Category Archives: Neoconservatism

Natural Law Vs. The War Powers Resolution

Constitution, Foreign Policy, Just War, libertarianism, Natural Law, Neoconservatism, War

Modern statutes like the War Powers Resolution, the Iraq Resolution, and the Use of Force Act do not displace the constitutional text and the framers’ intent. But even if the Constitution approved of Barack Obama’s subterfuge in the matter of war powers—the natural law does not. Because it is rational and rooted in the very nature of man, natural justice is immutably true; it is the ultimate guide to what is right or wrong. And it certainly informs the work of historian Tom Woods and the mission of the King Dude (aka Mike Church).

Woods and Church (against the Imperial Presidency) are sparring with talker Mark Levin (in support of it). Woods has repeatedly deferred to the work of Louis Fisher, senior specialist in separation of powers at the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, whose work I too galvanized during the Bush era war-powers abuse, in “UNNATURAL LAWLESSNESS” (here).

Tom Woods, The King Dude, and Fisher follow the framers and are thus formidable forces for liberty. To the debate between Messrs. Woods and Levin, I would add—and emphasize—only this point:

To the extent that the Constitution comports with natural law, to that extent it is good. To the extent that it does not jibe with natural justice, to that extent the Constitution is flawed. Even if the Constitution could be shown to support the many naturally illicit military forays conducted by successive American governments—it does not mean that these wars are/were just; only that they are/were legal. Contra classical natural law theory, legal positivism equates justice with the law of the state. However, while it may no longer guide most Americans, natural law must never cease to inform libertarians.

Palin Pants For War

Foreign Policy, Just War, Middle East, Military, Neoconservatism, Propaganda, Sarah Palin, UN, War

The women of the neoconnerie have been instrumental in keeping their fans tuned-out, turned-on, and hot for war. Neocons, in particular, enter a dangerous state of heightened emotional arousal as soon as war is around the corner. Sarah Palin’s war euphoria was on display during “On the Record,” with host Greta Van Susteren, when Palin practically panted for a show of even greater, and certainly grislier, force in Libya. (Here)

“America’s interests” in Libya, Mrs. Palin asserted, lie in either “killing or capturing” Qaddafi. Nothing else will do. If Obama does not order these deeds, “America’s interests” will have been compromised. A non sequitur, if you ask me. Sarah is presuming something not in evidence. If Qaddafi is not murdered, how will this meshuga (here) “seek revenge” here in the USA? Flood our markets with gaudy gowns? Hinder the housing market with his spacious tents?

A good war must also inspire: both Greta and Sarah were agreed. Sarah expressed disappointment that the president didn’t deliver an inspirational war speech. (Transcripts) Following the lead of other countries—“getting in the back of the bus,” as she put it—doesn’t do it for her; doesn’t inspire.

You ask: Can the US not LEAD and INSPIRE the world with its productivity, products; its professionals, and their inventions? Forget about it. Mrs. Palins, like all neocons, conflates the American state—its war making proclivities and powers, in particular—with national greatness.

Like many a criminal, the act of committing crimes (in this case vicariously via the state apparatus) further lowers the war monger’s inhibitions. This base condition accounts for the tolerance for atrocities, and shameless, atavistic call for assassinations and killings.

In her war euphoria, Sarah even forgot that we’re broke, in hock to the tune of $14 trillion and growing. In wondering why Libya, she boasted: “America could intervene with our power and our resources in many other areas.” We can afford to? Really?

By the way, I have a feeling that Obama’s casus belli, embedded in the following excerpt from his speech, will turn out to be a lot like WMD in Iraq:

In the face of the world’s condemnation, Gaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. The water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misratah was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air.
Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean.

‘Black Racism’: A Conversation With Erik Rush

Democrats, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Neoconservatism, Political Correctness, Race, Racism, Republicans

This week, on WND.COM (HERE), I talk “Black Racism” with Erik Rush. “Black Racism” is the title of a chapter in the book under discussion, and is the first of a two-part conversation with Erik, who is a WND columnist, and the author of “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession.”

Do you know what Erik told an African-American reader who accused him of not being sufficiently concerned about “his people” who were dying all over the world? Besides assuring her that he was not a member of a racial tribe, Erik also informed the woman that blacks were indeed dying … in Africa, mainly, because they were killing each other. And he recommended that she decamp to that continent where she would be appreciated as a sex slave or as lunch.

More with The Rush in “‘Black Racism’: A Conversation With Erik Rush (Part 1),” now on WND.COM.

UPDATE V: Kumbaya Coalition (Costs)

Constitution, Democracy, Foreign Policy, Middle East, Military, Neoconservatism, War

When Obama goes to war illegally and without the necessary, albeit meaningless, formality of the congressional process, they call it a developing “doctrine.” (See the meandering of the CSM, here.) No doubt, Chris Matthews will experience one of his daytime nocturnal emissions over America’s intervention in Libya. You know how indecently aroused Matthews gets every time Obama shows “fortitude.” As allied air forces went into action over Libya, today, Saturday, the media, neocon and neoliberal alike, were aflutter. Yippee: lights, camera, and shock-‘n-awe action. Again. Recall, during the invasion of Iraq, most liberals opposed the unilateral nature of Genghis Bush’s actions. Now that “112 Tomahawk cruise missiles have struck over 20 targets inside Libya,” in what liberals consider a multilateral, “limited” action (here), all’s good.

According to MSNBC.com (here), “American ships and aircraft stationed in and around the Mediterranean Sea did not participate in initial French air missions, but the U.S. was preparing to a launch a missile attack on Libyan air defenses, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the unfolding intervention. One official said the U.S. intended to limit its involvement — at least in the initial stages — to helping protect French and other air missions by taking out Libyan air defenses.” [My emphasis]

COL. JACK JACOBS disagrees with the “assumption … that the margin of difference is air power, and that were it not for Qaddafi’s attack aircraft the rebels would win.” He predicts that “the rebels’ other weaknesses will not be addressed merely by slowing or even stopping the government’s pressure on them,” and that ‘confined to a relatively small area, they may become something of a rump Eastern Libya under UN protection, but it now seems unlikely that they will prevail in the near term.”

Jacobs’ prognosis is for those neocons and neoliberals who entertain the folly that this intervention is not as futile and unconstitutional as those that went before. Then again, most of what the Federal Frankenstein does is either unconstitutional, immoral, illegal, or all of the above.

Jacobs has also confirmed what we all know: The “liberated” Egyptians have a very capable air force. Ditto Saudi Arabia. But are the Arabs doing anything in the cause of a military operation the Arab League instigated? Of course not.

UPDATE I (March 20): Murder by majority approval—unilateral, multilateral; UN or USA—is still murder.

UPDATE II: Behold: A total of four Qatari war planes are moving into position over Libya, reports Al Arabiya. The United Arab Emirates is also scheming on some participation. Slowly.

UPDATE III: An interesting take on the Tripoli offensive from Nebojsa Malic:

“Colonel Gadhafi has maintained that the rebellion was actually orchestrated from the West, and that he was fighting both the Empire and al-Qaeda. … A hint of confirmation could be found in a fawning portrait of rebel fighters in the March 13 Washington Post. One exemplary rebel interviewed by reporter Laila Fadel turns out to be a veteran of the Iraqi insurgency. One of his brothers blew himself up to kill U.S. Marines. Another is an al-Qaeda commander in Afghanistan. But ‘Abu Sultan’ says he disapproves of his brother’s al-Qaeda ways, wants a ‘civilian government with justice, freedom, and a constitution,’ and though he considers this ‘a Libyan fight’ would very much like a no-fly zone and foreign intervention. Make of that what you will.”

The whole adventure in Libya is politically as uninteresting as it is familiar.

UPDATE IV: BHO’S TRIUMVIRATE OF TROLLS. Justin Raimondo on the “triumvirate of women”—or trolls in pantsuits—in BHO’s administration that has pushed for a humanitarian war.

UPDATE V (March 21): I really have very little to say. I despair. This country, I’ve concluded, is home to some of the stupidest people on earth. Even the Arabs are smart enough to look after their own interests, and steer clear of interfering in Libya. The neocons are faulting BHO’s adventure in Libya (for its lateness), while defending the overthrow of Saddam. The liberal nation-builders are behind BHO, but are having a hard time distinguishing themselves from the hated neoconservatives. And for good reason. All media seem to believe that repeating the word “rebel” time and again will transform the shady ragtag factions we are fighting for as a princess’s kiss does a toad.

I see that after an initial verbal orgy in support of the rioting Egyptians, fewer libertarians are celebrating the beauty of Egyptian democracy. Just in time: In Egypt, “Mohamed ElBaradei, an Egyptian presidential candidate and Nobel laureate,” was mauled by a mob on his way to vote in a referendum.

At the National Journal they estimate that,

… the United States’ part in the operation could ultimately hit several billion dollars — and require the Pentagon to request emergency funding from Congress to pay for it. The first day of Operation Odyssey Dawn had a price tag that was well over $100 million for the U.S. in missiles alone. And the U.S. military, which remains in the lead now in its third day, has pumped millions more into air- and sea-launched strikes targeting air-defense sites and ground-force positions along Libya’s coastline.
The ultimate total that the United States spends will hinge on the length and scope of the strikes as well as on the contributions of its coalition allies. But Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said on Monday that the U.S. costs could “easily pass the $1 billion mark on this operation, regardless of how well things go.”