web analytics
≡ Menu

The GOP’s More Dangerous Poison

Back in 2008 we were supposed to believe Mitt Romney’s repeated declarations that he was pro-life and a staunch defender of the God endowed family. We were supposed to accept the notion that he was a “conservative” champion of limited government and fiscal responsibility. But the true facts of his political record utterly contradict these falsehoods.

Christie, Perry, Cain and Gingrich have been trotted out, endorsed by this or that supposedly “conservative” element, pundit or apologist. But in one way or another, by their own words and the true facts of their record, all stand exposed as “made men” who have been willing in some decisive way to serve the elite faction’s effort to overthrow constitutional self-government and replace it with elitist dictatorship. One has helped the effort to subvert the republic’s moral foundations; another has openly or silently abetted the attack on its constitutional integrity; another has gone along with the elitist takeover of education; or its subversion of the people’s political and territorial sovereignty; or its suffocation of the economic freedom and consequent material strength of the nation. And finally, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum ironically epitomize the depth of the elite faction’s subversion of the republic’s principles, and its substitution of leaders committed to that subversion in place of those, like America’s founders, determined to articulate, maintain and perpetuate them.

Ron Paul is touted by his supporters as a strong, principled defender of the U.S. Constitution. But the states’ rights doctrine he articulates is not based on the principle of residual sovereignty exemplified by the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment. It is based instead on a libertarian ideology that ignores the God revering premises of constitutional self-government. This ideology falsely conflates decent liberty with licentious individual freedom. It self-destructively confuses Constitutional government based on the sovereign right of the people, with Confederate government based on a specious notion of States’ “rights” which illogically includes the right to do wrong.

It derives these specious rights by asserting at the State level an unlimited “popular sovereignty” that casts aside the republican idea of government limited by respect for God-endowed unalienable right. These are the “principles” that were advocated by Stephen Douglass, the fellow traveler of the pro-slavery forces, who defeated Abraham Lincoln’s bid for a U.S. Senate seat in Illinois; and by John C. Calhoun, the prolific apologist for slavery and the southern Confederacy; and by some of the anti-Federalists (people who campaigned against ratifying what became the U.S. Constitution.)

In many respects Rick Santorum’s candidacy is the most beguiling and instructive of the campaigns sanctioned by the GOP’s elitist faction leadership.  He has without doubt spoken and acted as one of the most consistent advocates of the unalienable right to life in American politics. But he is also a prime example of the reason Christ admonished his followers to look beyond the words, and even beyond the actions, of would-be leaders in order to consider the fruit they bear. In politics that fruit includes the people legitimized and lifted up by someone’s actions.

Rick Santorum scored what he himself acknowledges to have been a miraculous victory when he first won a term as U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania. His victory was the fruit of the faithful prayers and heartfelt work of grassroots supporters determined to raise to office someone they trusted to respect God’s endowment of right, beginning with the unalienable right to life. For a while, in word and deed, it seemed that Rick Santorum justified their God-revering trust.

But while they persisted in their effort to add good fruit to the political harvest, Senator Santorum chose instead to pick bad fruit and lift it up so as to appease the elitist faction’s agenda for power. It was bad enough that he touted openly “pro-choice” leaders like Christie Todd Whitman. But by endorsing Arlen Specter’s primary bid for re-election, Senator Santorum directly contravened the efforts of the very people through whose good faith God had fashioned his own Senate win. He put the calculations of political ambition above respect for hearts moved by simple obedience to God’s intention.

In consequence he was favored with strong financial support by the money and media barons of the GOP wing of the elitist faction. Despite their largesse he went down to defeat. He had betrayed his faithful supporters. The impaired enthusiasm that resulted from this demoralizing betrayal deprived him of the level of support he needed from his God-revering constituents.  This was not just another political defeat. It signified the hard fact of what the GOP has become.

Thanks to the dominance of an elitist leadership that rejects the God-revering principles of the Declaration, the Party’s culture of cynical ‘New Deal’ political opportunism creates an environment in which good political fruit, nourished by the sustenance of God-revering hearts, is damaged. This impairs both the leadership and the moral courage of the movement by which God is seeking to restore America’s last, best hope.

Perhaps Senator Santorum has repented of his surrender to the cynical realities of elitist faction dominated GOP politics. Perhaps on account of that repentance he can be trusted not to abuse the powers of the Presidency to make new deals that empower and consolidate the tyranny of self-worshiping elitists. Perhaps he will not again advance people who betray the God revering Declaration principles that motivate his core constituents.

But in the end the moral of Senator Santorum’s story has less to do with him than with the GOP’s embrace of the elitist faction’s deeply corrupting paradigm for politics. Whatever Rick Santorum hopes to achieve, the hard fact is that he is more than likely being set up so that his eventual endorsement of the chosen GOP nominee will perfume Mitt Romney or some other Declaration rejecting, crypto-socialist,elitist faction toy. Given his past penchant for such endorsements, we can be morally certain that he will not hesitate to do so again.

Perhaps he will play Sarah Palin to Romney’s John McCain. If so, the ultimate result will be that those who support him are again played for fools. They will comfort themselves with the excuse that at least Obama is gone. Yet like the tragic figures in the ancient plays, these well-meaning partisans of liberty will have helped the nation vomit out the Obama faction’s bitter tasting poison. But as they do so they will administer, in sugar coated form, the hemlock draft meant to put liberty down for good.  The more dangerous poison is the one falsely labeled as a remedy for illness.

Series NavigationMr. Gingrich your mask is slipping. Again!Guess who Mitt Romney Represents?
{ 18 comments… add one }
  • HarpDiem May 27, 2012, 4:26 pm

    You can explain it all so eloquently, sir. Isn’t there some way we can do something before it is too late?

  • Dawg em February 4, 2012, 6:38 pm

    Yes indeed. Sometimes I wish I were a child once again. Simple. Accepting. No responsibilities. But alas, tis not to be.

    So I beg the question; how perfect must a candidate be? What level of “evil” must (can) one accept?

    On drugs (alcohol being just one) and the oldest profession, the legalization of which is anathema to Christian doctrine, how does one comport his civic duties to such a wayward soul? The abuse of the elements and physical lust is as old as dirt but not to be trifled with per the Word.

    As if that weren’t enough, does the removal of child sacrifice from the federal level and placed in the purvue of regional (state) laws make such an adherance unacceptable to conscience driven activists? Especially since such an act would result in at least some protection for the least of these. Clearly state laws will allow for expanded protection of the preborn. Is this compromise unacceptable according to (conservative) Catholic social teaching?

    I have argued with Ron Paul acolytes, explaining to them he is NOT pro-life but pro-state-choice. It’s no different than claiming one is opposed to slavery yet the “states” should get to decide. Some even claim he is a purist when it comes to Constitutional law. How can that be when clearly “life” is the foremost right, preceding , logically, liberty and happiness.

    Still, when it comes to life issues, these many unjust and immoral wars, many of which he opposes, would not only save numerous lives but untold souls. His foreign policy is not what many would have us believe. The American Empire is anti-Christian to its core. It is murder. Why do we as a nation align ourselves with murderers, the Taliban and Al CIA Duh comes to mind, then shamelessly claim they are barbarian? When will we stop funding, traing and arming our enemies?

    On the debt and obscene spending, no candidate can compare. Auditing the fascist banksters would go a long way to resolving our fiscal mess. Still, I either have to hold my nose or take the garden hose to my shoes when I vote. I’m very tempted to stay home. But I suspect the elitist faction would love nothing more, with the possible exception of voting for their annointed one; in all likelihood, Romney.

    As much as I hate the idea of voting for someone with a pro-state-choice position, such a position is a step forward in the protection of the preborn. I always thought compromise was obscene; but now, dare I consider the lives that will be saved with a less-than-ideal candidate, or stay on the sidelines hoping a pro-life, anti-illegal war, pro-audit-the-fed candidate springs upon the scene.

  • Dawg em February 4, 2012, 6:06 pm

    Shall I say more?

  • jim williams January 30, 2012, 2:49 am

    Mr Keyes,
    Is it true that Mr Obama ammitted to you in a debate, That he was not a
    US citizen? If you have facts, information that I could read, or any site where I would be able to get that information I would like to have it.
    Thank You, Jim williams

  • Romney January 26, 2012, 2:21 am

    I support Orly Taz by occasionally giving her donations as well as giving $100 to Lakin.

    However, why is no one asking the SAME question of Mitt Romney whose polygamous father was born in Mexico just as Obama’s polygamous father was born in Kenya. Obama’s mother was born in Kansas but where was Romney’s mother born?.

    Where is the SHOW YOUR BC – ROMNEY??

    Where is the Romney is not eligible to be president because BOTH his parents were not born in the USA ?

    Now we know why Ann Coulter, Bill “O’rielly, Carl Rove, etc called people CRAZY for asking whether Obama was born in the USA or asking whether if only one of Obama’s parents was born in the USA was he still eligible to be president? —- BECAUSE THE ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS COULDN’T” GO AFTER OBAMA ON THESE ISSUES in 2008 because because THEY WOULD BE SHOOTING DOWN THEIR OWN RINO CANDIDATE MITT ROMNEY.

  • Tim January 21, 2012, 12:07 pm

    Dr. Keyes,
    I agree with Jeanna’s comments in regards to Ron Paul. I struggle with some of Ron Paul’s positions such as legalized drugs & gay marriage. As a Christian, I am for neither but I also am very fearful of the federal government having too much power and control. I think Ron Paul gets it right on states rights. Take abortion for example. I am extremely pro-life and volunteer for a pro-life organization. I like Ron Paul’s idea that abortion should be handled by the states and not by the fed. govt. Abortion has been legal for nearly 40 yrs. with no end in sight. The Supreme Court should have never been involved in this. The individual states should decide whether they want abortion legal or not. I understand that states like California and New York would most likely keep abortion legal but there is no doubt that at least half of the states would make abortion illegal. This is not perfect for I would like abortion to be illegal in all 50 states. But this is a much better solution than what we currently have. The last 3 GOP presidents had pro-abortion wives. Reagan appointed pro-abortion justice Sandra Day O’Conner. GHWB appointed pro-abortion David Souter. GWG nominated pro-abortion Harriet Meiers and if it wasn’t for the outcry of Christian’s, Meiers very well may have been appointed in place of the current pro-life justice. My point Dr. Keyes is that those of us who are pro-life are being played by the GOP. They all claim to be Christian, they all claim to be pro-life in order to get votes. So I think Dr. Paul is correct on States rights. Please tell me where I’m wrong.

  • Daniel Sparks January 6, 2012, 6:55 pm

    Dr. Keyes, thanks for the succinct summary of Ron Paul’s position on the sanctity of human life. Though he may be on the right track on some matters, this essential matter of life is his biggest weakness. We do not have the right to do wrong. Murdering babies at the federal or state level is still a horrendous act. I find it hard to believe that many Christians are swallowing the Ron Paul pill that says it’s okay to murder babies so long as it’s done at the state level.

  • Mary Jo January 6, 2012, 12:54 pm

    Dr. Keyes,

    Thank you for this blog post, but I must confess that it lacks a conclusion. While I do not deny or disagree with any of the things you have said, it makes me wonder what to do in the primary election. For whom should we vote? I wish you were running again…

  • D.R. Hurt January 6, 2012, 11:42 am

    Dr. Keyes,
    I respect your eloquence, however, believe you have overlooked a core issue with respect to Dr. Paul. His benchmark for the legitimacy, organization and exercise of government responsibilities is our Constitution. Your assertion, that he has a wrong view of the proper juridiction of States – and summarily, that this opens wide the door to bad behavior is IMO flawed. Why? The problem lies with the premise that morality may be legislated – and that the primary debate is whether this should be done at the Federal or State level. The premise is false, having been proven wrong ad nauseum. Have you noticed the occupancy of our prisons lately? Does corruption continue in state and federal governments? Is there blatant sin in the organized church? Are so-called evangelists pure of character? No. To eject Dr. Paul because usurpation will continue in both State and Federal jurisdictions would be like rejecting our Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms because they are too often misused. After four years of study, I believe Dr. Paul, as a prospect for the highest office of the Executive Branch of government, has the most appropriate, most needed Economic, Foreign and Monetary policies of anyone in the Presidential race – not to mention the time-tested consistency to match. That said, there is and will not be a sinless messiah running for the office. We’ll have to wait for the New Heaven and the New Earth before that is the case.

  • Ricky Martin January 6, 2012, 2:20 am

    I con cur with Jeanne. Ron Paul knows our rights come from God. Dr. Paul has always been a member of the GOP, he only accepted the Lib. Party Nomination and did not change Parties. Dr. Paul is a saved man as he has accepted Christ as his savior and goes to a Baptist Church.

    Dr. Keyes was schooled by Will Buckley and I have felt for a long time a tool of the NWO.

  • Brian January 6, 2012, 12:50 am

    I used to write my Repub rep’s to urge them to stop funding PBS/NPR thinking they were unaware how virulently leftist and anti-christian they were. It took me 30 years to figure out that they knew all along.

  • Jeanna January 4, 2012, 9:03 pm

    Dr. Keyes,
    I appreciate your blog and everything you stand for. I almost always find myself agreeing with the points you make. However, I remain unconvinced that Ron Paul is too Libertarian. I am under the impression that although Paul was affiliated with the Libertarian party, he is really more of a Constitutionalist and does not embrace the godlessness of the Libertarian party. The fact that he signed Personhood USA’s pledge I think demonstrates this, and the letters he wrote afterwards explaining his view of how the Constitutional approach to this issue should work appeal to my understanding of the Constitution.



    Perhaps you can help me to understand better why you believe this about Ron Paul. Thank you.

    • Piltdown911 January 6, 2012, 12:31 pm

      Right on.
      Instead of the negativity, sit down with Dr. Paul and discuss the issues, that is something I would pay to see.

  • IONU June 23, 2010, 10:32 pm

    Dr. Keyes,

    As usual, your analysis is brilliant and irrefutable. How can anyone argue with historical fact? The actions of the illegitimately born and illegitimately elected Marxist Muslim petty despot on a frantic mission to destroy our country are contemptuous, but my disgust and wrath is directed at his enablers – the globalist elite, including Soros, the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Brzezinski, Kissinger, and the Bilderberg/CFR crowd.

    I am also disgusted with the so-called “conservative media” which is just another arm of the state controlled media, whose top conservative voices (Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck) boisterously criticize Obama but stop short of calling him illegal, unlawful, ineligible, and legitimize him by addressing him as “President” Obama. Limbaugh calls himself America’s Truth Detector, the Doctor of Democracy. Ha! What a joke.

    Besides Dr. Keyes, who else is riding through the streets sounding the alarm Revere-style? Joe Farah comes to mind. And Michael Savage, the #4 rated radio talk show host, doesn’t pull punches when he says the U.S. has a “CinC with dual allegiances,” “the presidency of the U.S. has been usurped by a foreign power,” “this man is not even eligible under the U.S. Constitution to be POTUS,” “his father was not even a U.S. citizen, his father was a British subject at the time of Obama’s birth – therefore Obama was not and is not legal to be POTUS.”

    Here is the link from WND.


  • Guy Stevenson June 23, 2010, 6:11 pm

    Wednesday, June 23, 2010 (And then there is this,.. view)

    McChrystal Mania, or, Obama’s Deliverance

    It’s the best thing that could have happened for Obama. The Chinese currency situation is looking worse and more inscrutable by the minute. His effort to save individual homeowners from foreclosure has clearly failed miserably. The “official” unemployment rate is ten percentage points below the unofficial rate — and who knows what the real rate is? Even Wall Street, the worst possible measure of the strength of the productive sector, can’t sustain a bull market in a bear economy. The United States government has, to all intents and purposes, reached a point of functional overload.

    Life, liberty, and property? What are those? As for the pursuit of happiness, a.k.a., the acquisition and development of virtue . . . uh, huh. Anyone who is seriously concerned about the moral breakdown of society seems inevitably to want to use the State to ram a private version of truth, love, and justice down everyone else’s throat. How well that recipe for failure works can be seen in today’s earlier posting on the career of the supremely individualistic Alexander the Great.

    Consequently, Obama desperately needs something (anything) to direct attention away from his own complete lack of vision, effective leadership, and his apparent belief that the State can solve any and all problems by simple fiat. I could imagine that the “secret meeting” this morning at the White House consisted of Mr. Obama giving heartfelt thanks to General McChrystal before letting the man know that his Commander-in-Chief is going to throw him to the wolves and (to mix metaphors) crucify him. “Firing” a military commander — especially one who uses foul language! (How could this country ever tolerate a soldier in the line of battle who uses “the F-word”?) — is the only way to 1) save Obama by distracting the public, and 2) save Obama by offering a scapegoat, and 3) save Obama by giving the appearance of actually doing something.

    Well . . . Mr. Obama could always do something that has the potential actually to work . . . .

    First, officially reprimand General McChrystal. He should never have spoken critically of the administration . . . any more than he should speak uncritically. At least in public. Mr. Obama should, however, ask himself the one question no one seems to be asking: is what General McChrystal said true? If so, what are you going to do about it? You don’t make a bad situation any better by ignoring legitimate and accurate criticisms and surrounding yourself with a crowd of adoring lickspittles who hang on your every word and praise you endlessly.

    Second, send him back to work. Told that General Grant was behaving scandalously by swearing and drinking whiskey (!!), Abraham Lincoln informed the complainants, “I can’t spare that man. He fights.”

    Third, give the man what he needs to win: an effective counterinsurgency strategy. We suggest a variation on Capital Homesteading — which wouldn’t be a bad idea for the United States, either. Widespread direct ownership of the means of production is the best and most effective way to secure each person’s natural rights. With the recent discovery of vast mineral wealth in Afghanistan, the country has the potential to make every citizen a direct owner of that wealth through the establishment of a Natural Resource Bank, with every citizen a shareholder. As for the economic growth and development of the rest of the country, make every citizen a direct shareholder in a soundly structured central bank.

    Obviously, we can’t even outline the basic principles of such a strategy in this short posting, but that’s already available in the book, Capital Homesteading for Every Citizen. Why not send something to Mr. Obama and suggest that, instead of looking for scapegoats, he start looking at ways to save this country and the rest of the world instead of his own public image?

    by Michael D. Greaney

  • Fred Pechin June 23, 2010, 4:33 pm

    Both you Dr. Keyes and Sam who commented hit the nail on the head. People are saying McCrystol must be fired. I agree because I too served in Vietnam and know how the rules are played while you are in the Armed Forces. However, if a general has to listen to his Commander in Chief then it follows that the President must listen to the people or he commits high crimes or misdemeanors. ie: impeachment. The people have said no to his stimulus bill, no to his owning GM, no to owning banks, no to the Health Care Bill, no to illegal immigration, no to cap and trade and no this moratorium on drilling for oil. He pretends like he doesn’t hear a word. Should he not be fired then?

  • sam June 22, 2010, 5:35 pm

    In Washington DC, at the Bureau of Standards there is a bar of platinum that has inscribed on it the standard for measurement of distance from any point A to another point B. For this distance between the two inscribed points to remain the permenent standard the environment in which it exists must be kept free of transient or changing factors. Also, in Washington DC is a document against which all societal laws and regulations must be compared in order that the transit behavior of any and all individuals in this society going from point A to point B by word or deed is in compliance with the rule of law that determines the creation and existance of the United States of America. The environment in which this Constitution must remain in order to remain the standard of our society does not include Judicial decision, legislative action or executive decision extraneous to the Constittution definition contained in that standard. To apply extraneous case law or foreign law is to destroy the environment in which the standard must be retained for the standard to retain its essential value. The concept that the Constitution is a living document corrupts the essential environment by including those cases which have been adjudicated in consonance with the standard, but also those adjudications which have included the human errors of adjudication without discrimination or identification of error and connot become validated by existance over time. To have sworn to uphold the Constitution and then to disrespect the standard of law that it is becomes the ultimate corruption of government to the point of treason.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Copyright Regulations

All original material on Loyal To Liberty is copyrighted and you will need to observe these regulations when you plan to distribute or use content from this blog. Copyright Regulations for Content on Loyal To Liberty You are free to share, distribute or transmit any work on this blog under the following conditions: * Attribution: You must attribute any content you use to Loyal To Liberty by including a link back to the specific content page. You must not suggest that Loyal To Liberty endorses you or your use of the content on this blog. Even with attribution, you do not have permission to republish the entire blog post on a website. Only excerpts of less than 500 words from each blog post may be published on other websites. A link back to the specific blog post must be included. * Noncommercial Usage: You may not use this work for commercial purposes unless authorized to do so by Alan Keyes. * Derivative Works:Within the limits heretofore specified, you may build upon the contents of Loyal To Liberty as long as proper attribution (see above) is made. If you want to syndicate or distribute the full blog post on your website, permission must be obtained before you do so. For permission, please email alan@loyaltoliberty.com.
%d bloggers like this:
z-library zlibrary books download project