Real America’s dread of a “President Hillary,” though understandable, is not sufficient to get any Republican elected on that basis alone. Yet time and again, the standard reaction of GOP insiders to Hillary’s candidacy is to attempt to form and mold their field of candidates in direct response to her.

First we were told that Condoleezza Rice was the only viable candidate, since only a woman could possibly compete against another woman. In the aftermath of Rice’s flat refusal to consider running, the new mantra within Republican circles has been the “only a moderate can win.”

Ironically, this very response, itself a reflection of neither leadership nor boldness but of fear and capitulation, holds the greatest potential to torpedo Republican hopes for ’08.

If such thinking prevails, it will all but guarantee a “lose/lose” scenario for conservative America. This portends a particularly unfortunate possibility since all previous experience has shown the exact opposite to be true. And from the terror war to private property rights to the invasion of illegals, far too much is at stake for it to be allowed to ensue.

Nor is such a dismal scenario inevitable. Whether at the Presidential level or in the Congress, the demonstration of a stark and defining contrast between the ever-more leftist Democrats and an intransigent conservative GOP could completely turn the tides on the current momentum of the liberals. To the degree that Republicans have remained steadfast on the terror war, this case is made.

Some amazing news stories emerged this past weekend, asserting that the Iraq War is indeed winnable, and that cutting and running would be a disaster both for America, Iraq, and the rest of the free world. Still, key Democrats remain wedded to their “strategy” of pursuing defeat.

It is likely that their words may well be nothing but political posturing in order to garner the fringe leftist vote in next year’s election. Yet even if this is the case, having operated from a position of such profound weakness, they would then have great difficulty prosecuting the magnitude of war necessary to drive back the forces of terrorism, having ascended from such staunchly pacifist backgrounds.

Perhaps the most defining legislative event of this congressional term, if not of the past decade, was the Senate defeat of amnesty for illegal aliens. Though the influx continues, as yet unabated by true enforcement of the southern border, for the moment at least, the invaders will not be officially granted full legal status by which to demand “rights” and entitlements from the lawful citizens of this country.

Nevertheless, this stark issue remains clouded among political circles inside the Beltway. And liberals from both parties are intent on raising it once again, especially if the Congress and White House shift decidedly left in the next election.

Aiding and abetting such outrages against America’s Constitution and national sovereignty is an activist court system that has, on several fronts, blatantly undermined the integrity of national law and order. In just the last few years, “rights” have been granted to detained Islamic terrorists that essentially equate them with the shoplifting teenager who got caught at the local Wal-Mart.

Meanwhile, real and time honored rights, constitutionally guaranteed to Americans and fundamental to maintaining a free society, are increasingly being targeted for destruction by the same activist judges who bravely stand in the gap for the Islamists. Though the heinous “Kelo” decision has not been a major topic of discussion lately, it set the precedent by which governments, from local to federal, can devolve to the level of mob activity.

When the government, with its ability to criminalize its opposition, enters into the “for profit” sector of the economy, no citizen is safe. Yet that is exactly what Kelo accomplished.

Now, any citizen who finds, purchases, and sufficiently improves a piece of private property, runs the risk of gaining the attention of some governing entity which can then legally “condemn” (which means confiscate) it for profit. And the tides are not close to being turned on this issue.

Also, regarding the havoc wreaked from judicial activism, the rest of America should take note of Hazleton Pennsylvania, whose City Council attempted to crack down on illegals in its midst. Yet U.S. District Judge James Munley, a Clinton appointee, who simply granted “rights” to the illegals, has hamstrung this effort thereby leaving the citizens of Hazleton defenseless against the invasion.

In essence, judges such as Munley are joining forces with the dispassionate foreign governments who intend to advance their own fortunes at the expense of the Americans.

It is inarguable that President Bush has made major improvements in the composition of the Supreme Court, with his appointments of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Both have displayed a clear understanding of the boundaries of governmental power established by the Constitution. To nobody’s great surprise, the sinister forces of liberalism are at work to turn back the tide of judicial propriety.

Senator Charles Schumer (D.-NY) has actually promoted the idea that the condition of the Supreme Court needs to be reassessed, since the court has clearly been shifted back towards its constitutional role by the presence of Roberts and Alito. Proving that the threat is not purely a partisan one, an abominable addendum to this situation is that “Republican” Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania essentially concurs.

Specter wants to launch his own investigation into whether or not Alito and Roberts were less than forthright in their confirmation testimonies. The atrocious truth is that the firestorm surrounding the two stems entirely from their determination to constrain their decisions not to liberal court “precedent,” but to the principles of the Constitution.

Clearly, the court system in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, represent the apex of unaccountable governmental power, if they can remain sufficiently in the control of power hungry liberals. Thus any efforts to devolve such power and return it to the system of checks and balances originally intended by the founders represents a mortal threat to the agenda of the left.

Thus a pivotal battle rages over not only the courts, but also every critical area of American government and society. Its outcome will fundamentally determine the nation’s future as either a restoration of its former glory and successes, or an unstoppable descent into oblivion.

—

Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming. He has been active in local and state politics for many years. His contact information and archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

1. What is “conservative” now fifty years ago would have been “moderate” at best, somewhat left in a lot of cases.

   The radical left (not only Kos, Pelosi and Kennedy but also such real leaders as Boehner and Bush [take your choice which one]) has so severely redefined “middle of the road” that anyone who advocates any personal responsibility at all is considered a nazi thug now.

   And we keep re-electing the power whores.

   Vipers.

   Comment by Carlos — August 6, 2007 @ 3:17 pm