Shame on Buchanan
By Charlotte Iserbyt
October 21, 2004
Formerly conservative Americans, including Patrick Buchanan, are suffering from cognitive dissonance, a state of mind where one's values and beliefs since childhood are being attacked by opposite (contrary) thinking. This attack on sound judgment continues on a daily basis through exposure to the media, but also through exposure to the views of one's good, formerly straight-thinking conservative neighbor across the street, one's formerly traditional minister or priest in one's church. Cognitive dissonance results in the creation of mush in the brain, an inability to think logically. The attack is taking its toll with many formerly good spokespeople for the preservation of sovereignty and freedom in our country accepting and adopting positions Democrat John F. Kennedy would never have accepted forty years ago. Much of what we traditional conservatives have taken for granted over the years (especially George Washington's non-interventionist foreign policy) is pooh-poohed by neoconservatives.
Patrick Buchanan, a Roman Catholic, and certainly the most highly-respected traditional conservative leader in our nation, is a good example of an individual whose straight thinking seems to have been affected. Buchanan has come out in support of voting for the "lesser of two evils" (George Bush) rather than voting for Michael Peroutka, voting one's conscience for the Constitution Party candidate, a staunch pro-life, anti-United Nations, pro-U.S. sovereignty candidate. Is Buchanan suffering from amnesia? Isn't what he is doing exactly what was done to him four years ago by conservatives who voted for "the lesser of two evils" rather than voting for him? When Buchanan's most recent pro-Bush "lesser of two evils" position is thrown up against one's traditional, logical thinking about for whom one should vote (voting one's conscience), cognitive dissonance sets in big time, and the Marxian dialectic which allows traditional absolute views to melt into oblivion, begins to be played out, resulting in the individual very likely adopting Buchanan's mushy viewpoint.
My husband and I recall the incredible gathering of America's truest, bluest conservatives, all delegates for Patrick Buchanan, at the Reform Party's Convention in Long Beach, California four years ago. What has happened to the Buchanan we were lead to believe would never abandon his principles?
In Buchanan's latest article entitled "Coming Home" in the November 8 issue of The American Conservative Buchanan makes some very questionable statements and assumptions as follows:
"In the contest between Bush and Kerry I am compelled to endorse the President of the United States. Why? Because while Bush and Kerry are both wrong on Iraq, Sharon, NAFTA, the WTO, open borders, affirmative action, amnesty, free trade, foreign aid and big government, Bush is right on taxes, judges, sovereignty, and values. Kerry is right on nothing."
How can Buchanan disagree with Bush and Kerry on all the issues he mentions which are absolutely anti-sovereignty and then turn around and say that Bush is right on sovereignty?
How can Buchanan say Bush is right on values when he supports the United States Department of Education which continues to fund the most outrageous secular humanist (values destroying) programs for children in the nations' school, starting in kindergarten? How can he say Bush is right on values when he allowed the hiring of two ex-KGB Generals with blood on their hands to help design an internal passport for Americans? How can he say Bush is right on values when "President Bush signed legislation in 2002 that increased funding for international family planning to the tune of $480.5 million making this Republican administration the biggest supporter of international baby butchery in United States history? This is not to mention the millions of dollars that Bush has approved for America's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood." (The Howard Phillip's Issues and Strategy Bulletin, September 30, 2004). How can Buchanan say Bush is right on taxes, which implies he has a sound fiscal policy, when he is overseeing the highest budget deficits the country has ever experienced and has spent upwards of $250 billion on the unconstitutional war in Iraq?
And how can one count on Bush's judicial appointments to the Supreme Court being any better than the appointments of former Republican presidents? How much progress has been made on overturning Roe vs. Wade which has resulted in the deaths of 40 million unborn children since 1973?
Buchanan's thinking, reflected in the above statements quoted from The American Conservative, reflects nothing better than dangerous "mush". The District of Columbia beltway mentality and the media's use of conditioning, and his own participation as a talking head in the TV roundtables at which such conditioning takes place, has evidently taken its toll on his ability to think straight.
Voting for the lesser of two evils has become the battle cry for the Christian conservative community (fundamentalist/evangelical, as well as Roman Catholic). Christians across the country are buying into the false premise that Bush is pro-life. This false premise is now being promoted by no less than the icon of conservatism, Patrick Buchanan, a Catholic, who in 2000, ran for President since he wanted to give conservatives a choice, so that they would not have to vote for the "lesser of two evils". It is evil for the Christian conservative leadership, including the Catholic Bishops, to lead its sheep astray by telling them that President Bush is pro-life when the above record implies otherwise.
Americans must be helped to understand that "they" have been victimized; they are unconsciously playing a vital part in the destruction of what we have come to know as "America, the Land of the Free, the Home of the Brave." We are no longer free, nor are we brave. We are conditioned by the media and terrorized into being wimps who do not stand on principle when we vote for the "lesser of two evils. " In a book by Andrew Salte, entitled "Conditioned Reflex Therapy, published in 1949, individual free will, freedom of choice, and, of course, individual responsibility are categorically denied in these words: "We are meat in which habits have taken up residence. We are a result of the way other people have acted to us. We are the reactions. Having conditioned reflexes means carrying about pieces of past realities...We think with our habits, and our emotional training determines our thinking. Where there is a conditioned reflex, there is no will. Our 'will power' is dependent on our previously learned reflexes." ("the deliberate dumbing down of america...A Chronological Paper Trail", Iserbyt, page 49.
Although writtten in 1949 Salte could be describing today's American, conditioned by the schools, the media, especially TV and its talking heads. We are not using free will and thinking for ourselves when we follow Patrick Buchanan's advice on for whom we should vote. We are simply responding to the media's constant conditioning. Salte's comments relate to Americans' inability to think logically regarding many issues, not just abortion. Why, otherwise, would Americans who traditionally have stood for American sovereignty and protection of their constitutional rights, be inclined to vote for President Bush whose administration has done everything possible to trample on our constitutional rights (Patriot Act, H.R. 10, internal passport, etc.) and sovereignty (unconstitutional trade agreements, illegal amnesty) and taking our nation to war, for the first time in history, on a pre-emptive basis, using lies regarding weapons of mass destruction, a war which has taken the lives of over 1000 servicemen and wounded another 10,000? And, incidentally, evidently of little importance to most Americans, or Congress, for that matter, a war which has killed over 30,000 Iraqis. Are these the values Patrick Buchanan admires in President Bush?
Is the lesser of two evils not still evil? What is really evil is for any of us traditional conservatives to vote for the lesser of two evils, in this case, Republican George W. Bush. How much longer can we Americans remain free when we pummel our nation to death almost every four years by voting for the Republican presidential candidate who we are told is "the lesser of two evils?" The following record speaks for itself in this regard: I recall when Maine's Senator Edmund Muskie, a leftist if there ever was one, stated that when the Democrats in Congress couldn't get whatever controversial, anti-constitutional legislation they wanted passed, they'd go to the "controlled" Republicans. In that particular instance, he referred to going to Republican President Nixon to get regional government (communism) approved. Nixon went ahead and by executive order carved the nation into ten regions. Nixon also opened up Communist China, took our country off the gold standard, and oversaw the establishment of the marxist National Institute of Education. Republican President Eisenhower signed the first agreements with the Soviet Union at the peak of the Cold War. Remember Republican President Reagan, the great patriot who we have been told won the Cold War (some victory!...ask the Russians under Putin) who signed the U.S.-Soviet education agreements which merged our two education systems. I don't claim to know what Reagan really was. However, I do know one thing: he was not a conservative. Go to the article links for the "Background Paper on President Reagan and the U.S. Department of Education". Also, contact Alan Stang, long time patriot, journalist, radio talk show host, for his "Ronald Reagan Kit" which includes a talk Stang gave in 1984 regarding the "real" Ronald Reagan. Go to www.alanstang.com. Or send your order and a $10 contribution to to Alan Stang, P.O. Box 580503, Houston, TX 77258.
My feeling is that Republican Presidents have been more responsible for taking us down the totalitarian international government path than Democratic Presidents, excepting possibly President Roosevelt. I am no longer a Republican. My husband and I switched to Independent after I had my wakeup call serving in the first Reagan Administration. The leadership of both parties is controlled by the internationalists (Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergers, and the neoconservative Council for National Policy) all of whom have an anti-sovereignty, internationalist agenda.
Both Kerry and Bush are members of the ultra-secret Order at Yale University (The Order of Skull & Bones). I know from personal experience what the Order is all about. Its agenda is very clear: unconstitutional totalitarian world government. Isn't it outside the realm of probability that Americans would end up with their choice of President confined to two members of this secret order when there are over 260 million people in our country to choose from? Be sure to read interview with the late Antony Sutton regarding The Order at [article] and to go to www.fleshingoutskullandbones.com for more information on The Order at Yale University.
The Insiders (those promoting world government for over 100 years) are very clever. We sheeple voters have been given a choice between Evil Candidate No. 1 (Bush) and Evil Candidate No. 2 (Kerry) No. 1 is dressed up and speaks and acts like a cowboy to appeal to voters in the midwest, southwest, and south. No. 2 is dressed up and speaks and acts like an east coast elitist to appeal to voters on Wall Street and on the east and west coasts. Doesn't matter who wins since both candidates have been pre-selected by the Insiders as has been the case post- President Coolidge. President Clinton's mentor at Georgetown University, Professor Carroll Quigley, explained this internationalist control of both parties' leadership in his mammoth and fascinating history of the 20th Century, "Tragedy and Hope--A History of the World in Our Time," published by The Macmillan Company, 1966. Quigley, an internationalist and himself a member of the east coast elite, said on page 1247-1248 "The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."
Let's take a look at two very possible scenarios we Americans could face during the next four years, under either a Bush or Kerry Presidency:
(1) Republican President George Bush. President Bush has proved that he can do anything he wants and still hold onto his Christian fundamentalist/Catholic base. In addition, the neoconservative media, which includes Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, Human Events, and most conservative organization leadership, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Tim and Beverly LeHay, Phyllis Schlafly, and Edwin Feulner of the Heritage Foundation, etc. basically support Bush no matter what he does. So we can expect Bush, amongst other things, to move very quickly to carve in stone his unconstitutional agenda in the name of fighting terrorism, to continue his empire building which could include more costly wars in terms of money and lost lives, to continue his agenda to deliberately dumb down our children and teachers under his No Child Left Behind Act, and to appoint more Republican Justices to the Supreme Court, justices who will more often than not vote with the liberal majority, as has been the case with recent Republican Presidential appointees to the Court.
(2) Democratic President John Kerry. President Kerry will carry out the same unconstitutional agenda as that of George Bush but with less vengeance and with more concern for media reaction. He can count on the neoconservative media and conservative organizations to mount a strong attack against his policies, something they will not do if the same unconstitutional agenda is carried out by President George Bush. The liberal media will embrace Kerry's policies, with the possible exception of the war in Iraq. But they will rightfully blame President Bush for that war, thus lessening the effect on Kerry's popularity. Kerry will no doubt make some very leftist appointments to the Supreme Court who can be counted on to further diminish our constitutional freedoms.
Taking into consideration the above two scenarios, why not step outside the conventional box of "voting for the lesser of two evils" and vote for Constitution Party candidate, Michael Peroutka, which will take votes away from George Bush and facilitate the election of John Kerry.
There is absolutely no question that Kerry's election will result in an activation of traditional (Republican and Democratic) American opposition to the unconstitutional agenda shared by both candidates. So I recommend cutting into Bush's vote by supporting Peroutka (voting your conscience) and electing the worst of two evils: Kerry.
Then, stand by and watch and cheer as The Christian Coalition, Heritage Foundation, Phyllis Schlafly, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, the LeHayes, Fox News, the Rush Limbaughs of the world, Human Events, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal and Republicans in Congress shift into "opposition" gear (something they do whenever a Democrat is in the White House) and fight to reverse the pro-world government agenda of both parties, the President and the Congress. They will be forced to start representing the views of their long-suffering members and constituents who have financially kept them afloat through the years.
The United States of America, if we wish it to remain a sovereign nation under God, absolutely cannot afford another four years of gradualism (frog in the cold water...heated up gradually to where we are just about fried!) and semantic deception, i.e., (Patriot Act, New Freedom Mental Health Screening Initiative Faith-based Initiatives!) under President Bush who has no visible opposition from either party to his evil actions supporting world government. Note the use of just a few of Bush's patriotic, religious program titles to conceal evil, communist/fascist initiatives!
Creating a healthy opposition to the totalitarian world government agenda should be our primary objective in these darkest last days of freedom for our great nation and the world. Shock treatment for all Americans, but especially for the evangelical/fundamentalist Christians and Catholics...shock treatment in the form of the election of John Kerry... is the only way to restore America to its constitutional and Godly principles. Those good Christians represent a very healthy percentage of the voters. (Thirty million Catholics are voters!) The resulting healthy and strong opposition to Kerry's agenda amongst many in this large group of voters, and amongst others who cherish our American way of life, could well result in the election of God-fearing, pro-Constitution individuals to Congress and the White House in the 2008 election.