WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF August 4, 2000
Copyright Joel Skousen. Quotations with attribution permitted.
Website: http://www.joelskousen.com
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY LEADERSHIP
: Masters of Deceit
To a great extent the lies
and deception underlying the manipulation of conservative sentiment in the US
by the Republican party exceed those of the Clinton Democrats--if not in
quantity (it’s hard to beat Bill Clinton on quantity), at least in the level of
danger. With Bill Clinton, most
conservatives can easily discern his lies and are mobilized to action against
him. With George W. Bush and Bill Cheney, almost all conservatives have been
suckered into the false hopes of being saved by “true believers” pushing all
the right hot buttons--well,not quite all.
A good portion of the Bush-Cheney statements are outright socialist in
meaning as they cater to an ever-more benefit-corrupted majority of
voters. Let’s look at Bush’s highly
touted Convention speech in Philadelphia.
He spoke of principles and yet uttered a host of
carefully crafted proposals that violate every conservative principle of
limited government. They sound nice,
but anyone with experience in government knows that to implement these
proposals requires socialist federal programs, at increased cost to
taxpayers. My comments are in
parentheses:
“...extend the promise of prosperity
to every forgotten corner of this country.” (This is Marxist garbage thinking. There is no universal promise of prosperity in the free
market--only freedom from interference as each person pursues his own
interests, fulfilling the needs of others in the process. ‘Every
forgotten corner of this country’ implies that the blame for poverty lies
in lack of government attention.)
“We will strengthen Social
Security and Medicare for the greatest generation (egregious flattery),
and for generations to come...make
prescription drugs available and affordable for every senior who needs them.
(An honest, thinking conservative would try to wean people away from the
damaging side-effects of prescription drugs and into natural health and
nutrition. This Clinton proposal is a
bailout for the big drug industry and is also a budgetary disaster.) To
seniors in this country ... You earned your benefits (true only for those
who have paid in large amounts to the system--sadly, most current workers will
never receive back anywhere near the equivalent they pay in over a lifetime compared
to comparable private investments. SS used
to be a ponzi scheme. Now it’s an
outright fraud since the trust fund has been raided by Congress and replaced by
IOUs. It will not be able to fulfill
all promises to future recipients), you
made your plans, and President George W. Bush will keep the promise of Social
Security (impossible! As I said, there’s
no money in the trust fund) ... no
changes, no reductions, no way. For
younger workers, we will give you the option – your choice – to put a part of
your payroll taxes into sound, responsible investments...” (He’s playing the benefit-corruption music that
people love to hear--promising to continue the nearly unlimited future benefits
of SS, while allowing young workers to pay into another private system. While the latter is the only good solution,
by offering both Bush is going to transfer the future SS deficit to the
general fund--and yet will promise tax cuts in the next breath. Clinton did the same shameless thing in his
State of the Union address.
“Too many American children are segregated into schools without standards (Bush intends to back national school
standards, which will mean control), shuffled
from grade-to-grade because of their age,
regardless of their knowledge (true). This is discrimination, pure and simple
(no, it’s permissiveness which Bush doesn’t understand and cannot cure)
– the soft bigotry of low expectations
(it’s not bigotry at all, but a byproduct of liberal standards in credentialed
public teacher training). And
our nation should treat it like other forms of discrimination ... We should end
it (he means by federal force and intervention. That is the danger of his allusion to discrimination--it implies
the justification of federal force, which is very dangerous). Local
people should control local schools (nothing he proposes does anything but
require a larger federal role, at least in mandates to local districts. In the ultimate sense, he’s playing to a
common ignorant conservative notion --that if we let our local officials
undermine our rights and force our participation in the evils of public
education it’s somehow better than if the feds do it to us) ...Make
Head Start an early learning program, teach all our children to read, and
renew the promise of America's public schools (there is no “promise” of
public schools except to take everyone’s tax money and then control values
through a small cadre of credentialed professions. Using the Head Start program as an entry point into universal
kindergarten is a long-time leftist strategy that Bush has embraced).
“We will give low-income Americans tax credits to buy the private health insurance they need and deserve.”
(Deserve implies a fundamental right, which health care is not. Pushing more people into the insurance trap
only forces those people to rely on the establishment medical system rather
than good nutrition and prevention. Tax
inducements for employers to provide paid health benefits to employees is the
foremost cause [after Medicare] for the catastrophic rise in health care costs
in the US.)
“We will transform today's
housing rental program to help hundreds of
thousands of low-income families find stability and dignity in a home of
their own.” (This will involve a
federal subsidy program which was started in Europe where low-income tenants
are allowed to buy their units for pennies on the dollar. While it is true that people take better
care of units they own, the heavy discount they receive at taxpayer’s expense
is a violation of the rights of those taxpayers (us) who have to pay full value
for housing.)
“Racial progress has been steady, if still too slow.” (The inference here is that
more federal intervention is necessary.
Government cannot force people to accept others without trampling on the
right to make exclusionary choices. Most conservatives don’t realize that the
right to discriminate in choices of personal or business association is a
fundamental right--not an amoral bias.
Without this right to discriminate, we are slowing seeing almost every
minority group from homosexuals to the obese being protected from negative judgment,
all the while making it more difficult for others to be free from unwanted
associations.)
“We are learning to protect the natural world around us. We will
continue this progress, and we will not turn back.” (This was code aimed at the environmentalist
movement hinting that Bush will not sign any legislation cutting back on the
onerous and radical environmental regulations that are hampering or destroying
many American small businesses.)
“We will enforce existing gun laws strictly.” (This statement has a
double meaning. Many existing laws are
now anti-gun and anti-second amendment.
On the one hand, he is telling the liberals that he won’t try to repeal
any of the existing bad law, while making conservatives think he is merely
vigorous in attacking criminals.)
Lastly on the negative side,
he invoked many references to God,
just like Bill Clinton. This is an evil
habit of politicians. My research has
concluded that the reports of George W. Bush’s womanizing, drug use, and lack
of sincere religious feelings are accurate, despite propaganda recently
published in the Washington Times showcasing Bush’s religious background. For him or Clinton to play up to God is very
offensive to the Almighty, no matter how desperately conservatives may want to
hear it.
On the good side, Bush said
all the right things about reconstituting a strong military, defending America and cutting taxes. I think he is lying. He knows the PTB intend
to give Congressional control back to the Democrats so that Bush will have an
excuse not to carry through with this urgent necessity. Of course, even if he does build up the
military, it will only be used to further UN “peacekeeping” missions
(intervention against any nation opposing the NWO). In the next breath he pledged to work toward continued nuclear disarmament. You can’t have a strong military without a
credible nuclear deterrent, so his buying into this strong leftist agenda is
telling. But Bush won’t have to take
all the blame for breaking his promises to the military. We will have a depression during his
administration which will force major budget cuts in defense anyway.
He also promised to protect
the American people with a missile
defense (just like Clinton). This
is a lie of insidious proportions. The
ABM system will certainly be the same type being pursued currently which will
not be effective nor in sufficient quantity to do the job. Lastly, he promised a full round of tax cuts including eliminating the
hated estate tax. But once again, it
will be staged so far into the future that the coming depression will overtake
these cuts before they are fully in effect.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: WHY DICK CHENEY OVER ELIZABETH
DOLE?
I have been tracking a
statement by Dwayne Andreas (believed to be a highly placed insider with the
secret coterie that controls the US government) that the next President and VP
would be George W. Bush and “Liddy” Dole.
He said this over two years ago, before either had entered the
race. I think it was clear that the
establishment fully intended to push for a Bush-Dole ticket. The media promoted her at every turn and the
establishment funded a large petition drive on her behalf, (which they did for
no other VP candidate). I think there
was a concerted attempt by the insiders
to throw a bone to the radical feminist movement. However, with a majority of the US people favoring
Democratic/socialist solutions, it becomes harder each time the insiders want
to put the Republicans back in power. I
don’t believe the PTB could have risked running a weak VP like Liddy Dole
unless the Demos were also willing to put a woman on the ticket.
The media had hinted that
both parties may pick women VPs. I’m
sure they would like to establish this as a de facto “rule” in politics, as in
broadcast journalism, where every major anchor team has to have a female
component. But Gore was faced with
having to run with Diane Feinstein, which would have been a disaster. She would have easily upstaged Gore, who is
a poor speaker. In addition, Feinstein
may already know that the Gore ticket is going to lose and didn’t want to turn
out like Geraldine Ferraro. So with
Gore deciding against a female running mate, the Republicans couldn’t afford to
risk it either. Dole is really looking
her age too, and would NOT have looked good up against the younger Bush.
But the ultimate reason may
have been the requirement that the RNC leadership give the conservative wing of
the Republican party a token concession to keep their loyalty. The liberals suspiciously let the
conservatives win a unanimous victory in the platform battles over abortion--a plank neither Bush nor Cheney
has any intention of endorsing with any enthusiasm. But conservatives leaders in Washington allow themselves to be
pacified by the Republican leadership if only on one big issue. The RNC gave them the abortion issue,
knowing that the Supreme Court would stop anything from becoming law anyway. But the conservatives had threatened to
leave the party if they didn’t at least get a firm stand on abortion. They got the verbiage in the platform but
they won’t get any action. Dole was
anti-gun and pro-choice and would have precipitated a conservative walk-out,
perhaps lending support for Pat Buchanan.
So the kingmakers gave them Dick Cheney--as phony a conservative as Geo.
W., but more believable.
What Dick Cheney has is an
image that looks very conservative, and indeed, he was fairly conservative as a
Congressman from Wyoming (although he stated recently that he would vote
differently now if he were in Congress).
His wife Lynn (a Ph.D.) is also touted as a tough conservative on
education issues. But beneath the
surface, the conservative image unravels quickly. Lynn served as head of the liberal National Endowment for the
Humanities, and failed to curtail its major funding of liberal causes. To her credit she did stop some of the worst
specific abuses, but without hampering the overall system of liberal
patronage. This type of leadership only
reinforces the conservative flawed thinking that inherently evil institutions (UN,
PBS, IRS, public schools, etc.) can be reformed and used for good. The Cheneys also have a daughter who is reported
to be a lesbian and who the media will showcase throughout this
administration.
Cheney himself is a long-time
insider who has risen through the halls of power and wealth by his many
establishment connections. Like Hillary
Clinton, Cheney was rewarded with insider trading privileges allowing him to
amass a fortune after serving in Congress.
He served as Secretary of Defense during the Persian Gulf War and thus
was co-conspirator in this internationalist scheme to build the NWO, cover for
Russia’s secret alliance with Iraq during the war, and allow Saddam Hussein to
survive for future Hegelian purposes (creating conflict so as to justify a more
evil “solution”). He was selected for
multiple director positions at establishment corporations (US West, Morgan Stanley,
Halliburton Oil, etc) which enhanced his wealth and allowed him to continue to
carry out internationist orders. He
went to China during the dispute over China’s military incursions onto
Philippine territory in the Spratley Islands, and came out declaring that
“China was not a threat to the world, and only had peaceful intentions.” Cheney
also was in charge of approving Chinese visitors to US defense plants during
the Bush administration. I suspect
that George Bush will not be able to play the pro-China card that Bill Clinton
has played, and has chosen Cheney to carry on the secret rearmament of China
that the establishment has embarked upon ever since the previous Bush
administration. Cheney claims to be a fiscal conservative, but he recently came
out for government price controls over energy resources.
WAB Home
