Dick Cheney The Ol’ Neocon Bastard

Leave a comment

Compare the philosophic differences in the following quotes:

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart….Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

John Quincy Adams, 4 July 1821

As quoted recently by Dick Cheney:

In 1983, President Ronald Reagan said, “If history teaches anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.”

One knows he is on the right track when neo-cons start up with their tired tirades. The two good things Obama has done in the last six years is to “end” our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq and draw down the size of the Armed Forces. Regarding the latter, America has done so after every war before World War II. Yet after that war, we actually grew our military, to combat an imagined threat in the Cold War, thanks in part to Truman’s missteps and Ike’s missed opportunities to open up talks with the Soviets in the early-mid 1950’s.

Cheney seems to have forgotten that putting Iran into the Axis of Evil in the 2000’s nixed a reformist Iranian governmnet and brought Ahmadinejad to power. Does he also forget that Kuwait was carved out of Iraq by the British? Or that modern Near East states were created by the Allies post-World War I? How our loans to Saddam during the Iraq-Iran War collapsed an Iraqi economy that had been on the rebound before the war? That both reasons led Saddam to invade Kuwait? Does he remember we fed supplies and money into the Iraq-Iran war? Or what of Afghanistan – that we did the same to the Mujahideen and Taliban fighters to spite the Soviets?

Does Cheney, who views the surge with warm feelings because of its “success” understand it was necessary because Rumsfeld refused to understand the concept of invading with overpowering numbers? Would Cheney be able to honestly tell us he believes the American Way is not a cookie-cutter experience for all peoples in all places in all times? If not, I would suggest he read Orestes A. Brownson.

No, the clear evidence Dick Cheney sees he wrongly interprets. The world has not spoken any clearer in telling America to return to its Enlightenment principles. The world does not need another Imperal parent. Spurn Churchill’s desire and lay the British Empire to rest.

In Cheney’s view:

Tragically, [Obama] is quickly proving…that without American pre-eminence, there can be no world order.

As Marcus Aurelius tells Maximus in Gladiator, empire does not mean the end of war for there will always be someone left to fight. We should care to recall that the world was so ordered before America and will be so after America. What is world order other than individuals [nations] acting in their own best interests? Obama cannot be any more right in saying “[a]ny world order that elevates one nation above others cannot long survive.” As Brownson argues, America or any other nation, does not exist in and of itself, it exists as so Divinely created. Exclude the Divine to one’s own peril. What is peril other than to view one’s country as the benefactor of civilization and order?

I hope Dick Cheney’s march takes him straight to the insane asylum.

Advertisements

One For The Queers

2 Comments

The decision leaves in place another provision in the law that says no state is required to recognize gay marriages performed in any other state. [Courtesy of the LATimes]

I must split with the faux-Conservative community regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act handed down today. I personally believe the law to have been un-Constitutional on two points. On account of the Tenth Amendment, the power to decide who can or cannot marry lies with each individual State. Whether Roberts et al agree with that or not, it is the correct way in which to adjudicate.

And, secondly, there is no such thing as the regulation of morality, which was the basic essence of DoMA. My working theory is the ceding of religious authority and personal morality over time to the governance of Modernism, which entails everything from Relativism to Darwinian Moralism, is the heart of the issue. But this is not the time to expand on that thought.

Regarding my stance on the regulation of morality, those more aligned with religious fundamentalism would disagree with me. They might say morality laws are necessary to slow the onslaught of social deviancy. Or that all law is inherently moral. With the latter point I would agree. Yet there is a sharp difference between a government having the power to print coinage and declare war with a government which says thou shall and thou shalt not. The morality of law, at least in the tradition of Western Enlightenment, is of a more humanistic nature: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Reintroduce religion into government and the theocratic State will do as much if not more harm than what we now have. In other words, the problem is not that we lack law regulating morality, it is that we lack personal morality.

Ergo, where I break with Justice Kennedy is on the issues of morality, the definition of marriage and the individual’s duty to society.

The law “places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage,” Kennedy wrote for the court. “The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, and whose relationship the state has sought to dignify.” [Courtesy of Bloomberg]

The Constitution does not protect anti-social forms of sexuality. Why, in the face of allowing homosexual marriage, should we also not allow other forms of sexually deviant behavior. Logically, what society says is wrong about every other conceivable form of sexuality would also amount to discrimination and injustice. But such couldn’t be further from the truth. Every society operates on conceived ideals, what we might call the social glue, or societal fabric. Thus, should a strand be ripped out, the society falls apart, ie changes.

The term anti-social might bring to mind anarchy or some other such means of anti-government sentiment, but true anti-social behavior is that which completely subverts the normative, in this case a form of sexuality that on one hand does not provide for the propagation of society. And on the other hand fundamentally changes the social fabric at its most basic level, the individual family unit.

The pro-LGBT crowd would here cite two seemingly logical arguments as to why homosexual unions are no different than certain heterosexual unions. One, couples are allowed to marry who either cannot have children or are past the age of childbearing years. Second, couples are allowed to marry and choose not to have children. However, these are nothing more than smokescreen arguments. Every society throughout the expanse of time has understood marriage to be a contract, both social, religious and economic, between a man and a woman. By and large, marriages produce children. It is a rule of natural law. Equally so, homosexual unions cannot produce children. Only in our modern scientific age have we perverted the child-bearing process into the choice and convenience of a petri dish.

I am oddly struck that the Supreme Court did not amend the disparity of marriage recognition between the various States [Ref quote at top]. If Justice Kennedy and his four cohorts are truly out to find justice under the law for the homosexual community, would it not therefore be appropriate to wrest the power of marriage away from the individual States and form a Bureau of Marriage at the national level?

Confusion Thursday…

3 Comments

brought to us by the outstanding Senator from California, Dianne Feinstien.

Thesis:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) laid out the conditions of her proposed assault weapons ban Thursday, saying it would prohibit 158 specifically named military-style firearms.

Except:

We have tried to recognize the right of a citizen to legally possess a weapon. No weapon is taken from anyone.

The twist:

Instead, the bill protects hunters and sportsmen by protecting 2,200 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes.

Let me try to run the logic of this pretzel. We are proposing to uphold the Second Amendment via banning weapons [deemed unsuitable for law-abiding citizens]. But law-abiding citizens who already own high-capacity firearms can keep them because they are for certain specific purposes, i.e. hunting and other sporting engagements.

I would read into that last bit that Liberals will detach their proxy arm, PETA, to outlaw hunting and other similar sport through lawsuits at some point in the future.

Also, no hunting weapon has been used or ever will be used to commit a crime. There is no black market by which any citizen or non-citizen has or ever will purchase a firearm. Humanity is essentially good, perverted only through violent video games and movies. Non-citizens, such as Pancho Villa, have never committed a crime in the United States.

Okay. I think I understand their logic now.

Follow the same thought process to make sense of the following three oxymora. Feel free to add to the list:

Fixing illegal immigration by building a fence and/or passing new immigration reform laws and/or redefining the entire issue as a Path To Citizenship or Filling Jobs Americans Won’t Do.

Securing Pax Americana abroad by engaging in endless war, conspiracy and fomenting social and political unrest, particularly in the Near East.

Reducing spending by raising the debt ceiling.

Let’s Enjoy What Good Things May Occur

Leave a comment

This is fantastic news.

The Grand Ol’ Party is holding the Speaker accountable rather than it being the other way around. Obviously, the more conservative members of the party are responsible for the intra-party coup-de-tat-lite. But with trillion-plus dollar deficits for each of the last for years, a small victory is a victory nonetheless.

After today, Senate Democrats and the White House are going to have to act on this measure.

If only we could tackle more than one problem at a time. When is Boehner going to realize it is not up to the White House [I’m hoping and assuming he means the President] to initiate legislation? The takeover of the Congress and the legislative process is a far cry higher than sickening. It is at once disturbing and antithetical to what was once termed the grand experiment of this former Republic. For the Executive to trample upon things such as the power to declare war at will is one thing. To essentially hand not only lawmaking, but also the power of the purse to the Executive is perhaps the last nail in the coffin of Republican government.

Not that such possible tragedy goes unknown over time. Always it is a foregone conclusion of the corruptible nature of power. Though this foresight does not make our present age any less melancholy. The purpose of government, our government at least, is decayed and I would argue irredeemable. What that means for the Libertarian tenet of the utmost personal freedom possible is a waning arc towards loss.

Many within the broad spectrum of the Conservative tent [Republicanism through Anarchism] would blame much of the loss of Democratic ideals on the education system. To a small degree they are correct.  I think the better path to take is to remember the decaying manner of the human experience. That ideas, in this case, Lockean, Humean etc first corrupt and then are forgotten.

In any case I hope Jim DeMint’s thoughts on Boehner’s Speakership are correct: that the Fiscal Cliff will ultimately cost Boehner his job. There are those of us in Ohio, however few, who understand the Libertarian who ran against Boehner in the 2010 midterm election was the better choice. A Republican who voted for the first Bailout is no Republican at all.

I Support Chris Wallace

1 Comment

He may not have put the question in the most savvy verbiage, but asking if Bachmann is a flake on Fox News Sunday (June 26) was actually a very good question. Especially in light of her Palinistic verbal gaffes.

No, I don’t like Bachmann in the least, and I promised myself I wouldn’t harp too much on any one candidate this time around, but Bachmann’s interview on Fox News Sunday merits some kind of response.

The Marriage Issue and the Supremacy Clause

A candidate should be seriously questioned when they appear to have no understanding of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (or Federal Preemption) or any part of the Constitution for that matter. As in the case of who should be allowed to marry, Bachmann personally believes it should be allowed only between a man and a woman. This is, of course, not at all a problem as the entirety of human history can give witness: that no society continues for long when it corrupts the natural reproductive process.

The issue of gay marriage rings hollow when viewed in the simple light that a tiny faction is pushing gay marriage onto the rest of society. It is nothing other than the latest cog in the century-old Progressive agenda to pervert society into some form of all’s-well-when-anything-goes.

Again, gay marriage also rings hollow when put to a voter referendum, such as in a State or Federal Amendment defining marriage – in the most recent midterm elections, voters overwhelmingly backed pro-heterosexual marriage propositions on the ballot. Bachmann, though, has run into something pretty serious when she answered Chris Wallace that the issue of marriage should be left up to the States and that she would support a Constiutional Amendment.

The issue is three-fold. As Wallace tried to point out, Federal law trumps any conflicting State law. Bachmann can’t have it both ways. Secondly, legislating and/or adjudicating morality is impossible. We have upwards of three thousand ways in which a person can be jailed. The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the Western world. It gives credence to John Adams: Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Third, and perhaps the most important, the issue of who can and can’t marry should not even be considered at the government level.

Marriage is an issue best left to the most basic level of government: the family unit and as is pretty much universal anywhere in the world, the religious sector. Gay or Heterosexual marriage needn’t be bogged down by bureaucratic rules, regulations, and government granted privileges. It is an issue between the respective families of the man and woman seeking approval. As Bachmann, many of the Christian Right and other conservatives don’t understand, government does nothing but corrupt anything it touches. Who can or can’t, should or shouldn’t marry takes on a completely different form when marriage is given to the sphere of influence in which it really belongs.

The Entitlement Issue

Chris Wallace was apt to point out that Bachmann is utterly against ObamaCare because it takes $500 billion away from Medicare, but is also in favor of the Paul Ryan budget plan which cuts roughly the same amount from Medicare. How curiously ironic. In the television speeches and interviews I’ve seen of her, she’s very quick to say how much in favor she is of Medicare – that the thought of touching an entitlement program for seniors never should be spoken of. She’s obviously making a play for the elderly vote but the problem is deeper than pandering to specific voting factions.

To say that one has a “titanium spine” for turning this economy around, it is somewhat shocking that a so-called fiscal conservative would pick and choose which entitlement programs to keep and which to toss. Shouldn’t all entitlement programs be put on the table? Isn’t that how she might begin to consider bringing spending under control?

And as a former federal tax lawyer, she has been completely silent on the Fair Tax issue and the role of the Federal Reserve in economic planning. What about that pesky little program called Social Security? It’s already operating in the red. Does she plan on keeping it a government entitlement? If so, funding must come from somewhere and at the end of the day, that necessarily means higher taxes for the working class.

Out-of-Control Spending

Government is addicted to spending in large part because of its addiction to the Keynesian theory of economics. The U.S. has long since stopped being a nation based on production, as the Manufacturing Sector can attest to. In that stead we have become a nation of consumers. Common sense dictates consumption drives debt, not wealth.

Bachmann should strongly consider repealing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. A law written by bankers for themselves, the Fed is allowed to print money at whim from nothing and allows for a yearly inflation rate of 2-3% as being normal. The American public is then led to spend their paycheck rather than save as the dollar is worth less each year. As I mentioned two posts ago, the dollar has lost 95% of its value since the Fed was created. Some form of hard currency should be used instead of paper money, the most common usage being gold since it acts as a hedge against inflation and is in itself a major check on the ability of government to manipulate the money supply in order to finance spending addictions.

Here are some things I’d like to see Bachmann address if she really does have a “titanium spine” to fight spending:

  • Entitlement programs
  • The cult of Militarism (Weapons funding; Bringing home the troops in the 100+ countries they’re stationed in; Ending any and all foreign wars/skirmishes; Size of the military in general)
  • Foreign Aid
  • IMF and World Bank
  • Congressional Pay and Perks
  • Presidential worldwide gallivanting; First Lady worldwide gallivanting
  • Redundant/Unnecessary Departments (i.e. Health & Human Services, Homeland Security)

Book Review

2 Comments

The American Dollar today holds less than 5% of its 1913 value.

Ron Paul’s End the Fed is a timely book discussing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the mess it has created of the American economy during the Fed’s first century of operation. Paul is well known for wishing to return to the Gold Standard wherein money holds its value over time, something of which our paper-based fiat system is incapable.

Ergo, the Gold Standard is probably the best system known, as it has proven itself to work during the course of human history. However, there are still two problems which have the tendency to hamper any monetary system, which Paul stubbornly assumes cannot happen with the Gold Standard.

First, debasing the currency is still possible and governments will do so usually to wage war.  Though I do think Paul has a valid point in saying the United States’ entire foreign policy would have to be  severely reigned in should a Gold system be implemented. Second, governments can and do run up debt no matter the monetary system. England’s James 1 and 16th/17th century Spain are ready examples. The former led to new and inventive means of taxation; the latter saw Spain declare bankruptcy in 1557, -60, -75, -96, 1607, -27, -47, -52, -60, and -62. This even after Spain wholly emptied Latin America of its silver deposits in order to satisfy the monarchy’s gluttony towards spending.

Therefore, no matter what system is in place, power corrupts. Even more so and ever more quickly when an increasingly entrenched aristocracy rules supreme with either immorality or amorality as their guide. To this Paul says nothing, which is standard-op for any true Libertarian.

These are two minor objections I had towards a book which enlightens the average reader towards the abuses of the Federal Reserve System’s un-Constitutional power in its ability to “coin” money out of thin air and the consequences of such action. The coining of money is an enumerated power granted specifically to the Congress and so on this fact alone, the Fed should be abolished.

Unjust Allied Intervention and U.S. Policy

6 Comments

I read this article a few days ago and it has been bugging me ever since. It is no secret here that I strongly dislike anything Palin has to do with politically – she’s been nothing more than a disaster for the Republican cause since McCain picked her as his VP running mate.

On the Libya crisis, she proposed a no-fly-zone to protect the armed and un-armed opposition to the Qaddafi regime. Mrs. Palin’s formulation had been blogged about for nearly a week

The issue is not whether there is a crisis in Libya. No one can doubt there is and it is nothing more than a continuation of the popular uprising throughout the Middle East. The issue is that no “Allied Force” has the right, justification, or morality to interfere. These are civil issues to be solved between the people and their respective governments – and when it comes to Libya, it appears to have escalated into civil war. Do Libyans have the right to revolt? Yes. Does Ghaddafi have the right to vow no mercy? Yes. Either way, it is Libya’s problem to solve and no other nation need involve themselves unless Ghaddafi channels Milosevic-esque mass murder. In fact, I would go so far as to say intervening in a political civil war, as seems to be the case in Libya, is unjust in that it deters resolution, continuing atrocities and hatred simply by preventing them outright.

In a critique of Mr. Obama’s energy policies published yesterday at about the same time the Arab League was adopting her prescription for a Libya no-fly-zone, Mrs. Palin laid out how the president’s “war on domestic oil and gas exploration and production has caused us pain at the pump, endangered our already sluggish economic recovery, and threatened our national security.”

True, but misleading. There are greater threats. One being the percentage of the U.S. budget consumed by accumulated and continued debt and, what no one seems to be talking about, the increasing chance of the U.S. dollar losing its status as the international reserve currency. The other being U.S. foreign policy in exporting democracy and freedom world round. Such exportation is hollow and empty, serving only to whitewash our imperialism. Our way of life is so addicted to the ease of access to cheap oil that our foreign policy must automatically defer to “exporting freedom”. This means no more than propping up autocracies or deposing them at will, always in the Middle East, in order to assure continued access to cheap oil. It also means fat government contracts to private industry to make weapons – planes, bombs, guns, etc. Neo-cons might trump how we have an all-volunteer army, but it is a continued “standing army”, deployed all over the world, again to assure our access to cheap oil.

So what does this type of foreign policy buy us – peace with all nations as Washington advised over two centuries ago? On the contrary, it develops enmity amongst nations we choose to oppress, higher taxes to support our volunteer standing army which Jefferson and Madison so warned against, and ultimately less freedom and security domestically.

Whether or not Obama comments on international crises is a moot point – there is no need for any President to do so. However, his decision to become involved within the Libyan civil war has done nothing but extend our military into a third war front, raise gasoline prices at home, and eventually raise taxes to cover military expenses.

Older Entries