Will Romney/Ryan doubletalk stampede the conservative herd? - Loyal To Liberty

Does Scalia's ignorance excuse judicial dereliction?

Like all U.S. government officials, U.S. Supreme Court justices are bound by oath to support and defend the Constitution of ...

Read More

The elitist faction’s anti-American 80-20 strategy for the GOP

Despite my efforts to explain how silly it is, I still encounter apologists for the GOP’s quisling leadership who cite ...

Read More

The choice: Impeachment or dictatorship

Some time back, Rush Limbaugh asserted that Barack Obama can’t be impeached because he’s America’s first black President.  I experienced ...

Read More

War in the GOP: real or contrived?

I've been reading  lately about an alleged war going on in the GOP.  Is this for real? The supposed "battle ...

Read More

Does Bush's Plea of love exonerate illegals?

[For readers who may have missed it, here is the column WND published yesterday.] Speaking of illegal immigrants, Jeb Bush says: “Yes, they ...

Read More

Eich's dismissal was an exercise of freedom

I applaud Brendan Eich if his refusal to apologize for his action in defense of the human natural rights of ...

Read More

Faithful Christian citizens seek victory that counts

The yea-nay approach to Christian Citizenship- Concluded Focus on the Family’s Tom Minnery apparently believes that the prospect of victory in ...

Read More

Is breaking faith the Christian citizen's way to victory?

The yea-nay approach to Christian citizenship, Part II FOR THE LORD'S DAY In my last post, we learned that Focus on the ...

Read More

Focus on the Family's yea-nay approach to Christian citizenship

FOR THE LORD’S DAY I saw a headline recently that foreshadows America’s doom as well or better than any other I ...

Read More

Burning murdered babies for fuel-Does it shock you?

I just read this headline: Shocking report shows 15,000 aborted babies incinerated to heat British Hospitals. According to the story: The hospitals, ...

Read More

Paul, Cruz and the GOP's mimicry of principle

On Wednesday I read of a media orchestrated exchange of views between Rand Paul and Ted Cruz that further entrenched ...

Read More

Will Romney/Ryan doubletalk stampede the conservative herd?

by Alan Keyes on August 12, 2012


What  I called the Romney con is the culmination of the elitist faction’s strategy for using the GOP to carry American conservatives into oblivion. Apt word, oblivion; it means you’re gone and soon forgotten. This aim of the RINO (now Romney) Republicans has been clear at least since March, 2009. That’s when an article in the Washington Times reported Jeb Bush as saying that “it’s time for the Republican Party to give up its “nostalgia” for the heyday of the Reagan era.”  He suggested “stealing the winning strategy deployed by the Democrats in the 2008 election.”

What was that strategy?  A successful bait and switch.  The Democrats offered a hollow promise of change.  Only after Obama’s election did their actions make clear that the change they had in mind was to replace America’s constitutional republic with a socialist dictatorship of, by and for the elitists.

For this strategy to succeed the Democrats had to make sure voters didn’t focus on Obama’s record or background. This time around, the Romney Republicans face the same challenge.   The hollow change they want voters to focus on is change from Obama.  They have to make sure voters don’t focus on the record of Romney’s career.  That record shows that what he and his RINO fellow travelers have in mind is just a somewhat less obtrusive version of the same socialist elite dictatorship.

Today Sarah Palin endorsed the Romney/Ryan ticket, fulfilling the “judas goat” role that I predicted in 2010.  She was the main “tar baby” totem of alleged Tea Party outrage, meant to gather and hold as many as possible of the grassroots conservatives who are sick to death of GOP betrayals on every front.  Her endorsement is one of the loud reports meant to stampede the GOP’s grassroots herd behind the Romney/RINO (now spelled Ryan-O?) ticket.

Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan is of course a much louder report.  We’re meant to focus on Ryan’s credentials as a pro-life leader.  But in order to take them seriously we have to do for Ryan what we are asked to do with Romney.  We have to forget some of Paul Ryan’s significant actions and statements in the past.  We have to forget that, until not so long ago, Ryan boldly professed his admiration for Ayn Rand.  Rand and her works are the inspirational totems of the folks I think of as the godless libertarians.  Rand proudly professed (and lived out) her hatred for God, and for Christ and all his works and workers.  How does one reconcile that with Ryan’s now emphatically professed commitment to the pro-life cause? As a matter of public policy, the pro-life position depends for its political logic, on the Declaration of Independence principle that acknowledges God as the source of our unalienable rights.  Banish God and we still the beating heart of American pro-life politics.

But the reason for Ayn Rand’s hatred of Christianity is also instructive.  In her infamous interview with Mike Wallace she said “I am challenging the moral code of altruism, the precept that man’s moral duty is to live for others, that man must sacrifice to others…since I’m challenging the base, I’m necessarily challenging the institutions that are the base of that morality.”  She went on to say that love of one’s fellow man “is immoral if it is placed above love of oneself.  It is more than immoral, it is impossible.”

Ayn Rand’s so-called philosophy takes as its premise a deep contempt for God’s commandment of love. This hatred of unselfish love is the true heart and soul of the ruthless, self-worshiping elitism that has been the scourge of humanity’s governance from time immemorial.

Paul Ryan is well known (on the left, the right and in the elitist propaganda media) as someone who often expressed and acted on his passionate admiration for Ayn Rand.  To believe that this has now suddenly become irrelevant to his thinking and character is simply ludicrous. Indeed, no sensible person does believe it, and the Romney/Ryan-O election strategy relies upon this fact.

Just as Palin is the intended tar-baby totem for the Tea Party grassroots, Ryan is the totem for those Ron Paul libertarians who are Ayn Rand enthusiasts.  They hear Ryan say that he believes in “the laws of nature and of nature’s God”.   But they know that someone who believes, as Rand did, that we cannot owe love to our fellow man is apt to understand that we don’t owe him truthfulness either.  We do and say whatever services the debt we owe to ourselves, judged in light of a scientific rationality that rejects moral standards unrelated to the outcome that serves our purposes.  In scientific terms, such outcomes are supposed exclusively to constitute empirical proof. Put simply, truth is the last man standing.

Since I do revere the words and example of Christ (who will stand in the latter day), I am often put in mind of his wisdom.  As I ponder the Romney/Ryan-O deception, what comes to mind are the words Christ spoke about the archetype of evil, who “does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him.  When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (John 8:44)

In a nutshell, that’s the problem with the Romney/Ryan-O deception.  Those who back it are forbidden to look back.  They are forbidden to think too much, or scrutinize all the things that just don’t fit with the Party line they’re being forced to swallow.   They have to forget too many evident truths and accept too many likely lies.  But like all the works of the father of lies, this ultimately means forgetting God, and by doing so to accept oblivion and death.  In this case, it is the oblivion and death of the conservative cause, insofar as that cause means to uphold America’s God-acknowledging constitutional self-government.  More on this shortly.

  • http://twitter.com/DailyNewshound SB

    Thanks for your insight Dr. Keyes. Always the truth, always refreshing. Still tell people today, that you and Reagan were the only two men with whom I shared nearly 100% of ideals. When I heard Ryan’s V.P. acceptance speech -- ‘Our rights come from nature and God…’ -- it was creepy/unsettling. I now know where that code word came from. Looks like I am back to agonizing whether or not to check any box on the Pres/V.P. ballot.

    • genomega

      “Our rights come from nature and God.” Thats what our founding fathers believed. Perhaps you are living in the wrong country?

      • http://www.facebook.com/gregg.jackson.5 Gregg Jackson

        No, our main Framers got it wrong because they were Theistic Ratioalists (Neither Deists nor Christians) as documented by author Gregg Frazer in his new book “The REligious Beliefs of America’s Founders”. Our rights don’t come from “nature.” They come DIRECTLY from God. Ryan was incorrect.

Previous post:

Next post: