Category Archives: Republicans

Update V: NO Small ‘r’ republicans In The House

Barack Obama, Bush, Conservatism, Democrats, Economy, Israel, Media, Republicans, Ron Paul

It’s a chore to watch more than 60 seconds of this hypocrite unveil the carefully qualified Truth he never uttered while campaigning (and will forget if ever his faction is in power again). During his presidential campaign, Fred Thompson, and the rest of the Republican front runners, praised Bush’s three-trillion-dollar war.

Thompson and his ilk had no qualms about W’s warfare-welfare wantonness: his compassionate conservatism they touted endlessly, including Bush’s “ownership society” which amplified the mortgage meltdown. Where was cuddly Fred when,

To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the “zero-down-payment initiative,” which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment.

Those who still choose to cheer for the GOP (RIP), and saddle Obama with its travesties, might wish to commit to memory (if only fleetingly) the fact that in order to privilege Hispanics (mostly illegal), Bush not only pushed for their amnesty, but worked overtime to incorporate them into the “ownership society.” Easy credit for minorities unworthy of credit was par for the course during the Bush years.

While campaigning, did fuzzy Freddy denounce, or even mention, Bush’s prescription-drug benefit that has added trillions to the Medicare shortfall? The unconstitutional campaign finance-reform bill and “Sarbanes-Oxley Act” (a preemptive assault on CEOs and CFOs, prior to the fact of a crime)? The collusion with Kennedy on education?

What is it about establishment Republicans that they will cover up for each other and for the crimes of their Leader for 8 solid years, and are still begged to come back for encores by their followers, none of whom is the wiser? (That’s a rhetorical question).

Why do the party parrots have no curiosity about the one man who has been correct for 30 straight years? Or about the few columns that have been predictive and always spoken truth to power? (Stephen Moore, of the Wall Street Journal, wrote a book titled Bullish on Bush: How the Ownership Society Is Making America Richer. This snake-oil merchant–and failed philosopher kings like him–are still touted as the crème de la crème of the American commentariat.)

Mencken explained this with reference to the genus called “Boobus Americanus,” but then today, in the Age of the Idiot, Mencken himself would be voiceless, unemployed.

Update III (Jan 25): Still fawning over Fred and the Republican phonies? In case you find it hard to believe Bush helped build the ownership society on quicksand, do read about the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003. Did know-it-all Fred protest that when he had a chance to? Not on his life. He ought to leave “Economics in One Lesson” to the great Henry Hazlitt, who, like Mencken, would be unemployed or underemployed in the Age of the Idiot.

Update IV (Jan. 26): About the convergence of the Demopublican duopoly, Vox Day, my WND colleague, writes:

“[W]hen in power, the differences between the two parties are mostly illusory. Republican and Democrat are simply two different factions of the same ruling party, and their congressional battles are primarily over political spoils, not political ideology. This is why a ‘conservative’ president will immediately tack left upon taking office, while a ‘liberal’ president will tend to move to the right. We’ve seen this with Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43, so there’s no reason to expect a massive difference between the previous administration and the current one.”

As I have written, “Antitrust laws ought to be deployed, not against business, but to bust this two-party monopoly, which subverts competition in government and rewards the colluding quislings with sinecures in perpetuity.”

I do, however, hope Vox tackles the mindlessness of the parties’ respective followers.

Update V: To Myron. I thought the point I was making was obvious–or has responsibility (as opposed expediency) become such a vague term? The point is not whether Fuzzy Fred was present in the flesh when Bush did what he did; but this: The onus was on FF to articulate the principles he has only now discovered while vying for the Party’s nomination for president. It was THEN that FF ought to have disavowed the violation of these principles by Bush. But Fred denounces spending and cheap credit only now that a Democrat has taken over where Bush left off. It goes without saying that had the Republicans not been dethroned, they’d be doing exactly what the Democrats are doing–stimulating their packages–and their followers would be doing the same. (With one hand held out for their share of the loot.)

Update V: NO Small 'r' republicans In The House

Barack Obama, Bush, Conservatism, Democrats, Israel, Media, Republicans, Ron Paul

It’s a chore to watch more than 60 seconds of this hypocrite unveil the carefully qualified Truth he never uttered while campaigning (and will forget if ever his faction is in power again). During his presidential campaign, Fred Thompson, and the rest of the Republican front runners, praised Bush’s three-trillion-dollar war.

Thompson and his ilk had no qualms about W’s warfare-welfare wantonness: his compassionate conservatism they touted endlessly, including Bush’s “ownership society” which amplified the mortgage meltdown. Where was cuddly Fred when,

To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the “zero-down-payment initiative,” which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment.

Those who still choose to cheer for the GOP (RIP), and saddle Obama with its travesties, might wish to commit to memory (if only fleetingly) the fact that in order to privilege Hispanics (mostly illegal), Bush not only pushed for their amnesty, but worked overtime to incorporate them into the “ownership society.” Easy credit for minorities unworthy of credit was par for the course during the Bush years.

While campaigning, did fuzzy Freddy denounce, or even mention, Bush’s prescription-drug benefit that has added trillions to the Medicare shortfall? The unconstitutional campaign finance-reform bill and “Sarbanes-Oxley Act” (a preemptive assault on CEOs and CFOs, prior to the fact of a crime)? The collusion with Kennedy on education?

What is it about establishment Republicans that they will cover up for each other and for the crimes of their Leader for 8 solid years, and are still begged to come back for encores by their followers, none of whom is the wiser? (That’s a rhetorical question).

Why do the party parrots have no curiosity about the one man who has been correct for 30 straight years? Or about the few columns that have been predictive and always spoken truth to power? (Stephen Moore, of the Wall Street Journal, wrote a book titled Bullish on Bush: How the Ownership Society Is Making America Richer. This snake-oil merchant–and failed philosopher kings like him–are still touted as the crème de la crème of the American commentariat.)

Mencken explained this with reference to the genus called “Boobus Americanus,” but then today, in the Age of the Idiot, Mencken himself would be voiceless, unemployed.

Update III (Jan 25): Still fawning over Fred and the Republican phonies? In case you find it hard to believe Bush helped build the ownership society on quicksand, do read about the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003. Did know-it-all Fred protest that when he had a chance to? Not on his life. He ought to leave “Economics in One Lesson” to the great Henry Hazlitt, who, like Mencken, would be unemployed or underemployed in the Age of the Idiot.

Update IV (Jan. 26): About the convergence of the Demopublican duopoly, Vox Day, my WND colleague, writes:

“[W]hen in power, the differences between the two parties are mostly illusory. Republican and Democrat are simply two different factions of the same ruling party, and their congressional battles are primarily over political spoils, not political ideology. This is why a ‘conservative’ president will immediately tack left upon taking office, while a ‘liberal’ president will tend to move to the right. We’ve seen this with Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43, so there’s no reason to expect a massive difference between the previous administration and the current one.”

As I have written, “Antitrust laws ought to be deployed, not against business, but to bust this two-party monopoly, which subverts competition in government and rewards the colluding quislings with sinecures in perpetuity.”

I do, however, hope Vox tackles the mindlessness of the parties’ respective followers.

Update V: To Myron. I thought the point I was making was obvious–or has responsibility (as opposed expediency) become such a vague term? The point is not whether Fuzzy Fred was present in the flesh when Bush did what he did; but this: The onus was on FF to articulate the principles he has only now discovered while vying for the Party’s nomination for president. It was THEN that FF ought to have disavowed the violation of these principles by Bush. But Fred denounces spending and cheap credit only now that a Democrat has taken over where Bush left off. It goes without saying that had the Republicans not been dethroned, they’d be doing exactly what the Democrats are doing–stimulating their packages–and their followers would be doing the same. (With one hand held out for their share of the loot.)

The Stupid Party Needs A Bigger Tent (Or, A Bigger Tin-Foil Hat)

Intelligence, Liberty, Republicans, Ron Paul

Listen to the clowns vying for the chairmanship of the RNC, as they pule about “reaching out” to Ron Paul supporters:

Aren’t they stupid? Deeply and profoundly stupid.

One after the other, each huckster proceeds to misconstrue the Ron Paul Revolution. Each sounds off, as dumbly as any female on The View, about the passion and the personality that united Paulites.

Wrong: Ron Paul’s appeal, as he has always insisted perceptively, was in the ideas of liberty. Paul, an impish and ascetic gentleman, is hardly a larger-than-life, expansive personality.

But his ideas are.

Paul’s unequivocal commitment to these eternal verities has made him the legend he has become. His supporters, myself included, gravitated to liberty as articulated by the Thomas Jefferson of our times.

Not one of these RNC asses with ears understood, or articulated, this simple fact.

Update II: The Commie Who Controls the Economy From the Grave

Communism, Democrats, Economy, Political Economy, Republicans, Socialism

The excerpt is from my new WND column, “The Commie Who Controls the Economy From the Grave“:

“Republicans are as devout about Keynes as are [Democrats] Reich and Krugman. Nixon famously declared, ‘We are all Keynesians now.’ But my comment is redundant; Bush has bested the most committed Keynesian. ‘Nixon’s Keynesian conversion … looks positively quaint compared with the fiscal and monetary stimulus’ Bush has initiated, quipped Steven Pearlstein of the Washington Post.”

“How much to hand out; who to hand it to; which handout makes the best use of taxpayer money; do the Big Three submit a business plan with their bailout requisitions, or not—that’s the depth of the ‘philosophical’ to-be-or-not-to-be among Republikeynsians.”

“So who was this man, John Maynard Keynes, who controls the economy from the grave?”

“Keynes was a Fabian socialist strongly opposed to private enterprise. … Fabians departed from communists on the use of force. Whereas the communists believed in ‘attaining power by violence,’ Fabians perfected a form of the Islamic takiya—lying to spread the faith, in their case, state-socialism.”

Read “The Commie Who Controls the Economy From the Grave.” You need to know who Comrade Keynes was!

Update I (Dec. 5): Speaking of Republikeynsians, I heard Tony Blankley, editor of the Washington Times, tell the Obama Headquarters@Hardball, care of Chris Matthews, that the government must spend inordinate amounts of money. Demand has fallen. When consumers stop spending (at last!), urged Blankley, the government must step in and fill the gap; in other words spend like the consumer would have spent had he had the money, but since he can’t spend what he doesn’t have, the government must step in and spend what it doesn’t have.

This glut; this orgy of idiocy, reminds me of a Fellini film, I think it was, where the heroes decide to get together and eat themselves to death. Anyone old enough to remember its name?

This won’t keep the nausea at bay, but I recommend reading “Keynes and the Reds” by historian Ralph Raico. More examples of takiya à la socialism–the myths Keynes’s acolytes have spun around him. His theories ought to have been sufficient to discredit him.

Update II (Dec. 9): In case readers have disobeyed me and failed to read Raico’s “Keynes and the Reds, here is an excerpt:

“…it is commonly held, Keynes was a sincere, indeed, exemplary, believer in the free society. If he differed from the classical liberals in some obvious and important ways, it was simply because he tried to update the essential liberal idea to suit the economic conditions of a new age.”

“But if Keynes was such a model champion of the free society, how can we account for his peculiar comments, in 1933, endorsing, though with reservations, the social “experiments” that were going on at the time in Italy, Germany, and Russia? And what about his strange introduction to the 1936 German translation of the General Theory, where he writes that his approach to economic policy is much better suited to a totalitarian state such as that run by the Nazis than, for instance, to Britain?” …

“A notable feature of Keynes’s praise of the Soviet system is its total lack of any economic analysis. Keynes appears blithely unaware that there might exist a problem of rational economic calculation under socialism, as outlined a year earlier in a volume edited by F. A. Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning, which featured the seminal 1920 essay by Ludwig von Mises, ‘Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth.'”

“Economists had been debating this question for years. Yet all that concerns Keynes is the excitement of the great experiment, the awe-inspiring scope of the social changes occurring in Soviet Russia under the direction of those ‘disinterested administrators.'”

“This brings to mind Karl Brunner’s comment on Keynes’s notions of social reform: ‘One would hardly guess from the material of the essays that a social scientist, even economist, had written [them]. Any social dreamer of the intelligentsia could have produced them. Crucial questions are never faced or explored.'”

Read the complete essay “Keynes and the Reds, and report back.