KEYES: Bad News Abounds for Conservatives Still Gambling on the GOP
Since the general election cycle around the year 2000, the GOP’s primary election process has followed a pattern. First the field is flooded with a variety of choices. Some of them are known for standing strong in some area of concern to the GOP’s core constituency, with records to prove it. Others promote themselves based on “pro-life” or “pro-family” rhetoric, for example, but they either have no corresponding record or they have a record that belies this campaign propaganda.
However, all of the candidates proclaimed as “viable” because they are mentioned in the elitist faction media, or receive financial support from elitist faction powers-that-be, have one thing in common. On issues critical to the survival of liberty, they are on the record with actions or stands that support one or more of the elitist faction’s lines of attack against the constitutional sovereignty of the American people.
In 2011 I wrote about the nature and implications of these “fatal flaw” positions. Each of them, by itself, constitutes a death threat against the American republic. Taken together they provide GOP voices that validate everything Barack Obama and his leftist cohorts are doing to destroy America; and they repudiate everything the GOP platform promises to do in order to save it. The present GOP Presidential Primary season looks to be more of the same.
For example, GOP propagandists want us to believe that any GOP nominee will overturn Obama’s lawless, dictatorial disregard for the Constitution. They want us to believe that a GOP presidency will restore respect for Constitutional rule. What if the GOP’s elitist powers get their way, and Jeb Bush is maneuvered into being the party’s next “presumptive” nominee for President (i.e., the man pre-selected by the elitist faction as the GOP’s nominee for President long before voters have had their final say?) This past week or so Jeb Bush:
- Urged GOP Senators to vote to confirm Loretta Lynch, Obama’s nominee for Attorney General, who has declared her approval and support for Obama’s anti-constitutional maneuvers;
- Proudly proclaimed that he did the right thing when, as Governor of Florida, he refused to intervene against the judicial murder of Terry Schiavo, even though, by the explicit language of the Florida Constitution, he had a duty to secure her unalienable right to life;
- Singled out “lone wolf” (as distinct from organized Islamic?) terrorism as “a serious threat” in the world; praised Obama for enhancing the U.S. government’s intelligence capabilities; expressed his anxiety about criticism of the NSA methods that involve wholesale disregard for Constitutional constraints; and saw no fault with Obama in this regard his failure to do enough to persuade people (contrary to all appearances) that their civil liberties are being respected.
When it comes to the surrender of U.S. sovereignty, the GOP’s voter base is solidly against amnesty for illegal immigrants. It strongly favors enforcing the laws that regulate access to U.S. territory. Yet this week Marco Rubio, (another pre-selected favorite of the GOP’s elitist powers?) reinforced the impression already created by his record of support for Obama style amnesty policies. In an interview with Univision’s Jorge Ramos, in Spanish, Rubio made it he would not immediately erase Obama’s first amnesty initiative, which he imposed by anti-constitutional means.
Sen. Rubio also confirmed that, like Obama, he is skilled in the practice of talking out of both sides of his mouth, prevaricating either way. His words in Spanish called the anti-constitutional amnesty initiative important, because so many people have benefitted from Obama’s lawless edicts. He said that as President he would keep the amnesty in place until legislation is passed that implements it as part of a piece-meal approach to so-called “immigration reform”. Later a Rubio spokesman, aiming to allay criticism of Rubio’s amnesty endorsement, claimed that Rubio would oppose amnesty “today because we first need to prevent a future illegal immigration crisis by enforcing our laws.” Why then did Rubio say little or nothing about enforcement in the Spanish language interview, while promising to leave Obama’s lawless edicts undisturbed?
Given his participation in the infamous “Gang of Eight” amnesty maneuver, Rubio’s position shouldn’t surprise anyone. But on another front, it was surprising to read about the interview on CBS’s Face the Nation in which he endorsed the questionable view that “sexual orientation is not a choice.” Challenged to say whether he would attend the gay marriage ceremony of a friend he said “I’m not going to hurt them simply because I disagree with a decision they’ve made….”
The right definition of marriage involves an exercise of unalienable right, a species of right antecedent to all man-made laws, which is permanently retained by the people. The Constitution’s Ninth Amendment explicitly prohibits construing the Constitutional enumeration of rights in a way that denies or disparages rights retained by the people. As a U.S. Senator Rubio has sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution. He therefore has a public duty to uphold its provisions, whatever his private feelings may be.
Rubio claims that he wants to restore the American Dream. The campaign to redefine marriage at the expense of unalienable right denies and disparages the premise of justice that is the foundation of the American way of life. Therefore Rubio’s willingness to sacrifice the Constitution’s explicitly stated respect for that premise, in order to preserve his private relationships, is not only inconsistent with the stated aim of his candidacy, it’s inconsistent with the priorities he is obliged by oath to observe as an elected official.
What is the significance of the fact that Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are already flying in the face of the conservative voters the GOP claims to represent? Aren’t candidates like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Ben Carson alternatives that conservatives can trust and support? But in light of his endorsement of pro-abortion U.S. Senate candidate Monica Wehby in the Oregon primary, and the unprincipled justification that he published to excuse it, Ben Carson is just another example of the two-faced duplicity tragically characteristic of the GOP under elitist faction domination.
The elitist powers are giving Ted Cruz and Rand Paul some early leeway in order to lure conservatives into commit their pride, moral energy and scarce material resources to what promises to be another costly round of gambling in the elitist faction’s rigged electoral casino. But I hear that, like Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz subscribes to doctrine of Judicial Supremacy, which holds that the U.S. Judiciary is the ultimate dictator of the Constitution, usurping the voice of the people. This is, in practice and principle, fatal to constitutional self-government.
Rand Paul now tries to speak as if he gives priority to preserving the principled basis of the U.S. Constitution, but his record is full of statements that contradict that impression. His record also suggests a posture of fatal retreat from America’s exemplary role of leadership in international affairs. In this he seems to lead from behind Obama, on a path toward decline and spreading barbarism, that threatens us and all the world.
So what happens If and when it turns out that all the supposed alternatives to the elitist faction’s presumptuous favorites a) take positions fatal to the perpetuation of our Constitutional liberty; or b) endorse, as lesser evil, one of the candidates produced by the elitist powers-that-be who are working to overthrow it? Will there still be time and/or opportunity to challenge the twin party sham in the 2016 General Election? Or will the GOP primary sham have done its work, allowing the elitist faction would-be tyrants in the GOP to exhaust and outmaneuver the true partisans of liberty in what is meant to be the end game for America’s liberty?
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.