- EverVigilant.net - "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." - John Philpot Curran
When I ran across the following in a post from the founder of FreeRepublic.com, I thought about titling this blog entry "Jim Robinson Finally Grows a Pair":
And now the stage is being set to place the loss of our rights onto warp speed. The Republican party seems hell bent on nominating a man who will not defend our most basic rights to life and liberty.
I say that after all that has transpired, after so many of our rights and liberties have been taken away recently, in many cases by Republicans, and after we seem to have lost all control over budgeting and spending, and losses of local control and private property rights and even national defense, national security and national sovereignty, and now they want to take away our most basic right to life and liberty?
Then what else besides our dignity do we have to lose? If this is not a betrayal of trust then I don't know what is.
I guess the last line of defense will have to be, "I will not sell my soul to the highest bidder or for the lust for power or even for security. I place my trust in God."
But I quickly realized that this is more than the epiphany of a misguided demagogue; it might very well be Free Republic's swan song.
Let's go back a few years.
Prior to the 2000 presidential election, Jim Robinson was not shy about his disapproval of George W. Bush:
Bush loves China and he's very forgiving of Clinton. He desperately wants the press to lay off GW, so he's promoting for a kinder, more compassionate campaign and a less critical press. If anyone thinks that Father (and powerful supporters) won't have an influence on Son, you're crazy. Don't you ever wonder how and why the politically inexperienced, bad boy, G W Bush, got himself born again, rehabilitated and groomed to become governor of Texas? Not to mention front-runner in the Presidential race? What experience did/does he have for either position? A Bush presidency will be very dangerous for America. (Emphasis mine.)
However, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent U.S. invasion of Iraq, Free Republic officially embraced the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war:
Free Republic has been rallying in support of our President and the war effort since shortly after the terrorist attack on America on September 11, 2001. Later, as the inevitable war against Iraq drew closer, more and more of the "useful idiots" of the left began crawling out of the woodwork organizing so-called "anti-war" protests. FReepers are working to ensure that these communist organized (See: INTERNATIONAL A.N.S.W.E.R.) demonstrations do not go unanswered. Patriotic Americans are countering these misguided terrorist supporting leftist groups wherever and whenever they show up. Join or form a Free Republic Chapter, grab your signs, unfurl the flag, and prepare to support your country!
Thus, the "Premier Conservative News Forum" became nothing more than a mouthpiece for the pro-big government Republican Party, and Robinson and his posse of loyal administrators began banning forum members who refused to toe the party line.
You can understand, then, why I don't see his latest post as encouraging. Robinson helped perpetuate the Bush agenda. He helped promote the policies that have curbed our freedoms. He actively silenced those who were critical of the president and his illegal war.
So, Jim, while it's nice to see you starting to come to your senses, I'm afraid it's too little, too late. The damage has already been done, and you and your devoted followers were an integral part of it.
How will this sudden ideological shift on the part of the site's creator affect the future of Free Republic? It was the ardent Bush supporters--the ones who are now falling in behind Rudy Giuliani--who made the forum what it is today. Robinson's change of heart can only mean more in-fighting, back-stabbing, and petty bickering. In short, Free Republic will become more of a laughing stock than it already is.
Well, Free Republic, it was fun while it lasted. Nice knowing you.
New Hampshire's state motto is "Live free or die." Well, according to a recent article in the Union Leader, it seems the people of that once great state have had their fill of liberty:
A bill to ban smoking in all restaurants and cocktail lounges passed in the New Hampshire Senate yesterday after nearly two hours of debate.
By a 17-7 vote, the Senate passed SB 42, which now goes to the House, where it passed easily last year.
Sen. David Gottesman, D-Nashua, prime sponsor of the bill, said the question was a simple matter of good public health policy, protecting both customers and workers from second-hand smoke.
Noting that a survey last year showed 79 percent of the public supports the ban, Gottesman said, "The people of New Hampshire have made up their minds on the issue and it's the responsibility of the Legislature to take definitive action."
First, that whole Free State Project thing didn't work out, and now this. Rest in peace, New Hampshire. You held out as long as you could, but it looks as if you'll finally be joining the rest of us.
The least you could do is get a new state motto. How about "Dying is easier than living free"?
What is the difference between "murdering" and "killing"? Is state-sanctioned killing always justified? Does the mere legality of the taking of a life negate one's culpability in such an act? In an age when the sanctity of life seems to be an antiquated notion, I think we need to seriously consider these questions.
Take abortion, for instance. Since the Roe v. Wade decision, abortion on demand has been considered legal in the United States. Therefore, any woman seeking to murder her...sorry, terminate her pregnancy has been given full license to do so. Does that make it right? Absolutely not.
Those of us who think abortion is murder realize that the Supreme Court overstepped its authority. We know that the Constitution does not allow judges to legislate from the bench. We also know that even if there were no constitutional conflict, abortion would still be murder in the eyes of God.
We can conclude, then, that not all killing done under the authority of government is right. So, what about the war in Iraq?
We are told that we must "support the troops," and that any criticism of them or their leaders is tantamount to treason. In short, we are being asked to support the killing of Iraqis and whoever else stands in the way of them completing their mission--whatever it may be.
Many Christians have spoken out in favor of President Bush, the troops, and the war. For most of them, all the justification needed can be found in Romans 13, where the Apostle Paul reminds us that we are to "be subject to the governing authorities," and that "rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad."
But we seem to have forgotten one very important fact: our governing authority is the Constitution of the United States, and not a small group of pompous, over-paid, bureaucratic windbags. We know the president and other leaders in government lied about the threat Saddam posed to our country. We know that the Constitution grants the power to declare war only to Congress, and that Congress cannot cede that authority to the executive branch by passing some meaningless resolution.
As a Christian, I must be consistent in my views. I must see all unjustified killing for what it is: murder. And as far as I am concerned, whether we're talking about abortion or an unconstitutional war, the state is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
Lew Rockwell sums up the problem with Republicans:
Imagine that you are blindfolded and told that the food you are about to eat is ice cream. It turns out to be chicken liver. Or imagine that you think you are diving into warm water but instead it turns out to be near-freezing.
This is pretty much what it is like to be governed by Republicans, and there is no better case in point than George W. Bush. He, like all Republicans since the 1920s, campaigned as a shrink-the-government man. More incredibly to recall, he blasted the "nation building" of Bill Clinton and insisted that the US needed a "humble" foreign policy.
What we got instead is, well, what we got, which is the polar opposite. The man who wailed over Bill Clinton's big government has made Clinton's spending record look great by comparison. The guy who decried "nation building" has decided that bombs and tanks are a great means to inspire a wholesale upheaval in the Gulf region.
But at least they're still better than Democrats, right? Not by a long shot. The current administration has expanded government and spent more money than the Clinton Cartel ever dreamed:
Thus is the government contracted out – and vastly so. Thus are religious charities eligible for public funding. Thus are private schools encouraged to get on the dole. Thus are industrialists eligible for every privilege one can imagine. Heck, if you are big enough and powerful enough, the Republicans might even start a war on your behalf. This gets very expensive indeed, even more expensive than old-fashioned, reformed-minded, repair-the-schools, renew-the-cities, make-the-government-work social democracy!
It isn't enough that men like Bush are merely tolerated as the "lesser of two evils" (as ridiculously naive as that notion is); otherwise intelligent people have begun to idolize them:
As for foreign policy, my goodness, the rank and file are gullible in the most ghastly way. These people went from scorning Clinton's exertions in Somalia to calling anyone who doesn't support the war on Iraq a traitor to America itself. The display of Nazi-style jingoism has been nearly unbearable. The flag is worshipped as a holy object, the national anthem is treated as a sacred hymn, every character in a military costume is canonized, and the president himself is exalted as a godhead incarnate. Now we know – because we are living through it – the stuff of which fascism is made.
In short, Republicans worship the state. They believe things would disintegrate without the intrusion of government:
This view they get from Hobbes. Not that the average buyer of Ann Coulter's books reads political philosophy. They rather accept a popular version of the fundamental anti-liberal idea: society is a wreck without Leviathan. This is why they celebrate the police more than merchants, why they think that war deserves more credit than trade for world prosperity, why they call drafted killers for the state the "greatest generation," whereas the pioneers of the 19th century are merely historical curiosities.
Lord Acton was right: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
There is an interesting article posted at Asia Times Online in which the author, Henry C. K. Liu, accuses the U.S. of being the world's "leading currency manipulator":
Economic imperialism in the age of industrial capitalism provided employment at the core to produce exports to the colonies to earn gold for the home economy. Neo-imperialism in the age of finance capitalism relocates jobs to the periphery and imports products manufactured by low-wage labor paid for with fiat currency (paper money) issued at the core, the surplus of which can only be reinvestment in the issuing economy. Dollar hegemony emerged as the U.S. dollar, a fiat currency since 1971 when president Richard Nixon took it off gold. The dollar continues to assume the role of prime reserve currency for international trade, anchored by transactions in key commodities such as oil being denominated in dollars. U.S. neo-imperialism is intermediated financially by dollar hegemony.
It's a lengthy article, but worth the read for anyone interested in the global economy.
Pieter Friedrich's account of his visit to the California Republican Party's semi-annual convention reminds me of why I'm not a Republican:
I could list countless other encouraging aspects of the convention. There were the women (staffers, volunteers, hangers-on) who thought they were on a tropical beach instead of in a hotel in a cold, rainy city in the middle of winter. There were the Log Cabin Republicans placing leis on the convention-goers so they could tell them "you've been laid." There were the College Republicans, focused on world-changing causes like their coolers of beer and which GOP slut to have sex with that night. And there were the innumerable supporters of Rudy, wearing their "I heart Rudy" stickers and mindlessly blabbing about how we must get Rudy in the White House so we don't get stuck with Hillary.
Dear God.
I knew the party was going down the drain - that's why I left it! But it's painful to be reminded of just how far down the drain the party has gone. If nothing else, last night I realized I'd sooner see my future daughters marry defense attorneys than politicians!
I am blessed to have married into a very musical family, and my lovely wife, Dawn, happens to be a wonderful singer. With that, I would like to invite you to check out her debut CD, Because I Love You.
This collection features her interpretations of such all-time favorites as "Pennies from Heaven" and Gershwin's "Our Love Is Here to Stay" (where she is joined by yours truly), in addition to refreshing renditions of Norah Jones' hit "Come Away with Me" and Al Green's "Let's Stay Together." Dawn also demonstrates her song-writing talent on the album's title track.
Here is a track listing along with a few audio samples:
My Love Song to You
'Deed I Do
Come Away with Me
Pennies from Heaven
But Beautiful
I'm Confessin' (That I Love You)
Embraceable You
Let's Stay Together
Our Love Is Here to Stay
Because I Love You
Let's Fall in Love
Someone to Watch over Me
Everything Happens to Me
They All Laughed
One of the reasons I mention this is that everyone appreciates great music (and since you're reading this blog, you obviously have pretty good taste), so I know you will enjoy this CD immensely. The other reason is that Dawn and I are in the process of adopting a little girl from China, and all proceeds from CD sales will go to fund that adoption.
So, if you'd like to help out a good cause, if you're looking for a perfect Valentine's Day gift, or if you just like good music, check out Because I Love You. Click here for ordering information.
(AP) AUSTIN, Texas - Parents in Texas could face a $500 fine and criminal record if they miss a meeting with their child's teacher, if a new bill passes.
A Republican state lawmaker from Baytown, Texas has filed a bill that would charge parents of public school students with a Class C misdemeanor and fine them for playing hooky from a scheduled parent-teacher conference.
Excuses are allowed, but be prepared to have a good one. In a state that allows corporal punishment, this could subject parents to a good spanking.
Rep. Wayne Smith said Wednesday he wants to get parents involved in their child's education.
"I think it helps the kids for the parents and teachers to communicate. That's all the intent was," Smith said, adding he talked to teachers, including his daughter, who teaches in junior high, before filing the bill.
"The concept is to get parents in the classroom," he said. ...
This kind of crap has been going on ever since the advent of draconian compulsory education laws.
You know, dads and moms used to tell their kids that if they would just stand up to school bullies, they would be left alone. Bullies don't like it when their victims fight back. I'm still waiting for America's parents to heed their own advice.
Andrew J. Bacevich, in an article for The American Conservative, discusses the failure of U.S. policies in the Middle East over the years. He makes several good points, referencing such bumbling schemes as Franklin D. Roosevelt's promise to protect the House of Saud, John F. Kennedy's CIA-assisted coup to bring the Ba'ath Party to power in Iraq, and Ronald Reagan's embarrassing Iran-Contra plan.
But what if these policies weren't as hare-brained as they seemed? What if they achieved exactly what they were supposed to achieve?
As a general rule for understanding public policies, I insist that there are no persistent "failed" policies. Policies that do not achieve their desired outcomes for the actual powers-that-be are quickly changed. If you want to know why the U.S. policies have been what they have been for the past sixty years, you need only comply with that invaluable rule of inquiry in politics: follow the money.
When you do so, I believe you will find U.S. policies in the Middle East to have been wildly successful, so successful that the gains they have produced for the movers and shakers in the petrochemical, financial, and weapons industries (which is approximately to say, for those who have the greatest influence in determining U.S. foreign policies) must surely be counted in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
Okay, so I guess one other successful aspect of our intervention has been, as Rush Limbaugh and other big government "conservatives" put it, to maintain "the free-flow of oil at market prices":
But the U.S. military presence in the Gulf serves not to ensure that the oil keeps flowing; it merely ensures that U.S. corporations (oil and weapons companies in particular), banks, insurance companies, and so forth will be the specific parties raking in the profits from dealing in the Gulf oil. If they didn't do these jobs, the jobs would still get done, but they would get done by the efforts of other firms (European, Chinese, Japanese, and so forth), which is precisely the point: U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East serves the purposes of specific U.S. economic entities, which in turn more or less control the policies by the way they exercise their financial muscle in U.S. politics.
So, maybe we shouldn't write off the Iraq war as a failure so quickly. If we follow the money, those who benefit the most from it might argue that it has been a resounding success.
