Category Archives: Republicans

Updated: Neocon Redux

Ann Coulter, Bush, Intelligence, Neoconservatism, Propaganda, Race, Reason, Republicans, Terrorism

“WE WANT TO FIGHT THEM OVER THERE, RATHER THAN HERE.” Ann Coulter repeats that embarrassing, Bush-era non sequitur, also a center piece of Bush’s foreign policy. With that line, Bush bamboozled Boobus Americanus into believing that war in Iraq and terrorism in America were mutually exclusive conditions.

Andrew Breitbart prefers to forget the many times Bush betrayed “red-state Americans.” But worse than that: AB seems to be accusing the “MoveOn.Org crowd” of maligning Bush’s efforts at preventing 9/11. Is he seriously defending the stumble-bumble Bush administration’s criminal negligence in the year before the most devastating terrorist attack on US soil?

Let us reminds Breitbart of Condoleezza Rice’s bafflegabs:

She ignored “a 1999 report by the Library of Congress stating that suicide bombers belonging to al-Qaida could crash an aircraft into U.S. targets,” stating that it belonged to the realm of analysis, and wasn’t ‘actionable intelligence.'”

Condy Cow then blamed her ineptness on the need to reform Washington’s atrophied alphabet soup of intelligence agencies. (Ten years on, the Obama administration is doing the same.) But the National Security Council headed by Rice was an office created to advise the president on anything relating to national security and to facilitate inter-agency cooperation. “If suspicion existed – analytic, synthetic, prosaic or poetic – Rice should have put the squeeze on the system she oversaw.”

On Condy’s watch America experienced perhaps the worst intelligence lapse ever: Remember the Phoenix FBI agent who wrote a memorandum about the bin Ladenites who were training in U.S. flight schools? Agent Ken Williams’ report was very specific. Over and above the standard sloth the memo met in the Washington headquarters, it transpired that the FBI was as concerned about ‘racial profiling’ then as it is today.

Listening to Breitbart and Coulter, you’d think that security breech involving Mr. Hot Pants Abdulmutallab, AKA the Christmas Bomber, rivaled the one that allowed 9/11.

Watch the duo:

Update (Dec. 31): Sigh. Just as long as they spell your name right, right? From where I’m perched, I’ll settle for “them” reading what I write.

In response to the missive accusing me of, hitherto, misdiagnosing Ms. Coulter’s Craft, here’s an excerpt from my 2006 “Coughing Up Some Coulter Fur Balls”:

Mencken certainly would have had few kind words for dirigiste Dubya, the ultimate statist. Coulter, conversely, has shown Bush (who isn’t even conservative) almost unquestioning loyalty, other than to protest his Harriet Miers indiscretion and, of late, his infarct over illegal immigration. Such singular devotion would have been alien to Mencken. Nor would the very brilliant elitist have found this president’s manifest, all-round ignorance forgivable or endearing—Bush’s penchant for logical and linguistic infelicities would have repulsed Mencken.

About foreign forays, Mencken stated acerbically that “the United States should mind its own business. If it is actually commissioned by God to put down totalitarianism, let it start in Cuba, Brazil, Mexico, Santo Domingo and Mississippi.” Mencken believed that “waging a war for a purely moral reason [was] as absurd as ravishing a woman for a purely moral reason.” Not in a million years would he have endorsed Bush’s Iraq misadventure.
Since he was not a party animal, but a man of principle, conformity to the clan would not have seen Mencken fall into contradiction as Coulter has: she rightly condemned Madeleine Albright’s “preemptive attack” on Slobodan Milosevic, as having been “solely for purposes of regime change based on false information presented to the American people.” But has adopted a different—decidedly double—standard regarding Bush’s Iraq excursion.
To repeat: Coulter is sui generis, but a Mencken she is not.

What readers find confusing is my unfem knack for fairly detailing the woman’s obvious talents, without fulminating excessively and vindictively about her failings. Coulter is a very talented Republican hack. Since I am quite comfortable in my unappreciated abilities, I see no need to denigrate hers. I know this is unusual, but it’s why rational individualists gravitate to this site.

Updated: Healthcare Conscription (PASSED)

Constitution, Democrats, Healthcare, Individual Rights, Regulation, Republicans, Socialism

What else do you need to know about the hulking Health Care Bill Senate slime balls are preparing to pass, other than that the botax is now a tax on tanning beds? It’s hard to tell. I have only just located the Bill online for the first time. H. R. 3590 is 2074 pages long.

I’d say something rude about the abortion compromise (“The legislation also includes a proposal that would limit insurance coverage of abortion,” thus protecting future Harry Reids from being aborted), about which I don’t give a tinker’s toss, but I had better not. The fealty for fetuses not their own shared by Republicans and conservative Dems touches me deeply (NOT).

For crying out loud, the entire Fannie Med bill is immoral and unconstitutional. (LEONARD PEIKOFF is still the best at arguing against the enslavement of doctors.)

NYT: “To get the 60 votes needed to pass their bill, Democrats scrapped the idea of a government-run public insurance plan, cherished by liberals, and replaced it with a proposal for nationwide health plans, which would be offered by private insurers under contract with the government.

Of particular interest for its blatant unconstitutionality is the healthcare-conscription mandate:

“Under the bill, most Americans would be required to have insurance. The penalty for violating this requirement could be as high as 2 percent of a taxpayer’s household income. Penalties would total $15 billion over 10 years, up from $8 billion under Mr. Reid’s original proposal, the Congressional Budget Office said.

In the next 10 years, the government would also collect $28 billion in penalties from employers who did not offer health benefits to employees.”

Update (Dec. 21): CASH FOR CLOTURE has passed. After all the fuss he made, Joe Lieberman joined to vote “Yes,” as did Sen. holdout Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who had “agreed to support the bill in return for compromise language on federal funding for abortion and more money for his state.” CNN: “The vote split on partisan lines in the 60 to 40 vote. With Republicans unanimously opposed.”

WHAT LIES AHEAD? The NYT: The “60 to 40 tally … is expected to be repeated four times as further procedural hurdles are cleared in the days ahead, and then once more in a dramatic, if predictable, finale tentatively scheduled for 7 p.m. on Christmas Eve.”

AP: “The House has already passed legislation, and attempts to work out a compromise are expected to begin in the days after Christmas.”

As I once noted, “The Democrat is open about his devilishness – he finds the idea of a constitutional government with narrowly delimited powers as repellent as Dracula finds garlic. Modern-day conservatives, on the other hand, are less up front about their aversion to a Jeffersonian republic. In a sense, Republicans are the drag queens of politics. Peel away the pules for family, faith and fetuses and one discovers either, what economist and political philosopher Hans-Hermann-Hoppe calls ‘neoconservative welfare-warfare statists and global social democrats.’ Or, conversely, national socialists of sorts, who fuse economic protectionism, populism and a support for the very welfare infrastructure which is at the root of social rot.”

Duly, Democrats never concealed that they reject the natural-rights foundation of the republic, discussed on BAB a few days back. “Health care in America ought to be a right, not a privilege,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut. “Since the time of Harry Truman, every Congress, Republican and Democrat, every president, Democrat and Republican, have at least thought about doing this. Some actually tried.” (Via the NYT.)

Fair enough. Democrats declared forthrightly their intentions to reshape the country (which is already disfigured by statism), and proceeded to so do.

Lacking any first principles, Republicans cried for partisanship, griped about procedural problems, length of Bill, lack of transparency and time to come to grips with this legislative monstrosity; and generally tinkered around the margins. There’s not much else a principles-bereft opposition can do, is there?!

Socking It To The SEALs

Bush, Criminal Injustice, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Military, Neoconservatism, Political Philosophy, Republicans, Terrorism

Another of the many stories covered and analyzed on BAB for its significance ahead of the rest was that of Petty Officers Matthew McCabe, Jonathan Keefe and Julio Heurtas. The three Navy SEALs stand accused by Ahmed Hashim Abed—thought to be behind the premeditated murder and mutilation of four U.S. contractors in Falluja in 2004—of punching him. The real scandal is that our bloated behemoth of a military, the Navy in this instance, is acting like the state bureaucracy that it is and proceeding at full throttle against the these patriots.

Read “Make Me Thankful: Don’t Enlist!.”

The common refrain you’ll hear from your garden variety neoconservative is that Obama is to blame.

Please! Bush was every bit as hateful when it came to unleashing his bloodhound, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, on Border-Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, to give but one example of Bush’s many betrayals.

“The state’s ‘rules of engagement’ rule-out any meaningful defense of American lives and property; they are rigged against America’s defenders and favor her infiltrators.”

Don’t expect the megaphones for the Republican-cum-neocon cabal to be capable of articulating this reality. At core, they are tribalists and collectivists who cleave to their own no matter what.

Updated: Statist/Stupid Summit On Mount Olympus

Barack Obama, Business, Debt, Economy, Military, Regulation, Republicans

If you are a private-sector sucker plumping for a panoply of new government programs, consider the following: The more of them there are, the fewer of you there will be. Think zero-sum, or parasite vs. host. The first is sucking the lifeblood of the second. The larger the parasite gets, the weaker the host will grow.

[From “Life In The Oink Sector”]

Alas, STATISM AND STUPIDITY ARE INTERCHANGEABLE. Obama can “summit” (forgive this horrid “verbing” of a noun) about jobs all he likes, nothing will come of it. Because he is a dyed-in-the-wool statist, BO cannot conceive—not even with the aid of Lego or some sort of pop-up children’s model—that dolling out unemployment benefits, state aid, and government jobs programs, which all necessitate the seizure of private wealth through taxing, borrowing, and printing paper—cannot create wealth.

Here’s my simple, crude model for Obama the statist. Play with it with the First Girls. Recommend it to your friends:

Put 10 blocks in box A. Take 5 blocks out of box A and place them in box B. The owner of box A is 5 blocks poorer, the owner of box B is 5 blocks richer. Total number of blocks: still 10. Total wealth created: 0.

Come on BO, you can do it.

There is no big secret about “creating” jobs. Government can’t do it. Unless it sucks more capital and credit out of the private economy, it has only the capacity to consume wealth, not create it.

The best BO can do is take a hike; go on a 4-year vacation; walk the plank; just GET OUT OF THE WAY!

Update: Mitt Romney’s 10-point “to lift our economy” gives you an idea of the limits of Republican economic “thinking,” such that it is.

Repair and re-diretc the stimulus is one of Mitt’s recommendations. In other words, keep businesses that should go under or find a new equilibrium artificially inflated.

Individualists, proponents of the Constitution, who understand that individual liberty cannot coincide with the growth of government both at home and abroad cannot categorically accept the Republicans’ perverse notion of limited government.

Mitt also advises the president (who is beyond hope) to limit only non-military discretionary spending, and limit “new spending … to items that are critically needed and that we would have acquired in the future, such as new military equipment to support our troops abroad.”

To Republicans, the warfare state is viable; commensurate with liberty, and without the pitfalls that plague the welfare apparatus:

When Republicans and conservatives cavil about the gargantuan growth of government, they target the state’s welfare apparatus and spare its war machine. Unbeknown to these factions, the military is government. The military works like government; is financed like government, and sports many of the same inherent malignancies of government. Like government, it must be kept small.
Conservative can’t coherently preach against the evils of big government, while excluding the military mammoth.

[From “Your Government’s Jihadi Protection Program.”]