The future of conservatism
Is here, folks. Read through my exchange with the authors.
The main problem conservatism has right now is that it follows the Democrats' dictum of "No enemies to the Left, only enemies to the Right." It is so worried about the intellectual terrorism of the Left that it must describe all of its positions in unintelligible PeeCee platitudes for fear of giving the Left any ammunition. Of course, this means that it drifts ever to port.
I'd like a tally of what modern conservatism has accomplished for us. Has it ended abortion? Stopped the march of the homosexual agenda? Closed the borders? Made us more free economically? Ended "hate crimes" legislation? Strengthened the 2nd amendment? Strengthened the first? Ended entitlements? Gotten people off of welfare?
As far as I can tell, it's done the exact opposite of nearly all of those things. We're in the middle of Great Depression II due to the "conservative" Bush admin. We've got 30 million illegals living here off the government teet. We've got increasing incidence of Islamic jihad in the US and the unchecked march of shari'ah. More gun grabs are in currently in the House, and taxes are on their way up.
Heckuva job! Why, if this trend continues, we'll be the USSR (but worse) in no time!
PRCalDude
12 Comments
Reader Comments (12)
Read all the comments and as usual you acquit yourself quit well. The US must ask and answer a few questions. This could be a flowchart.
1) Is this a war? Yes? No?
2) If "Yes", do we want to win? Yes? No?
3) If "Yes", who is the enemy?
4) Name the enemy
5) Kill every last one of the enemy you can until someone says 'uncle' and surrenders unconditionally.
I think the US (leaders at least & 'leaders' is a euphemism) has not answered question #1. Until we answer, this low-intensity war will continue and ratchet upward as the muslim population grows.
On your "Operation CamelBack", what would we have done with Nazi indoctrination centers in the US in WWII that were doing the same thing as the muslims are now? Since nazi-ism would not have been tolerated in the US in WWII, and action would have been taken (death, deportation) I would think there is a case to do the same with muslims.
I'd forgotten about that. That's a point Robert Spencer likes to make.
5 applies if we have no other choice but to start killing people. Operation Camelback gives us an alternative.
We don't need to kill anyone. We don't need to be at war. We DO NEED to deport people at war with us. If they're not in the country, they're going to have a damn hard time doing any real damage.
Something about a college education just strips people of the common sense required to see this though. Every blue-collar guy I talk to agrees with me.
PR the Merciful. I agree - deportation first. Death as a second option.
"That's a point Robert Spencer likes to make." Crap, I tho't it was my original idea as I had not read it on Jihad Watch or anywhere else.
If we are to maintain the global economic order, we need to be engaged overseas. Alexander Hamilton mocked those of his era that thought we could magically have trade with the entire world with out having atleast Navies abroad. That goes further in the age of Oil and Modern Commerce. The whole point of Afghanistan and Iraq is to keep Terror Sponsor States from running the places(as they were) and empowering the Jihadist movement.
There is no reason you can't be engaged abroad and beef up things at home, much like WW2 for the analogy. Problem with the domestic side of it is of course the Politics of it and where our Humanist culture is. Which has little to anything to do with our leadership so much.
If the Left doesn't "comeback home" to their spiritual roots, we are screwed. Eventually something devistating will happen.
Its amazing they've thwarted 24 Organized Plots since 9/11, all they can pull off so far is the Sudden Jihad variety
Why does it go further now? Why do we need to occupy foreign countries in order to have commerce?
Iraq was not a terror sponsoring state. It is now, as is Afghanistan. They both will be as long as they're Muslim. We can either a) ethnically cleanse Muslims or b) keep them out of our country so that they at least can't do harm here.
8 years in AfPak have brought us less than nothing.
None of the Founding Fathers would have agreed with what we're doing there now.
Oh yes Iraq was: http://husseinandterror.com
Say if Iran shuts down the Strait of Hormuz, overnight the price of Oil Skyrockets to well over $150/barrel. All out war with Israel does the same, what does that do to the Worldwide Economy? Saddam set his Oil fields on Fire and dumped millions of barrels of Oil into the Gulf, not an act of a Rational Actor. All the while funding and harboring Jihad at the same time.
The Founders were far far far from Isolationist and mocked the thought of it. Robert Kagan's "Dangerous Nation" and Walter Russell Mead's "Special Providence" are a great debunking the post WW1 Lies/Myths on the subject which have evolved over the years.
So he sponsored terror against mostly Israel. I hate to say this, but by the logic on this site we'd be in every Muslim country in the world. We can't do that. What we can do is keep them out.
The first place we should have bombed was Saudi Arabia. But we didn't. If we want to apply your standards, we have to apply them equally.
I never said they were. I'm in favor of an armed forces and intervention WHEN NECESSARY. Guys like Stephen Decatur did a good thing when they attacked jihadists in Tripoli. But my points still remain: all Muslim countries are breeding grounds for and state sponsors of Islamic terrorism. Unless you want to start ethnically cleansing them, then we need a better plan, which includes keeping them out mostly.
I don't want ethnic cleansing on my conscience. Peaceful repatriation is the way to go.
Well, we need a navy to project power. But Iran can't shut down the straits of Hormuz as they don't have enough sea mines or naval forces.
$150/bbl of oil is not a just war cause. I'm sorry. They may shoot themselves in the foot by burning their own oil. All that means is that they have less money for jihad, unless they find a huge market for sand, camels, dates, and goat-humping men all of a sudden.
If oil shoots up that much, I'll live in a tent by the beach with my wife until it all blows over. I'll suck it up. I refuse to participate in this global Muslim management crusade anymore.
If you think we're going to end jihad in AfPak, I've got some waterfront property to sell you.
Saddam sponsored terrorism against the USA too, empowered Al-Qaeda and was in a geographically strategic location. The 93 WTC bomber fled to Iraq(reportedly on Saddams payroll for a reason). Osama Bin Laden was offered Assylym by Saddam in 1999..
I trust American citizens working in the Pentegon and our elected officials, who know all the Classified(for whatever reasons) info that is available. The democrats are just shameless enough to politicze National Security so they can win electiosn eventually, scum bags that they are.
anyway, Stratfor has an excellent article on US Strategery:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091102_obama_and_us_strategy_buying_time
Oliver Cromwell, great Puritian, allied with Catholic France to fight the evil empire of his day, Catholic Spain. He had anti-Catholic Penal laws on the books, though rarely enforced but used when needed, also.
maybe not, though I think you could argue if they purposefully caused an Economic Collapse resulting in Martial Law in the Untied States and the resulting bloodbath at home, that it would be just.That said, as for Iran, we've been technically at War with them for 30 yrs now. Counterfeiting US Dollars, as they do, is an Act of War. Financing, harboring and promoting the Al-Qaeda's and Hezzbollahs of the world for Global Domination, is "Just Cause" if we choose to take on the battle.
We are as globalized and interconnected with the world as ever. Someone has to lead, that much is for sure.
Whoa, whoa whoa.
We caused economic collapse by giving out subprime loans to Mexicans like candy. Are we having martial law? Does our government have the authority to declare martial law? You sound like Alex Jones here.
The entire Islamic Ummah has been at war with everyone non-Muslim since Muhammad. That does not mean we have to fight them. We need to protect our borders, which we're not doing. We're letting them move here to get a degree at USC and take flying lessons. That needs to stop.
Yeah, uh, how's that working for us? They can have all the info in the world, but if it's interpreted through the lens of PC stupidity, it's not much good, is it? CAIR is still conducting government sensitivity training and coming over to the White House for Eid celebrations. The FBI is already telling us that the Nidal Hasan incident wasn't related to Islam.
You'd have to be stark raving mad to trust those people.
FBI not relating the incident to Islamic terrorism is a twisted way of not letting the Islamists to take full credit. Think about it in a backwards logic sort of way. If we give credit to Islamic terrorism for their efforts then it gets them better press time which is what they want, which encourages more terrorism. However, if we categorically deny their efforts it is supposed to limite the benefits of the terrorist actions and thereby reduce their motivation.
Only problem, as we know, is that it doesn't work that way.
Acknowleding it does encourage them. But our denial of it acutally makes us look weaker than we are and encourages them even more.
Whoohoo.. isn't politicaly correctness grand?