Because of my many years as a conservative in elected office, I have been asked by others, "how did we get in this mess we are in?" The great author Robert Louis Stevenson wisely said, "Sooner or later in life, we all sit down to a banquet of consequences."
That's what's happening now, we're at the banquet.
Here is a brief synopsis of how it happened.
Many Americans believe that the core religious values, which founded and sustained this nation, have not only been sadly neglected but also forgotten. In so doing, the public is finding out what political ignorance and religious apathy has created. While godly people snoozed and gun owners were busy hunting, small minorities of hedonists have inveigled their way into government and have been able to impose their political will upon the majority.
It didn't happen over night.
To understand, we have to go back one hundred years to the comments of a very wise man, President Theodore Roosevelt. He stated, "There are those who believe that a new modernity demands a new morality. What they fail to consider is the harsh reality that there is no such thing as a new morality. There is only one morality. There is only true Christian ethics over against which stands the whole of paganism. If we are to fulfill our great destiny as a people, then we must return to the old morality, the sole morality."
Roosevelt saw moral slippage occurring at the beginning of the last century. He saw radical activists proclaiming a "new morality" embodying atheism and materialism. They were becoming increasingly vocal on our college campuses and were becoming more active in American politics, promoting their "new" morality. They were also attempting to elect their candidates on the socialist ticket.
In the beginning, the Socialists and their allies were singularly unsuccessful and remained small in number. The vast majority of Americans were happy with our liberty, constitutional government, free enterprise and politics implemented through the two party system.
At the beginning of the last century, a socialist by the name of Lenin, put wheels under the world socialist movement. He lead a small minority of communists in overthrowing the czarist government in Russia; in so doing, Lenin developed a financial base and a national platform for the promotion of world socialism. After the First World War, the hard core left became more politically active in the United States. Lenin was an excellent organizer, and he and other socialist leaders realized that it was an impossible task to sell their bad tasting political medicine to the vast majority of Americans.
Norman Thomas, an early leader in the American socialist movement promoted the concept that Americans would never knowingly adopt socialism but, under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.
The left abandoned their attempts to sell their socialist programs as a third party and decided that there was more fertile political ground within the two party system running as "liberals" and "progressives."
At the beginning of the Twentieth Century, the democrats had a weak political party, eager for any new members. The left seized the opportunity and registered as democrats. They were aware that both parties are open to any one who registers in either party.
The socialists recognized that to be a candidate, all you have to do is register, be of age, alive, not a felon and have the money to legally file for office. There is no political litmus test in either party in order to be a member or a candidate.
Socialists could easily register as Democrats and campaign on any issue to get elected rather than campaigning on socialist programssay anything to win the office, then legislate as they please once in office.
The left-wing political leadership recognized that by themselves, they were only a tiny percentage of the American population. They did, however, recognize that only one out of four Americans vote in primary elections and therefore, a small percentage could nominate a candidate in primary elections since multiple candidates often seek the office. The left saw that in local elections for school boards and city council and supervisors, even smaller numbers could affect the outcome. If their Socialists candidates won local offices, they could establish a base of operations in order to move up step by step to higher office, such as state representatives, state senators and at a later opportunity, to Congress and the US Senate.
The following is an actual example of how a small minority can win a major California State Senate office. Registration heavily favored the Republican Party.
District population approximately
Those who could register to vote
Those who bothered to register
Total who voted in primary election
Republican primary vote
Democrat primary vote
And won handily. In the general election, he easily gained the senate seat and served for 22 years. Is this race an exception? No! It happens all the time. Realize the significance of only 16,000 votes out of potentially 400,000 who could have participated.
Think about it. Is it any wonder that a small, dedicated minority of voters could have a disproportionate impact on our government when three out of four Americans don't even register or bother to take part in primary elections, in the important process of selecting who their candidates might be? It has been said that when one American was informed that much of the country's population suffered from both political ignorance and apathy. His yawning response was "I don't know and I don't care."
The socialists, in democratic garb, had a long-range plan with little to stand in their way. Since they were atheists and agnostics, they believed that any method that achieved socialist power was "ethical." The expression, "the end justifies the means" became their motto and method of operations. Deception and lying became the tools of their trade.
During the latter 1800's and early 1900's, the socialist base was still too small to elect their numbers to many offices; they needed to attract additional support. Now clothed as liberals in democratic garb, they increased their numbers by wooing small disgruntled and politically isolated segments of the population, with future promises of political advantage. Knowing that by adding small segment by segment, their combined small numbers could add up enough votes to win primary elections.
They first successfully impacted and wooed segments of the union movement. Then over the years, adding little segments one at a time, they captured support from the homosexual community by sympathizing with their "gay" activities. They attracted anti-war pacifists, disgruntled feminists, the extreme environmentalists, gun control supporters and any other dissident group that could be wooed with future promises of legislative support. Adopting "class action" agitation, they pandered to any group they could exploit and bring on board.
During the growth of their move towards power, the left wing leadership wisely kept these segments separated, appealing to them directly, and then, only to each one's special interest. They knew there would be difficulties if they ever brought them all together, for they certainly didn't want to have meetings of rank and file union members with the "gay" community nor the elderly with anti-war activists.
The socialist knew that, with accurate polling information, they could campaign on issues that they didn't really believe in, but appealed to the average voter; they didn't have to broadcast who their real supporters happened to be. The great depression of the 1930's brought the democrats into national power at all levels of government, including a segment of the "liberal" Democrats. The majority of the Democratic legislators elected during the 1930's and 1940's were still traditional Americans in their ethics and values. However, few old-line Democrats saw trouble brewing and the shift in leadership taking place within their own party. The old time Democrat found out soon enough when he found himself gerrymandered out of his seat and replaced by a young leftist.
At the present time, the good ole hard working jackass, the symbol of the Democrats, should have been changed to the condor; a bird far more in keeping with the leftward slant of their party.
A condor is a large ugly vulture, which feeds on carrion. It stays afloat on hot air and deserts its young when frightened. Its defense mechanism is to throw up, barf a stream of semi-digested meat on its enemies. The bird can't survive near civilization and is becoming extinct in proximity to civilized society. To keep it alive in California, the government now subsidizes its food. It survives quite well in backward South American countries. Could anyone think of a more appropriate symbol for a left-wing socialist movement?
Over many years, the planned "liberal leftist" control over the inner workings of the Democrat party structure increased dramatically. Working together as an organized minority during the nineteen fifties and sixties, the leftists set forth to take control of the Democrat party leadership. Achieving substantial success, they then moved to influence the Republican Party as well, running their candidates as liberals or "moderate" Republicans. RINOs (Republican In Name Only) became a small dissident element in the Republican Party as well. Small but mouthy, they are the croaking frogs on republican lily pads.
While in office, during the 1970's and 1980's, I saw the left grasp control over the political fortunes of the Democrat party, On a first hand basis, right before my own eyes, I watched it happen. Today, the socialists are the dominant voice in its elected leadership. Whenever the opportunity presented itself, they effectively and systematically eliminated conservative democrat office holders within their ranks. Because the Left now controls leadership, they control candidate funding, thereby controlling who wish to be elected and leveraging Democrat incumbents who wish to be returned to office.
A very conspicuous case of rooting out non-conforming members of the Democrat party is the primary election defeat of Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut. In six years this long-time Senator went from national icon of the Democrat party to pariah. The message is the sametow the line, or else.
Over the past fifty years, controlling the vast wealth created through taxation, they have built a huge federal, state and local bureaucracy which not only employs their own kind but implements a wealth of programs that reflects the wishes of their base, the unions, the gays, the feminists the anti war pacifists, the gun controllers, etc. Through laws, they have dramatically increased their power and have done what Norman Thomas hoped would happen.
The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.
Fortunately, a number of Americans are aware of how it's happening and are trying to inform their fellow Americans. Millions of Americans still hold to the core traditional and religious values that founded this nation and, properly informed, are working diligently to see the left in both parties are routed out of our Constitutional government.
The first glimmer of hope came with the republican nomination of Barry Goldwater for president in the 1960's. Although he was soundly defeated in the general election, he defeated in the primary, the darling of the left leaning republicans, Nelson Rockefeller. Conservatives rallied to work for Goldwater and didn't quit working after his defeat. In California, in 1966, they defeated another "moderate" in the primary by nominating and electing as governor, something as rare as a right-winger in Hillary Clinton's staffa conservative actor.
The fledgling American core value revolt was under way. A voice was raised promoting our traditions and our ethics: activist organizations began to crop all over America politically unsophisticated but eager to learn. Fourteen years later, they nominated and elected Ronald Reagan to the presidency.
In 1994, the Lower House of Congress went republican and its leadership shifted toward conservatism. Was liberalism dead? Not by a long sight. They had managed to control both houses of Congress for forty years. The Republicans held narrow margins but with a few "moderate" RINOs in their midst, their control is iffy. The lefties were deeply imbedded in the Northeastern states and were the controlling factor in most large cities.
However, they were increasingly having problems within their own ranks. The splinter groups they'd attracted and wooed began to make demands. They had contributed to the democrat victories, now they wanted their reward. They wanted more of their own elected to office and they wanted their issues enacted into law. Instead of being splinter groups kept in the closet, they demanded to be heard, and their wishes subsequently become part of our laws.
They got their wish and, and the dissidents are now running the "Democratic" party. The tail is now wagging the old "Democrat" donkey. The anti-war, pro-abort, environmental extremists, soft on crime, big spending liberals, feminists and deviants of both sexes are calling the political tune and are marching hand in hand in gay parades. The large body of old rank and file Democrats are scratching their heads and wondering, "What's going on?"
Big changes are now occurring. The South, traditionally Democrat but fundamentally religious, has turned Republican. Not because of any great love for the Republican structure, but because of their disgust over the present leftward drift of their own party.
Amongst elected democrats, hoping to seek higher office and recognizing that the new base of the party has become a collection of wacko wonks, are trying to cover and obfuscate this fact by constantly attacking their opposition as "extreme," haters of the poor or religious bigots. Their rhetoric borders the wild trying to please their base while seeking to appear as moderate to the average voter. It ain't working.
They are in trouble and they know it. The governmental bureaucracy, which houses and provides jobs for their supporters, is being threatened. Their economic base is vulnerable and their future is suspect. How can they send Junior and Zelda to Harvard if they are outa' work? Therefore, their attacks are becoming more vicious and the thin veneer of civility is wearing off their "democratic" facade.
There is a truism in economic circles, "bad money drives out good." The same thing is true in politics. Bad people drive out good ones. In the "Democratic" party that rule is holding true. Bad democrats drive out good ones. In rural America, the trend is decidedly towards basic American values. Who would have believed forty years ago, that below the Mason Dixon Line, the South would turn Republican? Or that rock-ribbed republican New Englanders would tolerate Barney Frank or Ted Kennedy in office?
The left hasn't gained total control, for if they had, they'd have made it a "crime" for me to write what I have just written. There is still time to turn it all around and get the buggers out of government. I know it's possible and so does the left, which is why, when challenged, and a conservative leaning judge is appointed to the Supreme Court, the thin veneer of civility rubs off for all to see. We are now witnessing how uncivil and uncouth they really are.
They started as a minority and still are a minority. The big difference is that over the last hundred years, they have embedded themselves and their unworkable policies in all facets of governmentincluding education and segments of the major media.
They can be routed out but they won't go willingly. They have worked hard to get where they are and are going to see that all their socialist programs are going to be shoved down our collective throats. They are nasty people. Rub off that thin veneer of civility and see for yourselves.
Theodore Roosevelt also said, "All those blatant sham reformers, in the name of new morality, preach the old, old vice and self indulgence which rotted out first, the moral fiber and then even the external greatness of Greece and Rome."
Is America next? Are we to be "rotted out by sham reformers?" Are we to be apathetic Americans who say, "I don't know and I don't care!"?
I don't think so. I believe we are at the banquet and Americans are feasting on the political consequences of the last one hundred years. They don't like the taste of the political concoctions they've been fed and are demanding and working for change.
Gun Owners of America