Monthly Archives: October 2009

Next wave of tea parties: November 14

NumbersUSA reports the next wave of tea parties:

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) is spearheading an effort called Against Amnesty to promote rallies against amnesty for illegal aliens on November 14. They are seeking organizers and attendees for events in every state in the nation.

If you are interested in holding your own rally on November 14, or attending one of those planned, start by visiting and filling out a supporter form on the homepage. You can view existing event locations on the web site and easily sign up to register your own rally.  The web site allows you to contact others about this effort. It also has a “Contact US” page if you have any questions.

Tea pot ready to boil in upstate New York

It’s easy to overread and overreact to odd-year elections (or by-elections as they would say in Canada or the UK).  When Chuck Robb won Virginia’s governorship in 1981, did that mean the end of Reaganism? Hardly. Likewise a loss by the Democrats in Virginia next Tuesday or even a win in New Jersey really doesn’t say much about the Obama Administration either way, other than the Dems in Virginia and the GOP in New Jersey had lousy candidates.

But if a pattern forms in several different elections or if something unusual happens then you have a good chance to read the tea leaves. That something unusual cold very well be happening in a New York Congressional District.

Continue reading

A Conservative Primer for Conceptualizing Political Economy on the Humane Scale

Our friend Ryan Setliff sent us this submission. Here’s the beginning of it, the rest you can read through the link:

An inquiry into political economy should begin with a moral rationale for private property ownership. “The control and ownership of productive property sufficient for a livelihood gave a man and his family a sense of economic security; it made him independent; he was a real citizen, for he could cast his franchise without fear and could protect the basic principles of his government.”

 The wisdom from hollowed antiquity has long recognized the value of tangible property ownership coupled with stewardship as a means of cultivating character amongst the citizens. This was the linchpin of classical republicanism. Wilhelm Roepke reminds us, “We can breathe the air of liberty only to the extent that we are ready to bear the burden of moral responsibility associated with it.” There is an old Greek proverb: “Find an independent income, then find virtue.” Economic independence is requisite for attaining liberty, and property ownership is chief among the means of working towards economic independence.

An ownership society nurtures the qualities of personal responsibility, caretaking and civility. All empirical evidence points to the reality that property owners are generally more productive, happier and fruitful citizens. Ownership of a homeplace is desirable, and should be pursued by hard work, frugality and thrift. There was a wisdom in the agrarian republicanism of the American Founders, as they extoled the virtues of the landed freeholders and yeoman farmers. They saw “the importance of private property as the guarantor of individual freedom and the self-sufficiency necessary for what J.G.A. Pocock calls ‘the full austerity of citizenship in the classical sense.’” 2 It was recognized that independence cultivated character and virtue, and sustaining these elements are requisite for cultivating honest, healthier, productive and more resilient members of society.

We also had another submission from writer J.J. Jackson: “I am an Idiot Because…” over at Liberty Reborn. He’s being humorous.

Dr. Kevin Gutzman on Health Care and the General Welfare Clause

Constitutional scholar Dr. Kevin Gutzman was recently interviewed on the Mike Church Show regarding the illegitimate use of the General Welfare Clause to justify federal control over health care. Dr. Gutzman is the author of Who Killed the Constitution and the Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.

The segment began with Church playing a clip of Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D -MD) asserting that the General Welfare Clause authorizes Congress to control health care. Here is a transcript of the interview that followed. Needless to say, Dr. Gutzman disagrees.

Part 1

Part 2 (Subscription required)

Crossposted at: The Committee for Constitutional Health Care Reform

Announcing the Committee for Constitutional Health Care Reform

Some fellow activists and I have created a new blog called The Committee for Constitutional Health Care Reform. Here is our purpose as stated on the “About” page:

The Committee for Constitutional Health Care Reform is a group of conservative, libertarian and constitutionalist activists from many professions who believe that the Constitution is being left out of much of the current debate about health care reform. Many people, left, right and center, have grand ideas about how they would like the federal government to reform health care, but they fail to ask the fundamental question, “Does the Constitution authorize this?”

In some cases they neglect to ask this question, but all too often they don’t really care. For many, the Constitution is a dead letter that now serves as mere window dressing. They have long since ceased to concern themselves with the bounds placed on the United States government by the Constitution. They assume its power is unlimited and act accordingly.

We at the Committee for Constitutional Health Care Reform still hold to the quaint idea that the Constitution really matters and our elected officials ought to actually be bound by it. We intend to re-inject constitutional considerations into the health care reform debate by addressing many of the new reform proposals from a constitutionalist/enumerated powers/Tenth Amendment/original intent stand point.

The website is still under construction, but please take a look and check back frequently. Leave a comment or two if you are so inclined.

Long range, the plan is to convert the blog into its own unique website.

What’s Up with the American Conservative?

This post bashing the British National Party is just awful. Below is the comment I posted.

When I first read this, considering the website it was posted on, I thought maybe the author was trying to be facetious and was actually criticizing the clownish PC preeners in the other parties. But unfortunately I do not believe that was the intent. The intent was to play more PC than thou and criticize the BNP.

I know the BNP is not American style conservatism. Conservatives in England are not necessarily real big on that whole limited government thing. Just ask Dave Lindsay. And I as a Southern conservative object to the Nationalism and the opposition to Welsh and Scottish independence. But clearly American paleocons have more reason to be sympathetic to the BNP than they do Labour or the “Conservative” Party. Does any paleo think halting the immigration onslaught and the demographic decline of England is unimportant?

I have often taken up for TAC against those who claim it is just drifting left and/or engaging in nothing more than I’m not a movement con axe grinding, but that is getting harder and harder to do. First Limbaugh gets hounded out of the NFL by a bunch of PC spouting thugs and the outrage is directed at him, and now this. If I didn’t come here knowing the background of this magazine and just read a post without context, I often would think the opinion was more Noonan and Parker than Buchanan and Fleming.

Here is the equally awful Rush Limbaugh thread I referred to. Here is my reply to that dud.

The outrage here is that Political Correctness has derailed an entirely legitimate attempt to buy a football team. We should be training our sights on the obvious Cultural Marxism on display, not on Rush. Particularly Goodell’s craven and inarticulate babbling PC fest explanation for why Rush was not welcome.

Goodell, the NFL, the owners group that dropped him, and all the PC thought slaves that protested are the villains in this story, not Rush.

What on earth is going on at AmCon? Why all the PC posturing?

Nick Griffin Responds

Nick Griffin, chairman of the BNP, responds regarding the debate on “Question Time“:

Apparently many people, even non-BNP supporters, are upset over the whole tone of the program: a public lynching of Nick Griffin. Upon my posting this, here’s the most recent YouTube comment on this video:

I don’t agree with much of what Nick Griffin says, like I don’t agree with much of what the communist party says, but I would fight to the death for both sides to be heard fairly in a free and democratic society. Last night proved that there is very little freedom left in this country for ordinary, hard working folk (of all races) yes islamic extremists are free to spout their hatred wherever and however they wish.

Update:  BBC smear campaign backfires.  New poll suggests support for BNP has risen since Question Time.

Love thy neighbor…or at least get to know them

You can’t build real communities without neighbors and friends and civic bonds they form. That truly hit me over the past couple of month while I was away from blogging and CHT.

One of the reasons that kept me away from the keyboard was dealing with the aftermath of local flooding that took place in my home of Arkansaw, Wisconsin. We had a sudden rainstorm in mid-August dump eight inches of rain in a two hour period that caused our little Arkansaw Creek to flood its banks and damage the homes alongside it and destroy the county park right next to it in town. While this wasn’t Hurricane Katrina we’re talking about, it certainly affected real people and their real dwellings and caused damage insurance companies will not pay because the land alongside the creek was not considered a flood plain, even during the spring run-off and flood season. Amazing how a tiny creek turned into a torrent of floodwater in a mater of two hours!

As the Eighth District representative on the Pepin County Board which represents Arkansaw, my duties now included helped people in town clean up,  be able to get state funds (forget Federal) to clean up and pay damages. I helped with organizing a benefit in town to help those with flood damage pay their bills. But of the many meetings I ahve attended since then, the biggest problem the county and townspeople are trying to tackle is how can we better be able to communicate within our own community, amongst the people who are supposedly our neighbors?

Continue reading

Some articles for your consideration

Now that I’m back blogging I have some submissions and other pieces to offer for your reading pleasure:

I have repeatedly called for sensible white nationalists to move to the “forgotten corners” of our country and this article in the left-wing American Prospect suggests that’s already starting to happen.

Here’s a submission from J.J. Jackson “Starting off Right”

Here are some articles from Chuck Baldwin and his son Tim:  “These are not Negotiable“, “You Might be  Constitutionalist”, and “Freedom’s Destruction

And my latest is up at

Right-Wing Europe

American liberals have long identified Europe as a sort of left-wing utopia. More so than the United States, European countries have experimented with various forms of socialism, but these implementations were largely in small, homogenous countries – the only environment where socialism has ever “worked.” As Christopher Caldwell has pointed out:

Alberto Alesina and Edward Glaeser, the Harvard economists, have shown that roughly half of Americans’ antipathy towards European-style socialism can be accounted for by the ethnic diversity of the United States. This view is given support by the recent work of Robert Putnam, the sociologist, who finds that people living under conditions of diversity “hunker down”. They trust their neighbours less – even neighbours of their own kind. They are less philanthropic, less social and less inclined to pay taxes.

Thus, when liberals look at Europe close up, past the thin veneer of socialist programs, their enthusiasm wanes. Matthew Yglesias, having just returned from Europe, today writes:

And I think there’s also often a kind of image of Europe as a place where more of the progressive agenda has been achieved than in the USA. But I think that you’ll find if you look at Europe through the eyes of the liberal agenda that while the German left has certainly been more successful than the American left at securing universal health care, it’s been much less successful at promoting a tolerant, integrated, multicultural society. And allowing for the errors implicit in making any kind of sweeping generalization, I’d say that’s pretty generally the case across Europe. This Swiss People’s Party campaign poster would, I think, make Jesse Helms blush. And I’m not even sure which of the Northern League posters from Italy is the most egregious.

Europeans have deeper blood and soil roots than most Americans. They have real nations, in the sense of the Latin natio, implying link by blood.  I predict that in the near future we shall witness more promising right-wing movements in Europe than in the U.S. And it’s going to be real shocker for American liberals.

Bono Peddles the Proposition Nation Myth

“These new steps — and those 36 words — remind the world that America is not just a country but an idea, a great idea about opportunity for all and responsibility to your fellow man.” ~ Bono

Maybe Bono should confine himself to commenting on his own native Ireland and spare us Americans his blowhard wisdom. The sad thing is that self-identified “conservatives” are just as likely to peddle this pernicious myth as are liberals like Bono. It should be obvious that this liberal America is an idea nonsense leads to both the desire to export said idea by force to benighted others, and the willingness to invite the world to our shores in the form of massive immigration. But “conservatives” miss the second implication because they are too busy defending the first.

It’s ok to hate Christians

NPR reports a doctrinal schism among atheists. The burning question: Do they treat Christians with tolerance, or open hatred? Pro-war, any-war supporter and all-around rat Christopher Hitchens noisily advocates the same approach he urges in the Middle East — total war:

New atheists like Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins and journalist Christopher Hitchens are selling millions of books and drawing people by the thousands to their call for an uncompromising atheism.

For example, Hitchens, a columnist for Vanity Fair and author of the book God Is Not Great, told a capacity crowd at the University of Toronto, “I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt, and I claim that right.” His words were greeted with hoots of approval.

Religion is “sinister, dangerous and ridiculous,” Hitchens tells NPR, because it can prompt people to fly airplanes into buildings, and it promotes ignorance. Hitchens sees no reason to sugarcoat his position.

“If I said to a Protestant or Quaker or Muslim, ‘Hey, at least I respect your belief,’ I would be telling a lie,” Hitchens says.

What draws atheists together? What bond can there be among people who share a negative? I can just imagine myself approaching people with, “Hey, I don’t play the saxaphone! Do you?” “No, neither do I!” “Great! Let’s form a club!”

Hitchens’ more honest approach is also the more revealing. Only hatred can bring such folks together. Hitchens, a Trotskyite who’s equally vocal about his hatred of Southern heritage, is certainly more consistent, too. Ideologues who regard both tradition and Western culture as speed bumps impeding theirn notion of progress go by numerous names — Neocons hiss at any favorable mention of the South, and their fellow traveler leftists often fantasize about eliminating the West’s traditional demographics, the essential soil that sustains Western, Christian civilization.

I hope the more militant faction of atheists wins so conservative Christians can see the face of evil for what it really is, as opposed to letting it hide behind its old mask of showy tolerance.

Neocon Bobby Jindal: Conform to Political Correctness Or Else!

On the news tonight, I heard a report about the Republican Governor of Louisiana, Piyush Jindal (aka “Bobby” Jindal), moaning and whining over JOP Keith Bardwell’s “denying” a marriage license to an interracial couple. For the record, Bardwell did not “deny” anything; he merely recused himself from the process and another judge married them. It’s commonplace for justices to recuse themselves (especially when they feel they have a conflict of interest). In this case, the media’s hysteria is attributable to the fact that Bardwell’s criterion for recusal conflicts with the Procrustean strictures of political correctness. Bardwell’s criterion apparently also differs from Jindall’s, who, in all his talk of “civil rights,” sounds more like MLK than a sensible conservative.

Piyush Jindal

Piyush Jindal

Lawrence Auster Up at TakiMag?

Well this is odd. Lawrence Auster has a post up at TakiMag? Did he give them permission to post this? I thought he had a falling out with TakiMag and demanded the link to his blog be taken down because TakiMag was insufficiently deferential to Israel. Maybe they have made up.

I’ve had my differences with Auster over his Lincoln loving nationalism, but he knocks it out of the park with this post. (Here the link is to the original.) Liberalism really is the ideology of Western suicide.

The Ron Paul Horror

Halloween is coming up. You want to know what scare the pants off of Sen. Lindsay Graham? Check out these You Tube videos provided to us by our friend Jack Hunter he put up on the TAC website.

Someone should go and get a Ron Paul mask and go to Graham’s house on Halloween and scream “BOOO!” Give him a good scare.

There’s non one I know of that’s more epitome of the Republican establishment than Graham.

The Real Stakes in Afghanistan

Andrew Bacevich has an excellent column up at the Boston Globe on what the Afghanistan “surge” debate is really all about. Bacevich is not quite Ron Paul on foreign policy, but he is the closest thing we have to a non-interventionist in the foreign policy community.

Implementing the McChrystal plan will perpetuate the longstanding fundamentals of US national security policy: maintaining a global military presence, configuring US forces for global power projection, and employing those forces to intervene on a global basis. The McChrystal plan modestly updates these fundamentals to account for the lessons of 9/11 and Iraq, cultural awareness and sensitivity nudging aside advanced technology as the signature of American military power, for example. Yet at its core, the McChrystal plan aims to avert change. Its purpose – despite 9/11 and despite the failures of Iraq – is to preserve the status quo.

Hawks understand this. That’s why they are intent on framing the debate so narrowly – it’s either give McChrystal what he wants or accept abject defeat. It’s also why they insist that Obama needs to decide immediately.

HT: Jim Antle at American Spectator

Nobel Peace Prize Hurting Obama?

One of the first things I thought when I heard Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize was that it was going to backfire on him. It is so obviously undeserved that it seemed likely to just hack people off. Well it may be happening.

The Times quotes Bob Lichter, who has tracked themes in late-night humor for 21 years, as saying “it will be telling to see how the comedians treat” the president’s winning the peace prize: Is there now a caricature taking hold of a man more celebrated than accomplished?

“A man more celebrated than accomplished” says it all.