Category Archives: Politics

Chaldean Catholic Patriarch Blasts US For Incompetence In Iraq

Maybe this interview will cause Catholic pundits like Michael Novak and George Weigel to take notes, and do a lot of earnest soul-searching about having supported the neoconservative foreign policy program.

The Americans were here and made many mistakes. The present situation is their fault. Why replace a regime with a situation that is worse? That happened after 2003. The Americans deposed a dictator. But at least back then under Saddam Hussein we had security and work. And what do we have now? Confusion, anarchy and chaos. The same thing happened in Libya and Syria.

But I wouldn’t hold my breath.  Novak & Co. are at least as likely to accuse the patriarch of flirting with bigotry, since he makes the “racist” claim that “[i]t is impossible to establish here a democracy on the Western model.”

Personally, I think His Excellency errs in criticizing the West’s lack of interest in the situation.  Were I in his shoes, the last thing I’d want is more deranged Western busybodies poking their noses into Iraq.  In lamenting the flight of Christians from the troubled region and warning that “[o]ur identity is threatened,” the patriarch reveals that he doesn’t really understand his Anglo counterparts.  A few honorable exceptions aside, American Catholic leaders are no different from other members of the Western political elite, in that they see the elimination of inherited identity and historic community as a good thing.  Hoo-ray diversity!

Preach It Brother Dale, Preach It!

Dale Peterson has another video out. I’m not sure what moral decline has to do with the Auditor’s job, but this is good stuff. It’s the same backdrop as the “Leaving Americans Behind” video. I’m sure it was shot at the same time. I don’t know if he writes this stuff himself. I doubt it. But he sure knows how to deliver it. It feels like an old fashion camp meeting hell fire and brimstone sermon, although I don’t like to hear God referred to as ‘The Big Guy.” It’s too casual.

My Man Dale Peterson is BACK!

OK, this story is not new. I don’t know how I missed it. Peterson is running for Auditor of Alabama. There has already been a four way primary, and Peterson is in a run off. The run off is 15 July.

We posted here about the two run-ins with the law that Paterson had, so I am surprised to see him back on the scene. According to this website from Feb., he was found guilty on both charges and the sentence included some jail time which seems like overkill to me. He is appealing and had a jury trial scheduled for May. I have searched to see what came of that trial date, and couldn’t find anything. Peterson briefly and somewhat cryptically addresses the incidents here. He says he saw some doctors and had some tests and was diagnosed with “short-term memory problems” which he has addressed with medications and vitamins. While the incidents sounded medical to me, and I said so at the time, as someone who knows a little something about these things, I am skeptical that his explanation is giving us all the information, but I won’t publicly speculate further.

That said, Peterson seems to be taking a lower profile this time. Here is his ad for Auditor. It contains the recognizable imagery, but Peterson doesn’t speak.

Here, Peterson goes off on Obama about the Bergdahl prisoner swap.

First of all, I’m not sure what Bergdahl has to do with being Auditor of Alabama. Second, I don’t totally agree with Peterson here. I don’t in principle have an objection to a prisoner swap. As the original Bergdahl as deserter Rolling Stone article we discussed here makes clear, if we were going to end the war in Afghanistan, then we really had to get Bergdahl back. Ending the war and leaving him over there wasn’t really an option. I do, however, think the Administration handled it very badly, which they have no excuse for because the politics of it all were predicted precisely by the Rolling Stone article in 2012. Instead of announcing it like it was some sort of triumph, they should have announced it solemnly and prepared people for the controversy. Obama also was required by law to inform Congress, and his failure to do so should be pursued.

That said, I still find something very powerful about Peterson’s folksy, down home delivery. As things become less left vs. right and more the Elite and their minions vs. the people, I believe that people like Peterson will help bring that message home. I think it would serve us well to study his presentation. I’m not suggesting people play a role. You have to be who you are. But Peterson is going to be one type in the rebellion. Brainy outsiders like Brat and hopefully a couple of billionaire populists like Perot and Trump will contribute to the mix as well.

Ted Cruz Wins RLC Presidential Straw Poll, Ben Carson Comes in Second

It isn’t news that Ted Cruz won, but it is news, IMO, that Ben Carson came in second. I don’t know that much about Carson. He may be a good guy. And as I have said before, I’m not going to criticize him just because he is a non-traditional candidate, because I don’t think there are any traditional candidates out there so far who would advance our thing. But I have no real reason to think he is some sort of paleo. But this is further evidence that conservatives are desperate for a black candidate so they can say, “See look. We’re not racists.” Do these conservative not realize that this reinforces the liberal PC narrative?

Establishment Hack Republicans in Georgia Legislature Attack Liberty Minded Republican

This story is a couple of days old now, but someohow I was asleep at the wheel and missed it. Once I started hearing about it I looked into the details and was outraged, but I wasn’t outraged at the naivete of an newly elected and obviously green Paulesq Campaign for Liberty backed Georgia House member. I was outraged by the calculated attack by Establishment hack Republicans who staged a piece of grand political theater to attack their right flank and put in his place a upstart who threatened to upset their old boys club.

In brief, Rep. Sam Moore submitted a bill to the Georgia legislature that was intended to decrease the authority of the police to  arrest people based on vague anti-loitering laws. It contained language that would have loosened some restrictions on sex offenders and the hacks saw their chance to pounce on an uppity new House member whose focus on liberty threatens their reason for being. Whether that particular language was good law or not, what is at issue here is not a particular piece of legislation. What is at issue is the fact that a bunch of shameless hacks chose to grandstand rather than attempt to govern rightly. If the language was bad, either from an actual legislative standpoint or from a looks bad politically standpoint, then just calmly suggest to Rep. Moore that he might want to make some changes. For several House members to take to the floor to publically express outrage reeks of an orchestrated political hit job.

Here is some commentary on this travesty that gets it right.

And here.

And here is one that gets it wrong.

I include this particular example, among many that get it wrong, because I posted a comment below it. My comment is a bit harsh, but hardball from hacks begets hardball back.

Give me a break Jason. The Establishment Republicans deliberately used this opportunity to attack someone they see as a threat and not part of the old boys club and YOU KNOW IT! To pretend like this was all a legitimate uprising because of some truly awful offense is a deliberate sham. Any issues with the bills, whether actual or just potential opportunities for grandstanders to make rhetorical political hay, could have been addressed in a measured sensible way in a back room somewhere as is usually the case. More senior members of the party who were actually interested in right governing instead of striking a blow against their right flank would have quietly made suggestions to Rep. Moore with an eye toward protecting a new member rather than grandstand like a bunch of shameless peacocks. They have taken a page stright from the PC Cultural Marxist rightthink enforcement playbook with their “point and sputter” and feigned outrage game playing. Pretending not to recognize this does not make you a “statist” or a “patsy.” It makes you a co-conspirator. And I dare you to forever sacrifice your credibility as a political commentator to here for all the world to see pretend that you don’t realize that this was about political game playing and not about the merits or lack thereof of any piece of legislation.

I hate it when the left uses these tactics, but I expect it from them. It’s what mindless morally stunted leftists do, but when supposed conservatives do it to their right flank, it makes my blood boil.

Update: Here is an article that gives an explanation of the background of the bill.

The Libertarian Alliance (UK): “Paleoism and the Traditional Britain Group”

Here is an interesting article from The Libertarian Alliance blog, a libertarian organization based in England. The article does a good job of chronicling the “paleolibertarian” phenomenon of the ’90s. Paleolibertarianism seems to mystify some people, so I thought it was worth posting.

In January 1990, Lew Rockwell wrote in the magazine ‘Liberty’ on ‘The Case for Paleolibertarianism’[1]. In this manifesto, he argued that while libertarians are often correct in their criticisms of conservatives, conservatives are often right in their criticisms of libertarians. He cites people like Russell Kirk and Robert Nisbet, with the latter claiming that libertarians were drifting so far from conservatism that they were coming to view the “coercions of the family, church, local community and school” as almost as corrosive of liberty as that of the state.

In this paleolibertarian manifesto, Rockwell states that if libertarianism is to make any real progress, then it must do away with its “defective cultural framework”, stating that Western civilisation is worthy of praise and that social or ‘natural’ authority – like the authority of the family, the church, the local community and the school – is essential to a free society. Libertarianism’s cultural framework had become a blend of moral relativism, egalitarianism, modernism and libertinism with the modal libertarian often conflating legality with morality. In addition to the error of assuming that because X must be legal, X must also be moral, the modal libertarian had conflated freedom from aggression with freedom from social authority, tradition, and bourgeois morality.

See more here…

Hat tip to my FaceBook friend Rex May, whose post directed my attention to this article.

Cross posted with some slightly different wording at Independent Political Report.

Some Advice to Libertarians

This post is inspired by New Year’s Eve.

If libertarians really want to broaden their appeal to redneck types, they should focus their legalization battles on fireworks. A lot of self respecting rednecks aren’t going to want to be associated with legalization of pot and prostitution even if they might secretly want to indulge on occasion*, but every red-blooded American wants the legal right to set off fireworks free from the fear of snitching neighbors and pesky police. :-)

* Present company excepted, of course.

A Couple of Links on the Budget Deal

We criticized Jack Hunter here for his PC inspired backtracking, but that doesn’t mean he is no longer capable of good commentary. Here is a Hunter column on the budget deal. The GOP can’t be trusted to cut spending because they are too wedded to big spending on the military. Military spending is the untold story behind why so many Republicans went with Ryan’s budget cave. On a side note, I guess Hunter is back with a regular column at The Daily Caller. I suppose his Politico mea culpa was the price of re-admission.

We also recently criticized Jim Antle for his attempt to finesse the Mandela issue, but he is still capable of good commentary as well. Here he is on the budget deal. He sees the budget deal as what it is, a big cave-in for the House GOP.

Potential 2016 GOP Candidates not Looking Good

Here is a Townhall 2016 straw poll. Vote if you like. It’s quick. You do have to enter your e-mail which will get you on some e-mail list, but I already get Townhall e-mails so no biggy. You can also always unsubscribe. I post this mainly to illustrate how abysmal the potential 2016 lineup is. I voted other/none of the above because write-in were not allowed.

Here is the list of candidates:

Jeb Bush, former Governor of Florida
Benjamin Carson, Doctor of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University
Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey
Ted Cruz, Senator from Texas
Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana
John Kasich, Governor of Ohio
Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska
Rand Paul, Senator from Kentucky
Mike Pence, Governor of Indiana
Rick Perry, Governor of Texas
Marco Rubio, Senator from Florida
Paul Ryan, Congressman from Wisconsin
Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania
Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin
Other/None of the Above

What a sorry lot. Rand Paul is the closest to acceptable. As I said before, we need to start talking up potential acceptable GOP primary candidates and potential Constitution Party and Libertarian Party candidates.

Here is the comment I left.

There is no one in this list that represents non-interventionist conservatives. Rand Paul comes the closest, but he has already drifted too far away from the principled non-intervention of his father. I will not vote for a GOP interventionist. If they don’t do better than this it will be third party for me in 2016.

Rubio Giving Up on “Comprehensive” Immigration “Reform”

Rubio appears to realize that a big “comprehensive” immigration “reform” bill isn’t going anywhere fast in the House. Now he is suggesting a piecemeal approach.

Politico is declaring immigration “reform” dead for 2013.

It is easy to get discouraged, but we can sometimes make a difference. Washington does listen to the people when we make them. Like they are doing here, and like they did on Syria. That doesn’t mean it’s not coming back, but I doubt it will ever pass a GOP controlled House.

Did Rand Paul Flub the ObamaCare Battle?

I thought he was flubbing it all along. He was too tenative and wishy-washy, and he let Ted Cruz get way out ahead of him. He voted no on the final bill, but at that point his no vote was an easy call.

Steve Deace agrees. His thoughts are very similar to my thoughts. The Rand Paul part is one of ten “Lessons Learned.” The whole article is worth a read.

Rand Paul is still not sure who he is

He almost always votes the right way, but Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is certainly not his father—for better or for worse. He gets much closer to gray areas than his father ever did, flirting with disaster before eventually choosing the right side. He did on both the big fights this year—first with scamnesty and now with the defund Obamacare effort. He appears to be trying so hard to make himself a national figure in time for a 2016 presidential run that the identity that launched him in 2010 is being lost in the process. Is he the heir to his father’s revolution or has he become Ditch McConnell’s sidekick? You can’t be both. It appears he has yet to decide, but he better decide quickly. The passive-aggressive act is wearing thin with many liberty people I know, let alone dampening his efforts to successfully reach out to social conservatives.

Even Paul’s post no vote statement was weak and uninspiring.

Sen. Rand Paul today voted no on H.R. 2775, as amended, that will suspend the debt ceiling until February 7, 2014 and fund the government thru January 15, 2014.

 “Tonight, a deal was struck to re-open the government and avoid the debt ceiling deadline. That is a good thing,” Sen. Paul said. “However, our country faces a problem bigger than any deadline: a $17 trillion debt. I am disappointed that Democrats would not compromise to avoid the looming debt debacle.”

And this is after he had already tried to straddle the fence. See here and here.

I’m not a fan of Ted Cruz’s foreign policy, but Rand got played by Cruz here.

Rand is being too cautious for his own good. Someone needs to remind him that he’s an Eye Surgeon. He’ll still be able to make a living if he loses his current job.

The Week in Street Theater

Matt Parrott details his encounter and fisticuffs at a Tim Wise conference.  He notes that this past week, Matthew Heimbach –mentioned on this site here, and here, was disowned by the League of the South this week.

_____

Alternative Right notes that the leaders of the EDL in Britain more or less flipped.

The move was actually supported by neocon b-listers Geller and Spencer.

For some context or perhaps just juxtaposition on timing: last month, in the post-Brevik Norway elections, the ‘right’ won.

_____

A New Jersey man committed the ancient extreme form of political theater, self-immolation, in Washington DC a week back, and was barely reported on. 

The apparent anti-Trayvon Martin had been gunned down the day before, with her baby in the back seat and retained top billing as the Congress bravely backed the security services for fending off such a threat.

_____

Jesse Ventura, Roger Stone, and now Jerome Corsi, are all riding new books on the JFK Assassination, and if you have to ask, none of them support the Lone Gun Man theory.

 

Senator Isakson Is Going to Vote Against Syria Strike

One of the Senators I wrote to below, is going to vote against the Syria Resolution.

Dear Dr. Phillips:

You have recently written in to my office regarding the use of military force in Syria, and I wanted to provide you with an update. If you do not want to receive this type of update in the future, please fill out the webform on my website and choose “DO NOT SEND ISSUE UPDATES” from the drop down topic list.

On August 21, 2013, chemical weapons were used in an attack that killed over 1,000 Syrian citizens, including women and children. President Obama asked Congress for authorization to use military action against Syria in response to this attack on August 31, 2013. I believe it is appropriate for the president to seek authorization from Congress.

The decision to use U.S. military forces is not one that I take lightly . Over the past week, I have traveled my state and have talked personally to hundreds of Georgians. Thousands more constituents have contacted my office by phone and email. It is clear to me that Georgians overwhelmingly oppose our country getting involved militarily in Syria.

After carefully weighing this very important issue, I have decided that I will vote against the resolution to authorize a U.S. military strike in Syria.

The administration’s lack of a clear strategy is troubling, and the potential fallout following a military strike is also troubling.

Thank you again for your interest in this subject. Please visit my webpage at http://isakson.senate.gov/ for more information on the issues important to you and to sign up for my e-newsletter .

Sincerely,
Johnny Isakson
United States Senator

We often don’t have much powers as citizens and voters. Often the Congress does what it wants despite the wishes of the people, such as with amnesty and immigration. But Senators and Congressmen are not entirely immune to public pressure. Sometimes our efforts can make a difference. Isakson is a very establishment figure. I have no doubt that had public sentiment not been so one-sided against intervention that he would have lined up behind the President. Let’s keep the pressure on.

A Couple More Write-in Suggestions

Below, I suggested that we need a coordinated campaign to write-in a candidate in 2016 Presidential polls given the dismal list of potential candidates that currently make the list.

Here are a couple more:

Mike Church – He’s hard core and he has a platform. Plus he describes himself as a paleoconservative.

Paul Craig Roberts – He actually has a plausible Presidential resume.

Who Should I Write-in in 2016 Presidential Polls?

OK, so the 2016 polls are starting to appear in my inbox and as pop-up ads, etc. The current list of potential candidates is abysmal and depressing. It includes RINOs like Chris Christie and so called conservatives like Rick Santorum and Jim DeMint who are just mainstream movement cons of one degree or another and are therefore wrong about all the things mainstream cons are wrong about (foreign policy, surveillance/police state, trade deals, etc.) Rand Paul is the best of the lot, but is off my list because of his PC pandering and waffling on immigration and foreign policy.

The problem is, as far as I know, there aren’t any rumored paleoish candidates to talk up. Worse, there aren’t really even that many paleoish figures who aren’t rumored that can be credibly talked up. I’m sure our constant critic Sav and others would say this points to a failure of paleoism and perhaps they would be right, but that doesn’t solve our immediate problem of who to tout as a potential candidate.

Here are a few thoughts. Let’s discuss it.

Potentially Serious Candidates:

Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions comes to mind. I haven’t heard him talked up as a candidate, but if he did run he would be serious because he is  a Senator. He has been by far and away the best person in the Senate on the immigration issue. The problem is that Sessions is generally wrong on foreign policy and police state issues. But because Sessions has  been so out front on immigration, a vote for him could be seen as an endorsement of immigration restrictionism. As an actual vote, it might be hard to justify, but as an exercise in immigration issue message sending a case could be made for writing him in. (For the record, I consider immigration the most important issues because all the other issues [abortion, taxes, spending, etc.] hinge upon its outcome. Unless current demographic trends are halted, the GOP and by implication any further right alternative party will become irrelevant at the national level.)

Semi-serious Candidates:

Tennessee Rep. John Duncan and North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones come to mind. Neither have the voting record of Ron Paul, but both are know as Republican (relatively) non-interventionists so a vote for either would likely be interpreted as an endorsement of non-interventionism. As far as I know, neither has been seriously discussed as a possible candidate.

Actually Rumored Message Candidates:

Judge Andrew Napolitano has been widely discussed as a possible candidate. He is a natural heir to the Ron Paul Revolution, especially for those unwilling to support Rand Paul. As a widely known Fox News commentator, he is a semi-plausible candidate. A vote for him would be the most direct way of endorsing the continuation of the Ron Paul Revolution. The major problem with Napolitano is that he is absolutely horrible on immigration. He has completely swallowed the libertarian Kool-Aid on the issue.

Ted Nugent has thrown his own name out there. Besides guns and not liking Obama, I’m not sure I know exactly where he stands on other issues, and I’m sure I’m not alone with that. But where The Nuge stands on every issues is hardly relevant. A vote for Nugent is simply a way to stick a great big thumb in the eye of the Powers that Be. As I said before, Nugent is a visceral Red and a vote for him would be an endorsement of visceral Redness.

Pure Message Candidates:

If you want to send a single issue immigration message then you could write in Tom Tancredo. He’s not good on war and peace issues, but since he is so identified with the immigration issues, the message of a vote for Tancredo would not be missed. An alternative might be to vote for Pennsylvania Rep. Lou Barletta, who is also closely associated with the immigration issue but likely not as well known as Tancredo.

Tom Woods has been suggested as a possible candidate and has even addressed the issue. I think Woods would be an excellent candidate. He is articulate and funny. He would put nullification and secession on the table, and since he is a Traditional Catholic he could appeal to cultural conservatives and couldn’t be accused of being an amoral libertine. Also, like Judge Nap, a vote for Woods would be an endorsement of the continuation of the Ron Paul Revolution.

If you wanted to send a pure ideological message of the whole no-compromise package – non-intervention, immigration, Constitutionalism, abortion, anti-Lincoln, etc. – you could write in Chuck Baldwin. Since he has actually run before, the idea isn’t quite as out there as it might otherwise be. Or, on that note, you could write in Michael Peroutka. Peroutka has been the center of some controversy recently since he is now on the Board of the League of the South, so a vote for him would be an even bigger rejection of the status quo.

Those are some of my preliminary thoughts. Discuss.

(FTR, I limited my choices to people that actually could conceivably run for President. So no Patrick Henry for example. If we have a problem of no rumored candidates we can get behind, we might as well start rumors about people who could really run.)

Adam Kokesh to Run for President in 2020

Liberty activist Adam Kokesh says he will run for President in 2020 on a platform of abolishing the US government. He does not say what party’s nomination he will seek. Kokesh is currently in jail on drug and weapons charges.

The former U.S. Marine who served in Iraq plans to someday bring his anti-government views before voters. “ARE YOU RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT? Yes sir, in 2020 on the platform of: orderly dissolution of the United States government. WHY IS THAT A GOOD IDEA? Why is having a federal government a good idea at this point?”

Adam Kokesh believes the U.S. military is more harmful than helpful to American security, and the government — as a whole — has burdened its citizenry with debt.

A stab into the heart of darkness

Liz Cheney’s announcement she’s challenging Sen. Mike Enzi for his Wyoming U.S. Senate seat in the GOP may well be, as Dan Larison “the most pointless intra-party primary campaign ever” on one level. But reading her announcement statement, one sees the clues as to why should try to unseat a popular politician in a state she hasn’t lived in a long time. The words “youth” and “foreign policy” crop up and then you realize what this is about. The neocons/interventionists aren’t getting any younger. New blood is needed, especially in elected positions. Remember, the GOP has only held the Executive Branch for eight out of the past 20 years and most of the people who served in the Bush II Administration were largely long-time foreign policy vets whose young days were the 1970s on Scoop Jackson’s staff. Liz Cheney is one of the few youngsters of this group and she feels her time to exercise here right to power is now, especially when long-term Republicans hopes of capturing the White House again aren’t very strong.

Oh, and who will be funding this little venture? Take a good guess:

Another Republican with extensive ties to the fundraising world predicted that Cheney would collect strong support from national security conservatives, including the influential world of pro-Israel donors.

“She will create a lot of excitement and raise a lot of money among those folks in the pro-Israel community that she and her father have gotten to know over the years,” the Republican said. “We have not seen somebody run as a strong foreign policy platform-based candidate in quite some time. So much of the discussion in the last several cycles has been about domestic issues.”

Indeed, another politician in Sheldon Adelson’s and Foster Freiss’s back pocket. That’s exactly what we need.

To these folks, Enzi is just a speed bump to get what they want. Luckily however it doesn’t take a lot of money to run for Senate in Wyoming and Enzi already has the advantage of incumbency. People in Wyoming already know him. Liz Cheney is going to need all that neocon money just to introduce herself even if she is Dick Cheney’s daughter. Hopefully Wyoming natives won’t cotton to some Jackson Hole millionare carpetbagger and her rich friends theiving their greed. Even if you don’t agree with Enzi on the every question, beating her will an important stab into the heart of darkness that is Cheney family and hopefully end their dark reign over the party and conservatism itself. Indeed, if I was Rand Paul, I’d be Mike Enzi biggest supporter right now. Anything to defeat the daughter of a war criminal, well he has my support.

Now, how do I set up a Pay Pal for Mike Enzi.

Jews Vs. Gentiles

Joe Biden’s recent speech on how influential Jews are and have been opened a hot topic.

Anyone reading of the decline of America disproportionally finds Jewish names, and these should be listed, made known. Just as Germans so fear being called “Nazis” that they embrace liberalism, pay reparations, will do practically anything to not be called a Nazi; it’d be wonderful if Jews were similarly put on the defensive, striving to prove they don’t hate the West.

However, theories as to why Jews attack should not be tolerated. Blogs should remove accusations that Jews are evil as a group. Not only is it false, but it pushes Jews to attack even more fiercely, pushes Jews who weren’t previously enemies into becoming such.

If you tell a German you’ll accept him if he proves he’s not a Nazi, he’ll build you a Holocaust museum. If you tell a German his race is evil, that nothing he does could ever redeem him; he’ll fight you.

Furthermore, it paints us as the aggressors, and as crazy, when we create theories as to why Jews attack. This is to say, theories drive away Gentiles who’d otherwise listen.

Anti-Semitism, in the true sense of the word, isn’t needed. The theories should be censored away. There are Jews who side with the West, Paul Gottfried is a leading example; and it would be wonderful to have more join.