Conservative Donnybrook

“Somewhere along the line, the White House lost its way,” said Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo.

No, Rep. Skelton, the White House did not lose its way; its way, as carefully guarded by Rahm Emanuel and the rest of the crew, was on full display during President Obama’s speech. You see, the White House ran a campaign to accomplish only a few things. Primarily, they ran to keep the powers in the Federal Reserve and globalist banking interests untouched: and yesterday’s Senate confirmation of Bernanke, along with steadfast support of Tim Geithner and his policies, accomplished that. Secondarily, they ran to keep the moneyed interests in the defense industries flush with cash and fresh battlegrounds: the ramp-up in Afghanistan and the sabre-rattling about their next war in Iran accomplished just that. Thirdly, they ran to hand off the responsibility for fomenting a leftist revolution to Democrat-controlled Congressional Houses: President Obama slapped them in the face and subsequently cajoled them into trying harder to do just that with his call “To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills.” He said, “Don’t walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. Let’s get it done. Let’s get it done.” You must understand that the President is a short-term law professor who made his bones in that bastion of honesty and good-government, Chicago politics. His king-maker was Teddy Kennedy. Need I say more? If Kennedy hadn’t put his considerable political weight behind Obama, he would be facing a tough reelection battle as the junior Senator from Illinois begging President Hillary Clinton to campaign for him when the time came. That Hillary Clinton is both meaner and perhaps slightly more in control of her temper than the loathsome John McCain is not seriously in question; what is is whether McCain would have folded up the tent and joined her ticket as the VP. But I digress.

No, Ike, the White House did not lose its way at all. They still have you to blame. They are counting on you and the caucus to come through. They have no intentions of leaving the radicalism of “health care” “reform” aside. They have no inclination to make banking and finance more “transparent.” They have no desire to end the wars. They have made that plain; besides, peace is not in their revolutionary make-up. Marxism, whether overtly Leninist or the covertly Alinskyite variety (which merely deceptively masks its nature by denying it), depends upon struggle, upheaval, tension, division, and conflict. It is only natural that they would pretend to appeal to the masses of us who clamored for an end to war. It is only natural that they are disappointing us. I point only to Robert Gates, that unctious holdover from the odious wing of the last administration, as proof. The White House has its dupes making “gaffes” which fill up news cycles (Chris Matthews’ “I forgot he was black”) and distract from their strategic retreats (“rethinking” the location and venue of the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial), but they are going about their business unabated.

You’ll see, Ike. Why, the Orlando Sentinel just reported a few days ago that Obama made NASA scrap the Constellation program and the Ares rockets so as to refocus the agency’s attention on “climate change.” Guess who stand to make billions (trillions? Dare I say it in this day when superlatively large descriptors fail to come to mind? I do.) from the “climate change” scam? That’s right, Ike. All those “lobbyists” from K Street that the President “really let have it.” Uh huh. Sure. I believe he meant that about as much as I believe he meant “more nuclear power” and “drill here, drill now” and “we need tax cuts” and a “three year freeze” on spending. The President had them on speed dial to invite them to a “not-for-the-press” conference call literally the morning after purportedly taking them to task. And as for calling on Republicans to “work together with us” or whatever phraseology the Dear Leader used, he knows very well that Snowe, Graham, and McCain (the “deficit hawk,” ha ha) are already in line for “health care reform,” “immigration reform,” and “deficit reduction” (in that order, and then some). God only knows what other deals they have already lined up for a year or two down the road. The White House, contrary to the so-called “conservative” media, wasn’t surprised by Coakley’s loss. Nor was that an actual set-back. No, “there will be a bill,” as Nancy said. It will have a “public option” (I can hear it now: a “public partnership run for us by private insurance companies”) and it will force exorbitant costs onto the businesses Obama said he wants to stimulate. (A rather disquieting analogy springs to mind at that word, but it is apropos.)

Oh, Ike. What saps they took us for! Took you for! Unless, of course, you’re also doing a little sap-taking, there, Ike.

Our secretary of state apparently doesn’t find her job challenging enough, because she’s gone and decided to create a big new diplomatic headache for the United States by dishing out some combative rhetoric (and much sanctimonious lecturing) on China’s Internet policy.

Now, it’s perfectly reasonable for Clinton to protest China’s hacking of American companies’ networks, using them to spy on Chinese users’ communications, and the theft of their intellectual property. But it’s another thing altogether to invoke cold-war rhetoric in an explicit call to undermine foreign governments:

Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world’s networks. They’ve expunged words, names, and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in non-violent political speech. These actions contravene the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which tells us that all people have the right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information curtain is descending across much of the world. And beyond this partition, viral videos and blog posts are becoming the samizdat of our day.

While it’s unclear what this speech signifies beyond escalating rhetoric, it seems that Hillary is trying to enlist American companies to protest or undermine foreign governments’ Internet policies, á la Google’s stand in China. Continue Reading »

Trijicon, maker of exception scopes for military and civilian use, has come under fire for inscriptions which appear on the company’s hardware. The inscriptions reference bible passages, often regarding Christ. The Muslim Public Affairs Council wants the inscriptions removed and no further shipments made to the U.S. military of hardware containing references to scripture. MPAC said the references “feed into the violent extremists’ narrative that the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are a ‘crusade against Islam.’”

If references to God are unacceptable on military hardware, then the same argument can be made against sending U.S. Treasury notes to Muslim nations. Shall we stop sending bills with references to God on them to Afghanistan? Iraq? Think before you complain, MPAC.

According to CNN and MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell, respectively. Obama’s first major initiative is sunk, it would seem. With Reid and other Senate Dems on the ropes, I’ll go out on a limb and say the war is all he’s got left.

Michael Kinsley once defined a gaffe as when a politician accidentally tells the truth.

As we’ve all heard, according to Harry Reid, among Obama’s electoral advantages is that he’s “light-skinned … with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

Now, certainly, this comment sets off all sorts of PC alarm bells, but of course, it’s basically true, right? What’s more, it’s obviously not racist at all.

OK, it’s not nice to use the term “Negro” any more, fine, but give me a break, the man’s 70 years old, and it’s not exactly a racial epithet — just an old term that’s fallen out of fashion.

The “dialect”? I think we’ve all noticed Obama turn on Great Black Orator mode, even though he’s not very good at it, in contrast with his more natural Midwest Whitebread mode. But I think it’s safe to say that the more “black” your speech, the less likely average white folks are to vote for you. Now take that as an indictment of white racism or whatever, but it seems pretty inarguable to me.

Why, here’s Camille Paglia writing during the ’08 campaign:

I have become increasingly uneasy about Obama’s efforts to sound folksy and approachable by reflexively using inner-city African-American tones and locutions, which as a native of Hawaii he acquired relatively late in his development and which are painfully wrong for the target audience of rural working-class whites that he has been trying to reach. Obama on the road and even in major interviews has been droppin’ his g’s like there’s no tomorrow.

But these ideas are forbidden! Paglia must resign! Willmoore must resign!

The most dubious part of the comment is probably the “light-skinned” part — I’m not so sure that makes such a big difference, but who knows? It’s not a crazy notion.

But the funny thing about all of this is that what Reid is basically saying is that he thinks whites are racist. Normally, the assumption of the bigotry on the part of white Americans is not only condoned, but it serves as one of the core background assumptions to the entire PC project.

Then again, these PC rituals of outrage and contrition never seem to have a close relationship with what the offender actually said. But Reid crossed some PC tripwires with his vaguely icky turns of phrase, and therefore he must prostrate himself before the sensitivity gods.

But what about double standards? Wouldn’t a Republican have suffered more for saying the same thing? Well, of course he would, but that’s life. And ultimately, conservatives do themselves no favors for playing this game.

Sure, it’s nice to get the chance to watch a big-time Democrat squirm under the rules set down by his PC brethren. It seems like Ann Coulter had great fun with this when, on Geraldo Rivera’s show, after Sharpton went on at length about what a swell guy Harry Reid is, Coulter asked, “Did he ask you to stop using your Negro dialect too?”

Well hey! That’s pretty funny, and if anyone deserves it, it’s Sharpton. But ultimately, isn’t it pretty stupid for conservatives to get into the game of jumping all over folks who broach subjects forbidden by PC fashion? This is a game that conservatives can never win, and the whole thing brings to mind a certain aphorism about getting into the mud with pigs.

The list of officially-sanctioned viewpoints and subjects for discussion grows ever-smaller. Why, these days, just opposing gay marriage can cost you your job. Conservatives will not benefit by throwing in their lot with the PC thought police. Paul Gottfried puts it best:

What the GOP is doing will have dire consequences, beyond the richly deserved fate of making the party look foolish. It will stifle the freedom to engage in honest political discussion, an activity that the attack on Reid and before that on Lott is going to make more difficult. As the “sensitivity” net widens and as unauthorized questions about race, gender, and lifestyle are put outside the limits of “sensitive” dialogue, we will suffer as an already diminished free society. While there is plenty of blame to go around for this situation, the GOP has done its part here, in its desperate hunger for minority votes. … Now the GOP has moved out in front as an advocate of leftwing thought and speech control. The campaign against Reid illustrates this.

It looks like China might have a lot more to worry about soon than the possibility of Google pulling up stakes and leaving in a snit. Conventional wisdom is that China’s fiscal and monetary stimulus program has worked — See this Dec. 11 New York Times story:

Data released by China on Friday provided fresh evidence that the nation’s economic recovery was gaining momentum, helped by government stimulus measures and lending by state-run banks over the last year.

China’s authorities were quick to prime the economy in the wake of last year’s global financial crisis, and gross domestic product is forecast to grow more than 8 percent this year — vastly more than in the United States, Europe or Japan — despite a sharp decline in exports.

This supposed success story has led various commentators to point to China as an example of effective centrally-planned economy-goosing. So you see, it isn’t Keynesianism’s fault. We just aren’t doing Keynesianism right!

But China might not be such a model of enlightened state-directed capitalism, after all. Massive government spending, aggressive monetary stimulus, turbocharged bank lending, surging asset prices, skyrocketing real estate values — it gives one a sense of deja vu, and this story doesn’t end well. The massive real estate overbuilding is particularly alarming–shades of Dubai? Heck, shades of us?

Continue Reading »

The stage is set: In November, Californians will go to the polls and either legalize and tax marijuana or keep it decriminalized. Marijuana is the number one cash crop in California (and in several other states), grossing an estimated $14 billion per year! Grapes, by comparison, gross roughly $2.6 billion annually. Conservative estimates suggest that through legalization and taxation the cost would drop, tax would be applied and the net expense would be the same for the consumer, resulting in a windfall $1 billion for Sacramento. The time is right, the money is right and the resistance is small and shrinking.

Marijuana is relatively harmless as it is non-addictive, posses no substantial health threat, impairs users much less than alcohol and like alcohol, it comes in countless varieties and strains. Simply put, there is no reason to make this plant or its growth and consumption illegal. Legalization provides income to our strapped state, dramatically reduces its availability to minors and removes it from the control of sometimes violent criminal organizations.

The chief arguments against marijuana legalization are unfounded (think Reefer Madness). Those that clamor for its continued ban largely do so out of an over-inflated sense of “moral” superiority and ignorance. However, there are others that will not support legalization. Growers, organized crime and dealers will not want their source of income jeopardized by allowing government to regulate the business. You see, regulation means control. As it is marijuana is illegal and, thus, one of the last sources of truly free-enterprise. Nevertheless, applying criminal sanctions, banning its use and overcrowding our jails are a travesty. The time has come to undue almost 100 years of bad policy.

In an attempt to quench my thirst for knowledge on the gold standard and opposition to an independent Federal Reserve, I have (on the advice of a certain New Yorker by way of Massachusetts) ordered a copy of Mr. Ron Paul’s “End the Fed.” I know there must be some reason that such a vocal minority clamors for a return to the gold standard and, in the same breath, an end to the Federal Reserve system. Yet, for all my questioning, I have yet to receive even a sophomoric answer other than “gold is independent and stable.” Of course, neither of these statements is true.

I have been inquiring for months about the vitriolic hatred for an independent Federal Reserve and the nostalgic waxing of the same persons for a return to the gold standard. I have no real position on the subject yet other than a gut reaction to endorse an independent Fed over the congressional meddling many (led by Mr. Paul) have called for. Therefore, as soon as I have received and read the book, I will post my reaction to it. In the meantime, if someone has a thought, I am more than interested to read it.

The last year of this first decade of the 21st century will bring us many challenges and, D.v., many blessings as well. Speaking for my part, I resolve to strive for constructive policy recommendations along with my typical criticisms. Conservatives face a tremendous opportunity to once again, as Buckley once said, stand athwart history yelling “Stop!” And it is clear that they must be stopped: those forces of destruction, confiscation, redistribution, secular salvation, usurpation, and tyranny. The question before us, as has been handily demonstrated in the recent past here at CD is, “what is conservatism?” How shall we then live? What methodologies will we need to adapt and resurrect to counteract these agents of “change”? Whom shall we trust to carry our standard? What, in short, is a credo by which we can measure all our rhetoric and action?

Peril abounds, as it always has. Folk wisdom tells us not to bash a bee hive with a creek rock. Doubtless, the occasional sting will occur, even with due caution in the apiary. Such stings do not imply that the caution we were exercising was inappropriate or should be jettisoned in a fury of pain and trauma. Especially when an epinephrine pen won’t work to prevent the anaphylaxis anymore.

Debt looms insanely large, and yet more and more clamoring is heard from old and new quarters. A serious audit of the books is due, and serious cutbacks are not only necessary but inevitable, regardless of how they come. Borrowing billions to send $50 billion annually in foreign “aid” is no longer feasible. We have long since shifted from a manufacturing and production economy, and thus the idea that we as a country can or should take on the burdens of other countries is as ridiculous as taking out a third mortgage on my house to pay my neighbors’ cable and electric bills. That’s one slice of a tragically large pie that has to be — finally — served.

Lastly, liberty should not be spoken of apart from attendant responsibilities, because it is derived therefrom. We are created beings, social beings, and the most basic duties we have are to the One Who created us and to those whom we are familially and then societally related. It is inside those boundaries that we are truly free from fear, from want, and from oppression.

We have our work cut out for us, friends and readers. Let us get to splitting the wood.