Confessions of a Recovering Republican
 
by Deanna Spingola
6 June 2005

Join Email List to receive notification of new Spingola articles

No one likes to admit they’ve made a mistake, especially a terrible one. But here it is: I confess, with utter embarrassment, that I worked very diligently for the Bush re-election in November 2004. I placed about forty to fifty yard signs, worked at the local Republican Headquarters making phone calls and talking with voters. I totally regret those efforts. The more I began to question policy and performance, the more I regret voting for him, let alone encouraging others to do likewise. No, I have not become a democrat. Actually both parties are going, and have been going, in a parallel direction, following the same socialistic agenda for years.

When Ross Perot ran for president I actively worked on his campaign and still have a Ross Perot button. He had mega bucks, most earned through government contracts and he appeared to have a great third party platform. He received over 13% of the vote in spite of being terribly maligned by the media. The media was just doing their typical job of manipulating the public. This is especially true during presidential campaigns. I have since decided that the Perot candidacy was a sham in order to assure a Clinton victory over Bush.

Over the last several years, perhaps through my own laziness or life’s many distractions I increasingly became more inclined to accept what seemed to be the best political advice. I felt well informed because I listened to so-called conservative talk radio.
Rush Limbaugh, the king of conservative, inspired a whole group of sound-a-likes. I, along with many others, was hooked by their passionate protests against liberalism in the media and in the courts. They continually blast the democrats. Their verbal assaults and assessments seemed fair, patriotic and just. I recognized that their many shows were opinion oriented and not actually reporting, though they never portrayed themselves as reporters. However, they rarely evaluate or question the activities, even the questionable actions, of any republican. Not surprisingly, this essentially makes them pundits for the Republican Party. Like many other republicans, I was in a state of denial. But, given the political landscape, one must ask some really tough questions. Sadly, America has been deceived by both political parties.

Years ago I wisely read a remarkable book entitled "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" by Gary Allen. It was obviously true and well researched.
Thereafter, I read everything that I could find concerning the Council on Foreign Relations, the Federal Reserve and other eye opening books about the conspiracy. I have a growing list of suggested books here. I also joined the John Birch Society, read their books and subscribed to their magazine – American Opinion. I felt empowered. Joining with other likeminded people helped me to feel like I could make a difference. I attempted to share my new found information but it wasn’t always well received. Often, one is assumed to be some kind of a fanatic just by mentioning the word conspiracy. As a consequence I allowed myself to become intimidated by critical but well meaning friends and family. I was young and it was hard to defend this new unconventional path even though its direction was the correct and most courageous route. Ultimately it became easier and less conflicting to follow the crowd and I lost my way. After November 2004 and deep reflection I made another switch. It was like getting back on a bike after lengthy inactivity. I reverted to a more courageous but unpopular course, retrieved long forgotten books, and completely left the Republican Party. I joined a smaller, but more ethical and constitutionally correct party that truly represents what I believe - The Constitution Party. My only regret is the valuable time that I wasted by not making the change sooner.

The small percentage of people who actually vote (about 24%) become politically focused about once every four years. Presidential candidates, assisted by the mass media, distract us with attacks on their opponent's military records, driving records and other insignificant things. They should address actual issues. Both parties have an obligation to adhere to the constitution, something both have failed to do for generations. The debates are orchestrated and the outcome is sure.

We wrongly assume that the most important election is the one for president. The real legislative power is in congress. The president may advocate and promote certain issues, even unpopular ones. This is particularly true for second term presidents who have absolutely nothing to lose. It is actually quite typical for a second term president to make reprehensible decisions or fail to fix some appalling situation, such as illegals crossing the southern border. Any failure to act serves as a great opportunity for the other party to swing public opinion for the next election facade. The alternative party will make strong recommendations regarding the second term president’s failure. All the incumbent president has to do is take some temporary heat which is soon forgotten. After the predetermined tabulations we endure the phony yet traditional, premeditated passing of the baton in this Republican/Democrat/One World party.

Post election we resume life, suppose all is well and never give politics another thought. But, it is after the elections that we need to be hyper vigilant.

In this last presidential election the conservatives thought they voted for the family values advocate. Others voted for Bush to keep highly dubious Vietnam veteran John Kerry from being elected. Christian conservatives were influenced by the "family values" statements that our acting "conservative" incumbent candidate uttered. We desperately wanted to believe that he would keep his "family values" promises and somehow instill common sense and goodness back into politics. When "Brother" Bush courageously claimed that his role model was Jesus Christ we were so proud of our president for publicly stating his religious convictions but ultimately it became another way of taking the Lord’s name in vain. The right rhetoric and recurring photo ops of a bible carrying candidate are nothing but public relations strategy. Highly visible candidates spend millions on selling themselves as the best person for the job and they know the buyers/voters that they wish to attract. They use the most successful ad agencies to devise the best and most effective tactics to lure and bait us.

After the elections, instead of questioning our leader's often immoral decisions, we frequently accept and even rationalize them. Honest, trustworthy voters naively believe that others are equally truthful. We trust people. We don't question; we don't criticize. We embrace patriotism and are absolutely pro-American. We are reticent about criticizing the Iraq war for fear of being considered unpatriotic. Sometime, if you are feeling particularly masochistic, just call into some conservative radio talk show like Michael Medved and question the validity of the war in Iraq. You will be verbally thrashed. Asking questions is not unpatriotic; it is demanding responsibility from those who are answerable to the voters.

Conservative politicians are not conservative! They merely portray themselves as conservative. Those elected under the conservative banner are as left of center as any manifest indoctrinated socialist. Here are some of the issues that I am very alarmed about. Maybe you share these same concerns but feel that you can't do anything about it?

I believe that the Homeland Security Act is one of the biggest farces foisted on the American people. We assumed that it was created after 9-11 to protect us from future terrorist attacks. However, in 1998 Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich (CFR) encouraged the formation of a Commission known formerly as the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century co-chaired by Gary Hart (CFR) and Warren Rudman (CFR). Out of the 12 members on the commission, nine were members of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR). The commission was unable to get the bill passed through a predominantly republican congress. They had to wait for a more opportune time. 1

On 31 Jan 2001 the findings of the Hart-Rudman Commission's were presented to George W. Bush. It was not quite the appropriate time. But after the shock of 9-11 we were vulnerable. During a prime time address on 6 June 2002 Bush announced an extensive reorganization of the federal government which included "a permanent Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security." 2

That same day Bush’s message preempted the Joint Inquiry of FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley and FBI Director Robert Mueller concerning intelligence failures during the September 11th terrorist attacks. On 21 May 2002 Rowley had sent a message to Director Mueller defining how the Bureau’s top leadership had worked to "deliberately sabotage" the investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui, a suspected conspirator in the 9-11 attacks.

"Rowley’s memo thrust her into the spotlight, and the nation eagerly awaited her congressional testimony. But the Bush White House was able to capture the evening news cycle with the president’s 11-minute address. This ensured that the molders of public opinion would focus on the proposals for expanding the power of the central government, rather than dissecting the corruption, incompetence, and negligence of federal officials who permitted Black Tuesday to occur in the first place." 3

All this poses two questions: How and why would the "conservative" republican George W. Bush even consider a CFR freedom stealing idea created under the administration of the purported opposition party? The How of that question is obvious - just place the American people into a situation where we would be willing to sacrifice a large measure of personal freedoms for the promise of security? The horrific events of 11 September 2001 compelled us to accept what was previously unacceptable. If our enemy, whoever that might be, actually wanted to do great national destruction they could have taken out a nuclear power plant. One airplane could have done that and would have caused utter destruction over a very wide area. Apparently extensive infrastructure damage was not the goal.

Now for the why part of the above question: Within days of 9/11 Tom Ridge was appointed the head of this "new" department and he moved forward with plans for a national police force which would give the federal government jurisdiction over many crimes, even the most minor, that were previously under local authority. Anyone could be arrested and held for any crime that could remotely be connected to terrorism. The police now have the power to seize property without a search warrant. China, NAZI Germany, North Korea and the USSR also have or have had national police forces. I don't know if this bothers you but it certainly bothers me. This so-called new department received cabinet status the following year, 2002 and required a huge budget. Our new national police AKA "homeland security" is not for our protection but for our control. Bush, by merely asking, was able to get a bill through congress that Clinton failed to get passed. Bush is not and never has been a "conservative" republican.

"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland."
Adolf Hitler, proposing the creation of the Gestapo in Nazi Germany.

Bill Clinton, the impeached president, did more to destroy the morals of America than any elected official. He promoted the homosexual agenda, continued to sanction abortion and desecrated the White House. While the mass media distracted us with endless stories of Clinton's predatory soap-opera-like sleazy sexual exploits, he, along with congress, managed to pass many pro UN, unconstitutional, anti-American policies. However, he was unsuccessful at getting the Patriot Act passed because of a predominantly Republican congress. But Bush, with all of his political credits, was able to get this deceptive act passed by the House on 24 October 2001 and by the Senate on 25 October 2001 and signed into law by on 26 October 2001.

This devious bill H.R. 2975, an expansion of  FISA of 1978, sponsored by Representative James F. Sensenbrenner and others, (4) was passed by a majority republican congress that didn’t even bother to read it before signing it. The chief architect of the bill was Viet D. Dinh, the Assistant Attorney General of the United States from 2000 to 2004. Find out how your representatives and senators
voted. Politically 9-11 was a very convenient catastrophe and provided an opportunity to pass a lot of legislation that deprives Americans of freedom.

Well if Bush was able to push two highly questionable socialistic, freedom stealing, big central government pieces of legislation through congress almost question-free then why not attempt to repeal Roe versus Wade through this Pro-Life, republican congress? It appears to be a piece of cake. After all, most of the republicans used that issue to get elected – why not follow through and actually act on it?

So why do real conservatives always vote for pro-life politicians running as conservative republicans? The significant word here is "always". Roe versus Wade was "decided" in 1973. Forty four million individuals have been murdered - all sanctioned by the Supreme Court misinterpretations of the the
First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments never questioned by congress. The Supreme Court does not legally have the power to enforce their interpretations. This state sanctioned murder could have been overturned years ago if our elected officials were upholding the constitution and protecting the lives of the people they serve. As long as they include this vital issue in their platform, conservatives will continue to support the Republicans. However, abortion serves a political purpose. Oh, here we go again with political expediency versus the lives of Americans.

What if Roe versus Wade was actually repealed - Solve this riddle:
Which top officers in a well known big "conservative" group would lose their long time cushy jobs?
What big "conservative" group has spent millions to endorse certain key republicans?
What industry do we know that generates millions of dollars annually by using cheap mass mailings to millions of passionately pro-life individuals?
What group takes little itty bitty baby steps to keep the money rolling in?
What group buys political influence?
What group does not have to finish the job that generated its creation?
And finally what group does not have to actually produce a product to stay in a very lucrative business?
For the answer:
The abortion issue

NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) was ratified in 1993 and cost Americans 900,000 jobs. But it was deceptively sold to Americans as a beneficial trade agreement. It compelled the amendment of our laws while compromising our sovereignty. This treaty established weak southern borders enabling more heroin laden, uninspected trucks to enter our country. This agreement promised more effective trade with our neighbors - Canada and Mexico. We were already trading with Canada - businessman to businessman - without the 900 pages of restrictive NAFTA regulations.

After 1993, several large U.S. companies relocated to Mexico to take advantage of readily available workers willing to work for slave labor wages. The poor Mexicans are still poor. The benefactors are the Mexican government and US companies who now enjoy a bigger profit margin. Some of these companies actually received United States government aid, thanks to the taxpayers, to assist their relocation to foreign countries with absolutely no financial risk. That was sure nice of us to assist these big political donors! And yet we still have thousands of Mexican citizens coming here for jobs - jobs that Americans used to do. Only now, because of NAFTA and taxpayer assisted factory relocations, there aren’t as many jobs!!!

Now "conservative" republican George W. Bush is attempting to get congress to pass the trade agreement called
CAFTA, a precursor to FTAA which will further jeopardize our sovereignty. No, this really isn't about trade; it is about destroying America's middle class, the backbone of our country. Between the liberal democrats and the "conservative" republicans, we are being sold down the proverbial river and we are standing on the deck smiling and waving goodbye to our freedoms.

The bogus undeclared war on terror is not really a war against a legitimate defined terrorist enemy. Victory must include a definite enemy. The terrorist tag was merely pinned onto Iraq to accomplish some other nefarious goal. Is the Iraq war merely the continuation of the 1991 Desert Storm, the war George H. W. Bush started but which still left Hussein in power? Apparently Saddam Hussein must have been uncooperative. If the real secondary object of war was the spread of democracy, there are other closer tyrants. But they already cooperate with the United Nations.

The war is about regime change and a particular kind of dismantling and nation rebuilding in Iraq. There are no terrorists that are losing their freedoms. The welcome mat is out on the southern borders for anyone, from any country who wishes to come in. The citizens of this nation are the people who are
losing their freedoms. Our military was previously deployed for our defense which was noble and just. Now the blood of our gallant and patriotic, but misled, youth is shed in wars of offense, often against innocent civilians in countries where we are not wanted. But for political expediency, that CFR agenda, the government will sacrifice the lives of more Americans.

While tens of thousands of United States military personnel and millions of taxpayer's dollars are being used to secure Iraq's borders, our citizens adjacent to the Mexican borders are subject to violence. Why, Mr. Bush?

Despite George W. Bush's statement about not waiting for the U.N.'s permission to invade Iraq in 2003, this current war is under U.N. authorization (Security Council resolutions 678 (1990), 687 (1991), and 1441 (2002) had "authorized" the invasion.) So the UN authorizes wars and America pays with money and blood. Our government is supposedly bringing democracy (
the worst form of government) to Iraq. You cannot bomb or sanction someone into democracy.

Meanwhile Bush fraternizes with the tyrannical murdering leaders of China who actually have weapons of mass destruction. We know they have them because Clinton, who should have been charged with treason, sold them the resources to build them.

In May 2001 the U.N. removed the U.S. from its Human Rights Commission in favor of Sudan, a country previously designated by our country as a sponsor of terrorism. The "conservative" republican George W. Bush apparently still likes the UN even after the apparent preference of Sudan over the United States. On 24 October 2001 he proclaimed United Nations Day and asked Americans to pause for a moment of silence and to reflect on the noble history of the UN and its many contributions towards providing a better quality of life. Better quality of life for whom? The "conservative" republican Christian George W. Bush is lauding praise on the UN for blessings Americans should thank God for. At least he didn’t ask us to face the direction of the UN and pray to the earth goddess. How can the "conservative" republican Bush applaud this godless entity whose leaders have lied and embezzled millions of dollars yet remain unpunished?

There are a myriad of other disturbing issues that should invite anyone to question their loyalty, not only to the Republican Party but to the Democrat Party as well. Do you want to recover? Repeat the following statement twice daily for two weeks. "We are a republic, not a democracy!" Next, read a brief but good book: "
The Insiders" by John F. McManus. Continue to read – don’t look back.

Wake up republicans, Wake up democrats! – or wave good bye to the rest of your freedoms while you are being sold down the river to the tyrannical United Nations. Take a stand that really matters. Don't refrain from voting or think that there are no other choices. You simply need to be courageous enough to make an alternative choice. Evaluate the choice that I made -
The Constitution Party. Don't waste valuable time like I did only to find years later that I was naively supporting, not only the wrong party, but the one faction of the republican/democrat party that was essentially leading us quicker into one world government.

[1] Bill of Rights Implausible Defenders by William F. Jasper
[2]
Rise of the Garrison State by William F. Jasper
[3]
Ibid
[4]
H.R. 2975

 

Comments: deannaATspingola.com
To avoid attracting spam email robots, email addresses on this site are written with AT in place of the usual symbol. Replace AT with the correct symbol to get a valid address.

Back To Political Points

© Deanna Spingola 2005 - All rights reserved

Deanna Spingola's articles are copyrighted but may be republished, reposted, or emailed. However, the person or organization must not charge for subscriptions or advertising. The article must be copied intact and full credit given. Deanna's web site address must also be included.