By Alisa Craddock
web posted November 13, 2006
Well, it's all over and, as I had feared, the Democrats have taken control of the government. Everyone has a theory as to why it happened, but the bottom line is, conservatives don't vote for liberals, so a lot of them must have stayed home with few conservatives to vote for. Democrats claim it was a statement against the religious right. The religious right maintains that the Republican Party abandoned them, so they abandoned the party. It's not all about values voters, but the Democrat strategy of promoting pro-life, conservative Democrats paid off for them in a substantial number of key races. But you know, I'm just an average woman. I don't have a Harvard education, I'm not part of a think tank of conservative elites. All I can do is speak for myself. I did vote Republican, but I did so voting for the lesser of two evils. Whereas I had volunteered in the 2004 races, I could not, in good conscience, man the phones and ask people to vote for candidates I did not believe represented the values of faith, family, or country that I had believed the party represented in 2004. So here is my list of how the Republican Party failed me and the people of the United States of America:
Life Issues. Though the President initially made some very positive pro-life moves, in the end, we still have nothing to show for it. What little was done will now likely be reversed or nullified, such as withholding federal funding to support International Planned Parenthood Federation and embryonic stem cell research. On the negative side of the checklist is his support for over-the-counter sales of the morning after pill to adult users. There has been insufficient study done to know what effect massive, repeated doses of hormones will have on women's bodies over time, nor is it reasonable to assume that underage girls will not be able to obtain it. In addition, the morning after pill is an abortafacient, like other birth control pills, which only prevents implantation of a fertilized egg on the uterine wall, but does not prevent conception. Also, in Europe where the morning after pill has been legalized and is widely available, STD's have increased as more couples engaged in unprotected sex.
The mysterious nomination of Harriet Myers for Supreme Court Justice was also surprising -- a woman who was clearly not qualified, and whose pro-life stance was questionable. The outcry from conservatives eventually affected her withdrawal from the nomination, and we got a man more to our liking—Samuel Alito. Nevertheless, abortion continues apace at unprecedented rates. It remains to be seen if the high court will uphold the partial birth abortion ban currently before them.
There was also the Terri Schiavo murder, which has laid the groundwork for other murders of vulnerable citizens in the name of financial interests or the "letter of the law". We are a nation of laws, our leaders tell us, but the laws being made must not trump the higher law of God, or the law ceases to be law, but merely tyranny. Euthanasia is easing its way into our consciousness, and incorporating itself into our conscience like one of those internet worms that disguises itself as part of your anti-virus program.
Homosexuality Issues. The Mark Foley scandal most certainly hurt the Republican Party in this past election, but it may not be the biggest scandal regarding homosexuals to hit the Party. A recent Christian Newswire story shows that the party has adopted a non-discrimination policy that has permitted a substantial number of homosexual staffers to have positions of influence in the Republican Party. The National Republican Senatorial Committee was reported (in 2004 in the Washington Blade, a homosexual newspaper) to have adopted a non-discrimination policy with regard to sexual orientation, and Sen. George Allen is known to have a number of homosexuals working on his staff. While he has apparently falsely touted himself as pro-family, he reportedly refused to sign a pledge supporting tolerance for former homosexuals, but did sign a pro-homosexual non-discrimination pledge for his Senate office. Some believe his lack of full support for Virginia's marriage amendment may have cost him his Senate seat. Perhaps the allegations of racism fueled the fire as well. In any case, I no longer look to him as the most desirable choice for our Party to nominate for the Presidency in 2008.
But he is not the only one affected by the party's understated support for homosexuality. The article goes on to point out the "due to the Mark Foley scandal, social conservatives are learning about the existence of a network of homosexual GOP staffers on Capitol Hill who promote policies antithetical to the party's stated ‘family values'" and we are left to wonder, "did the stealth influence of gay Republican staffers move [Sen. Allen] toward this course that would ultimately turn the Senate over to the Democrats?"
In the fifties when Joseph McCarthy got overly zealous about going after Communists in and out of our government, his name became forever associated with paranoia, fanaticism, and witch hunting. But it is now known that he was right: a Yale professor allowed access to Soviet archives discovered documents revealing that many high ranking government officials and others in positions of influence in this country were taking their orders directly from Moscow during those years. So McCarthy's fears for his country were not unfounded and his zeal not unjustified, though his methods ended up costing some innocent people their careers, and our country paid for his indiscriminate zeal by permitting the thing he was trying so hard to root out to smolder within our government and society, until its toxic tentacles intertwined themselves deep within the Democrat party of our country. A recent story on Cybercast News Service reveals how Sen. Kennedy working through former Sen. John Tunney, had held secret negotiations with the Soviets, undermining the administrations of both Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter The name McCarthyism is used to this day to intimidate any who would seek to root out unscrupulous behavior behind closed doors, such as the "sexual McCarthyism" aimed at those who exposed Bill Clinton's outrageous behavior with Monica Lewinsky. But what would we have called it if Sen. Kennedy's activities had come to light during those years? I wonder.
Fear of being labeled ‘homophobic' may have paralyzed the Republican Party (especially those who actually oppose the ‘gay' agenda) to the point that a successful infiltration strategy may have been implemented. Think this is improbable? Think it's paranoia? The Republican Party would not have been the first organization to be infiltrated by homosexual activists. The Catholic Church has been dealing (or more precisely, not dealing until now) with this issue for over thirty years. Michael Rose's book, Goodbye, Good Men, chronicles the deliberate, coordinated takeover of America's Catholic seminaries by radical liberals and homosexuals who came to be known as the "Lavender Mafia". And the Vatican never had a non-discrimination policy regarding "sexual orientation". In fact, homosexuals were not supposed to be candidates for the priesthood at all, but that didn't stop the effort by closet liberals, feminists and homosexuals to destroy the Church from within. Homosexuals make up about 3% of the population according to every study done in any country. But they are heavily overrepresented in several key areas: Education, mental health professions, religion, entertainment and news media, and government. In case you didn't notice, all of these fields have one thing in common: they all have a heavy influence on shaping public opinion. So you decide if it is paranoid to suspect closet homosexuals of undermining Republican campaign efforts.
Nation Building. I remember glancing at an article last year that stated that the emphasis at the Pentagon had shifted from "national defense" to "nation building". If there was ever a warning to be heeded concerning the globalist agenda, it is this one. Our Founding Fathers were quite adamant that non-interventionism should be our foreign policy, that it was not our job to promote democratic governments in the rest of the world, but to defend our own Republic by whatever means necessary to preserve our freedom. We did not go into Iraq to set up a democracy, we didn't go in to "free the Iraqi people". We went into Iraq because (supposedly) there were weapons of mass destruction, and a crazy dictator with the kind of megalomania to use them to threaten us and our interests. Or perhaps we just went into Iraq so we could fight the war on terror on their turf instead of ours. But Pope Benedict has warned what our own common sense is telling us: you can't impose democracy on an Islamic Fundamentalist country. It won't hold. Allah is not a democrat.
Rep. Ron Paul summarized it best in an article he wrote in 2004 entitled "Nation-Building is Not Conservative." He states in part, "Even opponents of the war now argue that we must occupy Iraq indefinitely until a democratic government takes hold, no matter what the costs. No attempt is made by either side to explain exactly why it is the duty of American soldiers to die for the benefit of Iraq or any other foreign country. No reason is given why American taxpayers must pay billions of dollars to build infrastructure in Iraq. We are expected to accept the interventionist approach without question, as though no other options exist. This blanket acceptance of foreign meddling and foreign aid may be the current Republican policy, but it is not a conservative policy by any means."
The war was a major factor in the power shift in Congress. But already the Democrats are letting it be known that they have no solution, and a rapid pullout will not be forthcoming. As Rep. Paul noted, "going to war without a congressional declaration, as the Constitution requires, leads us into protracted quagmires over and over again."
Torture. I don't know how much exaggeration there was regarding our treatment of Iraqi prisoners, but I do know of at least one prisoner who died as a result of his treatment. I don't think most Americans can reconcile this behavior with their self-image as a country and a people, or with their Christian conscience. It's not the kind of country we want to be. I know things go on in war that are barbaric on both sides, but I find discussions of what kind of torture and how much we're allowed to do within the law deeply disturbing. That kind of thinking is too much like the twisted kind of thinking that got Terri Schiavo killed. Torture is barbaric—period.
National Debt. George W. Bush inherited a balanced budget, and his "compassionate conservatism" and his failure to veto oceans of pork barrel legislations has run us into an unprecedented level of national debt that has to make any conservative cringe. Yes we got a nice tax cut, but what about fiscal responsibility? We owe billions of dollars to China, for heaven's sake. Is this another way of enforcing the global agenda—getting us in debt all over the world so we can't pull out? I don't know a thing about business or economics, but I do know that prosperity is not achieved by frivolous spending, but by careful management of your money. I'm not very good at it, but I don't owe any money to anyone (except my mortgage company) that I can't pay in full right now, and assuming that social security still exists in 13 years when I retire, I shall have at least parity with where I am today, and probably do a bit better. And speaking of Social Security…
Failure to fix Social Security. I've never been big on privatizing social security. Oh, I know you're return on investment would be substantially higher, (assuming the market doesn't crash) but I am incensed that the Congress plundered our money over and over again, and now makes these dire warnings about how there isn't going to be enough money when the Baby Boomers are ready to retire. Hey, don't blame us! The money would have been there if you had not stolen it. Nevertheless, the Republicans had the opportunity to do something about it, and it appears that their only solution is social security "totalization" with Mexico. Great…That brings me to the greatest betrayal:
The Security and Prosperity Partnership. No matter how much the President protests to the contrary, the SPP is the beginnings of a North American Union fashioned after the European Union, which will bring the US, Mexico, and Canada under one government, a government being formed now by "working groups" whose membership is not known, and whose activities are without the force of law or any congressional oversight. In a word, a shadow government is being put in place which will replace our own Constitution and open our borders the rest of the way. Bush may deny it, but two weeks ago, Mexico's ambassador to the UN, Enrique Berruga, called expressly for the formation of a North American Union, and said bluntly that "the merger must be complete in the next eight years before the U.S. baby boomer retirement wave hits full force." And in his first post election speech, Pres. Bush made note of the probability that, under the new Congress, he can get his amnesty passed for those twelve million illegal aliens. So you see, if you want your social security money, you'll have to accept the North American Union. That's extortion! But that has been the pattern for pushing all such measures down our throats of late. Economic blackmail.
Our President took an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." The secret formation of a North American Union is a direct violation of that oath, and of the rights of the citizens of this nation.
Mandatory Mental Health Screening. I can easily see this being used as a tool to play "Ministry of Love" with your kids' moral viewpoint. As I pointed out in an earlier column, there has already been at least one "study" published in Psychological Bulletin showing how conservatives are mentally disturbed. Imagine that study being used to justify mandatory drugging and/or "reconditioning" of your child to expunge the Judeo-Christian worldview you have so carefully tried to instill in him. Think it's preposterous? Look again to the Catholic Seminaries of the 70's. It's all happened before. In their case, young men with orthodox (traditional) beliefs, if they were allowed in at all, were very often sent for mandatory psychiatric treatment because their ideology and beliefs were too rigid and ‘intolerant". They were punished for being faithful to authentic Christian teaching on faith and morals. I read that some young men were even punished if they got caught praying a rosary in the halls, such was the hostility to Christ and genuine spirituality. No wonder the seminaries emptied out over night and we were left with a few thousand "progressives" and the "Lavender Mafia". Yet so many wish to pretend this is a problem with Catholicism and not a problem with Liberalism. But if we learn from the lessons of the Church's recent past, we might be able to recognize the seeds within our institutions and root them out.
These are the most obvious and most disturbing things that have come out of this Republican dominated period. Much more could be said about what wasn't done, what was merely ignored or tabled by this Congress. It is fair to say that the agendas of both social conservatives and fiscal conservatives have been snubbed, that advocates of small government have no successes to point to, and that it was all just a big charade. The only real agenda has been to increase knit us together with the world government as quickly and as deeply as possible before the people catch on. As for the new Democrat controlled government, they're already talking about reversing even the few gains we made. And my worst feeling is, this president is just fine with that. 
Alisa Craddock is free-lance columnist and activist in the culture war, a convert to Catholicism, and describes herself as a Christian Libertarian. In addition to Enter Stage Right, her columns have been published on Alain's Newsletter and Out2 News. She may be contacted at acrock43_j@yahoo.com.