Perceptive conservatives have long seen this train wreck coming. Back in 1999 and 2000, the conservative base along with Republicans in general were so gripped by fear of a Gore presidency that they were willing to temporarily overlook some ominous signals emanating from the Bush camp. Yet those signals turned out to be undeniable harbingers of what was to come. The “day of reckoning” eventually became inescapable.

 

We were forewarned when we heard the President borrowing liberal terminology, as with his opposition to “balancing the budget on the backs of the poor.” An insult to every decent and hard-working American who struggles under the burden of our ever-growing government, this epithet essentially accused the middle class of wanting to extract greater taxation from a segment of the populace that pays no taxes.

 

Yet it was George Bush’s adoption of the phrase “compassionate conservatism” that should have sent up all the warning flags. When attempting to deflect criticism over its usage, he would sometimes demur by claiming that conservatism was inherently compassionate. But more often than not he would reveal his true intent, which was to invent and implement more efficient socialism.

 

He should have been immediately confronted about the logical impossibility of exhibiting compassion by giving out the wealth and property of others. Had Heartland America instantly called him on this, as well as his other forays off into the misbegotten thinking of the left, America might not be facing the abysmal situation threatening it today.

 

Now the country fights desperately to retain whatever vestiges of its national soul remain, in the wake of a massive and dispassionate invasion of illegals, abetted by a President who ardently seeks to give away a country that is not his to give away.

 

The truth needs to be repeated as often as the deceivers in Washington spout their diatribe. The word “comprehensive” in relation to immigration “reform” means only one thing... amnesty. White House assertions that requiring the invaders to jump through a few “hoops” at their leisure, will somehow negate the outrage of amnesty, reflects a viciously insulting condescension towards the American people. The reality is as simple as it is grim, and it cannot be so easily disguised.

 

Promises of eventual border security, accountability by employers, or any other appealing conditions tagged onto the bill are merely “fig leaves” meant to cover its most obscene provisions in order get it through the legislative process so the President can sign it. Amnesty plus anything equals amnesty.

 

Were the President truly committed to uplifting the downtrodden, or any of the other high-sounding ideals that he professes in connection to all of this, he could employ them on a personal basis. He might start by proving his “benevolence” towards the invaders by allowing them to overrun and trash his Crawford Texas ranch just as they have done to so many other places closer to the border.

 

In contrast, his ranch is well guarded from intruders. He need only occasionally consider such prospects when not inside the D.C. “cocoon” from which he can view the world through rose-colored glasses. Yet he demands that the rest of America accept the results of his sanctimony.

 

And those results are increasingly dire. The number of Americans who have lost their lives at the hands of the illegal invaders dwarfs the slaughter of 9-11. The financial costs are a horrendous and increasing burden to those who have played by the rules. Amnesty for the invaders will only accelerate the dismal repercussions that have already ensued.

 

If Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of the liberal cabal have perpetrated crimes against real America by their continued derision of the terror war and their dispiriting propaganda against the U.S. Military, President Bush has done no less in his impassioned advocacy of a force that abrogates and undermines America’s very culture, and his castigation of any who seek the only reasonable means to restore the nation to its former integrity.

 

During his consuming endeavor to implement amnesty, Bush has metamorphosed from impassioned to determined to obsessed. In the process, he has become truly arrogant and indifferent to the fate of real Americans, appearing more sympathetic to the plight of the invaders. One has to wonder if he even recalls, on Inauguration Day in 2001 and 2005, just whose interests he swore an oath before Almighty God to guard and uphold.

 

Nor should his “bipartisan” Senate collaborators be given a pass. By their actions, they are proving that they have already adopted much of the mindset of the third world autocrats from which people are fleeing to what is left of America.

 

The current, shadowy plans to keep details of the latest iteration of the amnesty bill secret until the last minute, and then pass it in dark of night stand as yet more evidence of a governing mindset far more characteristic a of banana republic than of traditional America.

 

Of course the most heinous example of this in recent days is embodied by the comment from Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R.-MS), who asserted that an informed and engaged public constitutes a “problem” that he and his cohorts “need to deal with.” Millions of invaders swarming the country, trashing its laws and hostile to its culture, somehow constitute less of concern to him and his kind.

 

Catcalls of “racism” against the bill's opponents, so typical and indicative of liberal tactics (though they emanate from both parties), must be noted and their authors never forgotten by the electorate. But neither should those Senators who are on record “opposing” amnesty, while clearly not doing all that is within their power to stop it.

 

Ronald Reagan, once a Democrat, changed parties explaining that he had not left the Democrats. Rather, they had left him. Likewise while grassroots Republicans remain committed to the principles that made their party and their country great, George Bush has abandoned critical precepts of what it once meant to be a Republican.

 

The current debate represents a watershed moment for the GOP. Frustration and anger among the base has now exceeded critical mass. If the President is determined to discard the core conservative values of the Republican Party and now holds them in unrestrained contempt, Republican office holders need to publicly oppose him in order to remain true to those values.

 

GOP Senators who still believe in the principles embodied by their party ought to be fighting the amnesty juggernaut as if the very future of the country hangs in the balance, which it inarguably does.