Conservative Heritage Times

You can’t make this stuff up.

The defense of the NSA program by these two authors is of particular note because of the authors’ affiliation with the Cato Institute that describes itself as “dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace” and having a “strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.” The authors’ article is providing valuable cover for the advocates of the mass spying program.

The authors of the article Kristol is promoting are Cato Institute Center for Constitutional Studies President Roger Pilon and Cato Institute Adjunct Scholar Richard A. Epstein who wrote an attempted sweeping exculpation of the National Security Agency (NSA) and all the branches of the US government for the NSA’s mass spying on phone calls.

These tools say:

Legally, the president is on secure footing under the Patriot Act

Umm … not if the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. And even if a Cato scholar believes the Patriot Act to be technically legal, he should be bashing it as an obnoxious overreach, not using it in an apologia for another obnoxious overreach.

Regarding whether or not the coup at Cato was for the better or for the worse, I think it is safe to say that the verdict is in.

4 Comments »

Obvi Usfraud, the new President of the Vegetarian Institute, who was recently installed following a coup by wealthy donors from the meat packing industry, says that there is a vegetarian case for the recently defeated Forced Meat Eating Bill. In an op-ed piece for no less than the New York Times, he writes:

Last week, senators blocked a compromise measure that would have compelled vegetarians to eat meat, despite polls that showed that 90 percent of the public supported the idea.

I’m a vegetarian who played a role in reducing forced meat eating in the nation’s capital. In 2008, in a landmark case I helped initiate, Heller v. District of Columbia, the Supreme Court declared for the first time that the Constitution protects an individual right to be vegetarian.

But the stonewalling of the forced meat eating bill was a mistake, both politically and substantively. Following a series of tragic cases of protein deficiency, public opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of reasonable legislation forcing vegetarians to eat some meat. There was also plenty in the proposal that vegetarians like me could embrace.

The compromise — carefully negotiated by two moderate vegetarian supporters, Senators Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, and Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania — should be reintroduced in the Senate. I am convinced that, with some modifications, it could still be passed, because it would add reasonable protections for both vegetarians and those concerned about protein deficiency.

Sounds reasonable to me.

2 Comments »

Those who thought Ed Crane’s ouster from Cato would be bad for the allegedly libertarian think tank’s direction, now have more proof.

New Cato President Robert Levy says there is a libertarian case for Manchin-Toomey. He says so in an op-ed in the New York Times. With friends like these?

Whatever the faults of Ed Crane, I doubt he would have written an op-ed in the New York Times defending gun control. What is the point of such a spectacle other than attempting to establish your “reasonable” street cred? I hope the Koch brothers are proud.

10 Comments »

Typical “living breathing” Constitution liberal. This stretches the meaning of the word interpret beyond the breaking point. An interpretation is fixed. It’s static, and it is either accurate or inaccurate or some combination of both. What Bloomberg wants is not an updated interpretation. He wants permission to ignore the accurate interpretation.

2 Comments »

The energetic discussion generated by the question of what organizing principle best advances liberty has been a pleasant surprise to me. Check out the various arguments raised here, here, and here.

Another worthy contribution to the debate is posted at The Classic Liberal. It’s definitely worth reading in its entirety.

Here’s as brief a summary as I can offer of the difference between conservatism and all the other little isms: Conservatism was first described in reaction to the advent of leftism in the Western world, the French Revolution. The Jacobins saw reason as sovereign, and desired to sweep away all the imperfections and irrational practices that they imagined had held mankind back. Burke vigorously rejected that notion, and countered that custom and tradition are sovereign. The accumulated wisdom of an organic society is priceless and irreplaceable.

Click here to continue.

No Comments »

Here is some shocking news from the “dog bites man” department. The new Chairman of the Beltway Libertarian CATO Institute doesn’t think nullification is Constitutional. (The title is misleading. He rests final authority for Constitutional interpretation with the Courts.) Whoda’ thunk it? A PC sensitive cosmotarian eschewing a doctrine that if embraced might get him branded a thought criminal? No way! Such a thing has never happened before.

Tom Woods sets him straight.

10 Comments »

Below I mention Judge Nap’s libertarian immigration problem. In another thread C Bowen praised James Kirkpatrick for having a “plan.” Here is a new VDARE article from James Kirkpatrick (Is that his real name?) called “CPAC 2013: Conservatism Inc. vs. Libertarianism Inc.?” It is a very insightful article. I am growing fond of Mr. Kirkpatrick’s writing. Here is the makings of a paleo ”plan.”

While neoconservatives lectured us that the national interest consisted of becoming a “universal nation” and spreading democracy overseas, the new left-libertarianism tells us the national interest doesn’t even exist.

The good news: the American people simply don’t support root-canal libertarianism.

Which provides an opportunity. There is no reason that immigration patriots should go down with U.S.S. Conservatism Inc. As elite opinion solidifies behind amnesty, immigration patriots gain a political opening for a populist movement that can be anti-corporate, economically nationalist, racially realist—and politically dangerous to “conservatives,” progressives, and libertarians alike.

Immigration patriots can build a new movement that can stand up for the historic American nation that the Beltway Right—libertarian and “conservative”—has utterly betrayed.

9 Comments »

This is interesting news. We have sometimes been critical of FPR (see here, here, here and here), but I consider this good news. As I said in the Policy Review post below, the left has journals for every conceivable niche, but the right has only a few. Likewise with publishing companies. There are all sorts of niche left-wing presses, but very few “conservative” presses and most of them primarily churn out books from “conservative” celebrities. This is a welcome development.

3 Comments »

Scott McConnell has a post up at TAC acknowledging Lawrence Auster’s health issues. He also discusses Austerism. His take on Auster is surprisingly similar to mine. I’m surprised that McConnell is that familiar with Auster, but Auster’s frequent criticism of TAC probably accounts for his familiarity.

18 Comments »

An openly Marxist magazine calls for scuttling the Constitution. Marxists know their projects require the heavy hand of omnipotent government if they’re ever to be implemented. And the whole point of the Constitution (and further reinforced by the Bill of Rights) was to LIMIT the power of the central government.

We are entering the Era of Interesting Times.

2 Comments »

There is something about the spotlight and garnering the praise of others that must be like crack, because once these centrist  Republicans who like to bash other Republicans get a taste of it, they can’t seem to stop. Take a look at this story. I’m not sure what kind of a site BuzzFeed is, but I get the feeling the author may just get what Huntsman is up to. Even the title seems to be needling him a bit.

When it comes to highlighting his party’s deficiencies, Huntsman has never been shy. In fact, his ascent to national notoriety has been fueled and fed by regular, headline-grabbing attacks on the GOP — a habit that has turned him into every Democrat’s favorite Republican, and every Republican’s favorite punching bag.

Since I have already beat up on Mr. Huntsman before, I won’t rehash that old ground. I want to focus on one part of his critique specifically.

“The minute that the Republican Party becomes the… anti-science party, we have a huge problem.”

Anti-science? This may also be a reference to the evolution vs. creation debate, but it is clearly a reference to climate change which is mentioned earlier in the article. The science of climate change aside, since Huntsman’s concerns are allegedly about the future electoral viability of the GOP, then is he suggesting that there is mass popular support for measures that would have a significant impact on carbon emissions? Which policies would those be? Would the GOP improve their electoral prospects if they supported a large increase in the gas tax? Cap and trade? Since that went over so well last time. If championing climate change is such a winner with voters, why did Obama drop it like a hot potato? I think Jon Huntsman is more concerned with making the GOP more acceptable to his social circle than he is about the GOP’s electoral prospects in general.

No Comments »

I have never been hostile to Wendell Berry, but I have never quite understood the veneration some crunchy con/Front Porch Republic types seem to have for the guy. Well now he has come out rather obnoxiously for gay marriage and some conservatives are disappointed to say the least.

“If I were one of a homosexual couple — the same as I am one of a heterosexual couple — I would place my faith and hope in the mercy of Christ, not in the judgment of Christians,” Berry said.

Um Wendell, the Bible condemns homosexual behavior as a sin. The Church has recognized this from the beginning as did Jews before them. Under Jewish law, a law Christians believe was written by God Himself, homosexual acts were a capital offense. That’s pretty serious business.

Of course all Christians place their “faith and hope in the mercy of Christ,” but they don’t get to rewrite the rule book based on modern PC sensibilities. How silly does Berry’s quote sound when we replace homosexuality with some other sins that haven’t yet gotten the PC reprieve.

If I were an adulterer I would place my faith and hope in the mercy of Christ, not in the judgment of Christians.

If I were a thief I would place my faith and hope in the mercy of Christ, not in the judgement of Christians.

This is true, adulterers and thieves should place their faith and hope in the mercy of Christ. It is the only hope they have. But they don’t get to write thievery and adultery out of the list of things condemned by the Bible and go on about their adultering and thieving ways.

9 Comments »

Check out “How Did ‘Conservatives’ Become Lincoln-Worshipers” by our friend Michael at the Southern Nationalist Network. I’m not crazy about the designation “nationalist,” but Michael is doing some good work over there.

1 Comment »

A group of “conservative” “leaders” have issued a statement denouncing Boehner’s Plan B. The group reads like a Who’s Who of Conservative Inc. But this is the problem with opposing Conservative Inc. per se. Occasionally they get something right. They should be opposed when they are wrong and worked with when they are right. Here they are right.

Prominent conservative leaders … scheduled a press conference this afternoon to denounce Speaker John Boehner’s “Plan B” tax increase for addressing the fiscal cliff. Some are accusing Grover Norquist of giving cover to the establishment to facilitate this cave-in and hand President Barack Obama a liberal victory.

Read more…

No Comments »

This is pathetic! I actually didn’t think Norquist would cave. Sadly, I guess I was wrong.

I hope this makes Sean and the rest of the moderation caucus happy. And make no mistake about it, moderation is what this is. You can toss around the names Burke and Kirk all you want, this is not responsible conservatism or realistic conservatism or any other kind of conservatism. It is moderation. It is moving to the center. It is conceding an important element of the fight to the left.

I want to know how Sean and Gallupo and the rest of the gang think it strengthens the Republicans’ hand to cave rather than to go down fighting! Obama stood tall and Boehner and Norquist et al flinched. That’s what people are going to see, and that’s what happened. This makes Obama look large and in charge and Boehner and Norquist look like a bunch of (I’m just going to say it) groveling bitches.

I’ve got news for Boehner, Norquist, and company. All revenue bills MUST originate in the House. The House is controlled by Republicans. The way to tackle this fiscal cliff issue is to repeatedly pass bills making the current tax rates permanent, and let the Dem controlled Senate and the President whine about it. But don’t send then any bills that raise taxes. No tax increase gets to the Senate and the President unless the Republican controlled House sends it to them. Then when we go plunging over the fiscal cliff (which does what the moderation caucus wants anyway – raises taxes and cuts spending ) scream from the rooftops that the Dems forced a tax increase despite the best efforts of the Republicans to hold the line.

Ask yourself this, how do you think Ron Paul is going to vote on “Plan B.”

If the Constitution Party is smart, they should start writing up the press releases now: “Republicans Raise Taxes!”

And for those who decry outside influences holding the GOP hostage, one huge reason why the GOP sees the fiscal cliff as intolerable is because it would cut defense and make the defense contractors unhappy. So again, I hope you’re happy. The anti-tax lobby takes it on the chin and the defense lobby wins.

17 Comments »

No surprise here. Erick Erickson proves once again that he is nothing but a mouthpiece for the Establishment. If any authentic voice of conservative resistance rears it’s head, you can always count on Erickson to quickly attempt to purge it. (See here, here, here, and here) Does he know he’s being a tool of the Establishment in which case he is malicious or does he not realize that he is a tool in which case he is a fool.

9 Comments »

We at Conservative Heritage Times have been inspired by the TAC symposium to do one of our own, although one with more of a paleo edge. I’m actually not sure symposium is the best characterization of this. It is a virtual symposium I suppose. But I’m going with it because we are blatantly riffing (not ripping ) off TAC’s effort.

Not all the people here would be best described as paleoconservatives, and some would not claim that label, but the attempt was to try to get people who might be considered part of the paleo/traditionalist sphere. I asked CHT’s own contributors, plus people I know (both actually and virtually) whom I thought would represent a broad cross section of the paleo/traditionalist sphere, plus some of our regular commenters. Other of our regular commenters volunteered their services.

In order to avoid the appearance of favoritism, I have arranged the contributions in alphabetical order by first name. I am still expecting some more to roll in. They will be added in their appropriate alphabetical order as they do. Please check back frequently and please promote this on Facebook, Twitter, with you email contacts, etc. Thanks, enjoy and discuss. The endorsements commence below the fold. ~ Red

Continue Reading »

30 Comments »

I don’t mean to steal Sean’s thunder below, but I made this post for IPR and wanted to cross post it here. There are some additional links you should be aware of.

TAC has a “symposium” of multiple writers discussing whom they plan to vote for. Some endorse voting for one of the major party candidates and some endorse not voting, but several endorse third party votes or write-ins. Some of the writers include Andrew Bacevich, Justin Raimondo, Paul Gottfried and friend of this website Sean Scallon.

Daniel Larison has a separate endorsement here that wasn’t included in the symposium for some reason.

Samuel Goldman has a separate endorsement here because Hurricane Sandy precluded his participation in the symposium.

Here is a summary of the endorsements.

Johnson — 6 (Bandow, Brimelow, Galupo, Giraldi, Goldman, Kauffman, Larison if he could, Bovard if he doesn’t write in Ron Paul)

Romney — 4 (Coombs, Pinkerton, Tippins, Zmirak, Antle and Birzer leaning)

Obama — 4 (Bacevich, Hadar, McConnell, Millman, Giraldi in a pinch)

Goode — 1 (Scallon, Brimelow and Gottfried would if they could)

Rand Paul — 1 (McCarthy)

Hapsburg Monarch — 1 (Lind)

Not voting/ambivalent/unclear — 7 (Dreher, Dougherty, Gordon, Murphy, Raimondo [rooting for Obama], Richman, Russello, Beer, Sailer)

11 Comments »

Writing in the New York Times, psychologist Steven Pinker shares his observations about the political differences between Red states and Blue states. Is it nature or is it nurture? From Rebellion.

6 Comments »

Well it’s not really versus, but versus makes for a more intriguing title.

Anyway, Scott McConnell responds here to a comment Tom Piatak made in a previous thread. Read McConnell’s post, but to sum it up briefly he suggests that the problem for the middle class is less the underclass from below (the Obamaphone lady) and more the elite class from above which has disconnected itself from America. He makes a good point, but it isn’t either or. It’s both, a point Paul Gottfried makes in the comments section.

My (somewhat intemperate in hindsight) comment is below. It addresses the issue and expresses my frustration with the TAC style of critique.

34 Comments »