Category Archives: Republicans

Exorcize The Neocon Within! (You Know You Are A Neocon If…)

Feminism, Foreign Policy, Gender, Neoconservatism, Old Right, Paleolibertarianism, Political Economy, Political Philosophy, Race, Reason, Republicans

Wear your amulets to ward off the neocons; they have us surrounded. Old Right, peace-loving classical liberals—to the extent we still exist—are never safe from accusations of appeasement (not wanting to kill innocents abroad), racism (believing in the right of the individual to associate and dissociate at will—once known as the right of private property), and lack of patriotism (wishing to see Rome’s military and marching camps downsized considerably).

Jack Kerwick provides a wonderfully exhaustive list in case you are in need of exorcism. I particularly appreciate the following more subtle points:

You talk tirelessly of individual responsibility even as you affirm political determinism when it comes to black Americans and Middle Eastern Muslims. All of the ills that plague black Americans you chalk up to the poisonous policies of the Democratic Party while all of the problems of which the Muslim world is ridden you attribute to its lack of “democracy.”
Even though Hispanics voted for Barack Obama by over 70 percent in November, and blacks voted for him by over 90 percent, you insist that the only reason for this is that Republicans have failed to “reach out” to these groups. If only their members knew what the Republican Party could do for them (more political determinism), you imply, they would flock to the GOP, for blacks, and particularly Hispanics, are “natural conservatives.”
You make claims regarding the “natural conservatism” of Hispanics and Hispanic immigrants that you would never think to make about Muslims—even though, by many measures, Muslims are far more “conservative” than Hispanics and white Americans alike.

I would add that neocons, led by their fairly stupid eye candy on the idiot’s lantern—S. E. Cupp (“Another Mouth in the Republican Fellatio Machine”) and Dana Perino (“the Heidi Klum of the commentariat”) come to mind, or just mediocre minds like that of Andrea Tarantula—all argue from feminism. Their gender based commentary is that of the left, with a difference: They claim that the GOP is the natural home of women—just as it is the party of black and Hispanic homies.

Glass ceilings, 70 cents to a man’s dollar: These are the stock “arguments” made by skimpily clad (usually single and childless) Republican/neoliberal women on TV.

The Republican Party’s operatives seldom challenge the pay inequality folderol. The Daily Caller’s take on gender reflects the mindset of your typical Republican toots; it enforces the Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber perspectives we’ve come to expect from the Democrats and the Republicans, respectively. The correspondent protested Nancy Pelosi’s pay equity protest, staged in Washington, D.C. the other day.
In the typical tit-for-tat, rudderless case the Republicans excel at making, this reporter condemned Pelosi—but not for her bogus theory of pay inequality, but for her hypocrisy. To wit: “…a report in the Washington Free Beacon … revealed that women working for Senate Democrats in 2011 had an average salary of $60,877, whereas male staffers made about $6,500 more. Pelosi chose not to condemn the Democratic senators,’ complained the Daily Caller’s cub (female) reporter.
Implicit in this accusation is that the wage discrepancy reported spoke to the widely accepted conspiracy to suppress women’s wages. Had this reporter been capable of argument, this is what she’d say: “We commend you, Mrs. Pelosi, for not practicing the nonsense you preach and, paying your staffers in accordance with their productivity” (a term you can’t honestly apply to the wealth-consuming government worker, but which we will, for the sake of argument). …

Yes, Republican twits and turncoats have even joined the war on older, white men.

Rand Paul’s Goofy ‘Case’ For Amnesty

IMMIGRATION, Labor, libertarianism, Reason, Republicans, Ron Paul

Not so long ago I wondered whether Rand Paul was “Action Hero, Or Political Performance Artist?” “Like most Americans,” the column ventured, “I like an action hero. I am just incapable of telling whether Rand Paul is such a hero, or whether he is no more than a political performance artist.”

Soon a determination will be possible. A picture is emerging of a deft political player.

Rand’s dad, Ron Paul, called for an “End [to] Illegal Immigration”:

A nation without borders is no nation at all. After decades of misguided policies America has now become a free-for-all. Our leaders betrayed the middle class which is forced to compete with welfare-receiving illegal immigrants who will work for almost anything, just because the standards in their home countries are even lower.
If these policies are not reversed, the future is grim. A poor, dependent and divided population is much easier to rule than a nation of self-confident individuals who can make a living on their own and who share the traditions and values that this country was founded upon.

The Center for Immigration Studies paints “A Bleak Picture” of high “unemployment and non-work” among “American citizens, especially less-educated citizens (those with no more than a high school education). The less-educated are the most likely to compete with illegal immigrants,” say the Center’s scholars.

Rand Paul, however, has joined the Gang of Eight (Gof8), in whose states the plight of low-skilled Americans is especially dire. Now Rand is on the offensive, defending against allegations from Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh:

In an appearance on Fox News Channel’s “America Live” on Thursday, Kentucky Republican Sen. Paul told host Bill Hemmer that Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are wrong to criticize him for working to provide legal status to illegal immigrants.

Rand Paul’s apparently goof-proof “case” for amnesty appears to be that “de facto amnesty” must give way to amnesty de jure—that given the reality on the ground, legislators must take action to turn it into a legal reality.

Iraq: A Decade Hence, Suffocated By Sorrow

Iraq, Journalism, libertarianism, Republicans, War

“I wish the Americans had never come. They ruined our country. They planted divisions. They made us cry for the days of Saddam Hussein.” So Mohammed Rejeb, an Iraqi from Baghdad, told Arwa Damon.

CNN does have one most excellent war correspondent, unmatched, naturally, on the neoconservative channel. She is Arwa Damon, who has been covering America’s aggression abroad for almost (but not quite) as long as this column has been analyzing it.

Unlike the congenitally stupid entertainers around her on cable, right and left, Damon is a serious reporter (if a bad writer). She’s the Yin to Michael Ware’s Yang. The latter was another worthy war-time reporter in the old mold. One could only wish the gaggle on cable possessed Ware’s understanding and knowledge of the geopolitical terrain in Iraq. Naturally, this made Ware persona non grata. He’s gone. Fired, I believe.

Unlike her cretinous colleagues, little tough Arwa seldom smiles or frolics on camera. What’s there to smile about? She covers the carnage of America’s crusades abroad. Damon is also decidedly awkward when that estrogen-oozing ignoramus, Anderson Cooper, draws up a seat for her at a CNN Stupid Panel, and subjects her to his forced bathos.

Here is an excerpt of her report from Baghdad, a decade since that evil invasion:

Ten years on, one can easily look around Baghdad and see a veneer of normalcy. But nothing about Iraq or what it has been through is normal. The cloak of sorrow that hangs over the capital is more suffocating than ever, even if violence is slightly down.
“We’re not living,” one Iraqi colleague told me. “We’re just surviving.”
I think the ones who are good left, and only the bad people stayed here.
It’s as if the violence created a façade. People were so focused on staying alive they didn’t fully notice the corruption, suspicion and tribalism that had seeped into society and government. Now that attacks are down — and fewer Iraqis are killed every day — all that and more has risen to the surface.
Basma al-Khateeb and her two daughters, 22-year-old Sama and 14-year-old Zeina, are among the remnants of Baghdad’s elite — a family that could have left but chose to stay. Basma is an IT professional and well-known activist.
We’ve known Basma and her family for years — she is a regular guest on CNN — and have always marveled at their courage and determination, a love for country that trumped their desire to escape.
But even Basma is uttering what for her was unimaginable. “I lost hope six to seven months ago,” she said. “You don’t feel it’s home any more.
She paused, crushed by the weight of her own words. “Did I really say that?”
“Now the fear is different,” she explained. “You don’t know who is in the next car. They look at you as if you are different, your clothes, or even your gestures, your body language is different. We’re not comfortable being around the streets.”
“I think the people changed,” her daughter Sama added. “I think the ones who are good left, and only the bad people stayed here.”
It’s such an emotional, mentally complex notion that the family struggles to clearly define it — to be an alien in your own country.
“It’s a different culture, it’s a tribal culture. Before, there was no kind of culture that was dominant.”
Now there is. The streets feel hostile, and people continue to be wary of each other.
For the young, there is no room to mentally expand. For a professional like Sama, it’s either adopt the “principles” of corruption or find yourself unemployed.
“I had hope in the beginning and then I lost it,” she says. “It was like climbing the stairs and then there’s no end to it. You have to go down the stairs again. And that is depressing and very disappointing.
“This is no place for us. Because if I stay here, I have to be corrupt also, to live, to survive.”
In another time and place, Sama might have pursued her passion for the arts. She plays the piano beautifully. It’s a dream she plans to pursue far from her homeland.
As for Zeina, who has known nothing but war, she too wants to leave. Her first memory is of violence. Her defining moment of the last 10 years was a church bombing in 2010 in which her best friend was killed.
For their mother, this is the only home she has known. “I don’t want to have another home.”
But Basma wants something better for her daughters.
“In a certain time, at a certain point, it’s best for them to leave,” she says. “For study or work … for them to find out about themselves (and) be strong. They will not be strong here.”
Tragically, so many Iraqis I know echo those same sentiments. For the vast majority of them, the defining moments of the last 10 years are not of Saddam Hussein’s trial and execution, the drafting of the constitution or dipping their fingers in purple ink in the first elections.
It is the moment they last saw their loved one, gave them that last hug or kiss goodbye — not knowing it would turn out to be such a precious moment — before they were inexplicably, harshly torn away.

[SNIP]

IT IS TIME FOR Arwa Damon to go to Libya and expose Barack Obama’s follow-up crimes in that country and elsewhere, through proxies, covert special operations, drones and armaments.

UPDATED: Ann Coulter Becomes A Single-Issue Voter (Is Sally-Come-Lately To Mass Immigration Vexation)

Aesthetics, Ann Coulter, Conservatism, IMMIGRATION, Intellectualism, Republicans

Ann Coulter is late to blossom politically (otherwise she’s very pretty). At CPAC 2013, Ms. Coulter announced that she’s become “a single-issue voter against amnesty” (and has finally crossed the crappy Chris Christie off her list of candidates).

Having avoided the immigration vexation until recently, here are Coulter’s welcome remarks:

“What public policy will harm average Americans, drive up unemployment, change America permanently in negative way, and is supported by businessmen who will never vote for a Republican anyway?

Amnesty for illegal aliens.

Half of the elected Republicans support it, most conservative talk radio and TV hosts support it: You want the Republican establishment? That’s the Republican establishment.

There are many negative consequences to amnesty. The one that I think ought to concern this crowd is: If amnesty goes forward, America becomes California and no Republican will ever win a national election [IM: that goes for libertarian candidates too].

As it is, the state that gave us Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan will never elect another Republican.

I can see why Democrats would want amnesty, but why are Marco Rubio and the endless Bushes supporting it? [IM: that should be obvious.]

We cannot get the votes of a dependent society without changing our principles…”

[SNIP]

(Such an attractive woman is Ann Coulter; if wish she’d buy some high-end, decent clothes.)

UPDATE (3/17): A SALLY-COME-LATELY TO MASS IMMIGRATION. Read the text above (http://barelyablog.com/ann-coulter-becomes-a-single-issue-voter/), where I transcribed Ann Coulter’s immigration comments. Are they really “brilliant”? To hail these as “brilliant,” as some conservatives are, is a testament to intellectual malaise.

The definition of “brilliant” is: “Marked by unusual and impressive intellectual acuteness.”

To describe as “brilliant” Ann Coulter’s second-hand, belated realization about the US’ “IMMOLATION BY IMMIGRATION,” first chronicled by Peter Brimelow (note the date on my hyperlinked column), is to say all there is to say about the misuse of language and the dumbing down of discourse.

A Sally-come-lately to the issue of mass immigration is Ann Coulter. Look through her column archive; it’s all, for the most, “Liberals this, liberals that.”

The most you can say is this: 1) Coulter’s delivery is brilliant—but then she’s super bright, and has had practice as one of the monopolists of the ossified conservative movement. 2) She is perhaps the most powerful ally the immigration patriot movement (Peter Brimelow’s coinage) could hope to recruit.