A Castrated Nation
By: Erik Rush
If there was ever an election cycle in which the issues (at this juncture, really weighty ones) took a back seat to pomp and circumstance â€“ or, if you prefer, hype and flatulence â€“ this one is definitely it.
With the exception of half a handful of worthwhile individuals who were destined to be ignored by the public (for reasons of lack of profile), their partyâ€™s elite (for reasons rooted in fear and weakness), and the media (for obvious reasons), the choices have been ghastly right from the start.
An earthshaking event (like Bobby Kennedyâ€™s assassination during the 1968 Presidential campaign) notwithstanding, one of three individuals (Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain) will be inaugurated as President of the United States next January. To the majority of American voters (Iâ€™ve not yet gotten a chance to speak with all of them as yet), this may appear to be a minimally consequential prospect, but to conservatives it is of grave concern; to some, it ranges from sickmaking to terrifying.
In a sense, there are some parallels between this election cycle and the one of 1992. There is a sitting Republican president with whom both Republicans and Democrats are disgusted; despite added confusion due to the media fueling the process with hype, as a result, many Americans appear to desire some unformulated, undefined, and nebulous â€œchangeâ€ which no one seems to be able to qualify. Like many issues that are usually top-of-mind during election cycles, as with 1992, they are taking a back seat to this â€œgrass is greenerâ€ passion.
Foreign policy and the War on Terror: It is difficult to argue that Democrat administrations have done anything but weaken Americaâ€™s position in the global theater since the Lyndon Johnson administration. The farther left the party has moved, the more inclined it has been to indulge in weak diplomacy as it caves in to capricious â€œallies,â€ domestic anti-Americanism and the infantile globalist visions of the far left. If Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is elected, there is no doubt that this will continue. Indeed, a case could be made that Obama might well be sympathetic to some of our more fanatical enemies at home and abroad, given his voting record in the Senate and (widely unreported) personal philosophy.
This area, in my view, is one of the scant few territories held by Republican John McCain. It is generally believed by conservatives that while his administration may be as weak as a Democratâ€™s in general, it is unlikely that he will minimize the threat of Islamic fascists or be slow to act with military might when necessary given his experience in the military and in government.
Our border with Mexico: Weâ€™re doomed. The Democrat party has proven that it advocates unfettered immigration from third world countries, legal or illegal, operating on the premise that these groups will eventually become Democrat voters, particularly if they can be kept in a state of perceived disenfranchisement long enough for them to buy into anti-Republican propaganda.
â€œSACRAMENTO, California â€“ Mexican President Felipe Calderon acknowledged tensions between the U.S. and Mexico over illegal immigration but said Wednesday both countries have an interest in ensuring their citizens can cross the border legally and safely.
â€˜I know that immigration is a controversial issue today in this great nation. But I strongly believe that Mexican and Mexican-American workers are a large reason for the dynamic economy of California,â€™ Calderon said in prepared remarks.
â€œ â€˜Our nations will never find prosperity by closing their doors.â€™ â€
- Calderon says U.S., Mexico must keep doors open, Associated Press, February 13, 2008
Mexican workers a large reason for the dynamic economy of California? How Orwellian can one get? Has it been discovered that the devastation of Californiaâ€™s economy was actually due to state workers pilfering office supplies?
Wearing an expensive suit and an oily smirk, Calderon, surrounded by fawning members of the California legislature â€“ this state which has been virtually decimated economically by the ravages of illegal immigration from Mexico and the ultra-liberal tolerance thereof â€“ had the (now commonly disregarded) audacity to notify the lawmakers, and by extension America, how we ought handle our southern border issues.
Why he wasnâ€™t run out of town naked on a splintered rail is testimony to an absence of the proverbial key reproductive organs on Americaâ€™s part.
John McCain, as well as being possibly the most liberal Republican in the Senate, has done nothing as border state senator to ameliorate the burden caused by illegal immigration in Arizona. The entire border has become like a demilitarized zone (an oxymoron used widely during the Vietnam War), and the far left press disregards same. Like Bush, McCain can likely be counted on to tolerate illegal immigration and our incremental move toward a North American Union. American business profits, Mexican elites profit, drug traffickers profit, and politicians profit. Whereâ€™s the incentive for change?
Social issues and The Culture War:
This is an area that was even of concern to Democrat lawmakers during the Reagan and Bush The Elder presidencies, but which was put on the back burner until long after the 1992 election. At the time, the effect of the media and an unrestrained entertainment industry threatened to seduce American youth into lifestyles of gratuitous rebelliousness, self-destruction, and debauchery â€“ sort of where many reside now. In fact, if you recall, Al Goreâ€™s wife Tipper and other prominent Democrats were at the forefront of the push for Senate hearings and warning labels for recorded media (records and CD) during the â€˜Nineties.
Then we got Bill Clinton, whom many agree fast-tracked the â€œmodern America as the second Rome fallingâ€ phenomenon. Despite unpopular gay rights initiatives as regards the military, Bill was as libertine as they get, Captain Kirk on Viagra. This set the stage for augmented acceptance of culturally-destructive practices and emboldened gay rights activists.
McCain is a populist; thatâ€™s one of his chief problems with conservatives. He claims to be for overturning Roe v. Wade, but probably feels relatively secure that it wonâ€™t be overturned despite any efforts he may exercise. He can always say he was for overturning it, as did Bush. As far as moral issues go, the man who brought us McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy may bring us (though heâ€™s President), a version of McCain-(Barney) Frank, some bipartisan legislation that inches us closer to a federal amendment protecting gay â€œmarriage.â€
As I have indicated before â€“ and it appears that this will be even moreso the case no matter who is elected President in November â€“ carefully orchestrated and massive grassroots action is the only vehicle by which Americans will be able to neutralize the designs of those in places high and low who wish to preserve the beltway status quo, allowing our slide toward global disenfranchisement, socialism and cultural putrefaction to continue.
Whether the Republican Party pulls itself together within the next few years or continues to lie in the corner mumbling incoherently and expectorating on itself like someoneâ€™s junkie brother-in-law must become immaterial. Whoever is elected president, this era of grassroots activism must be inaugurated. This imperative ought to become apparent to most American voters before 2008 is out.
Erik Rush is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.