“THOROUGHLY POISONED”
by Paul R. Hollrah, ©2013
(Nov. 2, 2013) — At a time when the terms Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative, have become sources of confusion in the minds of many, it’s time we understood what is it that drives men and women to adopt one political party over another.
In an 1824 letter to Henry Lee, a half-brother of Robert E. Lee, Thomas Jefferson discussed the substance of political parties. He said, “Men, by their constitutions, are naturally divided into two parties: One (consisting of) those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes, and two, those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depository of the public interests.”
And although Republican leaders appear to be blissfully unaware of who they are and who Democrats are, there is little doubt which party can honestly lay claim to each of Jefferson’s generic parties. It is the Republican Party which identifies with the people, has confidence in them, cherishes them, and considers them to be the most honest and safe, if not the wisest, depository of the public interest. It is what defines the Republican Party, and always has.
On the other hand, it is the Democratic Party that “fears and distrusts” the people, that regularly and consistently attempts to “draw all power away from the people and into the hands of a powerful ruling elite,” an elite who insist that, whatever the problem or the issue, they know what’s best. The contrasts between the two parties is such that it should not be difficult to draw distinctions between the parties that even the most politically disinterested citizen can recognize.
But to create that understanding in the hearts and minds of the people requires leadership. For the average American to grasp the vast differences between the two parties requires leaders with the courage to say what needs to be said, no matter what political correctness might dictate. But what we find at this point in our nation’s history is that the leaders of the Republican Party, the party that is absolutely essential to this great experiment in self-government, give the opposition party a complete pass on issues that are imperative to our continued freedoms.
No one can doubt that the political waters in America are thoroughly poisoned. The left is so fearful of permanently losing its hold on the central government that what the Founding Fathers viewed as the senate’s role to “advise and consent,” has become, under Harry Reid’s leadership, synonymous with “rule or ruin.” There was a time when American liberals masqueraded as harmless populists, declaring their allegiance to the “common man” and the “general welfare,” but that mask has been slowly, but surely, torn from their faces.
Since coming to power in January 1933, Democrats have engaged in an all-out effort to impose a foreign political and economic agenda on America, an agenda totally at war with American values. And although they’ve made great strides and have attracted substantial support among the “takers” in our society, they have failed to achieve the total victory they’ve always assumed would be theirs. And although they regularly engage in sporadic violence in order to influence the outcome of elections, they have yet to adopt physical brutality, political assassination, and mob violence as their German, Russian, Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese cousins have done.
My recent column titled, “McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor Must Go,” calling on the three top Republican congressional leaders to step aside in favor of stronger Republican leadership, has generated a number of supportive responses. A reader in Indianapolis, Dave Bego, a man who stood up to Obama’s SEIU thugs and won, suggests that, “The problem is (Republican leaders) all want to be nice guys. The problem with that is, in this world, nice guys finish last.”
What any committed conservative can readily see is that, with rare exceptions, Republican leaders prefer to play only defense; they rarely go on the offensive, even when they’ve been dealt an unbeatable hand… and this at a time when the most corrupt administration in history has made the Democratic Party more susceptible to crushing defeat than ever before.
For example, from its inception, the Democratic Party has been the party of slavery, secession, and segregation. It was not until the Republican Party, founded in 1854 by abolitionists, that the institution of slavery was seriously challenged. However, Democrats were not about to give up their right to own slaves so quickly, so they fought back.
In 1866, after being defeated by Republicans in the war to end slavery, Democrats established a paramilitary auxiliary, the Ku Klux Klan, to keep the freed slaves in line and to force them to support Democratic candidates. Once they had regained control of the legislatures in the Confederate states, they enacted Jim Crow laws and the Black Codes. And while Democrats were slaughtering black men, women, and children by the thousands, Republicans were engaged in the process of establishing basic human rights for black people.
Republicans added the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution, outlawing slavery and giving the former slaves citizenship and the right to vote. They also authored the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1875, 1957, and 1960. But how many black people have any knowledge of this? Nearly all black children are exposed to black history lectures in grammar school, high school, or college, but how many are aware of these indisputable facts of their own history?
African-Americans have paid a heavy price for their “devil’s bargain” with the Democratic Party. In exchange for an endless array of “nanny state” entitlements, most have ceded their political independence and the ability to think for themselves, and have forfeited much of their individual initiative and self-reliance. And while changes in demographics finds some 45% of the electorate comprising blacks, Asians, and Hispanics, Republican leaders make no attempt to bring large numbers of those minorities into the GOP, their natural home. They make no attempt to win back the black vote by simply telling the truth about black history in America.
In each General Election, Democrats engage in every form of fraud, violence and intimidation known to man. For example, a study of the 2000 General Election by the New York Daily News showed that some 46,000 people, most of them Democrats, were illegally registered to vote in New York City and in Florida. In September 2005, New Jersey Republicans announced the results of a study of voter registrations within their state. They found that 55,000 people were registered in more than one jurisdiction, 5,950 people voted more than once in the previous election, and 5,000 registered voters were no longer alive. Some 170,000 New Jersey residents were registered in more than one state and 6,500 of those voters had voted in two or more states in 2004. Almost without exception, these are all fraudulent Democratic votes.
Republican Party leaders are fully aware that Democrats regularly engage in massive fraud, but they make no effort to identify and prosecute the guilty parties. Instead, whenever they promote reforms as simple as requiring voters to show a photo ID, they find themselves once again on the defensive, defending against charges of voter suppression in the black precincts. They cannot even find the courage to expose Democrats’ true motivations by demanding that voters be required to dip a finger into a vial of indelible ink after voting, an idea that Democrats would oppose just as vociferously as they oppose photo IDs.
And finally, Republican leaders have remained totally silent on the subject of Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president. They know that his long-form birth certificate is a forgery; they know that his draft registration card is a forgery; and they know that he uses a stolen Social Security number on his federal tax returns and on all of his identifying documents, yet they make no attempt to challenge his eligibility. By their silence, they give tacit approval to his deceit.
In an interview with Bill O’Reilly of Fox News on Monday, October 28, Karl Rove reported that the number of American receiving food stamps had increased to 48 million people, a 70% increase since Obama seized power in 2009. O’Reilly asked, “Do you think the Democrats are doing this on purpose to build up a culture of dependence so that people will vote Democratic?
Rove responded, “I think that’s the effect of it; I don’t believe that’s the cause.”
The correct answer to the question would have been, “Absolutely! Democrats have been buying votes with taxpayer dollars for the past 80 years. That’s just what Democrats do, and if working men and women don’t do something about it soon the Democrats will have bought the allegiance of more than 50% of the population. Once we get to that point, the game’s over.”
It is Karl Rove and millions of other wishy-washy sunshine patriots who define what’s wrong with the Republican Party.
But is there enough courage among the current crop of Republican leaders to change their approach, to go on the offensive? Unfortunately, those who’ve led the party since the Roosevelt era are men and women who, if dealt four aces in a game of five-card draw, would probably look at their cards for a moment and then fold… afraid they might hurt someone’s feelings by raking in the pot. Meanwhile, on the opposite side of the political street, Democrats have dug a hole for themselves so deep that they can’t begin to climb out of it. So what do Republicans do? They stand around, sucking their thumbs, not knowing what to do about it.
Although your article is keen in its observations of the current state of affairs there is interlaced throughout with a proposition I thoroughly reject, personally.
I, FOR ONE, AM NOT LOOKING FOR A POLITICAL LEADER.
I do, however, keep my heart and mind open in hopes of encountering an American Statesman, a person who in their heart and mind adhere’s to and FOLLOWS the Principles and Intents of the Constitution.
WE must come to recognize the UNIQUENESS of the Constitution, as written and adopted, and acknowledge that WE, and all those who take Offices under ITS authorities, are Stewards of a Great Historical achievement accomplished by the Founding Generation that FOLLOWED their Hearts and Minds to the victorious end.
Lincoln, through his Gettysburg Address, is an example of the distinction between a “political leader” and an American Statesman.
(In part);
” … But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth….”
When Dan Reeves was coach for the Denver Broncos, he developed what was called “prevent defense” – all it ever did was to prevent the Broncos from winning. Einstein’s definition of “insanity” fits perfectly with the Republican’s “prevent defense”.