Archive for December, 2007
One positive result of the Meet the Press interview is that it has brought the issue of Lincoln and his bloody war of aggression into the MSM. Watch the YouTube of these three historically illiterate clowns. Notice they say Paul’s view is “strange.” Are they deliberately trying to smear Paul or are they really that ill informed or both? My money is on both.
Paul needs to make very clear that the War was not fought to free the slaves. That is a Yankee lie. The War was fought to “save the Union” and destroy the Old Republic in the process. Getting 600,000 + people killed to “save” a Union the other half had lawfully left is not legitimate. It is the act of a tyrant.
Posted under NeoCons
Justin Raimondo does a little research on the vicious anti-Ron Paul rumors floating around the â€˜net.Â He concludes Paul is the object of such unfair and unhinged slander because:
The sheer breadth of the anti-Paul Popular Front is an astonishing sight to behold, extending all the way from avowed Nazis to radical Zionists, from Noam Chomsky to Glenn Beck. Both Fox News and the International Socialist Organization are out for Paulâ€™s scalp â€“ and you can tell an awful lot about people by their enemies. What this tells me about Ron Paul is that heâ€™s just what many people on both sides of the political spectrum have been waiting and hoping for.
As I wrote in an earlier post, leftists define approved orthodoxy in the American Empire.Â The leftâ€™s hatred for tradition requires forced intervention at home and abroad to reconstruct the world according to the leftist blueprint.Â The illusion of Constitutional, representative government depends on an â€œoppositionâ€ offering the same agenda in different packaging.Â And to rope in conservatives, Republicans wave the flag in support of leftist projects.Â So-called â€œNeoconservatives,â€ whose philosophical roots are Trotskyite, openly promote globalist universalism to replace Americaâ€™s Western, Christian values.
But Ron Paul has called the entire globalist project into question.Â Big government is waging an unconstitutional war on our traditional liberties.Â Democrats justify their power grabs in the name of Civil Rights, and Republicans invoke the â€œWar on Terror.â€ The result is the same: a centralized, tyrannical regime unanswerable to the citizens.Â Thatâ€™s why Paul is feared and reviled by both wings of a ruling elite intent on protecting its power.Â
And please remember the real reason for the season.
I saw bits and pieces of the interview. I haven’tÂ been ableÂ to see the whole thing yet. From what I saw Russert was definitely playing gotcha politics. He even quoted ubiquitous Internet Paul hater and pro-war (sic) libertarian Eric Dondero. Paul handled himself calmly and well.
Paul stuck to his guns on the unconstitutionality of the Civil Rights Act and that Lincoln was wrong to invade the South. (Of course the only reason those two issues came up is because it was a gotcha interview.) I believe paleos who are apprehensive about Paul owe him their support. What other politician is brave enough to go on the record on those two issues.
“A decade ago, Hispanics made up a negligible portion of U.S. converts to Islam every year. Today, according to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), they make up six percent. That makes Hispanics, and especially recent immigrants from Mexico, the fastest-growing group of converts to Islam. Obviously, weâ€™re not talking large numbersâ€”yet. But given the extent of Mexican immigration (both legal and illegal) to the United States in recent years, thereâ€™s a very large pool of immigrants that Muslim groups can target for conversion. And that is precisely what they are doing. CAIR runs Hispanic outreach programs, and its Chicago office supported the â€œimmigrants-rightsâ€ rallies last year. Websites such as HispanicMuslim.com and LatinoDawah.org are growing in popularity, and feature both conversion stories and a potted history designed to convince Hispanics that Islam is their ancestral religion. As Aaron Siebert-Llera, himself a Mexican-American convert to Islam and a Ph.D. candidate in sociology at Northwestern University, wrote: â€œResearch to this point has demonstrated that Latinos who embrace Islam do so in part because of perceived Spanish (or Andalusian) Muslim heritage.â€ In targeting Hispanics, Muslims often make explicit connections between what Northwestern University professor Dario Fernandez-Morera has called â€œthe Andalusian mythâ€ and the equally powerful Mexican irredentist myth of Aztlan.” ~ Scott Richert, Chicago Daily Observer
Everyone should read this excellent op-ed in its entirety.
Hopefully this will generate some good discussion. Here is my list.
1. Ron Paul 2. Tom Tancredo (now out) 3. Duncan Hunter 4. Mike Huckabee 5. Fred Thompson 6. Alan Keyes 7. Mitt Romney 8. John McCain 9. Rudy Giuliani
TomTancredo and Duncan Hunter are two and three because they are solid and have been solid on immigration. I really dislike their position on the War. Huckabee at four just to thumb my nose at all his establishment detractors. Alan Keyes might belong before Fred Thompson. Keyes is solid on illegal immigration, but I just can’t stand his constant Straussian babble and his Lincoln worship. Romney before McCain because McCain was such an evil shill for amnesty. And of course the baby killer is last.
Part of the reason I was thinking about this is because of all the “conservatives,” including Tancredo, who have endorse Romney who is clearly near the bottom of the pack.
All that said, if Ron Paul is not the GOP nominee, I will almost certainly vote Constitution Party.
Posted under Election 2008
Tom Tancredo has officially dropped out of the race after failing to pick up enough support for a viable Presidential run. His two weaknesses seem to be 1. his poor speaking ability and 2. his misunderstood position on torture and MAD, Tancredo would consider both but only in the most extreme of cases.
We wait now to see if Tancredo will endorse Romney, Thompson, or Paul. Paul is probably the closest to Tancredo’s positions, but Romney is the closest to defeating the more liberal McCain, Huckabee, and Giuliani. It is rumored that Bay Buchanan is a member of the LDS and is pushing Tancredo to endorse Romney, who is also a member of the LDS.
Continue Reading »
Thomas DiLorenzo hits the nail on the head.
All the neocon blabbermouths, from smarmy Fred Barnes and the creepy Charles Krauthammer to Hannity and the rest, threw a collective hissy fit yesterday over the fact that Time magazine chose ole Vlad Putin as its “Person of the Year.”
“He’s responsible for killing people!” they collectively screamed, conveniently forgetting their own role in encouraging Dub-Yuh to wage a unnecessary five-year war that has killed hundreds of thousands.
The memo from Hate Central apparently instructed all card-carrying neoconmen to repeat at least a hundred times that “General Patraeus should have been Time’s man of the year.”
Even Romney apparently got the memo. There areÂ three pillars of neocon hate – Islamophobia, Germanophobia, and Russiaphobia. Once they can no longer sell the masses on the menace of Islam, Russia will resume its role of designated boogie man. You watch.
Here is Dreher’s take from his website. It is different than the article linked below.
It’s funny, but when it looked like Rudy Giuliani, a social liberal, was going to be the nominee, we didn’t see many, if any, establishment Republican opinion leaders freaking out over what kind of danger to the future of the party and the nation he represented, even though as Ross points out, Giuliani hasn’t exactly been deep on policy(I had to research Giuliani for our Dallas Morning News editorial board debate on which candidate to endorse, and I was genuinely startled by how vague he was on many things). I think it’s fair to say that it was assumed that Giuliani would be a sound representative of the Republican Party, and that the social and religious conservatives would do like they always do and get in line. Pat Robertson sure did.
But lo, it turns out that the candidate who’s caught fire comes straight out of the religious/social conservative wing of the coalition, and he is unsound on issues most important to the fiscal wing. It’s not supposed to work that way. Nobody at the elite level seems to expect the economic conservatives to suck it up for the sake of party unity. What does that say about the place of social conservatives in the party all these years? - emphasis mine
TheÂ fact thatÂ Giuliani is acceptable to the establishment cons and Huck is not is very revealing.
Good stuff here. I think all this talk of Huckabee’s populism is mostly a projection ontoÂ him from an establishmentÂ thatÂ is in meltdown becauseÂ he doesn’t mouth the right rhetoric.Â I am not sure how Huckabee is really all that populist in reality. Just promising new spending projects is not really all that populist anymore. You could argue that budget cutting (at least the rhetoric) is the real populist position these days. And how can one be a populist and be soft on immigration. Opposition to the cultural and economic effects of immigration isÂ an essential element of populism, is it not.Â
Last week, National Review Online blogger Lisa Schiffren, a Giuliani backer, laid into Mr. Huckabee with a screed pithily summarized by Mr. Douthat as, “Go back to Dogpatch, you stupid hillbilly.”
Alas for the GOP and for the old guard religious-right leadership, the view from Dogpatch these days is looking up for the populist Huckabee. Could it be that cultural and religious conservatives are fed up with being treated like useful idiots by the Republican establishment?
Religious conservatives have been treated like useful idiots. Let’s hope they wake up to that. But Huckabee is not the right vehicle.
I am surprised this made the website. I wonder if Derb will lose his job. Derb is normally a mixed bag. One of the more sensible of the NRO bunch on immigration, but also a Darwinian elitist who has been joining in the Huck bashing with the rest of them. Anyway, I’m glad he is supporting Ron Paul.
Are those supporters crazy, as some colleagues tell me?
Perhaps they are, to be shouting for liberty in 2007, after decades of swelling federal power and arrogance, of proliferating taxes, rules, and interests, of gushing transfers of wealth to politically connected elites from working- and middle-class grunts, of the college and teacher-union scams, of the metastasizing tort-law rackets, of ever more numerous yet ever more clueless intelligence agencies, of open borders and visas for people who hate us, of widening cracks in our sense of nationhood (â€œPress one for English â€¦â€), of speech codes and race lobbies and judicial impositions.
If those people are crazy, though, I want to be crazy with them. Iâ€™m for liberty, too. Thatâ€™s why Iâ€™m for Ron Paul. And why do we have 75,000 soldiers in Germany?
Why do we have 75,000 soldiers in Germany? Bring ‘em home!
Posted under Uncategorized
WASHINGTON (AFP) â€” The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States, leaders said Wednesday.
“We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us,” long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means told a handful of reporters and a delegation from the Bolivian embassy, gathered in a church in a run-down neighborhood of Washington for a news conference.
A delegation of Lakota leaders delivered a message to the State Department on Monday, announcing they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the United States, some of them more than 150 years old.
Continue Reading »
This is the kind of reasoned analysisÂ we need more of. Not “Oh my word, Huckabee mentioned the word Jesus” hysteria.
All of this alarms neoconservatives like Charles Krauthammer, who detects in Christian conservativesâ€™ reluctance to back the chameleon-like Romney the dread specter of bias against Romneyâ€™s Mormon faith. He doesnâ€™t deign to mention Romneyâ€™s socially left-wing gubernatorial record and past campaigns, instead asserting that the Romney trails Huckabee â€œbecause about 40 percent of the Republican caucus voters in 2000 were self-described â€˜Christian conservativesâ€™â€”twice the number of those in New Hampshire, for exampleâ€”and, for many of them, Mormonism is a Christian heresy.â€ Before Mormons or anybody else rushes to embrace Krauthammer as a paragon of religious tolerance, however, one should consider whether the Washington Postcolumnist doesnâ€™t think that denominational commitments of all kinds are a distraction from the one true faith: the Church of America. Says Krautie, â€œThe God of the Founders, the God on the coinage, the God for whom Lincoln proclaimed Thanksgiving day is the ineffable, ecumenical, nonsectarian Providence of the American civil religion whose relation to this blessed land is without appeal to any particular testament or ritual.â€ (Krauthammer isnâ€™t endorsing secularism here: heâ€™s conscripting religious sentiment, stripped of theological content, into the service of Proposition Nationalism. But thatâ€™s a subject for another day.)
Authentic (paleo) conservatives need to criticize Huckabee for all the right reasons without siding with Krauthammer style historical revisionists in the service ofÂ some benign civil religion and a buck naked public square. McCarthy hits the right note here.
I refuse to say “person of the year.”
The Putin thread from a few weeks back generated much debate. I was surprised. I didn’t know people cared that much about Putin. But I didn’t participate in that debate because I think I was busy at the time. So I will use this opportunity to give my two cents on Putin.
Putin is no doubt an autocrat. There is little doubt that he has been ruthless at times. There is little doubt that he fixed the elections. But it is probably asking too much to expect Russia to have an American style democracy. They have no history that would support such a thing. They went from Tsar to Stalin to chaos. That he is widely popular in Russia is a testimony to the fact that the Russian people in general are not too concerned that he is an autocrat.
What I think some paleos might find appealing about him is that he is unapologetically allÂ for Russia. He is not concerned about spreading democracy or other such vague notions. He is all about building up (rebuilding)Â his own country. Such people are very rare in PC whipped America. It is too bad we have to look overseas for an admittedly flawed example.
But she is reasonably gentle. She gets this right.
â€œHe has many good qualities. Unfortunately, the things that are upsetting to the mainstream media about Huckabee are what normal Americans like.â€
She cited as examples Huckabeeâ€™s â€œreligiosity and his questioning of Darwinian evolution.â€
SheÂ rightly criticizes him on immigration.
But she criticized the former Arkansas governor for opposing a bill that would have required Arkansas residents to prove they are Americans before they could vote or get social services.
I bet Huckabee is regretting all his pro-immigration grandstanding right about now.
Note: I added a Mike Huckabee category.