Posted on 11/04/2003 3:08:17 PM PST by quidnunc
Sounds like an oxymoron, doesn’t it? It’s the Left — liberals, left-wingers, socialists, commies, pinkos, the Noam Chomskys and Alec Baldwins and Barbra Streisands — that hates America. But the Right – good old flag-waving patriotic God Bless America conservatives? How could they possibly be anti-American? It sounds ridiculous.
Yet whatever sense or nonsense it makes, anti-Americanism is seeping into the entire conservative movement and is threatening to splinter it into pieces.
I’m not talking about the racist nuts, the white supremacists and militia types. I’m talking about mainstream heartland conservatives. Howard Phillips, head of the famed Conservative Caucus, is one of the founders of the entire modern conservative movement in America. He is a dear friend whom I care for personally, with whom I worked closely on organizing support for the Reagan Doctrine in dismantling the Soviet Empire.
Yet Howard Phillips’ writings and speeches now are indistinguishable from those of Howard Dean’s in their outpouring of vitriol and condemnation of President Bush, accusing him of “war crimes against the people of Iraq.”
Jon Utley, an influential conservative writer and activist of long anti-Communist standing during the Cold War, has simply gone around the bend in his hatred for everything America does in terms of foreign policy and everything the Bush administration does, foreign and domestic.
The same is true for conservative economist Paul Craig Roberts, whose syndicated columns have become so rabid that they seem deranged with hate – such as the claim that the Bush administration is “organizing genocide for Arabs.”
David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union, organizer of the annual C-PAC conference (the largest gathering of conservatives in the country) and member of the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association, is now in bed with the ACLU in its efforts to demonize Attorney General John Ashcroft and prevent the Patriot Act from catching Moslem terrorists.
Former Congressman Bob Barr, who led the impeachment of Bill Clinton in Congress and is also an NRA board member, has become a paid whore for the ACLU, and now makes a living bashing Bush and Ashcroft.
The single most influential conservative activist in Washington, Grover Norquist, is being investigated by the FBI for his long-standing connections to a network of financiers of Moslem terrorists.
There are many people in Washington who look upon Grover as the conservative movement’s most valuable asset. His Americans for Tax Reform is in the forefront of the entire conservative tax reduction effort.
Yet ATR shares office space and staff with the Islamic Institute at 1920 L Street. The same receptionist answers both groups’ phones. Grover is the founding chairman of the Islamic Institute and got the seed money from Abdurahman Alamoudi, just indicted by federal prosecutors for financial connections to al-Qaeda terrorists.
Grover is the conservative movement’s “gatekeeper” to Karl Rove and the White House, yet he is doing everything he can to demonize John Ashcroft, recently appearing on a panel with Alec Baldwin to denounce the attorney general.
Grover is amazingly smart, talented and influential. The source of his pro-Moslem obsession and his passionate defense of radical Moslems linked to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda is a mystery to many.
The source of many conservatives’ and libertarians’ hatred for America is, however, no mystery: the baneful influence of the founder of the Libertarian Party, Murray Rothbard. He is the reason why so much of the entire libertarian movement is in bed with the hate-America left, and why so many conservatives are getting under the same covers.
The intellectual parents of the libertarian movement are philosopher Ayn Rand and economist Murray Rothbard, whose followers caused an ideological split in the movement in the 1970s. Randian libertarians are pro-defense, pro-America; Rothbardians are the opposite. Tragically, the latter seized control of the Libertarian Party and have not relinquished it since.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Crazy yanks,i still love ya even though i'll never understand ya.
Something tells me... your moniker is a misnomer
Somehow this thread from over a month ago started up again, so I have had to remind myself what I was thinking when I posted the cartoon and comment. The cartoon depicts a form of anti-Americanism that is different from that described in the article at the top of the thread. There have been a lot of threads on FR discussing outsourcing. Many posters in these threads decry outsourcing and question the patriotism of corporate leaders sending U.S. jobs abroad on a wholesale basis and also question the patriotism of the legislators that do nothing to stem the flow. My observation is that this attitude is probably a minority one on FR and that many people here would support the right of corporations to pursue lower costs free of government interference. When I posted the cartoon it had just appeared in U.S. News. I thought people would have a lot to say about it, but the thread went dormant.
If that's crazy, well then count me in. I often describe myself as a 'Christian Libertarian'. That usually gets some good conversation started. However, based on the views of most of the LP candidates running for office around here, I almost always wind up voting republican.
I haven't forgotten anything including the fact that it was Richard Nixon who first started the move to kiss China's rear. Nationalism is old world thinking. It is all about globalization. It is about doing business and Wall Street own the current administration even more than Bubba.
Richard W.
Okay, since this thread is alive again, here's a restatement of what I think:
I would consider myself closer to libertarian than conservative, I am a true republican by definition, based on a Constitution which is 40% conservative and 60% libertarian. I am pro-defense, anti-abortion, pro-prayer and pro 10 commandments. Where I differ is 1) I don't do drugs nor want others to but believe the FDA and DEA and WOD are abominations, 2) I'd hack the education department to pieces 3) I'd cut taxes and welfare at the same time, 4) I'd send MADD and the nanny state liberals AND conservatives packing. If this combination makes me a crazy libertine, so be it.
As far as separation of church and state, no religion (i.e. atheism) is itself a religion. Therefore I see no problem with moral and religious pronouncements forming the basis of government, but it can be concluded that not all religions are created equal. Judaism and Christianity have coexisted because Judaism does not proselytize, and while Christians are evangelical, American Christians have been averse to forced endoctrination. Not so Islam, and I see no reason to believe a multicultural state which includes large numbers of suicide bombing ayatollahs is desireable.
I'm for closing the borders to illegals, but I'm for free trade because limited trade always bites you in the butt. As a libertarian sort, a strong defense is necessary because the world as a whole still includes a lot of crazy messed up people. So, GWBush is great for defense but a disaster on the "small government" side. Finally, I think Cultural Jihad is the type of conservative I want nothing to do with.
So, maybe I'm a constitutionalist-libertarian-republican. A dangerous threat to society.
No, I just called you what you are. I've never met a bigot who's "feelings are hurt" by being told what he is. Jesse Jackson doesn't get his feelings hurt when he's called a bigot, and I didn't expect that you would, either. But I have a policy of telling the truth.
"He refuses to fight islamism in America."
That's right, fight the people that caused yuou no harm, and defend our freedoms by persecuting a religion in absolute violation of the First Amendment. Brilliant!
Luis, are ignorant or purposely using the leftist ploy of calling racism and trying to turn your preffered interpretation of the Constituion into a suicide pact for America?
In case you actually are ignorant, let me be clear. Islamism is a form of Islam, not the entire religion.
Please read the following articles, so you do not come off like the average leftist idiot from a leftist group like ANSWER. (If I am being rude, it is because I do not like the ignorant impugning my motives.)
Distinguishing between Islam and Islamism
Islamism
The tenets of terror
Is Islamism a Threat? (written in 1999)
Islamism
However, many Muslims are Islamists or sympathetic. Most Islamic instiutions in the US are Islamist or have other ties to terrorism.
The First Ammendment does not protect terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit murder or sedition.
"Frankly, he failed to define the enemy."
Do you actually live on this planet?
Cosidering your inability to differentiate Islam from Islamism and your belief that the First Ammendment protects terrorist groups, I'm not sure what reality you live in.
As for the undefined threat, President Bush has failed to point out Islamic Terrorism and Islamism as a threat. He uses liberal platitudes and stood on a dais with members of the Islamist group CAIR.
"...or propose the necessary force structure to defeat the threat."
In other words, he has not dropped nukes in places where we all know the enemy is NOT hiding, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the process, so that instead of fighting groups of thughs, we can beging fighting a billion people scattered throughout every nation in the world.
Mr. Gonzales,
We have met in the past. Even after a few drinks, you were not an idiot. Thus, I am sure that you retain the capability to LOOK UP TERMS.
"Force Structure" does not indicate using nukes against civilians.
"Force Structure" reffers to the size, disposition, and capability of our military.
We have 10 army divisions, 4 of which are deployed. WE are overstretched!
"He has sought to fight a world-war peicemeal and on the cheap."
Oh yeah, so speaks the Wespoint graduate. We should let keyboard jocks run the military
We let ignorant populists supported by the PC media gut the military.
The reality is that there is civilian control. As a citizen, I have a right to discuss our military policy.
That arguement was below the silliest Bushbot.
I'm not sure aI consider you to be a member of the right.
Who made a PC ignoramus the arbiter of the right?
Run for president, or write a letter to Santa and ask for all your wishes to come through.
Lucikly, as with most FReepers, Santa will see just what a monumental idiot you are and simply ignore you.
"Who made a PC ignoramus the arbiter of the right?"
My exact thoughts as I read both this article, and your response to it.
"The undocumented aliens bring disease, cause environmental distruction, damage our culture, and drive down wages of Americans."
So, are you concerned with Muslim terrorists, or Mexican dishwashers?
Quite clearly it's the latter, and you're so blinded by "those damned wetbacks", that you are willing to destroy our ability to fight a global war in order to address what constitutes a problem you have with Mexicans.
The short-sighted, military ignoramus here is you.
I love the old "fall of Rome" argument!
Gays were the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire!
Immigrants were the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire!
Immorality was the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire!
Anything that existed at the time of the fall of the Roman Empire is credited with ending it.
The Roman Empire, like any complex society, shared many societal traits with any presently existing complex society, so you can point at nearly any aspect of that society, and find it present in today's world. Does that mean that we are because of that doomed to suffer the same fate as the Roman Empire?
I'll answer that by listing as many "Empires" as I can think of and examining their current status.
The working concept here is that Empires rise, peak, and fall, and of course, the most glaring error in your argument being that the US of A is not an Empire.
Me ignorant?
That's a laugh!
Now, Islamism is being fought in America every day, people are neing arrested for conducting terrorism-related activities, I read about it all the time. You pretend it isn't happening. But there's a fine line between persecuting Islamicists, and violating the First Amendment.
"However, many Muslims are Islamists or sympathetic. Most Islamic instiutions in the US are Islamist or have other ties to terrorism. "
And of course, only you and the rest of the people who know the secret handshake know about these organizations that are operating right under the nose of our entire government!
Double upon your meds...will you?
"Cosidering your inability to differentiate Islam from Islamism and your belief that the First Ammendment protects terrorist groups"
Are you Dean, or Kerry?
Only in your dilusions have I failed to differentiate Islamic terrorism from Islam, as a matter of fact, that was the entire thrust of my response, but your obviously limited intellect failed to grasp the concepts addressed by my post.
The war has been structured to draw conflict away from American shores, thus our military presence in Iraq, call it a rented battlefield if you wish, we are fighting one facet of this war in the cities, towns, and streets where the terrorists live...we are drawing them to us by threatening to topple any government that supports terrorism,. and to take apart their support network. The second, and most significant aspect of this war, is being fought with computers, tracking and shutting down as many sources of financing available to terrorist groups as possible; the decision to attack the Towers with commercial airliners was not made based on its symbolic value, it was a direct attack on our financial strenght and economic stability, and it was nearly succesful in crushing our economy. In turn, we have to return that favor.
We are in the very early stages of a war, we are fighting that war with a military devastated by Clinton's policies, and underfunded during his entire administration. The President himself warned us that this would be a long fight, and we have a long way to go.
Ignorance Lew, is most often than not a side-effect of the willingness to read only those things that support your ideas, and ignoring challenges to them. That appears to be the case with you.
You need to quit looking to read only thise things that support your ideas, and balance them by reading those that challenge them.
When you do, you may actually be able to debate intelligently with someone in here.
Then I'll have what they're smoking, because the weed that the Republican Party is offering is not getting me high.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.