And I suppose the ultimate question is which will come first. Will the ChiComs adopt a democratic Constitutional System strictly limiting their government and holding it accountable for violating human rights, including the most fundamental, which is that of innate individual liberty? Or will we simply drift further and further away from our own Constitutional republican model until we have our own political correction archepelago right here at home? Are you ready to place your bet?

Before you do, maybe you better do two things. First, ask yourself this question. In spite of the frothing rhetoric mouthed by greasy toothed pundits, what do you remember most about the incident at Tienanmen? Was it the image of the cowardly communist oligarchy sneaking off from their stronghold in Beijing? Do you remember them creeping off clustered together in armored personnel carriers guarded by a column of tanks, just before their military guards opened fire on unarmed civilians? Or do you remember the brilliant inspiration of that lone shopper in the white shirt who stood down the soviet style T-72's in the middle of the street while the world watched on CNN? The second thing you better do is hunt up the Declaration of Independence, and read it again, carefully.

"Life without freedom is only half a life...Limited private enterprise does not negate the monopoly that the Chinese Communist party, in its words and practice, asserts as its supreme right." ...Chinese dissident and human rights activist, Harry Wu

Most of us are aware that contemporary collectivist China has offered human body parts from executed political prisoners for sale to organ transplant recipients. We've been charmed with a state run "capital" monopoly. Harry Wu reported that he witnessed the execution of a fellow inmate for merely writing "Down with Chairman Mao" on a cigarette rolling paper. Both Mr. Wu and BBC reporter Sue Lloyd-Roberts showed a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee held by Senator Jesse Helms a shocking videotape of an actual organ transplant execution, with surgical vans and medical teams waiting nearby to cannibalize the body to sell on the Western Black Market. Even closer to home, the notorious "Doctor of Death," Jack Kevorkian, has suggested that we begin to use the body parts of executed prisoners here in America. What once seemed a fine idea, collectivism is reaching its own logical conclusion for Americans. Slowly, the individual virtually becomes the sacrificial lamb to the collective whole, even to the point of ripping out and selling his inner organs.

China is the country that hosted the ultra-liberal United Nations fourth World Conference on Women in August 1995. Ironically it is also a country that is unparalleled in the abuse of women. According to an article titled "Pre-Natal Tests in China Threat to Girl Babies" in the San Francisco Examiner, April 24, 1994, the state monitors women's menstrual cycles and forces abortions on anyone who becomes pregnant without permission. The same article noted that they disproportionately kill female infants, and in some areas of China the direct result has produced a ratio of males to females at 64% in favor of men.

The next news on the collectivist utopia is even more shocking, and if it doesn't shock you, you may as well put down the rest of this work and walk. In the periodical World, May 20, 1995, an article called "Unspeakable Delicacy" reveals that aborted human fetuses have begun to appear on the menus of Chinese restaurants as a delicacy and health tonic. A female physician at the state-run Shenzhen Health Center for Women and Children gave an investigative reporter from Eastern Express a jar of fetuses, saying, "There are 10 fetuses here, all aborted this morning. You can take them. We are a state hospital and don't charge anything. Normally we doctors take them home to eat — all free. Since you don't look well, you can take them." Should we bother to question why the reporter didn't "look well?" This report clearly gives new meaning to the expression often used to describe a culture in the throes of moral depravity, "They have begun to eat their own." It is especially poignant because the Western adherents of the collectivist theme seem determined to tolerate almost anything to promote and further their ends, with the sole exception of the stark truth behind their agenda staring them straight in the face. Facing up to that they will not tolerate.

The official UN document promoting the event in Beijing was said to be written and supported by a virtual 'who's who' of far left radical feminists, including Hillary Clinton and one of her personal icons, Bella Abzug. Described by the Washington Times as "a fixture in old left activism," Abzug was said to have supported Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin when she was at Hunter College. Her modern supporters on the left can't seem to recall that in 1934 the president of Hunter College heralded another progressive socialist. That was of course, the National Socialist, Adolph Hitler. The Hunter president declared that Adolph was "destined to go down to history as a cross between Hotspur and Uncle Toby and to be as immortal as either." Well, Hitler became immortal, alright. Yet somehow, in the fourth estate media portrayals, the kooks and whackos are always on the conservative side of politics. Now, how is that? You don't need to answer. You already know.

In May 1993, 180 pregnant Chinese women boarded the ship Golden Venture secretly bound for the United States. They hoped to escape the forced abortion in their homeland. The Clinton administration was unsympathetic, jailed the women, and ordered them repatriated to an angry, embarrassed, and ruthless Chinese socialist government. This administration presided over the official opening of our borders to all manner of traffic under NAFTA, from illegal immigrants to greatly increased drug traffic. This administration fought to allow HIV infected alien individuals immunity in America, but oppressed pregnant Chinese mothers — forget it. Authoritarians will tolerate no challenge to their agenda regarding population control. Self control the Gramscians are not much concerned with, but population control is always a must. Still, in an open letter to the U.S. Congress on April 20, 1995, Representatives Christopher Smith and Henry Hyde formally opposed the forced repatriation of the pregnant Chinese female refugees.

Perhaps we think ourselves safe because we seek to empower authoritarian collectivism under some sanitized euphemism like "democratic socialism." Most of us seem to have forgotten that even though Hitler was technically appointed to the position of Chancellor, the party that appointed him was democratically elected, and the system was called National Socialism. We also forget that the former Soviet Union held "free" democratic elections, or that the GDR was neither democratic nor a republic. The latter was in fact an authoritarian collectivist dictatorship under the imperial influence of the former U.S.S.R. With similar semantic and political deception, authoritarians have worked tirelessly to have us all believe that we are in no way under restraint, that we act out of 'voluntarily compliance' to surrender our tax dollars, indeed, our very rights. Ah, but what's in a name.

"Boys, the secret of trailing cattle [to the market and the slaughterhouse] is never to let your herd know that they are under restraint. Let everything that is done be done voluntarily by the cattle." ...Jim Flood, Trail Boss, from The Chisholm Trail by Dan Worcester

In every collectivist scheme there is an inevitable chasm between the rhetoric designed to entrap the unwitting public and the personal lifestyles of the ideological spokespersons and leaders of the planned society. When these realities are forgotten, then virtually anything can happen to a populace, and historically, the worst usually has. Rather than face the reality of this, we follow the elites as they patch together a makeshift global government of boilerplate political and legal deals, insisting that it will hail in the next millennium with an age of prosperity, liberty, and peace. We hail the god of the modern statutory system.

Now a statutory legal system can arrest and imprison you for failing to place a token in a parking meter, but Common Law protects your right to complain about it. If the right to speak freely about it has any statutory limitation whatsoever, the statutory powers that collect the parking fees will be economically and politically motivated by the temptation to silence you if they can. We could logically expect little else from them than to act on the motivation of their own best interests. This is fundamental human nature. It does not take a Constitutional lawyer to comprehend the flaw in such a system. This is one of the primary weaknesses with liberal thinking itself. 

Liberals seek justice by empowering a statutory legal system to control and regulate the politically incorrect offender, most often unwittingly at the expense of the individual Common Law rights they hope (or often only pretend) to protect. Today's Conservatives, on the other hand, seek justice by conserving the unalienable rights recognizing empowerment of the individual and steadfastly standing by the history of Common Law. In spite of popular ideological rhetoric to the contrary, the former lends itself to elitism, while the latter lends itself to the common benefit of common individuals. Unfortunately, ideologues of popular culture have turned these notions around for the success of their ends, and have confused everyone to the point.

For liberals who think their "democratic" ideologies or unblemished leaders are exempt from this anathema toward the spirit of our Constitution, they may have missed President Clinton's speech where he stated that the Founding Fathers "gave the people too much freedom." Appearing on MTV on April 19, 1994, he said, "Enough is Enough...we have a radical Constitution...[and] the radical Bill of Rights...[gave] a radical amount of individual freedom [to the people]." Excuse me? A "radical" Bill of Rights? Are we to construe that Clinton perceived the Constitution he swore to uphold against all enemies upon his inauguration, "both foreign and domestic," as "radical?" Is he proposing that we replace it with an authoritarian state substitute, licensing out "privilege?" And you liberals really "love" this guy? Have you left your brains behind with all the "traveling baggage" you dumped in the 60's? Do we have to spell it out for you? How about a picture?

A critical observer could be forgiven if this were described as little more than an arrogant display of silver-tongued demagoguery. How could an American President actually claim that the Bill of Rights is a radical instrument giving too much liberty to the people? Isn't that the document representing a system of government that virtually millions have died to defend, that virtually empowers the authority of his position, that so honors human rights and liberty that billions have admired it?

First of all, under our system and in accord with Western Tradition, neither the Constitution nor the Founding Fathers 'gave' anyone liberty at all, but rather proclaimed its existence as an unalienable individual human right, a natural law, a self evident truth. Didn't we long ago conclude that everyone is born with this one endowment, regardless of race, gender, or creed? This is the heart and substance of our entire heritage. What good are 'human rights' if we should ever have to kneel beseeched to the arbitrary benevolence of the collective Imperial state in order to receive them? Those that would change this legal precedent to a state of tyranny are madly and shamefully intoxicated with a desire for power. With snobish contempt, they would eviscerate an entire people and destroy the dreams of the entire future of every hopeful individual to come. It's no wonder there was such an upheaval of Conservatism over the likes of the Clinton Administration. It should be understandable to at least a few why so many people do not like the politics of this President. Unfortunately, smugly drunk on denial, the left just can't get up off their knees. They're stuck down there, worshipping at the altar of the lie. Lying has become the petty little religion of the atheistic left. The ends, after all, justify the means.

Much to the denial of the impossibly smug media, silencing dissension has also become part of the theme of the politically correct. You know, the mainstream media that gets it 100% correct? The guys that bad mouth Matt Drudge? There are presently serious legislative notions at large that would make it a criminal offense for 'politically incorrect' thought, speech, or action. The question is, who concludes what is correct, and why? 

At Marietta College, Ohio, a student wrote an article in his college newspaper in which he referred to lesbianism as 'deviant' behavior. Charged with "sexual harassment" by a campus lesbian, he was proclaimed guilty, accused of spreading hatred, and then expelled. One would assume that the First Amendment gives us the right to speak freely, even if we are later judged to be mistaken in our opinions. This assumption is overcast with the dark admonition that we may speak freely, but only if we speak according to the ideas of the Politically Correct. Meanwhile, one of Louis Farrakhan's ministers spoke at Kean college in New Jersey, giving us his prescription for peace in South Africa. He stated that his solution was, "We kill the [white] women, we kill the children, we kill the babies. We kill the blind, we kill the cripple...we kill 'em all." Astonishingly, this speech was judged to be free from hatred, and qualified as 'non-racist.' and protected by the Constitution. 

The dangerous hypocrisy of selectively granting privilege on the basis of politics as opposed to respecting individual rights becomes clear. Those who think the Second Amendment can fall to liberalism with no threat to the First are likely in for a very rude awakening. There are liberals among us who think the Bill of Rights so 'radical,' that they overtly and adamantly call for the elimination of the First Amendment as well!

One of the leading spokespersons for the state control of speech is Catherine Mackinaw, a professor of law at the University of Michigan. She declares that the legal system must change the 200 year old Constitutional concept that rights are limits on state action. Instead, in pure Marxist rhetoric, "rights should be entitlements" granted by government, to be used as a means of legal intervention for social change! The horror of this is that there are students studying under those like Mackinaw who undoubtedly take this sort of recommendation seriously. One could easily be forgiven for thinking that we need another government entitlement program like we all need another hole in the head — especially one that eliminates the First Amendment! The historic short sighted error of this thinking is clearly evident. Any bonehead who denies this probably took Pravda seriously for those long, dark seventy Soviet years, or has forgotten the political fraud perpetrated by European Medieval history. The world is flat, and all who oppose are heretics. 

Our Constitutional rights are a product of a millennium of effort, if not several, and Mackinaw and others like her want to throw them away to selectively impose their own astigmatic brand of justice and equality. Given the evidence and the reason behind our history, one can hardly believe that these people have the slightest idea what they are asking. On the other hand, perhaps they know exactly what they're doing. That is precisely the danger we face. In spite of our denial, most of us suspect and fear in our deepest recesses that George Orwell might turn out to be correct, even if his dating seems to be in error. 

He understood it just a little bit too well. Some have argued that he was privy to the machinations of an elitist group of world movers who envisioned global rule, and he reacted to their plans with a fictionalized admonition of the downside possibilities. Even though we see momentary swings away from liberalism, toward common sense, the Hegelian dialectic is still at work — at least in the minds of these movers. The thesis is Liberalism. The antithesis is a grass roots conservative reaction to its excesses. The synthesis is more inevitable centralization and consequent repression. We move from a stormy past into the dangerous straights between Charybdis and Scylla, the sweet sirens of chaos calling out to every man and woman, from academia, from the media, from the bureaucracy itself. As the leaders of our New World Order grow ever more intoxicated with the historically fiendish fermentation of power, we edge nearer and nearer to the precipice of yet another potential totalitarian disaster. This one could eventually lead to the legendary final resolution, the "big one baby." 

They yearn impatiently for the arrival of the "last man," the "end of history," the end of the dialectic itself, where their shining ideal will be perfected. Oceania shall rule, but Eurasia and Eastasia should never suspect this end. Their progenitors will benevolently sit on an alabaster thrown of power. Like Dyus Pitar — or Jupitar, the proto-Indo European "Sky Father," Zeus himself — they will watch over the world below. It may not be unreasonable to conclude that these potentates may be entirely caught up within the narrow scope of their own limited vision, and trapped in the addiction of their own denial. Their position pays very well, after all. It pays a whole lot more than 40 pieces of silver. Yet even in the middle of all this liberal daydreaming and frantic manipulation, the house of cards threatens to fall in on itself again. Asia is plunging into a virtual depression.

"What profit does a man receive, if he should gain the whole world, but lose his soul? What can a man give in exchange for his soul?" ...Matthew, 16:26

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." ...Bob Dylan lyric

What they still deny, and what the modern conservative logician has discovered and shouts out to the hopeless dupe on the left, is that there's no such thing as JUST A LITTLE HEROINE. Once you begin, you are likely to become a hopeless addict, subordinate to crime, corruption, and eternal slavery to the opiate itself. And such is Fascism. That's Harry Wu's point. Clinton and all his Global Socialist friends can pretend that they can get away with just a few hits of this refined CHINA WHITE, only on the weekends, while selling their surplus off to other limousine liberal friends at a tidy profit. Soon, like every addict from Manhattan to London, from San Francisco to Beverly Hills, they will be using up all they can get their hands on, hopelessly enslaved to their own moral cataclysm. Unfortunately, they will very likely drag us all down with them.

That's also why the argument between the so-called fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives is virtually a mute point. Now both the libertarians and liberals are likely to challenge this assertion. But fiscal conservatism is impossible without some kind of associated social conservatism. It's the golden thread sewn all through the governing fabric set in place by the Founding Fathers. Attempting to build a civilization without common standards of conduct is like trying to engineer a bridge without any reference to standard weights and measures. Can you imagine if every workman had his own standards, attempting to fit together parts and pieces manufactured haphazardly by even other's who set their own standards? Get the picture? The basis of moral integrity is in fact the logical substance of social conservatism, and no free business or family environment can exist without moral integrity. 

While individuals can argue over details, over incidentals, the principles were long ago defined by the culture of the West itself. They evolve through trial and error, and the practical results were passed down first by oral, and then by written tradition. It's in our history, from the agrarian revolution and the associated property rights, to the synchronicity of Judaic law and Hellenistic democratic concepts. It's in our Cannons. As we are witnessing with modern China, the rights of the individual do not exist — in fact CANNOT exist — without the fundamental cultural principles associated with Western thought intact. And THAT is precisely why the elitist left, by following Gramsci, has intentionally divided the right by systematically destroying the fundamental cultural institutions of the West. 

Here it is in a nutshell. Here's your picture. If you can't trust the moral character of your business associates, you will have none. You will have to depend on an authoritarian system to arbitrate your business disputes, and at that point, you loose the liberty from tyranny you hope to achieve with fiscal conservatism. Somehow, the conservative movement must pull these forces together, or loose the war against authoritarian collectivism. If you don't understand your enemy, you can't fight them effectively. It's just that simple. 

"Arjuna said: But, O Descendant of Vrishni, impelled by what power does a man commit sin even against his wish, constrained, as it were, by force? The Blessed Lord said: It is desire, it is anger, born of passion; of unappeasable craving and of great sin; know this as the foe in this world. As fire is enveloped by smoke, as a mirror by dust, as an embryo by the womb, so is the self covered by that." ...Bhagavad-Gita, III. 36-38, 400 BC-400 AD

One thing is for certain. If our quest for World Order continues with this trend toward not the best of human achievement, but the worst, then it's only a matter of time before some new unforeseen cataclysm of monumental, violent, and grotesque abuse of centralized power comes to logical fruition — even here in the good ol' "U.S. of A."

So wake up, you proverbial sleepers! How does the popular idiom go? If you snooze — you loose....