Defend Against Fake Conservatives

I came across this article today and thought it well worth publishing here as it covers a cultural battle that is occurring all over the West, from the UK to Australia and New Zealand right through to Canada and the US. It relates to CPAC. (The Conservative Political Action Conference) There are claims the conference is being hijacked by people who are not Conservatives and who have an agenda that seeks to make the word mean something else.

They seek to redefine Conservatism. The view is that Conservatives must reach out to a a changing world or become more and more marginalized. There are three responses to this claim. You can challenge it. Say it is untrue and that certain groups are attempting to make it appear to be true. You can say that you believe it, but you think the better option is to fight those forces for change because those principles that define Conservatism cannot be changed without it losing its meaning. Or you could agree with them and change. Reach out, embrace. Yadda yadda yadda.

Scott Magill, Executive Director of Veterans for Liberty, has written an article in the Washington Times that you should read if you’re interested in the current conflict. You do not have to agree with it, but it provides some excellent food for thought.

Many conservative organizations have chosen to boycott this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), but Veterans in Defense of Liberty will be there in force. Our group is going to CPAC to fulfill our sworn and solemn oath to “defend and protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.” Unfortunately, the nation’s pre-eminent grass-roots conservative gathering has become a showcase for the enemies of the American tradition.

The American Conservative Union‘s (ACU) board of directors, led by Grover Norquist, Suhail Khan and until he stepped down yesterday, David Keene, seems to have forgotten the constitutional grounding of American society. The board continues to espouse the ACU‘s founding conservative ideals of economic growth through smaller government, reduced taxation and lower government spending but has disconnected them from the fundamental issues of liberty and the personal responsibility upon which that liberty rests. It likewise ignores the ACU‘s original principles of traditional religious values and national security based on peace through strength. In truth, without the traditional social foundation, the economic principles from which it is derived cannot survive.

The ACU has landed solidly behind the radical homosexual agenda. Veterans in Defense of Liberty does not oppose people who are homosexual, although we do object to their behavior. However, we forthrightly oppose the policy prescriptions expressed by GOProud. We recognize the truth in the words of John Adams in his address to the military in 1798: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.” GOProud intends to be that whale. Adams continued, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” When traditional morals fade away, the Constitution is sure to follow.

Mr. Norquist serves on the GOProud advisory board and also has advocated legalization of drugs, open borders and amnesty for illegals; supported closing the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay; opposed aspects of the USA Patriot Act; and supports the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque. He is actively promoting the Obama administration‘s “engagement plan” with Islam, which has the Muslim Brotherhood‘s seal of approval. He certainly has a right to hold those views, but it is false advertising to call them conservative.

[..] Church and family are the basis of the traditional values upon which our Constitution rests. Church and family have been the bedrock of American exceptionalism. Twentieth-century Italian communist Antonio Gramsci, who inspired a generation of radicals, taught that leftist revolution is only possible if these hallowed institutions are first marginalized and then defeated. Any organization that works actively to undermine faith and family cannot by rights claim to be conservative.

Because we former members of the military have sworn to defend the Constitution, we have but two choices: Surrender and abdicate the CPAC battlefield or refuse to be pushed to the sidelines, stay on the moral high ground, fortify our defensive perimeter, roll up our collective shirt sleeves and return the ACU and CPAC to their original foundations of liberty, personal responsibility, traditional values and national security.

Read full article.

13 thoughts on “Defend Against Fake Conservatives

  1. This is definitely the important battlefield. I could write screeds about this, but no time right now. Let the comments flow!

    I’ll add one thing though: liberals and progressives that want to be liberal and progressive and call themselves conservatives are doubly destructive, because then the other liberals and progressives that hate conservatives point to the “deep divisions” in the Conservative movement as a further attack.

    Like

  2. Just another Leftist/Marxist tactic: If you can’t destroy something then redefine its meaning. If genuine Conservatives don’t hold fast to the course then the Left will simply redefine who and what we are.

    Without its Judeo-Christian foundation the term “Conservative” is meaningless. And like I’ve said before, the atheistic Marxist Left HATE, even more than Conservatives and their values, the Judeo-Christian God behind Conservatives. This really is a spiritual battle for the hearts and minds of the entire human race; a battle between good and evil.

    Like

  3. Sinner

    The difference between Egypt and th eUS is an obvious culture factor th eUS is not enlightened by. The army is made of Egyptian volunteers from the people. Thy are related to the crowds of dispossessed. We can only wonder why is has taken so long for blood ties to revolt.

    Like

  4. Ron may have won the CPAC straw poll for the Presidency but he’s not much liked by the group Young Americans For Freedom. Paul has served on the YAF Advisory Board for more than two decades, but was dumped yesterday after the YAF’s board expressed concern with Rep. Paul’s “delusional and disturbing alliance with the fringe Anti-War movement”.

    “It is a sad day in American history when a one-time conservative-libertarian stalwart has fallen more out of touch with America’s needs for national security than the current feeble and appeasing administration,” said YAF’s Senior National Director Jordan Marks.

    “Rep. Paul has strayed to the left of Obama and allied himself with the radical anti-war left by laying the blame on America for the unprovoked attacks of Sept. 11th. Additionally, Rep. Paul has not condemned the 9/11 “Truther” conspiracy theorists that support him, and he has repeatedly insisted, that the United States not bring justice to those who have murdered thousands of our civilians and soldiers at home and abroad. This is simply unacceptable. Clearly Rep. Paul cares more about a doomed presidential run than he does our country,” Marks added.

    Like

  5. Scott Magill’s position is the correct one. He clearly has learned the lesson of which I’ve personally experienced Our institutions got rotted out one after the other because good men did not recognize the tactics of the Left: marginalize individual non-Leftists — or in the case of CPAC, non-SKUNCs — until they leave in frustration. That tactic can and has been defeated when it is finally understood it.
    Mr. Magill has an organization, and a bloc, being not just one man, has the means to fight back and garner support from others in the room and around the nation, simply because they are willing to fight back. Conservativism is not dead, and conservatives do not have to feel isolated, as long as you understand how much money and power is invested in making you FEEL isolated.

    Like

  6. Paul just pipped Romney at CPAC, mainly through write in type votes…

    Help us – a 75 year old and the passer of OmassCare…

    Col West did the keynote, is it online yet..?

    Like

  7. One of the main tactics of the left is to separate those that oppose them, by focusing on, and enlarging differences. It would not surprise me at all if they even use infiltrators within the right’s organisations to create such malcontent, albeit that I note that those opposing the socialists tend to be a relatively easy target for divisive tactics, and that the left tends to be better in putting ideological difficulties aside temporarily. The current cooperation between islamists and communists/socialists is a case in point.

    Coming back to Ron Paul and GOProud / Breitbard etc and the “conservative” movement, it is clear that there are philosophical differences and perhaps even moral/ethical issues that don’t align 100%. It would however be stupid to let those obfuscate the many more issues about which there is agreement, especially where the left media tends to frame the issues and polarises them excessively.

    A society that aligns 100% with the principles of one fraction shall never exist, and the left has demonstrated to be better at the oppression that is necessary to achieve it anyway.

    I guess my message is, don’t let them play you. Stand by your principles and argue them fiercely, but keep your eye on the ball, which is wresting power from the left.

    Like

  8. An example of how the Left deliberately sets up marginalization was shown in the video you posted here https://truebluenz.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/dont-tell-me-this-guy-gibbs-aint-hiding-something/

    The let in one and only one independent voice to the White House press room, and then in front of a national audience, while avoiding the question, they make a big show of how laughable is the questioner.

    Compounding the theatrics, Lester (who?), the reporter who asked about Obama’s SS number, made a few mistakes. and maybe that’s why they let him in the press pool, knowing he’d fall for their tricks.

    1) Saying on mic “I didn’t mention the birth certificate” to someone else whom we did not hear — so they get him to actually mention it.
    2) Gibbs, after hemming and stammering, turns the table on Lester by asking Lester a question, which Lester answered instead of asking the SS number question again.

    So, for national audience consumption, the lesson is a form of guilt by association: anyone who asks about the SS # issue is a birther, and they are incompetent reporters.

    Had this malarkey been 100% staged, it’s intent would have been clearly to tarnish our side badly with the general public. It’s too lame to have been 100% staged. All they needed to do was limit the press pool to those the WH could count upon. Lester to do a poor job of handing Gibbs his ass and the rest of the Leftoids to bow to Gibbs’ will.

    What is needed is a larger pool of reporters getting on the blogs and telling of how they’re being shut off from access to the WH.

    How come we don’t hear from outcast reporters like we hear from outcast scientists (who get no access to conferences and funding because they expose the scam of CAGW)? Probably because mastering science curriculum still requires some brains. It must be clear to one and all (given the lost revenues of the Agency of Lies) that all that it takes to get good grades in journalism school is to be willing to go whichever way the wind is blowing.

    Like

  9. Bez [February 13, 2011 at] 22:37,

    … and that the left tends to be better in putting ideological difficulties aside temporarily. The current cooperation between islamists and communists/socialists is a case in point.

    I agree. The Left generally follow tha maxim “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Basically they’ll horse trade with whoever will further their cause of the moment. I’m sure they’d even sell their soul to the devil if it would benefit them in the short term.

    Whereas Conservatives are not prepared to “sell out” for short-term gain. They are principled and will only cooperate with those they consider to be genuine friends/allies. Hence Conservatives are up against a broad and shifting group of opposing ideologies – ideologies who are prepared to make temporary pacts with each other if it will benefit their mutual short-term aims.

    The thing Conservatives have in their favour is that, IMO, we are in fact the MAJORITY. All we need to do is present a unified front by not allowing the Left to divide us. I believe the Left know this, and as they see Conservatives becoming more unified it scares the hell out of them!

    Like

  10. Kris: “we are in fact the MAJORITY”

    Sorry mate, but no we’re not. The number of people who will choose freedom and personal responsibility over the security blanket of having the government make every one of their decisions is seriously small, and shrinking every damn day.

    There are plenty of people who pretend to be of the Right (“fake Conservatives”) but for whom the only argument they have with the Left is which flavour of socialism is the better. You can see it every day, in every discussion, on New Zealand’s premier right-wing blog. The left and the pretend Right get together and argue about whether it’s better for Liarbore to be in power and sinking the New Zealand economy at 100 miles per hour, or for the National Appeasement Party to be in and sinking it at only 60 miles per hour. With the exception of a very few (you, Red, Tom Hunter, me when I can be bothered with the scrap), most are either engaging in personal ad hominem (of which I confess my own guilt) or in arguing over whether the Key administration is the same as, or worse than, that of the communist lesbian. All you need to do is take a look at yesterday’s discussion about Coddington’s article. Mindless fucking sheep the lot of them.

    Like

  11. You may be right, Gantt. I’m the eternal optimist. When I see the rise of the Tea Party and the EDL it does give me hope, though.

    Although I do believe we are in the biblical majority: “If God be for us, who can be against us?”. I’m also reminded of Elisha praying that his servant might see God’s (invisible) forces:

    2Ki 6:14 Therefore sent he thither horses, and chariots, and a great host: and they came by night, and compassed the city about.
    2Ki 6:15 And when the servant of the man of God was risen early, and gone forth, behold, an host compassed the city both with horses and chariots. And his servant said unto him, Alas, my master! how shall we do?
    2Ki 6:16 And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them.
    2Ki 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

    Like

Comments are closed.