By Sen. H. L. Richardson (Ret.)
Because of my many years as a conservative
in elected office, I have been asked by others, "how did we get
in this mess we are in?" The great author Robert Louis Stevenson
wisely said, "Sooner or later in life, we all sit down to a
banquet of consequences."
That's what's happening now, we're at the
Here is a brief synopsis of how it
Many Americans believe that the core
religious values, which founded and sustained this nation, have
not only been sadly neglected but also forgotten. In so doing,
the public is finding out what political ignorance and religious
apathy has created. While godly people snoozed and gun owners
were busy hunting, small minorities of hedonists have inveigled
their way into government and have been able to impose their
political will upon the majority.
It didn't happen over night.
To understand, we have to go back one
hundred years to the comments of a very wise man, President
Theodore Roosevelt. He stated, "There are those who believe that
a new modernity demands a new morality. What they fail to
consider is the harsh reality that there is no such thing as a
new morality. There is only one morality. There is only true
Christian ethics over against which stands the whole of
paganism. If we are to fulfill our great destiny as a people,
then we must return to the old morality, the sole morality."
Roosevelt saw moral slippage occurring at
the beginning of the last century. He saw radical activists
proclaiming a "new morality"
embodying atheism and materialism. They
were becoming increasingly vocal on our college campuses and
were becoming more active in American politics, promoting their
"new" morality. They were also attempting to elect their
candidates on the socialist ticket.
In the beginning, the Socialists and their
allies were singularly unsuccessful and remained small in
number. The vast majority of Americans were happy with our
liberty, constitutional government, free enterprise and politics
implemented through the two party system.
At the beginning of the last century, a
socialist by the name of Lenin, put wheels under the world
socialist movement. He lead a small minority of communists in
overthrowing the czarist government in Russia; in so doing,
Lenin developed a financial base and a national platform for the
promotion of world socialism. After the First World War, the
hard core left became more politically active in the United
States. Lenin was an excellent organizer, and he and other
socialist leaders realized that it was an impossible task to
sell their bad tasting political medicine to the vast majority
Norman Thomas, an early leader in the
American socialist movement promoted the concept that Americans
would never knowingly adopt socialism but, under the name of
liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist
program until one day America will be a socialist nation without
ever knowing how it happened.
The left abandoned their attempts to sell
their socialist programs as a third party and decided that there
was more fertile political ground within the two party system
running as "liberals" and "progressives."
At the beginning of the Twentieth Century,
the democrats had a weak political party, eager for any new
members. The left seized the opportunity and registered as
democrats. They were aware that both parties are open to any one
who registers in either party.
The socialists recognized that to be a
candidate, all you have to do is register, be of age, alive, not
a felon and have the money to legally file for office. There is
no political litmus test in either party in order to be a member
or a candidate. Socialists could easily register as Democrats
and campaign on any issue to get elected rather than campaigning
on socialist programs -- say anything to win the office, then
legislate as they please once in office.
The left-wing political leader ship
recognized that by themselves, they were only a tiny percentage
of the American population. They did, however, recognize that
only one out of four Americans vote in primary elections and
therefore, a small percentage could nominate a candidate in
primary elections since multiple candidates often seek the
office. The left saw that in local elections for school boards
and city council and supervisors, even smaller numbers could
affect the outcome. If their Socialists candidates won local
offices, they could establish a base of operations in order to
move up step by step to higher office, such as state
representatives, state senators and at a later opportunity, to
Congress and the US Senate.
The following is an actual example of how a
small minority can win a major California State Senate office.
Registration heavily favored the Republican Party:.
District population approximately ....
600,000. Those who could register to vote .... 400,000.
Those who bothered to register .... 235,000. Total who voted
in primary election .... 120,000. Republican primary
vote ..... 70,000. Democrat primary vote .... 50,000. Eight
candidates sought the Republican nomination. The Republican
winning candidate gained .....16,000.
And won handily. In the general election,
he easily gained the senate seat and served for 22 years. Is
this race an exception? No! It happens all the time. Realize the
significance of only 16,000 votes out of potentially 400,000 who
could have participated. Think about it. Is it any wonder that a
small, dedicated minority of voters could have a
disproportionate impact on our government when three out of four
Americans don't even register or bother to take part in primary
elections, in the important process of selecting who their
candidates might be? It has been said that when one American was
informed that much of the country's population suffered from
both political ignorance and apathy. His yawning response was "I
don't know and I don't care."
The socialists, in democratic garb, had a
long-range plan with little to stand in their way. Since they
were atheists and agnostics, they believed that any method that
achieved socialist power was "ethical." The expression, "the end
justifies the means" became their motto and method of
operations. Deception and lying became the tools of their
During the latter 1800's and early 1900's,
the socialist base was still too small to elect their numbers to
many offices; they needed to attract additional support. Now
clothed as liberals in democratic garb, they increased their
numbers by wooing small disgruntled and politically isolated
segments of the population, with future promises of political
advantage. Knowing that by adding small segment by segment,
their combined small numbers could add up enough votes to win
They first successfully impacted and wooed
segments of the union movement. Then over the years, adding
little segments one at a time, they captured support from the
homosexual community by sympathizing with their "gay"
activities. They attracted anti-war pacifists, disgruntled
feminists, the extreme environmentalists, gun control supporters
and any other dissident group that could be wooed with future
promises of legislative support. Adopting "class action"
agitation, they pandered to any group they could exploit and
bring on board.
During the growth of their move towards
power, the left wing leadership wisely kept these segments
separated, appealing to them directly, and then, only to each
one's special interest. They knew there would be difficulties if
they ever brought them all together, for they certainly didn't
want to have meetings of rank and file union members with the
"gay" community nor the elderly with anti-war activists.
The socialist knew that, with accurate
polling information, they could campaign on issues that they
didn't really believe -- but appealed to the average voter; they
didn't have to broadcast who their real supporters happened to
be. The great depression of the 1930's brought the democrats
into national power at all levels of government, including a
segment of the "liberal" Democrats. The majority of the
Democratic legislators elected during the 1930's and 1940's were
still traditional Americans in their ethics and values.
However, few old-line Democrats saw trouble
brewing and the shift in leadership taking place within their
own party. The old time Democrat found out soon enough when he
found himself gerrymandered out of his seat and replaced by a
At the present time, the good ole hard
working jackass, the symbol of the Democrats, should have been
changed to the condor; a bird far more in keeping with the
leftward slant of their party.
A condor is a large ugly vulture, which
feeds on carrion. It stays afloat on hot air and deserts its
young when frightened. Its defense mechanism is to throw up,
barf a stream of semi-digested meat on its enemies. The bird
can't survive near civilization and is becoming extinct in
proximity to civilized society. To keep it alive in California,
the government now subsidizes its food. It survives quite well
in backward South American countries. Could anyone think of a
more appropriate symbol for a left-wing socialist movement?
Over many years, the planned "liberal
leftist" control over the inner workings of the Democrat party
structure increased dramatically.
Working together as an organized minority
during the nineteen fifties and sixties, the leftists set forth
to take control of the Democrat party leadership. Achieving
substantial success, they then moved to influence the Republican
Party as well, running their candidates as liberals or
"moderate" Republicans. RINOs (Republican In Name Only) became a
small dissident element in the Republican Party as well. Small
but mouthy, they are the croaking frogs on republican lily
While in office, during the 1970's and
1980's, I saw the left grasp control over the political fortunes
of the Democrat party, On a first hand basis, right before my
own eyes, I watched it happen. Today, the socialists are the
dominant voice in its elected leadership. Whenever the
opportunity presented itself, they effectively and
systematically eliminated conservative democrat office holders
within their ranks.
Because the Left now controls leadership,
they control candidate funding, thereby controlling who wish to
be elected and leveraging Democrat incumbents who wish to be
returned to office.
A very conspicuous case of rooting out
non-conforming members of the Democrat party is the primary
election defeat of Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut. In six
years this long-time Senator went from national icon of the
Democrat party to pariah. The message is the same -- tow the
line, or else.
Over the past fifty years, controlling the
vast wealth created through taxation, they have built a huge
federal, state and local bureaucracy which not only employs
their own kind but implements a wealth of programs that reflects
the wishes of their base, the unions, the gays, the feminists
the anti war pacifists, the gun controllers, etc. Through laws,
they have dramatically increased their power and have done what
Norman Thomas hoped would happen.
The American people will never knowingly
adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will
adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day
America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it
Fortunately, a number of Americans are
aware of how it's happening and are trying to inform their
fellow Americans. Millions of Americans still hold to the core
traditional and religious values that founded this nation and,
properly informed, are working diligently to see the left in
both parties are routed out of our Constitutional government.
The first glimmer of hope came with the
republican nomination of Barry Goldwater for president in the
1960's. Although he was soundly defeated in the general
election, he defeated in the primary, the darling of the left
leaning republicans, Nelson Rockefeller.
Conservatives rallied to work for Goldwater
and didn't quit working after his defeat. In California, in
1966, they defeated another "moderate" in the primary by
nominating and electing as governor, something as rare as a
right-winger in Hillary Clinton's staff -- a conservative
The fledgling American core value revolt
was under way. A voice was raised promoting our traditions and
our ethics: activist organizations began to crop all over
America -- politically unsophisticated but eager to learn.
Fourteen years later, they nominated and elected Ronald Reagan
to the presidency.
In 1994, the Lower House of Congress went
republican and its leadership shifted toward conservatism. Was
liberalism dead? Not by a long sight. They had managed to
control both houses of Congress for forty years. The Republicans
held narrow margins but with a few "moderate" RINOs in their
midst, their control is iffy. The lefties were deeply imbedded
in the Northeastern states and were the controlling factor in
most large cities.
However, they were increasingly having
problems within their own ranks. The splinter groups they'd
attracted and wooed began to make demands. They had contributed
to the democrat victories, now they wanted their reward. They
wanted more of their own elected to office and they wanted their
issues enacted into law. Instead of being splinter groups kept
in the closet, they demanded to be heard, and their wishes
subsequently become part of our laws.
They got their wish and, and the dissidents
are now running the "Democratic" party. The tail is now wagging
the old "Democrat"
donkey. The anti-war, pro-abort,
environmental extremists, soft on crime, big spending liberals,
feminists and deviants of both sexes are calling the political
tune and are marching hand in hand in gay parades. The large
body of old rank and file Democrats are scratching their heads
and wondering, "What's going on?"
Big changes are now occurring. The South,
traditionally Democrat but fundamentally religious, has turned
Republican. Not because of any great love for the Republican
structure, but because of their disgust over the present
leftward drift of their own party.
Amongst elected democrats, hoping to seek
higher office and recognizing that the new base of the party has
become a collection of wacko wonks, are trying to cover and
obfuscate this fact by constantly attacking their opposition as
"extreme," haters of the poor or religious bigots. Their
rhetoric borders the wild -- trying to please their base while
seeking to appear as moderate to the average voter. It ain't
They are in trouble and they know it. The
governmental bureaucracy, which houses and provides jobs for
their supporters, is being threatened. Their economic base is
vulnerable and their future is suspect. How can they send Junior
and Zelda to Harvard if they are outa' work? Therefore, their
attacks are becoming more vicious and the thin veneer of
civility is wearing off their "democratic" facade.
There is a truism in economic circles, "bad
money drives out good."
The same thing is true in politics. Bad
people drive out good ones.
In the "Democratic" party that rule is
holding true. Bad democrats drive out good ones. In rural
America, the trend is decidedly towards basic American values.
Who would have believed forty years ago, that below the Mason
Dixon Line, the South would turn Republican? Or that rock-ribbed
republican New Englanders would tolerate Barney Frank or Ted
Kennedy in office?
The left hasn't gained total control, for
if they had, they'd have made it a "crime" for me to write what
I have just written.
There is still time to turn it all around
and get the buggers out of government. I know it's possible and
so does the left, which is why, when challenged, and a
conservative leaning judge is appointed to the Supreme Court,
the thin veneer of civility rubs off for all to see.
We are now witnessing how uncivil and
uncouth they really are.
They started as a minority and still are a
minority. The big difference is that over the last hundred
years, they have embedded themselves and their unworkable
policies in all facets of government -- including education and
segments of the major media.
They can be routed out but they won't go
willingly. They have worked hard to get where they are and are
going to see that all their socialist programs are going to be
shoved down our collective throats. They are nasty people. Rub
off that thin veneer of civility and see for yourselves.
Theodore Roosevelt also said, "All those
blatant sham reformers, in the name of new morality, preach the
old, old vice and self indulgence which rotted out first, the
moral fiber and then even the external greatness of Greece and
Is America next? Are we to be "rotted out
by sham reformers?" Are we to be apathetic Americans who say, "I
don't know and I don't care!"?
I don't think so. I believe we are at the
banquet and Americans are feasting on the political consequences
of the last one hundred years.
They don't like the taste of the political
concoctions they've been fed and are demanding and working for
Permission to use this article came from:
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408