Category Archives: Conservatism

Yawn … SPLC Labels Liberty Alliance a Hate Group

The SPLC has labeled Liberty Alliance a hate group. Liberty Alliance affiliated sites send me a lot of emails, and while they tend to promote articles full of red meat for the base, they are always well within the norm of mainstream conservatism. So the SPLC is essentially naming a mainstream conservative enterprise a hate group because it’s perhaps a more scrappy mainstream conservative group. That’s a reach even by SPLC smear standards.

(The most interesting part of this story is identifying the various Liberty Alliance sites which explains why I often get similar emails from different sites.)

Rare to Partner With Publisher Crown Forum

In an earlier post I commented on the website Rare, which at the time was new to me. But a little research showed me that Rare wasn’t as new as I thought it was and was felt at the time to be struggling. (I’ll look for those links when I have more time.) That said, this is an interesting development.

Rare and Crown Forum, one of America’s leading publishers of politically conservative authors, Tuesday announced the launch of Rare Forum, an exclusive content and marketing partnership to bring conservative writers to a new and broader readership. Rare Forum pairs the best-selling authors published by Crown Forum with the online news and social-media reach of Rare, which has annualized page views of 25 million.

The Rare Forum partnership will highlight exclusive, first-look content from esteemed Crown Forum authors through the Rare platform as well as a speaking series, book forums, and other online events and sites.

Crown Forum publishes many of the most prominent conservative writers, thought leaders, and political figures, including Pulitzer-Prize winner Charles Krauthammer; “The Five” co-host Greg Gutfeld; former Congressman Allen West (R-Fla.); American Enterprise Institute fellow Charles Murray; syndicated columnist Michael Barone; and former presidential adviser Pat Buchanan, among others. – See more at: http://rare.us/story/rare-and-crown-forum-join-forces-to-advance-conservative-voices/#sthash.IfZEslgw.dpuf

Any entity that would tout Charles Krauthammer as a “prominent conservative” or “thought leader” clearly has some things to learn from our standpoint, but this partnership is worth noting because we here at CHT like to cover developments in the conservative movement, and because I suspect we will see more of these sorts of pairings in the future.

Whether these partnerships will allow for greater or lesser entry into the mainstream conservative sphere for dissident conservatives like ourselves remains to be seen. My hunch is that at the Rare level it does not, although I could see a Mike Church or someone like that breaking through. But could something similar be done on a smaller level? New publishing platforms such as Create Space makes publishing a relatively inexpensive venture.

Discuss.

Hat tip: Jack Hunter’s Facebook post.

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.

Thomas Fleming Takes Aim at Left and Right

This is how Thomas Fleming announced his new column on FaceBook:

I’ve posted a deliberately provocative piece on our website.  It should offend all respectable people.  https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/kansas-bleeds-again/

Well, provocative it is, but he is right. Take a look. The right in America is so whipped by its fear of being called bad names, that they can’t make logical arguments. The arguments they need to make are inherently illiberal, but they are afraid to make them. Partially because they have absorbed so much of the ambient liberalism that they believe it, and partially because they fear reprisal. So they often end up making convoluted liberal arguments toward an illiberal end. The argument against gay “marriage” for example, is inherently illiberal because it is based on the rejection of absolute equalism and the defense of righteous discrimination. Reading this you can just see some movement con getting his back up. “I don’t want to discriminate! How dare you!” But yes he does and rightfully so.

Libertarianism: Once more unto the breach

Frequent commenter Cleophus posted this comment in response to my post announcing a permanent Rebellion link to a libertarian web site:

“It’s nice to see that you are coming closer and closer to our way of thinking, ‘Ole Reb! One day soon you’ll wake up and realize that you’re a conservative Libertarian! Come on in, the water’s fine!”

Sorry, Cleophus. Ain’t happening.

Libertarians are too far out there for me. Even in the post you responded to, I noted, “Not sure what their stance is on immigration and border security, but I’ve long advocated that like-minded activists can work together for shared goals despite differences.”

And libertarians are pro-open borders. They believe that society does not exist, and that only the autonomous individual has a legitimate claim to rights. I’ve dealt with that claim before and see no need to do it again.

I will add this: Libertarianism is self-contradictory. There’s a cartoon floating around on the web that shows a man contemplating the globe. The caption reads: “Libertarians: Diligently plotting to take over the world and leave you alone.”

Yes, that’s a problem. As the method actor objected, “What’s my motivation?” The motivation Libertarians claim is self-defeating. Marxists and imperialists are driven by naked power. Nationalists, on the other hand, seek to preserve their own kind. And despite the Marxists’ shrill assertions, they have not an ounce of science or history on their side. We nationalists have Sociobiology as well as the historical record on our side. I’ll put those against airy theories any day.

Mike Church Column on the State of the “Union”

Here is a Mike Church column from the Daily Caller. Recall that we reported below that Church now has a regular column with the DC. The essay’s primary point is about the nature of the “Union,” which Church correctly points out is no longer the type of Union the Framers had in mind. But he also throws in a couple of shots about enumerated powers and moral decline, the latter perhaps distinguishing him from some more libertarian types. This is all quite subversive by mainstream conservative standards. I told you Mike Church is one of the good guys. We’ll see how long he can keep his job.

New York Times Attacks Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Mises Institute, Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods etc.

The New York Times recently ran a front page hit piece against Rand Paul and the usual cast of boogeymen the centrists and liberals trot out every time they have one of their periodic spasms about alleged extremism. They attack a lot of different people and groups, but Rand Paul is the obvious target. He must have them running scared. It would probably blow their poor little pristine mainstream minds to know that some of us don’t think Rand Paul is extreme enough.

Lew Rockwell responds here

Tom Woods responds here (on FaceBook so I’m not sure everyone will be able to see it)

Tom DiLorenzo responds here and here

Bob Wenzel (Economic Policy Journal) responds here and here

Ralph Raico here

Chris Rossini here

Update: Walter Block replies here

Tom Woods replies here on YouTube

Constitution Party Has a New Newsletter: The American Constitutionist

The Constitution Party has a new newsletter out and they have changed the name to The American Constitionist and changed the format a bit. Here is a letter from the CP Chairman. Please excuse the fund raising appeal.

Dear Patriot:

One of the best ways to grow our party is by circulating our monthly newsletter. It carries news of our progress, our take on the vital issues of the day, and provides a platform for our candidates — running for offices ranging from town council to the U.S. Congress.

Now I have the pleasure of introducing you to The American Constitutionist. I urge you to read over the issue, and then send it to friends and allies. It’s another effective way to demonstrate that the Constitution Party means business at every turn.

We have to mean business because the hour is late. In 1884, Congress wrote its oath of office: “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same …”

I believe there are politicians who don’t believe in that oath. They seek to ignore or do away with any Constitutional restraints on the dominance of the federal government in our lives. They seek nothing less than raw political power. The calling of the Constitution Party is to educate and motivate our fellow citizens: we must instill faith and allegiance to the Constitution to protect our liberties.

Does the Constitution have enemies? You be the judge …
•In a television interview during a visit to Egypt, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court asserts, “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” In its place, she recommended, the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or the European Convention on Human Rights.
•New York Times Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak says, “The Constitution’s waning influence may be part of a general decline in American power and prestige.”
•Georgetown University law professor Louis Seidman claims, “Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues, and inflamed our public discourse.”

That is the challenge we face as Constitutionists: the Founding Fathers vision and values are either right and timeless for society, or we adopt situation ethics when it comes to the rule of law and the power of government.

I strongly believe in the advice handed down by Thomas Jefferson:

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government,
so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution
so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

Let the fight for the Constitution be led by the Constitution Party. Read The American Constitutionist to see how you can help — state parties are on the move, a number of campaigns are already off the ground, and ballot access drives are underway.

To ensure success, patriots must invest our time, talent, and financial resources — your gift of $25 or $50 or even $15 helps so much in this election cycle. And I remind you that early contributions are far more effective in setting in place battle plans.

So share our newsletter by posting it on your Facebook page and sending it to friends: TEA party activists, pro-lifers, home schoolers … those who are just one step away from finding a home in the Constitution Party, but haven’t yet got an invitation.

I hope you appreciate the newsletter, and I hope you will invest $100 or even $10 right away. The election is fast upon us, and the fight for the Constitution is our cause.

Sincerely,

Frank Fluckiger
National Chairman

Cross posted at Independent Political Report.

Is Rand Paul the Best Non-interventionists Can Hope For?

My new column “Is Rand Paul the Best Non-interventionists Can Hope For?” is up at Intellectual Conservative. I plan to submit full length columns there more often. Here is an excerpt:

Bolton and King are clearly attempting to counter Rand Paul and his perceived libertarian tendencies, but this says at least as much about the paranoia and absolutism of the uber-hawks as it does about Rand Paul. Among non-interventionists, Rand Paul is widely viewed as a disappointment. The reasons for this warrant a separate article, but suffice it to say that while Rand Paul is better on foreign policy than your average Republican, he is not his father by a long shot.

Principled non-interventionists are often lectured by more pragmatic types that Rand Paul is the best we’ve got so we should make the best of it, but if the uber-hawks want a clear messenger like King or Bolton for their hawkishness despite the presence of more credible candidates who are mostly with them, why shouldn’t non-interventionists yearn for a clear messenger for their cause? While I think the super hawks are dangerously wrong, I admire that they are pro-actively seeking a spokesman to their liking for their message.

Read more…

I would prefer that you comment at IC if you would like to comment, so it looks like my articles are attracking interest. Registration is required. Thanks.

Update: This article has now been added to my personal blog.

Dinesh D’Souza Has Been Indicted for Campaign Fraud

We obviously have our differences with Dinesh D’Souza, but this is an unfortunate development. While he likely technically broke the law, this is a trivial offense and probably done all the time. The real story here is the possibility that he was targeted for political reasons. Recall that D’Souza’s made a popular documentary about Obama. VDARE agrees.

Will the Real Jordan Bloom Please Stand Up

Walter has already commented below on Mark Shea’s recent PC rant against the Dark Enlightenment. Shea’s post is a virtually content free denunciation of wrongthink, but I want to comment on one of the comments. That comment is by Jordan Bloom, and is an eminently sensible response to Shea’s rant. What stands out about it is that Jordan Bloom (or J. Arthur Bloom) is the same guy who recently wrote a hit piece against Richard Spencer and the National Policy Institute for the Daily Caller. We discussed that hit piece here. I replied to Jordan in the comments. I should have replied specifically to his comment, but I wasn’t thinking at the time and just commented in general, so who knows if I he has seen it. So what gives? Does Jordan oppose PC denunciations of wrongthink, or does he engage in them? Will the real Jordan Bloom please stand up.

Mike Church to Get a Weekly Column at the Daily Caller

Here is his announcement copied from his FaceBook post:

IT’S OFFICIAL – Daily Caller’s Jordan Bloom announces “Sad to lose Jack Hunter to Rare Liberty, but excited to announce that next week Mike Church will be debuting a weekly column at The Daily Caller!”

I am humbled to accept this tremendous opportunity to inform and inspire our fellow citizens in the cause of [r]epublicansim and though I fear my meager composition skills are inadequate to the task, I will exert all my energies to the task on behalf of Our Cause. Deo Gratias.

This is a big deal because Mike Church is substantially on our side. He is no shrinking violet. It is good that he will be exposed to a wider and more “mainstream” audience outside our usual echo chamber.

For the 1000th Time … Martin Luther King Was Not a Conservative

Every year in the days leading up to the MLK Holiday, we are subjected to the absurd spectacle of mainstream and other neutered conservatives attempting to claim that MLK was one of our own. This rant is occasioned by several such posts I have seen today on FaceBook. I don’t know whether this is more pathetic or transparent, but it is clearly both. Anyone with any intellectual honesty at all should be able to see through this foolish narrative. It is rank historical revisionism, and I highly suspect that most of the people who do it know this. It certainly does not fool liberals who mock us for it. The only people it seems to fool is the mainstream conservative masses who lap it up. “See, we’re not the racists. It’s those evil Democrats who are the racists.” But I’m not convinced that even most of those folks believe it. It is simply a narrative thay can latch on to to innoculate themselves against charges of wrongthink, and think they can get the better of liberals in a debate.

MLK was a man of the left. This is not debatable. It is a fact. King is sometimes accused of being a communist (either big C or little c) by his opponents who have yet to sell out. While King was never, as far as we know, a Communist, he surrounded himself with Communists, addressed Communist front organizations, and attended a Communist front training facility (the Highlander Folk School). As I said with regard to Nelson Mandela, I don’t really like communist (big C or little c) as an epithet so I don’ necessarily hold his associations against him per se. MLK was a far leftist by the standards of his day and such people were bound to interact with Communists because that was the far left milieu at the time. But his associations with Communists and other radical leftists does contextualize who he was in his time. He is never accused of being a secret McCarthyite, for example, because that is not the milieu he traveled in. This was obvious and taken for granted by people at the time. Conservative voices like National Review and Human Events had no problem placing King on the left in his day. Attempts by conservatives striving to prove they are not politically incorrect to appropriate King and his legacy is a relatively recent phenomenon, and only passes the laugh test because enough time has passed and people forget their history.

The narrative goes something like this: King was allegedly a Republican. It was Republicans who were largely responsible for the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and mean nasty ol’ Southern Democrats who opposed it. If they’re really laying it on thick, they’ll cite Lincoln freeing the slaves and how blacks voted Republican during Reconstruction and for decades beyond. Since the Republican Party is supposedly the conservative party today, ipso facto, King was a conservative. While this is all technically true up to the assertion at the end, it is meaningless.

First of all, it is not even true that King was a Republican even thought this is widely asserted by the craven cons. See here for example. For the sake of brevity, I’ll let the link speak for itself, which it does, although I’ll take up Kings’ opposition to Barry Goldwater below.

That said, yes, it was Southern Democrats along with self-identified conservative (that should tell you something) Republicans like Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley who opposed the Civil Rights Acts, but Southern Democrats and self-consciously conservative Republicans were the conservative element of the day. It was liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans who supported it. Some free-market and small government conservatives will protest that Southern Democrats couldn’t have been the conservative element of the time because they openly loved their pork, which is true, but again largely irrelevant to the point at hand. (A lot of modern conservative Republicans love their pork too, despite their rhetoric to the contrary, but that is for another post.) The two parties have not always been aligned as they are today. The division of the two parties along perceived left vs. right lines was just beginning in King’s day as was the transformation of both parties, which is what makes this all more confusing than it ought to be.

Historically we have traditionally had two parties that were organized around the perceived commonality of interests of a rather diverse coalition of forces. The Republicans were the Court Party and the Democrats were the Country Party, so to speak, and whatever ideological considerations there were were primarily a pretext for self-interest. Since the 60′s, the parties have largely switched roles and taken on the left vs. right dichotomy. White Southerners have migrated to the GOP and blacks have migrated to the Democrat Party, the latter a phenomenon that started with FDR and the New Deal. Now why and how this happened deserves a discussion of its own, but happen it did and racial issues clearly had a lot to do with it. To pretend otherwise, as the PC cons do, is to be willfully ignorant.

The PC preening conservatives sit on their high horses and bash those bad ol’ Southern Democrats, but demographically speaking those old Southern Democrats and their progeny are the modern base of the GOP and they know it, although they may pretend not to. Five Deep South states, including my own state of Georgia, broke the strangle hold that Democrats had had on the “Solid South” when they voted for Goldwater in ’64, largely based on Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act. Did, the alleged Mr. Republican Martin Luther King support Goldwater in ’64? Inconveniently for the PC cons’ tidy little narrative, no he did not. See the link in paragraph 4 above. Most of those same states, again including my own state of Georgia, voted for George Wallace four years later in 1968. This gradual transition of the South from a Democrat to a Republican bastion was seen up through the Clinton elections. That transition is now complete. (And potentially being reversed again due to other demographic forces.)

Do the PC grandstanders assert that all these suddenly enlightened white Southerners who now dutifully pull the lever for Republicans are actually all transplants from the North and Midwest who have demographically displaced those mean nasty ol’ racist Southern Democrats who continue to remain a small remnant of the Democrat Party? In fact, the opposite is the case. It is the migration of liberal whites (along with immigrants) into the South that has made states like North Carolina turn purple. Who were the whites in North Carolina who pulled the lever for Obama in 2008 that gave the state to him? Was it the old Southern Democrat remnant? That is absurd on its face, and again the grandstanders know it. When they bash those mean ol’ racist Southern Democrats, they are bashing their own demographic base. But I guess scoring PC brownie points is more important to them than honor and intellectual honesty.

Regardless of what someone may think about Martin Luther King and his legacy, he was not a man of the right and to argue that he was is intellectually discrediting. The PC cons should just be honest and admit that they have turned over their intellectual man card to the Cultural Marxist Division of PC Rightthink Enforcement, and spare us all, left and right, their farcical historical revisionism.

Addendum: I understand why some conservatives might want to sit out the MLK debate in order to not bring the PC rightthink enforcement apparatus down on their heads. I think it’s weak, but I can understand it. But it is one thing to sit the debate out cautiously and another thing to join in the debate on the side of the Cultural Marxists. Even though their revisionism is obviously inaccurate, their regurgitation of it still feeds into the PC narrative and empowers the PC Beast. As I have said repeatedly, conservatives who feed the PC Beast are fools. They will never keep it from attempting to devour them and the civilization they say they want to conserve. They are contributing to their own demise. This is ultimately what I am decrying even more than the specifics of their MLK retelling.

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.

Regnery, Eagle Publishing Sold to Salem!

Wow! This is big news, but I’m not sure what to make of it. I have mixed emotions. Since Salem is a Christian market focused company, then their new aquisitions are likely to remain socially conservative, but they are also likely to remain pro-intervention, especially in the Middle East. Also, my gut says that too much consolidation is just not a good thing. Salem wants to have additional “platforms” from which to air the same message. There is already too much sameness on the mainstream right.

Hat tip to Richard Spencer who posted the link on FaceBook.

Did Phil Robertson Dis the Confederate Flag?

Here is a NY Post article that alleges that Phil Robertson isn’t too fond of the Confederate Battle Flag. In the typical PC manner, it suggests that this is somehow evidence that Robertson is not a “racist.” You see, according to PC rightthink, respect for the Confederate Battle Flag is  prima facia evidence that someone is a racist. The story is from 30 Dec, but I didn’t hear about it until a comment about it appeared recently on my FaceBook feed. And interestingly, when I Googled to find some more commentary on the issue not much came up. This mention from a blog called The “Right” Scoop seems to accept the PC association in a “See, we told you Phil Robertson wasn’t a racist!” type of manner. (This is so typical of mainstream conservatives to accept the leftists’ PC framing of an issue.)

First of all, proud Southerners should be careful not to get too carried away just yet. This is an account of someone relating what he thinks he saw and heard. These are not Robertson’s own words, and as far as I know he has not commented on the issue. It is possible that he was bemoaning the fact that certain unsavory elements have used the flag for their own purposes, but this is not the conclusion the senario the witness recounts suggests. Mr. Robertson needs to publically clarify his true feelings.

That said, if this is a true recounting of the event, then it is very disappointing. Robertson is old enough to know better, so he doesn’t have the excuse of youth. The modern demonization of the Confederate Battle Flag (CBF) is a relatively recent phenomenon, and Mr. Robertson should know this. The Duke boys proudly sported a CBF on the roof of their car, named the General Lee, on prime time TV in the 80′s. Until fairly recently it was assumed that Southerners would be proud of their heritage. This relentless PC/Cultural Marxist attack on all things Southern is of relatively recent vintage. For some perspective on this, this artcle by Prof. Clyde Wilson should be read again and again. I wish Phil Robertson would read it.

There is a lesson here that conservative (and especially conservative Christian) Southerners who wish to distance themselves from the CBF lest they be tainted desperately need to learn. The PC beast is monolithic in it’s desire to eradicate every stray unegalitarian thought or at least the public expression thereof. (It is my belief that the mind of the typical PC stormtrooper is besieged by unegalitarian thoughts, and their PC shock troop role playing is a form of reaction formation, but that is for another post.). The PC beast is without nuance or subtlety. It doesn’t matter to it that Mr. Robertson’s thoughts on homosexuality are  based on his acceptance of the long held historic teachings of the Christian faith and his belief that God has explicitly condemned the act in His Holy Word. Nope. The senior Robertson has committed wrongthink and must be condemned and re-educated. The same article that says Robertson might not be a racist, begins by saying “Phil Robertson may be homophobic…,” whatever that means. (A more absurdly silly term than homo”phobia” is hard to imagine.)

Conservative (as in traditional/orthodox [small o] more so than political) Christians who wish to maintain the inherently unegalitarian teachings of their faith such as the condemnation of homosexuality and various other sexual practices, the endorsement of gender roles, Jesus as the only means of salvation, etc. need to resist the PC beast with every fiber of their being.  It can not be placated by throwing it sops such as distancing yourself from the CBF. Robertson, if this was his motive, whether thought out or visceral, for his comment on the CBF, is woefully niave to believe so.  If you are a wrongthinker on any issue, you are a wrongthinker in toto. There is no middle ground with this mindless beast. The fight for the CBF very much is the fight for a Christian understanding of homosexuality. The two can not be disentangled.

This is not to say that traditionalist Christians should not denounce malice and ill will based on race, which is not a Christian attitude, but racism has long since ceased meaning just malice or ill will based on race if it ever did. It means any unegalitarian thought. Conservative Christians need to understand this and understand it quickly, lest they empower the beast that ends up eating them and the civilization they created alive.

Tom Woods Calls Out Mark Levin

Mark Levin has been ranting against nullification on his radio program recently. I don’t listen to Levin, but my understanding is that this has been prompted by the attempts of several states to nullify ObamaCare. I don’t know if Levin addresses this directly or not, but I also highly suspect that he is upset with the nullification crowd because a lot of the same people and groups are warning against his Constitutional Convention proposal. (That debate deserves another thread.) Now Tom Woods, one of the people Levin has called names, has challenged Levin to a debate:

This is strong stuff, although I wish Woods had left out the money component. The money gives Levin an excuse to weasel out, not that I think he would have accepted the challenge anyway.

FYI, this is not the first time Woods and Levin have tangled. See here and here.

A Christian/Biblical Case for Non-intervention

Joel McDurmon has an article up at the American Vision website discussing a Greg Bahnsen lecture on the Christian perspective on war. He links to the article from his FaceBook page, which is how I came across it.

Those familiar with Bahnsen and McDurmon will know that they are arguing from a theonomic premise, but one does not have to be a theonomist to understand the importance of making an explicitly Biblical case regarding the proper justification for and conduct of war. Too many evangelical Christians have been cheerleaders for our current interventionist foreign policy. While they may not end up being persuaded, they at least can’t reject out a hand an argument that is based on Biblical exegesis. They will at least, if they are sincere, be forced to examine their beliefs. It is important to have an explicitly Christian argument against war that is not just pacifism out there.

As an aside, as I said in the FaceBook thread, I’m curious what the American Vision boss, Gary DeMar, thinks about this. My FaceBook comment is below:

As a long time conservative non-interventionist, I’m thrilled that Dr. McDurmon is making this case, and glad it is finding a home on the American Vision website. But as a blogger who often covers intra-paleosphere conflicts, I am very curious to know what the boss thinks of this. As far as I can recall, Gary DeMar has been generally supportive of America’s interventionist foreign policy, or at least hasn’t spoken against it. If I’m wrong about this or if DeMar has a had a change of heart I would be glad to know that, but for certain he has vocally spoken out against third party voting which has unfortunately been the only option for conservative non-interventionists for many years.