Thursday, September 29, 2005

The Religious Right and Cindy Sheehan

I seldom read political blogs and try to stay away from the purveyors of wisdom associated with the Christian Right--but sometimes, I just can't help myself.

In discussing anti-war mom, Cindy Sheehan, Jerry Falwell says, "I cringe to think of the emotional anguish that she must continue to go through as a result of her boy's death. I cannot imagine how heartrending it must be to lose a son to war. In that regard, my heart truly goes out to her."

In his unceasing desire to take every thought captive to Christ, Falwell then retreats to guilt by association three paragraphs later and chides Sheehan for garnering "support" from David Duke and Michael Moore. Not wanting to stop the smearbund, Falwell continues, "Ms. Sheehan has even gained the admiration of the Socialist Worker online (a pro-Marxist site) which noted that her efforts are precursor for a vast antiwar protest in Washington, D.C., on September 24."

Falwell then proceeds to (rightly) castigate protestors gathered outside the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. and decrys the "mainstream media's" lack of coverage vis a vis the anti-war movement. The poor folks in the press have a difficult task satisfying someone like Falwell. If they cover the anti-war contingent (now roughly 60% of the country), they are accused of giving too much credence to a group of malcontents. On the other hand, if they fail to acknowledge protestors, Jerry calls them "despicable" and accuses them of a "head-in-the-sand approach."

Not to be outdone is Falwell's former henchmen at the Moral Majority, Cal Thomas. In criticizing Sheehan's comparison of Iraq and Vietnam, Thomas wrote, "This isn't Vietnam, as Sheehan claims. While Vietnam is communist, Vietnamese did not attack America on Sept. 11, nor are they infiltrating our country in an attempt to destroy us." Thomas went on to say, "The case for creating peace and stability in Iraq is a good one." Um, does Cal read the paper? Is he still unaware that none of the 9/11 hijackers came from Iraq, that Hussein was not aligned with Bin-Laden, etc.? Does he really believe that pre-war Iraq was a threat to the US, or anyone else? Wasn't there already peace and stability in Iraq, and has our intervention there been a catalyst for creating stability or chaos? Is he naive, ignorant, or malevolent?

Right-wing media critic Hugh Hewitt also criticized the Post's coverage of Sheehan and the anti-war activism of military families. Hewitt writes:

My observations of military families would estimate that for every Cindy Sheehan, there are at least 100 proud and genuinely supportive family members who are do not "support" the troops by condeming the war. The Post refuses in this article to provide any estimates, even though this isn't an impossible or even difficult task, just one certain to undermine the reporter's agenda of implying that significant numbers of military family members are opposed to the war.

Real jorunalism would ask what is a "significant" percentage first, and then probe to discover whether or not there was a real story here, or just the inevitable surfacing of dissent which while absolutely genuine, does not reach a level that approaches "newsworthiness." Because the reporter is interested in presenting an anti-war story line, though, the "three busloads" tells us absolutely zero in terms of numbers and proportions, and is used as a bride to legitimacy for the premise that Cindy Sheehan represents more than a handful of protesters.

Fine, Hugh, but were you upset by the failure of the "liberalmainstreammedia" to report on the misgivings of military professionals leading up to the Iraq war? While chickenhawks like Wolfie, Feith, and Wurmser were plotting world domination over a game of Risk, many in uniform, past and present, were sounding the alarms. Anthony Zinni, Eric Shinseki, William Odom, Brent Scowcroft, David Hackworth, Norman Schwarzkopf, James Webb, and a host of current military leaders warned of the inevitable consequences of an Iraq invasion. But such arguments carry little weight with uberblogging keyboard bombardiers like Hewitt and Instapundit when there's Cindy Sheehan to kick around.

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Richard Land and Benevolent Global Hegemony

As a Southern Baptist, I’m outraged that even a single dime of my money goes to finance the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission and provide Richard Land a platform from which to propagate his outrageous ideas. Today, I see that Dr. Land recently addressed an august forum at the Council on Foreign Relations, mouthpiece of the Eastern Liberal Establishment and playpen of the New World Order.

Land has apparently imbibed from the neocon Kool-Aid and is beginning to sound like Max Boot. Land says, “God for his own purposes has chosen to give much to America, and to whom much is given much is required.” What exactly is required? Well Dr. Land unbosomed himself further, saying:

We have a special obligation and a special responsibility to be the friend of freedom, to be the defender of freedom, anywhere in the world; that it is part of our obligation as Christian citizens of this nation to do what we can to make certain that our government is not just a government of a nation with interests—although we are a nation and we do have interests, but we are also a cause, and that cause is freedom. That cause is freedom of conscience. That cause is human dignity. And that we want our government to be a force for those things in the world and to help those who aspire to those things anywhere in the world.

From where does Dr. Land conjure this divine imperative? I’ve searched my Bible and Constitution in vain for any justification of messianic imperialism. Has Land exegeted an obscure passage in Ezekiel using a Lindsey-style hermeneutic to support his claim of American exceptionalism? Perhaps he has been reading the Founders? Well, maybe not. Here is John Adams:

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

And George Washington:

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them...As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the arts of seduction, tomislead public opinion, to influence or awe the Public Councils…

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Yet Dr. Land continues to cheerlead on behalf an American militarism, indeed imperialism. He even speaks favorably of the U. S. enforcing the UN Declaration of Human Rights. I’m not kidding. Listen to Land,

I think that we—everyone has a right—the universal—the U.N. universal declaration of human rights says that every human being has the inherent right to freedom of conscience in matters of faith and not only the right to believe, but the right practice or change that faith. It seems to me that should be our gold standard…But I do have a right, as an American and as a citizen, to say that every nation in the world should respect the basic rights laid down in the U.N.’s universal declaration of human rights, which virtually every country in the world is a signatory to.

So where will we next work to ensure “freedom of conscience?” Land believes that the U. S. should have intervened in the Balkans earlier, and that we are “morally culpable” for failing to intervene in Rwanda.

I argued—I argued from every rooftop I could find in the early 1990s for American intervention in Bosnia, that we should do so with NATO, but if NATO would not do it—just because NATO wouldn’t grow a spine doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. And to me, the ultimate—the ultimate—poster, the ultimate symbol of multilateralism without American leadership, even in Europe, were those Dutch peacekeepers handcuffed around the trees while the Serbian thugs sorted out the Muslim men and boys to be taken out into the woods and shot in the worst case of ethnic cleansing since the end of World War II.

And I believe that America is culpable because we could have acted, and we didn’t. We’re culpable morally because we could have acted in Rwanda, and we didn’t. And just because the multilateral organizations wouldn’t go with us does not relieve us of the responsibility of acting when we had the capacity to act without overwhelming negative repercussions.

Finally Land comes out is favor of spreading “democracy” hither and yon through “non-military” means—and in the process indicates that maybe, just maybe something needs to be done about those awful Iranians. Land writes:

I would wish that we could do everything we could to help non-militarily. I—let me preface this by saying I strongly support the assist democracies act that has currently been passed by the U.S. House and is now before the U.S. Senate, which lays out a myriad of ways. I mean, the act is about that thick in single-spaced type, sponsored by Frank Wolf in the House and John McCain in the Senate, that would specify myriad ways—non-military ways—in which the United States government would seek to promote democracy and to promote freedom and promote representative government by assisting movements within those countries that are seeking it that do not have it.

And I would wish that the Iranian people can have an open and free internationally monitored election in which they could decide for themselves how they would be governed. And they would decide for themselves the laws under which they would be governed and that anyone who wanted to who was an Iranian citizen could participate freely in that process. That is obviously not the case in Iran at the present, much to the dismay of many Iranians. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the world for Iran to develop nuclear weapons. I am comfortable with the process that is currently going forward to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons capabilities.

When did it become the obligation of Americans to secure "freedom" and "democracy" in other lands? Dr. Land would cast aside national interests, indeed the Biblical imperative of the civil magistrate to protect its people, in order to worship the golden calf of democracy.

Read the entire transcript here.

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Good Stuff From Tom Fleming

Tom Fleming may not be the smartest fella in America, but he writes with unmistakable verve. In the latest issue of Chronicles, Fleming takes up a subject near and dear to his heart--Islamic terrorism. Fleming says that, "Islam was the first political system to make terrorism a deliberate instrument of a righteous policy" and any the suppression of this fact "by both politicians and journalists, exceeds the Stalinist propaganda of the 1940's."

Fleming also unleashes a few more polemical pyrotechnics:

"Now that the conscience has virtually disappeared, the lovers of war crimes should exult in their heroes’ glorious deeds. There are so many mass murderers to admire—Attila, Tojo, Sultan Mehmed II—but American conservatives must await the next book of Victor Davis Hanson to find out who their next criminal-hero will be."

"Before we can hope to exert any political influence, conservative Christians must achieve moral clarity and begin to act as men and women of faith who support (if they do) the republican Party on practical grounds instead of being what too many Catholic and evangelical voters are today: Republicans who sing in church but leave their faith, along with the discarded bulletins, behind in the pew."

"Opposition to terrorism is a moral act and must begin with moral understanding. You can, as a Christian, refuse to countenance any foolish talk that we are fighting a necessary, much less just, war in Iraq. Such language is as unacceptable from serious-minded laymen as it is from pastors or priests. One can argue pleasantly among friends about the facts of a war—whether, for example, Saddam Hussein had the will and the means to harm the United States. But it would be hard to maintain Christian fellowship with those who, on principle, advocate either an unjust war or the slaughter of civilians." (As an aside, this is an interesting point, because were I as a Southern Baptist unwilling "to maintain Christian fellowship with those who, on principle, advocate either an unjust war or the slaughter of civilians," I would be pretty lonely.)

Fleming is also writing provocative essays at the Chronicles website. Here he attacks individualist and democratist faiths. Fleming urges Christians to stop reading Rick Warren and Joel Osteen and instead head instead to Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Polycarp, and Tertullian. Fleming also attacks the various "isms" which are in fact inversions of Christian faith:

"The need for humility and patient study is becoming steadily more acute as Christians of every type are being seduced by alien ideologies that are essentially incompatible with their religion: Straussianism, neoconservatism, democratism, libertarianism, sentimental humanitarianism, vegetarianism, and every Rightsism—from women’s to animals. Even good men and women try to compromise the long and deep Christian ethical tradition with Christianity’s cheap and Johnny-Come-Lately Rivals, whose language they adopt. Metternich once said, “Speak of the Social Contract, and the Revolution is made.” In other words, use the language of the revolution—individual rights, majority rule, market efficiency—and you are furthering the cause of Anti-Christianity, whatever you may think you intend."

C'Mon Pat!

A casual reader of Dow Blog might come away with the impression that I am a Pat Buchanan sycophant. Though I believe Pat is a voice of sanity crying out in the wilderness, I have written about him with a tad of ambivalence in the past.

Some of his recent columns have been fantastic. Here he practically calls for Dubya's impeachment. Pat says:

The question of whether America is going to remain one nation, or whether our Southwest will wind up as a giant Kosovo – separated by language and loyalty from the rest of America – is on the table.

Where is Bush? All wrapped up in the issue of whether women in Najaf will have the same rights in divorce and custody cases as women in Nebraska . His legislative agenda for the fall includes a blanket amnesty for illegals, so they can be exploited by businesses who want to hold wages down as they dump the social costs for their employees – health care, schools, courts, cops, prisons – onto taxpayers.

"Some courageous Republican," Pat says, "should drop into the hopper a bill of impeachment, charging George W. Bush with a conscious refusal to uphold his oath and defend the states of the Union against 'invasion.'"

In his latest lambasting of the president, Pat wonders, "Is George Bush a conservative at all?" Isn't the answer obvious, Pat?

But just a few months ago, Pat endorsed the president from his perch at "The American Conservative." After a brief nod in the direction of the Constitution Party, Pat writes:

This election has come down to Bush or Kerry, and on life, guns, judges, taxes, sovereignty, and defense, Bush is far better. Moreover, inside the Republican Party, a rebellion is stirring. Tom Tancredo is leading the battle for defense of our borders. While only a handful of Republicans stood with us against the war in Iraq, many now concede that we were right. As Franklin Foer writes in the New York Times, our America First foreign policy is now being given a second look by a conservative movement disillusioned with neoconservative warmongering and Wilsonian interventionism.

There is a rumbling of dissent inside the GOP to the free-trade fanaticism of the Wall Street Journal that is denuding the nation of manufacturing and alienating Reagan Democrats. The celebrants of outsourcing in the White House have gone into cloister. The Bush amnesty for illegal aliens has been rejected. Prodigal Republicans now understand that their cohabitation with Big Government has brought their country to the brink of ruin and bought them nothing. But if we wish to be involved in the struggle for the soul of the GOP—and we intend to be there—we cannot be AWOL from the battle where the fate of that party is decided.

There is another reason Bush must win. The liberal establishment that marched us into Vietnam evaded punishment for its loss of nerve and failure of will to win—by dumping LBJ, defecting to the children’s crusade to “give peace a chance,” then sabotaging Nixon every step of the way out of Vietnam until they broke his presidency in Watergate. Ensuring America’s defeat, they covered their tracks by denouncing their own war as “Nixon’s War.”

If Kerry wins, leading a party that detests this war, he will be forced to execute an early withdrawal. Should that bring about a debacle, neocons will indict Democrats for losing Iraq. The cakewalk crowd cannot be permitted to get out from under this disaster that easily. They steered Bush into this war and should be made to see it through to the end and to preside over the withdrawal or retreat. Only thus can they be held accountable. Only thus can this neo-Jacobin ideology be discredited in America’s eyes. It is essential for the country and our cause that it be repudiated by the Republican Party formally and finally. The neocons must clean up the mess they have made, themselves, in full public view.

But this is an awfully lame excuse to break the elephant suit out of the atttic. Where is the evidence that any sizable faction of the GOP or the "conservative movement" is on the verge of hoisting the banner of economic nationalism, limited government, and an America First foreign policy? Since the election, the GOP has passed CAFTA, enacted a budget with a $300+ billion deficit, and is now proposing that unemployed steel workers in Weirton pay to rebuild the Gulf Coast. Meanwhile, there is no end in sight in Iraq and the president is likely to make yet another push to amnesty millions of illegal immigrants.

What I wrote in my scintillating review of "Where the Right Went Wrong" stands, "Like so many on the Right, he (Buchanan) 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...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.'"

Saturday, September 17, 2005

Thoughts on the Pledge--And Other Annoyances

On Wednesday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional. Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" represents “a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Writing about the decision, Dr. Albert Mohler said the following:

What does all this mean? Christians should be careful to think clearly about the Pledge of Allegiance and the current controversy. Secularists like Michael Newdow represent the hard edge of ideological attacks upon all expressions of theistic belief in the public arena. The truth is that the courts have allowed and driven a constriction of religious liberty such that any public reference or acknowledgment of the beliefs common to vast millions of Americans is now considered to represent an unconstitutional establishment of religion by the government.
In recent years this has meant the eradication of prayers at public events such as graduation ceremonies and football games, and the removal of monuments and emblems from government property and vehicles.

All this puts believing Christians in a difficult position. After all, the Court has ruled that symbols and references to a divine being are allowable only insofar as those references point to no specific deity. Beyond this, the courts have ruled that the only permissible reference to deity is a reference that so reduces the definition of deity that it appears difficult for all but the most ardent atheist to object.

Because of this, Christians must not defend the presence of the word "under God" in the Pledge as a direct reference to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob--the Triune God whom Christians worship as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. At best, the presence of this language in the Pledge and similar expressions on the nation's currency represent an acknowledgement of a power higher than the State itself and the nation's dependency upon that power for its safety and well being. Nevertheless, a decision from the Supreme Court that would require the removal of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance would represent a disastrous imposition of official secularism as the nation's public commitment.

Mohler followed up his commentary with a radio show covering the same topic, and he is clearly ambivalent, I think, about the Pledge. But, and perhaps I’m missing something, isn’t Mohler effectively saying we should violate the Fourth Commandment (“"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.”) in order to prevent “a disastrous imposition of official secularism as the nation's public commitment.” If we are unable to speak of God in the traditional Trinitarian sense, are we not engaged in blasphemy?

Brannon House, author of One Nation Under Man? The Worldview War Between Christians and the Secular Left (Talk about a tired title), said, "If we don't teach our children in school that there is a God, that there is an authority higher than government, then government becomes the only authority. What the government gives, the government can take away.”

Let me say this slowly for the benefit of Mr. House. The public schools are a(anti) theistic by definition, and it is beyond ludicrous for Christians to assume their children will learn about God or His Law within the bowels of these temples of atheism. It is the fear of God that teaches wisdom (Job 27:28, Ps. 111:10, Prov. 1:7, Prov. 9:10, Prov. 15:33) and while the Christian has answers to life’s great philosophical quandaries (How did we get here? What is the problem with the world? How do we know what we know? What happens when we die? Etc., etc.), the guardians of cultural Marxism systematically exclude our remedies in favor of a materialistic worldview.

Writing in better times before conservative theologians were nearly universally lackeys for The Man, J. Greshem Machen, penned the following thoughts about public education:

In the state of Oregon, on Election Day, 1922, a law was passed by a referendum vote in accordance with which all children in the state are required to attend the public schools. Christian schools and private schools, at least in the all-important lower grades, are thus wiped out of existence. Such laws, which if the present temper of the people prevails will probably soon be extended far beyond the bounds of one state, which will mean of course the ultimate destruction of real education. When one considers what the public schools of America in many places already are-- their materialism, their discouragement of any sustained intellectual effort, their encouragement of the dangerous pseudo-scientific fads of experimental psychology-- one can only be appalled by the thought of a commonwealth in which there is no escape from such a soul-killing system. But the principle of such laws and their ultimate tendency are far worse than the immediate results. A public school system, in itself, is indeed of enormous benefit to the race. But it is of benefit only if it is kept healthy at every moment by the absolutely free possibility of the competition of private schools. A public school system, if it means the providing of free education for those who desire it, is a noteworthy and beneficent achievement of modern times; but when once it becomes monopolistic it is the most perfect instrument of tyranny which has yet been devised. Freedom of thought in the middle ages was combated by the Inquisition, but the modern method is far more effective. Place the lives of children in their formative years, despite the convictions of their parents, under the inimate control of experts appointed by the state, force them then to attend schools where the higher aspirations of humanity are crushed out, and where the mind is filled with the materialism of the day, and it is difficult to see how even the remnants of liberty can subsist. Such a tyranny, supported as it is by a perverse technique used as the instrument in destroying human souls, is certainly far more dangerous than the crude tyrannies of the past, which despite their weapons of fire and sword permitted thought at least to be free.

The truth is that the materialistic paternalism of the present day, if allowed to go on unchecked, will rapidly make America one huge 'Main Street,' where spiritual adventure will be discouraged and democracy will be regarded as consisting in the reduction of all mankind to the proportions of the narrowest and least gifted citizens.

Machen wrote these words In Christianity and Liberalism in 1923. A day in which the Ten Commandments were posted, children could pray in school, there were no TVs, X-Boxes, or rock ‘n roll, and the culture was more-or-less "Christian" by our way of reckoning.

Speaking of lackeys, Hugh Hewitt writes that Afghanis and Iraqis are emulating Madison, Hamilton, and Patrick Henry. Evidently, if they sit down and read and read David McCullough's latest, they'll be on the way to jump-starting a freemarketcapitalistdemocratic utopia. Send a few copies of the Federalist Papers and they'll really be ready to roll.

Jerry Falwell comes out of the closet and says to hell with property rights and freedom of association.

Prophecy-Monger Kookdom!

Is the Vatican going to crack the whip on homosexual priests?

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Syria on Deck, Roberts=Breyer, and Things You Can't Say

Looks like perhaps Syria is on deck:

The top U.S. diplomat in Iraq said Syria has become a hub for terrorists and that U.S. "patience is running out," but he refused to specify what consequences Damascus might face.

The U.S. warning comes as thousands of U.S. and Iraqi forces continued a major assault in the town of TalAfar near the Syrian border, that has left up to 200 insurgents dead.

Speaking to reporters at the State Department, U.S. ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad said: "Our patience is running out, the patience of Iraqis are running out. The time for decision ... has arrived for Damascus."

Khalilzad refused to rule out either a military strike on Syria or an attempt to further punish Syria through the United Nations Security Council.

According to Joe Farah, we aren't getting another David Souter in the person of Judge Roberts, we're actually getting Steven Breyer. At today's hearings, Roberts proved himself an artful dodger. However, when asked about Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Roberts said the Court emphasized principles that had been settled for years. "It's entitled to respect under those principles," Roberts said. It is time for social conservatives to wake up to the fact that their "leaders" have no interest whatsoever in overturning Roe v. Wade. And the corruption goes all the way to the top.

I haven't commented on the mess in New Orleans, and probably won't. Why cover ground already heavily trod? But for a few interesting theological considerations, here is a terrific post by Sam Storms on common grace. Mohler takes on the naturalism of Niall Ferguson, the God-diminishing theology of Tony Campolo, and a slew of jokers who claim to have a pipeline to the Almighty and are willing to helpfully hurl judgment at their neighbors.

Hey, you can't say THAT! Or that! That either. Oh, and please keep that to yourself, too.

According to a recent Newsweek poll, 40% of Americans think we are making progress in Iraq and 49% think that the effort is going south. Incredibly, 68% of white evangelicals--my people--still think invading Iraq was "the right thing to do." What shall we say of these followers of the Prince of Peace? Do they have an Internet connection so that they can access news other than propaganda spewed by Hannity, Limbaugh, and Faux News? Or do they just not care that wanton and unwarranted destruction has been visited on a people who in no way threatened Americans? Do they not care that every explanation for war provided by the administration has been false? In short, are they ignorant, lawless, or both?

Monday, September 12, 2005

Paleocons and Tragedy

Via a link from Justin Raimondo, I stumbled across an interesting blog called ‘The American Scene.’ The chief blogger at the site is Ross Douthat, who writes for the Atlantic Monthly.

In a post calling the events surrounding Katrina the "Anti-9/11," Douthat wrote, "9/11 was a tragedy well-suited to the neoconservative vision, and Katrina is better suited to a paleoconservative view of the world. The fall of the twin towers was a nightmare, but the lessons of that dreadful day felt bracing - that America was still a great and united country; that we had been too long asleep while threats gathered; that the time had come to put aside irony and drift and experience a new birth of resolve and martial vigor. 9/11 allowed people, and especially writers (myself included), to strike quasi-Churchillian poses, tell "hard truths" and talk tough about what needed to be done to defeat our enemies. It made us feel awful, but it also made us good about ourselves."

In fact, the 9/11 attacks in no way invalidated paleoconservatism, and to describe it as "well suited" to the imperious "neoconservative vision" is a stretch.

While running for the presidency in 2000, the most prominent public paleocon, Pat Buchanan, said, " can all our meddling not fail to spark some horrible retribution? Recall: it was in retaliation for the bombing of Libya that Khadafi's agents blew up Pan Am 103. And it is said to have been in retaliation for the Vincennes' accidental shoot-down of that Iranian airliner that Teheran collaborated with terrorists to blow up the Khobar towers. From Pan Am 103, to the World Trade Center, to the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar - have we not suffered enough not to know that interventionism is the incubator of terrorism? Or will it take some cataclysmic atrocity on U.S. soil to awaken our global gamesmen to the asking price of empire?"

Paleocons have been arguing since 1989 for a retrenchment of the garrison state, a retreat of the neocon-inspired "benevolent global hegemon," and for restrictions on immigration.

All of this wise counsel was rejected and the result was 9/11. Our global gamesmen have yet to begin “asking price of empire."

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Poetic Justice

Rep. Jim Kolbe of Arizona, who has a complete disregard for the immigration laws of the United States and has agitated for an amnesty of illegals, had his home burgled by illegals recently.

There is no word if the openly gay Congressmen was running a Barney Farnk-style brothel out of his home, but through a spokesmen, Kolbe said, "These fine folks are merely here to do jobs other Americans can't, or won't do."

Saturday, September 03, 2005

McAtee for Senate

Cyber chum and blogosphere fellow traveler Bret McAtee is running for the U. S. Senate in my home state of Michigan. Having a little experience in the hothouse of third party politics (the 2000 Buchanan fiasco), I hope Bret knows what he is up against. As I have not lived in Michigan for a decade, I'm unsure how organized the Constitution Party is in the Great Lake State, but even ballot access laws there are onerous and burdensome obstacles for minor party candidates (Buchanan was thwarted in his efforts to get on the ballot in 2000). Perhaps, Senator Stabenow can begin agitating for troops to bring democracy to Michigan.

Anyway, good luck Bret, and I'll try and rustle up votes from the six folks in Michigan who still care what I think.

We'll Miss You, Jude

Trolling through my email on Tuesday morning, I was greeted with the sad news that Jude Wanniski died from a sudden heart attack at the much too young age of 69.

Wanniski was an iconoclast and an enigma. Truly, he was unique and indescribable. Best known as the prophet of the supply-side revolution, Wanniski popularized the ideas of Art Laffer and Robert Mundell from his post at the Wall Street Journal.

Later in life, Wanniski became the defender of sundry quixotic and "disreputable" causes. He defended Milosevic and Hussein while mercilessly unmasking the duplicitous machinations of renegade neoncons who have captured the conservative movement, the GOP, and the country. In one of his last memos, Wanniski addressed Bill Kristol. "At some point," Wanniski wrote, "aren't you going to have to look back and say you really goofed, in the myriad articles you wrote…promoting the war in Iraq?"

I will miss the refreshing candor of Wanniski's writings. He defended what remains of conservatism from the onslaught of Trotskyite ideologues engaged in subversion. He will be sorely missed.

Rest in peace, Jude.