Saturday, August 28, 2004

That Buchanan Book

With Where the Right Went Wrong, Pat Buchanan takes aim squarely at the neoconservatives. Buchanan thus joins other paleoconservative and paleolibertarian authors such as Sam Francis, Paul Gottfried, Justin Raimondo and Joseph Scotchie who have offered up their own analyses, diagnoses, and prescriptions to decapitate the parasitical necon host presently devouring the body politic.

So who are these mysterious neocons, anyway? Neoconservatism originated in few periodicals and northeastern universities in the 1960’s. Its early exponents were largely Jewish and Eastern European. Today, neoconservatism claims such "luminaries" as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Michael Novak, Richard John Neuhaus, and a bevy of syndicated columnists. Buchanan calls them "ex-Trotskyites, socialists, leftists, and liberals who backed FDR, Truman, JDK and LBJ." They are "the boat people of the McGovern revolution that was itself the political vehicle of the moral, social, and cultural revolutions of the 1960’s."

Skilled in the arts of political chicanery and bureaucratic infighting, the neocons migrated into the Republican Party during the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. Sam Francis explains why the neocons drifted to the right politically:

"The political impetus for neoconservatism was, first the threat to the integrity of universities and American intellectual life presented by the militancy of the New Left and the barbarism of the counterculture of the late 1960’s; secondly, the threat to Jewish academic and professional achievements in America presented by the quotas and affirmative action programs of the Great Society; and thirdly, the development of serious anti-Semitism on the Left and the Soviet alliance with radical anti-Western and anti-Israeli Arab regimes and terrorists.

Another pillar of the neoconservative mind is the conflation of American and Israeli national interests, which is the root of the current mess in Iraq. In an essay in the Wall Street Journal, militant neocon Max Boot, who has called for the U.S. to take up the imperial burden, called support for Israel a "key tenet" of neocon ideology.

Buchanan shows how the neocons used the cover of the billowing smoke of 9/11 to implement long-standing plans to remake the Middle East in Israel’s interest, with the invasion of Iraq at the top of the agenda.

In 1996, a group called The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies published a paper for then Israeli PM Bibi Netanyahu. The paper called for Israel to "destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats," and called the removal of Saddam Hussein "an important Israeli strategic objective." The authors of this policy paper included attorney Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, and Richard Perle –all prominent figures in the Bush administration.

What was Mr. Bush thinking when he handed the keys to these guys? Why would he sacrifice his presidency to the whims of the neocons? The answer is not, as Michael Moore would allege, that Bush is dumb. The problem is that he is intellectually lazy--he doesn’t like to think. As a result, he did not have a working knowledge of foreign policy upon ascending to the presidency. Here is Richard Perle’s description of meeting Bush for the first time:

The first time I met Bush 43, I knew he was different. Two things became clear. One, he didn’t know very much. The other was he had confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn’t know very much. Most people are reluctant to say when they don’t know something, a word or a term they haven’t heard before. Not him.

Hence, the neocons tutored Bush, and filled the empty vessel with their globalist, imperialist, democratist pabulum.

On the foreign policy front, the necons are warmongers, pure and simple. But what about domestically? Don’t they believe in limited government? To the extent that they care about such matters at all, the answer is no. Indeed, they are "big government conservatives," as Fred Barnes has said. Irving Kristol, the most prominent first-generation neoconservative, wrote that:

In economic and social policy, it [neoconservatism] feels no lingering hostility to the welfare state, nor does it accept it resignedly, as a necessary evil. Instead it seeks not dismantle the welfare state not in the name of free-market economics but rather to reshape it so as to attach to it the conservative predispositions of the people. This reshaping will presumably take the form of trying to rid the welfare state of its paternalistic orientation, imposed on it by Left-liberalism, and making it over into the kind of "social insurance state" that provides the social and economic security a modern citizenry demands…

In sum, the neocons are devoted to the welfare-warfare state.

Buchanan capably dissects the flaws of the modern conservative movement, and is particularly effective in his demolition of the neocons. However, Pat’s prescriptions for reviving the movement ultimately fail for several reasons.

First, Buchanan is much too optimistic. He truly believes that the neocons have overplayed their hand and that the president is looking for the nearest off ramp out of the Iraqi quagmire. Alas, he is wrong. Indeed, the neocons will agitate for a wider war whether Bush or Kerry occupies the oval office in 2005. They worship at the altar of power. Moreover, neocons advance the interests of the Left by setting the permissible limits of dissent. There is simply no reason for the Establishment Left to drive neoconservatives into intellectual exile. Finally, the neocons have control over the major foundations financing conservative scholarship, and they also control the major think tanks and conservative-leaning media outlets.

Countering neocon hegemony is imperative for any authentic movement of the political and social Right. This leads to Buchanan’s second error. Like so many on the Right, he fails to reckon with the fact that the time has come for a new strategy. There is precious little of the old republic to conserve, and the sooner we come to that realization, the better. The time has come to challenge the elites rather than accommodate them, negotiating for a few scraps from the imperial table. As Sam Francis says:

Abandoning the illusion that it represents an establishment to be "conserved," a new American Right must recognize that its values and goals lie outside and against the establishment and that its natural allies are not in Manhattan, Yale, and Washington but in the increasingly alienated and threatened strata of Middle America. The strategy of the Right should be to enhance the polarization of Middle Americans from the incumbent regime, not to build coalitions with the regime’s defenders and beneficiaries.

Accommodationism ultimately leads to the greatest disappointment of the book. After 250 pages of incisive and polemical writing, informed by Buchanan’s wide-ranging knowledge and keen insights, Pat mysteriously endorses Bush’s re-election. Preeminently, Buchanan seems concerned with the shape of the courts and assumes that Bush will make wiser appointments than John Kerry. Perhaps, but considering that 10 of the last 12 Supreme Court appointments have been made by Republican presidents, this seems at best a spurious argument.

On some level, Buchanan is also making the case that paleos not abandon the field of politics. While it is true that we ought not to abandon politics, conservatives must recognize that political action in a cultural vacuum will ultimately prove fruitless. Thus, the goal of conservatives must be, as Francis says, "the reclamation of cultural power, the patient elaboration of an alternative culture within but against the regime."

To succeed, such a counterculture must begin at the foot of cross, and in the cradles of our children. As fathers, as believers, we must patiently explain God’s expectations as provided in His Word. We must work out the implications of the Gospel in our homes, churches, vocations, and civic lives. Ultimately, we must have the faith and strength to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and bring the salt and light of the Word to all or our endeavors, whether temporal or spiritual.

Though by no means flawless, Where the Right Went Wrong is an example of Buchanan’s considerable polemical skills. He has provided a very concise yet thorough overview of where conservatism has gone wrong. Moreover, he has done us all a favor by drawing up a powerful indictment of current American foreign policy. For that alone, he deserves our thanks.

Friday, August 20, 2004

In the News Today...

Bush girls to attend gay marriage ceremony. Perhaps Mr. Bush should clean up things in his own family and not worry about mine. I have to be concerned about any father that let’s his daughters consort with sodomites.

40,000 Christians flee Iraq. Christians were protected under Hussein’s regime. Now they are hunted. Glad to see we are brining freedom and democracy to Iraq.

John Kerry has said publicly that he will not negotiate with Arafat, thereby aligning himself with Mr. Bush and the Likudniks. So Peres and Rabin could negotiate with Arafat, we could negotiate with the Libyans, not to mention align ourselves with Uncle Joe Stalin in WWII, but John Kerry can’t sit across the table from Arafat? Makes perfect sense to me.

"U. S. dominance of the Middle East is not the corrective to terror. It is a cause of terror. Were we not over there, the 9/11 terrorists would not have been over here. And while their acts were murderous and despicable, behind their atrocities lay a political motive. We were attacked because of our imperial presence on the sacred soil of the land of Mecca and Medina, because of our enemies’ perception that we were strangling the Iraqi people with sanctions and preparing to attack a second time, and because our uncritical support of the Likud regime of Ariel Sharon."--Pat Buchanan

"In the race to determine which candidate is more interventionist, Kerry is now neck-and-neck with Bush, and, who knows, he may even pull ahead before November," says Justin Raimondo. Alas, we should not be surprised. Thomas Woods recently wrote a piece in "The American Conservative" about the myth of the Progressive Peacnik. Indeed, as Bob Dole once remarked, all the major wars of the 20th century were "Democrat wars." WWI and WWII, along with Korea and Vietnam were undertaken with the duplicity of Dems. New Left historian Gabriel Kolko has gone so far as to argue that on the question of empire, Bush may be preferable to Kerry. Wonder what the fishing is like around here in November.

Wednesday, August 18, 2004

The Coming Realignment?

At a recent even sponsored by the Free Congress Foundation, Bob Novak made the following stunning prediction:

"If George W. Bush loses this election, you are going to find an implosion in the Republican Party. The Christian conservatives will be blamed, unfairly I think, by people who don't want them in the party."

Novak predicts that the ascent to the presidency of one of the senate's most liberal members would trigger a realignment in American politics and inaugurate the ascendancy of the Democrats.

My question is, will anyone notice the difference? Bush's embrace of big government (No Child Left Behind, The "Patriot Act," cheap drugs for old-timers, spending habits that would make LBJ blush, a tacit defense of affirmative action, wars to remake Mesopotamia--talk about social engineering, etc.) has made him virtually indistinguishable from his liberal counterparts.

As for Christians being blamed for the coming debacle, they have nowhere to look but in the mirror. Their unqualified embrace a big-government, war-mongering conservatism, represented by Bush and the Neocons, was strateically foolish and unprincipled. As the Scriptures say, you shall reap what you sow.

More Propaganda

The Washington Times is reporting that Saddam Hussein “periodically removed guards on the Syrian border and replaced them with his own Intelligence agents who supervised the movement of banned materials between the two countries.”

“Conservative” media outlets like World Net Daily and Christian commentators like Rod Martin jumped on the story as proof that Iraq moved WMDs to Syria prior to the American invasion.

Do they believe that? If so, they need to answer a couple of questions:

1) Why would a sovereign country give chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons to a neighboring state? Does that make sense to anyone?

2) Why would Syria, seeing an unstable White House on the verge of attacking Iraq, bring such materials into its country? Would that not constitute provoking the hombre in the White House with the itchy trigger finger? Does anyone assume that the Syrians are that stupid?

Sunday, August 15, 2004

More on the War in Iraq

Can we avoid a catastrophe in Iraq? No, unfortunately, we cannot. The war has turned out to be, as everyone should have seen, a strategic disaster, and there is nothing that can be done about it. Here is Kaplan:

"This is a terribly grim thing to say, but there might be no solution to the problem of Iraq. There might be nothing we can do to build a path to a stable, secure, let alone democratic regime. And there's no way we can just pull out without plunging the country, the region, and possibly beyond into still deeper disaster."

Wolfowitz, Feith, Rumsefeld, Krauthammer, Kristol and all the rest of the cheery Neocons who got us into the mess ought to be sent down the river. What kind of country are we living in when Martha Stewart goes to jail for a non-existent crime and these jokers are walking around free men? These braying banshees and their media accomplices, crying for the blood of Mulsims from Malaysia to Morocco, concocted a spider web that connected a radical Islamist like Bin Laden with a latent secularist like Hussein. And we fell for it. Acting as patrons for a foreign power, they were willing to unleash the dogs of war from the safety of their conference rooms at the American Enterprise Institute.

One thing the Neo's promised was that Iraqi’s Shia Muslims would welcome US forces with open arms. It will be a cakewalk, they chortled. We will be greeted as liberators, said the Veep. Well, look at things now.

Meanwhile, the original causus belli, that Iraq had WMDs they might use against Americans, or turn over to Islamic terrorists, has turned out to be little more than embellished tales from defectors, looking to instigate a conflict. We now know, as Scott Ritter told anyone who would listen, that Iraq did not have a weapons program and had given up nuclear ambitions in 1991!

Consequently, the administration is spinning a new rationale for the war. Mr. Bush says that, "The establishment of a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution. Our commitment to the global expansion of the alternative to instability and to hatred and terror is...the third pillar of security."

This Wilsonian pabulum is little more than utopianism. A democratic imperialism that will bleed us dry and isolate America from the world. The administration has staked American credibility to a war we cannot win and a cause (i.e., democratism) that has no support among our people. They used the pretext of 9/11 to advance their long-standing goal of remaking the Middle East.

Writing in The American Conservative, Pat Buchanan predicted the disaster:

With our MacArthur Regency in Baghdad, Pax Americana will reach apogee. But the tide recedes, for the one endeavor at which Islamic peoples will excel is expelling imperial powers by terror and guerrilla war. They drove the Brits out of Palestine and Aden, the French out of Algeria, the Russians out of Afghanistan, the Americans out of Somalia and Beirut, the Israelis out of Lebanaon.

We have started up the road to empire and over the next hill we shall meet those who went before. The only lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.

And so it has come to pass. Nearly eighteen months have passed since the fall of Baghdad and "the end of major combat operations." The war has cost more than $200 billion, nearly 1,000 young Americans have given their lives, and countless more have been wounded and maimed. In the wake of Abu Gharib, American moral credibility has vanished and Iraq is spinning toward civil war. Moreover, there is no end in sight.

Methinks it is time to look for the nearest off-ramp.

Saturday, August 14, 2004

Bush and the Homosexualists

The news of the week has been peppered with the shenanigans of sodomites and their homophile friends in the press. New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey, enmeshed in an adulterous homosexual scandal with a state employee, who just happened to be an Israeli national, held an unusual press conference announcing his resignation. McGreevey said he had looked deeply into the mirror of his soul and realized that, "my truth is that I am a gay American." Christie Todd Whitman hailed the resignation as "courageous" and right-wing poohbah Rush Limbaugh said that the first emotion he felt was sympathy. The thrice-divorced Rush, staunch defender of the family, went on to say (italics are mine):

…whatever political intrigue is involved here, the thing I know is that Jim McGreevey personally as a human being has a real tough road to hoe. I don't care how he comes across on television. I'm sure that last night was very liberating for him… It's not an easy way to have lived, and it's a blessing to him that this has happened. For himself personally, for his life, for his future, this is a blessing that this has happened. There are going to be a lot of people that are going to try to join him and use him for their own gain. There will be a lot of people that will go against him to try to use him for their own gain, but in the middle of all that is Jim McGreevey who's got to live his life and try to find some sort of happiness and contentment in it and it is not going to be easy no matter what public face he puts forward… You know, for all of the political ramifications, for all of his career, the personal life aspects of this cannot be easy, but he's, for whatever reason, is here taking the first step toward setting it all straight. And I want to be one to wish him well in his personal quest here to make this a positive and liberating an event as it can be.

Meanwhile, on the west coast, the California Supreme Court invalidated some 4,000 homosexual marriages sanctioned by the city of San Francisco and its lawless mayor, Gavin Newsome. The court’s ruling focused on the narrow issue of whether Newsome had the authority to ignore existing California law preventing same-sex unions. The court has not yet ruled on the larger question of whether such a ban violates the California constitution.

Since neither Mr. Limbaugh nor the black-robed Brahmins on the court are infallible, Christians should consider what the Scriptures have to say about homosexuality. The Old Testament condemns homosexuality in no uncertain terms. Buggery is termed an "abomination," and Leviticus 20:13 established the death penalty for homosexual acts.

In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul provides a revealing description of homosexuality:

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion (Rom. 1:27).

The word "inflamed" here literally means "to burn out." Homosexuality involves the burning out of a man. The structure of the passage in Romans 1 indicates that homosexuality as a practice represents the height of apostasy and hostility toward God. In short, the homosexual is at war with God, and is denying His order and His law. As R. J. Rushdoony says, "homosexuality becomes prominent in every area of apostasy and time of decline. It is an end of an age phenomenon." We are living in such times.

After the Supreme Court struck down state sodomy laws in the Lawrence case, it was only a matter of time before the institution of marriage itself was put in the crosshairs of the homosexualists and their allies.

Dr. Albert Mohler recently wrote that Christians should be preeminently concerned with defending marriage against the assaults of crusading homosexualists. Mohler wrote:

The protection of marriage constitutes the great moral challenge of our age, framing not only the 2004 presidential election, but determining the future shape of ourcivilization. Given the stakes, no issue rivals the question of marriage, for to destroy humanity's central institution is to launch the greatest social revolution in human history.

Mohler does an excellent job dissecting the duplicity of Senator Kerry vis a vis the issue of gay marriage. However, Mohler fails to discuss George Bush’s record on sodomy. By his silence, Mohler implies that Bush stands against the homosexualist assault.
But what is the actual Bush record on sodomy? We know that Mr. Bush has:

1) Appointed numerous homosexuals to prominent jobs in the administration.

When Bill Clinton appointed hot dog heir James Hormel and Roberta Achtenberg, conservatives were appalled and outraged. However, when Bush appointed Michael Guest to an ambassadorship in Romania, conservatives raised nary a peep of protest.

Writing in "The American Conservative," James Antle claims that the embassy in Bucharest is now being called the "pink embassy" and the "Bucharest bathhouse." Antle says:

A letter sent by a group of Romanian NGOs and individuals to President Bush and Secretary Powell in January named high-level appointees responsible for having "transformed the U.S. diplomatic addresses in to havens of debauchery," and further alleges that "(b)ased on reports and pornographic photos circulating around newspapers…" they "… use their privileged positions to corrupt young Romanians, paying them for sexual relations, by both cash and visas to the U.S." The signatories of this letter include the Union of War Veterans, the National League of December 1989 Combatants, and three former Romanian parliament members.

According to Patrick Johnston, President Bush also appointed an open homosexual to the U.S. Commission on Fine Arts, presided over the appointment of another open homosexual to oversee the choice of civilian personnel at the Pentagon, and posted a job for a "gay and lesbian program specialist" at the Department of Agriculture. President Bush also appointed an open homosexual to the State Department as an arms control advisor, the first appointment of an openly gay person to a senior arms control post.

2) Extended federal death benefits to same-sex couples for the first time.
Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, says that the administration has made no attempt to roll back Clinton-era executive orders. Indeed, Birch says:

This administration has remained studiously neutral on the issue of gay Americans. They realize they made some inroads in the last election. On the other hand, they're constantly monitoring their right flank.

3) Strategized with homosexuals.

Indeed, the White House even saw fit to consult with the Log Cabin Club about judicial nominees. If only Christians had that kind of access!!

The list of outrages could go on, and I would urge you to consult the Family Policy Network website for more information.

Again we see the importance of judging leaders by their actions rather than their words. President Bush speaks frequently of his "faith," which is intangible, and of which I have no doubt. But as Christians and citizens, we need to keep an eye on his deeds. The Scriptures confirm that it is by his deeds that you judge a man. And President Bush, with his actions, has done much to advance the homosexualist cause.

Sunday, August 08, 2004

Weekend Update

Thank You, Mr. President!

"Nearly 35 percent of the illegal aliens captured trying to enter the United States in the 19 days after President Bush proposed a still-pending guest-worker program say they were trying to take advantage of what many saw as amnesty.

Beginning just days after the Bush announcement, the number of illegal aliens caught crossing into this country from Mexico increased dramatically, immigration-enforcement officials said, although the White House painstakingly has denied that the president's guest-worker proposal offered amnesty — saying, instead, it would give illegal aliens holding jobs in the United States temporary work permits, but they eventually would have to go home.

Outlined as a set of principles and not as specific legislation, the Bush proposal did not prescribe any penalties for those caught entering the country illegally and would allow those here to remain in the United States for an as-yet undetermined number of renewable three-year periods."

Bush, Kerry, and the L-Word

"President Bush isn’t what you’d call the polar opposite of a liberal. He’s the biggest spender to occupy the White House since Lyndon Johnson; his prize accomplishment, to call it that, being a huge expansion of Medicare. No wonder he’s concerned about unborn children. He’s going to need them — to pay all the taxes he’s already ensured for the next generation."

Hannity Really is a Bozo

"Night after night on Fox TV’s “Hannity & Colmes” program, Hannity bullies, brow-beats, interrupts, yells at, points a finger at, viciously attacks and un-Christianly imputes the basest motives imaginable to anyone who deviates one jot or tittle from the Bush Administration’s talking-points in defense of the expensive, bloody mess the Iraq war has become."

The Iraq War: Not a Liberal/Conservative Issue

"Come Election Day, voters must ask themselves what they ask each time a first-term president seeks re-election: Does this president, does this administration, deserve to be re-elected?

Because Bush has violated so many bedrock conservative values, conservatives as well as Democrats and independents will be asking that question this time. "

What Did John Kerry do in Vietnam?

A former assistant secretary of defense and Fletcher School of Diplomacy professor,W. Scott Thompson, recalled a conversation with the late Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr. that clearly had a slightly different take on Kerry's recollection of their discussions: "[T]he fabled and distinguished chief of naval operations,Admiral Elmo Zumwalt,told me --30 years ago when he was still CNO [chief naval officer in Vietnam] that during his own command of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam,just prior to his anointment as CNO, young Kerry had created great problems for him and the other top brass,by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets. "We had virtually to straitjacket him to keep him under control", the admiral said. "Bud" Zumwalt got it right when he assessed Kerry as having large ambitions --but promised that his career in Vietnam would haunt him if he were ever on the national stage."

Bush Administration to Invite UN Monitors to Oversee US Election
My guess is that bought and paid for professional conservatives won't have anything to say about this outrageous abrogation of sovereignty.

Wednesday, August 04, 2004

Wednesday Blues

Demeaning the Body of Christ:

"Irreverent and trend-driven, the goods reflect what is happening in Protestant churches, where people are leaving formal, tradition-steeped denominations in favor of independent, informal but theologically conservative churches. As many young Christians are pursuing faith outside the church, in rock bands or free-floating ministries, they are also seeking wares outside established Christian markets."

Democrats aborting themselves out of existence--I'll leave the cynical thoughts to my readers. This does, however, explain Democrat support for mass immigration. If you are going to kill off your voters in the womb, you have to replace them. Hence, the Dems want to import voters.

Bush V. Kerry--and the winner is...Ariel Sharon:

"A leaked draft of the Democratic Party platform and recent statements by John Kerry suggest that a Democratic White House would continue the Bush administration's enthusiastic support for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon."

Why are so many American PhDs unemployed? Immigration.
Rubenstein shows that as the number of American PhDs has increased, so has the unemployment rate among natives. The unemployment rate for computer programmers is now 6.5%, actually seven-tenths of a percent above the unemployment rate for the workforce as a whole.

A few billion here, a few billion there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money.
According to this article by David Hackworth, $8.8 BILLION dollars has gone missing in Iraq. Meanwhile, grunts in the field are having to pony up $9 for a pizza and $3 for a movie.