Down with Vichy Republican collaborators! Vive la Republican Résistance!
By: Ragin’ Patriot
So-called “moderate Republicans” tell us that the Republican Party must be pragmatic in a United States of changing demographics and “beyond the point of no return” advance of progressive’s social welfare programs … and so accede to creeping collectivism, our goal merely to buffer its excesses. These “voices of moderation” echo their Vichy predecessors in Nazi-occupied France, preaching acquiescence in the face of what they have resigned themselves to being the overwhelmingly inevitable. Just as the freedom fighters of the French Resistance refused to heed that siren call of subservience, so to must today’s conservatives.
9/11 signified America’s belated recognition that Islamic terrorism is not a mere criminal or police matter, and begat the “War on Terror.” Similarly, the election of Barack Obama is the catalyst for recognizing that “moderate Republicans” can no longer be considered a mere faction within a GOP “big tent” -- as will be seen, we can no longer afford the luxury of permitting “moderates” to exercise influence within the GOP, much less steer it.
There is no need here to repeat a “bill of particulars” to indict Barack Obama as a closeted collectivist -- it is academic to debate whether he most closely adheres to the communist, socialist or fascist varieties of collectivism -- intent on transforming the United States into a political and economic entity that would be unrecognizable to the Founding Fathers (indeed unrecognizable to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the text and spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America). The subterfuge underlying “Hope” and “Change” was clear to those who (unlike the “mainstream media”) gave more than a cursory glance to his background before the election, and with each passing day is becoming clear to more and more of our fellow Americans. Obama is the culmination of a forty-plus year effort involving the Democratic Party; he became the chosen one to lead the final push completing the transformation of the United States to a European Democratic-Socialism model (the Constitution be damned). Hence the “Obamessiah” phenomenon amongst “progressives,” for in their religion Marx is God, Woodrow Wilson and FDR patron saints, and Obama the Second Coming to bring heaven on earth after the Armageddon of U.S. dominance in the world.
The Democratic Party of today has metastasized into a party that would be unrecognizable by a Truman or JFK-era Democrat. The radicals of the 1960s have succeeded in taking over the party from the inside and, greased with the money of radical labor unions like SEIU, George Soros and others, have spawned radical groups such as ACORN and MoveOn. Aided and abetted by the mislabeled “mainstream media,” this axis of collectivism is now rather openly completing the march that it surreptitiously began in the 1960’s – one commenced by working to erode the foundational principles and culture of the United States (invoking the tactics of Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci).
From upending the social fabric of America through corrosive mechanisms like eliminating the stigma of out of wedlock births, promoting homosexual marriage and “politically correctifying” our history to make us the bad guys, err, persons … to using government to create and perpetuate dependency, incrementally socialize medicine (Medicaid / SCHIP / Medicare and now Obamacare) … to using the tax code to punish success and make it ever more difficult for the middle class to sustain itself, much less enjoy the quintessential American dream of upward mobility. They are aggressors who have commenced an undeclared but very real war upon our nation’s founding political structure, free-market capitalism and Western civilization’s Judeo-Christian social fabric.
Consider: would even the most liberal Democrat of the JFK era (much less the Truman or Roosevelt era), when told that within their lifetime their party’s position would be to condone widespread illegitimate birth, and an unwritten edict that one cannot question or criticize the mother for her irresponsibility (now considered acceptable) have agreed – or would they have laughed and said such a thing is unthinkable?
Would even the most liberal Democrat of the JFK era (much less the Truman or Roosevelt era), when told within their lifetime their party’s position would be to condone homosexual marriage have agreed – or would they have laughed and said such a thing is unthinkable?
Would even the most liberal Democrat of the JFK era (much less the Truman or Roosevelt era), when told that within their lifetime their party’s position would be to condone a refusal to secure our borders from an influx of millions of illegal migrants from Central America – coming here for the express purpose of birthing anchor babies and anchoring themselves onto the American welfare system have agreed - or would they have laughed and said such a thing is unthinkable?
Would even the most liberal Democrat of the JFK era (much less the Truman or Roosevelt era), when told that within their lifetime their party’s position would be to condone granting those illegal aliens amnesty and inviting them to legally bring their family members to America to latch onto our welfare system have agreed - or would they have laughed and said such a thing is unthinkable?
Would even the most liberal Democrat of the JFK era (much less the Truman or Roosevelt era), when told that within their lifetime their party’s position would be to condone not just abortion, but partial birth abortion have agreed – or would they have laughed and said such a thing is unthinkable?
You know the answer.
Regarding social issues, Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan spoke disapprovingly of “defining deviancy down” -- his Democratic successors not only approve of this in the social realm, they actively embrace it as a weapon to be deployed socially, politically and economically.
Republican “moderates” -- puppeting modern Democrat lines intended to frame the debate -- assert that the GOP has shifted to the right, and too far. Not at all! The positions we support draw their genealogy from 1776, and the family resemblance is unmistakable. However, as the foregoing examples show, it is the Democrat Party that has shifted radically left.
In recent decades the GOP has “succeeded” with flawed short-term tactics, such as tax rate cuts portrayed as tax cuts, but really aren’t - since over time taxes are the reciprocal of federal budgets, the GOP presiding over an ever-expanding federal government has meant that it has actually presided over commensurate tax increases.
Meanwhile the Left has been succeeding at the strategic level -- both by playing “Br’er Rabbit” to the GOP’s flawed tactics (“oh please don’t enact those ‘tax cuts for the rich’”) -- while continuously eroding the foundations of American society and its Constitution -- unarticulated to the public, and slowly so as not to be noticed, but very deliberately. The modern Democratic Party was the stealth bomber of socialism, pounding away at what were generally accepted societal norms, and now its ACORN and SEIU infantry seeks to cement its final victory.
To the extent that there are “moderates” left within the Democratic Party, they are at the margins and exercise zero influence. If we who love America and what it stands for are to successfully defend against, and ultimately defeat this aggression by the radical left, we can afford no less within the GOP. The Republican Party must be a cohesive, determined and unapologetic force for what is right … for the RIGHT. We did not start this aggression; we did not ask for it. But we must confront it. Not accept it. Not appease it. Not collaborate with it. But DEFEAT it -- totally and unconditionally.
The moderates’ “pragmatism” is American retreat. While occasional “tactical retreat” may be necessary, theirs is preemptive, unilateral and permanent retreat. We are deploying politicians who view everything as a political matter (i.e., “how do we market the GOP to get enough votes to stay in office?”) against committed ideologues that are out to fundamentally change the United States, performing a revolution against the Constitution of the United States in all senses except a public declaration.
When faced with aggressors, one must oppose, not ignore – for to not oppose aggression is to de facto support it. The “moderates” would have us ignore the aggressions of agendas not hypothesized, but zealously pursued by the Left with the intent to impose them: abortion, homosexual marriage; the hollowing out of Second Amendment rights; amnesty for illegal aliens and “family reunification” opening the floodgates to tens of millions of new welfare recipients being examples of critical issues in which the “moderates” preach preemptive surrender. For the most part these are either/or issues -- one must be for or against, there is no middle ground – for the Left won’t “moderate” (does anyone believe that the Left will be satisfied with “civil unions,” or “paths to citizenship” without “family reunification”)? There is no middle ground on abortion – the baby is killed or it isn’t.
Yet the “moderates” and “big tenters” would have us unilaterally and preemptively surrender the field without a fight. For example, a majority of Americans want secured borders and traditional marriage. So the Left’s agenda is in opposition to most voters. Yet the “moderates” want us to avoid those issues, lest we offend certain demographics, even as the Left continues its march to impose those minority positions – in which it will succeed if unopposed. At the same time, regarding issues in which polling indicates we might currently be “in the minority,” the “moderate Republicans” will cite this as why we must “soften” and “broaden” our approach. So when the majority agrees with us we should shut up, and when it doesn’t we should climb aboard the Leftist train. Huh? What’s wrong with this picture?
So rather than being confident in the superiority of our positions, and having the confidence that the American people will embrace our positions once we expound them, the “moderates” would have us seek a non-existent middle ground, thus adopting by default the Left’s positions and paving the way for the full implementation of their entire agenda. If as to those positions we don’t actively oppose while they actively pursue – they will win and impose, and in full. So it is a fair question to ask of the moderates and big-tenters: “whose side are you really on?”
The French Resistance, facing the overwhelming military might of the Wehrmacht, but confident in the righteousness of its cause, did not take the “pragmatic” approach of appeasement, much less collaboration, but instead continued the fight. This set them apart from their fellow French who collaborated with the Nazis - the Vichy. One imagines that the “pragmatic” arguments made by the Vichy echoed in today’s “big tent” “Republicans” – “well, everything’s going the Nazi’s way, so we need to be reasonable, and we Vichy are the lesser of two evils.”
Even if ultimate victory is uncertain, even unlikely, is it not better to go down fighting in the cause of righteousness than to submit to subservience to government? Collectivism is soft tyranny – are we not to fight it rather than listen to the “pragmatic” moderates who want to bow and make peace with subservience? Can we, facing an “army” of politicians, academics, airhead media talking heads and “community organizers” do no less than the French Resistance? Is not the courage they displayed a characteristic shared by true Americans? Are we to shrink from confrontation with the likes of William Ayers, ACORN, media and entertainment airheads, ivory tower academics, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Hussein Obama? If the French Resistance would take on the Wehrmacht and the Gestapo, are we to shrink from taking on the Democratic Party and the Ostapo?
Our cause is righteous, and like the French Resistance, we have allies too: Western civilization; the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States; the sometimes hibernating but (as the post-911 reaction showed) still vibrant spirit of patriotism among a large swath of our citizens (particularly those who attended pubic schools before the advent of the 1960’s teacher unionization and accompanying leftist indoctrination) and plain old “common sense” that has not yet been snuffed out. Oh, and let us not forget the economic and spiritual misery that history has repeatedly shown inevitably follows the implementation of collectivist policies – creating fertile ground and future receptivity to our message of real hope, not the focused-grouped “HOPE” intended to Trojan horse the Democrat’s collectivist agenda.
We must be unapologetic conservatives proudly enunciating our continued fidelity to our Judeo-Christian heritage and the timeless gift bequeathed to us by the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America – both to their letter and spirit. One of the primary battlegrounds is that of the conventional wisdom, the accepted societal mores -- and a large part of the weaponry involves language. In true military fashion they have deployed camouflaged language. We must not adopt their camouflage and play by their rules; we must not let them succeed in their masquerades:
We must confront them regarding infanticide/abortion, masquerading as “choice.”
We must confront them regarding the mass migration of foreign nationals, entering and occupying this country illegally in order to “anchor” themselves to the American welfare system, masquerading as “undocumented.”
We must confront them regarding homosexual marriage, with its erosion of the foundational unit of human civilization, and thus its attack upon it, masquerading as “civil rights.”
We must confront them regarding the infringement of Second Amendment rights, masquerading as “common sense gun control.”
There are some who believe that time, and demographics, and a losing (if not lost) cultural war mean that we must “moderate” the GOP in order to “appeal” to the middle. Hence comments such as “conservatives can’t win in New England, so we have to embrace ‘moderates.’” This is the voice of career politicians, reflexively loathe to take firm stands on anything, as their rubber-spined sense of survival means that they gravitate not toward leadership but its opposite – pandering to every possible voter by gyrating to offend none. This is the way of Vichy Republicans.
Vichy Republicans advocate that the GOP should be “sanitized” to appeal to moderate sensibilities – or that a GOP marketed solely upon “fiscal responsibility” will appease conservatives (who, like Blacks to the Democrat Party, are deemed a necessary nuisance to be paid lip service to keep their votes, but otherwise marginalized) – and that in the end we conservatives will rally around the Republican Party for we will have no other alternative.
We should not dilute our core values, much less abandon them, by supporting “moderates” because we have “no other alternative” or that they are “the lesser of two evils.” Rather, the “moderates” who, e.g., are fiscal conservatives but are not social conservatives should have to hold their collective noses and still rally around the GOP because the Democrats present them with no alternative.
Nor should we heed the self-serving entreaties of “moderates” and “big-tenters” telling us we must support them out of party loyalty. One suspects that the French Resistance took any number of Vichy around the back of buildings and gave them the same treatment they gave Nazi soldiers, notwithstanding the fact that the Vichy were fellow Frenchmen. We should perform the political equivalent to collaborators with the radical Democrat agenda, and put the exercise of principles above the adoption of labels. When moderates are running as “Republicans” we should sit on our hands – don’t contribute money, don’t volunteer for their campaigns, and don’t vote for them (not refrain from voting overall, just “sit out” any race in which a “moderate Republican” is the candidate). We should only support true Republicans – conservatives - in primaries and in general elections. To do otherwise is to become collaborators ourselves, differentiated only by degree.
It is not disloyal to the GOP to refrain from supporting those who are disloyal to conservative principles, for conservative principles are Republican principles. The moderates are the ones who are disloyal Republicans – disloyalty to the disloyal constitutes loyalty to the GOP. Given the modern, radical Democratic Party, disloyalty to those who would appease or collaborate with them is loyalty to the United States of America.
For centuries our fellow citizens have put on the uniform, sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and come home wounded, maimed, or as a corpse. Compared to that bravery and sacrifice, as we confront a danger internal, shall we shrink from confronting the aggressors on the political battlefield? Shall we hold our tongues? If we do, then not only do we grievously dishonor those who went before us, but don’t we also deserve to lose our country – this incalculable gift that was bequeathed us?
We must seek quick victory if possible to restore America. But if quick victory is not possible, then at least halting their march to collectivism, and then incrementally eroding what they’ve erected, just as they have been doing to our country for oh these several decades now.
Down with the Vichy Republican collaborators!
Vive la Republican Résistance!