Category Archives: Neoconservatism

UPDATE II: Making America Great Means Exposing ‘W’ (Readers Get IT)

Bush, Donald Trump, Federal Reserve Bank, Iraq, Neoconservatism, Politics, War

“Making America Great Means Exposing ‘W’” is the current column, now on WND (please Like, Tweet, and generally Share column on social media). An excerpt:.

Making America great again, the theme of Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, depends on dispelling the myths and myth-making that made America bad.

Beginning with George W. Bush.

Said Saint Augustine: “The confession of evil works is the first beginning of good works.”

The Republican Party under Bush did the devil’s work. Bar the sainted Ron Paul, not a dog of a Republican lifted his leg in protest of the unjust war on Iraq.

To embark on the good, the GOP must come clean about the bad. To that end, Donald Trump has begun a vital process of expiation.

The 43rd president is categorized as “bad” and ranked 37th by Ivan Eland, author of “Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty.” Having undermined the republic at home and peace abroad, “Bush’s presidency,” avers Eland, “was one of the worst of all time.”

Coming to terms with the Bush legacy, moreover, ought to prevent the rise of another Bush. For the bogus Bush Doctrine is alive and well-exploited in the words and promises of each of the Republican candidates, other than Donald Trump.

The Bush dictum of fighting them over there so they don’t come here —as if Islamic State can’t, won’t and hasn’t attacked there and here—is alive and well-exploited by almost every fork-tongued politician in the Republican and Democratic races.

Other than Trump and Bernie Sanders, there’s a potatoes vs. spuds quality to the foreign policy articulated by both sides.

Each time the interchangeable John Kasich or Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush are asked about death by Muslim in the United States; they whip out that dumb “W” Doctrine, tethering attacks like San Bernardino in the US to wars the US should be waging over in the Middle East, and will be waging if these candidates have their way.

If you liked Bush’s willful and criminal war on Iraq; if you enjoyed watching aw-shucks “W” “Shock and Awe” Iraq to kingdom come with BLU-82s—boy, do you have a treat in store.

If you took pleasure in Bush unseating and executing law-and-order leader Saddam Hussein; you’ll love the plans Rubio, Kasich and Brother Jeb have for Bashar Assad and his family. As for Vladimir Putin, the not-so-comical three stooges have practically diarized conflagration with Russia.

I almost forgot: If you licked your chops when Bush disarmed dem little Iraqi boys by littering their playgrounds with cluster bomblets; your vampiric urges will be sated. In Bush’s Baghdad, hospitals teamed with limbless kids successfully disarmed. The Rubio-Kasich-Bush bandidos will similarly oblige their supporters. Happy times are ahead for their acolytes. …

… Read the rest. “Making America Great Means Exposing ‘W’” can be read in full on WND (please Like, Tweet, and generally Share column on social media).

UPDATE I (2/19): READERS GET IT:

Hi Ilana,

I loved your article reminding all the deaf, dumb and blind, card-carrying Republicans that their asshole (excuse my French) summa cum laude remains, GW Bush.

Jeb, to even mention W’s name let alone appear with him campaigning, shows the guy has no sense of history. W’s Presidency was a total train wreck from his Supreme Court handed Presidency to his final months in office, when the wheels came off the American economy and financial system.

The Republicans running for President are dangerous war mongers with zero understanding of what the Federal Reserve has been allowed to do to this country and the irreversible, unfixable nature of the problem. Clinton and Sanders, it goes without saying, are also clueless!

Hope this finds you well!

All the best,

Barry Downs

UPDATE II: Writes Ron S:

Please accept my heart-felt gratitude for this article. I have been struggling with my own concept of objective reality and the contradictory BS I see all around me. I have long believed that G.W. Bush was not only a horrible president, he may have been the worst in American history. When he was received warmly in SC it made me wonder if I was missing something.

A small list of faux pas by our first semi-literate president:
1. 2 unnecessary wars, fought simultaneously on different fronts
2. approximately $3 trillion thrown to the winds
3. Claims of WMDs that don’t exist
4. violations of any number of international treaties, the Geneva Accords, the Nuremberg principles, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, etc. on war crimes.
5. Lies by his administration include “America does not torture”; “The war (Iraq) will last weeks or months, certainly not years”; “The insurgency is on its last legs; “We will be greeted as liberators”; “Deficits don’t matter”; and, of course, WMD.
6. Bush plunged the economy into a near world wide crisis by allowing the banksters and market thieves to operate with virtually no oversight, then passed the bill onto the people.
7. Bush granted a huge tax break to the 1% who didn’t need it.
8. Bush doubled the national debt.
9. He refused to control our borders.

One foolish man was enough to plunge the entire Middle East into chaos and plunge the West into confusion and disarray. God deliver us from another like him. We cannot afford such a fool in the office of the President of the United States..

The Cult Of Megyn Kelly Crumbling Thanks To Trump

Donald Trump, Media, Neoconservatism, Republicans

Just as I thought Donald J. Trump was done taking a wrecking ball to establishment politics, The Donald goes and bifurcates Fox News Channel. CNN’s Don Lemon was the only one among his dumb-as-doornail guests to notice that Trump was destabilization the media organ that shapes Republican politics. Hooray.

My WND column, tomorrow, deconstructing the “Me Myself And I Megyn Kelly Production” (a longer version will be at Unz Review, Thursday night), takes a similar tack to the one taken by Salon writer Sophia Tesfaye, focusing on megalomaniac Megyn Kelly and her enablers as culprits:

… “the network is split between Kelly’s allies like Brit Hume and conservative anchors that are furious that Kelly — who graces the cover of Vanity Fair this month — has become the face of the network.” According to Sherman, one of Kelly’s fellow anchors took her to task for hosting liberal filmmaker Michael Moore as Trump announced his boycott on Tuesday evening. “That would be like Rachel Maddow laughing along with Charles Koch as he trashed Hillary Clinton!” the anchor told Sherman.

MSNBC’s resident Republican Joe Scarborough echoed the unnamed Fox anchor’s disbelief. “Fox are really twisted up at about how this has gone down and how Megyn Kelly, has somehow, with Michael Moore, taken over the network,” Scarborough said on “Morning Joe” Wednesday, applauding Trump’s boycott.

“I would rather set myself on fire in front of the Fox News studio than go on a debate stage with that,” Scarborugh continued, blasting Kelly’s past debate moderation.

Sherman goes on to report that “one producer speculated that Fox could go ‘National Review’ on Trump and start attacking him,” and according to some early responses, Fox seems to be doing just that.

Fox News analyst and outspoken Trump critic Brit Hume immediately lashed out at Trump’s temper tantrum against the network …

On “Fox & Friends” Wednesday morning, co-host Brian Kilmeade pleaded with the Republican National Committee (RNC) to broker a peace deal to bring Trump back to the Fox debate stage:

“This thing could still be saved. Since — there’s a relationship with everybody. You could get somebody to step in or, get this, the RNC could actually do their job and make sure the people of Iowa get a full debate stage and jump in on both sides and get Donald Trump on that stage. It could still be done.”

But others in conservative media are not so quick to seek a resolution, instead applauding Trump’s diss of the media giant. Breitbart has devoted the majority of its coverage Wednesday morning to the feud, with a heavy tilt in favor of the Donald. …

Except that my upcoming column looks at the principles of journalism Kelly flouts.

Dumbness Might Explain National Review Mediocrities’ Missteps

Conservatism, Intelligence, Neoconservatism, Republicans

Question: Where is Chucky Krauthammer in the “Conservatives Against Trump” production? He is one self-important, neoconservative, who’s not mad about Trump. Why is Chucky nowhere to be found among the NRO Peanut Gallery standing “bravely” against the Republican base rising?

My working hypothesis: Chucky Krauthammer is smarter than the mediocrities on the “Conservatives against Trump” list.

It’s a super-duper dumb thing to come out as a collective against a candidate—Trump—who’s so wildly popular with the Republican base and beyond, and who could very well be the GOP’s nominee.

Dumbness—overall G-factor deficit—might explain the National Review mediocrities’ missteps.

Have you checked the names on the National Review list Against Trump? They’ve been anointed “prominent conservatives,” or “leading conservatives” in the Moron Media. But most are conservatives in name only—as Jack Kerwick has argued, with reference to the absence in their “work” of a hint of Edmund Burke, “the patron saint” of conservatism,” his “20th century’s American reincarnation, Russell Kirk,” or Michael Oakeshott.

And they constantly yack it up for a global, ideological American Manifest Destiny.

One might say these National Reviewnicks stand athwart historic, Old Right conservatism.

As to “thinkers. Kenneth Minogue was a “thinker.” Roger Scruton is a thinker. John O’Sullivan, boy, can he think (which is probably why he was nudged out as editor of NR, in favor of intellectual pygmy, Rich Lowery).

But these people?

Mona Charen (mediocre scribbler), Dana Loesch (gorgeous gun-toting broadcaster), Katey Pavlich (youthful nullity), Glenn Beck (irrational mystic), Michael Mukasey (government functionary/attorney and Jeb Bush cheer leader), on and on. (Thomas Sowell is an economist, that’s about it. He’s nothing like Murray Rothbard or other Austrian-school thinkers.) As for Rich Lowery; he needs your pity.

National Review Stands Athwart Historic Conservatism Of Burke, Kirk

Classical Liberalism, Conservatism, Donald Trump, History, Neoconservatism

Most of the National Review recruits who’ve enlisted Against Trump are conservatives in name only, as Jack Kerwick’s learned allusion to conservatism’s founding philosophers concludes. NRO’s promotion of “‘American Exceptionalism,’ the radically ahistorical doctrine that America is not a historically and culturally-specific country but an ‘idea,’ an abstract ‘proposition,'” makes this lot unconservative.

One might say National Review stands athwart historic conservatism (to borrow from founder William F. Buckley’s famous mission statement to stand athwart history).

“National Review vs. Trump?” by Jack Kerwick (published, surprisingly, by TownHall.com):

… NR’s contributors are indeed correct that Trump is not any sort of conservative in the classical or traditional sense of the word. But neither are Trump’s “conservative” critics conservative in the classical or traditional sense of the word.

Undoubtedly, Trump has never read, if he’s even heard of, Edmund Burke, “the patron saint” of conservatism. I would be surprised if he’s even heard of, let alone read, the work of the 20th century’s American reincarnation of Burke, Russell Kirk. Chances are even slimmer yet that he’s familiar with Michael Oakeshott’s classic essay, “On Being Conservative,” or George Nash’s and Paul Gottfried’s seminal studies of the conservative movement in America.

The one contemporary nationally-renown figure who is more philosophically approximate to Burke and Kirk than anyone else—Pat Buchanan—Trump at one time ridiculed. Nor has Trump been any more generous to either Ron or Rand Paul, both of whom, though widely regarded as “libertarian,” are nevertheless conservative just insofar as they are (or at least seem to be) committed to federalism, our Constitution.

Yet here’s the rub: What’s true of Trump in all of these respects is at least as true of many of his critics in the NR symposium.

Granted, I’m sure that there are many among the latter who have heard of Burke. Since Kirk’s name was at one time on NR’s masthead, some of them have probably heard of him as well. However, Kirk’s name is scarcely ever, if at all, mentioned by any contemporary “conservatives.” And on those rare occasions when Burke’s name is dropped, it is almost always in connection with a single line of his: “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

For Buchanan and the Pauls (especially the Elder), many of the Trump critics at NR have reserved nothing but contempt. …

MORE.

RELATED TWEETS: