, it's expendable.
Confronted with someone like Obama, the grassroots conservative recognizes by instinct and reasoning, that liberty is under threat. The materialist, on the other hand, considers what can be made from the tidal wave of government spending; the flood of cheap labor across unenforced borders; the profitable acquisitions available as prices fall and cash flow problems ripen otherwise undervalued assets for the taking. Any times can be good times for those positioned to take advantage. Money's never lost but when it's also gained, by someone. "O'er forms of government let fools contest", whatever makes a profit, that's the best.
The Obama faction is synthesizing communist goals and political tactics with means drawn from the playbook of National Socialism (translated as "globalism" these days). This gives the materialists lots of room for calculation. For all the talk of negative markets and depression, not far from the surface they have a pretty shrewd hunch that this guy Obama is someone they can work with. He has to throw sops to the leftist populists, of course. But eventually, as he uses the rhetoric of populist hope and change to gather the reins of control into fewer and fewer hands, the burdensome complexities of American politics will be streamlined and simplified. It won't be quite as straightforward as bribing the vanity of self-important tyrants in Africa or the Middle East, but it will be far easier than riding the ornery and unpredictable currents of a really free electoral process, and laws made by representatives who do more than rubber stamp the party line.
Into these and other such practical calculations, intrudes the clamor of people concerned about the Constitution, the moral principles, the loss of control over income and livelihood, and the surrender of self-respect involved in becoming slavish dependents of government and corporate bureaucracy. The materialists think that talking about these concerns is all well and good if it gets votes from well meaning people who care about them. But that 's only so long as none of it really determines actions or policy. When push comes to shove, human achievement consists in a few people doing what they do best, while the others do what the best ones tell them. Once upon a time they called it aristocracy (from a Greek word for the power of superior people), and the privileged few were called, "the nobility" and "the quality." The ugly abuses it involved took the shine off those fine words, however, so now they call it progress, change, globalism, the new world order. The privileged ones are stars, decision makers, or celebrities. Actually it's the same old story, though now equipped with better technology and relieved of any real regard for conscience by the pseudo-scientific ideologies of evolution and behaviorism.
Sometimes in the course of a bureaucratic or corporate power struggle the one who was in charge realizes that others are no longer talking to him, but to each other. The outcome may still seem undecided, but a perceptive player recognizes it as a moment signaling defeat. It's not so much that he has lost. It's that he just doesn't matter anymore. For some time now, on issues like border security and immigration, the massive bank bailout, the push for same sex marriage and the like, the people have been in that position. They thought they were in charge, but now the elites talk only to one another, working out the terms on which the end of constitutional, democratic self-government in America shall be unveiled to the entire world.
This is what really makes the Steele-Limbaugh match-up a distraction from the main event. While they appear to mix it up, the Republican Party stands quietly by as the Constitution is shredded, the country run to bankruptcy, and the people turned from sovereign citizens to bleating subjects, grateful for admission into the electronic presence of their betters. And as cover for it all so-called Republicans, like Mel Martinez, flattering the power of the people with the false notion that their will is superior to the Constitution which alone perpetuates their sovereignty.
Now, don't get me wrong. I still believe the overthrow of the republic can be undone. But the turnaround will not begin until the conservative grassroots abandon the dead end goal of saving the Republican Party. Let the so-called leaders play out their charade, while the citizen leaders, instead of watching, set to work on the achievable miracle of saving the Republic. Visit aipnews.com
In the 2008 Presidential election, America's so-called two-party system offered the voters no real choice. Obama offered empty rhetoric that masked a lifelong commitment to the treacherous allure of shiftless communism. McCain offered empty rhetoric that masked his total abandonment of the American principles the Republican Party pretends to uphold. Both candidates joined in support of the so-called bank rescue package that is now acknowledged by all to have been America's fateful leap into full fledged socialism. (As usual, when we said so at the time, people like me were ridiculed by the thought enforcers in the media, who exist to make people timid and ashamed of their own common sense.) The election was a stage play of phony fisticuffs, like some of the wrestling matches we see on TV. The two parties are like baseball teams or racing cars held by the same owners. Despite the appearance of competition, they are two puppets moved by one pair of hands, sharing a common goal- to maximize profits for the self-serving special interests that pull their strings. America doesn't have two parties, but one party with two heads. Their lips feign disagreement, but they sit atop a body whose feet move only one way- toward government dictatorship that once and for all overthrows the sovereignty of the people.
Of course, many people who support the Democrats have no problem with this outcome, so long as the government dictators promise a job (though for all too many a reliable handout will do), a roof over their heads and the freedom to fornicate in whatever manner they choose. They even applaud mass slaughter, so long as it's directed against human life in a way that flatters their timidity and pride to exempt them from immediate harm ("not to worry, you're in no danger, only your inferiors"). But some Democrats and a large number of Republicans have enough self-respect to reject the small pride that fearful prejudice makes possible. They want to feel part of something noble, something that invokes a better destiny than survival, a better hope than simply being spared the butcher's knife. Some of these give in with pleasure to empty words of hope and change, spoken in tones that smack of something grand, they know not what. Some surrender to slogans that exalt liberty; promise greater responsibility; that even (dare we say it) mention God and imply that yes, there's more to life than passing fantasies of never lasting pleasure. These latter mostly vote Republican. They long for the real substance of that old American dream, our liberty. I like to believe that there are still enough of them to constitute a governing majority, if ever they would come together in earnest to vote for what they say they long to see. But even now, faced with the prospective triumph of everything they profess to deplore, they remain passive, hesitant, divided, confused- filled with noble appetites but all unwilling to risk moving toward the highlands where nobility can be satisfied. They hear with pleasure the echoes of Ronald Reagan, calling to America as that 'city on a hill'. But mired by love of pleasure in their suburbs on the plain, though they hear, they will not climb.
Such people have a decision to make, not unlike the one that faced Lot's congregation when the Lord gave them leave to escape the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. Will they be Lot or Lot's wife? They must choose between the steep path to hope that dwells in the highlands, or the memories of pleasure tugging at their heartstrings, pulling toward the plains and hope's destruction. It is of course only the memory of pleasure that beckons: a vain delusion. For us the surest indication of this is the little grain of truth in the alleged usurper's State of the Union address. Amidst improbable promises of future messianic wonders, he admitted that the likely and immediate prospect was one of debt, dearth, and government inflicted discipline. The real question therefore is not whether we will suffer, but whether we will do so to help Obama overthrow our liberty or to help ourselves restore it.
In slavery times some masters' prized possession was a dark skinned overseer whose appearance lent some color of legitimacy to the brutal reality of enslavement. Their greatest nightmare was one who rose to be a rallying point against this clever deception. Against this nightmare, the most clever and enslaving deception of all was the preacher who appealed to the longing for freedom in order to enmesh the enslaved in a soulish disposition that sings hymns to freedom in the land of bye and bye, but does nothing here and now to assert or pursue that freedom. Such was the caricature of Christianity often encouraged amongst their "chattel" by skillful slaveholders. Such sadly is the role the Republican Party now plays in the drama that depicts the fate of America's liberty.
Happily, the best antidote to the false Christianity used to facilitate the tyranny of earthly masters, is the true faith that represents the liberty of God's creation. God's liberty offers every human being the chance to be their own master with no provision except that they respond to the goodwill that God offers them by accepting it themselves and extending it to all others. In doing so they constitute a self-governing community for which God's goodwill becomes the law. This is the clear, straightforward vision of republican liberty that America's founding generation sought to implement. In the Declaration of Independence they eloquently set forth its principles. In the war for Independence they proved their dedication to its truth. In the Constitution of the United States they strove, as best they could, to fashion a framework for its construction.
Abraham Lincoln's legacy has been falsely played upon and manipulated a good deal in recent weeks. But are there really any Americans left truly committed to government of, by and for the people, the form of government to which Lincoln dedicated all the sacrifice, suffering and death of the American Civil war? If so, the most critical and desperate need of our times is a vehicle for their action that is truly, faithfully, wholeheartedly committed to its preservation. Yet, though by name the Democrats invoke the people's strength, they embrace an ideology that betrays that strength for the sake of government power. Though by name the Republicans invoke the common good that is the people's liberty, they have sold out the faith and fear to act on the creed that is the foundation of our free republic. If we mean to restore it, then we must reject the betrayal of the Democrats and the sold-out timidity of the so-called Republicans. We must cease to be the consumers of their political lies, wallowing in the throes of the nightmare they have brought upon us. We must become instead the re-builders of a fresh republican hope, the real American dream.
In light of this challenge, it is surely providential that contemporary science and technology now offer tools exactly suited to the practical challenge at hand. Next, we'll take a look at the characteristics of a structure of political action that makes use of these tools. It must be designed from the ground up to be consistent with the goal of rebuilding the ark of liberty. Otherwise it will not survive the flood of lies, debt and delusions that now threatens to overwhelm our freedom. As background for this discussion, pay a visit to http://AIPnews.com. Explore what you find there. After all, the old saw is sometimes right on. A good illustration saves more than a thousand words.
Thought for Today
"It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force." The Federalist
"With words we govern men." Benjamin Disraeli
In practice, the substance of liberty is deliberate, voluntary choice. Constrained by the threat or use of force; manipulated by lies and misinformation; herded by contrived circumstances; choice is not voluntary, and those who make it are not free. Where free choice prevails, communication is the key to persuasion. Words (including in this term the language of music and graphic images) convey facts, ideas and feelings that sway and determine the will. For those who would be free, words matter.
Understanding this, the enemies of freedom do their best to limit or eliminate words that interfere with their design for despotism. They especially seek to stigmatize and discourage the use of words freighted with the sad and tragic history of tyranny and dictatorship. That's why the use of the word 'communist' to describe Barack Obama has aroused such furious diatribe and aspersion. Call him liberal. Call him socialist. Even call him a Marxist if you will. But communist is a dirty word, a cheap shot, just resentful name calling.
Of course, it wasn't a dirty word when Marx or Engels used it to describe their ideology, or when Lenin wielded it to rally his forces on behalf of the proletariat. Marx's ponderous writings are boring and not even half-true. The bulk of people who claim and act in his name have probably never read much beyond the "Communist Manifesto." But this makes Marxism a false name, not a bad one. It took the millions murdered or dead from famine in the assault on Russia's middle class farmers (the Kulaks); it took the millions slaughter and consigned to hellish gulags during Stalin's other purges; it took the millions mobbed, defenestrated, hacked to death in Mao's cultural revolution; it took the smoking ruins of the tens of thousands slain in Kampuchea's killing fields; and so on and on, to make communism a dirty word. It took the destruction of churches, the persecution of dissidents, the use of crushing military force against unarmed civilians seeking only the dignity of their human rights; to give communists a bad name.
Given this history, it's easy to understand why folks who are looking, waddling and quacking like communists would rather we called them messiahs. Sensible people want to avoid getting caught up in the grist mill of communist tyranny. The use of the term invites them to look at its history, and this means not only the grisly results, but the path to power that let some people inflict such horrors on others. Americans have an especially good reputation for not putting their fingers into light sockets, but it doesn't take that much shrewdness to recognize the telltale signs of an approaching hurricane before it overtakes you. Lincoln showed this disposition when he looked at the actions of the pro-slavery cabal before the last Civil War.
We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen -- Stephen, Franklin, Roger and James, for instance -- and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few -- not omitting even scaffolding -- or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such a piece in -- in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck.
These days, the Obama faction's media claque derides anyone willing to imitate Lincoln's common sense as kooky, crazy, fringe, lunatic and an assortment of less cordial terms meant to scarecrow the weak minded.
We see the takeover of the banks and financial institutions.
In the steadfast refusal to take simple steps to show compliance with the Constitution's eligibility requirements we see Obama's personal contempt for the Constitution.
We see the Obama celebrity claque hyping a cult of personality, including a pledge of allegiance to him, rather than the U.S. Constitution.
We see steps by his cronies to take over and manipulate the census, control that could be abused to consolidate one party dictatorship over government in the United States.
We see his faction's Congressional delegation assigning unconstitutional voting representation in the U.S. Congress to federally controlled districts not qualified as states under the Constitution.
We see a so called stimulus bill that directs billions of dollars into the coffers of the Obama faction's political machine.
We see his faction's Congressional majority planning a taxpayer funded demographic invasion that will permanently alter the identity of the American people.
We hear his repeated calls for the establishment of a domestic security force as large and well funded as the military: an American KGB.
From him we hear an ominous warning about our "day of reckoning".
His budget seeks control of the life and death health care sector.
His tax policies destructively assault private action in order to fund national bureaucratic domination.
He proposes risky cutbacks in our military preparedness.
His massive spending involves borrowing requirements that will increase Communist China's hold over the United States.
He makes appeasing overtures to Iran as it moves toward nuclear weapons capability.
His faction's State Department welcomes a move that makes our hemisphere's most active radical, anti-American Marxist (Hugo Chavez) a dictator for life.
But if we dare to see the obvious pattern in all of this, we're candidates for a soon to be government controlled mental hospital. Or so the Obama faction wants people to believe. Do you think they're right?