Monthly Archives: September 2007

Senate Endorses Confederate Model for Iraq

They don’t call it that, but that’s exactly what it is.  See what you think:

In a major repudiation of President Bush’s failed policy in Iraq, Sen. Joe Biden’s plan for a federal system in Iraq passed the Senate today by a vote of 75-23 … The plan called for a decentralized, federal system in Iraq, which would give its people local control over the fabric of their daily lives, including police, jobs, education and government services.  A limited central government would be responsible for protecting Iraq’s borders and distributing its oil revenues. …

Iraq’s own constitution calls a “decentralized, federal system” and sets out the powers of the regions (extensive) and those of the central government (limited).

Sounds like the United States, doesn’t it?  That is, like the United States under the original Articles of Confederation.

Continue reading

The Goldberg Shuffle

I often fume about how multicult/globalist goals have hijacked conservatism.  In the name of conservatism, politicians, pundits, and millions of ordinary citizens believe:

- America is a universal nation which benefits from Open Borders

- Warrantless searches, denying habeas corpus, and secret wiretaps are necessary to protect us from terrorists

- We need a strong central government to export democracy by force if necessary

And so on.  One of the shiftiest, slickest, and slipperiest of pundits responsible for the successful re-packaging of these warped views as “conservative” is National Review’s Jonah Goldberg.  Continue reading

More on Hawkins the Paleo Turncoat

Daniel Larison has some brilliant, as usual, comments on the Hawkins brouhaha, also.

It is quite regrettable that Mr. Hawkins would prefer taking the path of denouncing colleagues.  It is a habit of mind that is quite common to ideologues, which I had assumed Mr. Hawkins was not.  I will not say that Mr. Hawkins has ceased to be a conservative and a patriot, though he chooses to say it of his colleagues, because he disagrees over one area of policy.  That is the exactly sort of thing that has so disgusted me about much of the modern conservative movement–the tendency, all too common, to declare someone persona non grata because of a policy difference.  Set aside debates over who the “real” conservatives are for the moment–that is at least something that may be legitimately questioned and debated–but to impute personal disloyalty and lack of patriotism to people because they do not share a policy view seems to me to be a very dangerous habit.

Raimondo-Hawkins Debate Continues

It seems that the Raimondo-Hawkins debate has extened to cyberspace, which is a continuation of the final debate at the paleoconservative JRC this last weekend in DC, where the resolution was whether we should pull out of Iraq immediately.

William R. Hawkins recently penned this denunciation of Justin Raimondo at the neocon FrontPageMag, to which Raimondo replies, and about which Scott P. Richert reports. I think it is rather distasteful that Hawkins would choose FrontPageMag as his venue to denounce Raimondo. They have a disagreement, but why get the neocons involved? It’s like inviting hyenas to a family argument over who’s going to get the last pork chop on the plate. Hawkins criticizes Kirkpatrick Sale’s Marxist origins – and I disagree with almost all of Sale’s left-wing denunciations of Western Civilization; still, Hawkins fails to realize that almost all the neocons, like FrontPageMag’s David Horowitz, are all former Trotskyites, and still preach a Wilsonian version of Trotskyitism in the form of spreading global democracy.  Continue reading

Random Debate Thoughts

 - I don’t really understand why the four “top tier” candidates didn’t show up. They are top tier based on their willingness to pander. This was an excellent chance for them to demonstrate their pandering skills.

- Ron Paul definitely had the biggest cheering section. He is also clearly the most at home when talking about the War. His answer on immigration was plus/minus. He was tough on amnesty and the welfare state that attracts the illegals, but he said we might need more legal immigrants in the future if the economy is booming. I didn’t detect any pandering to the audience. He mentioned something about “individuals” instead of races, but that is his consistent stand. It is probably all his underlying libertarian philosophy will allow and is entirely consistent with it. It is really the same as Tancredo’s “colorblindness” mentioned below.

- I think Tancredo did much better than usual. He really surprised me. I didn’t detect any pandering. (Am I forgetting something?) He took the most conservative position allowed in modern America on racial matters , colorblindness, on a couple of occasions. He even objected to “race baiting?” He correctly blamed the welfare state for some of the problems of blacks. Tancredo was good on the amnesty question, of course? “Enforce the law.”

Continue reading

NRO NeoCon Andrew McCarty Attacks Scheur for not Toeing Line on Israel

“… [former CIA official Michael] Scheur [describes] Podhoretz and his minions as “Israel-firsters,” but there is no doubt of the centrality of Israel in neoconservative thought. Indeed, the same day McCarthy was reduced to sputtering outrage over Scheuer’s review, six other posts appeared at NRO lambasting Scheuer for saying on television that Israel was “not worth an American life or an American dollar.” Scheuer thus managed to excite more outrage at NRO than has, say, Christopher Hitchens’ ongoing war against Christianity. In fact, NRO regularly links to Hitchens’ pieces, which continue to be praised by NRO regulars, one of whom, Michael Novak, has described Hitchens as a “Treasure.” McCarthy himself often praises Hitchens’ columns. That criticism of American policy toward Israel should be seen as more damning at NRO than criticism of Christianity represents nothing less than a repudiation of the principles on which American conservatism has rested, including the principles enunciated by National Review before it became a neoconservative organ.” ~ Tom Piatak

It is a sad state of affairs when one can denounce Christianity with impunity, but then someone points out the obvious (that Podhoretz is an Israel-Firster) and he’s painted as “anti-semitic.” The accusation of “anti-semitism” has been so overly wrought I wonder how much longer it will have any effect, and I wonder whether the Religious Right will wake up to the fact that the neocon is no friend to Christianity.

The Corruption Perception Index

A group called Transparency International has put together this handy guide to corruption levels throughout the world.  If you feel like reading the whole thing, have at it.  Here’s my summary:

1 – Culture matters

2 – Culture arises from the people who predominate in a given area

3 – Culture greatly influences the level of political, economic, and social freedom—in other words, the quality of life.

Here’s what the TI Corruption Perception Index study focused on:

Continue reading

PaleoConservatism and Subsidiarity

Paleoconservatives have already achieved much success with the immigration issue. Peter Brimelow’s seminal articles and book paved the way for a larger awareness, concern, and outrage, where paleoconservatives were eventually able to push the immigration debate from the margins into the mainstream.

If we paleoconservatives could accomplish another noble deed, it would be to make ‘subsidiarity‘ a household word – well, that may be asking much, especially in today’s world of pop culture and third-world immigration, but at least it could be a household word in respectable homes. Continue reading

Michael Scheuer Schools Norman Podhoretz

This is some good stuff.

The Islamofascist enemy is a specious conjuring of the neoconservatives that does not exist. The Islamist threat personified and led by Osama bin Laden is a direct, tangible, and enduring national-security threat to the United States, but it does not now amount to a world war, and it will not unless the neoconservatives continue to hold sway. We are fighting a war with the Islamists that is ours to lose, and at the moment we are successfully losing it because President Bush and 17 of the 19 individuals in the current crop of presidential candidates buy Podhoretz’s lethal lie that the Islamists are “the latest mutation of the totalitarian threat to our civilization” and are, “like the Nazis and the Communists before them … dedicated to the destruction of the freedoms we cherish and for which Americans stand.” (14-15) Actually, America’s war with the bin Laden-led Islamists is fueled by the impact of U.S. and Western interventionist foreign policies in the Islamic world, not, as Podhoretz claims, by “our virtues as a free and prosperous country.” (102) To the extent that America combines reduced interventionism with military action against genuine threats, we will defeat the Islamists. The increased interventionism of Podhoretz and his coterie will lead to endless war abroad and eventually between Muslim Americans and their countrymen at home – and America’s defeat.

Richard Brookhiser Bashes Ron Paul

At Nationalist Review, surprise, surprise.

Richard Brookhiser is an extreme nationalist. He has written several books defending the Federalist, and he is on the record as very pro-Union/anti-secession. In other words, he is a Hobbesian statist. Ron Paul represents an extreme threat to his statist world view. Of course Brookhiser sees the problem as libertarians and pascifists (the other), but he should realize that authentic conservatives reject the modern Hobbesian nation state as well.

Most—maybe all—libertarians acknowledge a right to self defense. But in the modern world this cannot be done by militias. It requires a military industrial complex, with all the attendant consequences.

That is a bit of a straw man. The Founders presupposed a standing Navy (I agree) and disagreed over the need for a standing Army. The mainland could easily be defended from invasion by a militia.

Jerome Corsi Bashes Human Events Editor Jed Babbin

The decline of Human Events is on a par with the sad decline of National Review. I am glad Corsi is taking on Human Events and calling them on their craven transformation to Republican Party apologists.

In a heated conversation at the Friday banquet of Phyllis Schalfly’s Eagle Council meeting in St. Louis last week, Jed Babbin, editor of Human Events, repeated accusations that I am a “black helicopter Internet conspiracy theorist” for arguing that the Bush administration is pursing the North American Union and NAFTA Superhighways through the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP.

In response, I observed that Babbin has taken Human Events in the direction of becoming an apologist for the Republican Party, not a critical forum for conservative debate. ~ Read more here