Looking into the Cloudy Ball

Thursday, April 15, AD 2010

Tax day is a day when all Americans are reminded about the importance of politics and think about the importance of the political future so they can adjust their budgets accordingly. Most of the time in politics we have a reasonably good idea of what’s going on: what the issues are going to be, who the favorites in the next election are, who are the main blocs, etc. Of course, there are always surprises and upsets.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to Looking into the Cloudy Ball

  • I think the GOP can count on solid tea party support in the Fall. In many states the dead line to get on the ballot is approaching or passed, and, in any case, there has been little movement by tea party members to run third party candidates. The big problem for the GOP will be if they win a huge victory in November with crucial tea party assistance, which I expect, and then proceed with business as usual. In that case I do anticipate a tea party third party in 2012.

    The post by Morning’s Minion, which you linked to, thanking God that John McCain is not president was a hoot! A weak defense indeed of the South Side Messiah!

  • Don:

    I hadn’t talked about the Tea Party as a potential third party, but I think you’re right. The Tea Party is largely built on the emotional resistance to Obama and I think the Tea Party will do its best to defeat Obama and Democrats. I would imagine they’ll stick with the GOP until at least Obama’s defeat and then perhaps start a separate party if they’re unsatisfied with the results.

    However, which candidate the Tea party will back in the Presidential primaries is anyone’s guess. Palin? Someone like Scott Brown? Will they go ideology or the best chance at winning?

  • “However, which candidate the Tea party will back in the Presidential primaries is anyone’s guess. Palin? Someone like Scott Brown? Will they go ideology or the best chance at winning?”

    At this point I am beginning to think that Palin is looking at 2016. Brown I think isn’t looking at the Presidency at all, but is completely concentrated on Massachusetts where the political revolution he initiated is gathering momentum. I think that 2012 may well be the year of someone who is little known now, at least by the general public. From the GOP standpoint it is essential that the standard bearer be someone who can cause great enthusiasm among the tea partiers.

  • From the GOP standpoint it is essential that the standard bearer be someone who can cause great enthusiasm among the tea partiers.

    Seems unlikely with Romney and Huckabee as the frontrunners. But a lot can change in two or three years.

  • The articel seems to presume that, absent the ominous “Tea Party threat,” the Republican Party would naturally sweep to victory in November, then immediately set about setting things right. Wrong! If the recent history of the American body politic says anything, it says that the parties are both more intersted in having and expanding power, rather than necessarily using power for good.

    Without the Tea Party threat, the repubs are nothing but a shade or so removed from the Dems on the critical life issues; the country club repubs most definitely want pro-lifers to go away.
    In my adult days, only once has the repub party used a majority to try to limit government expenditures and reduce the interfering influence of government in the daily lives of citizens; and ultimately, they abandoned the effort.
    Neither party can lay claim to a corner on “social justice” issues. At least not if one takes the position that forced taxpayer largesse in the social programs MUST be able to boast of resounding success in return for the now truly collossal expenditure of funds involved.

  • although not a memember of the so called tea party..people are rightly concerned that if the spending contiunes the chances of having a debt that requires a one trillion dollar interest per year will occur. the problem as i view is that we need a congress that will pass a bill demanding a balance budget each year and get rid of those bills that do not create jobs or add to an already explosive deficit and to develop a foreign policy with teeth and not just words and one that quits trying to tell people how to live. we fought one king for that right and it appears we have another trying to tell us the sme thing.

  • Kevin:

    The articel seems to presume that, absent the ominous “Tea Party threat,” the Republican Party would naturally sweep to victory in November, then immediately set about setting things right.

    Wrong on both counts though I don’t think that’s obvious from this post. I think the Republicans did a fine job of messing things up long before “Tea Party” was thought up and so would have complications going into November (i.e. the residual effects of the Bush presidency). Nor do I think the republicans would set things right, though i hope especially on issues of SCOTUS nominations and abortion funding they would be able to provide some corrections.

    My point in discussing the Tea Party was that, especially in considering 2012, they provide a variable. We don’t know what kind of effect they will have and so it is hard to predict how elections will turn out.

    afl:

    develop a foreign policy with teeth and not just words and one that quits trying to tell people how to live.

    Beware that the foreign policies with teeth (such as Bush’s) are often the ones that are based on the premise that the United States has a moral responsibility to spread democracy & its principles i.e. tell people how to live.

  • MD,
    Okay, if you say that was your point, I must believe you. But if the democrats remain in control of the house in December of this year, the political game is up. No amount of right thinking in 2012 will serve any good purpose if the leak in the dike is not stopped now.
    Those of you who think that politics, carried out with the Constitution in the fundamentally fractured state it is in now, can answer the mail are probably fooling yourselves.
    What was it Gandolf said? “The board is set, the pieces are moving, the final battle for Middle Earth has begun.”
    God help us all!

  • I don’t think any of the presumed GOP candidates (Huck, Palin, Romney) will win the nomination. I think it will be someone who catches fire–like a Paul Ryan or a conservative governor.

  • The fact that they’re more educated and wealthier may just be a reflection of the fact that they tend to be white, male, and old.

    The NY Times pool reveals some other interesting facts. Most Tea Partiers favor at least civil unions for gay couples, most favor legal abortions, and most don’t go to church regularly. Most like Palin but don’t think she would make a good president!

    My money was on Romney before this whole Tea Party thing. Huckabee and Romney have fiscally liberal records which voters may not forgive. Palin is talking up Romney though so Tea Partiers may forgive his past. The liberal elite find Romney to be the least objectionable.

    Gingrich’s negatives are too high. He’d be unelectable in the general election.

    Ron Paul is polling well but he can’t win the GOP nomination.

    A lot of excitement around Marco Rubio but he’s not even Senator yet and he’s only 38. Maybe 2016.

  • Romney is a political chameleon and I doubt if he will get the nomination in 2012. Paul is going no place slowly. Gingrich is only formidable as a talk show guest. The Huckster should stick with his show on Fox. I think Palin, as I stated earlier, is waiting for 2016. Rubio is a man to watch closely, but his year is not 2012. The New York Times poll of tea partiers is as worthless as most of what appears in that poor excuse for a fish wrapper.

  • Intrade has Romney in first followed closely by Palin. In third is John Thune. Others fall way behind. Oh how far Jindal has fallen…

    Intrade also gives the Democrats slightly better odds of retaining control of the House.

    Bad news in New York. Neither Guiliani nor Pataki will challenge Gillibrand.

  • As a twenty-something male I find the whole situation depressing. When you have Romney and Palin ahead in the poles for the Republicans and I guess, um…, Obama for the Dems, you really have to fool yourself to see anything bright in the future. The way I look at it we just have to hope that our pilot was the one who was sitting at the bar before departure who only had three whiskeys instead of five. I really am sorry for it but this nation has become the fruit of a more and more Godless society. Even though we have statistics that comfort us in being a Christian nation, the label “Christianity” is about as broad as Conservatism or Liberalism. Fact of the matter is that unless there is some major miraculous turn around in the faith of the people of this nation and their education in that faith, we will be sentenced to suffer the consequences of such a society. However, conversation such as in this com box and in the greater political arena is still necessary. I may not have much faith in the future of this country but I do realize that you have to go down swinging.

Massachusetts Predictions

Tuesday, January 19, AD 2010

Go here to see the last polls on the Senate race in Massachusetts.  The seat that is up has been in the hands of the Kennedy family since 1953, four years before my birth.   The last time the Republicans won a Federal senate race in Massachusetts was in 1972 when I was 15 years old.  Against all the odds Scott Brown has engineered the political upset of this century.  In November he trailed Martha Coakley by 30 points.  He has run a superb campaign and she has run an abysmal one, but the key issue has been his opposition to ObamaCare.  If ObamaCare is  a losing issue in Massachusetts, in what State in the Union can it be a winning issue?  Brown 52;  Coakley 47;  Kennedy 1.  That is my prediction.   What is yours?

Continue reading...

18 Responses to Massachusetts Predictions

Now This, This Would be a Sign of the Apocalypse!

Wednesday, January 13, AD 2010

A Republican may be elected to serve out Ted Kennedy’s unexpired term?  It could happen! Public Policy Polling, a Democrat leaning polling outfit shows the election a toss up between the Democrat Coakley and the Republican Brown.  Scott Rasmussen, the best political pollster in the business in my opinion, shows Coakley up by two.  Last week he showed her up by nine.  On Monday Brown raised over a million dollars in one day in internet donations.

If Brown wins the Senate race in the Peoples’ Republic of Massachusetts, it will send a political shock wave across this country the like of which hasn’t been seen in many a year.  If Ted Kennedy’s senate seat isn’t safe, what seat is safe for the Democrats?  Oh, I don’t believe that I should call it Ted Kennedy’s seat per Mr. Brown.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to Now This, This Would be a Sign of the Apocalypse!

  • From where I sit, I do not think there is any chance Scott Brown will be elected. Massachusetts politics are too corrupt.

  • It is an uphill climb Zach, no doubt about that. It is interesting however that Massachusetts does have a history of electing Republican governors fairly recently, so the idea of a Republican winning statewide is certainly not impossible.

  • I don’t expect Brown to win, but then, I didn’t expect Corzine to lose in deep blue NJ either. If Brown comes within a couple of points of Coakley, Dems should still be very nervous. Coakley ran a dreadful campaign, because she expected it would be a waltz. She thought she wouldn’t have to fight for “the Kennedy seat” (ah, Massachusetts – or should I say Massachusettes, like the cool kidz do – once upon a time you rebelled against royalty). The fact that she does, in fact, have a battle on her hands is unnerving her.

    If Brown manages to pull it off, I shall develop a strange new respect for Massachusetts voters.

  • Eric

    It seems “you can’t vote for or support a pro-choice candidate” because “they are baby killers” and “supporting baby killers should get you excommunicated” might be countered with “He’s a Republican” and that’s good enough for some. It also suggests that much of that rhetoric is just political rhetoric, and not indicative of belief when there are these cheers for a pro-choice candidate. So you are right to point this out. Shows quite a few things all in one.

  • From what I can tell thus far, Brown is indeed, essentially, pro-choice.

    http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/dontquoteme/archive/2010/01/04/scott-brown-s-abortion-problem.aspx

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/04/abortion_stances_of_brown_coakley_not_so_easily_defined/?page=1

    His support for minor pro-life initiatives notwithstanding, in my mind, a minimal pro-life position includes opposition to RvW.

    However, his opponent is also pro-choice, and apparently has a voting record more favorable to the abortion industry.

    In this case should Catholics vote for a “lesser evil” or abstain altogether? The ‘Catholic Answers’ voting guide says:

    “In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more issues involving non-negotiable moral principles. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.”

    “Not voting may sometimes be the only moral course of action, but we must consider whether not voting actually promotes good and limits evil in a specific instance.”

    http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/dontquoteme/archive/2010/01/04/scott-brown-s-abortion-problem.aspx

    Tough call. Voting for the Democrat is clearly out. Voting for Brown? I wouldn’t. I would abstain. But by this criteria anyway, one might vote for Brown.

  • The Catholic Answers voting guide fails to meet Catholic moral standards. On the other hand, I thought people said you could never “vote for a pro-baby killer, even if it is the least of evils.” Now when you start reasoning “least of evil” allows prudential decision as to who one should vote for, then people who saw no practical difference between Obama and McCain were fine with voting Obama and not to be condemned as being “pro-death.” I say this not as one who voted for Obama, since I didn’t. I am just pointing out how it is always convenient there are always excuses given for Republicans. But if one “can never bend” then it would seem supporting a pro-choicer is a no-go, and one should either abstain from voting or vote for someone who is going to lose.

    Again, all this shows is the double-standards, nothing else.

  • Coakley is attacking Brown for being pro-life, which he is not:

    http://www.lifenews.com/state4720.html

    Coakley is in favor of partial birth abortions which Brown is against. If I were in Massachusetts I would vote for Brown, although my vote would actually be against Coakley.

    Here is a story exploring the abortion positions of Coakley and Brown.

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/04/abortion_stances_of_brown_coakley_not_so_easily_defined/?page=1

  • Coakley thinks that if you are a faithful Catholic you shouldn’t work in emergeny rooms because of emergency “contraception”.

    “Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don’t want to do that.
    Martha Coakley: No we have a seperation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.

    Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.

    Martha Coakley: (…stammering) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.”

    http://www.redmassgroup.com/diary/6604/coakley-you-can-have-religious-freedom-but-you-probably-shouldnt-work-in-the-emergency-room

    Man, if I were in Massachusetts I would crawl over broken glass to vote against this bigot.

  • “The Catholic Answers voting guide fails to meet Catholic moral standards.”

    Then which voter guide does meet them? I’m open to suggestions. How do Catholics – who care about the teaching of the Church, that is – in Europe or other countries where all of the candidates support abortion rights vote? Do they vote? If so, what is their criteria?

    “I thought people said you could never “vote for a pro-baby killer, even if it is the least of evils.”

    What “people” are you referring to?

    “But if one “can never bend””

    If one is obliged to vote, and all the candidates are pro-choice, then it can’t be “bending.” Some Catholics believe they have a moral obligation to vote for SOMEONE – some take it further and say there is an obligation to vote for someone who is likely to win, ruling out third party candidates who have no shot.

    I am not so certain about that. There are times when Acts 5:29 trumps Romans 13:1. This is possibly one of those times – to withdraw from the political process altogether.

    If there is a clear Church teaching on what one is to do in a situation where all of the candidates support an intrinsic evil, I would like to see it. I believe the CA voter guide was based on what JP II said in Evangelium Viate:

    ” In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”

    My guess is that they believe this would apply to voters as well.

  • The Catholic Answers voting guide, I think, is based on a false understanding of how to apply natural law principles to specific situations and circumstances. It more or less sets up a proportionalist trap. In my view, it is no more logical than the voting strategy set up by Catholics United that does not understand the hierachy of values.

    If anything, there is a radical modern misunderstanding of the virtue of prudence, which is founded upon the edifice, which Pope John Paul II himself often referred to, of “right reason.” Since Machiavelli wrote The Prince, both virtue and prudence (which is a virtue, obviously) have been radically misunderstood.

    Nevertheless, Catholic Answers’ Voting Guide for “Serious” Catholics is not a magisterial document, which is evident, I think, in the defiencies in its philosophical presumptions and I personally don’t feel obligated to vote in accord with it. The pope’s encylical might have inspired the voting guide, but that doesn’t make it void of errors–not that you suggested anything to the contrary.

    Moreover, I see this growing trend of Senate Republicans with this view — Hutchison, Snowe, Collins. Moreover, I am more appalled that pro-life organizations such as the one in Massachusetts (endorsing Brown) might endorse such candidates in their races if the other person is “more pro-choice.” I would think it better not to compromise your principles and not endorse the less-than-stellar “pro-life” candidate and rather just emphasize how bad the pro-choice candidate’s record is. It really boils down to proportionalist tendencies, which in some respects is inevitable.

    I seriously am very sympathetic to the argument which due to current circumstances makes it “non-negotiable” for voting Catholics to vote Republican, but in effect, it turns the pro-life vote into what African Americans have become to Democrats — a bloc of “sure” votes where Republicans win office and by and large govern as if the very issues we voted for them on are non-issues. The next election they throw us the same old rhetoric and “renew” their committment, but nothing goes differently. The Republican strategist can measure that the most strident pro-life Americans will not vote for a Democrat and even if a nominal pro-life Republican is running, we will judge that it “better than nothing” and vote for the Republican anyway to stop the “worse policies” of the Democrat. This trend seems spiraling and self reinforcing, which I don’t see how we can upset the status quo or change the indifference of some, or even, many Republican elected officials without their losing, or electing those who will upset the status quo — but how can you tell? It’s very difficult.

    I am sure there is a lot of this, in which, you and I probably have acute agreement. My greatest issue, or rather my cynicism, is unlike with slavery or other issues in the past, is that contemporary politics has found comfort in the status quo on all sides of the contemporary moral issues to the chagrin of those who are powerfully convicted, one way or another, on such issues. In other words, with say, slavery, you know that your opponent will try to craft the law in conformity with their views on slavery — either total legality or total illegality. There was no “reducing the number of slaves” rhetoric or strategic incremental methods for bringing about its illegality. This is most obvious to me in the fact that the Republicans have replaced the majority of the post-Roe court or the less-than-desirable amount of pro-life legislation coming off of Republican-controlled committees in Republican-dominated Congresses and so forth. From a practical order, considering current political trends, practices, and circumstances, I don’t buy the Catholic Answers argument for reasons other my philosophical issues with it — it seems to me to just preserve the status quo. Nothing I’ve said means vote Democratic. It does unveil we’ve got a lot of work to do.

    The other difficulty I have — and this is personal — is that by my prudential calculation which I am obliged in conscience to follow is that a pro-choice Republican should not receive my vote, being such a worldview is, more or less, my political antithesis and following my views, a detriment to the common good. Does that mean vote for the pro-choice Democrat? Not necessarily.

    I am also very fascinated by the fact that for many Republicans his abortion stance is virtually a non-issue and they are advocating that he win to block the health care bill — largely a consequentialist line of reasoning, regardless of one’s views on the health care reform efforts. This is especially true when one considers the line of thinking that amounted to counter-efforts against the pro-choice Republican candidate running for the House in New York that met party opposition for being a “RINO.”

  • Eric,

    “Catholic Answers’ Voting Guide for “Serious” Catholics is not a magisterial document”

    No one, least of all myself, claimed that it was. The problem is that there does not appear to be a magisterial document that addresses this issue. We face a similar dilemma with torture, though in that case, I think it is more clear if one really bothers to look and reflect on all that has been said.

    “which is evident, I think, in the defiencies in its philosophical presumptions”

    It isn’t evident. That is the problem. Perhaps you could explain it again? That such a document would not be “void of errors” is practically a given – I only used it as an example. It is one of the more well-considered examples, too, so I shudder to think what some of the other voter guides looked like.

    “There was no “reducing the number of slaves” rhetoric or strategic incremental methods for bringing about its illegality.”

    Ha! I agree, but tell it to the neo-Confederate historians, whom a surprising number of Catholic conservative intellectuals appear to agree with. On this point I simply know the history too well – it was all or nothing for the South.

  • dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

    Great line, but I doubt the sequel will be any good:

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1289401/

    Enjoy!

Predictions

Monday, November 2, AD 2009

fishing for votes

For political junkies like me, tomorrow begins the political season for 2010 with gubernatorial elections in Virginia, New Jersey and the special congressional election in New York 23.    There is also a special congressional election in California 10, but that is in the San Francisco metro area and everyone, except for the Republican running, David Harmer,  believes that is going to be won by the Democrat, Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi, and I join in that consensus, although I suspect it might be surprisingly close.

In regard to the three competitive races, here are my predictions:

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Predictions

  • I think McDonnell will certainly win in VA, and I’ll bet Hoffman does too, but NJ I am not so sure about. They sure seem to love incompetent state government there. I wouldn’t be shocked if Corzine manages to win by a hair. But even that would be good news for conservatives. NJ is a deep blue state. The very fact that Corzine had to struggle and The One had to go there and campaign for him is a bad omen for the Dems.

  • I’m with Donna V., but probably more confident that Christie will pull it off. Our Dear Leader may have overstated his (manufactured) gravitas and used up whatever charismatic potion he had for a Corzine push.

    As Mister Rogers would say…

    It’s a wonderful in the neighborhood, it’s…

  • I live in New York, work in New Jersey and I sure hope you are on the money.

  • For what it’s worth, Intrade gives Hoffman about a 65% chance of winning, and McDonnell a 98% chance. New Jersey is split roughly 50/50, but with a slight edge to Corzine.

  • McDonnell is a lock, and that 57-43 split sounds about right. I think Hoffman also pulls it out, probably in a bit of a squeaker. I am not sure about NJ, but I have a sinking feeling Corzine pulls it out.

  • Ditto Paul Zummo’s prediction…

  • I’ll join the chorus, pretty solid except for NJ, that one is too close to call as far as I can tell.

  • Concur with the consensus. McDonnell will win easily. Hoffman will win fairly easily. Christie will win on election day, but it will be close enough that the Dem’s will Franken the results. To Franken the results means to keep counting (magically finding Dem votes) until you get the results you want.

  • To Franken the results means to keep counting (magically finding Dem votes) until you get the results you want.

    How does Franken (v.) differ from Gore (v.)?

  • Edward G. Robinson explains Democrat recount strategy!

  • Rich:

    When you Franken the vote, you win. When you Gore the vote, you lose and then spend the rest of your life saying “I wuz robbed!”

  • McDonnell 55%, Deeds 43%

    Corzine 43%, Christie 42%, Daggett 11% (won’t be decided until at least sometime Wednesday)

    Owens 48%, Hoffman 46%, Scozzafava 4% (NY-23 isn’t THAT conservative and I would think voters there would realize that)

    These off-year elections are very tough to predict because turnout is usually low. It’s often less about how well you win over the independents and undecideds than how good a job you do of making sure your base gets to the polls. McDonnell will win VA in a landslide, but the other two are tossups.

  • Owens 48%, Hoffman 46%, Scozzafava 4% (NY-23 isn’t THAT conservative and I would think voters there would realize that)

    ??? I think the voters there know how conservative they are or are not. They haven’t elected a democrat since 1870, it seems the latest poll indicates they aren’t starting this year either.

  • Republicans will win. Not much will change.

  • Apparently they are not that conservative and they have elected a Democrat.

  • Two out of three, not bad Donald =)

Signs and Portents

Thursday, October 1, AD 2009

Gallup Party ID

The first in an on-going series.  I have never been interested in sports, much to the quiet chagrin of my late father.  Other than hockey in my college days, I can’t recall ever spending any money to see a sporting event.  On the weekends no sounds of athletic contests emanate from the McClarey household TV.  I suspect that my strong interest in politics takes the place of sports for me.  I am endlessly fascinated by it, pay close attention to all news regarding politics and have familiarized myself over the years with a fair amount of the technical aspects of the craft.  For political junkies like me our season is about to begin.  Next year’s congressional elections are just a little over a year away and I think looking at the political tea leaves as they stand now might be amusing to those of our readers who share some portion of my passion.

Continue reading...

46 Responses to Signs and Portents

  • There is no question that the Democrats are on their heels. As an independent voter, who votes Republican, or third party primarily for life issues, I can say that Democrats have little to no appeal for right-minded voters.

    The problem for Republicans is that they are clamoring to figure out how to use this to their advantage. Country-club, Rockefeller, neo-cons and other RINOS are political opportunists and the current sentiment in the country is to NOT trust them becuase, well, “they lie”.

    What the elephants need to do is become genuinely conservative and come to the voters with a simple, concise, direct message and not the usual pandering to pro-lifers, small government and low tax voters. They need to actually mean it and execute it – not just talk about and then give us more taxes, big government, intervention and other similar BS.

    It needs to be real and genuine. Instead of being wordsmiths that try to appeal to all voters they need to be honest, true and defend their positions. In Virgnina the governors race is ramping up over pro-life issues. The Demoncrat is painting the Republican as a woman-hating troglodyte! Despite the fact that he has three accomplished daughters, one of whom served in uniform. They are also attacking him becuase he expresses a sentiment that women, who are mothers, may actually want to stay home (harder work than any ‘man’s” job) and raise their own children. He also thinks that contraception may be a problem. How crazy is that? Contraception has made our lives so much better, hasn’t it??!!!!

    If he sticks to his guns and doesn’t pander and unapologetically puts forth his true conservative beleifs, the Old Dominion will respond well. Excluding the bulk of enemy-occupied Northern Virginia. But there are 400,000 Catholics in No Va and if they are properly catechized (big IF) he can even win in this sad area.

    As this well written article points out – the economy is the primary issue (how money gets ahead of life is a whole other matter). It is highly likely that the Federal Reserve will keep rates artificially low and may even pull back (deflate) the money supply in order to stem inflation among the myriad of ohter tools to tamper with the economy. The goal will be to continue and even accelerate this false spring we are experiencing to give the Dems a push in elections.

    It won’t last. It can’t. The economy and the markets want to correct becuase this is conrolled chaos and the natural forces of the market will overcome the Fed and it will all come crashing down. It is possible, even probable, that Bernanke can sustain this ‘recovery’ through Nov. 2010 – but not much longer. The other possibility is to crash it even more and find some way to blame the obstructionist Republicans.

    Either way, a true, solid, unwavering, conservative message will sway voters away from the left – at least for a little while – Americans are fickle.

  • Too early, too too early to derive any meaning from this.

    November 2010 is an eternity away.

  • The main practical effects currently Dale are in recruitment for GOP candidates and raising funds. Signs of a good election result for next year have worked wonders for the GOP in both categories. Additionally of course Blue Dogs looking at the same information have become increasingly resistant to signing on to Obama initiatives. I agree that 13 months is an eternity in politics but political tea leaves do have their practical impact here and now. Look for all this to ramp up considerably if the Republicans do take the state houses in Virginia and New Jersey.

  • November 2010 is an eternity away.

    Apologies, but I’m not all that excited over Obama’s imminent re-election, which would most likely occur then given the temperature of the general populace who are more so hypnotized by that man’s charisma than anything else.

  • That’s a good point, Donald. While the election is waaaaay too far away to derive meaning to this, candidate recruitment is important. My understanding from reading Barrone, Cook and others who spend their lives analyzing these races is that the GOP has actually done a great job with recruitment and the field of candidates is a decided step up from previous cycles. They are doing what the Dems did in 06 and 08. Of course that doesn’t mean that the GOP should expect a huge win, but at least it gives them hope.

  • Why should we honestly care about the GOP and GOP recruitment, or any of these ‘tea leaves’? If the GOP makes any kind of comeback, we can be assured zero changes in direction. More warfare and more welfare, thats all either party is capable of giving us.

    The GOP is shaping up to be about as pathetic in 2012 as they were in 2008. Victories in the next two elections cycles for Republicans will only be because of an anti-Obama/Pelosi/Reid sentiment— NOT because of a genuine shift in American political outlook. I see zero shift in ideals within the mainstream of politics. I see more people fed up with both parties, but they still feel inevitably cornered into voting for one of them.

    Until a new party or one of the parties can successfully merge anti-war, anti-Fed, pro-life, pro-small government and pro-Constitution ideals AND demonstrate a willingness to actually ACT accordingly, we will continue to seesaw between the two parties and continue to be disappointed with our political class.

    Not voting has become a legitimate option in my mind, given the kind of political environment we now face.

  • “merge anti-war, anti-Fed, pro-life, pro-small government and pro-Constitution ideals”

    Such parties are out there Anthony, they simply fail to get any votes. Most people who are pro-life and anti-big government do not treasure an isolationist foreign policy that imagines that a Fortress America strategy is possible. Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul speak for very few Americans. Libertarians who are usually pro-abort often embrace small government and a Fortress America policy and have shown over the decades a spectacular inability to gain votes. Most conservatives simply do not embrace your constellation of issues and hence your considering not voting. That is completely up to you. Personally I do appreciate all non-voters. I appreciate being able to help choose their elected officials for them.

  • Personally I do appreciate all non-voters. I appreciate being able to help choose their elected officials for them.

    This is one of the reasons why the Obama administration prevailed in the last year’s November elections.

    Had we the support of the great majority of supposedly Pro-Life/Catholic non-voters, perhaps we might have prevented such a fiercely Pro-Abort administration from taking the reins of power.

  • Hey Don.

    Completely off topic, but I have a story regarding WW 2 Operation Hailstorm if you’re interested. You can e-mail me at donsandy@xtra.co.nz.

    Regards, Don Beckett

  • I certainly will Don!

  • Sadly it is tempting not to vote becuase the choices are so poor but voting is NOT only a RIGHT it is also a DUTY. We have to vote. Vote your consciencev- if you can’t vote for flip-sides of the same party there are many other choices – sadly, it is not likely they will win without a major paradigm shift in the public’s mind. We need to revitalize one of the parties and the one is the Republican party. Why do you think a libertarian like Ron Paul runs as a Republican?

    As for conservatives not agreeing on those issues, I disagree. I think authentically conservative people do agree on ALL of those. RINOs don’t becuase they are just closet leftists.

    Why wouldn’t a right tinking person be for the strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution? For life? For a small limited government? For sound money and market-based banking? It is natural to be against the Federal Reserve – they ruin everything. No one in their right mind can be for such an evil insitution if they knew how it worked. It is also natural to be anti-war, no Christian should be for war, but we will be for waging to the fullest with a quick resolution when it is absolutely necessary.

    Aren’t those the true conservative values?

  • I think authentically conservative people do agree on ALL of those.

    I strongly disagree.

    If you recall the great isolationist/interventionist debate back then, there were a great number of key conservatives from both sides.

    Conservatives with an isolationist bent often resorted to Washington’s spiel about entangling foreign alliances whilst other conservatives went for Churchill.

    Please don’t tell me you used to be one of those folks who participated in America First rallies.

  • e.,

    I am not too familiar with America First rallies – that may be from before I was born. I am not old enought to have ever voted for Reagan.

    I think that being anti-war, is essentially being a peacemaker and that is a Beatitude. Of course, in common speak, anti-war and peace bring hippies and other idiots carrying the broken cross of Christ to mind, because they work, knowingly or unkowingly, for the Communists and Soviets.

    Nevertheless, in truth we should all want peace and sometimes that means war. The problem with our modern paradigm is that it is a lie. Democrats are peaceful and Republicans are warmongers. Why is it that most of our wars were started by Democrats and prolonged by Democrats? That is until Iraq (the second time, not the first).

    Warfare is the external apparatus of big government and welfare is the internal. Airstrip One was at war with Eastasia or Eurasia – perpetually.

    The fact is that war is the best way to control a populace and destroy infrastructure and commit resources to the work of death. If we are for a culture of life and against a culture of death, that has to encompass much more than abortion.

    This is not to say that you do not prepare for war or that you do not commit to war. Being a peacemaker without a weapon is a fool’s errand for mortal men. But you always have to ask, qui bono?

    Transnational bankers always profit from every conflict on all sides and no matter who wins. That is just sick.

    Most of our wars could have been avoided and not in an appeasment manner; rather, they could have been avoided by possesing overwhelming strength and being willing to use it when absolutely neccessary. Of course if you are the one with the most powerful military no enemy in his right mind would engage in war with you. Terrorism and espionage sure, but war, no way.

    Our problem is that we share our strength, appease our enemies, fund our enemies and bankroll the whole thing with debt. If we had to use sound money, we could have a force of overwhelming power and avoid having to use it. When pushed to use it, we would be in and out with victory before a hippie could skip another bath.

    So I stress again, an authentic conservative is anti-war but willing to wage it to the fullest when absolutely necessary.

    Korea never had to be fought. We could have taken out all the bridges before the conflict and destroyed the enemy before he entered the theater. One week, victory USA.

    Vietnam – ten days tops. We just had to bomb the crap out of their Soviet supply lines and the harbor.

    Iraq would have taken a little longer but we should have wiped out Sadam’s army ba’ath command and replaced it with Iraqi nationalists and set-up a parliamentary monarchy friendly to us. Those people aren’t prepared for a representative government without a monarch. They are tribal. We had to have over 800 years of development before the Constitution could have been written with an authentic and organic development.

    So perhaps we should all get on the avoid war bandwagon, build up an overwhelming military might and NOT share it with anyone else and stop asking the global elite for permission to put up so much as a latrine by going hat in hand to the UN.

    Reagan won the cold war without having to fire a shot because the Sovs knew he would’t hesitate to do it if they didn’t cave and they were frightened by the overwhelming advantage that SDI would have given us.

    Before anyone jumps on me that SDI didn’t work – that isn’t the point – the Sovs thought it did, or they knew that a free-market system could develop it becuase they knew that Communist oligrachies can’t innovate their way out of a paper bag, assuming the paper and the bag aren’t rationed.

    War sucks and we are at war. When you go to war you CONSERVE your blood and treasure by winning quickly wihtout fail, everytime.

  • I still can’t believe there are people who cannot, or refuse to, distinguish between isolationism and non-intervention. Believing that our military forces should not be spread across the globe, that exposure to foreign conflicts further endangers our national security is hardly ‘isolationist’. If it is, then I’d like to promptly accuse the other side of ‘warmongering’… an equally as loaded word.

  • …foreign conflicts further endangers our national security

    If only the United States possessed your wisdom, Anthony, that if we exposed ourselves to foreign conflicts, we only endanger our national security.

    Perhaps if we possessed such remarkable wisdom, the United States could have pervented disastrous tragedies that actually did so like: Pearl Harbor!

    Oh wait — it was exactly because we refused to engage in foreign conflicts that we actually endangered our national security then!

  • “It is natural to be against the Federal Reserve – they ruin everything. No one in their right mind can be for such an evil insitution if they knew how it worked.”

    An evil institution? Really? Please explain.

  • Not certain you can claim that the Federal Reserve is actually an evil institution; although, they have been said to be largely responsible for inflating U.S. currency ever since its inception.

  • That is the kind of us vs. them thinking that transnational bankers have geared our press and academy to plant in our minds.

    They utilize a twisted form a patriotism to get the ‘right’ fired up to go overseas looking for dragons to slay and the pink-pantied ‘left’ to complain that we are a mean and racist country trying to kill Asians, Africans, Arabs and Muslims.

    It is a poorly constructed paradigm and a little perspective reveals it for what it is.

    We don’t need to have bases in over 100 countries. We don’t need to be entangled in a myriad of treaties that oblige us to wage war. We don’t need to go to war against abstract concpets like ‘terror’.

    We need a true conservative principle, Peace through strength. Overwhelming military superiorty. We can deploy anywhere in the world from right here. Superior force, superior technology, a missle defense system and an accurate identification of our enemies, both foreign and domestic.

    When the strongest people, with the military force that assures victory are committed to NOT waging war unless truly provoked and when provoked to win big and win fast. Enemies will fall before they rise.

    Does that assure that we would never go to war. Of course not. Until our Lord returns men will be in conflict. War is a result of sin. We are all sinners and we are all at war but our battle is not against flesh and blood.

    The wars we’ve been in have been fabricated. Western wealth, stolen by the transnational bankers through inflation and manipulation of the money supply have funded all of our enemies – the Soviets, the Nazis and now the Chinese. We need to stop funding and equipping the true warmongers that we will have to fight tomorrow so we can avoid the conflict in the first place.

    When the conflict is manifest anyway, like the inevitable conflict with Iran, fight fast, furious, no holds barred, slaughter ALL of the enemy combatants and end it before we lose too many soldiers and they lose too many civilians. The conflict with Iran is being facilitated by our equipment and our wealth through Russia, China and unAmerican corporate interests like GE. That can be stopped. What can’t be stopped is the fact that the wack jobs running Iran want a conflict of massive scale and they WILL initiate it. Can they win? NO! But that doesn’t matter. Winning a temporal victory isn’t their aim – they intnend to brng about Armageddon. Read the Qu’ran. The eschatology in it is the flip side of St. John’s Apocalypse. They intend to create chaos for the arrival of their messiah, who we know as anti-Christ. Will this happen? We don’t know, it is not for us to know. But they want it to happen and the devil is very subtle, he’ll use their false religion to cause chaos.

    Democrats are fools when it comes to war. They start them for all sorts of stupid reasons and using whatever flase flag they can muster and then they engineer the prosecution of the war to lose. Republicans need to stop approaching war like Democrats used to and appraoch war the way the Old Roman Republic used to. Maximum warrior capacity when one-sided diplomacy fails. Why one-sided, becuase it must be addressed with our interests first.

    Was it noble to defeat the Nazis and end the genocide of 6 million Jews and 10 million gentiles (especially Catholics)? Of course, but why were we funding the Nazis in the process? Why did we hand eastern Europe over to the Sovs? Why did we back Mao instead of Chang Kai Shek? That kind of BS doesn’t end wars in victory for the USA and the free people of the world. That kind of behavior fosters more wars for us to lose blood and treasure in. We could have mopped up the Nazis without provoking the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor. In any event proper intelligence would have ensured that the Japanese force would have met American air superiority instead of sitting ducks but when the White House is undermining our intelligence apparatus IN PUBLIC, we can be sure that we will never know who is going to hit us and from where. Thanks to the left we will be mired in perpetual warfare.

    Let the Democrats be the war idiots and promote a revitalized Republican party that seeks American SUPERIORITY to ensure peace through the fear of anyone going to war with the USA.

    Watch what happens to the numbers in the chart at the top.

  • We need a true conservative principle, Peace through strength. Overwhelming military superiorty. We can deploy anywhere in the world from right here.

    No — for the most part, our arsenal and resources are spent due to the Iraq debacle, among other things.

    Superior force, superior technology, a missle defense system and an accurate identification of our enemies, both foreign and domestic.

    Well, I don’t know how the latter can be achieved, especially given our loose immigration policy which would only go on to permit such enemies in further inflitrating our country.

  • j. christian,

    This will take us way off topic. I would be happy to get into it, but I prefer if one of the moderators will give the go ahead or set up another thread for that.

    Briefly: The so-called Federal Reserve System is a private banking monopoly that has control over our money supply. They are of the same ilk as the money lenders in the Temple that Christ evicted. They are usurers, warmongers, powermongers, thieves and a ost of other evils.

    To keep this short here is a quote from one of the first transnational bankers, blood ancestor of some of the designers of the Monster from Jekyl Island called the Fed:

    “Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.”

    A. M. Rothschild

    As long as there is a Federal Reserve System, or the First or Second Bank of the United States or any central bank at all the numbers at the top of the page don’t matter because policy is set in secret no matter which party has a majority. It is a ruse.

  • American Knight:

    I don’t mean to deride you in any way, but do you actually know why the Federal Reserve came into being?

    It’s just I find it ironic that you would condemn the very institution that was born as a result of the same series of adverse circumstances that we just recently endured.

  • One of the few legitimate powers of government is NATIONAL DEFENSE – that includes securing the borders, all of them – land, sea and air. Our borders are a joke. It is not that we can’t secure them, it is that we won’t. Instead of having our fine soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines stationed across the globe post them on our borders (with the guns pointed out).

    We can do all of these things but if we don’t win the culture, we will implode without any foreign enemies. 50,000,000 Americans murdered in the last four decades and millions more ‘educated’ by our domestic enemies. You used to have to go overseas to be immersed in a foreign culture, now you can just go to any college campus.

    By foreign, I don’t mean just non-Americans, foreign can also mean strange and not normal custom this includes people with homosexual prclivities promoted as a lifestyle, athiests being ‘tolerated’ more than flag waving Republicans or the worst offenders Christians, especially the highly intolerant Catholics!

    Our culture is the first line of defense. Are the Republicans engaging American culture or pandering to the Democrat/socialist zeitgeist?

  • e.,

    I would ask you the same question? The Federal Reserve has caused the ‘series of adverse circumstances’ and before it came on line the perpetrators caused other similar situations in order to fool us into accepting it in the first place.

    In any event, that is another topic for another thread. Suffice to say that the Constitution does NOT allow Congress to delegate its power to coin money and set weights and measures. Certianly not to a private, unnacountable monopoly.

  • By foreign, I don’t mean just non-Americans, foreign can also mean strange and not normal custom this includes people with homosexual prclivities promoted as a lifestyle, athiests being ‘tolerated’ more than flag waving Republicans or the worst offenders Christians, especially the highly intolerant Catholics!

    Okay, now your comment here doesn’t appear to make sense.

    One glaring contradiction is that you voice your anger about how folks are wrongly tolerating such immorality; however, at the conclusion, you attack so-called “highly intolerant Catholics”?

    In my book, it is because of tolerant Catholics who are the ones actually responsible for fostering such immorality, like abortion and homosexuality.

  • I would ask you the same question? The Federal Reserve has caused the ‘series of adverse circumstances’ and before it came on line the perpetrators caused other similar situations in order to fool us into accepting it in the first place.

    Uhhhh…. no.

    You’ll need to study up on its history.

    Besides, I would think after last year’s bank run and the height of the economic collapse then, I would think you would’ve been more appreciative.

    In any event, that is another topic for another thread. Suffice to say that the Constitution does NOT allow Congress to delegate its power to coin money and set weights and measures. Certianly not to a private, unnacountable monopoly.

    So what? The original Constitution used to support slave trade in article 1 section 9.

    It is not the infallible document you seem to claim it to be.

    It is something that, by all means, must be respected; however, we shouldn’t think it is perfect or even God-breathed.

  • e., the comment about intolerant Catholics was tongue in cheek. My apologies for the poorly worded sentence. My brain is slighlty faster than my search and peck typing.

    I do NOT think the Constituion is infallible or God-breathed, but it was a miracle.

    Slavery was and is immoral and the Constitution did allow it and that is a shame, but, slavery could have ended without a war and the Constitution is amendable.

    My problem is that most of the illicit work being done by both parties in charge is outside the parameters of the Constitution properly amended.

    The Constitution MUST be ROCK SOLID and RESPECTED or we have built our nation on sand and it will slip away.

    Congress has NO POWER to delegate the coingage of money for use in public affairs. A free market of money is fine for all private affairs but our common, public affairs need to be funded by a stable monetary unit, with the weight set and fixed by the people’s Congress.

    I don’t think this thread is the right place to get into a Federal Reserve discussion but it is a proveable, verifiable FACT that the business-cycle is the result of the central bank. So are inflation, income taxes, warfare and welfare. An undending supply of money leads to corruption. A fixed quantity of money promotes thrift.

    I think I am going to refrain for further discussion on the Fed, outside of the R vs. D issue in this thread until a moderator gives the go ahead or sets up another thread.

  • American Knight:

    I’ve got to admit, this topic would’ve been one that I would’ve loved discussing with you.

    Yet, you’re right; this isn’t the thread to do that.

    Thanks for your thoughts though.

  • The Fed is independent. We could abolish the Fed, but then we’d have the money supply controlled by the thieves in Congress. Is that a better solution?

  • Well, it’s much more complicated than that, I’m afraid.

    Besides, there’s also the IMF to consider, too.

  • Keep tempting me.

    I hope I don’t get kicked off here for this but I can’t help it.

    j. christian,

    The Fed is independent becuase it is private and we don’t even truly know who the shareholders are.

    It is accountable to NO ONE. It is secret. It has the power to level this country and/or rob us blind. Since the beast came to be in 1913 the US Dollar (AKA Federal Reserve NOTE) has lost 95% of its value. The owners of the Fed have the wealth that was stolen by that devaluation.

    If Congress coined the money, as in set the weight of measure of money at a fixed number, things would be stable. As e., said it is far more complex than this. The point being is that the Congress is accountable to the people, the House members every two and the Senate every six years. The Fed is NOT accountable at all. Did you know that it has never even been audited?

  • e. and American Knight,

    Can you two guys fill out a WordPress account and put a nice pic to your names so you two can add some ambiance to our American Catholic website while you guys grace us with your wisdom and knowledge.

  • “The Fed is independent. We could abolish the Fed, but then we’d have the money supply controlled by the thieves in Congress. Is that a better solution?”

    Or you could allow the market to determine what kind of money it uses and at what interest. Thats the option I prefer. Why give that power to any group of thieves?

  • “Perhaps if we possessed such remarkable wisdom, the United States could have pervented disastrous tragedies that actually did so like: Pearl Harbor!

    Oh wait — it was exactly because we refused to engage in foreign conflicts that we actually endangered our national security then!”

    You’re kidding, right? A.)The United States wasn’t exactly uninvolved in the run up to our military intervention in WWII, or WWI for that matter. The country might have been ignoring events, the government certainly was not.

    b.) We were attacked at Pearl Harbor. Thus, a response is warranted. Yes e., you do have to wait for someone to do violence unto you before you can legitimately use force in self defense. Are you trying to say that things would have been better had we simply inaugurated the violence ourselves? How would that make you any better or justified?

  • “Personally I do appreciate all non-voters. I appreciate being able to help choose their elected officials for them.”

    I tend to take the view that giving them my vote gives them legitimacy. If more people don’t vote, even if they come to power their sense of importance will steadily erode.

    Just my personal thinking on how real ‘change’ will come to America: people will just slowly walk away and ignore their government. The more government squeezes us through their wars, inflations, regulations, etc. people will simply ‘give up’ and quietly find ways to make their living.

  • “Briefly: The so-called Federal Reserve System is a private banking monopoly that has control over our money supply. They are of the same ilk as the money lenders in the Temple that Christ evicted. They are usurers, warmongers, powermongers, thieves and a ost of other evils.”

    Loving your diatribe against the Fed, American Knight: but I would adjust this statement to to describe the Fed as “quasi-private/public”. Its a creature of the worst kind, incorporating the worst bits of both worlds. It has private interests, but has been granted its monopoly powers by the government! Aside from its political appointments by the President, the Fed is also ‘public’ in the sense that Congress could have oversight of it, or outright abolish it tomorrow.

    The Fed is evil. There is no other way to describe it or its tools. Congressman Paul is correct to be pushing for its auditing and its eventual abolishment. Freedom in this country will have a better fighting chance without the Fed than anything delivered by military victory abroad.

  • The market *did* determine the currency. How do you think money becomes fiat money in the first place? You think people want to carry around bags of gold everywhere? No, so they issue notes as legal tender. Eventually no one cares what’s behind the notes — why should they? They don’t need to redeem them if they continue to function as a medium of exchange.

  • Anthony,

    You are correct. Again, I was trying to avoid going into too much detail about the Fed in a post about the popularity contest between the flip-sides of the same political party.

    The Fed is public/private, as in fascist or corpratist; however, the key point is that it has been given power by Congress (public) to manage the money supply with all the immediate benefits going to unknown, unnacountable individuals and entities (private). The core of the problem is the sinsiter men behind the curtain.

    Although Congress does have the legal authority to abolish the Fed since they are the ones that illegally sanctioned it in the middle of the night, during a recess, on December 23rd – signed by the usurper, Wilson (who later regretted it, may God have Mercy on his soul) – they are now addicted to the crack.

    Congress will not abolish, or even audit the Fed without an INTERVENTION. The scallawags of both parties desire the power behind the Fed when they are in majority. When in minority they won’t get rid of the power it may provide them when the political tides sway slightly in their favor.

    It will take the massive political will of the people to hold those scamps accountable, fire them all, start fresh and put people in there who have made a committment to abolish the Fed, obey the Constitution and restore the Republic.

    The success Ron Paul has enjoyed in getting this message out there (though he’s been talking about for decades) is becuase the sentiment in the country, among the few (and growing) sane people out here has finally gotten around to noticing that something stinks with both major parties and the way they do business. Is it too late? Will Ron Paul meet the same end as most others who have stood up to the beast? That remains to be seen, our part is simply to vote our INFORMED conscience and help others learn about the truth and the Truth.

    j. christian,

    The market determined that GOLD is money, but that isn’t even really that important. Here in the Old Dominion we used to use tobbacco. The comodity doesn’t matter so much, especially in these days when money is bits and bytes. What matters is that money is a unit of measure and units of measure MUST BE FIXED. Gold has porven to be the best commodity to set the weight of money with.

    Legal tender laws are NOT market generated. Legal tender laws are government force. Congress should set the weight of money and demand its use in public exchanges. Private dealings should be left to the market. In prisons the official government policy is to use federal reserve NOTES (NOTES are NOT money they are DEBT instruments); however, the prison population uses ciggarettes as currency. Money can be whatever the parties in a voluntary, mutually-beneficial exchange want it to be.

    When it comes to an entity that has been given power to DEMAND that its rules be followed, then it must set a fixed weight for money.

    Fiat money is a problem becuase the fiat is made by transnational bankers through the abrogation of the legitimate government’s power. That means that they can inflate, increase the quantity, at will. When the quantity of money is increased, the value per unit is reduced by the increase in ratio, save for whatever additional wealth is created to offset the increase. Which do you think is easier printing more money or working to create more wealth?

    In the last twelve months we’d have to have US wealth creation at a net 20 trillion. In a good year we have been able to perform at 13 trillion. Once the pyramiding multiplier effect kicks in the aggregate value will fall to levels not seen in this country.

    Do you really want some shadowy men with no love of this country or God to have that kind of power? Do you really think this is a market choice? Our system is based on checks, balances and seperation of powers to keep sinners from gaining too much power over other sinners – how is the Fed checked, balanced and if it has the monopoly power to controll ALL the money, where is the speration of powers?

  • We were attacked at Pearl Harbor. Thus, a response is warranted. Yes e., you do have to wait for someone to do violence unto you before you can legitimately use force in self defense. Are you trying to say that things would have been better had we simply inaugurated the violence ourselves? How would that make you any better or justified?

    Oh, and so now you’re saying that if we are victims of an attack, we are justified in committing action against those who have harmed/will likely do harm unto us again.

    You know, there was such an event even similar to that Pearl Harbor — perhaps you might’ve heard of it: September 11!

    How convenient that you should resort to this kind of argument only when it suits you!

  • Tito:

    Can you two guys fill out a WordPress account and put a nice pic to your names so you two can add some ambiance to our American Catholic website while you guys grace us with your wisdom and knowledge.

    I wouldn’t want to rob you of your glory. Given the remarkable content of your variously authored entries, you surely demonstrate the very heights of such knowledge and wisdom.

  • “Oh, and so now you’re saying that if we are victims of an attack, we are justified in committing action against those who have harmed/will likely do harm unto us again.

    You know, there was such an event even similar to that Pearl Harbor — perhaps you might’ve heard of it: September 11!

    How convenient that you should resort to this kind of argument only when it suits you!”

    My gosh, you’re right! I should use your amazing logic in my own life. Since I might be murdered one day, I should just kill anyone that gives me dirty looks or disagrees with me or worse: owns a gun. They have it coming. Or since I might loose my possessions one day, I should just steal what I need. After all, because I am so virtuous, I am more likely to put it to good and moral uses! Most other people are just evil and hate me because I’m successful.

  • You don’t get it.

    First, you detested U.S. engagement in the Middle East and attempted to call foul on it by saying that such foreign conflicts only harm us.

    Then, you attempted to muster the argument that where Pearl Harbor is concerned, it was only right that we engaged in foreign conflict such as WWII because we were attacked.

    Yet, your remarkable intelligence neglected to account for the fact that our engagement in the Middle East was actually DUE to our being attack on September 11!

    Like the Lefties, you employ the double-standard, utilizing such arguments only when they would appear to advance your agenda. How very typical, indeed.

  • Dearest e.,

    I’m going take your comments one at a time:

    “First, you detested U.S. engagement in the Middle East and attempted to call foul on it by saying that such foreign conflicts only harm us.”

    They do. It’s what the CIA calls ‘blowback’. But really its just common sense. If for decades the United States has been sticking its arm up a hornet’s nest (ie, Middle Eastern politics), then its not surprising that there will be reaction, even violent ones. If another country treated us in the same manner we too would be united in the effort to expel their influence from our territory.

    “Then, you attempted to muster the argument that where Pearl Harbor is concerned, it was only right that we engaged in foreign conflict such as WWII because we were attacked.”

    And that was wrong…how? Pearl Harbor was a violent act of war. Of course what I was also alluding to was that the government was well aware of, and in certain cases participating in, war-related events prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Rarely are these sorts of things genuine surprises. They may catch us off guard, but the drumbeats are there.

    “Yet, your remarkable intelligence neglected to account for the fact that our engagement in the Middle East was actually DUE to our being attack on September 11!”

    Oh e, how incorrect this statement is. History did not begin on September 11. Oh sure, the politicians might tell you that our involvement is only due to the terrorist attacks— but thats rather naive don’t you think? Our government has been actively involved in the Middle East for DECADES, especially post WWII. Whether it was messing with Iran’s politics in the 50s, the Soviets in Afghanistan or the first Gulf War— take your pick. We’ve been involved economically, politically and militarily long before the events on 9/11. Hell, we had a policy of ‘regime change’ as far back as the Clinton Administration.

    But lets get a little more specific. 9/11 certainly would deserve a response, but not necessarily the one we gave. What began (and should have remained) as a mission limited in scope to destroying Al-Qaeda and bringing their leadership to justice became instead a mission of nation building. Ironically, this sort of policy President Bush deplored in the 2000 election. Had he held to his ideals (not that he really had any), they would have served him well in crafting a clear and pointed strategy in the Afghan conflict. Maybe he could have even gone the Constitutional route and formally declared war. The Congress certainly would have obliged him.

    The war in Iraq is an entirely different story. This country did not participate at all in the 9/11 operation. She had run afoul of U.N. policies and for the most part was suffering under harsh and unproductive sanctions. True enough, Iraq had a foul history of using chemical weapons and an even fouler leadership, but U.S. long ago had missed out on a genuine rationale for invasion. Indeed, the nation of Iraq was no threat to the United States. This was a war of CHOICE, based on drummed up fear and political ambition. It was and continues to be an unjust war and occupation.

    “Like the Lefties, you employ the double-standard, utilizing such arguments only when they would appear to advance your agenda. How very typical, indeed.”

    No. Like libertarians and anyone else interested in thinking, I like to get to the essential truth of the matter and adjust policy accordingly in such a way that preserves American liberty, not to mention her soul. The agenda is to keep America free, not to spread ourselves across the globe for worthless causes or worse: thinking we can force the world to be free.

  • Woah! Anthony, bro, slowdown. I agree with your sentiment but pull back a little. Our government had no prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor or 911. Not our entire government or even the Constitutional system. Some elements in our government, probably, but I doubt that those are actually OUR government, they are foreign or treasonous elements that have hijacked our government. When we go off half-cocked and start blaming government we sound more like lefties than lefties do. Reasonable people will shut off.

    Additionally, government is a necessary thing for sinful man; however, just government comes only to moral and just people and I think most Americans still are moral and just, only fallen. Of course the quantity and audacity of Americans that are immoral and unjust has increased and is increasing – probably exponentially. May God have Mercy on us.

    Blowback is real; however, just because it happens doesn’t mean that it had to or that the original mission that caused it was bad, perhaps just improperly executed.

    The middle-east is, has been and will be a problem. Has America handled it well – not really, but that doesn’t mean ignoring it is the answer.

    The Iraq invasion may or may not have needed to happen; however, it isn’t really a problem that we got rid of Sadam and bases in Iraq are a strategic advantage for an inevitable conflict with Iran, or China or Russia. I think Iraq failed as a matter of execution and there are lessons to be learned there for those that want to learn them. Nevertheless, we are in Iraq and we cannot leave a vacuum. I am not in favor of foreign adventurism, but we cannot cut and run either. At this point we need to ensure total victory and an enforced peace. Yes, we cannot force people to be free, but we can make sure we don’t leave them exposed to more tyrants now that we are there.

    One thing to note about Arabs and Persians and those living in Muslim-controlled lands in general, I refer to leadership, not the man in the street, is that they will find any reason to hate the USA. Why, becuase we represent Dar al Harb, the House of War and either they are true beleivers in jihad or they are political animals that see a power-grab opportunity. Even if we weren’t directly involved in the middle-east, which is impossible with a petro-based industrial system, our interests and their’s would come into conflict somewhere at some time. Nature abhors a vacuum and we cannot create one. Despite all of our errors, we are the best chance for the world in occupying the space than anyone else.

    Now for anyone that perceives Anthony’s post as an attack on ‘conservatism’, I doubt that it is and Anthony brings up many good points. We have to shake loose of this us vs. them mentality, we are supposed to be the UNITED states of America. Reasonable people can have a difference of opinion on somethings. The problem with the ‘right’ is that we are too Republican, too neo-con and despise anything the left is for. Sometimes there is a convergance of interests, but in the spirit of dis-unity, Satan pits us against each other – this is how you lose a country. We CANNOT allow that.

    War is never good. War is always hell. War is sometime necessary.

    BTW-Anthony, Congress gave Bush the authority, rightly or wrongly, to wage war. Was it declared? No. The USA has made no declaration of war since WWII back when we had a Department of War and no United Nations. Since we changed to the benign sounding Department of Defense we have been engaged in perpetual police-actions and the like. It is disingenuous and we should have a Department of War and try NOT to wage war, yet, when we must, and in the modern world, sometimes that may have to be pre-emptive (but that is a slippery slope – whole different discussion), it must be waged fast and guarnatee an overwhelming victory in order to save blood and treasure.

  • Anthony,

    If only your reading skills were as sharp as your ability for manufacturing strawmen as well as for evasion and insult, then we might be getting somewhere.

    If we were to go back to what I originally wrote, I said:

    If you recall the great isolationist/interventionist debate back then, there were a great number of key conservatives from both sides. Conservatives with an isolationist bent often resorted to Washington’s spiel about entangling foreign alliances whilst other conservatives went for Churchill.

    To which you replied:

    I still can’t believe there are people who cannot, or refuse to, distinguish between isolationism and non-intervention. Believing that our military forces should not be spread across the globe, that exposure to foreign conflicts further endangers our national security is hardly isolationist. If it is, then I’d like to promptly accuse the other side of ‘warmongering’ an equally as loaded word.

    Your comment was as absurdly irrelevant as it was a rabid attack on a strawman!

    Were you even aware just what isolationist/interventionist debate I was referring to then?

    At any rate, I hardly think a person with such an ostensibly deficient cognitive ability as well as a penchant for deliberately manipulating the facts and creating strawmen such as the kind:

    My gosh, you’re right! I should use your amazing logic in my own life. Since I might be murdered one day, I should just kill anyone that gives me dirty looks or disagrees with me or worse: owns a gun. They have it coming. Or since I might loose my possessions one day, I should just steal what I need. After all, because I am so virtuous, I am more likely to put it to good and moral uses! Most other people are just evil and hate me because I’m successful.

    …actually worthy of any further discussion.

  • hahaha. man… you’re aces e.

  • Well, it’s would’ve been a waste of time arguing with somebody was also more interested in revisionist fairy tales than anything else.

    That is, to make it appear as though military action in Iraq was an endeavour solely advocated by Bush along with his Republican cohorts and not, say, 80% of the Democrats who actually fully supported the Iraq offensive is merely one of any number of lies you and your leftist feinds would like the general public to believe.

    Thank God for sources such as The Wall Street Journal, which have written extensively on how it was only after the debacle that had become of the Iraq War in subsequent years and how the Democrats wanted to refashion its image after the likes of Moveon.org in order to win public opinion and re-energize a then moribund Democrat platform, that it felt the need to withdraw what was originally unanimous Democrat support for the Iraq War and engage in outright revisionism, such as the kind you dare perpetrate yourself here!