Conservative Heritage Times

I don’t know that much about the structure of American Vision, but I assume I am correct to call Gary DeMar Joel McDurmon’s boss.

Anyway, Gary DeMar recently wrote a tired apologia attempting to make the case for why Christian conservatives should vote for Bankster/War Party Candidate B so that Bankster/War Party Candidate A won’t get another term. I replied to his article here.

So I was a bit surprised to see this Sept 25th post by Joel McDurmon which might not make the boss too happy. McDurmon links to a Mediaite column that is critical of a couple of Breitbart columns imploring Ron Paul supporters and libertarians to support Romney in the name of stopping Obama. The Breitbart columnist even had the audacity to invoke the Constitution when mainstream “conservatives” spent the whole primary calling Paul and his supporters bad names for actually wanting to follow it. While McDurmon doesn’t explicitly call for Paul supporters to vote third party or write in Paul, he linked to an article that is clearly hostile to the idea of voting for Romney. McDurmon recently wrote a book on the Bible and war that may explain his seeming sympathy for Paul.

What is so baffling about Gary DeMar’s refusal to consider third party voting is that Reconstructionists similar to DeMar have been the most likely to make the case for a Christian voting ethic that precludes simple lesser of two evils considerations (William Einwechter, Doug Phillips, Michael Peroutka, John Lofton). Also, Reconstructionists make up a disproportionate share of the Constitution Party.

Hopefully McDurmon’s good instincts will rub off on DeMar with time.

3 Comments »

Here is Ron Paul’s take on the fiasco in Libya. This man is so wise. Too bad GOP primary voters didn’t see it that way.

The attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and the killing of the U.S. ambassador and several aides is another tragic example of how our interventionist foreign policy undermines our national security. The more the U.S. tries to control the rest of the world, either by democracy promotion, aid to foreign governments, or by bombs, the more events spin out of control into chaos, unintended consequences, and blowback…

…There is danger in the belief we can remake the world by bribing some countries and bombing others. But that is precisely what the interventionists – be they liberal or conservative – seem to believe. When the world does not conform to their image, they seem genuinely shocked. The secretary of state’s reaction to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was one of confusion. “How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction,” she asked.

Read more…

7 Comments »

If one is concerned about about Jesse Benton moving over from Ron Paul’s campaign to Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell’s, I would advise you to forget Jesse Benton, who, if you believe Penny Langford-Freeman, is a buffoon who many members of the Paul “family” consider the sap of the tree.

But even the black sheep are useful if you have strict, defined roles for them to carry out and for Jesse that’s being an intermediary between the Pauls and the media and others persons outside of the “Family”, which is basically what he did for the 2012 campaign. He decided who got access and who didn’t, sort of a castle guard if you will as Tom Woods and Adam Kokesh and others found out to their chagrin. And it allows the media to see him as the fellow in charge (even though he never was “officially” campaign manager) and see the Pauls as a family operation while the real decisions were being made by Rand, Trygve Olson and John Tate and Debbie Hopper. Indeed if you believe Langford-Freeman, Jesse’s role was basically to speak out loud whatever Olson would whisper to him. Olson, whose former role in the politico-intelligence field was destabilizing governments, probably prefers working incognito, being the power behind the throne than having a public role. If you understand this then you’ll understand Benton’s usefulness in being a front man.

Continue Reading »

1 Comment »

It’s not as bad as McCain’s Gulag of 2008 of the 2012 version of the Republican National Convention isn’t much better from a Ron Paul delegate. From the new rules passed which try to limit grassroots activism to the expulsion of legally elected delegates, Republicans have basically shown they don’t care if the millions of Ron Paul voters gathered over the past five years vote for Mitt in the fall or not.

If would not have cost Mitt or the RNC much if they had allowed the Paul delegates to be seated and his put in nomination (after all Mitt had over 2,000 delegates voting for him). Since the voting occurred on the first day of the convention instead of the third (and deliberately so) and out of prime-time, nothing more would be thought about and nothing said. Romney would have won anyway, the Paul delegates would been satisfied and the convention would go on to proceed as normal. That measures were taken not only to NOT give Ron Paul a moment in the sun but to make sure no such candidacy like his in the future can ever take place smacks one of paranoiac fear. For a party that backs devolving the power of the Federal government down to the state and local levels to concentrate its own power in Washington D.C. is truly an amazing admission of hypocrisy, their own views apparently not good enough to govern themselves.

These last few weeks and even moths have been a boon to Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson. By abandoning the GOP Presidential nomination race, knowing full well his candidacy would be smothered by Paul’s, Johnson has positioned himself to take up Paul’s mantle at least for the fall campaign (At least for half of Paul’s supporters. The other half will stay loyal to Rand and the GOP).

Of course it’s easy to say Johnson supporters will find out in early November what Paul supporters found out in late August, the system is rigged against you no matter which path you take. But Paul would have never have created a movement of millions of voters without at the very least competing in the Republican primaries of ’08 and 12 and Johnson may well carve out a niche for himself too this year. If he’s able to break the LP record for votes (held by Ed Clark 1980), if he’s able to get a decent percentage (5% would have them dancing in the aisles) and if his vote totals in states like Nevada, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire are big enough to cost Romney wins in those swing states, then he can make the plausible argument the LP has a potential future with young voters (presumably Paul’s voters) while GOP still has it’s generation problem.

Johnson’s numbers may well prove to be the most interesting thing to watch this November and if they turn out well for him then Mitt could will be muttering to himself on Election Night: “I should have let them have those Maine delegates.”

2 Comments »

Political conventions in this day and must be hell on reporters looking for actual news to write about instead of being on a week-long junket. But a enterprising political reporter (the exception being Dave Weigel, who will be too busy making love to Jesse Benton to report on anything useful) looking for a story at the upcoming GOP convention in Tampa (presuming it goes off with being disrupted by a hurricane) will find it covering the Ron Paul Movement because it will be in Tampa that movement will more than likely split itself in two.

The Republican Party establishment and the Romney campaign are doing their level best to keep out Paul delegates from the convention. That was to be expected. What was not expected was Romney Campaign being aided and abetted by the Paul Campaign. By agreeing to a deal to split the Louisiana delegations between Romney, Santorum and Paul instead the of the plurality Paul delegates would have had (and may well have been upheld by the RNC), the “official” Paul campaign took away the one state which would have given it the five states and or territories needed to nominate Paul from the floor of the convention (which would have given him an unscripted 15 minute speech as well). With the Paul campaign actively discouraging its delegates from trying to nominate Paul anyway and also look good for the cameras, it’s obvious that the game is up  as far as the campaign goes.

Continue Reading »

15 Comments »

Matt Johnson is whining about Ron Paul’s non-interventionism and opposition to foreign aid.

Philip Giraldi responds at TAC.

According to Giraldi, Johnson is an Obama supporter. All the “conservatives” who support foreign interventionism should note how Johnson’s interventionism naturally springs from his default internationalism. It makes sense, however misguided it may be. Conservatives who distrust the UN, are jealous of American sovereignty, etc. but also think America must police the world, are working at cross purposes.  Their position lacks the internal consistency of Mr. Johnson’s even though they get it half right.

I do agree with one thing Mr. Johnson wrote however: “Ron Paul is one of the most reactionary candidates in recent history…” Darn right! That’s why we love him. In our sad society, enforcing the Constitution is reactionary.

No Comments »

The fecklessness of the Romney campaign is really starting to irritate and concern conservatives and Tea Partiers. This would be a grand opportunity to score points on Romney and broaden our support with those concerned Romney is just another McCain/Bush/Dole.

But the “officials” of the Ron Paul  campaign for President capitulated because they thought Romney Victory Special Train was leaving the station and wanted to get on board. Now what? Do they want to jump off? Not with Rand and Trgvye (no need to mention Olson’s sock puppet) still riding the caboose.

That’s why Ron isn’t doing any more big rallies or really, not much of anything for pretty much two months until the RNC in Tampa despite sitting on a three million plus war chest. It’s too bad really because there were many areas to highlight differences with Romney which may have made at least some conservatives see Paul’s delegates as a potential use of leverage against Romney, perhaps reopen the whole nomination process instead preparing to go down with the ship again. Even if they didn’t like him he was there to shake up the process if needed.

Now it seems like everyone is off marching to a certain doom, perhaps wanting to do something else but not brave enough or wise enough to do it all in the name of “party unity”. Hopefully RP’s delegates and supporters in Tampa won’t be quite as sheep-like as Jesse Benton would like them to be.

4 Comments »

WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Ron Paul issued the following statement on the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

“I strongly disagree with today’s decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised. The Court has a dismal record when it comes to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.

“Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a ‘mandate.’ The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don’t. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of “Obamacare” without paying a government tribute.

“Those of us in Congress who believe in individual liberty must work tirelessly to repeal this national health care law and reduce federal involvement in healthcare generally. Obamacare can only increase third party interference in the doctor-patient relationship, increase costs, and reduce the quality of care. Only free market medicine can restore the critical independence of doctors, reduce costs through real competition and price sensitivity, and eliminate enormous paperwork burdens. Americans will opt out of Obamacare with or without Congress, but we can seize the opportunity today by crafting the legal framework to allow them to do so.”

2 Comments »

There is fear out there expressed by those in the Republican Party, the Romney for President campaign, even the Ron Paul for President campaign about the behavior of Paul supporting delegates and Paul supporters in general at the upcoming GOP National Convention in Tampa.

What does Ron Paul want? Will be  speak at the convention? Will he be nominated? Will his supporters be disruptive?

In the context of the modern political convention, which instead of being a deliberative body is a really a tax-payer funded love-in for the nominated candidate, this is an important question. Because these are made-for-TV events, any kind of appearance of disruption of routine party business by parliamentary wrangling of appearance of disunity is frowned upon severely. Everything is meticulously planned and scripted and any deviation from that plan could present an image problem for the folks watching about the candidate the convention will nominate.

For example, there’s talk Ron Paul could have himself put into nomination for vice-president by his delegates forcing a roll call vote which hasn’t happened at a convention since 1972. That will throw everything off schedule if it happens.  Just ask George McGovern.

Given this situation, it would seem the Paul supporters would have some leverage with the Romney campaign and the party leadership. Give us what want and we’ll give you decorum. Instead negotiations seem to be happening from the opposite direction. The party seems to be saying either give us decorum or you will have no role at the convention. This is largely due to the fact the upper-echelon of the campaign, persons-like campaign manager Jesse Benton, his string-puller Trygve Olson and the man they want to work for in 2016, Sen. Rand Paul, are looking ahead and trying to make sure Ron Paul supporters and delegates don’t come off in Republican eyes like the protestors at 1968 Democratic National Convention.

You hear the word “respect” more and more from persons in the Paul campaign. No doubt there are those within the campaign who believe their own supporters are an unruly mob and have said so publicly. They’ve gone so far as to schedule their own gathering at Tampa to keep Paul away from grassroots sponsored events festivals schedule the week. Shouldn’t respect be a two-way street? How much respect should Paul supporters be forced give while the Romney campaign forces out Paul supporters from the Massachusetts delegation,  and acts in questionable if not downright illegal ways to secure delegates in Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arizona and attack and arrest Paul delegates in the process?

The only “respect” Paul delegates at the convention should show is to the taxpayers who have the fund these Nuremburg-type rallies and make them actual democratic events again. If that means things go off schedule, so be it. Paul delegates can make history by changing again the nature of a political party convention away from spectacle to an actual gathering where there’s debate and discussion and votes, the kinds of things that actually happen in democracy. If left to their own devices I’m sure these delegates would do just that. But I am worried that biggest division in Tampa will not be between Romney and Paul, it will be between and Paul supporters and their own campaign.

2 Comments »

Crossposted at IPR.

I wanted to pass on some reaction to Rand Paul’s endorsement of Romney, but instead of making each one a separate post, I’ll just post several links below.

Here is Dylan Hales’ take on the Rand Paul endorsemnet of Romney from The American Conservative blog.

Speaking personally, my biggest issue with the endorsement was the ”how.” I had expected Senator Paul to endorse Mitt Romney and in some sense believed it was wise politically (as I believed it was wise for then New Jersey senatorial candidate Murray Sabrin to endorse John McCain in 2008.) I did not expect him to nod in agreement as Sean Hannity alleged a massive difference between Romney and President Obama on Obamacare, nor did I expect to hear him give a lengthy endorsement of Romney’s policy positions that included a generous appraisal of the former Massachusetts governor’s position on the Federal Reserve and a lengthy (by television standards) discussion of the Romney’s “mature” foreign policy. It is one thing to say “I am a Republican Senator from he great state of Kentucky and like the majority of my state I will gladly vote for our parties nominee in November.” It is quite another to tout Mitt Romney as a man with a sensible foreign-policy vision…

Daniel Larison responds to Dylan Hales.

What makes this part (foreign policy) of Sen. Paul’s endorsement so unfortunate is that it was entirely unnecessary. There were several ways that he could have handled his differences with Romney on foreign policy that would have been more satisfactory. The easiest would have been to fall back on the overused line that someone in agreement with you 80% of the time is your ally. That would not have created the impression that Paul believes Romney’s foreign policy to be sound. One has to hope that Paul doesn’t actually think this, but that is what he said. At the same time, it would have avoided emphasizing those differences when the point of the endorsement is to do the opposite. Another way would have been to find some foreign policy issue where he and Romney are more or less in agreement, if there is such a thing. Perhaps he could have found some common ground on foreign aid spending. Failing that, it would have been better to avoid saying anything on the subject…

Daniel Larison dedicates an entire column to the issue at The Week.

While Rand is not as strictly non-interventionist as his father, no one could confuse him for a hawk in the mold of Florida’s Marco Rubio. When the Kentucky senator praised Romney for his “mature” foreign policy and asserted that the Republican nominee believed war should be a last resort, he hurt his reputation with his strongest supporters and undermined the critique of Republican foreign policy that has been central to his father’s message. No less important, Rand provided Romney with valuable political cover for a foreign policy that appears to be every bit as reckless as that of George W. Bush.

The Atlantic Wire has a story on how Ron Paul supporters are “Fuming Mad.”

With Ron Paul’s diehard supporters being one of his most formidable assets, especially when it comes to winning straw polls or online money bomb fundraisers, you’ve got to wonder if Rand Paul risks jeopardizing the family brand.

And last but not least, IPR commenter Sean Scallon had this to say.

Sen. Rand Paul had to know his endorsement of Mitt Romney would carry little weight with supporters of his father’s Presidential campaign, especially those of a more libertarian mindset or those with no long-standing loyalties to the GOP . Then again maybe that’s the idea.

Not that Rand wouldn’t eventually endorse the GOP nominee whoever it was as a party member and sitting U.S. Senator. What surprised many Paulities was how soon and how enthusiastic he was about it and he how plans actively campaign for Romney in the fall. In so doing he will be on the record supporting the foreign policy platform of the Romney campaign which is diametrically opposed to the things his father beliefs in and ran his campaign’s on. Indeed, some may wonder if Ron Paul so far can’t bring himself to make such an endorsement, then why is Rand so eager?

Obviously a lot of this has to do with Rand’s ambitions for 2016. He wants to be seen as a party man, of mainstreaming the Paul movement inside the party…

6 Comments »

Editor’s Note: This is severeal days old, but I hastily posted it at IPR several days ago, and I have since been mostly without computer access due to a work related trip. I’m interested in what our readers think of it. ~ Red

by Darrell L. Castle
Constitution Party

Last Friday’s endorsement of Mitt Romney by Senator Rand Paul conjured up images of how George Washington must have felt when betrayed by his trusted general, Benedict Arnold. That’s way too harsh, you may say, because Washington was betrayed when his countrymen were fighting for their lives and the life of their nation against the greatest empire on earth at that time. Benedict Arnold traded his honor for position and power with the empire and as a result his name has been forever synonymous with treason and deceit.  I can’t help but conclude that Rand’s endorsement of Romney falls into the same category of deceit. Those of us in the liberty movement are struggling to survive against an even more powerful empire than that which existed in Washington’s day.  Rand has not only set the liberty movement back but perhaps has also destroyed his father’s legacy.

Why he would do it is the question that begs for an answer. Did he do it because he has been corrupted by the Washington power elite with promises of position and power? If so, then he is a deceiver and by definition a corrupt one. In addition his deception will not work because he has underestimated the rage his endorsement has provoked among his followers. Did he do it because he has always been a loyal subject of the Republican leadership and principles really don’t matter to him? If that is true the result is even worse because that makes him a lying hypocrite for pretending to be something that he is not. Did he do it because he wants to be a contender in 2016 or 2020 and needs to exhibit loyalty to the leadership of the Republican Party?

Whatever the reason that Rand Paul endorsed Romney, to many of us in the liberty movement, he just eliminated himself from contention as a Presidential candidate now or in the future. He not only endorsed Romney, he said he would be honored to be Romney’s running mate. He admitted, therefore, that he would be honored to serve with a man who stands opposed to virtually everything his father has represented for his 35 years in Washington. Reaction to the news has been so bad, and has come in such large numbers, that one cannot help but wonder if he did not miscalculate.

The fact remains that it is Ron the liberty movement has supported for 35 years, not his son. Is it possible that Ron did not approve his son’s decision in advance? It hardly seems likely but if so a brief statement to that effect would seem to be in order. The statement would need to be something similar to this—

                Rand is my son and I love him but I do not support his decision to endorse

Mitt Romney. I completely disavow his decision and I have separated myself

from it. Should I fail to gain the Republican nomination, which now seems

likely, I will be giving my endorsement to the Constitution Party’s candidates,

Virgil Goode, and Jim Clymer.

 

That statement would go a long way toward preserving Ron’s legacy as the champion of liberty that he has always appeared to be.

What candidate will you support now that Ron Paul has admitted defeat in his bid for the Republican nomination and his son, Rand, has proven himself to be just another Republican loyalist? I urge you to consider the Constitution Party and its candidates—Virgil Goode for President and Jim Clymer for Vice President. When Ron Paul was eliminated from the Republican nomination in 2008, he endorsed the Constitution Party’s candidates.

The Constitution Party always has and always will lift high the torch of liberty.  Go to http://www.constitutionparty.com and http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com for information about the Constitution Party and its candidates.

6 Comments »

Antle has a post up at American Spectator asking if Paul supporters will be willing to support Virgil Goode. It is referencing Antle’s Goode article at The American Conservative that is linked to in a post below.

So who would the Ron Paul supporters angry at Rand Paul for his Mitt Romney endorsement rather vote for? For the more conservative among them, a candidate is Constitution Party nominee Virgil Goode…

But his foreign policy record is closer to Romney’s than Paul’s…

See more…

7 Comments »

Sen. Rand Paul had to know his endorsement of Mitt Romney would carry little weight with supporters of his father’s Presidential campaign, especially those of a more libertarian mindset or those with no long-standing loyalties to the GOP . Then again maybe that’s the idea.

Not that Rand wouldn’t eventually endorse the GOP nominee whoever it was as a party member and sitting U.S. Senator. What surprised many Paulities was how soon and how enthusiastic he was about it and he how plans actively campaign for Romney in the fall. In so doing he will be on the record supporting the foreign policy platform of the Romney campaign which is diametrically opposed to the things his father beliefs in and ran his campaign’s on. Indeed, some may wonder if Ron Paul so far can’t bring himself to make such an endorsement, then why is Rand so eager?

Obviously a lot of this has to do with Rand’s ambitions for 2016. He wants to be seen as a party man, of mainstreaming the Paul movement inside the party. Indeed the charge is out there that the Paul 2012 campaign had a tactical alliance with the Romney campaign to refrain from attacking each other, an insurance policy which guranteed even if Paul lost he would not be shut out of the GOP convention in 2012 unlike 2008 and his supporters would find a place inside the party. Recent events in Louisiana and Massachusetts lends some weight to these theories. 

But this process was happening already and didn’t require kow-towing to the Romney campaign. Paul supporters have already taken over several state parties this election cycle and their influence has grown steadily in five years. The fact many of these supporters are under the age of 45 means inevitably the future of the GOP belongs to the movement centered around Paul regardless what happens in 2012 or even 2016 for that matter. There’s no need to do anything more for Romney outside of a profunctionary endorsement and there’s certainly nothing Romney would be willing to offer (Rand will not be the Vice-Presidential nominee), short of jettisoning his entire foreign policy advisory staff and promising that neither John Bolton or Joe Lieberman will ever be in a Romney cabinet to make the endorsement a meaningful one for Ron Paul’s supporters to move into Romney’s camp enthusiastically. He can’t deliver, so why pay? Being a vice-presidential nominee on a losing ticket would badly damage Rand’s chances in 2016 and the brutal reality is a  Romney victory would be a disaster for Paul supporters as the first thing the Romney and the RNC will do is to regain control over GOP state parties they’ve lost to the Paulites.

Ultimately this endorsement has everything to do with Rand and how he perceives his political future. And it’s my guess he and those around him who helped him win his Senate campaign in 2010 (like Jesse Benton for example, Rona Paul’s son-in-law and 2012 campaign manager) sees that future without the grassroots supporters which basically created the Paul movement from scratch back in 2007. After all, his Senate campaign was not exactly a grassroots operation. It was professionally run outfit with help from GOP operatives, many of whom now work for Romney. They can easily work for Rand four years from now. One gets the sense Rand and his inner-team wish to rid themselves of people they can’t control, that they believe embarrass them and whom they view as fanatics, unwilling to play the political game.

That’s fine, Rand can do what he wishes. He can even mow Mitt’s lawn if he thinks it will make him more popular with the in-crowd. But he should remember a lot of ordinary people willingly sacrificed their money and their time to create a movement without which Rand would not be where he is today. If he thinks he’s beyond such supporters then he can find someone else to make phone calls for him. Of course, they have robots now which do those sort of things don’t they?

20 Comments »

Sorry, I normally try to avoid sensationalism, but this one is just too good to pass up.

During a heated conversation in the lobby of the Westfields Marriott hotel yesterday, Bilderberg members expressed their desire to see Ron Paul die in a plane crash, according to veteran journalist Jim Tucker’s inside source.

You know Ron Paul is on the right track because the Powers That Be are so bothered by him. You can tell a man by his friends and his enemies. Ron Paul has the right enemies. I seriously doubt many Bilderbergers are wishing Romney dead.

16 Comments »

The bill to ban sex selection abortions failed yesterday. It had more than majority support, but the method by which it was brought up required a two-thirds vote. (This alone should tell you that Republican aren’t serious about passing pro-life legislation.) I bring this up because Ron Paul voted no which is sure to be demogogued by the Paul haters. (Check out the comments already at the first link.)

First of all, If I was in Congress I would have voted for this bill based on the belief that a lower procedural principle (federalism) should not trump a higher transcendent principle (life). Also, the ammo a no vote gives to anti-Paul demagogues who are not going to fairly present his rationale is not worth the upholding of the lower procedural principle in this one case.

That said, Ron Paul did not vote to “murder female babies” and the demagogues know it. Ron Paul’s vote was based on jurisdiction issues and was technically correct if perhaps foolishly consistent.

And how many of these people who say they support life also support wars of choice against Muslim that don’t meet Christian Just War standards?

12 Comments »

Recently Bill Kristol was crowing about how he purged the “Arabists” from the Republican Party.

I first became aware of this story from Mondoweiss. Sorry but I don’t recall how I was directed there. I must have been though because I don’t generally surf to Mondoweiss.

I am still reeling from seeing Bill Kristol hold forth at a debate at Bnai Jeshurun synagogue on the Upper West Side last Tuesday [a short portion of which is above]. He came off as what he is, a Republican Party warlord; and he was treated like royalty. The rabbi said he was proud to host Kristol, and Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street said he wanted to take Kristol with him to the West Bank, and moderator Jane Eisner of the Forward was very respectful, though she got in a jab at Kristol’s “smear” tactics at the Emergency Committee for Israel.

When Kristol gave the self-congratulatory riff from which I’ve gotten my headline—about how all the elements hostile to Israel inside the Republican Party were purged over the last 30 years – no one dared to question the power of the Israel lobby.

An incidental run in with Kristol occasioned this Buchanan editorial on the smarmy Kristol’s claims.

“The big story in the Republican Party over the last 30 years, and I’m very happy about this,” said Kristol, is the “eclipsing” of the George H.W. Bush-James Baker-Brent Scowcroft realists, “an Arabist old-fashioned Republican Party … very concerned about relations with Arab states that were not friendly with Israel… .”

That Bush crowd is yesterday, said Kristol. And not only had the “Arabists” like President Bush been shoved aside by the neocons, the “Pat Buchanan/Ron Paul type” of Republican has been purged.

“At B’nai Jeshurun,” writes Weiss, “Kristol admitted to playing a role in expelling members of the Republican Party he does not agree with.” These are Republicans you had to “repudiate,” said Kristol, people “of whom I disapprove so much that I won’t appear with them.”

“I’ve encouraged that they be expelled or not welcomed into the Republican Party. I’d be happy if Ron Paul left. I was very happy when Pat Buchanan was allowed — really encouraged … by George Bush … to go off and run as a third-party candidate.”

Kristol’s point: Refuse to toe the neo-con line on Israel, and you have no future in the Republican Party.

Here are a couple of other mentions of this story that I got from a yahoo search.

The Kansas Citian

The Southern Nationalist

When some people say … HA…HA…HAAA… SAVROLACHEWWWW………!!!! Oh, excuse me … that paleos spend too much times nursing old grudges, I’ll tell them to read this story and tell me it doesn’t make their blood boil. If Kristol still gets to crow about 15 give or take year old purges, then I claim the right to still grouse about them.

The feisty intellectual pugilist in me tells me that the way to respond to such pompous crowing is with defiance. He may have purged the Republican party (this claim is largely true), but he didn’t purge real conservatism, and he sure as heck didn’t purge me. For our paleo critics, what do you suggest?

Of course the sweatest revenge would be to take the Party back, but that is not within my power. Shouting from the rooftops is.

2 Comments »

Check out this article at The American Conservative.

Antle covers Virgil Goode (CP) and Gary Johnson (LP). I promised to lay off Goode until after the election, and I have, but this is a perfect example of how the Constitution Party has harmed its brand by nominating Goode. Anti-war conservatives can’t unequivocally embrace the CP nominee. Any endorsement has to be hedged.

This dilemma is particularly acute this year. Let’s just go back to 2008, when the two major party candidates were Obama and a far more committed hawk than Romney in John McCain. At least the Constitution Party nominated Chuck Baldwin, a candidate who had opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. The Libertarian Party nominated Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman who had turned sharply against the war. Both men were fairly decent choices for the antiwar conservative.

Four years later, the Constitution Party nominee is a former Republican congressman who (like Barr) voted for the Iraq War but (unlike Barr) hasn’t had much to say about his second thoughts since. In his acceptance speech, Virgil Goode apologized for his support for the Patriot Act but not Iraq. In an interview with this writer for the print edition ofTAC, Goode seemed not to have gotten the memo — or the Duelfer report — on Iraqi WMD.

The Libertarians have nominated Gary Johnson, the former Republican governor of New Mexico, for president. Johnson opposed the Iraq War. He wants out of Afghanistan and never wanted into Libya. Johnson hasn’t exactly been humming McCain’s catchy tune “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran.”

But Johnson is much less conservative than Goode on issues like immigration (he’s as close to open borders as anyone this side of the Wall Street Journal editorial page can be) and abortion. His eagerness to dispatch U.S. troops to fight the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda while talking cheerfully about a 40 percent cut in military spending could be a forgivable bit of third-party incoherence, but it sounds like a prescription for disaster.

See more…

Similar post without the editorial content posted at IPR.

1 Comment »

Poster, Felton, thought the topic of selective abortion & the “gay gene” was worthy of a thread.  Cross posting from my blog:

Our Man in Amsterdam

18 Comments »

Brian Doherty of Reason Magazine has a new book coming out about Ron Paul and his Revolution. Reason hasn’t been particularly friendly to Ron Paul despite being an ostensibly libertarian publication, but Jim Antle thinks Doherty gets it about right.

Via AmSpec.

No Comments »

Goode is getting a lot of press in Virginia. This doesn’t sound too bad:

House Republicans are leaving it up to the House committees to decide what to cut and how changes in the tax law would help balance the budget, Goode said. He added that of the Republicans who have sought the party’s nomination for the November race, only Rep. Ron Paul of Texas “has the will to cut” spending.

Goode said he always was at odds with Ryan and the House budget committees. For instance, he wanted to slash foreign aid and funds to rebuild Iraq, but they did not. If illegal immigration stopped and the No Child Left Behind law was repealed, it would save billions, he added.

On Immigration:

“I do not want green card admissions” of immigrants with only a few exceptions, such as if no one else can do a particular job, while Obama favors green card admissions, Goode said. He said that is because many of the immigrants are from Third World countries and when they eventually become citizens, often they are Democrats.

1 Comment »