Category Archives: Republicans

Update III: Palin Pooh-Poohs CPAC (& A Third-Party Plan)

John McCain, libertarianism, Political Philosophy, Republicans, Ron Paul, Sarah Palin

BRAVO. Is this divorce? I hope so.

Politico: “Palin is declining an invitation to address the Conservative Political Action Conference next month because, a source said, she does not want to be affiliated with the longtime organizer of the traditional movement confab.”

This is Palin’s first significant act of political separation from the “GOP RIP”—and from “politics as usual,” that hackneyed term she and “McMussolini” kept using on the campaign trail. Palin embodied unusual politics on a local level.

Stay tuned. There’s more, and it involves Sarah and Farah, WND’s CEO and chief. Developing.

Update: Palin will be headlining the First National Tea Party Convention, scheduled for February 4-6, 2010 at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel in Nashville, TN. The formidable Michele Bachmann will join her. And, as David Shyster of MSNBC advertised (negatively), WND’s founder will speak too. (WND announced it as well.) As you all know, I write for WND.COM; have done so going on a decade.

The mainstream swamp of a media is framing Palin’s decision, as is their wont, as one that is based on some womanly whim—the fungus press is feminist only when it comes to ladies of the left. I hope, for Sarah’s sake, that this “break” with the GOP corpse is philosophical. In light of the fact that late last year Palin endorsed the Conservative Party’s Doug Hoffman for the 23rd Congressional District of New York, I do believe she is breaking with the GOP.

(I’ll have surprisingly good things to say about her book, which I grabbed at an airport, and have almost finished.)

Losers are those who’re pointing toward the need to revive the rotting, rigor-ridden corpse that is the GOP. Not possible. Not desirable.

A third party is the solution. However, for this to happen in earnest, the (Ron) Paul and Palin factions must commence serious ideological cross fertilization (my diplomatic way of urging Palin to heed Paul), gather the best people around and launch.

To be frank, as someone who considers herself a Paulite—and who has been called “the most persuasive Paul booster” by one of the most perceptive paleos—I see the libertarian Campaign for Liberty falling into the methodology of the GOP. By this I mean the penchant to close ranks and invite into the inner sanctum only strict and obedient adherents, as well as non-entity groupies with zero gravitas (often blond).

How like the GOP.

Good people need to elevate themselves above tribal and ego-bound instincts and gather around the best and the brightest, lots of us—not only five bright sparks, 50 mediocrities, and 500 sparkly, dim bimbos.

I was asked by the Paul Campaign to endorse Ron Paul. He’s my president of choice, so I did. Here is the blurb that was used during the campaign. I was asked to pen a position editorial for said campaign explaining why Ron Paul was VERY GOOD for Israel. I did that too.

Still, when the Campaign roles into town—my town—I am not even invited to the occasion.

I am no seeker of publicity or inclusivity. I’m independent. What matters to me is the integrity and longevity of my writing. Nevertheless, I do believe that by ignoring people with gravitas (just becasue they are independent-minded, but not always like-minded); choosing instead to embrace groupies, lightweights and other anon riffraff—good people with a good cause contribute to the dumbing down of the liberty movement.

Let’s hope Palin can avert this echo-chamber instinct and gather around her a coalition of Buchananites, Bachmannites, Paulites, Beckians, etc.

Update II: Also to be mindful of is the danger of gentrifying a grassroots movement. What you have in the tea party swell is an inchoate, energetic thing with great promise. Politicos, always eager to turn a protest into a constituency, could seize the movement, as a stepping stone to power, and corrupt it. The movement has to be given solid philosophical contours, but how do you keep the Republicans away. Especially when they’re packaged as appealingly as Sean Duffy is. Duffy’s a Hamiltonian (not a good thing) GOPier.

Update III (Jan. 9): The Democratic and the Republican Parties are one and the same thing. Each is a necessary counterweight in a partnership designed to keep the pendulum of power swinging forever from one putrid entity to the other.

The balance is kept by bamboozling (successfully, as it would appear from posts on this blog) respective supporters. The mesmerizing momentum will endure forever; will keep the colluding quislings in power in perpetuity, and continue to sell books for their respective fascistic philosophers.

The philosophical foot soldiers for the duopoly have their own game going. Whether they are shouting “liberal this; liberals that” all the way to the bank, or suddenly discovering the Constitution when the rival faction is in power—they help maintain status quo.

I think it was my WND colleague Vox Day who pointed out how the Republican reptiles move to the left when in power, and the Democratic dogs shuffle to the right when they get their turn.

Ultimately the creeps converge.

If what I am saying is true—and it is—then the assertion that the Republican Party can be reformed is a lie, a pie-in-the-sky; not pragmatism but falsehood. People who help elevate the characters involved in this cruel farce; who promulgate The Lie are, thus, either stupid or venal.

There is a scene in “Dangerous Liaisons” where the protagonist, a lying schemer, is “booed and disgraced by the audience at the opera,” and retreats to her boudoir never to emerge again.

This is the appropriate metaphor for the characters involved in American politics.

If our society had an ounce of moral fiber, this would be the fate of the Ann Couters, Rush Limbaughs, Levines—the blood-lusting vampires of the Republican War Machine, whose bitch-hot talk helped send gullible young men to their death.

This would be the fate of the grand designers behind the Democratic welfare apparatus.

A Third Party option is not for the quick-fix quacks among us. It will be slow and laborious. But it is the only way.

The Third-Party road involves a planned strategy whereby support is withdrawn from all candidates running for the duopoly. It involves the meeting of the smartest minds, with the most integrity. That the “Campaign for Liberty” has not called on myself, Vox, and other marginalized voices with sizable (WND) platforms, despite our tireless work for liberty, demonstrates that its movers and shakers are moving and shaking like a cult; not like a force of nature.

What I like about Palin is that she is a force of nature. And she has lived the quintessential American life. She is everything that is good in America. Can she bury the Republican corpse and do what I suggest? I honestly don’t know.

About her book at a later date.

The Defunct Foundations Of The Republic

Classical Liberalism, Constitution, Democrats, Founding Fathers, Individual Rights, Natural Law, Reason, Republicans

From my new, WND.COM column, “The Defunct Foundations Of The Republic”:

“In the course of the agonizing debates over the soon-to-be-merged Senate and House health-care bills, Republicans cried out for partisanship, griped about procedure and said next to nothing about principles, an accusation that cannot be directed at the Democrats.

‘Health care in America ought to be a right, not a privilege,’ thundered Sen. Christopher J. Dodd. The Democrat from Connecticut was expressing sentiments that are par for the course in Democrat discourse.

Nancy Pelosi’s core beliefs vis-à-vis conscripting individuals into buying (or providing) a commodity at the pains of punishment came across loud and quirky. When the House passed its hulking health-care legislation, the speaker was asked where in the Constitution is the warrant for individual health mandates. Pelosi’s response was for posterity. ‘Are you serious?’ she shot back.

No, Democrats are not in the habit of hiding how they feel about the US Constitution.

As much as he dislikes the philosophical foundations of the republic, the president seems to know – and prattle – about them more so than do the Republicans. Here’s Sen. Barack Obama talking about the document Republicans discount and Democrats deem dated”…

The complete column is “The Defunct Foundations Of The Republic.”

My libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society, is back in print. The Second Edition features bonus material. Get your copy (or copies) now!

A Happy New Year to all,
ilana

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?!