Latest episode of the Constitutional Coalition.
That big bump you just felt under the wheels on your morning commute was the LGBT Community being thrown under the bus by Barack Obama’s administration and Nancy Pelosi’s Democratic congress. (Warning, some may find the content on the linked news pages not to their preference.)
Over the weekend, the White House website removed the page explicitly outlining its rather radical eight-point agenda supporting the LGBT Community, and replaced it with a tepid two-point support statement that highlights instead traditional New Left civil rights reforms.
The message to the last hatefully discriminated-against group of American citizens is clear, “Thank you for your votes, now please close the door behind you on your way out.”
When are they going to learn? The Feds and radical Progressives currently controlling the Democratic Party cannot be trusted.
The only significant advances the LGBT community is achieving are in the States (Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, etc), and therefore they should be supporting civil libertarians, the libertarian state sovereignty movement, and the 10th Amendment as the key step to achieving their equality. After all, it was the Libertarian Party that was the first major political party to openly endorse equal rights (including marriage rights) for all citizens way back in 1972 — long before the Democrats were willing to even touch the issue.
Would it not be better to have something (a few safe havens) at the State level, than nothing (except exploitation) at the Federal level?
I was warning voters eight months ago that only the radical neo-con conservatives were likely to end up being pleased with an Obama administration. I hate being right so often.
Neocons like Newt Gingrich are paranoid nutjobs who are terrified of 3rd world countries that are virtually incapable of harming Americans (if our government wasn’t occupying bordering countries).
Isn’t it funny how supposedly tough-guy conservatives like Newt and Sean Hannity are messing their pants over the “threat” posed by nations unable to even feed their own people? Seems pretty wussy to me….
A perfect example of the bizarro world in which our political class lives is how they’ve redefined extremist wackos to be considered “centrist moderates” and vice versa. Look at how Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul are villified as “extremists” because they don’t think the U.S. should start WWIII with nuclear-armed Russia over Georgia but “centrist moderates” McCain and Obama agree 100% on the issue. Isn’t that completely insane? Who in their right mind can legitimately defend that?
Another good example of the bizzarro world mentality is how establishment deemed “centrist moderates” like David Frum and Arlen Specter are considered respectable even though they stand for more war, torture and deficit-spending. The MSM is trying to paint Specter’s departure from the GOP as evidence the party is moving in an extreme direction (i.e. less statist). It’s similar to how they tried to pin McCain’s loss on social conservative Sarah Palin while ignoring the neocon disasters of the Bush years. The MSM and their “centrist moderates” always tend to overlook the public’s disdain with the bipartisan consensus on empire-building, endless war and spending ourselves into oblivion. Commentor WRW on TheAmericanConservative blog nails it with the following:
Yes, it pinches on the myth that it was â€œsocial conservativesâ€ who lost it all; not the warmongers, torture promoters, loose immigration â€œreformersâ€, drug benefit/no child corporate welfare advocates, outsourcing promoters, and tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% crowd. Oh, and did I mention staggering deficits and inflationary housing policies?
No. Frum had no involvement with any of that. Neither did Specter. Oh, wait, yeah they were holding hands on those.
Wow … check out this sickening display from FrontPageMag to discredit anyone who isn’t a partisan stooge for the Beltway right. The logic is almost imposible to follow but it’s typical of the smears, lies and cheap shots the establishment Right uses to maintain its control over the grassroots.
Troothers, Holocaust deniers, Klansmen, and other white supremacists piled into the 2008 Ron Paul campaign along with thousands of leftist anti-American war activists in an effort to disrupt the Republican Party. Today sites such as www.TheDailyPaul.com are laden with â€œbirtherâ€ nonsense as are Alex Jonesâ€™ www.RonPaulWarRoom.com and www.InfoWars.com, and Paulâ€™s misnamed www.CampaignForLiberty.com.
Jonesâ€™ InfoWars may have been quick to acknowledge the October, 2007 troother shift from Democrat to Ron Paul, but for uber-troother Alex Jones, the birther metamorphosis was more gradual that Phil Bergâ€™s instantaneous action. Jones, the profiteer behind the â€œLoose Changeâ€ series, worked throughout 2007 and 2008 on behalf of Ron Paul. Jonesâ€™ built-in audience of drug-addled losers was easy prey for Paulâ€™s anti-Semitism, and his â€œfiat moneyâ€ blitherâ€”although Paul carefully avoided any clear and unequivocal acknowledgement of his own trootherism.
Wow …. so if you have learned about Austrian Economics, it must mean you’re an anti-semite/leftist/druggie. I think this pathetic hit-piece speaks volumes about how weak and ignorant the Neocon Beltway Right has become.
Takimag’s Richard Spencer wonders if Newt Gingrich is the Chancellor Palpatine to Mark Sanford’s Anakin Skywalker. (Without the dorky Star Wars analogy)
Government power is growing, and unless President Barack Obama and the majority in Congress have a libertarian epiphany, it will continue to grow for years. If the expansion of intrusive government (a redundancy) gives you the willies â€” it should; the cost is freedom and prosperity â€” you may be tempted to direct your anger at Obama and the rest of the Democratic leadership. That would be myopic, however.
Blame the Republicans, beginning with former President George. W. Bush. (We could go back further, but time and space are limited.)
The reason can be illustrated by an extraordinary moment that took place just after Obama unveiled his $3.55 trillion 2010 budget. Contemplating the budget, Republican House leader John Boehner went before the media microphones and declared, â€œThe era of big government is back.â€
For Boehner to make such a statement suggests two possibilities, although both could be true: he thinks Americans are morons, or heâ€™s been in a coma since January 20, 2001, when Bush took office.
Note that he didnâ€™t say, â€œUh oh, government is going to get even bigger than it is now.â€ No, he said, â€œThe era of big government is back.â€ Back â€” as in: returned after having gone away.
When did it go away? And does Boehner really believe that the American people donâ€™t realize how much government grew under Bush? Click here for more…
Much like I’ve written about before, it appears as if the neocons are getting chummy with Barack with each passing day. As I’ve said before: there’s not much of a difference between liberal war hawks and neocons because neocons were liberal war hawks only a few decades ago. A lot of them are still registered democrats. Steve Sailer comments on the WSJ’s concern about how the neocons returning home might “harm” the conservative movement.
Yeah, without neocon brainpower, the poor dumb bastards wonâ€™t come up with any more great ideas like starting a needless land war in Asia.
…when it came to neocons and their kneejerk support of Israel without regard to America’s interests.
Russell Kirk said:
they have been rash in their schemes of action, pursuing a fanciful democratic globaIism rather that the national interest of the United States; on such occasions I have tended to side with those moderate Libertarians who set their faces against foreign entanglements. And not seldom it has seemed as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States - a position they will have difficulty in maintaining, as matters drift in the Levant.
Seriously, people! Wake up! The Dems act like neocons on Israel too! This isn’t our fight so why do we have our elected representatives voting in support of Israel? It’s not enough that we bankroll their military with our unconstitutional foreign aid? Are we trying to make ourselves even bigger targets for Islamic terrorists? It’s time to listen to the advice of our Founders and quit picking sides. Again, the honorable Ron Paul is one of the only voices of reason on this issue.
The resolution in fact will lead the U.S. to become further involved in this conflict, promising ‘vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.’ Is it really in the interest of the United States to guarantee the survival of any foreign country? I believe it would be better to focus on the security and survival of the United States, the Constitution of which my colleagues and I swore to defend just this week at the beginning of the 111th Congress.
Here’s an excerpt:
This dynamic of neocons versus liberal interventionists seems to be along the lines of good cop vs. bad cop. Both parties want the same result, but they play opposing roles to con the third party (in this case, independent voters) into trusting them even though they both share the same goals. And when you really think about it: what is the difference between a neocon and a liberal war hawk anyway? Not much of a difference at all considering that neocons were liberal war hawks a few decades ago. Neocon Max Boot admitted this much while praising Obama. “I am gob smacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain…. [Hillary] Clinton and [James] Steinberg at State should be powerful voices for ‘neo-liberalism’ which is not so different in many respects from ‘neo-conservativism.’” (read the whole thing)
I’m very proud of this article I wrote for The New American magazine. Subscribe to it if you don’t already. This article is a nice summary of how the neocons ruined conservatism’s brand. Those unfamiliar with what neocons actually are should check it out. (Hank, I’m looking in your direction.)
The rise of the neoconservatives within the GOP has not only discredited the Grand Old Party but tarnished the image of conservatism.
The Republican party suffered an overwhelming electoral defeat this past November. The establishment media were all too quick to proclaim that conservatism is dead and we’re now at the dawn of a liberal age. Peter Beinart, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy for the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), wrote in Time magazine that we are facing the dawn of a “new liberal order.”
In making this proclamation, Beinart overlooks the fact that the public was not voting for President-elect Obama, but rather against Republicans like John McCain and George W. Bush. But what was it that Bush and the Republican Party have come to symbolize? Bush and McCain both stood for an activist foreign policy of globally spreading democracy, never-ending commitments of nation building, open borders at home, record deficit spending, circumventing the Constitution, expanding domestic welfare programs, and nationalizing the financial sector. More…
we cannot out-promise President-elect Obama. Our only hope is a return to traditional conservatism–not a lukewarm conservatism, but that of Pat Buchanan, Russell Kirk, Phyllis Schlafly, and Barry Goldwater. William Buckley, before he passed away, was strongly opposed to our misadventure in Iraq, much to the embarrassment of National Review and the neocons.
We need to ignore advice from self-serving “big government conservatives” such as Bill Kristol, who once said he could work just as well with liberal Democrats. We need to show how big-government policies have driven up the cost of medical care and college tuition, housing and energy. Too much government always results in very few at the top and very many at the bottom. About the only thing big government is good at is wiping out the middle class.
True conservatism lifts all boats. The wealthy come out alright under almost any system. Everyone, especially those at the bottom economically, come out better under small-government conservatism.
That’s a case we can win–if only Republicans will remember their conservative roots.
What’s the difference between a neocon and a liberal hawk? Answer: not too much since neocons used to be liberal hawks until ’72 when they jumped ship over to the GOP because of McGovern’s peacenik nature. Barry’s increasingly hawkish administration will be a nice opportunity for them to return to their natural home. Neocons, go surge in Afghanistan (& Pakistan & Somalia & Sudan & so on) with Barry & Friends!
A classic from the good Doctor.
There are many reasons why government continues to grow. It would be naÃ¯ve for anyone to expect otherwise. Since 9-11, protection of privacy, whether medical, personal or financial, has vanished. Free speech and the Fourth Amendment have been under constant attack. Higher welfare expenditures are endorsed by the leadership of both parties. Policing the world and nation-building issues are popular campaign targets, yet they are now standard operating procedures. Thereâ€™s no sign that these programs will be slowed or reversed until either we are stopped by force overseas (which wonâ€™t be soon) or we go broke and can no longer afford these grandiose plans for a world empire (which will probably come sooner than later.)
None of this happened by accident or coincidence. Precise philosophic ideas prompted certain individuals to gain influence to implement these plans. The neoconservatives â€“ a name they gave themselves â€“ diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence. They documented their goals, strategy and moral justification for all they hoped to accomplish. Above all else, they were not and are not conservatives dedicated to limited, constitutional government. Continue reading
Doug Bandow of the American Conservative Defense Alliance gives an excellent eulogy (read the whole thing – it’s that good!):
Sen. John McCain embodied the neocon hopes of a war on every continent. And the Republican Party, battered on the economic front, attempted to win the election by focusing on foreign policy. GOP apparatchiks warned that the world was dangerous as they campaigned for a candidate determined to put Americans at risk around the globe. The Republican Party pushed for a permanent occupation of Iraq, more military spending, expanding NATO to the Caucasus, increased confrontation with China and Russia, and an even larger role for America as the world’s global policeman and 911 operator. The policy was unlimited government with unlimited duties, a perversion of what conservatism, and the Republican Party, once purported to stand for. Continue reading