Thread: Why I Am Not A Republican(Corsi)

Why I am not a Republican
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 25, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern



In a heated conversation at the Friday banquet of Phyllis Schalfly's Eagle Council meeting in St. Louis last week, Jed Babbin, editor of Human Events, repeated accusations that I am a "black helicopter Internet conspiracy theorist" for arguing that the Bush administration is pursing the North American Union and NAFTA Superhighways through the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP.

In response, I observed that Babbin has taken Human Events in the direction of becoming an apologist for the Republican Party, not a critical forum for conservative debate.

What is difficult to understand is that many of the articles I first wrote exploring these subjects were first published last year in Human Events, under the editorial direction of Babbin's predecessor, Robert Bluey.

Beginning in 2006, a year before Babbin was appointed editor, I began exploring the Trans-Texas Corridor and Interstate, which has been called the NAFTA Superhighway since 1998. I began looking into the Security and Prosperity Partnership President Bush declared with Mexico and Canada at the end of the trilateral summit in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005.

Out of these articles I began to see a pattern of North American integration under SPP that developed into the major argument of my current New York Times best-selling book, "The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada."

(Column continues below)



These Human Events articles were widely popular, in some weeks last year constituting as many as two or three of the 10 most read articles published that week on the Human Events website.

Yet, today, Babbin has even removed my name from the list of columnists published on Human Events and I've transitioned to becoming a full-time staff reporter at WND.

Evidently, Babbin's criticism of me represents a repudiation of the editorial standards Human Events established under Bluey, because Robert regularly encouraged me to continue exploring these issues.

Babbin's accusations were even more surprising, coming at a formal dinner where usually everybody is well behaved and respectful, even if only for the duration of the event.

But Babbin's charges are nothing new.

As WND has reported, President Bush at the recent SPP summit in Montebello, Quebec, ridiculed as a "conspiracy theory" the suggestion that the SPP might be aimed at creating a North American Union and promoting NAFTA Superhighways.

This line of criticism has been echoed by several radio talk-show hosts, including movie critic Michael Medved, whose tirades on the subject often seem to degenerate into name-calling irrationality.

I tried to explain to Babbin that moral Christians are not Republican Party apologists by definition.

Moreover, ridiculing us for adhering to our principles is not going to win over our votes in the coming 2008 election.

My conflict with Babbin began months ago, with the first piece I ever submitted to him, back when he first took over from Bluey in February.

That piece explained how the value-added tax functions to make unfair many of our "free trade" agreements. Babbin rejected the piece, saying it was too "wonkish" for him.

The issue of the value-added tax seen as an unfair aspect of U.S. "free trade" agreements was being pressed by the noted conservative activist businessman Roger Milliken of Milliken & Co., and the subject was the focus of a training session conducted by Phyllis Schlafly at Eagle Forum.

The criticism struck me as odd, perhaps because I consider "wonkish" the type of name-calling pejorative I was subjected to by kids on the playground in grade school who called me "four eyes" for wearing glasses.

The value-added tax is an important issue, even if it may appear to some to be technical or requiring some attention to complex economics to fully appreciate. But to call the issue "wonkish" was not the type of constructive criticism a writer expects from an editor, but appeared juvenile at best.

Schlafly subsequently had an article on the value-added tax accepted by Babbin and published on Human Events, making me think that Babbin's criticism of me was always ad hominem related and personal in nature, stemming from some animosity that I fail to comprehend.

My article on the value-added tax was subsequently published by World Net Daily.

As WND reported over the weekend, my speech last Friday at the St. Louis Eagle Council meeting centered on "The Late Great USA" and my argument that President Bush's determination to press a North American integration agenda against the will of the American people could cost the Republican Party the 2008 presidential election and the loss of two-thirds of the seats in the Senate and the House of Representatives.

In that speech, I reminded the Eagle Council audience that Karl Rove was the architect of the 2006 Republican Party electoral debacle as well as the 2004 presidential win.

I cautioned that if President Bush does not quit talking about Mexican guest workers, Mexican trucks and illegal-alien paths to citizenship, the 2006 mid-term election might be just a prelude to the electoral disaster the Republican Party will face in 2008.

At dinner that evening, Babbin chided me to get off these "black helicopter conspiracy themes," or risk electing Hillary Clinton as a consequence.

I took offense at Babbin's continued tendency to insult me rather than argue with me over issues I take seriously. I reflected that personal animosity has no place in serious professional discourse on politics.

The argument became even more heated when I pointed out that many moral conservatives, including myself, are tired of being threatened by Republican apologists of the disasters that will happen if we fail to vote for Republicans.

Babbin predictably raised the specter of Hillary Clinton, asserting that by attacking President Bush I was only electing Hillary, the real enemy Babbin thinks we should be united to oppose.

I tried to explain to Babbin that I am much closer to Richard Viguerie's position on the question, arguing that the Republican Party should win our support, not demand it.

Viguerie, who is widely credited with developing the direct response fundraising techniques that have supported the advancement of conservative causes since the presidency of Ronald Reagan, is author of a book entitled, "Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause."

Viguerie argues that just because a politician is Republican does not mean the politician is a conservative or a strong Christian with deep moral and religious convictions.

I also tried to explain to Babbin my view that right now, the Republican Party is controlled by what used to be called the "Rockefeller Wing."

Like David Rockefeller himself, the Rockefeller Wing involves millionaires and billionaires who run multi-national corporations.

Rockefeller Wing Republicans are already beyond borders in their determination to advance their multinational corporations for unbridled profit, whether or not U.S. sovereignty and the middle class are destroyed in the process.

I have reflected that Howard Phillips was probably right when he urged Ronald Reagan to form his own, new political party.

I'm not sure the moral Christians belong in the same party with the Rockefeller Republicans.

At any rate, George W. Bush in his second term seems determined to destroy the Reagan coalition once and for all.

Moral conservatives, including myself, are getting tired of being told we need to vote for Republican candidates, even if the candidates have a history of supporting abortion, such as Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney.

Why is it that once Republicans like George W. Bush win office, they ignore the agenda of the conservatives and moral Christians who elected them, to the point of ridiculing our goals and objectives?

I wrote in Human Events that if President Bush had campaigned openly in 2004 about his plans to create the SPP, he might not have won a single red state.

Now, apologists like Medved and Babbin tell us that a North American Union could never happen because we would have to vote to amend the Constitution.

The argument is non-responsive. In Europe, the elite and multi-national corporations who favored creating regional government did so incrementally, creating a fait accompli before anybody got to vote. That's the point.

We now have 10 percent of Mexico's population living in the United States as Mexican nationals. As a result, we have already become a dual country, whether we like it or not, and I don't remember that anybody was ever given the chance to vote on it.

So, when President Bush signed in October 2006 a law requiring that a fence be built on our border with Mexico, was the point only to achieve a public relations edge before the November voting?

Why does Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., have to write President Bush reminding him that we have so far built fewer than 20 miles of that fence and are behind the congressionally mandated schedule specified in the legislation?

We voted to secure our borders, and look where that got us – nowhere.

I was also shocked when President Bush neglected to attend the recent funerals of the Reverends Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy.

Neither President Bush nor his father would most likely have been elected president had it not been for the active support of ministers of national prestige such as Falwell and Kennedy.

At the dinner debate, Babbin contended that the SPP trilateral working groups were inconsequential in impact, reflecting merely normal trade dialogue between neighbor countries.

If the SPP is inconsequential, then why should anybody object to those of us who want the SPP working groups disbanded, or alternatively, brought before Congress for vigorous oversight?

Electing Republicans is not my priority. Electing moral Christian politicians who will remain true to constitutional principles is my goal.

My point speaking to the Eagle Council last Friday was that if George W. Bush continues to talk about Mexico and insists upon open borders while Mexico has a drug war raging and Mexican trucks running their long-haul rigs in the U.S. whether safe or not, then the Republican Party will and should be reduced to a minority party.

We would be better off without a Republican Party if having a Republican Party means we continue compromising U.S. sovereignty under this false banner of one-sided trade agreements that have nothing to do with legitimate "free trade."

If Human Events under Babbin's editorial direction is to become an apologists' forum for Republican Party true believers, so be it.

My point is that there are not enough Republican Party true believers to win a national presidential election without the moral Christians brought into the GOP by Ronald Reagan.

Even given the millions and billions available to the Rockefeller Wing to proselytize their point of view, railing against liberals and Democrats will not succeed if the strategy includes demonizing those of us who have supported Republicans, but who now want raise legitimate questions about George W. Bush.

Today, unfortunately, on issues of illegal immigration and open borders, it is hard to tell apart many Republicans from most Democrats.

If we get a Bush-Clinton dynasty extending to a Hillary Clinton presidency, we will get more globalism. But the problem is that all the top tier Republican candidates for president are themselves members of the Council on Foreign relations. So what's the difference?

The editors of Human Events were not calling me a "black helicopter conspiracy theorist" when I championed in the 2004 presidential election campaign the arguments against John Kerry argued by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

It's seems ironic to me that I was a great hero to these Republican Party apologists in 2004 when I spoke out against John Kerry, but now I'm not even qualified to be listed as a columnist on Human Events, despite the popularity of my writings there, just because I happen to be criticizing a Republican president I think has gone seriously astray.

For too many decades now, conservatives and moral Christians have been conditioned by Republican Party apologists, editors and their talk-show hosts allies to think our only mission is to oppose liberals and defeat Democrats.

Today, that's not enough.

The Republican Party has got to learn that we will find alternatives to the Republican Party itself, especially if it continues to abandon our cherished principles and then sets out to ridicule and demonize us for pointing this out.

The argument at the banquet dinner table ended when Phyllis Schlafly called me to the dais to receive Eagle Forum's annual award for courageous reporting, presented with a framed painting of an eagle, inscribed "with appreciation for your courage and leadership in protecting America's sovereignty."

I see today that Robert Bluey is currently the director of the Center for Media & Public Policy at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.

I'm sure Robert remains a strong supporter of Republican Party candidates and issues, even in his new blog.

But in what I have read of his blog so far, Robert does not cross the line into becoming a Republican Party apologist, a distinction I admired when he served, I believe with distinction, as the editor of Human Events.





http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57812

If we get a Bush-Clinton dynasty extending to a Hillary Clinton presidency, we will get more globalism. But the problem is that all the top tier Republican candidates for president are themselves members of the Council on Foreign relations. So what's the difference?

Reminds me of the old saying, "The more things change, the more they remain the same."

Dr. Corsi stated the exact reasons why I am no longer a Republican,
and why I did not vote for Pres. Bush in 2004, after I voted for him in 2000.

I stand with

• the Lord Jesus Christ,
  biblical Christian values,
  the U.S. Constitution as duly amended, and
  the United States of America (in particular, as opposed to globalism).

Where the RNC departs from those, we part company.

Originally Posted by zeezil

If we get a Bush-Clinton dynasty extending to a Hillary Clinton presidency, we will get more globalism. But the problem is that all the top tier Republican candidates for president are themselves members of the Council on Foreign relations. So what's the difference?

Reminds me of the old saying, "The more things change, the more they remain the same."

zeezil, as you probably already know, the top tier of candidates from both parties belong to the CFR. The NAU and globalism is coming no matter which of these candidates or party is elected..that is unless we can get one of our three guys in.

A better essay would be Why I Am A Democrate