Category Archives: Conservatism

The Gipper’s Penchant For ‘Gargantuan Government’

Conservatism, Government, Intellectualism, Israel, Liberty, Music, Republicans

At Beliefnet.com, Jack Kerwick rips into a certain elephantiasis to have plagued Ronald Reagan—the Gipper’s penchant for “gargantuan government.” So far, I have only 4 comments, all of them positive, on “The ‘Reagan Revolution’: A Myth Exploded” by Jack Kerwick:

With rare exception, virtually every “star” in the movement is a neoconservative. From the personalities on Fox News to the shining lights of “conservative” talk radio, from “conservative” politicians to the most well known “conservative” writers, there is scarcely an intellect to be found that isn’t indebted to the neoconservative worldview.

[Jack Kerwick, Dec. 26, 2012]

1) Technically, Jack may be right to invoke the word “intellect” with respect to the perpetual parade of mega mouths seen on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, etc. But there must be a better way (a word combination that triggered my musical memory: Watch what passes for pop music in Israel. It’s v e r y g o o d. More solid stuff from “Noa” here. And more about Mira Awad here).

How about “intellectuals who are not intelligent”?

2) Republican Ann Coulter has fleetingly voiced this “Reagan Epiphany,” saying that “Ronald Reagan should not be held up as ‘the touchstone for every [other Republican] candidate.’” But that’s as far as Ms. Coulter’s philosophical integrity went.

3) In fairness, and unlike almost all other Republican candidates, Reagan had the ability to brilliantly enunciate the principles of liberty. Judging from his soaring rhetoric about our (small “r”) republican liberties, Reagan understood these freedoms both viscerally and intellectually. This goes to the Gipper’s innate intelligence, which is forever disputed by the pinko pukes on the left. Intelligence why? Because the argument from liberty is a rational argument; the argument for collectivism an emotional one.

4) In some measure, Ronald Reagan’s affinity for freedom in words but not deeds bolsters another of Jack Kerwick’s brutally honest observations. This one pertains to the “inexcusable” nature of any “ignorance of the immensity of our national government, say, and ignorance of the sheer powerlessness of any one person or even group of persons to scale it back to so much as a shadow of its counterpart from the eighteenth century. …”

Jack Kerwick Against ‘Conservatives’ For Gargantuan Government

Conservatism, Democrats, Republicans, The Zeitgeist

“Major media feeds on mediocrity,” I wrote in “Just Another Mouth in the Republican Fellatio Machine.” Wanna get a gig in Sodom and Gomorrah? Having boobs and no brains (like Margaret Hoover, Gretchen Carlson, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Krystal Ball, Noelle Nikpour, Dana Perino, and S. E. Cupp) goes a long way.

Otherwise, you will have to learn to parrot one of the party-lines.

Jack Kerwick, of The New American, refuses to play the game:

Throughout the first six years of his presidency, George W. Bush’s Republican Party held strong majorities in both chambers of Congress. Thanks to his policies, and his disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan particularly, the Democrats not only defeated the Republicans in 2006 and 2008, the former actually gained super majorities in the House and the Senate. Bush retired from his second term with a 30-percent approval rating.
Yet no sooner was Bush II on the road back to Crawford, Texas than “the Architect” of the GOP’s defeat — Karl Rove — as well as other Bush lackeys, such as Dana Perino, were signing their contracts to become regulars on Fox News. It is there that such stalwart “conservatives” as Sean Hannity, who daily beats the drums about the Democrats’ exorbitant spending, routinely consults Rove and Perino, accomplices to Bush’s exorbitant spending, for counsel on how to frustrate the Democrats’ exorbitant spending.
It is on Fox that the likes of Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer continue to be treated as bottomless fonts of wisdom in spite of their spectacularly checkered track records on all manner of topics. From the Middle Eastern wars within which we remain mired to the presidential nominations of McCain and Mitt Romney to amnesty for the millions of Third World immigrants who are transforming the character of America, Kristol and Krauthammer have been almost shockingly wrong.
There are numerous other instances that could be cited to show that “the conservative movement” has, by and large, been taken over by fame-seekers of one sort or other. The most recent of which I’m aware is that of World Net Daily.
WorldNetDaily is a popular “conservative” website whose editor, Joseph Farrah, has rightly ripped into Karl Rove for the faux conservative that he is. Yet Farrah just hired former Pennsylvania senator and GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum as a regular contributor to WND.
Now, Santorum is about as conservative as Rove. Indeed, if there is any significant difference between the one and the other, or between Santorum and our last president, whose “brain” we are forever told was none other than Mr. Rove himself, I have yet to discover what it could be.
Santorum not only supports “socialized medicine” — i.e., Medicare and Medicaid — but in voting for Medicare Part D, a prescription drug benefit that marked the largest expansion in Medicare since its inception, Santorum actually strengthened socialized medicine while paving the way for ObamaCare.
This former Pennsylvania senator, who enjoys the distinction of having lost his bid for reelection by a larger margin than any senator in the Keystone state’s history, advocates not just “big,” but Gargantuan Government. That Santorum actually wants to increase our troop presence in countries around the world (the 160 or so countries where we currently have troops stationed isn’t sufficient I guess) shows that his foreign policy vision is even more ambitious than that of Bush’s.

Excerpted from “Fame, Fortune, and “the Conservative Movement.”

The only thing about Santorum that is more repulsive than his politics is his constant schmaltzy milking of his daughter’s condition. A cultural conservative, first and foremost, separates his private from his public life and keeps his emotions in check. (Like Romney did. Mitt Romney relented and spoke about his trials, tribulations and good works only when public pressure mounted for him to weep and wobble like a woman.)

UPDATED: An Immigrant Thanks Tucker Carlson (Carlson Quoted)

Canada, Conservatism, Economy, IMMIGRATION, Republicans

That US immigrant is … me.

A couple of the regular “conservative” culprits were cogitating, on Bret Bair’s Special Report, over who could come up with the most “inspiring” (read schmaltzy) message to lure the only immigrants America seems eager to court.

The Republican Party was being described as the designated home of the poor, low-skilled, Latin, welfare recipient (by default), likely illegal new arrival, when, out of the blue, a bold Tucker Carlson saw fit to reintroduced an outrageous idea you’ve heard from other patriots (and even from David Frum).

Desirable immigrants, and I paraphrase Mr. Carlson (transcripts, a civilized feature, so rare online, should be up shortly), are those who are financially successful. (For even if you are a stellar guy earning $17,000; other native and immigrant families will be subsidizing your medical care, your nutritional needs—through food stamps—your schooling, etc.)

To flabbergasted glares from his co-panelists, Tucker inquired as to why we were avoiding a “conversation” about an unmistakable trend—as well as about the identities and countries of origin from whence successful immigrants tend to hail (versus the identity of the unsuccessful kind). Carlson even credited the good kind of newcomer for being partial to the host country’s values and culture.

He will be branded as a racist. That’s for sure.

But thanks, Mr. Carlson. And yeah, how about a “positive” message to high-value immigrants, you know, the kind that help pay for the political largess politicians and pundits are so eager to extend? Kind words are seldom directed at those who do not insist on their right to mulct other Americans (immigrants included) out of their earnings.

The process Canada follows is based on the merits of the individual; his education, linguistic skills (English and French), appreciable achievements and likely ability to find employment. Novel, isn’t it?

UPDATE (Dec. 4): The Carlson quote is up. Here is what Mr. Carlson said to his flabbergasted co-panelists:

CARLSON: …”Well, the screen begins with a conversation about outcomes. Why is it that immigrants from certain countries have not thrived and immigrants from other countries have thrived? No one wants to have that conversation because it’s considered mean, but when the future of the country is at stake, it’s worth taking a rational, non-passionate, and, by the way, nonpolitical look at outcomes, and ask real questions like, why is it? You’re not attacking anybody. But these are questions that we need to ask because the country is at stake.”

Meager but meaningful, considering the climate.

The Dear Leader Lunges For More Powers, Republicans Roll Over

Barack Obama, Conservatism, Constitution, Debt, Democrats, Economy, Republicans, Taxation

The Republican’s “counter bid” in the farce known as the fiscal cliff entails a proposed $800bn in new taxes, derived from closing “special-interest loopholes and deductions,” as well as an alleged (no doubt token) reduction in rates for all. The treachery was to be expected.

Obama, for his part, is showing the Republicans the middle finger, insisting on $1.6 trillion in new taxes, against a delayed promise of a measly “$400 billion in spending cuts to come later. Obama also demanded $50 billion in new stimulus.”

AND, the Dear Leader took the opportunity to grab new powers. Obama is demanding “executive authorization to override the debt ceiling at any time and by any amount he desires.” This, surely, is a formality. If he runs short of money, Dear Leader will turn to The Ben Bernanke to make The Money. (See “Quantitative Easing Explained.”)