The GOP Should Dump the Neocons

Edward Crane, founder and president of the Cato Institute has a commentary assaulting the GOP by highlighting the duplicitous nature of the neo-cons, but the essence of his comments should be applied here to Ohio light of Ohio Republican Party’s leadership that plunged Ohio into an unmitigated depression.

It is important to realize that neocons are not just nation-building, America-first advocates. They like big government across the board. No Child Left Behind, the thinly disguised effort to nationalize education in America, was principally a neocon initiative. Consider this comment from the late Irving Kristol, self-described “godfather” of the neoconservative movement: “Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable.” Indeed.

There is an insidious philosophy underlying this acceptance of the “natural” growth of statism. Neoconservative columnist David Brooks wrote in the late 1990s that we need “a vigorous One Nation Conservatism that will connect a revived sense of citizenship with the long-standing national greatness Americans hold dear.” In another essay, he wrote: “Ultimately, American purpose can find its voice only in Washington. … Individual ambition and willpower are channeled into the cause of national greatness. And by making the nation great, individuals are able to join their narrow concerns to a larger national project.” A frightening worldview.

Which brings us to the war in Afghanistan. The neocons are predictably enthused about the prospect of a prolonged U.S. occupation there. A dozen or so of them recently sent a letter to President Obama urging him to up the ante. Astonishingly, the president who was elected as the antiwar left’s protest candidate appears poised to take the neocons’ advice and commit tens of thousands more troops to a conflict in which immediate U.S. interests are unclear at best.

Meanwhile, Obama’s domestic agenda is in shambles. Americans are outraged at the prospect of trillion-dollar deficits, auto bailouts and the subsidies to irresponsible bankers. And they don’t want socialized medicine.

The “tea parties” and town hall meetings are essentially libertarian. There is no conservative policy agenda — only a demand that the government stop trying to run our lives.

Republicans should take this opportunity to return to their traditional noninterventionist roots and throw their neoconservative wing under the bus. The Republicans have a chance at this moment to reclaim the mantle of the party of nonintervention — in your healthcare, in your wallet and in the affairs of other nations.

I disagree with him on one point, the tea party is rooted in the desire to return to localism, which essentially has it’s roots in traditional-conservative if one wants to apply a label. All in all I think the tide this country is decidedly against big government of any kind, and in that Conservatives (real Conservatives) and Libertarians can agree.

Why Mark Levin Hates Glenn Beck

This second video from the Southern Avenger screams at the neo-con fools…especially to all the knuckleheads in Ohio jumping on the Kasich bandwagon.

Eight years after 9/11: Time to Scrap Homeland Security

The Heritage Foundation has short posting urging more government and less freedom. Take a look at this small snippet:

Since 9/11, over 23 attacks have been publicly foiled. Much of this success is the result of legislation enacted after the September 11 attacks–such as the PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act–that has paved the way for:

* Extensive information sharing between federal, state, and local law enforcement,
* The creation of a world-class Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and
* An ever-growing homeland security enterprise.

What does this really mean; first if there was “over” 23 supposed attacks in eight years, where is the evidence explaining the level and composition of “said” attacks. I haven’t been able to substantiate this claim. So what and where were they? Chances are that it was low level amateur criminal activity that certainly local and state officials handled with the support of the FBI. There is no need for the full weight of the federal government to come into our communities for such things. Consider the number of supposed “terrorist” attacks since the 1960s; proportionally the number is so insignificant in comparison to the whole of the United States, how could anyone ever justify this state security apparatus.

Second, an extensive information sharing from the federal authorities straight to local law enforcement means only one thing, federalization of our local police. Why do we need DHS involvement within our local communities? When you consider the very small number of supposed “attacks,” does it really justify having the federal government passing and collecting information within our communities. Think about it, in your town your local law enforcement are reporting information collected on you and your neighbors and sending it to Washington.

Third, what does creation of a world class homeland security really mean. Let’s face the facts and delve into a little history and you’ll see that the only world class “homeland” security organizations came about in China, North Korea, the former Soviet Union, East Germany, to name a few of the oppressive countries they originated from. Free democratic countries simply don’t have world class homeland security organization because the people are supposed to be free. They only become world class when the people become the enemy of the state!

And lastly what does an ever-growing homeland security enterprise mean; easy, growth of the military defense industry. People like the writer from the Heritage Foundation, security and intelligence companies, not to forget the Blackwater types, with SAICs, McDonald Douglas and other large companies, are perpetuating increased government spending, paranoia, and ultimately, a police state, all to create a profit from our tax dollars.

The fact of the matter is that there are bad actors out there. YES, but…but, there are bad actors in every corner of the United States and these problems were handled easily by our pre-9/11 law enforcement professionals. There is no need to have this whole massive “state security” apparatus bearing down on our communities and within our households. With that said, the problem in our country has never been money or resources, but too much bureaucracy…that was the door that allowed the 9/11 terrorists into our country. The bottom-line is that some people and agencies weren’t doing their job, so we don’t need more government to fix the problem. We just need the folks that do the job to simply to just do there job. But that has always been a problem…government bureaucrats doing their intended job.

No, I am sorry, the only thing the last eight years have demonstrated to me is an unbelievable corrupt nature that has been fostered within the DC beltway, where they are the lords and we are the enemy. Yes, eight years after 9/11 it’s time scrap the Department of Homeland Security, before it’s too late.

How Big-conservatism Fails

There is an article that appeared in the 14 December 2008 edition of the Washington Times titled “How big-conservatism fails” got my attention today. The basis of the article is the ever re-occurring theme of late that so-called conservatives like George Bush and Bill Kristol erred by adopting the ideal of big centralized government.

Through the mist of utter BS we need to realize a fact straight away; you are not a “Conservative,” a big “C” Conservative if you support the ideal of big government.

One of the enduring tenets that Conservatives sustain is the belief in the principle of subsidiarity. The principle holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization that can be done as a well by a smaller and simpler organization. These smaller groups include local communities, private organizations, labor unions, churches, and the family.

While the principle was first articulated through the Catholic Church by Pope Leo XIII in the encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891) and re-applied in modern terms by Pope John Paul II in Centesimus Annus (1991), it was however realized and practiced first in the United States. Subsidiarity is the fundamental concept of the founding of American political thought.(1)

Russell Kirk advocated the principle of subsidiarity through much of his writing. We can see this clearly in two of his principles of conservatism, “to uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism,” and “the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.”

Alexis de Tocqueville also warned against the all-powerful state , opposed to what Bush and Kristol now trumphant:

“For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?”

No, I adamantly disagree with anyone that advocates that a one can be both a Conservative and an advocate of big centralized government. Can one be a socialist and advocate freedom of choice and small government?

There in lies the truth about those in the Republican Party and news media that have embraced, sponsored and advanced big government, they are not Conservative. They may seek to “conserve” big government intrusion in our lives, in that they are small “c” conservative, but they are not of the tradition of Conservativism. They are charlatans, liars, but not Conservative.
1. Lawrence P. Grayson, Subsidiarity and American Democracy.

Is Ohio’s Terrorist Expert Closing Shop?

I noticed that “Ohio’s leading terrorist expert” hasn’t posted anything on his site since prior to election about Ohio’s “dire” terrorist problem. Things that make you go “hum.”

I have always thought this site was nothing more than neo-con propaganda outlet meant to put fear into unknowing Ohioans.

Frankly I have never bought into the whole issue and believe more strongly everyday that the Muslim community was used as a scapegoat by the political class (both of the two main parties) in Washington to further destroy our very fragile form of government. Thank goodness we have professors and researches like John Mueller of The Ohio State University telling the truth about the matter.

Oil, War and the Financial Bailout

Here is my take on the current financial bailout and the nexus of it all:

The war in Iraq was for oil; the oil was destined all along for the Asian and European markets; the war was, and is, funded by Asian bankers (Chinese and Japanese) at a low interest rate of 3 percent; the weak US dollar and markets resulting from printing large sums of money and creating an environment that killed our manufacturing base caused a diminished return for Asian bankers and they couldn’t make a profit on their loans; Bush and Congress, the Washington political class, bending to the will of the global bankers, will fund funded the failing and overextended greedy global banks to ensure the Asian bankers received a return on the money they loaned to us, so they won’t pull their money and crash our economy.  If they did it would mean leaving our troops high and dry without any funds to keep them a float as well as Bush’s imperialistic new world order conquest at the behest of the European banker elites.  To complete the circle, Europe and Asia continue to get their oil, China and Japan get some return on their investments with the US Taxpayer picking up all the risk and security, and the United States is sucked dry leaving us without a financial base and faith in our markets.

Lies and more lies…

This is exactly what Mussolini did during his fascist reign. He borrowed money without the legislators knowing it while presenting balanced books. In the end it all fell in like a house of cards. Just like it is happening with Bush and Congress.

Who Started the War in Georgia?

Do you know who started the war in Georgia? Do you know who drew first blood? Well if one simply relied upon the US News Media Complex to inform you, then you would conclude that the big bad Putin did. Well surprise, surprise, it looks like it was US trained Georgian troops that attacked first and Russia came to protect the Russians that occupy this disputed territory of South Ossetians.

I noticed that conventional units went in first. However, by classic Soviet doctrine country takeovers had always been conducted first with special operations forces, then with a large conventional element following behind. You’ll note that this how they went into Czechoslovakia, Hungry, and Afghanistan, and one would conclude the same occurring in Georgia if Putin had truly planned to take the region by force, but he didn’t. I might add that this is how we also attack. That was my big tip off.

Are we getting the whole story, I think not; but I’ll be willing to bet the neo-con artists Bush and Cheney are up to no good.