Their ruse is as transparent as cellophane. Only a few weeks back, the only matter of importance to the chattering class was “vulture capitalism,” which was their characterization of Mitt Romney’s business practices while involved with the investment firm Bain Capital. And during Newt Gingrich’s brief moment in the spotlight, the liberal press was obsessively fixated on fidelity in marriage. In light of this obvious bias against anything that might generate momentum for the Republican ticket, their duplicity is having a significantly diminished effect during this campaign cycle.

Clearly, the liberal media/Democrat Party cabal will go to any lengths to distract the American people from such nuanced topics as the nation’s disintegrating economy, the malignant expansion of the federal government, its increasing intrusiveness in the lives of the American people, and their consequent loss of freedom. In essence, the daily commentaries from the liberal press must studiously avoid any honest assessment of American life under Barack Obama.

So it was no surprise that a speech made by Santorum at a theological institution in 2008, in which he described a satanic onslaught against this nation, is now getting nonstop coverage on the nightly news. Obviously, their intention is to paint him up as an out-of-touch paranoid, whose far-out beliefs, along with his “extreme” stances on such defining issues as the right-to-life of the unborn, render him completely unfit to hold the nation’s highest office.

Here again however, the myopic talking heads of the liberal media prove themselves to be completely hypocritical, and thoroughly out of touch with America. Against the backdrop of recent “spiritual” declarations from Barack Obama essentially claiming Jesus to have been a Marxist, his twenty year former involvement with the likes of the “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright and the militant bile of “black liberation theology,” promoted in Wright’s church, it would be extremely difficult to make Santorum look unreasonable. Furthermore, in contrast to the current winds of “moral relativism” blowing across this country and the ravages inflicted on the populace by such errant thinking, a simple and blunt recognition of the age-old contrast between good and evil is actually refreshing.

The existence of that evil entity to which Santorum referred is widely acknowledged by a huge majority of Americans. And though most people do not actually envision it as the comical, red-suited countenance appearing on those little cans of processed meat spread with excessive sodium content (Does anyone still make that stuff?), they nevertheless witness the tragic consequences of its labors around them on a daily basis. Something sinister operates in our midst, tearing down the institutions of a formerly great nation, from marriage to the family, to the community, and striving to supplant them with the empty promises of a depraved and hyper-regulated “brave new world” that is rightly to be abhorred.

Consequently, the people of this nation are keenly aware that the perils facing it, both from within and without, cannot be addressed solely in financial terms. Nor do they expect that such things can be indefinitely skirted by a national leadership that either ignores their existence or is too timid to take a bold stand against them.

The deepening squalor of this nation’s inner cities will not be fixed by further infusions of money from without, no matter how vast the sum, as long as the values of the people residing in them continue to degenerate. Likewise, the threats faced by this nation from its enemies throughout the world cannot be placated or otherwise wished out of existence. And any attempts to carry on as if they no longer present a potential for calamity will only increase the likelihood of them someday being again manifested as they were on 9-11.

Four years ago as Barack Obama made his way towards the White House, America was subjected to perhaps the most flagrant display of disingenuousness in its history. Voters were ensnared with empty assurances of a miraculous fix to environmental problems that never existed, concurrently with the dawn of social utopia. Not surprisingly, at least to those willing to objectively weigh the evidence, the actual results have been abysmal. On virtually every front the current state of the nation is quantifiably worse than when Barack Obama took office in 2009. And no amount of pretending otherwise will improve anything. Barring a genuine and principled change of direction, the American people can only expect more of the same.

Real conservatism requires an understanding of the underlying problems plaguing the nation, and the resultant will to boldly address them. In stark contrast, the objective of “fiscal conservatism” is ostensibly to manage the finances of the nation more capably, while studiously evading any entanglements with those issues of morality and values, such as abortion and same-sex “marriage.” But while many high-sounding excuses are offered in support of this strategy, in reality it results from either the cowardice or moral bankruptcy of its proponents. Over time the Alinskyite tactics of the left have been successful at intimidating many on the conservative side who recoil at the prospect of being labeled extreme or fanatical.

Of course these characterizations are always invoked at the discretion of the liberal accusers. And considering the degree to which the “mainstream” media presents its thoroughly jaundiced opinions as unbiased news, it is inevitable that only conservatives can be expected to incur such scathing allegations. It is therefore futile to deviate even slightly from the liberal agenda, if one expects to avoid being a target of leftist venom.

So for those on the right, only two options exist. They can thoroughly sabotage their entire cause by engaging in vain efforts to mollify their critics, which neither inspires their base nor improves their portrayal by the opposition. Or they can ignore the inevitable scorn and ridicule from leftist activists, remain true to their core principles, and rally the country to their cause.

Simply put, Democrats abandoned any former pretense of moving to the right, since that transparent ruse had ultimately proven futile. Instead, they promoted a brazen leftward shift in their agenda, accompanied by glaring partisan attacks against the GOP. The anticipated response from the Republicans was increased efforts to “find common ground” and seek conciliation. In essence, the Democrats moved twice as far from the center as they had previously been, knowing full well that the typical “moderate” Republican reaction would be to try to “meet them half-way.”

By resorting to this simple, yet diabolical plan, Democrat political operatives were virtually assured a “win/win.” Initially, they could expect to see their agenda implemented in its entirety despite having lost control of the White House along with both houses of Congress. But in the long run they also stood to politically benefit from the predictable disillusionment of conservatives who grew increasingly frustrated at the leftward direction their own party was taking.

Not only were such cornerstones of the liberal agenda as “Campaign Finance Reform” and Medicare Part D embraced by President Bush and the Republican Congress, deficit spending exploded and the nanny state grew to monstrous proportions. Admittedly, the September 11 terrorist attacks delayed any fallout at the ballot box until the elections of 2006 and 2008. Nevertheless, over time the plan proved to be a stunning success on both counts.

Despite the relentless efforts of the liberal propaganda machine to recast the ’06 and ‘08 elections as the American people’s reaction to the unending War in Iraq, in actuality they represented a nationwide backlash against Republican “moderation.” The people of the Heartland had simply grown weary of a Republican Party that could only muster the nerve to present itself as a watered-down version of the Democrats.

In early 2009 however, grassroots conservatism reasserted itself on a grand scale in the wake of Barack Obama’s inauguration, and particularly in response to his ominous effort to destroy American freedom and capitalism though the implementation of Obamacare. Starting in the spring of that year, and through the 2010 elections, the “Tea Party” movement had succeeded in sharply defining the contrasts that exist between the two political camps. Consequently, when Americans went to the polls in the mid-term elections, they were given a clear choice between a liberal and conservative course for the nation. Presented with such an option, they sternly rebuffed the radical leftist triumvirate of Obama, Reid and Pelosi.

In a desperate effort to regain their former dominance, Democrats have resurrected their despicable but very successful former strategy, in hopes of thoroughly blurring the lines between the parties before November. On virtually every major issue, from raising the Debt Ceiling to implementing the initial phases of Obamacare to the legitimization of the counterculture, they have arrogantly drawn lines in the sand, only to be rewarded by continual Republican surrenders.

With the 2012 presidential election cycle in full swing, and the nation’s fiscal and economic condition inarguably worsening, Democrat strategists fully understand that an honest assessment of their track record would prove disastrous. So it is no coincidence that in just the past few weeks, Obama has put the issues of abortion and birth control front and center on the political stage, at the very moment that the GOP establishment is executing the latest effort to creatively run from anything even remotely related to morality or traditional values. This is indeed a major gamble on the part of the Democrats, and it can only work if the GOP unwittingly falls into line. Unfortunately, past history is not a very encouraging indicator of how things might ensue.

This year, the entire battle-plan of the Republican elite centers on their jaundiced concept of “electability,” and misbegotten efforts at “appealing to the independents,” which they assure us can only be accomplished by the abandonment of true conservatism. In the most profound exercise in futility, they would once again see a candidate in the likeness of Bob Dole or John McCain take the nomination, believing that this time such an individual would somehow miraculously rally and inspire those who claim no allegiance to either major political party. And central to this inane plan is the marginalization of those nauseating “social issues.”

Yet their entire effort is based on a flawed premise, and a wholly deficient picture of the character and motivation of “independent” voters. While some certainly are motivated to sit the political fence, in hopes of remaining at that safe “middle,” many others (and this is historically a much more significant number) are displaced conservatives who cannot abide the insipidness of the GOP any more than the abhorrent liberalism of the Democrats. In consideration of this, it is no surprise that Ronald Reagan, the boldest and most uncompromising conservative president of the last half-century, received far more support from “independents” than any Republican “moderate” before or since.

In response to the controversy Obama and his minions have deliberately instigated, establishment Republicans have one of two options. They can press forward into the elections, courageously and unabashedly standing on the principles of true conservatism, including the sanctity of human life, at which point the Obama camp will suffer severe political consequences as a result of its leftist extremism. Or they can once again back-peddle and cave, which will essentially put their stamp of approval on the outrages and excesses of government mandated birth control, and the attack on freedom and the American ideal that it ultimately represents.

Admittedly, media hypocrisy is nothing new, though it may have sunk to new depths during the course of the 2012 Republican primary contest. The same network mouthpieces who could never be bothered to notice the incessant lewdness of the Clinton White House were relentless in their efforts to defame Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich over every alleged impropriety. In essence, any Republican who dared to challenge Romney could expect a backlash on several fronts, including from Romney himself, along with his “Super PAC” surrogates, and predictably abetted by those objective and impartial experts on the nightly news.

In a Republican primary season frequently marked by these fierce collective efforts to destroy any presumed obstacle to Romney’s inevitability, the ongoing struggle of grassroots conservatives to promote an alternative has been both an enigma to the network anchors and a thorn in the side of the Republican establishment. Yet ultimately it is a shining hope for those on “ Main Street.” They soundly reject the notion that their nation’s future is forever subject to the whims of morally bankrupt power brokers from inside the Beltway. The patriotic fervor that gave rise to the “Tea Party” movement in 2009 and 2010 is alive and well, despite being demeaned on the nightly news and disparaged by career politicians from both parties.

It is completely understandable that, among the current slate of candidates, such momentum would coalesce around Santorum. Despite the transparent efforts of his rivals to remind America that he is indeed less than perfect (only Democrats can claim such a mantle) Rick Santorum not only possesses an extremely admirable track record as a conservative powerhouse during his sixteen years in the Congress and Senate, he has made the best and most consistent case for conservatism during this campaign season. Considering the dire straits in which the nation currently finds itself, and the widely recognized need for decisive and unshakable action to fix the mess, Santorum’s hard-headed resolve looks increasingly appealing to middle-America.

The perils facing this nation loom on several fronts. After three years under Barack Obama, America’s finances are in tatters. The specter of encroaching socialism, spearheaded by that monstrosity known as Obamacare, threatens to eradicate every worthwhile vestige of the American ideal. Internationally, its reputation has been shattered on account of its perceived current weakness. Major changes must be implemented in very short order to ease these dismal circumstances. But ultimately, any such effort will prove to be an exercise in futility, barring a renewed emphasis on the moral foundations which undergirded the nation at its inception.

In spite of this stark reality, the combined power of prominent establishment Republicans and their sizable pocketbooks proved decisive for Romney in such places as New Hampshire and Florida. Yet among those residing in Middle America who have not been duped into accepting the ways of the “ruling class,” the Washington status quo is far less palatable. And in their quest to reclaim the nation, they are resolved to stay the course of true conservatism.

Furthermore, in a stark contrast to the general direction of the Romney campaign which too often emphasizes conciliation and “bipartisanship,” the latest outrages of Barack Obama against the core values of the nation serve to remind us that any attempted solutions to the problems facing the American people will be wholly insufficient if they neglect that essential moral component. Obama’s declaration of war against Catholic medical institutions, when considered in conjunction with his “National Prayer Breakfast” stump speech in which he invoked Jesus Christ as an advocate of statist collectivism, inarguably prove that the morass in which America currently finds itself is, at its roots, cultural and spiritual.

Consequently, a “fiscal only” response to such affronts will once again leave a gaping hole in the enterprise, which the liberals will continue to effectively exploit to their advantage. The America that the common folk, as epitomized by the “Tea Party,” hope to see returned to its former glory is not one that merely rebounds economically while remaining devoid of its soul. For they know that minus a cultural restoration, that approach will ultimately fail. And while Mitt Romney, has at times given lip service to this reality, he very consistently avoided fully embracing it as a defining precept of his agenda.

America’s next leader must not only commit to limiting the bloat of government, he must publicly and unabashedly condemn the inherent immorality of the excessive spending that spawned it in the first place. He must likewise seek to reverse the dependency it fosters, and the burden it places on future generations. He must unabashedly trumpet the traditional values, and the Judeo-Christian ethic from which they were derived, as the surest guarantor of freedom and justice for all of the American people, as well as the most noble element of its worldwide sphere of influence.

Apart from such ideals, the societal and fiscal decline can be fully expected to continue. Clearly, the results of this week’s primary contests prove that Heartland America is not ready to consign itself to that fate.

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