Category Archives: Bush

‘Conservatives For Killing Terri’

Bush, Individual Rights, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, libertarianism, Neoconservatism

“I can think of only two occasions on which I agreed with George Bush. Both involved the upholding of the people’s negative, or leave-me-alone, rights.
The first was his refusal to capitulate to the Kyoto-protocol crazies. Not surprisingly, some conservatives denounced this rare flicker of good judgment. And I’m not talking a ‘Crunchy Con’ of Andrew Sullivan’s caliber—he does proud to Greenpeace and the Sierra Club combined. No less a conservative than Joe Scarborough commiserated with actor Robert Redford over the president’s ‘blind spot on the environment.’ (Ditto Bill O’Reilly.)
The other Bush initiative I endorsed was the attempt by Congress to uphold Terri Schiavo’s inalienable right to life—a decision very many conservatives now rue.
Upholding rights to life, liberty, and property is a government’s primary—some would say only—duty. But, bless their cruel little hearts, this cast of conservative characters is at least consistent. It relished the launch of a bloody war in contravention of fact, law, and morality, and now, fittingly, it’s atoning for its incongruent attempts to forestall a killing…”

The excerpt is from my new WorldNetDaily.com column, “Conservatives for Killing Terri.” Comments are welcome.

Bush 43 to 41: 'Daddy Help!'

Bush

President Bush has a lot of problems. That’s obvious. One of them is his father. It’s not that Bush 41 was so wonderful, but he was better than the man who’s distinguished himself as “the worst president in U.S. history”?

Bush junior has become quite prickly in the past, when quizzed about whether he sought his dad’s advice. As Christopher Buckley has written:

“Bob Woodward asked Bush 43 if he had consulted his father before invading Iraq. The son replied that he had consulted ‘a higher father.’ That frisson you feel going up your spine is the realization that he meant it. And apparently the higher father said, ‘Go for it!’ There are those of us who wish he had consulted his terrestrial one; or, if he couldn’t get him on the line, Brent Scowcroft. Or Jim Baker. Or Henry Kissinger. Or, for that matter, anyone who has read a book about the British experience in Iraq. (18,000 dead.)

George Bush is all about one-upmanship, which is a good thing if you can do it honestly and self-reliantly. He can’t.

So what do you make of the runt appointing Robert Michael Gates to replace Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense? Gates is daddy’s man through-and-through. He served under President George H.W. Bush as Director of Central Intelligence and is a member of the bipartisan commission headed by James A. Baker III (another of the former president’s men) to study the Iraq campaign.

I think Baker and Gates, Daddy’s Big Guns, will direct Bush, the shrub, out of Iraq.

Bush 43 to 41: ‘Daddy Help!’

Bush

President Bush has a lot of problems. That’s obvious. One of them is his father. It’s not that Bush 41 was so wonderful, but he was better than the man who’s distinguished himself as “the worst president in U.S. history”?

Bush junior has become quite prickly in the past, when quizzed about whether he sought his dad’s advice. As Christopher Buckley has written:

“Bob Woodward asked Bush 43 if he had consulted his father before invading Iraq. The son replied that he had consulted ‘a higher father.’ That frisson you feel going up your spine is the realization that he meant it. And apparently the higher father said, ‘Go for it!’ There are those of us who wish he had consulted his terrestrial one; or, if he couldn’t get him on the line, Brent Scowcroft. Or Jim Baker. Or Henry Kissinger. Or, for that matter, anyone who has read a book about the British experience in Iraq. (18,000 dead.)

George Bush is all about one-upmanship, which is a good thing if you can do it honestly and self-reliantly. He can’t.

So what do you make of the runt appointing Robert Michael Gates to replace Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense? Gates is daddy’s man through-and-through. He served under President George H.W. Bush as Director of Central Intelligence and is a member of the bipartisan commission headed by James A. Baker III (another of the former president’s men) to study the Iraq campaign.

I think Baker and Gates, Daddy’s Big Guns, will direct Bush, the shrub, out of Iraq.

Updated: 'Voting on November 7, 2006'

America, Bush, IMMIGRATION, libertarianism, Politics, The State

Walter Block has some sensible advice for freedom lovers, which I can safely second (not a given, mind you). Do as Walter says, with one caveat: Vote for your Libertarian state representative, provided—and only if—he is not a “La-Raza Libertarian“—i.e., opposes unfettered immigration and vows to stop the bleeding on the Southwestern border to the best of his abilities and commensurate with the powers delegated to him. Moreover, his avowal to do so must exclude Genghis Bush’s Guest-Worker Program.

I stated in “America’s Open House” that, “as a proponent of states’ rights and decentralization, instantiated in the Ninth and 10th Amendments, I rarely wish to see federal solons usurp the states. Local police ought to be tasked with immigration enforcement.” While immigration officially comes under federal jurisdiction, desperate localities are indeed stepping in to protect their beleaguered constituents. Libertarians ought to welcome such usurpation, especially when it’s to protect life, liberty, and property. Is this not the flip side of Jeffersonian interposition and nullification, whereby states beat back the federal occupier by voiding unconstitutional federal laws? Here, municipalities and states enforce hitherto-unenforced laws that protect lives and livelihoods.

For the rest, over to Walter:

“I really cannot support the federal Libertarian Party. For they, too, just like Paul “Stabilizer” Krugman, want to pull troops out of Iraq, but not bring them home either; instead, send them to yet other foreign countries, where, presumably, there [sic] imperialist services are in greater need… How the principled have fallen. It is one thing for the Democrats, a la Paul “Stabilizer” Krugman to support such a policy. But for Libertarians to do so? Murray Rothbard must be spinning in his grave at the prospect, after he spent so much time and energy trying to inculcate some modicum of principle into this group.

No, I cannot in good conscience ask anyone to support the federal Libertarian Party. Not, at least, until they rescind this horrid policy. (Whenever I get a fund raising letter from them, I reply that I will contribute, but only when and if they publicly climb down from this eminently anti-libertarian viewpoint.) The state libertarian parties, still, are a different matter. In my view, the rot has not set in there to anywhere near the same degree. To the contrary, at the state LP conventions I have addressed, I have found the rank and file to be pretty sensible on all issues, certainly including foreign policy.

So, two cheers for the LP at the state level, and none for them at the federal.”