|
Is VFR too negative?
A reader says that VFR is too negative and out of step with conservatism, and I reply. Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 03, 2004 04:32 PM | Send Comments
Too negative ? After what the Left has done to America in the last 40 years……we are not negative enough ! Posted by: j.hagan on November 3, 2004 11:35 PMI think that Thordaddy does not fully understand Traditionalism and its severe criticisms of American society and what passes for conservatism in contemporary political life. I can say optimistically that we are better off than Europe, whose only hope for survival as a culture lies in either a military dictatorship a la Francisco Franco or some sort of accomodation with the Muslims until sufficient numbers of the liberal ruling elite and their media shills end up losing their heads before a Sharia court. As to Bush and the corporatist Republicans he represents, the list of crimes id very long indeed, while the list of virtues is short. I’ll start with a list of positives for Bush’s first term (fellow readers are welcome to add, of course). He realizes the need to fight the Islamists, and has gone to war from what I think are motives of national defense. Refused to sign or renew the ICC, Kyoto, and ABM treaties, all of which were corrosive to our sovereignty He rescinded the Clinton executive orders regarding abortion, and US support thereof. He lowered taxes on capital gains, income, and worked to end the awful death tax. He has made good, conservative, judicial appointments overall (despite the fact that he little to press for their approval by Congress). He signed a law banning partial birth abortion. (I have my suspicions about this, see below.) Now to the negatives: Bush is an open-borders zealot who completely refuses to enforce the nation’s already weak immigration laws. He refuses to prosecute the most logical targets - amoral businesses who hore illegals. He thus endangers the nation’s security in a time of war. His administration has even gone so far as to pressure states to commute death sentences for heinous crimes by Mexicans at the behest of the Mexican Oligarchical regime. He also left is place a multi-lingual Executive order that forces states and municipalities to spend untold tax dollars to translate all official proceedings into the languages of our favored minorities. A simple stroke of the pen could rescind this order and save taxpayer dollars. Why hasn’t he? He has continued the Clinton policies of technology transfer to a Chinese regime whose generals have overtly threatened the US with nuclear attack. He approved the transfer of the major manufacturer of “smart bombs” with the attendant transfer of technology. He also confers MFN status upon a country that practices slave labor, ignores all intellectual property laws, and indulges in all manner of business practices that would result in a jail term if Thordaddy attempted to apply them here. This borders on treason. Bush has seriously violated his oath of office by signing the completely unconstitutional McCain-Feingold act, whose veto would have angered no-one apart from the MSM. leftists and George Soros (who paid for the legislation to begin with). In the words of John Armor, aka “Congressman Billybob” on FreeRepublic, the law thrust a dagger into the heart of the first amendment. Worse, he even attacked the SwiftVets whose ads most likely won the election for hiim - given the milquetoast nature of his own oppostion to a hard-core leftist like Kerry. Bush has left an amazing number of Clinton appointees in place, where they have undermined both national security (Norm Mineta) and Bush’s policies explicitly (Joe Wilkson, Richard Clarke). He also refuses prosecute or even investigate the numerous Clinton crimes. Charles Colson did hard time for having a single FBI file - the Clintons and their minions absconded with over 900 and not one was prosecuted. Perhaps they have the goods on Jorge from his party-animal days. Bush took the time, in the midst of war, to travel to Africa and shell out some 15 billion of the taxpayers’ dollars to line the pockets of African Kleptocrats in the name of “fighting AIDS.” At the same time, he delivers a speech on foreign soil which basically characterized all American history prior to 1965 as morally illegitimate - thus opening the door for a taxpayer bailout of his corporate contibutors when the reparations lawsuits underway finally make it to the level of the tobacco suits. Bush betrayed conservatives on racial preferences. While talking tough on MLK (St. Martin the Marxist Adulterer) day, his WH Counsel, Alberto Gonzales (evidently an affirnative action hire himself) crafted an administration response that would ensure that such preferences remained in place forever. Bush’s response when O’Connor and the black-robed Imperium abolished the 14th-amendment’s equal protection under the law (some of us are now more equal than others) in the name of a vague compelling state insterest: “Diversity is our strength!” How’s that for Marxist boilerplate? What an intellect! One could expect the same from the average crystal-meth user. Oh, I forgot, by trashing the 14th amendment, he gained 3 whole perceantge points of the all-imporant Black vote - 11% instead of 9%. Brilliant “Strateegery”, Jorge! Trashing the constitution isn’t such a price to pay. It was written before 1965 by a bunch of old DWM’s, after all. While willing to fight the Jihadis, Bush refuses to look into the face of Islam - and its threat to what’s left of our civilization. Thus we invade Iraq and topple Saddam with no strategy to deal with the Jihadis. Why? Bush and his advisors can’t deal with the concept of jihad, and its centrality within Islam. Instead of defeating the enemy, he insists on some utopian ideal of democracy for the Islamic world, whose very culture is antithetical to such a concept. Instead of trying and executing terrorists captured by our military, Bush releases them to go and kill more Americans. The president who celebrates Ramadan has brought us the first war in history fought by the dictates of political correctness and multiculturalism. Bush is adept at throwing a fish now and again to the Evangelical Christians who make up the rank and file of the voter base. He signs a law against partial-birth abortion after the SC has already ruled the procedure constitutional. (Since he’s not a dunce, we’re supposed to think he was unaware of this fact?) Meanwhile he takes the time to intervene in the PA Republican primary on behalf of Arlen Specter, a despicable RINO who has already promised to prevent any pro-life appointees from being confirmed. If Bush is so pro-life, why would he do this? Two choices, Thordaddy. Bush is either clueless (not likely) or he really isn’t very pro-life at all - just throwing a bone to the clueless Evangelicals, most of whom received a fine education in government schools. On the Gay Marriage issues, we see similar lip service. He voices support for an amendment, an unlikely possiblity with the Congress as split as it is. Just last week, he voices support for civil unions. At the same time, we’ve not seem any support for the pending legislation that promises to remove the issue from court jurisdiction. Bush hasn’t reversed any of the Clinton feminization and “don’t ask - don’t tell” policies set up in the military. Nor has he put an end to the blatant racial preference regime established by the Clintonistas - despite the color-blind policies that had worked reasonably well since the days of Harry Truman. Rather than reducing big government, Bush has fed the behemoth so that it is now of record proportions. The Medicare Prescription entitlement, Ted Kennedy’s Education bill. etc. Compassionate conservatism at its best. Reagan liked to remark that one of the most terrifying phrases in the English language was “we’re from the government, and we’re here to help.” Such a view is cimpletely alien to our fearless Caudillo Jorge Bush II, who loves big government. Lastly, for one who is adept at spouting Christian jargon, Jorge II appears to have scant regard for his brothers and sisters. From Sudan, to Iraq, to Kosovo, Bosnia, Sudan, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Russia, the Bush adminstration has shown remarkable favoritism to Muslims and their brutal persecution of Christians. We’re even harboring a Chechen Islamist thug who is connected with those reponsible for Beslan massacre - where Christian children were machine-gunned while fleeing for their lives. Lest we forget, it wasn’t John Kerry who uttered one of the century’s most profoundly stupid phrases - “Islam…..is a religion of peace” It was the supposedly conservative George W. Boilerplate. I went with the SwiftVets on this election. Like Mr. O’Neill, I regard George W. Bush as a all-too-typical member of our American aristocracy. He has no real patriotism, no love of this nation, it’s traditonal majority population, or of its constitution. As Mr. O’Neill said, he’s an empty suit - just like dad. A spoiled, wealthy, scion of one of our elite families who has embraced a worldview that is liberal to the core. The only reason I voted for the man was that John Kerry is a complete traitor who would have faced a firing squad back in the days when there was real moral courage. What a sorry state we are in! And here you wonder why I’m unhappy about practically being forced to vote for this man. A charlatan and a traitor - what a choice!
A good DFLer friend closed a message to me today with “As you can imagine, I’m bummed today.” I shot back, “Because the wrong bleeding-heart won?” When she bites my head off tomorrow, I can counter with Carl’s excellent Cliff Note summation of Bushlit [sic]. What kind of a name is “Thordaddy”, anyway? It exudes a measure of Scandinegritude.
If, as Carl says, the President “celebrates Ramadan”, he is even more clueless than we thought. One no more celebrates Ramadan than one does Lent; one observes it. Though, sneaky Nasrani infidel that I am, I have discovered a way to celebrate it: find a pretext on which to barge in on Moslem colleagues’ communal post-sundown meal. They stick all kinds of goodies in my face, the tastiest of which I grab without hesitation. Save on lunch money a whole lunar month every year! Just ‘cause we’re fighting immigration doesn’t mean we can’t squeeze it for benefits along the way. Why should the open-borders people have all the fun? And while opposing outsourcing, how about a restrictionist GOTV call center— based in India? Posted by: Reg Cæsar on November 4, 2004 3:36 AMHello, Mssngr. Carl— You weren’t “forced” to vote for Bush. You had many other choices, including not to vote at all. Now comes “the hard work”—opposing Bush’s one-world, free trade, open borders behavior. You didn’t mention the great Vincente Fox who is trying to get Bush to provide amnesty for illegals going again. HR-1O will be watered down shortly to where it has no teeth. Maybe then real conservatives like Tancredo will start to think “third party”. Thordaddy reminds me of other Bushies who don’t truly understand the different types of conservatism (as Mr. Auster has explained them to us—neo-conservatism, paleo-conservatism and trad. conservatism). He’s probably used to dealing with other RINOs who see anyone on the right with convictions and strong feelings as being “one-dimensional” and “trouble” for the Party. I happened to have left the GOP in ‘96, so I have no “loyalty” to them. I am loyal to my own beliefs and to those of God who guides me. I agree with Carl that Bush is continuing to be treasonous if it is true that he is presiding over transferring missle or other dual use technology to China. Posted by: David Levin on November 4, 2004 8:30 AMPlease pardon what may seem a naive or uninformed question. Whom would you folks have preferred to see run for president? Posted by: Richard Poe on November 4, 2004 5:56 PMMr. Poe, believe it or not, I voted for Bush - despite the long list of complaints above. My reasoning was similar to that of the SwiftVets, John Kerry is a traitor who absolutely could not be allowed to sit in the White House under any circumstance. At the end of the day, that’s what it came down to for me. I cast my ballot for the survival of the United States, and for the candidate who represented the best chance for its survival under the dire circumstances we are in. Overall I think VFR readers who voted third party or write-in (Tancredo) outnumbered those of us who voted for Bush. BTW, that was a terrific article you wrote on Soros a couple of weeks back for Frontpage. Congratulations. Posted by: Carl on November 4, 2004 6:56 PMThank you! Posted by: Richard Poe on November 4, 2004 7:03 PMReg Caesar, What’s in a name? Carl, I think many of your failures attributed to President Bush are either over-hyped or underthought! The presidents immigration “plan” has a lot of bark but little bite. His amnesty “plan” served its purpose and it never had to see the light of day nor would it have. Prosecute businesses who hire “illegals?” What size bureaucracy would that take? And a bureaucracy of lawyers above all! Bush’s stance on China is nothing more than a progression of a long and tediously woven relationship. I agree that it looks non-sensical from the outside, but is it? Is engagement and immersion less preferable than rejection and isolation? Does China’s war machine accelerate faster with engagement or disengagement? Does its willingness to test it’s military prowess grow with friendship or wilt with animosity? I think the McCain-Feingold blew up in only a way that could have been possible with Bush’s signing. I don’t necessary believe it was intentional although many conservatives said it wouldn’t pass constitutional mustard. I think its dismal display did more for free speech than any piece of legislation has ever done. It was a DUD! It not only failed to get money out of politics, but money was more abundant than ever. It totally exposed the MSM and their striking liberal bias. The Swift Boat Vets 527 had the Kerry Campaign looking to use government to stifle speech like it has never been witnessed before! And McCain look liked the fool he is in co-sponsoring it! As far as prosecuting the Clintons, that makes no political sense. Could you imagine how much more divisive and polarized we would be? Reparations are dead. Sharpton and Jackson are fading and will have faded even more in 4 years while a guy like Obama will show the politcal sense to avoid polarizing issues like reparations. Bush didn’t decide on affirmative action and therefore your blame is misguided. He certainly played semantics with the decision but who is to say that he wasn’t merely “respecting” the court’s decision? The court wasn’t ready to abolish affirmative action and there was nothing Bush could do about that. Affirmative action grows weaker everyday and the notion that this decision will stand eternal is ludicrous! Why do you believe that we can fight a politically-correct and multicultural war? Afterall, we live in a politically-correct and multicultural world! On the abortion issue you only gave me two choices, but there are certainly many other possibilities. I can’t believe that Arlen Spector believes he is bigger than the pro-life lobby. I can’t believe that Bush believes that Spector is that bold and brazen. I think Bush felt like a potential Pennsylvania win was worth Spector rather than a certain loss in the electoral college and a potential loss of the Senate seat to a centrist Democrat. On immigration, you take Bush’s lip service as genuine while on gay marriage it is just that, lip service. Why is that? I just can’t share your pessimism. It reminds me too much of a corrosive liberal tendency! Posted by: thordaddy on November 8, 2004 11:55 PMThordaddy, I can only say that I think you are in deep denial about Bush. The reason I take Bush’s immigration position seriously is due to the fact that he himself takes it far more seriously than getting the conservatives he nominated to the federal bench confirmed. Up until a week before the election, the White House was pressuring the House to cave on the very modest immigration provisions in the Homeland Security bill, HR 10. Fortunately, the Hastert and the Republicans listened to their constituents for a change. Going after the morally degenrate business owners who hire illegals is entirely feasible and was extremely effective when last employed - during the Eisenhower administration. Since you live in San Diego, I just have to wonder how your tune will change when the reconquistadores achieve their stated objective of bringing the territory under the control of the Mexican Narco-Republic. Bush defintely decided on racial preferences (I note wou still use the Orwellian term “affirmative action”). Ted Olson had prepared an argument to strike them down completely. Bush ordered his toady Alberto Gonzales to argue for their continuance. They are permanently enshrined in law. You present zero evidence to the contrary. Had it not been for the SwiftVets, Bush would have lost this election. Nevertheless, he stated that they, along with the other 527 groups (nearly all of whom were leftist) should not be allowed to run ads. The net effect of the law is to erode and destroy the first amendment. The fact that a loophole remained - which the SwiftVets exploited - does not in any way negate the basic point. Specter explicitly stated that he would prevent any pro-life judges from making it through the judiciary committee. He is naturally attempting to spin the remark now that there is a grassroots movement under way to prevent him from taking the chairmanship. Dead silence from our supposedly ardent pro-lifer of a president. Hoeffel was anything but a centrist. He was a hard core socialist like Kerry who would have lost against Toomey. Brilliant strateeegery from Rove and Jorge Boilerplate. (Of course, it might be truly clever if W could really care less about the issue like daddy.) All of this without even mentioning Bush’s support for Ted Kennedy’s bill to grow the education apparat even more, his push for a presription entitlement to the tune of billions, and deficit spending that would embarass some Democrats. We fight a PC war because we live in a PC world? How silly and flippant. Fighting a war according to the dicatates of PC multiculturalism is a recipe for defeat. The thought of American soldiers being killed because of “sensitivity” to Muslims isn’t something I find amusing. I note that the Bush administration has yet to execute a single terrorist under the military tribunals. Instead, they seem to be more interested in seeting them free to shoot at our troops again. There are some hopeful signs here and there. Prop 200 in AZ, the revolt against the disgusting RINO Sepcter, and others. Time will tell whose predictions and general take on this election is more accurate. I hope you are right about Bush, especially since I actually even voted for him, but his track record is frankly miserable. Posted by: Carl on November 9, 2004 1:05 AM |