To nobody’s great surprise, the usual liberal mouthpieces, as typified by Democrat strategist Bob Beckel, reacted with predictable and exaggerated indignation. Nevertheless, mainstream America responded to West with a collective cheer of approval. Finally, someone on the Republican side is exhibiting sufficient backbone to echo the sentiments of Main Street, where common folk have soundly rejected both the ravages of liberalism and the insipid banalities of “bipartisanship” and “cooperation” still touted by establishment Republicans inside the Beltway as the proper course for the nation in this perilous time.

A hero to conservative America, it is appalling that West’s rising star is threatened not by the Democrats, but by the GOP Establishment in his own state. As part of an ongoing effort to disenfranchise and ultimately disband the Tea Party, Republican insiders have hatched a plot to get rid of West, and in the process, deliver a stern warning to other real conservatives of sharing his fate should they fail to play the political game on terms dictated by the ruling class.

In a defining sense, West’s plight is a microcosm of the difficulties faced by the entire conservative movement as it is repeatedly betrayed by liberal opponents masquerading as their kindred. And until grassroots conservatives recognize the nature of this Trojan Horse in their midst, and unconditionally reject it as an ally, they will continually find themselves undermined and thwarted at crucial stages of their battle against liberalism.

Considering the intensity of public backlash against Barack Obama in 2010, which culminated in devastating mid-term Democrat losses in the Congress, as well as significant routs in state legislatures across the country, it would seem ludicrous that the Republican Party insiders might even consider “reaching across the aisle” to subordinate themselves to the party America had so stridently rejected. Yet in the months following the elections, it became abhorrently obvious that such was exactly the course the GOP insiders had chosen.

On one occasion after another since Barack Obama’s inauguration, grassroots America had rallied and united in its efforts to stop the liberal onslaught in its tracks. And just as frequently, the moment any conservative victory was achieved, the GOP Establishment set itself to the task of neutralizing and negating everything that had been gained.

In a resounding rebuff of Obama’s relentless effort to drag America into the mire of socialism, the people of Massachusetts stunned the entire world by installing Republican Scott Brown in the Senate seat left vacant by the death of Democrat stalwart Ted Kennedy in a January 2010 special election. Yet to the dismay of everyone hoping for Brown to be a real Republican, the moment he passed inside the Beltway, he cast off his pickup truck driving “man of the people” persona, and embraced virtually every premise of the Washington D.C. status quo. Very quickly thereafter, he publicly aligned himself with almost every tenet of the counterculture and the nanny state.

In like manner, once Republicans had assumed majority status in the Congress, the primary effort of party veterans was to whip the newcomers into line, pressuring significant numbers of freshmen to acquiesce on such defining issues as raising the debt limit and funding the initial phases of Obamacare. In what now is revealed as total insincerity, they made empty assurances that once the GOP had reestablished itself as the majority in both houses and taken the presidency, such matters as deficit reduction and government bloat could be properly addressed.

Yet even as they offered those platitudes, they were working overtime to ensure that no such changes would ever ensue. The entire effort by the Republican Establishment to pre-select former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as the party’s nominee has been a hallmark of insider politicking, trumpeting the ostensible superiority of “moderation” as a means of attracting voters from the political “center” and minimizing the feared liabilities of right wing “extremism.” Among the elites, Romney represents the best hope of never having to deliver on political promises, post election. Conversely, real conservatism is a discordant millstone which drags down the Republican Party.

In keeping with this philosophy, party operatives must work to neutralize any upsurge of grassroots conservatism, even if it means the betrayal of duly elected Republican office holders. In the case of Congressman West, the Florida legislature, despite holding greater than 2:1 Republican majorities in both houses, is claiming the 2010 Census and redistricting requirements as justification for eliminating his congressional seat. Amazingly, the Republican legislative caucus makes this assertion despite the fact that Florida will actually gain two representatives in this redistricting cycle.

Clearly, to the RINO wing of the Republican Party, the undiluted conservatism of Allen West is recognized as more of a threat to its political fortunes than a continuation of deficit spending, back peddling, and the outright betrayal of conservative principles that it regularly perpetrates in its faux political opposition to the Democrats. The existence of Tea Party momentum is ultimately a greater headache to these “Republicans” than anything they might receive from across the aisle.

Conversely, conservative America now faces undeniable evidence that its future as a movement is wholly dependent on surmounting this obstacle within its own camp. Until such time as conservatives begin to deal with Republican “moderates” as devoted members of the disloyal opposition, and refuse quarter to them under any circumstances, they can abandon all hope that their political fortunes will change for the better.

That so many people no longer recognize this principle or worse yet, choose to pretend it never existed, is evidenced by the ludicrous versions of the American ideal being promoted, even by some self-described “conservatives,” during the current election cycle. In particular, the accusations currently being leveled against former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum reveal a horribly jaundiced view of America and what made it great. In the wake of his outstanding showing in the Iowa caucuses he has become the target of a contrived defamation campaign based on this thoroughly flawed premise.

With so much of the nation’s foundation under assault, a failure to immediately reclaim those basic truths on which it was established, or the blind acceptance of a perverted substitute in their place, will only ensure the continuation of its orchestrated decline. And while certain elements within its culture would rejoice at this fate, others would be thoroughly shocked at such an outcome, though they have unwittingly but diligently lent their assistance to the ensuing disaster.

It is extremely telling that the post-Iowa assault on Santorum came first from the leftist media, but was then immediately picked up by supporters of Texas Congressman Ron Paul. In a manner disturbingly reminiscent of Senate and Congressional Democrats who, in the midst of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, jubilantly echoed the propagandists of al Qaeda and other Islamist organizations in their criticism of American policy, Ron Paul’s minions were quick to repeat and magnify the disparaging commentary from the liberal punditry. So much for their incessant claims of being in the camp of the “only true conservative.”

The essence of the attack on Santorum is that he cannot claim to be truly conservative, since he recognizes the responsibilities of a just government in the protection of the unborn, and maintaining such time-honored cornerstones of our society, and civilization in general, as traditional marriage. This sorry episode unmasks the bogus notion that Ron Paul supporters are interested in restoring the greatness of America. Rather, they promote a philosophy that would supplant traditional America with their “enlightened” libertarian version of how they believe society should operate.

It is intellectually dishonest to deny that Rick Santorum would take the nation in a drastically different direction than that in which it is currently heading under Barack Obama. Nevertheless, Santorum does understand that government is vested with certain responsibilities to intervene in the lives of the citizenry, particularly on behalf of those who are the most helpless. In sharp contrast to the misrepresentations coming from his critics, be they professing liberals or Ron Paul “conservatives,” Santorum upholds the indispensible need for government to perform specific functions, and these he fiercely advocates. So how does this square with the nation’s founding documents?

Referring once again to the Declaration of Independence, government was not intended to become a metastasizing tumor, leaching from the citizenry in order to enrich and enlarge itself. And admittedly, this is its current condition. Yet neither was it rendered wholly impotent and inconsequential. Rather, it was recognized as absolutely essential to the implementation and enforcement of certain standards, thereby enabling it “to ensure these rights” that are so cherished by the citizenry and so essential to a free and prosperous society.

In this role, it has specific and very legitimate functions. Santorum’s purpose for involving government in such “controversial” issues as the right to life of the unborn is simple and inarguable. He understands that if the rights of any one segment of society can be arbitrarily ignore or trampled, the rights of everyone are in jeopardy. Justice must be meted out to all, or it ceases to be justice. Thus, the horrific indifference shown to the unborn since the Supreme Court handed down its “Roe v. Wade” decision in 1972, if not corrected, could be fully expected to leach into the rest of society. And has that not been its exact effect on life in America during the past four decades?

Few would seriously argue that the timeline of eroding rights and freedoms in this nation has paralleled the institutionalized abandonment of traditional morality by federal, state, and local governments. In the name of “freedom” from the moral restraints of the nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage, the people are increasingly subjected to a new and onerous “morality,” devoid of compassion or mutual respect for the plight of common folk. Such quaint concepts have been thoroughly supplanted by the insidious encroachment of a secularist “nanny state,” dictating every aspect of life from the amount of water per toilet flush to the kind of light bulb deemed “acceptable” by the state.

If one citizen’s right to life can be nullified at the convenience of another, should we be surprised that “liberty,” “the pursuit of happiness,” “property,” or any other venerated component of the American ideal will eventually be consigned to a similar fate? Any objective assessment of human history, and the unalterable nature of the human condition, provides ample proof that this is indeed the case.

Rick Santorum is no advocate of the “big government” that confiscates private property and redistributes it in the name of “social justice.” Yet he understands that government must be “big enough” to fulfill its constitutional role if the nation is to survive and flourish. Many of his critics are wailing and gnashing teeth over the dismal path the nation has recently taken. Yet they stubbornly refuse to admit that no shortcuts exist by which it can be restored.

Nor was that the only accolade Romney received from the Republican Party “inner circle.” On the following day Karl Rove, former George W. Bush strategist and consummate political pragmatist, applauded Romney while offering a cursory tip of his hat to Santorum. In Rove’s world, Romney’s likely win in the New Hampshire primary on January 10 would render him virtually unstoppable while Santorum faces a long and difficult uphill battle in coming weeks with little hope of actually prevailing.

Rove contends that for Romney to triumph in the conservative heartland as well as among the northeastern Republican “blue bloods” of New Hampshire, he must have established a nearly universal appeal spanning the political spectrum, which no other candidate could possibly challenge. Thereafter, such “centrism” must be the core of the Republican effort. And in mindless devotion to this flawed reasoning, GOP party insiders get their way, the nation will go into next November’s elections facing a choice between a ravenous liberal Democrat and a “business as usual” Republican. This is a historically disastrous course for the Republicans, but it is one that these politically inbred “experts” continue to trumpet as the best game plan.

However, since the early days of the Obama Administration (which in a strong sense was itself the abhorrent byproduct of brilliant “strategizing” by Establishment Republicans), grassroots America has awakened and recognized the critical need to assert real conservatism as the proper alternative to the Washington status quo. In a very real sense, the two party system has since been transformed and realigned, with the Beltway insiders and their dwindling cadre of supporters populating one party and Heartland America comprising the other.

Understanding the magnitude of the threat that this realignment represents, the Republican Establishment is going all out to reassert its primacy, and now loudly proclaims that the results in Iowa prove its uncontested dominance. However, a breakdown of the actual tally in Iowa indicates a starkly different trend, which is likely to become increasingly obvious as the primary season progresses.

While Mitt Romney, after vastly outspending Santorum, did indeed receive the greatest number of votes, it was by the razor-thin margin. With each of them receiving slightly over thirty thousand votes, this is hardly a decisive win. Yet even these numbers, on which Romney and his Establishment cronies base their claims of supremacy in the Hawkeye State, deceptively cloak the real picture.

For starters, Santorum received his strong showing in a field split four ways by fellow conservatives. Having to share the conservative support with Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann, Santorum nevertheless ended up in an essential tie with Romney. Had the conservative base been able to coalesce around a single contender as did the Party Republicans around Romney, he would have remained at twenty-five percent, while “Generic Conservative” could have climbed as high as fifty-five percent.

In contrast, no alternative scenario of shifting loyalties or departing candidates would yield any bounce for Romney. The overwhelming remainder of Iowa votes went to Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who garnered a noteworthy twenty-two percent. With a well-organized and fiercely dogmatic following, Paul has indeed established a prominent position in the field. Yet his base of support is made up of a mix of Libertarians who, for the moment, claim to be the real soul of the GOP, abetted by significant numbers of liberal interlopers seeking to nominate the least electable Republican contender in hopes of bolstering Obama’s chances for a second term. As such, they will do little to benefit any remaining candidates in the extremely likely event that Paul eventually drops out of the race.

In the immediate aftermath of the Iowa caucuses, Michele Bachmann ended her bid for the nomination. Were she to have done so barely twenty four hours previously, Santorum would most surely have gained the lion’s share of her six percent showing, and thereby prevailed over Romney by a substantial margin. Going forward, the departure of any one of the three remaining candidates presently splitting the conservative vote will likewise amass heightened support for each remaining conservative.

It is extremely telling that Romney’s strategy has been to prevail by ascending above a divided field of conservatives. In many ways, it is reflective of the games played against him four years ago by his new benefactor John McCain. And in the long run, this manner of politicking is liable to generate the same degree of disconnect with the American people that ultimately doomed McCain’s White House ambitions in 2008.

Yet even as cataclysmic as was the victory of Barack Obama in the last election cycle, a second Obama stint could increase the devastation to America by exponential terms. The national debt is soaring, expenditures are ballooning, the jobs on Main Street needed to sustain the nation (and feed the federal leviathan in perpetuity) simply do not exist, and every wise restraint placed on that government by the thoughtfulness and wisdom of the founders and the Constitution they established is being violated. Consequently, most Americans regard the possibility of another four years of such outrage as unthinkable.

Americans abhor the damage done to their nation by the Obama regime. But they have little affinity for the fecklessness of Republican “moderation” that would only serve to keep the nation in its dismal condition. In overwhelming numbers, the conservative people of Iowa rejected the prospect of leaving the government in the hands of a slightly diluted, but fundamentally equivalent overbearing nanny state that would only differ by way of calling itself “Republican.” On the day of the Iowa caucuses, Rick Santorum’s most defining virtue was that he represented an opportunity to rise from the present morass in which America finds itself.

Thus, for those prices to remain low, the economic prognosis must remain grim. As soon as manufacturing activity heats up and traffic on the nation’s highways increases in response, the demand for fossil fuels will likewise increase, triggering an upswing in their cost. In a sane world, this rise would be shortly offset by an increased supply, thereby balancing out the situation. However, with Obama and his Democrat cohorts stifling every attempt at expanding production, and worse, placing entire regions such as the Gulf of Mexico off limits (at least to Americans), the lack of any new supply of crude oil to compensate for higher demand guarantees that even a tiny spark of resurgent economic life will immediately result in escalating fuel prices, which in turn chokes out the activity.

This is the essence of the malaise that has gripped our nation throughout Obama’s term. He and his cohorts contrive a means of undercutting America, whether by constricting available sources of energy, overburdening the financial system with criminally irresponsible deficit spending, or suffocating the ability of business owners to enlarge their enterprises and hire new employees because of new and onerous regulations. The consequent business contractions and closures result in more layoffs which, we are told, cry out for government intervention to properly “take care of the little guy.”

Real America is angry and frustrated with the deliberate stifling of its economic engine by Washington, appalled at the squalor and mindlessness of the “Occupy” movement, and ready to break free from the unwarranted shackles preventing its restoration to greatness. Business owners across the nation would gladly implement plans for growth and expansion, including new hiring of employees, if only they could be assured that any future successes would not be entirely leached from them in the name of “fairness,” “compassion,” or “environmental responsibility.” Yet every astute entrepreneur knows that this trio of liberal specters lurks in the shadows, and what their effect will be the moment they are unleashed on productive society.

The latest debacle over the “Keystone Pipeline,” and the ongoing games being played with it by a callous and indifferent White House, give ample proof that whatever his real intentions may be, Barack Obama is not interested in achieving real, workable solutions to the problems facing America. Rather, he views each ensuing catastrophe as a political opportunity. Consequently, when America needs reasoned leadership, it can count on another insipid and churlish Obama speech. Why open the floodgates of productivity and prosperity by allowing advanced oil exploration when the “crisis” of an energy shortage will present another occasion to castigate the opposition party?

It is therefore no surprise that the ongoing Keystone Pipeline controversy is not being addressed by the Obama White House from the perspective of its manifold benefits to the nation. For starters, pipeline construction alone would generate thousands of productive jobs. Once completed, the pipeline would boost available petroleum supplies to the nation, thereby easing the upward pressure on oil and gasoline prices. Were the real goals of Democrat leaders, including Barack Obama, the betterment of the nation, this situation would be a “no brainer.” Yet in order to make any sense out of the seemingly inane decisions that regularly spew forth from this White House, something far more sinister must ultimately be driving them.

On more than one occasion since inauguration day 2009, Barack Obama stunned America with absurd condemnations of the business sector, accusing company owners of refusing to take on new employees for cold and self-serving reasons. His “fix” was to denigrate them for their callous indifference, and attempt to badger them into hiring new workers as a selfless deed undertaken for the sake of the nation. In his mind, excess unproductive workers in private business should be no more burdensome than excess unproductive workers in the public sector, which is standard practice inside the Beltway and throughout state and municipal bureaucracies across the nation.

No doubt, Barack Obama wants to see unemployment rates drop, at least for the next eleven months. Election year politics demands as much. But he cannot implement any program that might return the long-term power to direct the nation’s future to its rightful bearers, the people. An increased availability of cheap, abundant energy would do just that. At the same time, the ready practicality of fossil fuels would solidify the growing realization among Americans of the folly of the “green energy” agenda, and the true nature of its very “red” guiding philosophy.

So, at least until January 2013 (assuming the people have had their eyes opened since elections of 2008), America can expect to struggle and travail against a noxious opponent within its own government which continually thwarts them at every turn, and always under some noble sounding premise. After that, it will face one of two starkly diverging fates, depending on who is at the helm. Under the stewardship of a true, unwavering conservative possessing the courage to stay on track, it might rebound significantly. The ponderous engine of modern technology, once it is lifted from the slough of overregulation and taxation, could come roaring back to life.

Or, if Obama retains his place, the remaining gasping breaths of a struggling nation will be summarily snuffed out. In sharp contrast to past presidential contests, the pretense of middle ground no longer exists.

Heartland America is daily bombarded with horrendous news of continued unraveling of the economy, abetted by the latest Obama affronts to the Constitution and the free market. People on Main Street are angry and alarmed that the nation they love is being wrested from them while the liberal media looks on with gleeful approval. On that basis this small victory can be regarded as an encouragement in and of itself. But in a much larger sense, it embodies both the assaults on the nation by the liberal/Democrat political machine, and the manner in which they must be repulsed.

Liberal lawmakers and executives, from state capitols to Washington, have been aggressively undermining the foundations of this country for the purpose of remaking it in their twisted image, and politicizing every position of power where they can entrench themselves, in order to wield state sanctioned authority over the common citizen. Regular breaches of the public trust, perpetrated under the auspices of “the greater good,” pose a burgeoning threat to the lives, property, and freedoms formerly enjoyed as the unalienable rights of the American people.

Among the worst offenders have been those liberal judicial activists who shamelessly brandish their appointed and unaccountable positions as the means by which to conform society to their own perverse worldview. From the atrocity of “Roe vs. Wade” to the ongoing cavalcade of judicial opinions declaring any public profession of the Christian faith to be violations of the “separation of Church and state,” much of American life has had its norms and boundaries drastically reordered at the whims of liberal jurists. And given that such individuals are almost entirely beyond the reach of the electorate, it is altogether predictable that liberal strategists will focus their primary efforts at dominating the courts.

In the nation’s highest court, Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Barack Obama’s two appointees, epitomize the brazen leftist arrogance that construes judicial office not as any objective charge to impartially uphold the law for all, but as an opportunity to exercise unbridled power. To nobody’s great surprise, they were considered for their current positions with only cursory references to their abhorrent track records of undermining basic constitutional principle. Their confirmation hearings quickly degenerated into contrived controversies pertaining to gender and ethnicity. Now they sit at the pinnacle of American jurisprudence, potentially controlling the final arbitration of such fundamental and defining issues as whether or not government can forcibly impress the population into socialism.

Among the defining issues facing a Supreme Court review is Obamacare, with its inarguable despotic excesses and unconstitutional infringements on the rights of American citizens. That it could have even reached this milestone signifies a dangerous lapse in the former adherence to the noble principles on which the nation was founded. Worse still is the ominous possibility that, with only a single teetering swing vote, the Supreme Court as currently comprised could indeed hand down a five to four decision upholding Obamacare as acceptable law.

With dwindling vestiges of judicial sanity standing as the only firewall between America’s former splendor and the desolate future ordained by the liberal political cabal, the question of who will fill the nation’s high courts becomes ever more crucial. Clearly, Barack Obama intends to thoroughly taint the courts, at the highest levels, with philosophically poisoned and morally bankrupt leftists of his own shriveled ideology. The attempt to appoint Caitlin Halligan epitomized just such an effort.

Senator Charles Grassley (R.-IA), who is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned of her abominably biased track record. She has strenuously supported nuisance lawsuits against gun manufacturers as a means of negating the Second Amendment. She condones the intimidation tactics of the radical pro-abortion “National Organization for Women” (NOW), calculated to suppress the lawful actions of pro-life organizations. Yet with just as much zeal, she fights for the “rights” of Islamic terrorists to be afforded full constitutional protection.

It is wholly significant that the position for which Halligan was being considered was once held by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. It is not difficult to ascertain that Obama was likely lining up another avowed leftist to a position where she could be easily elevated to the next vacant position on the nation’s high court.

The systematic dismantling of America’s foundational principles over the past seven decades has clearly accelerated to an alarming degree during the three years of the Obama Administration. The cooperation of a thoroughly compliant court is crucial to keeping the Obama/Alinsky agenda on track. Though Americans at the grassroots have been thoroughly outraged at the changes they have seen since January 2009, such things would pale in comparison to what could ensue if the Marxist aspirations of this administration are eventually unshackled from constitutional restraints.

Republicans understood that any sincere regard for the integrity of the Constitution and the rule of law compelled them to reject Halligan as wholly unfit to hold an office of that stature. Nevertheless, liberals are predictably caterwauling in the wake of her rejection, spewing every standard “politically correct” accusation against their GOP rivals including, in Obama’s words that they had put “party ahead of country.” Meanwhile, from the mouthpieces on Capitol Hill to their parrots on the nightly news, Halligan was lauded in the highest of terms.

While Americans have understandably been focused on the disastrous downturn of this nation’s economy over the past three years, and are intent on seeing it reversed, they had better be every bit as vigilant and concerned over the makeup of the justice system. Otherwise, they could lose any fleeting economic rebound they may enjoy, along with every other fundamental right and liberty they once cherished.

Amazingly however, the debate among committee members broke down right along its historical lines. Democrats refused to cut spending, and Republicans refused to raise taxes. The left determined to continue down its dark path and, for once, Republicans refused to go along with them. This, according to the pundit class, is what passes for moral equivalency. But in truth, absolutely nobody was surprised at the ultimate outcome.

Inside Washington, the die was cast last August 2, when the whole “super committee” scam was initially formulated. From the start, its implementation represented just another transparent ploy to divert attention from the intransigence of Democrats, enabled by the cowardice of Republicans, as both groups postured and tap-danced their way into raising the national debt ceiling by more than two trillion dollars over the next sixteen months.

The end game was never in question. Keep the spending going, while cleverly deflecting blame from the majority votes in both Houses of Congress by which it was facilitated. Now, the expectation is that everyone can wag their fingers at those wicked committee members, but not holding anyone in the House of Representatives or Senate directly responsible. And in their minds, these members of the “ruling class” have succeeded. Yet the electorate is much more informed than it was in the past, and the scam is not going to work this time around.

As the news of the “failed” committee effort is disseminated, and the nation is ceaselessly warned of the dire ramifications this all portends, the outrage that the whole endeavor has represented from its beginning, is once again being placed front and center for all of America to ponder. Some grim realities need to be highlighted.

First, the entire premise of a “1.2 trillion dollar” cut has always been a sham. This sum of money would ostensibly be “saved” over a ten year period during which time, even at today’s spending rates, the federal government would squander another 40 trillion dollars, give or take a few trillion. Yet the duplicity gets much worse. Current and historical spending patterns are on track to bloat the budget significantly beyond that amount. So even if any feigned deference to the paltry “cut” directives were upheld, future budgets need only claim that they had originally been projected for higher amounts, then to be “reduced” according to the required committee “cuts,” and all is right with the world. Problem solved.

In short, no real effort at actually cutting spending was ever intended, and if the current crop of Beltway insiders (regardless of party affiliation) maintains its hold on power, none will ever be made. The cynics win this one, while Heartland America continues to pay the price.

It hardly takes a Nostradamus to foretell the ultimate result of such criminally injudicious actions. As ample evidence, the grave consequences of flagrant institutionalized recklessness are continuing to unfold across the Atlantic. Daily, the sums of money being demanded by debtor nations increase at an unfathomable rate. And daily, the prognosis for any financial restoration of the region becomes more bleak.

Europe is in an economic free fall. Yet major segments of its atrociously swelled underclass are either unwilling to relinquish their place at the public trough, or unable to comprehend that the situation is simply unsustainable. So, in response to the lack of available funds in one nation, calls go out to other nations to foot the bill. Ultimately however, collapse is becoming ever more inescapable since every major initiative focuses only on bandaging the latest fiduciary hemorrhage while preserving the system that created the problem.

Among those nations that are progressively more obligated to provide sustenance to the dependent class, the only question is how much they can afford to continue dispensing, with no possibility of compensation, before they eventually drive their own economies into default. Increasingly, speculation is not about if, but when the European Union scheme will implode under the massive burden of subsidized sloth on an international scale.

Euro zone ministers are looking to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as a possible means of acquiring sufficient funds for a brief bailout, and Italy is selling its government bonds with the promise of nearly eight percent return. Yet even if the IMF doles out more cash and a sufficient number of investors are gullible enough to buy into Italian debt with a return promise approaching that of junk bonds, the underlying circumstances which led Europe to this dire precipice are all still in place. The utterly flawed philosophies of socialism remain uncorrected. Thus, the dreadful conclusion of the current chaos remains unchanged.

The dazzling political “sleight of hand” that left the fate of America’s economic future in the hands of a twelve member “bipartisan” Super Committee is no more capable of eschewing that same financial day of reckoning in America. And this gloomy prospect remains fixed in the nation’s future, despite the committee’s vigorous efforts to shift blame away from the Congressional bodies whose total lack of principle and ethics spawned it in the first place.

America, Europe, and indeed the entire world have moved dangerously beyond that point in which mere adjustments and fine-tuning will initiate a magical fix that might allow the statist monstrosities to remain intact. Restoration of order and prosperity will come only by a wholesale rejection of the mindset that sanctions the illicit confiscation of one citizen’s duly earned wages by the state, to then be redistributed to another who produced no worthwhile commodity or service by which to earn it.

Increasingly, “Occupy” events throughout the nation are becoming anarchistic zones of unchecked assault, robbery, rape, and even murder. Reports of spreading diseases, in one instance even including a particularly virulent form of tuberculosis, are ever more common at the protest gatherings. And in general, the lofty and pious rhetoric of the protesters is rendered completely implausible by the abhorrent filth and squalor in which its participants are willing to subsist.

Nevertheless, these brave and principled individuals, we are told, constitute a shining army of visionaries who have dedicated themselves to the establishment of a proper and decent America. The future of the nation is firmly intheir hands, and we can all rejoice at the plans which they have conceived for us. And herein lies the one critical warning to be gleaned from this debacle by a vigilant America. From its inception to the appalling manner in which the “Occupy” movement is being advanced, it does indeed represent the grim fate awaiting the nation if a drastic course correction is not implemented soon.

To begin with, this was no uncoordinated groundswell of like-minded individuals sharing a collective yearning to establish justice and promote the “general welfare” of their fellow citizens. Despite all of the propaganda seeking to create parallels between the “Occupy” and Tea Party movements (aided and abetted by the entire liberal/Democrat political machine up to and including the Obama White House), the foundations and methods of the organizations could not be more disparate.

While the people of Heartland America did indeed rise up spontaneously in the spring of 2009, taking time off from their jobs and voicing their opposition to the decimation of their country occurring at the hands of the hard-left, the “Occupy” movement was hatched and nurtured from the top-down, ACORN style, and facilitated through enormous outside funding. These “Occupy” players are simply incapable of autonomously generating and supporting an effort of this scale. On a continual basis, they are being resupplied and underwritten from the outside through Soros style backing, which is the only reason they can maintain their noxious presence on public property while the nation’s adults accept their responsibilities and go to work each day.

Here again the situation is an excellent representation of the liberal economic model. A bunch of idle loafers gather together and engage in an orgy of narcissism, while their basic needs are met by donations made from the outside. On the same day that they stop receiving the sustenance garnered from the labors of others, the “Occupy” protestors will grow hungry and go home.

Obviously some unnamed and intellectually vacant do-gooders have decided of their own free will to bear the cost of this inane exercise. But for it to ever ensue on a societal scale as imagined by the protestors and their simple-minded benefactors, the rest of the nation would be required to foot the bill. Someone would always be forced to pay for such unproductive and ultimately fruitless endeavors as sitting in a public park, languishing in a mire of refuse and human waste, and complaining about the injustices of life.

However, that depressing bit of truth is only the beginning. Even within their phony environment of endlessly taking and consuming with no thought of repayment, the very nature of their artificial communities is predictably degenerating. In stark contrast to the affluent cities and great promises of the nation that surrounds them and endures their silliness, the “Occupy” camps are rapidly descending into nightmarish microcosms reflective of the worst regions of the third world.

One can only hope that, after the atrocities suffered by many of the female protesters, a reality is beginning to dawn on them that these sub-human conclaves are not the best places to be. In stark contrast to the abuses inflicted on them by this bunch of effeminized misogynists claiming to be their ideological kindred, real men do not abandon their women to being raped and victimized in tents, but instead build houses in which they can reside in safety. Nor would those who ascribe to traditional morality ever willingly cover the tracks of the rapists, as has been so typical among the “Occupy” organizers.

Like any tiny fringe living in fear of being revealed as such, the “Occupy” crowd relentlessly seeks to create an image of being much larger than it is. But considering the volume of filth and foulness these diminutive gatherings create wherever they take root, thank goodness they represent only a tiny fraction of the nation’s population. Otherwise the disease, waste, and other maladies of their existence would be reaching truly epidemic proportions.

Nevertheless, as evidenced by their increasing animosity and belligerence towards the nation that is generally seeking to go on about its business, the disruptive actions of the occupiers signal the end game of “community organizers” and subversives throughout the country. Since they know they can never gain the concurrence of Real America, they will work to dismantle and recreate it in their sordid image through force, confrontation, and violence. Despite having had their ideology soundly rejected by voters in the 2010 elections, they remain determined to metastasize into an “Occupy America” army in 2012.

The nation needs to get a good look at the escalating savagery and chaos going on in every “Occupy” event from Zucotti Park to Oakland. This is the modern Democrat Party vision for America’s future. Next November, you can vote to institute it on a national scale.

Christopher G. Adamo has been active in Wyoming politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets American made products including the incomparable Abigail Adams Bedspread Set from Bates Mills. Contact information for Chris Adamo, and his archives, can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

After being so overused, the pattern has become unmistakable. The moment any true conservative moves to the political forefront, the script books are opened and a methodical deconstruction of that individual begins. First, some quality (any quality) is spotlighted and identified as a critical flaw, after which the news media relentlessly repeats the mantra. Very soon, the usual “Republican” turncoats begin to concede that the liberals may have a point. Finally, a blanket pronouncement is made in absolute terms, to the effect that the former “rising star” has been rendered irreparably “unelectable” and must be abandoned “for the good” of some more worthy cause, invariably referring to the GOP establishment.

Cain’s recent “sexual harassment” debacle has unwaveringly followed this pattern. Rising meteorically in the polls, he clearly represented a looming threat, not only to the Marxist aspirations of the Obama Administration, but also the inner circles of the Republican Party where cronyism predominates. Initial attempts to trivialize Cain’s popularity as a “flash in the pan” thoroughly failed to dissuade the gathering grassroots momentum propelling him forward.

Reporters and analysts sought on every occasion to deflate his following by demeaning his “999” tax reform plan and reminding us of his lack of political experience. Of course such criticisms have been comical, coming as they do from people who fawn all over Barack Obama, whose pathetic record of voting “present” in the Illinois Senate and an attendance in the United States Senate literally measured in days, can hardly be held up as worthwhile background for the nation’s highest office. Nor do the worst projections of negative fallout from the “999” tax plan compare with the fate facing the nation if Obama is able to complete his own plans for its cultural and economic destruction during a second term.

Thus the slanderous barrage was unleashed against Cain by “The Politico,” a very typical left wing website reflecting all of the objectivity and reason of “The Daily Kos” and “The Huffington Post,” except that it is presented to the public under the banner of being “mainstream.” And believing that such a facade represented political safety, the predictable gaggle of RINOs were soon in front of the cameras pronouncing the Cain candidacy to be DOA.

Forget the fact that with every such attempt to betray a Republican candidate, they improve the political prospects for Obama’s reelection. In their minds, such a possibility is far preferable to the unthinkable alternative of a real conservative ever again assuming the reins of national power. One Ronald Reagan was bad enough. And they certainly do not want to contend with any more of his kind.

Similarly, the less than flamboyant 2009 response of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal to Barack Obama’s first State of the Union address prompted the “experts” on both sides of the aisle to declare Jindal’s political prospects to be over. It made no difference that the substance of Jindal’s commentary was solidly conservative and in every way the proper course to set for the nation, or that his handling of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 had been vastly superior to bumbling inaction of federal bureaucrats. The D.C. political stylists had reached the verdict that his persona fails to dazzle, and thus he must be ever after relegated to the second string.

The same can be said of the political dismembering of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. When viewed though the rubble of more than three years of vicious and unfounded attacks from frothing liberals, regularly bolstered by solemn and erudite concurrences from self-proclaimed “conservatives,” it is hard to even recall how brightly she once energized the flagging and directionless presidential campaign of John McCain. Yet here again the pattern of her undoing was identical.

First, a negative image had to be contrived, which in Palin’s case was to portray her as an intellectual lightweight and a political amateur who was clearly not up to the pedigree of national leadership. Thereafter, the punditry bludgeoned America with the message, night after night, presenting it as inarguable fact. Finally, the nation was emphatically informed that it had arrived at such an irrevocable assessment of Palin on its own.

Shortly before the assault on Cain, it was the candidacy of Texas Governor Rick Perry that, as a result of his non-performance in several “debates,” was declared as nothing but a brief moment in the lights. Again, this prepackaged liberal assessment was immediately and loudly seconded by the supposedly “conservative” Beltway political class.

So, America is now being informed that it had better straighten up and face the Republican Establishment version of “reality.” As the only adults in the room, they have decided that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is the chosen nominee of the party elite, and has been so from the beginning. And no uninvited upstart will be allowed to interfere with that finding. It matters little that the nation is on the wrong course, or that Romney’s track record provides the best assurance to the liberal Democrats in both parties that it will remain that way. His vulnerabilities all but assure a political implosion if he becomes the nominee. But if he somehow should win, he would still be the least likely to reset the ticking statist time bomb meticulously constructed by the Obama Administration.

Of course Romney will eventually face his own Waterloo at the hands of the Democrat political machine, but that will only come on the day after he has secured the Republican nomination.

The ultimate desire of the political establishment (and within its realm, such inane terms as “Republican” and “Democrat” bear little real significance) is to maintain its current status at the reins of power. This requires that the peasantry (the rest of us) be kept in its place and thoroughly impressed with the notion that the current condition of the country is an unalterable necessity and that only seasoned political professionals can be entrusted with its future.

If Real America wants to shun such a fate, it must recognize the futility of pursuing any significant change under conditions and terms dictated by those who have a vested interest in continuing “business as usual.”

Christopher G. Adamo has been active in Wyoming politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets American made products including the incomparable Abigail Adams Bedspread Set from Bates Mills. Contact information for Chris Adamo, and his archives, can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

Nor do they seem to be the least bit aware of how thoroughly they caricature their ceaseless self-glorification. This latest barrage against Cain is nearly satirical, and absolutely reeks with all of the stereotypical bleatings from their leftist strategy book. On the heels of the unsubstantiated and ambiguous claims of Cain’s supposedly crude innuendos, it is a sure bet that he will next be accused of having stolen hubcaps from his subordinates’ cars in Godfathers’ parking lots.

Admittedly, this current chorus of liberal fury exhibits an amazing ability to switch on a moment’s notice from alarm and righteous indignation to total indifference, and back to moral outrage, as varying events have unfolded and either presented a public relations liability or an opportunity to make political hay. Particularly in light of the recent history of real sex scandals perpetrated by prominent liberals, most of which involved substantiated incidents of harassment, assault, and abuse, liberals have been forced into some thoroughly shameless gymnastics in hopes of navigating the gauntlet needed to maintain the moral “high ground.” But of course they are up to the task.

Consider the drastic lane changes that were required in the 1990s, after the 1992 election of philanderer in chief Bill Clinton. After the stormy 1991 Supreme Court appointment of Clarence Thomas, which was punctuated by spurious charges against him of sexual harassment, liberals believed they owned the issue. Despite their failure to thwart his confirmation, they declared a moral victory, and insisted that votes to confirm Thomas constituted acceptance of abusive behavior towards women. For the next few years, they remained on that pious perch, loudly crowing of their superior advocacy of the fairer sex.

However, it was not long before the advent of the Clinton Presidency thoroughly discredited such claims and, more significantly, proved the entire liberal/Democrat establishment to be entirely phony in its professed concern for women in general. From the repugnant treatment of Paula Jones to a physical assault on Kathleen Willey (followed by thuggish attempts to silence her), to the very likely rape of Juanita Broderick to the exploitation of Monica Lewinsky, Clinton revealed an absolute contempt for women, other than as objects of his own amusement and self-gratification.

Even more significant however was the manner in which the entire liberal political cabal not only refused to condemn his actions, but breached every boundary of credibility and decency in order to defend him. New and contorted definitions of “sexual harassment” were concocted by liberal politicians and pundits which somehow always preserved a “safe zone” around Clinton. In other words, the left was not (and never has been) really interested in the proper treatment of women, but only sought to caterwaul about such things on a selective basis when it could gain political ground as a result. So now that the tables have seemingly turned and a Republican is in the crosshairs, the phony empathy and concern spews incessantly from every liberal mouthpiece. As such, the entire affair epitomizes liberal hypocrisy on parade.

But from an even more encompassing perspective, it is ever more apparent that glaring liberal inconsistencies and indefensible contradictions are hardly confined to this one topic. In fact, it is all but impossible to find any issue of supposed concern to the left that is not filled with hype, manipulation, intellectual dishonesty, and total fraud. Even a brief discussion of the myths and realities of the liberal agenda inarguably proves the point.

Liberals loudly claim to be champions of “education,” yet a comprehensive assessment of their concept of proactive educational support boils down to two major pursuits, money and control. Specifically, liberal “education” necessitates that students be consigned into enormously expensive government schools, in which they are ideologically indoctrinated while their overseers feed ravenously at the public trough. Thus can the next generation, particularly in the nation’s urban areas, be safely kept on the “plantation.”

Similarly, the whole liberal advocacy of abortion and “gay rights” has never been about elevating human dignity, but about collapsing the nation’s cultural and moral foundation so that it can be remade in the image of Marx and Alinsky.

Abortion has done more to demean women and relegate them to the role of sexual “play toys” than any other societal change in the last century. Nor should the symbiosis between public school “sex education” and the nation’s abortion industry ever be ignored. Clearly, the breakdown of morality needed to advance the counterculture is similarly advantageous to maximizing the business interests of the abortion mills, which exercise an inordinate influence on the teaching of “sexuality.” Likewise, the entire same-sex “marriage” movement has as its ultimate purpose the destruction of traditional marriage, which would erode and diminish its historical role as a staunch mooring of civilization.

Equally fraudulent are occasional liberal calls for “civility” and “ending the rancor” in public discourse. As selectively as these demands are invoked, and as quickly and completely as they are abandoned whenever the liberal agenda can be advanced by the spewing of some bile and venom, the evidence is incontrovertible that the left has no real desire to maintain a tone of respect in any debate that it might better dominate through other means.

Anyone who ever naively contended that the true guardians of “mother earth” reside on the political left should take a brief gander at any of the “occupy” mobs across the nation. The proliferation of filth and squalor in their surroundings is atrocious, and inexplicable except as a physical reflection of the true ideological mindset of the participants. In stark contrast, those “terrorists” from the Tea Party invariably left their gathering places in pristine cleanliness.

The same observations can be made on every subject dear to liberals, from alleged recent worries of “voter disenfranchisement” (Over which they travailed in Florida 2000, but turned a blind eye in Philadelphia in 2008), to the plight of illegal aliens whose status they clearly want to maintain as a permanent underclass. The ugly state of current day American liberalism is neither intellectually honest nor morally consistent. It is sad that its adherents were ever able to garner any response other than a guffaw when parading their biases and distortions before the public. Saddest of all is that the “me too” wing of the GOP was so quick to give liberals credibility for sincerity, burnishing their image and ultimately validating their deceit by attempting to play along with them.

The good news is that Obama and his “Occupy Wall Street” minions, by virtue of their consuming arrogance and contempt for real America, have tipped their hand. The ruse is over.

Christopher G. Adamo has been active in Wyoming politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets American made products including the incomparable Abigail Adams Bedspread Set from Bates Mills. Contact information for Chris Adamo, and his archives, can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

More specifically, those people on the street are being confronted by the harsh realities of having to eventually pay the bill for their promised socialist utopia. And on both sides of the equation, they are not happy about it. Those who were once told they could expect a free lunch in perpetuity, but now face the grim prospect of having to put in a good day’s work for a fair day’s wages, have concluded instead that riots and violence in the public square can somehow make those elusive Euros magically fall from the sky. Thus, the pandemonium in Athens Greece, to name just one example, represents the best efforts of hapless citizens, too long accustomed to reaping the fruits of other peoples’ labor, to continue their parasitic existence with no expectation of accountability.

On the other end of the scale, stable and productive countries such as Germany, which have paid far more than their fair share just to keep the European Union scheme on life support, are slowly coming to the realization that they will have to make such sacrifices on an ever increasing scale, in order to have any hope of holding things together. Unfortunately for them, human nature is what it is, and as time goes on more people will realize that it is easier to ride the cart than to pull it. And if some idealistic countries are congenial to accepting this travesty and thereby enable it to breach national boundaries, then of course the field of willing takers will expand beyond anyone’s worst fears.

In light of these circumstances, it is not at all difficult to foresee the end game, the specifics of which were inevitable from before the European Union monstrosity was ever conceived. An increasing number of people demanding “benefits” from their respective governments means that ever larger taxes will be likewise demanded from those segments of society still capable of paying the bills. Recipients of those monies, having done nothing to earn them, essentially devalue the currency in general. Eventually, not enough of anything is being produced to keep funding this vicious cycle, so it collapses.

Efforts to stave off such a collapse through austerity, venomously opposed by the dependent citizenry, will be diluted or completely stalled, thus averting the only viable fix. Conversely, the repeated decisions among European leaders to continue any portion of the funding will at best only delay the inevitable, while vastly increasing the magnitude of the implosion once it eventuates. Thus the monotonously repetitive news reports from across the Atlantic, alternately blaring alarmist reports of riots one day, followed by “high level meetings” among heads of state the next, can properly be interpreted as an impotent band of national leaders desperately seeking to cure an irreparable situation.

Ironically, European socialism was long held up to America as the model for how the nanny state could be successfully implemented. Any attempts of fiscally responsible office holders to warn of the infeasibility of unfettered socialism were immediately countered with chastisements that if the Europeans could succeed, it should be just as feasible over here. And now, at the very moment of Europe’s lifecycle that its leftist chickens are coming home to roost, America finds itself in the clutches of an autocratic regime that endeavors to pitch this nation headlong into the socialist mire.

However, while many similarities between the two situations exist, certain ominous contrasts may ultimately prove to be more noteworthy. To begin with, the current fiscal meltdown in Europe, calamitous though it may be, is nonetheless taking place among nations that are allies. In recent decades, no determined effort has been made by any one of those nations to militarily dominate another. Nor has any serious sentiment for doing so existed in their midst since the day the allies rolled into Berlin in 1945.

Unfortunately, America does not find itself in anywhere near as benign of a place in which to financially crumble. While Greece’s debts are being underwritten by the Germans and French, America increasingly finds itself beholden to the still very Red Chinese. Every dollar cast down the rat hole of state-funded liberal “compassion” renders America that much more beholden and subservient to China. As a result, America’s slothful class enjoys ongoing federal provision while the Chinese reap increasing revenues with which to modernize and expand their military, while growing their business base throughout the world.

Were Barack Obama truly concerned about the ramifications of the nation’s current course (a notion that, in light of his actions of the past three years, is admittedly absurd on its face), he would be doing his best to disentangle the American people from their ever deepening dependence on the federal government. Yet he is undeniably doing exactly the opposite. At a time when any sincere relaxation of the federal tentacles could spur an economic rebound, he insists that only increased government involvement, control, and subsidies can provide the necessary impetus to get the economy rolling again. And we have only to look across the Atlantic to see where his disastrous policies will lead.

If allowed to press forward with his agenda, he will ensure that as Europe goes, so goes America.

Christopher G. Adamo has been active in Wyoming politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets American made products including the incomparable Abigail Adams Bedspread Set from Bates Mills. Contact information for Chris Adamo, and his archives, can be found at www.chrisadamo.com