In 1919, Rudyard Kipling wrote in The Gods of the Copybook Headings, "As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man / That...the Sow returns to her Mire / And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire."
Likewise, it appears that conservatives return to their disastrous past policies. In outlining his foreign policy plans for America, Jeb Bush recently stated, "I love my father and my brother...But I am my own man – and my views are shaped by my own thinking and own experiences." He went on to say, "I won't talk about the past. I'll talk about the future."
What does this mean in actual foreign policy goals and actions? As reported by Chris Stirewalt at Fox News, the foreign policy team being formed by Jeb Bush "is not just very much George W. Bush's, but includes two of the most controversial figures from [the] invasion of Iraq, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and former National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. Short of including Dick Cheney, this is the strongest possible indication that Bush is embracing his brother's foreign policy."
"Feels like old times," reports Stierwalt. "Other core players from the George W. Bush administration on the team include former Homeland Security secretaries Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, former intelligence bosses Porter Goss, John Negroponte and Michael Hayden."
How many conservatives, other than Jeb Bush, are also of this mindset? How many are itching to get bogged down again in the Mideast cauldron with ground troops taking on ISIS? John Kasich of Ohio, for one, states in the Washington Post that he supports sending U.S. ground forces to fight the Islamic State: "You will not solve this problem with only air power." Will Chris Christie be strong enough to reject such herd thinking? Hardly. He's the personification of an establishment sycophant.
Paul, Cruz, and Walker
Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Scott Walker will surely not stand for this myopic rehash of Bush Doctrine interventionism. But neocons control the GOP both ideologically and financially. To become the nominee, a candidate must acquiesce to the neoconservative worldview. This is why all prospective nominees (even Paul, Cruz, and Walker), when discussing the illegal immigration problem, state that they support "opening up a path to citizenship" for the illegals. What else is this but amnesty for over 20 million illegals? What else is this but acquiescence to the neocon controllers of the party? Prospective nominees realize that such a stand is mandatory if they are to win the nomination of a party controlled by "pro-amnesty" neocons. Will the same acquiescent attitude also govern Paul, Cruz, and Walker on foreign policy?
There is only one hope to stop the tyrannical rot of statism stealing over our country. We must challenge the Democrat-Republican monopoly of politics that foments the rot.
Is this being redundant? Heard all this before? Perhaps, but our most defiant Founding Father, Samuel Adams, was very redundant in his pursuit of justice. He told his fellows repeatedly: “It does not take a majority to prevail…but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” Irate and tireless are what’s important here. We can save our country only if we patriots (who are the minority) relentlessly challenge the Democrat-Republican monopoly and the egregious falsity it spews out every election year.
Our Democrat-Republican politicians are not interested in freedom. They're interested in power and riding around in black limousines. Conservatives and libertarians must break from them totally and join with millions of patriotic independents and blue-collar Democrats to form a new governing coalition.Never can we hear too much of this message of American salvation. The Democrat-Republican monopoly is like the Bolsehviks’ Master Party collectivizing us with its regimentation (only done with ballots rather than bullets, subsidies rather than gulags), but always degrading our lives in so many ways, keeping us from what could be and ought to be. So if redundancy is the price we must pay to rouse the people from their stupor, so be it. But the People Just Don’t Care! The most frequent objection encountered in discussing a challenge of the Democrat- Republican monopoly is that it will be impossible for an alternative political party to win at the polls because the people just don't care enough to do something so revolutionary. They are mesmerized by their SUVs and all the goodies that Consumerland has brought them. Voting will not change things because the voters are already bought and paid for with the bread and circuses government perpetually sends their way. Apathy dominates their lives.
by Nelson Hultberg | Americans for a Free Republic
History channel, January 25-27, 2015.
Directed by Kari Skogland; written by Stephen David and David C. White.
The History channel’s new miniseries, Sons of Liberty, will anger the purists and the prudes. But it will delight the swashbuckler in the rest of us. It is a big, bodacious screening with superb production values that covers the lead-up years to the American Revolution, 1765-1775. Yes, certain liberties are taken with some of the facts and events. The main characters are glamorized. But the essential theme of America’s birth is kept intact: we as a nation were spawned by a band of rebels made up of assorted firebrands, smugglers, and philosophers all coalescing together under the rubric of Thomas Paine’s “Rights of Man.” Besides, what depiction of history is not romanticized by making the main characters a bit handsomer and younger than they, perhaps, were. Certainly not any depiction made for television.
The main character striding through Sons of Liberty is the famous Samuel Adams, played robustly by British actor, Ben Barnes, who doesn’t give us an actualization of Adams’ role in history, but rather a symbolization of it. First of all, Barnes is in his early thirties, and Adams was 51 years old when he fomented the Boston Tea Party. So the producers of Sons of Liberty are trying to give us the symbolic Sam Adams and what his role was in the creation of America. Sam Adams was the quintessential rebel mind. He didn’t have the scholarly genius of Thomas Jefferson, but he had a brilliant revolutionary mind. And valor permeated his entire life. He blended mind and defiance as well as, and perhaps better than, any of our Founders.
Sam Adams told his fellow patriots in 1773 in the build-up to the Boston Tea Party, “It does not take a majority to prevail…but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
This is what brings about all revolutionary change in history – small minorities of men and women fervently committed to a cause that will require courage and resourcefulness to bring into fruition. Yes, luck is also necessary, but mostly courage and resourcefulness because luck eventually descends upon us all. It’s the ones with courage who ride the luck into history and change the fate of mankind. Sam Adams and the “Sons of Liberty” were these kind of men. They seized the opportunity that the arrogant, blundering British gave to them.
by Nelson Hultberg | Americans for a Free RepublicOne of the biggest fallacies in politics today is the claim that we, as conservatives and libertarians, can only be effective if we stay loyal to the Republican Party and work to gain control of it by electing more free-market conservatives every election year.
We at AFR believe such thinking to be tragically misguided. To expect the Republican Party to challenge the modern day juggernaut of statism is as foolish as expecting socialist professors to instill Americanism into our youth. It won’t happen anymore than the planets will one day reverse their orbits. This is because the members of the GOP hierarchy who control the party have bought into the collectivist ideologies of Karl Marx and J.M. Keynes. Thus they want the same thing that Democrats want – a society in which “equality of results” replaces “equality of rights.” They merely want it to be established more gradually than do the Democrats.
Conservatives have been trying to take over the GOP for more than 40 years now by electing “conservative legislators” to Congress; yet nothing has changed. The Republican Party continues to give us relentlessly expanding government. It continues to exploit, lie to, and make fools out of conservatives.Those who continue to cling to the hope that they can transform the Republican Party into an engine of freedom are like battered wives who continue to stick around to take their husbands abusive beatings. The marriage is over. Conservatives, libertarians, and patriots must abandon the GOP.
The GOP Hierarchy
The problem with the conservative strategy is that electing conservative legislators to Congress can never bring about a takeover of the party because the GOP hierarchy buys off 90 percent of the legislators that we send. Who and what is this GOP hierarchy? It is the vast network of elite intellectuals, bankers, and corporate leaders throughout America that make up the “neoconservative establishment.”
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are like all other rights: to keep them you have to exercise them - and sometimes that takes courage and involves risk. We should be profoundly grateful to those who help keep that right for us by exercising it.
And today, our thoughts are with our French friends - and especially with the families and friends of those who have been directly attacked for using that most important of freedoms - freedom of speech - to stimulate our use of another - freedom of thought.
And we don't lose sight of the fact that we must stop ceding the moral high-ground in fighting against such an attack on liberty through a foreign policy that makes terrorists by killing innocents. Nor do we forget the impingement on the same liberty by our own politicians.
Offense is Always Taken - Never Given... but if it can be given, it is given by physical aggression against innocent people.
I arrived in England yesterday from my home in the States and the jet-lag had the better of me this morning by 4.45 am.
Dad, whom I have traveled across the Atlantic to spend Christmas with, is still in bed as I write this, and I am sitting alone on his couch in a silent house.
Nevertheless, I have already received my biggest Christmas greeting of the day. A little bird came to give it to me.
"If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.” – Mark 3:25
“Politics at its purest is philosophy in action” – Margaret Thatcher
“Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.” – Thomas Jefferson
Whereas to many outside the liberty movement, including the mainstream media, politicians like Rand Paul seem quite libertarian, many Americans who actually call themselves “libertarians” seem to despise Rand Paul for not being libertarian enough in various areas, and so they call him a “neo-con” or a “shill” or similar.
by Nelson Hultberg | Americans for a Free Republic
Reason flees; pygmies rule. Our intellectuals and legislators on both sides of the spectrum have abandoned all sanity regarding immigration, culture, freedom, and common sense. Our country is in free fall. Collapse lies over the horizon like grinning Death with its blood stained Scythe. Pity our children. They must live in the desolate country we are creating for them.
Those who hold intellectual and legislative power in America today, no doubt, think of themselves as noble and brave in pursuit of justice and progressive purpose to advance the values of our great nation. They imagine that they are doing the “people’s will.” They please themselves in front of the morning mirror thinking that the world’s a better place because of their presence and acumen. But it is a cunning lie.
The highest of our leaders, our President, has just come in front of us to set in motion a leprosy of executive actions that must tear down our safety, stability, and legitimacy as a culture. He has inserted a Trojan Horse of deception and perfidy into our society that puts him on the path of history’s mega-tyrants. Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, and Robespierre may have been far more ruthless and blatant, but the lawless policies of Barack Obama are huge steps toward dictatorship, and will prove to be, in the long run, lethal to the decency and freedom that a just society is built upon. We are being assailed with the tyranny of the velvet glove rather than the iron fist; and those who man the media desks and the schools of America cannot grasp the subtle hideousness of it.
The promise of America is one immigration policy for all who seek to enter our shores... there must be one set of rules for everybody
- Al Sharpton
In his recent speech on immigration, Obama told us that, "mass deportation is contrary to our character".
Embracing his new standard for executive action, I have a few questions.
If mass deportations are against our character, is locking up 1% of Americans - disproportionately black men - for hurting no one, consistent with our character? No, so what are you doing about the war on drugs, Mr. President?
You know you love someone when you want for them what they want for themselves.
The three little words that really convey this sentiment are not, “I love you “, which can mean all kinds of things to all kinds of people; rather they are, “As you wish”.
Love is kind, expansive, proactive, and fundamentally non-constraining. And although some of us may disagree on a positive definition of love, we can surely all agree about what it is not: restricting, compelling, imposing, or violating the right of another to pursue his own happiness and self-actualization. Those characteristics attach to something altogether incompatible with love - and that is Fear.
Even if you don't need this three-page consent agreement, share it with some frustrated Californian who might!
Free download here... http://www.bluerepublican.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Cam...
(Very funny with a very serious point.)
The politics of our nation since 9/11 have been the politics of fear.
Because of fear that one of us is a terrorist, we've allowed our intelligence services to listen into our private conversations; because of fear of terrorists from abroad, we have killed innocent people in foreign nations (supposedly to protect ourselves here); because of fear that our planes will get blown up, we let government agents put their hands on our children's crotches and look at our naked bodies, and because of fear that the economy will implode, we've given trillions of dollars to organizations that have brought us to that point.
None of it feels very brave or free. None of it feels very American.
Nations confident of their strength don't seek fights. The most powerful nations win without firing a shot. Nations confident of their security and the ability of their agents to maintain it don't compromise the dignity or legal rights of its citizens. Nations confident that the innovativeness and entrepreneurism of its people can provide prosperity don't reward bad custodians of financial resources to "save the system."
Rape may represent the greatest possible violation against a human being except, perhaps, for murder.
Any decent person sympathizes with the intent of those who would seek to prevent it by any reasonable means. Moreover, there are plenty of statistics regarding the prevalence of rape in our society – mostly, but not exclusively against women – that indicate a moral and cultural epidemic that must be addressed. I, like far too many people, am close to more than one victim of this evil and so nothing I write here is written lightly.
But I am genuinely concerned about what has recently occurred in California with a view to tackling the crime of rape on college campuses. As is so often the case when the details of behavior are legislated in reaction to the actions of the worst people among us, the results are likely to be much less noble than the intention, because the legislation eliminates the most general rights that should be enjoyed by everyone at all times, to protect a few people some of the time.
Late last week, the first state bill to require colleges to adopt an “affirmative consent” model in their sexual assault policies passed the California senate unanimously.
I don't know anyone of any political stripe in the United States who doesn't believe that for exactly the same job, a woman should be paid the same as a man, or that a woman should have the same standing as a man in law; that she should have the same political representation and equal social influence. If these more-or-less ubiquitous truisms are the fruits of feminism, then we all - men and women alike - have much to thank it for.
But I am sensing a tectonic shift away from feminism as an assertive philosophy.
Everyone knows the old saw, attributed to George Bernard Shaw, "Britain and America are two countries, divided by a common language."
Fortunately, there is a simple formula for translating between them: the British understate, while the Americans overstate. (The word, "Everyone" in the preceding paragraph is a nice example of the latter.)
If a Briton finds something to be good, he will declare it "not bad". An American will declare it to be "awesome". A translation table between the two cultures could therefore include,
"Good (Actual) = Not Bad (Brit.) = Awesome (Amer.)"