Victor D. Hanson — Mexifornia: A State of Becoming and The Case for Trump — Videos

Posted on December 17, 2018. Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , |

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

Historian Victor Davis Hanson on why he supports Trump

Victor Davis Hanson – Mexifornia: A State of Becoming

May 31, 2003 – Mr. Hanson was interviewed about his book Mexifornia: A State of Becoming, published by Encounter Books. The book looks at the hybrid culture emerging in California and who benefits from different political stances. He responded to telephone calls from viewers.

Victor D. Hanson on Obama’s Last Year & the Problem w/ Elites in Society

Victor Davis Hanson — The New Old World Order

Victor Davis Hanson – Postmodern Ideologies Dismanteled

Victor Davis Hanson: How the left elite cheats the public

Victor Davis Hanson – Immigration Rhetoric vs Reality

Victor Davis Hanson – The 4 Groups that Benefit from Illegal Immigration

Victor Davis Hansen- Keynote Address: California at the Crossroads

 

The Case for Trump Hardcover – March 5, 2019

From an award-winning historian and regular Fox contributor, the true story of how Donald Trump has become one of the most successful presidents in history — and why America needs him now more than ever
 
In The Case for Trump, award-winning historian and political commentator Victor Davis Hanson explains how a celebrity businessman with no political or military experience triumphed over sixteen well-qualified Republican rivals, a Democrat with a quarter-billion-dollar war chest, and a hostile media and Washington establishment to become president of the United States — and an extremely successful president.
Trump alone saw a political opportunity in defending the working people of America’s interior whom the coastal elite of both parties had come to scorn, Hanson argues. And Trump alone had the instincts and energy to pursue this opening to victory, dismantle a corrupt old order, and bring long-overdue policy changes at home and abroad. We could not survive a series of presidencies as volatile as Trump’s. But after decades of drift, America needs the outsider Trump to do what normal politicians would not and could not do.

 

Victor Davis Hanson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Victor Davis Hanson
Hanson giving a lecture at Kenyon College in May 2005

Hanson giving a lecture at Kenyon College in May 2005
Born September 5, 1953 (age 65)
Fowler, California, U.S.
Occupation Writer, historian, farmer
Subject Military history, history of ancient warfare, ancient agrarianismclassics

Victor Davis Hanson (born September 5, 1953) is an American classicistmilitary historian, columnist, and farmer. He has been a commentator on modern and ancient warfare and contemporary politics for National ReviewThe Washington Times and other media outlets. He is a professor emeritus of classics at California State University, Fresno, and is currently the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow in classics and military history at Stanford University‘s Hoover Institution. He chairs the Hoover working group on Military History and Contemporary Conflict as well as being the general editor of the Hoover online journal, Strategika. He has been a visiting professor at Hillsdale College where he teaches an intensive course on world, ancient or military history in the autumn semester, as the Wayne and Marcia Buske Distinguished Fellow in History since 2004.[1] Hanson is the author of Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power (2001), a New York Times best-selling book.

Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 by President George W. Bush, and was a presidential appointee in 2007–2008 on the American Battle Monuments Commission that oversees the cemeteries and monuments of U.S. war dead abroad. Hanson is a student of current affairs, particularly regarding the U.S. in the Middle East, national defense issues and illegal immigration. He is also a fifth-generation landowner, growing raisin plants on a family farm in Selma, California, where he resides, and is a commentator on social trends related to farming and agrarianism.

Early life, education and today

Hanson, who is of Swedish and Welsh descent, grew up on a family farm outside of Selma, California in the San Joaquin Valley and has worked there most of his life. His mother, Pauline Davis Hanson, was a lawyer and a California superior court and state appeals court justice, his father was a farmer, educator and junior college administrator. Along with his older brother Nels, a writer, and fraternal twin Alfred, a farmer and biologist, Hanson attended public schools and graduated from Selma High School. Hanson received his BA with highest honors in classics and general college honors, Cowell College, from the University of California, Santa Cruz, in 1975[2] and his PhD in classics from Stanford University in 1980. He is a Protestant Christian.[3] He also won the Raphael Demos scholarship at the College Year in Athens (1973–74) and was a regular member of the American School of Classical Studies, Athens, 1978–79.

Hanson is currently a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and professor emeritus at California State University, Fresno,[4] where he began teaching in 1984, having created the classical studies program at that institution.

In 1991, Hanson was awarded an American Philological Association‘s Excellence in Teaching Award, which is given annually to the nation’s top undergraduate teachers of Greek and Latin, and he was named distinguished alumnus of the year (2006) at University of California, Santa Cruz.[4] He has been a visiting professor of classics at Stanford University (1991–92), a National Endowment for the Humanities fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, California (1992–93), an Alexander Onassistraveling fellowship to Greece (1999), as well as Nimitz Fellow at UC Berkeley (2006) and held the visiting Shifrin Chair of Military History at the U.S. Naval AcademyAnnapolis, Maryland (2002–03), and often the William Simon visiting professorship at the School of Public Policy at Pepperdine University (2009–15), and was awarded in 2015 an Honorary Doctorate of Laws from the graduate school at Pepperdine. He gave the Wriston Lecture in 2004 for the Manhattan Institute. He has been a board member of the Bradley Foundationsince 2015, and served on the HF Guggenheim Foundation board for over a decade.

Since 2004, Hanson has written a weekly column syndicated by Tribune Content Agency,[5] as well as a weekly column for National Review Online since 2001, and has not missed a weekly column for either venue since he began. He has been published in The New York TimesWall Street JournalThe Times Literary SupplementThe Daily TelegraphAmerican Heritage, and The New Criterion, among other publications. He was awarded the National Humanities Medal (2007) by President George W. Bush, as well as the Eric Breindel Prize for opinion journalism (2002), and the William F. Buckley Prize (2015). Hanson was also awarded the Claremont Institute’s Statesmanship Award at its annual Churchill Dinner, and the Bradley Prize from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in 2008.[4]

Writing

Hanson’s Warfare and Agriculture (Giardini 1983), his PhD thesis, argued that Greek warfare could not be understood apart from agrarian life in general, and suggested that the modern assumption that agriculture was irrevocably harmed during classical wars was vastly overestimated. The Western Way of War (Alfred Knopf 1989), for which John Keegan wrote the introduction, explored the combatants’ experiences of ancient Greek battle and detailed the Hellenic foundations of later Western military practice.

The Other Greeks (The Free Press 1995) argued that the emergence of a unique middling agrarian class explains the ascendance of the Greek city-state, and its singular values of consensual government, sanctity of private property, civic militarism and individualism. In Fields Without Dreams (The Free Press 1996, winner of the Bay Area Book Reviewers Award) and The Land Was Everything (The Free Press 2000, a Los Angeles Times notable book of the year), Hanson lamented the decline of family farming and rural communities, and the loss of agrarian voices in American democracy. The Soul of Battle (The Free Press 1999) traced the careers of Epaminondas, the Theban liberator, William Tecumseh Sherman, and George S. Patton, in arguing that democratic warfare’s strengths are best illustrated in short, intense and spirited marches to promote consensual rule, but bog down otherwise during long occupations or more conventional static battle.

In Mexifornia (Encounter 2003)—a personal memoir about growing up in rural California and an account of immigration from Mexico—Hanson predicted that illegal immigration would soon reach crisis proportions, unless legal, measured, and diverse immigration was restored, as well as the traditional melting-pot values of integration, assimilation, and intermarriage.

Ripples of Battle (Doubleday 2003) chronicled how the cauldron of battle affects combatants’ later literary and artistic work, as its larger influence ripples for generations, affecting art, literature, culture, and government. In A War Like No Other (Random House 2005, a New York Times notable book of the year), a history of the Peloponnesian War, Hanson offered an alternative history, arranged by methods of fighting—triremes, hoplites, cavalry, sieges, etc.) in concluding that the conflict marked a brutal watershed event for the Greek city-states. The Savior Generals (Bloomsbury 2013) followed the careers of five great generals, arguing that rare qualities in leadership emerge during hopeless predicaments that only rare individuals can salvage.

The End of Sparta (Bloomsbury 2011) is a novel about a small community of Thespian farmers who join the great march of Epaminondas (369/70 BC) into the heart of the Peloponnese to destroy Spartan hegemony, free the Messenian helots, and spread democracy in the Peloponnese.

In addition, Hanson has edited several collected essays (Hoplites, Routledge 1991), Bonfire of the Humanities (with B. Thornton and J. Heath, ISI 2001), and Makers of Ancient Strategy (Princeton 2010), as well as a number of his own collected articles (An Autumn of War [2002 Anchor], Between War and Peace [Anchor 2004], and The Father of Us All [Bloomsbury 2010]). He has written a number of chapters for scholarly works such as the Cambridge History of War, and the Cambridge History of Ancient Warfare.

Carnage and Culture

Hanson is the author of the 2001 book Carnage and Culture (Doubleday), published in Great Britain and the Commonwealth countries as Why the West Has Won, in which he argued that the military dominance of Western civilization, beginning with the ancient Greeks, results from certain fundamental aspects of Western culture, such as consensual government, a tradition of self-critique, secular rationalism, religious tolerance, individual freedom, free expression, free markets, and individualism. Hanson’s emphasis on cultural exception rejects racial explanations for Western military preeminence and disagrees as well with environmental or geographical determinist explanations such as those put forth by Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel (1997).[6]

According to Hanson, Western values such as political freedomcapitalismindividualismdemocracyscientific inquiryrationalism, and open debate form an especially lethal combination when applied to warfare. Non-Western societies can win occasional victories when warring against a society with these Western values, writes Hanson, but the “Western way of war” will likely prevail in the long run. Hanson emphasizes that Western warfare is not necessarily more (or less) moral than war as practiced by other cultures; his argument is simply that the “Western way of war” is unequaled in its emphases on devastation and decisiveness, fueled by superior technology and logistics.

Carnage and Culture examines nine battles throughout history, each of which is used to illustrate a particular aspect of Western culture that Hanson believes contributes to the dominance of Western warfare. The battles or campaigns recounted (with themes in parenthesis) are the Battle of Salamis (480 BC; free citizens), the Battle of Gaugamela (331 BC; the decisive battle of annihilation), the Battle of Cannae (216 BC; civic militarism), the Battle of Tours/Poitiers (732; infantry), the Battle of Tenochtitlan (1521; technology and reason), the Battle of Lepanto (1571; capitalism), the Battle of Rorke’s Drift (1879; discipline), the Battle of Midway (1942; individualism), and the Tet Offensive (1968; dissent).

Though Carnage and Culture appeared before the September 11 attacks of 2001, its message that the “Western way of war” will ultimately prevail made the book a bestseller in the wake of those events. Immediately after 9/11, Carnage and Culture was re-issued with a new afterword by Hanson in which he explicitly stated that the United States government would win its “War on Terror” for the reasons stated in the book.

The American military officer Robert Bateman in a 2007 article on the Media Matters for America website criticized the Hanson thesis, arguing if Hanson’s point about Western armies preferring to seek out a decisive battle of annihilation is rebutted by the Second Punic War, where the Roman attempts to annihilate the Carthaginians instead led to the Carthaginians annihilating the Romans at the Battle of Cannae.[7] Bateman argued that Hanson was wrong about Western armies’ common preferences in seeking out a battle of annihilation, arguing that the Romans only defeated the Carthaginians via the Fabian Strategy of keeping their armies in being and not engaging Hannibal in battle.[7] In his first response, Hanson argued that Bateman was engaged in a “puerile, politically correct” attack on him, and accused Bateman of being motivated by current left-wing politics rather a genuine interest in history.[8] In a second response, Hanson called Bateman’s use of personal, adolescent invectives such as “pervert”, “feces”, and “devil”, as unprofessional and “unhinged”, and had no role in scholarly disagreements, accusing Bateman of being poorly informed of history and geography, as well as engaging in conduct unbecoming a U.S. Army officer.[9] Hanson declared that Bateman was incorrect about the Battle of Yarmoukarguing that the Golan Heights were at the edge of the Eastern Roman Empire, instead of being in the center as Bateman argued, and claimed that the Romans lost because of divided leadership rather than as a result of superior Islamic generalship as Bateman had contended.[9]

In his final responses, Hanson argued that Bateman was unfamiliar with any foreign language, did not understand the practice of translation or scholarly citation, and was utterly confused by basic issues of geography and history.

United States education and classical studies

Hanson co-authored the book Who Killed Homer?: The Demise of Classical Education and the Recovery of Greek Wisdom with John Heath. This book explores the issue of how classical education has declined in the US and what might be done to restore it to its former prominence. This is important, according to Hanson and Heath, because knowledge of the classical Greeks and Romans is necessary to fully understand Western culture. To begin a discussion along these lines the authors state, “The answer to why the world is becoming Westernized goes all the way back to the wisdom of the Greeks—reason enough why we must not abandon the study of our heritage”.[10]

Hanson and Heath, in their populist argument for a return to undergraduate teaching, fault the academic classicists themselves for the decline, accusing them of becoming so infected with political correctness and postmodern thinking, not to mention egoism and money-grubbing (grants, visiting professorships, conference-hopping, promotion based on unreadable publications), that they have lost sight of what Hanson and Heath feel the classics truly represent. They say it this way, “the study of Greek in the last twenty years became a profession, a tiny world—but a world of sorts nonetheless—of jets, conferences, publicity, jargon, and perks.”[11]

The political scientist Francis Fukuyama, reviewing Who Killed Homer? favorably in Foreign Affairs, noted,

The classicists Victoria Cech and Joy Connolly have found Who Killed Homer? to have considerable pitfalls. Reviews of the book have noted several problems with the authors’ perception of classical culture.

Per Victoria Cech, Director of Grants & Program Development,[13]

Per Joy Connolly, Professor of Classics at New York University,[15]

Political views

Hanson is a traditional conservative who voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 and 2004 elections.[17]

He has been described as a neoconservative by some commentators, for his support of maintaining U.S. troops to rebuild society after successful military interventions,[18][19] and has stated, “I came to support neocon approaches first in the wars against the Taliban and Saddam, largely because I saw little alternative.”[20] In 2005, Hanson wrote of why he did not find the Democratic Party populist or reflective of its prior concerns: “The Democratic Party reminds me of the Republicans circa 1965 or so—impotent, shrill, no ideas, conspiratorial, reactive, out-of-touch with most Americans, isolationist, and full of embarrassing spokesmen.”[21]

More recently, Hanson has appeared to reject the term neoconservative, writing in a 2016 column “Hillary’s Neoliberals” that the term neoconservative was coined in the 1970s to describe liberals who moved right on social issues and on maintaining deterrence during the Cold War.[22] Hanson has critiqued the decision of several neoconservatives to declare their support for Hillary Clinton as preferable to Donald Trump on grounds that Clinton has a long history of abuse of office, and is mired in scandal over violations of national security statutes as well as influence peddling between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department. Hanson has attacked these neoconservatives as “neoliberals” who were never entirely proper conservative, arguing that these people had joined the Republican Party out of distaste for the Democratic Party, which had nominated as the presidential candidates George McGovern in 1972 and Jimmy Carter in 1976 as opposed to converting to conservatism.[22] Hanson ended his column that there were now two emerging factions in America—the proverbial ordinary Americans supporting Trump vs. the elites of both the Democratic and Republican parties supporting Clinton.[22] Hanson wrote: “A mostly urban, highly educated, and high-income globalized elite often shares more cultural and political affinities with their counterparts on the other side of the aisle than they do with the lower-middle and working classes of their own parties. Just as Hillary Clinton may feel more comfortable with the old neoconservatives, Trump supporters have little in common with either Clintonites or neocons. Clinton versus Trump is a war of NPRCBS, and the New York Times against the National Enquirerconservative talk radio, and the Drudge Report. Clinton supporters such as former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, onetime Bush officials Hank Paulsonand Brent Scowcroft, and billionaire Meg Whitman certainly have nothing in common with Republican Trump supporters such as Mike Huckabee and Rush Limbaugh. Culture, not just politics, is rapidly destroying—but also rebuilding—traditional political parties.”[22]

Hanson was a defender of George W. Bush and his policies,[23] especially the Iraq War.[24] He was also a vocal supporter of Bush’s Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Hanson wrote of Rumsfeld that he was: “a rare sort of secretary of the caliber of George Marshall” and a “proud and honest-speaking visionary” whose “hard work and insight are bringing us ever closer to victory”.[25]

On the issues pertaining to the constant political turmoil in the Middle East, Hanson emphasizes the lack of individual and political freedom, as well as transparency and self-critique, in many Middle Eastern nations as a major factor retarding economic, technological and cultural progress. He further relates the root cause of radical Islamic terrorism to insecurities resulting from a failure to achieve parity with the West, and a reactionary need to regain honor and pride.[26]

Iraq War

Hanson believed that the Iraq War, given the repeated serial violations by Iraq of UN sanctions, congressional mandates, and the threats that Saddam Hussein posed, in a post-9/11 climate, to the long-term security of the Middle East, was a necessary and worthwhile undertaking—and was, after a flawed occupation, eventually a laudable success that had led to a workable government in 2009 and relative calm in Iraq: analogous to the foundations of the successful American occupation of South Korea in the latter 1950s that led to the democratic society of today. However, he stated in 2008 that he, “… disagreed with many of the decisions made about the Iraq war,” such as the dissolution of the old Iraqi army.[20]

Hanson argued that the “surge” of 2007 had largely won the Iraq War by the beginning of 2009, and that rise of the Islamic State terrorist group which seized control of much of Iraq in mid-2014 was the result of what Hanson sees as the unwise withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq in December 2011, which he blames on the Obama administration.[27] Hanson argued that if only American troops had stayed in Iraq after December 2011, then the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki would have been less sectarian and the Islamic State group would have never emerged.[28] Hanson argued that the December 2011 withdrawal from Iraq was motivated to help improve Obama’s chances of reelection in 2012, an act that he compared to being equivalent to the United States pulling its troops out of South Korea in 1955, arguing if only the Americans had stayed in Iraq, then that nation would have evolved into a Near Eastern version of South Korea.[29]

The U.S. and the world

In 2004, Hanson gave a mostly favorable review to the book Colossus by the British historian Niall Ferguson, where Ferguson argued that the United States should be an imperial power in the sense of preserving the post war order of global free trade, communications, and commerce, and the principal problem with Americans was that they were unwilling to embrace global leadership in the same way that people in 19th century Britain did.[30] Hanson found much to approve of in Ferguson’s book, writing: “In reality, we should be natural imperialists, given our wealth and expertise. Americans are also endowed with an exceptional moral sense. We are a generous people, whose checkered imperial interventions in the past rarely proved profitable or exploitive.”[30] Hanson agreed with Ferguson that the principal problem with Americans was an unease at playing the role of an imperialistic power, argued that post-1945 histories of Germany and Japan proved the beneficial results of American occupation and predicted that Iraq under American occupation would become just as much a prosperous and democratic society as Germany and Japan are.[30] Hanson praised Ferguson for his defense of the British Empire as a benevolent force and his thesis that the United States should play the same role in the world as the British Empire, writing: “Does Ferguson propose a new American liberal empire? In fact, he does almost, but not before noting that the British Victorians themselves got a bad rap as exploitive colonialists. In fact, the record of the 18th and 19th centuries prove exactly the opposite: Former and once-prosperous colonies, following autonomy, quickly turned into self-induced miseries, while Britain itself thrived as never before once free of these costly obligations. Empire turns out not to be a means of making money, but instead an idealist pursuit to keep sea lanes open, bullies at bay and nations trading rather than fighting. The world has been lucky to have the Americans fill this vacuum, inasmuch as the British once did a pretty good job of it as well.”[30] Hanson, well before the immigration and financial crises of the EU, also praised Ferguson for his very negative picture of the European Union as being both “busy triangulating with our enemies” and “running huge trade deficits with us as we supply their own security needs.” He appears to agree with Ferguson that Europe is undemocratic, and statist, but that with a population in decline and even worse entitlement overspending than the U.S., a more broken melting pot, and socialist response to these issues ensuring Europe will be unable generate the unity or idealism required to supplant the U.S.[30]

Israeli–Arab conflict

In his article Israel did it, Hanson asked why Israel, during the 2006 Lebanon war, was being blamed for responding to attacks by Hezbollah.[31] Hanson was critical of the Middle East policies of the administration of Barack Obama and accused the Obama administration of distancing itself from Israel, despite its exceptional position as a tolerant Western nation in the Middle East, and of preferring the Palestinian Authority and Hamas despite their being anti-Western.[32]

Race relations

Hanson has often argued that in a 21st-century multiracial America there is little overt racism on the part of whites, and that generic complaints of racism too often are automatic from an often privileged African-American elite that uses such charges of racism to advance careerist concerns not often synonymous with those in the inner city.[33] In reference to the Gates affair in which the Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates was arrested in his home when a white policeman responded to a report of a possible break-in, Hanson argued that the policeman’s actions were understandable given that “… African-American males commit crimes at rates both higher than the general population’s, and at levels higher than other minority groups that likewise struggle with poverty and systemic unfairness.”[34]

In a 2012 column titled “The New Racial Derangement Syndrome”, Hanson argued again that class considerations now more often trump racial differences, and that racism in modern America is not confined to any one particular group, citing various statements by prominent African-Americans such as Morgan FreemanSamuel L. JacksonJamie FoxxChris Rock and Rob Parker that he saw as racially chauvinistic and often blatantly anti-white, and thus as signs of a new “racialist derangement” sweeping across black America that had set back considerable progress in making racial considerations prior to 2009 incidental rather than essential to an American citizen’s identity.[35] In a 2015 column titled “The Weariness of the Whiners”, Hanson illustrated the paradoxes of race and class, by citing the talk show hostess Oprah Winfrey‘s claim that she was a victim of racism when a clerk at the Trois Pommes boutique refused to show a $38,000 handbag to her.[33] In a 2016 column, “The New Segregationism”, Hanson lamented growing racial polarization, mostly on the part of elites who take refuge in racial chauvinism when their own careerist concerns are unmet. He used as an example of what he sees as the unlikelihood of the claim that there is anti-black racism in modern America in the complaint by the actor Will Smith that he was not nominated for an Oscar.[36]

Hanson has been critical of the group Black Lives Matter, which he maintains is a group based on “racial chauvinism” and “whining” which has told a “series of lies”—beginning with the “hands up don’t shoot” untruth in the Ferguson shooting of Michael Brown—about the supposedly statistically-proven epidemic of police killings of black men, the majority of which Hanson argued were found to be justified on the basis of current police practice and protocols.[37] Hanson claimed that responsibility for declining racial relations often rested with Barack Obama, whom Hanson suggested had deliberately inflamed racial tensions between whites and blacks, with a series of gratuitous and racially charged commentaries, dating from the 2008 campaign to editorializing about the Trayvon Martin killing case, as a way of securing the votes of black Americans for the Democrats.[38] Hanson faulted Obama for having “…systematically adopted a rhetoric and an agenda that is predicated on dividing up the country according to tribal grievances, in hopes of recalibrating various factions into a majority grievance culture. In large part, he has succeeded politically. But in doing so he has nearly torn the country apart. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to suggest that no other recent president has offered such a level of polarizing and divisive racial bombast.”[39]

Hanson has also been consistently critical of unchecked and unmonitored illegal immigration into the United States from Mexico and the Central American republics, which he sees as threatening to overwhelm the United States with millions of Spanish-speakers who make assimilation difficult and some of whom he charges have criminal records and do not establish a record of work history. In a 2014 column “1984 Redux: Orwellian Illegal Immigration” Hanson wrote that Hispanic groups that use the name La Raza are racialists who have “hijacked” America’s immigration policy to permit non-diverse, illegal, and unrestricted illegal immigration into the United States to further demographically-based political agendas, and who have made often false claims of suffering continual racial prejudice from a supposed prejudiced white majority, while arguing that Latinos as members of La Raza should keep themselves separate from the rest of Americans.[40] Hanson has condemned groups such as the National Council of La Raza as he argued that term La Raza has an unfortunate history as a “racialist term,” whose origins he claims go back to Francoist Spain of Francisco Franco and Benito Mussolini‘s fascist Italy, and those Mexican-American leaders who self-identify with the Francoist term La Raza are themselves guilty of operating as racial separatists.[41] In this regard, Hanson has voiced qualified support for Donald Trump‘s plans to deport illegal immigrants from the United States, after offering a chance for green card residence to those who were vetted and found to have no criminal record, no history of public support, and residence of some duration. Blanket deportation policy, Hanson argued, would be as “unworkable”, as is the present open-borders status quo.[42]

Hanson is also opposed to the unvetted, and often illegal mass influx of mostly young male refugees from the war-torn Middle East into Europe, alluding to the resulting tensions in EU society by using premodern/postmodern allusions to H.G. Well’s 1895 novel The Time Machine that the millions of Muslims fleeing to Europe are the “Morlocks” (i.e. a fierce underclass) who will devour the Europeans who are “Eloi” (i.e. largely defenseless and overly refined creatures).[43] Hanson wrote that: “Europe’s immigration policy is a disaster—and for reasons that transcend the idiocy of allowing the free influx of young male Muslims from a premodern, war-torn Middle East into a postmodern, pacifist, and post-Christian Europe.”[43] Hanson has called the German Chancellor Angela Merkel “unhinged” for welcoming about a million refugees fleeing from the Syrian Civil War into her nation without plans to assimilate or integrate such numbers, instead of sending them to their countries of origin. Hanson has denied that all Syrians fleeing into Europe are refugees from the civil war, writing that uncharacteristically most refugees are “…young, single men from the Middle East who pour into Europe not as political refugees but as opportunists eager for European social largesse”.[44] Hanson wrote “Merkel’s disastrous decision to open the borders of Germany—and with them Europe’s as well—is proving both selfish and suicidal.”[44] Wether Hanson was talking about the continued uninterrupted traveling within the Schengen Area or the lack of enforcement of the external European Union border was unclear.

Along the same lines, Hanson has argued that history proves that multi-cultural societies have too often proved disastrous failures, and that only way of preventing a society from collapsing into tribal bloodbaths is a “common culture, one that artificially suppresses the natural instinct of humans to identify first with their particular tribe”.[39] As an example of what he sees as a law of history, Hanson wrote: “The Italian Roman Republic lasted about 500 years. In contrast, the multiracial Roman Empire that after the Edict of Caracalla in AD 212 made all its diverse peoples equal citizens endured little more than two (often violent) centuries.”[45] Along the same lines Hanson wrote in the 2016 column “Diversity: History’s Pathway to Chaos” that: “Emphasizing diversity has been the pitfall, not the strength, of nations throughout history”.[46] Hanson charged that the current celebration of diversity was destroying America and ended with the statement if the celebration of diversity did not end: “Otherwise, we will end up as 50 separate and rival nations—just like other failed states in history whose diverse tribes and races destroyed themselves in a Hobbesian dog-eat-dog war with one another.”[46] In a 2013 column titled “Western Cultural Suicide”, Hanson wrote: “Multiculturalism—as opposed to the notion of a multiracial society united by a single culture—has become an abject contradiction in the modern Western world… Western hosts lost confidence in the very society that gives us the wealth and leisure to ignore or caricature its foundations. The result is that millions of immigrants flock to the West, enjoy its material security, and yet feel little need to bond with their adopted culture, given that their hosts themselves are ambiguous about what others desperately seek out.”[47]

Writing about the murder of a British soldier by two Nigerian Muslims on the streets of London in May 2013, Hanson wrote the murder reflected what he viewed as cultural decline, stating: “In Britain, as in the West in general, deportation is a fossilized concept. Unity is passé. Patriotism is long suspect. The hip metrosexual cultures of the urban West strain to find fault in their inheritance, and seem to appreciate those who do that in the most cool fashion—but always with the expectation that there will be some poor blokes who, in terms of clean water, medical care, free speech, and dependable electricity, ensure that London is not Lagos, that Stockholm is not Damascus, and that Los Angeles is not Nuevo Laredo.”[47] Through acknowledging that in the early years of the American republic that to be American was to be white, Hanson argued that the “ultimate logic” of the American constitution led to the United States becoming a society where “multiracialism under one common culture” was the norm, but unfortunately in the late 20th century “multiculturalism, in which each particular ethnic group retained its tribal chauvinism and saw itself as separate from the whole” become the new norm.[45]

In July 2013, the Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech when he mentioned that as a black man the need to deliver “the Talk” to his children, namely he would have to inform his children that some, mostly white people who were going to hate them not because what they did, but simply because of their skin color. In response to Holder’s speech, Hanson wrote a column titled “Facing Facts about Race” where he offered up his own version (and others’) of “the Talk”, namely the need to inform his children to be careful of young black men when venturing into the inner city, who Hanson argued were statistically more likely to commit violent crimes than young men of other races, and that therefore it was understandable for the police to focus on groups with the highest statistical crime rates, which turn out to be young black males.[48]

Hanson wrote his father once had been robbed by young black men, and had given him “the Talk” warning his son to exercise caution in known crime-ridden areas and to note that African-American male youth have a far higher incidence of assault than other groups; and Hanson added that having been robbed himself by black men, he had given “the Talk” warning his children to avoid situations when in dangerous areas and to exercise caution there when encountering groups of young African-American men when alone, whom Hanson argue were statistically more likely to have had criminal records.[48] Hanson therefore criticized Holder and Obama for suggesting that racism may have been a factor in the trial of Hispanic George Zimmerman who had been charged and acquitted of murder with the shooting death of Trayvon Martin—and especially for intruding in an ongoing criminal case before a jury had even been selected.[48] Hanson argued that Zimmerman was later found by a jury of his peers to be justified in shooting Martin in self-defense, and he suggested that Obama was alluding to racism being a factor in the case, to distract attention from his then unpopular presidency.[48]

Referring to the concurrent case at the time of two Vietnamese-Americans killed by a black convicted felon, Hanson wrote: “The world will long remember Trayvon Martin, but few people—and certainly not Barack Obama or Eric Holder, who have a bad habit, in an increasingly multiracial country, of claiming solidarity on the basis of race—will care that Khin Min and Lina Lim were torn to pieces by bullets and a knife. Few will care that they died in a vicious assault that had nothing to do with stereotyping, Stand Your Ground self-defense, weak gun laws, insufficient federal civil-rights legislation, or any of the other causes of interracial violence falsely advanced by the attorney general—but quite a lot to do with an urban culture that for unspoken reasons has spawned an epidemic of disproportionate violent crime on the part of young African-American males.”[48]

Criticism for his views on race relations

In response to “Facing Facts About Race”, the American writer Ta-Nehisi Coates accused Hanson of racism and stupidity.[49] Referring to Hanson’s “Talk”, Coates wrote: “Let us be direct—in any other context we would automatically recognize this “talk” as stupid advice. If I were to tell you that I only employ Asian-Americans to do my taxes because “Asian-Americans do better on the Math SAT,” you would not simply question my sensitivity, but my mental faculties. That is because you would understand that in making an individual decision, employing an ancestral class of millions is not very intelligent. Moreover, were I to tell you I wanted my son to marry a Jewish woman because “Jews are really successful,” you would understand that statement for the stupidity which it is … There is no difference between my argument above and the notion that black boys should be avoided because they are overrepresented in the violent crime stats. But one of the effects of racism is its tendency to justify stupidity.”[49]

The Anglo-American journalist Andrew Sullivan called Hanson’s column “spectacularly stupid”, writing: “Treating random strangers as inherently dangerous because of their age, gender and skin color is a choice to champion fear over reason, a decision to embrace easy racism over any attempt to overcome it”.[50] The American journalist Arthur Stern called “Facing Facts About Race” an “inflammatory” column based upon crime statistics that Hanson never cited, writing: “His presentation of this controversial opinion as undeniable fact without exhaustive statistical proof is undeniably racist.”[51] The Anglo-American journalist Kelefa Sanneh in response to “Facing Facts About Race” wrote that Hanson was wrong to claim that white and Asian-Americans were all victims of black criminals, writing: “It’s strange, then, to read Hanson writing as if the fear of violent crime were mainly a “white or Asian” problem, about which African-Americans might be uninformed, or unconcerned—as if African-American parents weren’t already giving their children more detailed and nuanced versions of Hanson’s “sermon,” sharing his earnest and absurd hope that the right words might keep trouble at bay.”[52]

The Anglo-American journalist John Derbyshire, who was fired from the National Review for writing a similar column in 2012 titled “The Talk: Nonblack Version”, came to Hanson’s defense, praising him for “spot-on observations” about race relations in modern America, through he argued that his column was much superior.[53] In “The Talk: Nonblack Version”, Derbyshire, who had earlier been criticized by Hanson on his advocacy for racial stereotyping well beyond the context of traveling in high crime areas, went well beyond what Hanson had advocated, telling his children not to live in cities with black mayors, never to help a black person in distress, to avoid all public gatherings with large numbers of black people and only have a few black people as friends to avoid allegations of prejudice.[54]Contra Coates, Derbyshire argued in support of Hanson that the best way to avoid being a victim of crime was: “..stay well clear of crowds of unfamiliar blacks. Might application of those rules leave someone with hurt feelings? Probably. So in this pan we have some stranger’s hurt feelings. In the other pan, we have our kids’ safety. What’s the beam doing, Ta-Nehisi?”.[53] Hanson in response to Sanneh’s essay accused him of a “McCarthyite character assassination” and “infantile, if not racialist, logic”.[55]

Confrontation with Iran

Hanson has argued that the U.S. may be forced to take a much more confrontational stance towards Iranian violation of prior nuclear enrichment prohibitions, advocating, if necessary, unilateral responses to the country should it continue its aggressive acts of war. On the Hugh Hewitt show in August 2007, Hanson stated, “We really need to start doing some things beyond talking, and if that is going into Iranian airspace, or buzzing Iranians, or even starting to forget where the border is and taking out some of these training camps, we need to do that and send a message, because they’re a paper tiger. They really are.”[56] In a 2014 column Hanson faulted the Obama administration for engaging in “appeasement” of Iran and of fruitlessly attempting to negotiate an end to the Iranian program to acquire nuclear weapons, predicating if Iran continued enrichment unchecked that: “Accordingly, it is more than likely that in the next two years Iran will become a nuclear power.”[57] As of November 2018, Iran is still not a nuclear power.

China

Hanson has argued that China is an increasingly aggressive power that is set upon eventually dominating East Asia. In a 2014 column titled “Is China copying the Old Imperial Japan?”, Hanson answered his question in the affirmative.[58] Hanson maintained that economically successful Asian nations without the deterrent power of the United States are naturally inclined to expansionism.[58] Hanson claimed that Japan, as a result of late nineteenth-century Meiji era reforms, had become powerful at the same time the United States had temporarily retreated into isolationism which allowed Japan to embark upon an imperialistic foreign policy; that the same thing was happening today with China and the United States under the leadership of Barack Obama.[58] Along these lines, Hanson has cited China for attempting to create its version of “Greater East Asia co-prosperity sphere”, which would incorporate all of East Asia.[59]

Russia

Hanson repeatedly accused President Barack Obama of engaging in “appeasement” of Russia. Hanson argues that Vladimir Putin is the embodiment of “eternal Russia”, an aggressively expansionist and anti-Western nation whose people are innately anti-democratic. In a 2012 column titled “History Never Quite Ends”, Hanson wrote: “From the czars to the Soviet Communists to Vladimir Putin’s cronies, there is something about constitutional government and liberal rule that bothers Mother Russia. The more that progressive outsiders seek to lecture or reform Russians, the more likely they are to bristle and push back with left-wing or right-wing nationalist strongmen. At present, we do not know whether there will be a Czar Vladimir, Comrade Putin, or Putin Inc. in charge, but we fear it does not matter much”.[60] Hanson depicts modern Russia in unflattering terms as “…a disaster of a declining population, corruption, authoritarianism, a warped economy, and a high rate of alcoholism.”[61] Precisely because Russia is so weak, Hanson claims that Putin is driven to aggression against his neighbors with the overwhelmingly support of the Russian people out of a sense of hurt pride and a desire to make Russia great again.[61] In 2014, Hanson called Putin “evil”, writing: “Putin is almost Milton’s Satan—as if, in his seductive evil, he yearns for clarity, perhaps even a smackdown, if not just for himself, for us as well. He is not the better man than Obama but, again like Milton’s Satan, the more interesting, if only because he reminds of us of our own limitations.”[62] In a 2015 column, Hanson wrote about what he views as the aims of Russian foreign policy that:

Hanson stated that Obama’s much heralded “reset” of relations with Russia in 2009 had “empowered” Putin and, in this way, Obama was responsible for the outbreak of the war in Ukraine in 2014.[28][62][63][64] In 2009, Hanson wrote about the “reset”: “…former Soviet republics understand that Russia’s Putin has a de facto green light to “readjust” their present-day, “ad hoc” borders—with President Obama about as clear on any future dispute as candidate Obama was about Georgia.”[65] In 2014, Hanson predicted that Russia might very well invade Estonia in the near future, stating: “Future targeted states, perhaps like Estonia, should understand that they are slated to play the 1939 role of Poland after the earlier Anschluss and dismemberment of Czechoslovakia.”[66] In 2014, Hanson predicted that the Russian-dominated Eurasian Economic Union, which Hanson calls the “Russian Union” would continue to grow, writing: “Soon the Russian Union could dwarf the European Union, as the former consolidates and the latter threatens to fragment.”[67]

In 2015, Hanson wrote:

In another 2015 column, Hanson wrote about he sees as Putin’s mindset that:

Hanson is opposed to the Russian intervention in the Syrian civil war, which he argues is a part of a bid by Putin to construct an anti-American Russian-Syrian-Iranian-Iraqi alliance that will dominate the Middle East and intimidate the Gulf states.[70] Hanson has made the claim that the primary responsibility for the outbreak of the Second World War was not due to Adolf Hitler, but was rather due to the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and the French Premier Édouard Daladier who failed to maintain credible threats of deterrence.[71] Hanson has argued Obama has likewise failed to maintain a credible threat of deterrence, and as such, the world is on the verge of another war comparable to the Second World War.[71] Hanson has predicted that Putin will sometime in the near-future invade one or more of the Baltic states if the United States does not provide more deterrence to Russia.[72]

In 2017, Hanson wrote about the Russia–United States relations:

Works

References …

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Davis_Hanson

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

March 12, 2018, Story 1: President Trump Unloads on Big Lie Media and Lying Lunatic Left Losers — Keep America Great! — Videos — Story 2: Case Closed: Absolutely No Evidence of Collusion of Trump or Cinton Campaign With Russians — Obama and Clinton Democratic Conspiracy and Destruction of Democratic Party — Video

Posted on March 12, 2018. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, Business, Communications, Congress, conservatives, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Culture, Documentary, Economics, Education, Elections, Essays, Faith, Family, Farming, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, history, Illegal, Immigration, Investments, Islam, Journalism, Language, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Missiles, Money, Natural Gas, Newspapers, Non-Fiction, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Politics, Press, Psychology, Radio, Radio, Rants, Raves, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Religious, Resources, Rifles, Speech, Spying, Strategy, Success, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Television, Video, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Weather, Welfare, Wisdom, Work, World War II, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

See the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

Story 1: President Trump Unloads on Big Lie Media and Lying Lunatic Left Losers — Videos —

Trump calls Chuck Todd ‘sleeping son of a bitch’

Trump veers off script with insults about Democrats

Full video: Trump rallies for Saccone in final days before Pennsylvania special election

After the Show Show: Keep America Great!

Tariffs and North Korea agreement: A good week for Trump?

Flashback: Donald Trump Says He’d ‘Negotiate Like Crazy’ With North Korea | NBC News

What Trump said about North Korean nukes in 1999

2000s: ‘Apprentice’ Helps Donald Trump Finally Launch A White House Bid | NBC News

1990s: After Bankruptcies, Donald Trump Goes From Building To Branding | NBC News

1980s: How Donald Trump Created Donald Trump | NBC News

Donald Trump on Late Night, 1986-87

Weekend Update on Kim Jong-un Meeting with Donald Trump – SNL

Understanding Donald Trump

Victor D Hanson; Explains Perfectly how Trump pulled off the biggest Upset in Presidential History

Victor Davis Hanson on grand strategy, immigration, and the 2016 presidential election

Victor D. Hanson: The Media Hysteria over Trump | and the Reality

Victor Davis Hanson – The Wind Behind Trump

Victor Davis Hanson – Revolt of the Forgotten Masses

Victor Davis Hanson’s brilliant analysis of never-Trump

 

Story 2: Absolutely No Evidence of Collusion of Trump or Cinton Campaign With Russians — Obama and Clinton Democratic Conspiracy and Destruction of Democratic Party — Video

House Intelligence Committee ends Russia probe interviews

The Situation Room w/ Wolf Blitzer 03/12/18| House GOP ending Russia probe, says no collusion found

Adam Schiff Used Debunked ‘Dirty Dossier’ to LEAK Fake News to Media

Tucker: Russian collusion proof points to Dems, not Trump

Tucker Carlson Tonight (Mar 12, 2018) – Fox News

Clinton Foundation is a criminal enterprise: Judge Napolitano

Victor D Hanson Explains The Complete Corruption of the Obama Administration helped Sabotage Hillary

Victor Davis Hanson: the “Great” Lie about Trump’s Connection with Russia

Victor Davis Hanson: The Hypocrisy of the Left over Equality

How the Obama Precedent Empowered Trump

Historian Victor Davis Hanson: Obama’s Incompetence To Blame For Putin’s Aggression

Victor Davis Hanson on Obama and the current administartion

House Republicans say probe found no evidence of collusion between Trump, Russia

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – House Intelligence Committee Republicans said on Monday the panel had finished conducting interviews in its investigation of Russia and the 2016 U.S. election, and found no collusion between President Donald Trump’s associates and Moscow’s efforts to influence the campaign.

“We have found no evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians,” committee Republicans said as they released an overview of their probe.

Representative Mike Conaway, who has led the panel’s investigation, said the panel had finished the interview phase of its probe.

“You never know what you never know, but we found no reason to think that there’s something we’re missing in this regard. We’ve talked to everybody we think we need to talk to,” Conaway said in an interview on Fox News Channel.

Committee Democrats had no immediate response to the announcement, which was expected. Panel Republicans have been saying for weeks they were near the end of the interview phase of the probe.

Reflecting a deep partisan divide on the House of Representatives panel, Democrats have been arguing that the probe is far from over. Representative Adam Schiff, the panel’s ranking Democrat, said last week that there were dozens more witnesses who should be called before the panel, and many more documents that should be subpoenaed.

Democrats have accused Republicans on the committee of shirking the investigation in order to protect Trump and his associates, some of whom have pleaded guilty to charges including lying to investigators and conspiring against the United States.

Trump has repeatedly denied collusion between his associates and Russia.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Claire Berlinski–Why Margaret Thatcher Matters: “There Is No Alternative”–Videos

Posted on October 1, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Communications, Culture, Education, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Raves, Religion, Reviews, Security, Strategy, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Thatcher & More with Claire Berlinski: Chapter 1 of 5

Thatcher & More with Claire Berlinski: Chapter 2 of 5

Thatcher & More with Claire Berlinski: Chapter 3 of 5

Thatcher & More with Claire Berlinski: Chapter 4 of 5

Thatcher & More with Claire Berlinski: Chapter 5 of 5

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=YTdkOGQ2NzFiZGM4YWI3NGVkOGJkNDUzMDk0NmEyNDg=

Margaret Thatcher–Videos

The Political Assassination of Margaret Thatcher

Book TV: Claire Berlinski, “There Is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters”

Background Articles and Videos

Margaret Thatcher’s Election Victory (1979)

Margaret Thatcher BBC Panorama 1987 Pt 1

The Political Assassination of Margaret Thatcher

The Stepping Stones Report

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/5B6518B5823043FE9D7C54846CC7FE31.pdf

War and History, Ancient and Modern

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Margaret Thatcher–Videos

Books

Fouad Ajami–The Foreigner’s Gift–Videos

Michael Barone–Our First Revolution–Videos

Allan Bloom–The Closing of The American Mind–Videos

Philip Bobbitt–Terror and Consent–Videos

Patrick J. Buchanan–Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War–Videos

Ron Chernow–Alexander Hamilton–Videos

Dinesh D’Souza–The Enemy At Home–Videos

Dinesh D’Souza–The Roots of Obama’s Rage–Videos

Thomas J. DiLorenzon–Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for Americans Today–Videos

Cory Doctorow–Makers–Videos

Joseph J. Ellis–His Excellency: George Washington–Videos

Steve Emerson–American Jihad: The Terrorist Living Among Us–Videos

Bruce Feiler–Walking the Bible–Videos

Niall Ferguson–”The Ascent of Money–Videos

Milton Friedman–Free To Choose–On Donahue –Videos

Brigitte Gabriel–Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America–Videos

Brigitte Gabriel–They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It –Videos

Jonah Goldberg–Liberal Fascism–Videos

David Goodwillie–American Subversive–A Novel

Victor Davis Hansen–A War Like No Other–Videos

Robert Higgs–Crisis and Leviathan–Videos

Peter Huber–The Bottomless Well–Videos

Donald Kagan–On The Origins Of War–Videos

George Lakoff–Videos

Mark Levin–Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto–Videos

Hunter Lewis–Where Keynes Went Wrong–Videos

Michael Lewis–The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine–Videos

Barack Obama Cartoon Concisely Communicates What’s Wrong With Progressive Radical Socialism–Why Do We Need Jobs For?–A Hayek and Mises Moment!

Andrew C. McCarthy–Willful Blindness–Videos

Kenneth Minogue–Alien Powers: The Pure Theory of Ideology–Videos

Ron Paul–End The Fed–Videos

Melanie Phillips–Londonistan–Videos

Melanie Phillips–The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth, and Power–Video

James Piereson–Camelot and The Cultural Revolution–Videos

Paul Rahe–Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Tocqueville, and the Modern Prospect–Videos

Ayn Rand–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Economic Thought Before Adam Smith–Videos

Murray Rothbard–What Has Government Done to Our Money?–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

Yaron Brook On Capitalism and Atlas Shrugged–Videos

Roy Spencer–The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists –Videos

Mark Steyn–America Alone: The End of The World As We Know It–Videos

John Stossel On Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged

Daniel Suarez–Daemon and Freedom TM–Videos

Peter Robinson–Conversations With Authors–Videos

Murry Rothbard–For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto–Audio Book

Murray Rothbard– What Has Government Done to Our Money?–Videos

Amity Shlaes–The Forgotten Man–Videos

Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions–Videos

Thomas Sowell–Black Rednecks and White Liberals–The Missing Nobel Laureates–Videos

Thomas Sowell–Intellectuals and Society–Videos

Thomas Sowell On The Housing Boom and Bust–Videos

Marc Thiessen’s Courting Disaster–A Clear and Present Danger To The American People–President Barack Obama!

Thomas E. Woods Jr.–Meltdown–Videos

Thomas E. Woods Jr.–We Who Dared to Say No to War–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Julian Assange–Wikileaks–Afghanistan War Logs and Pentagon Snuff Films–Videos

Posted on July 26, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Computers, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ”

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

~George Washington

Wikileaks Paint Grim Afghan Picture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfQZm4vWYoY

 

Wikileaks Releases Secret Afghan War Documents

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange: PFC Bradley Manning is effectively like a Guantanamo detainee

 

EXCLUSIVE Julian Assange on the Afghanistan war logs + Links + Downloads + How to video

Wikileaks Afghanistan War Logs: Massive leak of secret files exposes truth about war

WikiLeaks 90,000+ Secret Military Docs Part 5/7 – Democracy NOW!

Glenn Greenwald on Wikileaks Hunt – June 17, 2010 Democracy NOW!

Assange/Ellsberg/Jonsdottir on ABC-News Pt.1/3

Assange/Ellsberg/Jonsdottir on ABC-News Pt.2/3

Assange/Ellsberg/Jonsdottir on ABC-News Pt.3/3

Julian Assange: Why the world needs WikiLeaks

Wikileaks – Iceland

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCmjmDXp7TI

 

Daniel Ellsberg fears a US hit on Wikileaks founder Julian Assange

WikiLeaks editor on Apache combat video: No excuse for US killing civilians

Pentagon vs. Wikileaks, GATA vs. CFTC, Police vs. Everyone – Sunday Update

Amy Goodman Reports on “Collateral Murder” WikiLeaks Video

 

Alex Jones Discusses Wikileaks Release Of Pentagon Snuff Video

 

Wikileaks on the Culture Show – Friday 29th January 2010

Julian Assange

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

The Whistleblower 1 of 2 – Julian Assange report on SBS’s Dateline by Mark Davis struth1969

The Whistleblower 2 of 2 – Julian Assange report on SBS’s Dateline by Mark Davis struth1969

 

Wikileaks Releases Thousands Text Messages From September 11, 2001

Wikileaks….

 

 

Ron Paul: A New Hope

 

“Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all.”

~George Washington

 

“The essence of the interventionist policy is to take from one group to give to another. It is confiscation and distribution.”

“Economic nationalism, the necessary complement of domestic interventionism, hurts the interests of foreign peoples and thus creates international conflict. It suggests the idea of amending this unsatisfactory state of affairs by war.”

~Ludwig von Mises

Government intervention in the domestic economy and government intervention in other countries invariably leads to more government intervention to correct the problems created by previous government interventions.

The root problem is government intervention.

People want to be left alone to lead their lives, but the government or state run by political elites cannot leave the people alone.

The political elites or political class needs to justify their existence by imposing their views or ideology on others.

Nearly nine years after 9/11 Americans soldiers are still fighting and dying in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The American people demand results not new laws limiting free speech or the prosecution of leakers.

The American people demand that government intervention both abroad in the form of nation building or at home in the form of wealth redistribution be stopped.

The American people demand that the American family comes first and the Federal Government be limited in both scope and size.

Bring all of America’s professional soldiers home.

Just Do It.

“All this passionate praise of the supereminence of government action is but a poor disguise for the individual interventionists self-deification. The great god State is a great god only because it is expected to do exclusively what the individual advocate of interventionism wants to see achieved.”

“An essential point in the social philosophy of interventionism is the existence of an inexhaustible fund which can be squeezed forever. The whole system of interventionism collapses when this fountain is drained off: The Santa Claus principle liquidates itself.”

~Ludwig von Mises

 

 

Background Articles and Videos

Victor Davis Hanson (1/6)

Victor Davis Hanson (2/6)

Victor Davis Hanson (3/6)

Victor Davis Hanson (4/6)

Victor Davis Hanson (5/6)

Victor Davis Hanson (6/6)

The George Bush You Forgot

THE BEST DEFENSE: Preventive War

Thomas Barnett: The Pentagon’s new map for war and peace

Mission Impossible? Deconstructing Counter-insurgency in Afghanistan

Victor Davis Hanson: War in the Post Modern World – why the new laws of conflict are surreal

 

Julian Assange: Is WikiLeaks Biased?

WikiLeaks Release 1.0 (1/7)

WikiLeaks Release 1.0 (2/7)

WikiLeaks Release 1.0 (3/7)

WikiLeaks Release 1.0 (4/7)

WikiLeaks Release 1.0 (5/7)

WikiLeaks Release 1.0 (6/7)

WikiLeaks Release 1.0 (7/7)

 

Wikileaks

“…Wikileaks is an amorphous, international organization, based in Sweden,[1] that publishes anonymous submissions and leaks of sensitive documents from governments and other organizations, while preserving the anonymity of their sources. Its website, launched in 2006, is run by The Sunshine Press.[2] The organization has stated it was founded by Chinese dissidents, as well as journalists, mathematicians, and start-up company technologists from the U.S., Taiwan, Europe, Australia, and South Africa.[3] Newspaper articles and The New Yorker magazine (June 7, 2010) describe Julian Assange, an Australian journalist and Internet activist, as its director.[4] Within a year of its launch, the site said its database had grown to more than 1.2 million documents;[5] while the “Collateral Murder” video is one of its most notable releases.[6][7] It has won a number of new media awards for its reports. …”

Wikileaks went public in January 2007, when it first appeared on the Web.[8] The site states that it was “founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and start-up company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa”.[3] The creators of Wikileaks were unidentified as of January 2007[update],[9] although it has been represented in public since January 2007 by non-anonymous speakers such as Julian Assange, who had described himself as a member of Wikileaks’ advisory board[10] and was later referred to as the “founder of Wikileaks”.[11] As of June 2009[update], the site had over 1,200 registered volunteers[3] and listed its advisory board as consisting of Assange, Phillip Adams, Wang Dan, CJ Hinke, Ben Laurie, Tashi Namgyal Khamsitsang, Xiao Qiang, Chico Whitaker, and Wang Youcai.[12] Despite appearing on the list, when contacted by Mother Jones magazine in 2010, Khamsitsangs said he received an e-mail from Wikileaks, but never agreed to be an advisor.[13]

Wikileaks states that its “primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations.”[3][14]

In January 2007, the website stated that it had over 1.2 million leaked documents that it was preparing to publish.[15] An article in The New Yorker said that “one of the WikiLeaks activists owned a server that was being used as a node for the Tor network. Millions of secret transmissions passed through it. The activist noticed that hackers from China were using the network to gather foreign governments’ information, and began to record this traffic. Only a small fraction has ever been posted on WikiLeaks, but the initial tranche served as the site’s foundation, and Assange was able to say, “We have received over one million documents from thirteen countries.””[16] Assange responded to such statements by saying “the imputation is incorrect. The facts concern a 2006 investigation into Chinese espionage one of our contacts were involved in. Somewhere between none and handful of those documents were ever released on WikiLeaks. Non-government targets of the Chinese espionage, such as Tibetan associations were informed (by us)”.[17] The group has subsequently released a number of other significant documents which have become front-page news items, ranging from documentation of equipment expenditures and holdings in the Afghanistan war to corruption in Kenya.[18]

Their stated goal is to ensure that whistle-blowers and journalists are not jailed for emailing sensitive or classified documents, as happened to Chinese journalist Shi Tao, who was sentenced to 10 years in 2005 after publicising an email from Chinese officials about the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.[19]

The project has drawn comparisons to Daniel Ellsberg’s leaking of the Pentagon Papers in 1971.[20] In the United States, the leaking of some documents may be legally protected. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution guarantees anonymity, at least in the area of political discourse.[20] Author and journalist Whitley Strieber has spoken about the benefits of the Wikileaks project, noting that “Leaking a government document can mean jail, but jail sentences for this can be fairly short. However, there are many places where it means long incarceration or even death, such as China and parts of Africa and the Middle East.”[21]

The site has won a number of awards, including the 2008 Economist magazine New Media Award,[22] and in June 2009, Wikileaks and Julian Assange won Amnesty International UK’s Media Award 2009 (in the category “New Media”) for the 2008 publication of “Kenya: The Cry of Blood – Extra Judicial Killings and Disappearances”,[23] a report by the Kenyan National Commission on Human Rights about police killings in Kenya.[24] In May 2010 it was rated number 1 of “websites that could totally change the news”.[6]

Suspension of activity, fundraising

On 24 December 2009, Wikileaks announced that it was experiencing a shortage of funds[25] and suspended all access to its website except for a form to submit new material.[26] Material that was previously published was no longer available, although some could still be accessed on unofficial mirrors.[27][28] Wikileaks stated on its website that it would resume full operation once the operational costs were covered.[26][29] Wikileaks saw this as a kind of strike “to ensure that everyone who is involved stops normal work and actually spends time raising revenue”.[30] While it was initially hoped that funds could be secured by 6 January 2010,[31] it was only on 3 February 2010 that WikiLeaks announced that its minimum fundraising goal had been achieved.[32]

On 22 January 2010, PayPal suspended Wikileaks’ donation account and froze its assets. Wikileaks said that this had happened before, and was done for “no obvious reason”.[33] The account was restored on 25 January 2010.[34]

On May 18, 2010, WikiLeaks announced that its website and archive were back up.[35]

As of June 2010, Wikileaks was a finalist for a grant of more than half a million dollars from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation,[36] but did not make the cut.[37] Wikileaks commented, “Wikileaks was highest rated project in the Knight challenge, strongly recommended to the board but gets no funding. Go figure”. Wikileaks said that the Knight foundation announced the award to “’12 Grantees who will impact future of news’ — but not WikiLeaks” and questioned whether Knight foundation was “really looking for impact”.[37] A spokesman of the Knight Foundation disputed parts of WikiLeaks’ statement, saying “WikiLeaks was not recommended by Knight staff to the board.”[38] However, he declined to say whether WikiLeaks was the project rated highest by the Knight advisory panel, which consists of non-staffers, among them journalist Jennifer 8. Lee, who has done PR work for WikiLeaks with the press and on social networking sites.[38]

On July 17, Jacob Appelbaum spoke on behalf of WikiLeaks at the 2010 Hackers on Planet Earth conference in New York City, replacing Assange due to the presence of federal agents at the conference.[39][40] He announced that the WikiLeaks submission system was again up and running, after it had been temporarily suspended.[39][41] Assange was a surprise speaker at a TED conference on 19 July 2010 in Oxford, and confirmed that WikiLeaks was now accepting submissions again.[42][43]

 Staff and funding

According to a January 2010 interview, the Wikileaks team then consisted of five people working full-time and about 800 people who worked occasionally, none of whom were compensated.[30] Wikileaks has no official headquarters. The expenses per year are about €200,000, mainly for servers and bureaucracy, but would reach €600,000 if work currently done by volunteers were paid for.[30] Wikileaks does not pay for lawyers, as hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal support have been donated by media organisations such as the Associated Press, The Los Angeles Times, and the National Newspaper Publishers Association.[30] Its only revenue stream is donations, but Wikileaks is planning to add an auction model to sell early access to documents.[30] According to the Wau Holland Foundation, Wikileaks receives no money for personnel costs, only for hardware, travelling and bandwidth.[44] An article in TechEYE.net wrote

As a charity accountable under German law, donations for Wikileaks can be made to the foundation. Funds are held in escrow and are given to Wikileaks after the whistleblower website files an application containing a statement with proof of payment. The foundation does not pay any sort of salary nor give any renumeration to Wikileaks’ personnel, corroborating the statement of the site’s German representative Daniel Schmitt on national television that all personnel works voluntarily, even its speakers.[44] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks

Julian Assange

“…Julian Paul Assange (English pronunciation: /əˈsɑːnʒ/; born 1971) is an Australian internet activist and journalist best known for his involvement with Wikileaks, a whistleblower website. Assange was a physics and mathematics student, a hacker and a computer programmer, before taking on his current role as spokesperson and editor in chief for Wikileaks. Assange has said that “you can’t publish a paper on physics without the full experimental data and results; that should be the standard in journalism”.[1]Julian Paul Assange (English pronunciation: /əˈsɑːnʒ/; born 1971) is an Australian internet activist and journalist best known for his involvement with Wikileaks, a whistleblower website. Assange was a physics and mathematics student, a hacker and a computer programmer, before taking on his current role as spokesperson and editor in chief for Wikileaks. Assange has said that “you can’t publish a paper on physics without the full experimental data and results; that should be the standard in journalism”.[1]

Early lifeAssange was born in Townsville, Queensland in 1971.[2] Assange has said that his parents ran a touring theatre company, and that he was enrolled in 37 schools and six universities in Australia over the course of his early life.[3] During his childhood years, he lived on the run with mother and half-brother. They were avoiding his half-brother’s father who was believed to belong to a cult led by Anne Hamilton-Byrne.[2]

An article in The New Yorker has written that Assange was married to his girlfriend in an unofficial ceremony at the age of 18 and had a son.[2] The article says she left him while he was being investigated by the Australian Federal Police for hacking, and took their son.[2]

Assange helped to write the 1997 book Underground: Tales of Hacking, Madness and Obsession on the Electronic Frontier which credits him as researcher.[4] It draws from his teenage experiences as a member of a hacker group named “International Subversives”, which involved a 1991 raid of his Melbourne home by the Australian Federal Police.[5][6] Wired, The Sydney Morning Herald, and The Sunday Times have pointed out that there exist similarities between Assange and the person called “Mendax” in the book.[7][8][9] The New Yorker has identified Assange as Mendax and explains its origin from a phrase of Horace. Assange was reported to have accessed various computers (belonging to an Australian university, a telecommunications company, and other organizations) via modem[10] to test their security flaws; he later pleaded guilty to 24 charges of hacking and was released on bond for good conduct after being fined AU$2100.[5][6][8]

According to the Personal Democracy Forum, Assange founded a civil rights group for children called “Pickup”.[11]

 Computer programming

After the hacking trial, Assange lived in Melbourne as a programmer and a developer of free software.[8]

In 1995, Assange wrote Strobe, the first free and open source port scanner.[12][13] Strobe inspired Fyodor to develop the Nmap port scanner.[14]

Starting around 1997, Assange co-invented “Rubberhose deniable encryption”, a cryptographic concept made into a software package for Linux designed to provide plausible deniability against rubber-hose cryptanalysis,[15] which he originally intended “as a tool for human rights workers who needed to protect sensitive data in the field”.[16]

Other free software that Assange has authored or co-authored includes the Usenet caching software NNTPCache[17] and Surfraw, a command line interface for web-based search engines.

University studies and travel

Assange studied physics and mathematics at the University of Melbourne until 2006, when he began to focus heavily on Wikileaks.[2] He has been described as being largely self-taught and widely read on science and mathematics.[8] He has also studied philosophy and neuroscience.[11] On his personal web page Assange described how he represented his University at the Australian National Physics Competition around 2005.[18]

Assange has said that it is “pretty much true” that he is constantly on the move, and that he is “living in airports these days”.[2][19] Assange has lived for periods in Australia, Kenya and Tanzania, and has visited many other places including Vietnam, Sweden, Iceland, Siberia, Belgium and the United States.[2][19][20][21][22] Assange began renting a house in Iceland on March 30, 2010, from which he and other activists, including Birgitta Jónsdóttir, worked on the collateral murder video.[2] In May 2010 upon landing in Australia, his passport was taken from him, and when it was returned he was told that his passport was to be cancelled. The Australian Customs Service stated that such confiscation was only because his passport was worn, and that Assange was otherwise free to travel.[23][24]

In 1999, Assange registered the website, Leaks.org; “but”, he says, “then I didn’t do anything with it”.[21]

WikiLeaks

Wikileaks was founded in 2006.[2][19] Assange now sits on its nine-member advisory board,[25] and is a prominent media spokesman on its behalf. While newspapers have described him as a “director”[26] or “founder”[5] of Wikileaks, Assange has said “I don’t call myself a founder”,[27] but he does describe himself as the editor in chief of Wikileaks,[28] and has stated that he has the final decision in the process of vetting documents submitted to the site.[6] Like all others working for the site, Assange is an unpaid volunteer.[27]

Assange was the winner of the 2009 Amnesty International Media Award (New Media),[29] awarded for exposing extrajudicial assassinations in Kenya with the investigation The Cry of Blood – Extra Judicial Killings and Disappearances.[30]

 
Julian Assange at New Media Days ’09 in Copenhagen

In accepting the Amnesty International Media Award 2009, Mr. Assange stated:

It is a reflection of the courage and strength of Kenyan civil society that this injustice was documented. Through the tremendous work of organizations such as the Oscar foundation, the KNHCR, Mars Group Kenya and others we had the primary support we needed to expose these murders to the world. I know that they will not rest, and we will not rest, until justice is done.
“WikiLeaks wins Amnesty International 2009 Media Award for exposing Extra judicial killings in Kenya”.[31]

He has also won the 2008 Economist Index on Censorship Award; and various other media awards.[32]

Assange says that Wikileaks has released more classified documents than the rest of the world press combined:

That’s not something I say as a way of saying how successful we are – rather, that shows you the parlous state of the rest of the media. How is it that a team of five people has managed to release to the public more suppressed information, at that level, than the rest of the world press combined? It’s disgraceful.[19]

No real bombshells in Wikileak Afghan docs

Rick Moran

“…

As for the question of should they have been published? Of course not. Anyone who gave that anti-American nutcase Julian Assange – an Australian by birth – access to those documents should be arrested, tried, convicted, and sent to jail for a very long time. Untold damage is being done simply because no one knows what use of this information will be made by the enemy. What intelligence can they glean from its contents? Certainly the Taliban can figure out some of our weaknesses by reading through these documents. For that reason alone, Assange himself should be relentlessly pursued and arrested. It is highly likely that this irresponsible release will result in additional American casualties.

A related point to this release of documents is the way in which the government classifies information. You don’t have to be a free speech extremist to look in askance at much of what the government considers “classified.” Millions of documents every year are hidden away – some of them for no other reason than they would be politically damaging to someone. There have been bills in Congress introduced to set up committees or boards to review many documents from agencies not related to national security who get the “classified” designation but nothing has come of such proposals as yet.

However, this is not the time for any such debate. The New York Times and the other media outlets who published this material will get away with it because of our expansive freedom of the press traditions and laws. Even their claim that they withheld some documents because, in their opinion, they were too sensitive is ridiculous. Who are they to make that determination? The bottom line is that laws were broken in handing these documents to an irresponsible source who also broke the law in giving them to the press.
…”

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/07/no_real_bombshells

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Victor Davis Hanson–Videos

Collectivism: Socialism, Communism, Progressivism and Fascism

Progressivism America’s Cancer–Videos

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Walter Block–Videos

Thomas DiLorenzo–The Economic Model of the Fascist State–Videos

G. William Domhoff: Who Runs America–Videos

Jonah Goldberg–Liberal Fascism–Videos

Paul Edward Gottfried–Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and the Welfare State–Videos

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism vs. Collectivism–Videos

Robert Higgs–The Complex Path of Ideological Change–Videos

Mark Levin–Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto–Videos

Hunter Lewis–Where Keynes Went Wrong–Videos

Jeffrey Miron–Obamaomics–Videos

Gary North–Keynes and His Influence–Take The North Challenge–Videos

George Gerald Reisman–Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian–Videos

Today’s Progressives–Obama’s Radical Socialist Democratic Party

The Racist Test for Judge Sonya Sotomayor and President Obama–Racism Unmasked!

Calling and Raising The Stakes for Race Card Players–Obama and Sotomayor

George Soros: Government Interventionist and Global Socialist–Obama’s Puppeter Master–Videos

George Soros: Barack Obama’s Money Man and Agenda Puppeter

The Cloward-Piven Strategy Of The Progressive Radical Socialists: Wrecking The U.S. Economy By Massive Government Dependence, Spending, Deficits, Debts, Taxes And Regulations!

President Barack Obama’s Role Model–President Franklin D. Roosevelt–The Worse President For The U.S. and World Economies and The American People–With The Same Results–High Unemployment Rates–Over 25 Million American Citizens Seeking Full Time Jobs Today–Worse Than The Over 13 Million Seeking Jobs During The Worse of The Great Depression!

Progressives

Progressive Radical Socialist Health Care Plan Written In Prison By Convicted Felon Richard Creamer!

Obamanomics–New Deal Progressive Radical Socialist Interventionism

Eugenics, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, and Designer Babies–Videos

The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Robert Higgs–Videos

The Obama Depression: Lessons Learned–Deja Vu!

Lord Christopher Monckton–Climate Change–Treaty–Videos

Progressive Radical Socialist Canned Criticism of American People: Danger, Profits, and Wrong Thinking

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!

Obama’s Civilian National Security Force–Youth Corp Wave–Friendly Fascism Faces–Cons–Crooks–Communists–Communities–Corps!

Obama’s Hidden Agenda and Covert Cadre of Marxists, Communists, Progressives, Radicals, Socialists–Far Left Democrats Destroying Capitalism and The American Republic

Yuri Bezmenov On KGB Soviet Propaganda and Subversion–Videos

The Bloody History of Communism–Videos

Obama Youth–Civilian National Security Force–National Socialism–Hitler Youth–Brownshirts– Redux?–Collectivism!

American Progressive Liberal Fascism–The Wave of The Future Or Back To Past Mistakes?

Today’s Progressives–Obama’s Radical Socialist Democratic Party

President Obama–Killer of The American Dream and Market Capitalism–Stop The Radical Socialists Before They Kill You!

The Progressive Radical Socialist Family Tree–ACORN & AmeriCorps–Time To Chop It Down

It Is Official–America On The Obama Road To Fascism–Thomas Sowell!

President Obama and His Keynesian Spending Cult of The Fascist Democrat Radicals–FDRs

_in_wikileak.html

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Barack Hussein Obama: Cavalier Commander-in-Chief vs. Thomas P.M. Barnett: Prescient Planner

Posted on June 26, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Computers, Demographics, Economics, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Music, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Science, Security, Sports, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Transportation, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

  

Official White House photo by Pete Souza 

“If you let journalists become your grand strategists you are going to go straight to hell.  For it tells me you cannot think for yourselves. I believe in civilian control of the military, but please not journalist control.”

~Thomas Barnett, Pentagon’s New Map

http://www.ted.com/speakers/thomas_barnett.html

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/

 

“…Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal and his new commander in chief failed from the outset to connect. The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked “uncomfortable and intimidated” by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn’t go much better. “It was a 10-minute photo op,” says an adviser to McChrystal. “Obama clearly didn’t know anything about him, who he was. Here’s the guy who’s going to run his fucking war, but he didn’t seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed.” …” 

~Michael Hastings, The Runaway General

 

Obama Responds to Gen. McChrystal’s Quotes in Rolling Stone Magazine

 

Rufus Wainwright – Across The Universe

Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup,
They slither while they pass they slip away across the universe.
Pools of sorrow, waves of joy are drifting through my open mind,
Possessing and caressing me.
Jai guru deva om.

Nothing’s gonna change my world,
Nothing’s gonna change my world,
Nothing’s gonna change my world,
Nothing’s gonna change my world.

Images of broken light which dance before me like a million eyes,
and call me on and on across the universe.
Thoughts meander like a restless wind inside a letter box,
They stumble blindly as they make their way across the universe.
Jai guru deva om.

Nothing’s gonna change my world,
Nothing’s gonna change my world,
Nothing’s gonna change my world,
Nothing’s gonna change my world.

Sounds of laughter shades of love are ringing through my open mind,
Inciting and inviting me.
Limitless undying love which shines around me like a million suns,
It calls me on and on across the universe.
Jai guru deva om.

Nothing’s gonna change my world (8X)

Jai guru deva,
Jai guru deva,
Jai guru deva,
Jai guru deva…

 

Thomas Barnett: The Pentagon’s new map for war and peace

Pentagon’s New Map 1/13

Pentagon’s New Map 2/13

Pentagon’s New Map 3/13

Pentagon’s New Map 4/13

Pentagon’s New Map 5/13

Pentagon’s New Map 6/13

Pentagon’s New Map 7/13

Pentagon’s New Map 8/13

Pentagon’s New Map 9/13

Pentagon’s New Map 10/13

Pentagon’s New Map 11/13

Pentagon’s New Map 12/13

Pentagon’s New Map 13/13

 

“…Despite the tragedies and miscues, McChrystal has issued some of the strictest directives to avoid civilian casualties that the U.S. military has ever encountered in a war zone. It’s “insurgent math,” as he calls it – for every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies. He has ordered convoys to curtail their reckless driving, put restrictions on the use of air power and severely limited night raids. He regularly apologizes to Hamid Karzai when civilians are killed, and berates commanders responsible for civilian deaths. “For a while,” says one U.S. official, “the most dangerous place to be in Afghanistan was in front of McChrystal after a ‘civ cas’ incident.” The ISAF command has even discussed ways to make not killing into something you can win an award for: There’s talk of creating a new medal for “courageous restraint,” a buzzword that’s unlikely to gain much traction in the gung-ho culture of the U.S. military. 

One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon was given. “Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force,” the laminated card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests. “Does that make any fucking sense?” asks Pfc. Jared Pautsch. “We should just drop a fucking bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?” 

The rules handed out here are not what McChrystal intended – they’ve been distorted as they passed through the chain of command – but knowing that does nothing to lessen the anger of troops on the ground. “Fuck, when I came over here and heard that McChrystal was in charge, I thought we would get our fucking gun on,” says Hicks, who has served three tours of combat. “I get COIN. I get all that. McChrystal comes here, explains it, it makes sense. But then he goes away on his bird, and by the time his directives get passed down to us through Big Army, they’re all fucked up – either because somebody is trying to cover their ass, or because they just don’t understand it themselves. But we’re fucking losing this thing.” 

~Michael Hastings, The Runaway General

McChrystal and the Afghan military “solution” Pt1

 

McChrystal faces ‘Iraq’ moment

Rules of Engagement 

New rules = more deaths in Afghanistan?

David Kilcullen: Pakistan, the FATA, & ISI

 

Victor Davis Hanson: War in the Post Modern World – why the new laws of conflict are surreal

 

Rufus Wainwright – Rules and Regulations

I will never be as cute as you, according to the board of human relations
I will never fly as high as you, according to the board of public citations

These are just the rules and regulations
Of the birds, and the bees
The earth, and the trees,
Not to mention the gods, not to mention the gods

All my little life I’ve wanted to roam
Even if it was just inside my own home
Then one little day I chanced to look back
Saw you sittin’ there, being a sad culprit

These are just the rules and regulations
Of the birds, and the bees
The earth, and the trees,
Not to mention the gods, not to mention the gods

These are just the rules and regulations
Yeah, these are just the rules and regulations
And I like every one, yes I like every one
Must follow them

“…When it comes to Afghanistan, history is not on McChrystal’s side. The only foreign invader to have any success here was Genghis Khan – and he wasn’t hampered by things like human rights, economic development and press scrutiny. The COIN doctrine, bizarrely, draws inspiration from some of the biggest Western military embarrassments in recent memory: France’s nasty war in Algeria (lost in 1962) and the American misadventure in Vietnam (lost in 1975). McChrystal, like other advocates of COIN, readily acknowledges that counterinsurgency campaigns are inherently messy, expensive and easy to lose. “Even Afghans are confused by Afghanistan,” he says. But even if he somehow manages to succeed, after years of bloody fighting with Afghan kids who pose no threat to the U.S. homeland, the war will do little to shut down Al Qaeda, which has shifted its operations to Pakistan. Dispatching 150,000 troops to build new schools, roads, mosques and water-treatment facilities around Kandahar is like trying to stop the drug war in Mexico by occupying Arkansas and building Baptist churches in Little Rock. “It’s all very cynical, politically,” says Marc Sageman, a former CIA case officer who has extensive experience in the region. “Afghanistan is not in our vital interest – there’s nothing for us there.”  …”

~Michael Hastings, The Runaway General

 

President Obama’s Statement on General McChrystal and Afghanistan

McChrystal’s ‘counter-terrorism’ without McChrystal

Michelle Malkin discusses challenges facing General David Petraeus

Rufus Wainwright – April Fools

Oh what a shame that your pockets did bleed on st. valentine’s
And you sat in a chair
Thinking “boy i’m such a prince!”
Well, life’s a train that goes from february on
Day by day
But it’s making a stop on april first

And you will believe in love
And all that it’s supposed to be
But just until the fish start to smell
And you’re struck down by a hammer

Sure, you were swift
When the handsome greek boys dropped by with gifts
You are suave
Thanks to ribbons that open sesame
But in the stars and closer to home, in every planet
It ain’t hard for me and dear jo jo to see

That you will believe in love
And all that it’s supposed to be
But just until the fish start to smell
And you’re struck down by a hammer

So let it all go by
Looking at the sky
Wondering if there’s clouds and stuff in hell

And you will believe in love
And all that it’s supposed to be
But just until the fish start to smell
And you’re struck down by a hammer

Col. Kurtz’s Anthropological Understanding

 

 

 

“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”

~Windston Churchill

 

Fiona Apple :: Across The Universe

Pleasantville–Videos

 

 Background Articles and Videos

Obama Fires General McChrystal

The Pentagon’s New Map

General McChrystal Speech

 

General McChrystal Speech Part 2

General McChrystal Speech Part 3

General McChrystal Last Afghanistan Press Conference

A Sad Day

Thomas Sowell

“…This is, after all, an administration that waited for months last year before acting on General McChrystal’s urgent request for 40,000 more troops, which he warned would be necessary to prevent the failure of the mission in Afghanistan. He got 30,000 eventually– and a public statement by President Obama about when he wants to start withdrawing American troops from that country.

In no previous period of history has an American president announced a timetable for pulling out troops. They may have had a timetable in mind, but none of these presidents was irresponsible enough to tell the world– including our enemies– when our troops would be leaving.

Such information encourages our enemies, who know that they need only wait us out before they can take over, whether in Afghanistan or elsewhere. At the same time, it undermines our allies, who know that relying on the United States is dangerous in the long run, and that they had better make the best deal they can get with our enemies. …”

“…Some people see a parallel between McChrystal’s “resignation” and President Harry Truman’s firing of General Douglas MacArthur. No two situations are ever exactly the same, but some of the parallels are striking.

MacArthur was proud not only of his military victories but also of the fact that he won those victories with lower casualty rates among his troops than other generals had. But General MacArthur too was not always discreet in what he said, and also had reasons to have contempt for politicians, going all the way back to FDR, who cut the army’s budget in the 1930s, while Nazi Germany and imperial Japan were building up huge military machines that would kill many an American before it was all over.

If we are creating an environment where only political generals can survive, what will that mean for America’s ability to win military victories without massive casualty rates? Or to win military victories at all?”

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/06/23/a_sad_day 

 

The Runaway General

By  Michael Hastings

Jun 22, 2010

“…From the start, McChrystal was determined to place his personal stamp on Afghanistan, to use it as a laboratory for a controversial military strategy known as counterinsurgency. COIN, as the theory is known, is the new gospel of the Pentagon brass, a doctrine that attempts to square the military’s preference for high-tech violence with the demands of fighting protracted wars in failed states. COIN calls for sending huge numbers of ground troops to not only destroy the enemy, but to live among the civilian population and slowly rebuild, or build from scratch, another nation’s government – a process that even its staunchest advocates admit requires years, if not decades, to achieve. The theory essentially rebrands the military, expanding its authority (and its funding) to encompass the diplomatic and political sides of warfare: Think the Green Berets as an armed Peace Corps. In 2006, after Gen. David Petraeus beta-tested the theory during his “surge” in Iraq, it quickly gained a hardcore following of think-tankers, journalists, military officers and civilian officials. Nicknamed “COINdinistas” for their cultish zeal, this influential cadre believed the doctrine would be the perfect solution for Afghanistan. All they needed was a general with enough charisma and political savvy to implement it. 

As McChrystal leaned on Obama to ramp up the war, he did it with the same fearlessness he used to track down terrorists in Iraq: Figure out how your enemy operates, be faster and more ruthless than everybody else, then take the fuckers out. After arriving in Afghanistan last June, the general conducted his own policy review, ordered up by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The now-infamous report was leaked to the press, and its conclusion was dire: If we didn’t send another 40,000 troops – swelling the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan by nearly half – we were in danger of “mission failure.” The White House was furious. McChrystal, they felt, was trying to bully Obama, opening him up to charges of being weak on national security unless he did what the general wanted. It was Obama versus the Pentagon, and the Pentagon was determined to kick the president’s ass. …” 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236 

General McChrystal: the fall guy for the president’s failure?

By Con Coughlin

“…In time of war – particularly one as challenging as the brutal conflict currently being fought by Nato forces in Afghanistan – you would expect an American president to give the campaign his undivided attention. But the fact that Mr Obama could hardly be bothered to contact the commander of the most important military campaign of his presidency tells its own story.

If Mr Obama had devoted more time to working with senior commanders such as General McChrystal, he would have a more profound understanding of the enormous strains and pressures they endure. He might then have been inclined to take a more lenient approach to a magazine article that did little more than reflect the every day tittle-tattle that goes on in any officers’ mess. Gen McChrystal was clearly out of order, but after he issued a fulsome apology, a severe reprimand, rather than outright dismissal, would have sufficed.

But that is not this president’s style. Ever since he entered office seventeen months ago, Mr Obama has proved to be exceptionally thin-skinned when it comes to handling criticism, as revealed by his administration’s long-running feud with the Fox News network.

A president who actively encourages the relaxed “no drama Obama” image of his administration, and who heads for the nearest golf course whenever the opportunity presents itself, is prone to the most spectacular hissy-fits the moment he finds himself under pressure. And his over-the-top “kick ass” response to BP’s involvement in the Gulf oil spill has displayed to a wider audience the more truculent side of this president’s nature.

But it also reveals how Mr Obama’s laid-back approach has created a dangerous erosion of political authority at the White House. While Mr Obama is busy with his golf buggy, his senior advisers spend their time indulging in titanic power struggles over policy. So far as Afghanistan is concerned, this week it resulted in the dismissal of the man who had become synonymous with the success of the Nato effort. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7854963/General-McChrystal-the-fall-guy-for-the-presidents-failure.html

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

America Held Hostage: President Obama Holds The Security of American People Hostage For Amnesty of Illegal Aliens a.k.a. Comprehensive Immigration Reform–Impeach and Convict President Obama For Betraying Oath Of Office

David Kilcullen–The Accidental Guerrilla–Videos

Bring All The Troops Home–Take It To The Bank–The Decline of American Liberalism–Videos

The Empty Suit or Hollow Man–Barrack Obama–An Legend In His Own Mind

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Threat of Radical Islam–Vidoes

Posted on May 4, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Communications, Computers, Crime, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Films, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Immigration, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Science, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Transportation, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

Fox News:The Threat of Radical Islam (Pt. 1 of 6)

Fox News:The Threat of Radical Islam (Pt. 2 of 6)

Fox News:The Threat of Radical Islam (Pt. 3 of 6)

Fox News:The Threat of Radical Islam (Pt. 4 of 6)

Fox News:The Threat of Radical Islam (Pt. 5 of 6)

Fox News:The Threat of Radical Islam (Pt. 6 of 6)

Victor Davis Hanson – Is the “War on Terror” Really a War?

Victor Davis Hanson  Full Address http://fora.tv/2007/04/24/Beyond_Iraq#fullprogram

 

Dr. Yaron Brook – Israel and the West’s War against Islamic Totalitarianism

Muslim Demographics a threat to the world

Re: Islamic, Muslim Demographics (ABSOLUTELY SHOCKING) 

 

 

Background Articles and Videos

Islamism

“…Islamism (Islam+-ism; Arabic: الاسلامية ‎ al-‘islāmiyya) also Arabic: إسلام سياسي‎ al-Islām al-Siyāsiyy, lit., “Political Islam”) is a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system; that modern Muslims must return to their roots of their religion, and unite politically.

Islamism is a controversial term and definitions of it sometimes vary. Many confuse or conflate Islamism with Salafism, however early Salafism is the contrary to modern Islamism.[1] Leading Islamist thinkers emphasized the enforcement of sharia (Islamic law); of pan-Islamic political unity or caliphate; and of the elimination of non-Muslim, particularly western, military, economic, political, social, or cultural influences in the Muslim world, which they believe to be imperialist or incompatible with Islam.[2]

Some observers suggest Islamism’s tenets are less strict and can be defined as a form of identity politics or “support for [Muslim] identity, authenticity, broader regionalism, revivalism, [and] revitalization of the community”.[3] Still others define it as “an Islamic militant, anti-democratic movement, bearing a holistic vision of Islam whose final aim is the restoration of the caliphate”.[4]

Many of those described as “Islamists” oppose the use of the term, and claim that their political beliefs and goals are simply an expression of Islamic religious belief. Similarly, some scholars favour the term “activist Islam” [5][6] or “political Islam” instead.[7]

Central figures of modern Islamism include Abul Ala Maududi,[8] Sayyid Qutb, Hasan al-Banna, and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.[9] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Melanie Phillips–Londonistan–Videos

Melanie Phillips–The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth, and Power–Video

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Victor Davis Hanson–2009–Videos

Posted on April 28, 2010. Filed under: Agriculture, Blogroll, College, Communications, Culture, Economics, Education, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Uncategorized, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , |

Victor Davis Hanson 

Background Articles and Videos

 

Victor Davis Hanson “The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern”

 

 

Related Post On Pronk Palisades

Victor Davis Hanson–Videos

Victor Davis Hansen–A War Like No Other–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Victor Davis Hansen–A War Like No Other–Videos

Posted on April 15, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Music, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Resources, Reviews, Security, Strategy, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

 

 

War and History, Ancient and Modern


War and History, Ancient and Modern

 

 

Victor Davis Hanson: War in the Post Modern World – why the new laws of conflict are surreal

Background Articles and Videos

War and Democracy in Ancient and Contemporary Middle East

17. The Peloponnesian War, Part I

18. The Peloponnesian War, Part I (cont.)

19. The Peloponnesian War, Part II

20. The Peloponnesian War, Part II (cont.)

The Peloponnesian War

“…The Peloponnesian War, 431 to 404 B.C., was an ancient Greek war, fought by Athens and its empire against the Peloponnesian League, led by Sparta. Historians have traditionally divided the war into three phases. In the first phase, the Archidamian War, Sparta launched repeated invasions of Attica, while Athens took advantage of its naval supremacy to raid the coast of the Peloponnese attempting to suppress signs of unrest in its empire. This period of the war was concluded in 421 BC, with the signing of the Peace of Nicias. That treaty, however, was soon undermined by renewed fighting in the Peloponnese. In 415 BC, Athens dispatched a massive expeditionary force to attack Syracuse in Sicily; the attack failed disastrously, with the destruction of the entire force, in 413 BC. This ushered in the final phase of the war, generally referred to either as the Decelean War, or the Ionian War. In this phase, Sparta, now receiving support from Persia, supported rebellions in Athens’ subject states in the Aegean Sea and Ionia, undermining Athens’ empire, and, eventually, depriving the city of naval supremacy. The destruction of Athens’ fleet at Aegospotami effectively ended the war, and Athens surrendered in the following year.

The Peloponnesian War reshaped the Ancient Greek world. On the level of international relations, Athens, the strongest city-state in Greece prior to the war’s beginning, was reduced to a state of near-complete subjection, while Sparta became established as the leading power of Greece. The economic costs of the war were felt all across Greece; poverty became widespread in the Peloponnese, while Athens found itself completely devastated, and never regained its pre-war prosperity.[1][2] The war also wrought subtler changes to Greek society; the conflict between democratic Athens and oligarchic Sparta, each of which supported friendly political factions within other states, made civil war a common occurrence in the Greek world.

Greek warfare, meanwhile, originally a limited and formalized form of conflict, was transformed into an all-out struggle between city-states, complete with atrocities on a large scale. Shattering religious and cultural taboos, devastating vast swathes of countryside, and destroying whole cities, the Peloponnesian War marked the dramatic end to the fifth-century-B.C. golden age of Greece …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Michael Barone–Our First Revolution–Videos

Philip Bobbitt–Terror and Consent–Videos

Patrick J. Buchanan–Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War–Videos

Ron Chernow–Alexander Hamilton–Videos

Thomas J. DiLorenzon–Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for Americans Today–Videos

Joseph J. Ellis–His Excellency: George Washington–Videos

Milton Friedman–Free To Choose–On Donahue –Videos

Jonah Goldberg–Liberal Fascism–Videos

Peter Huber–The Bottomless Well–Videos

Donald Kagan–On The Origins Of War–Videos

George Lakoff–Videos

Mark Levin–Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto–Videos

Andrew C. McCarthy–Willful Blindness–Videos

James Piereson–Camelot and The Cultural Revolution–Videos

Ayn Rand–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

Yaron Brook On Capitalism and Atlas Shrugged–Videos

John Stossel On Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged

Daniel Suarez–Daemon and Freedom TM–Videos

Peter Robinson–Conversations With Authors–Videos

Murry Rothbard–For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto–Audio Book

Murray Rothbard– What Has Government Done to Our Money?–Videos

Amity Shlaes–The Forgotten Man–Videos

Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions–Videos

Thomas Sowell On The Housing Boom and Bust–Videos

Marc Thiessen’s Courting Disaster–A Clear and Present Danger To The American People–President Barack Obama!

Thomas E. Woods Jr.–Meltdown–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Glenn Beck: Barack Obama Is A True Believer in Progressive Radical Socialism–Videos

Posted on April 6, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, College, Communications, Crime, Cult, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Security, Taxes, Uncategorized, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

“It would clearly not be an improvement to build all houses exactly alike in order to create a perfect market for houses, and the same is true of most other fields where differences between the individual products prevent competition from ever being perfect.” 

~Friedrich A. Hayek, Individualism and Economic Order

 

“”A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people’s business.”

~ Eric Hoffer, The True Believer, page 23

Glenn Beck-04-06-10-A

Glenn Beck-04-06-10-B

Glenn Beck-04-06-10-C

Glenn Beck-04-06-10-D

Dr. Drew on Young Obama’s Marxism – 1 of 6

Dr. Drew on Young Obama’s Marxism – 2 of 6

Dr. Drew on Young Obama’s Marxism – 3 of 6

Dr. Drew on Young Obama’s Marxism – 4 of 6

Dr. Drew on Young Obama’s Marxism – 5 of 6

Dr. Drew on Young Obama’s Marxism – 6 of 6

Mandating or forcing every American to purchase a Federal Government approved or qualified Health Insurance plan is unconstitutional, un-American and socialist. 

Glenn Beck is right, Obama’s answer that Mitt Romney did the same in Massachusetts is begging the question. 

Both Obama and Romney are wrong in using government coercion to force individuals to purchase a product or service such as a Health Insurance Plan. 

It is an example of socialist tyranny. 

Both Obama and Romney replaced consumer sovereignty with government tyranny. 

The belief that government knows best what you should buy–the fatal conceit of progressive radical socialist–is false, wrong and unethical. 

The truth is the individual is in the best position to determine what he needs and can afford to buy, not the Federal government, politician or bureaucrat. 

The American people’s message to the progressive radical socialists is simple: 

Mind your own business (M.Y.O. B) and leave us alone. 

If the progressive radical socialist Democrats and Republicans persist in their fiscally irresponsible spending, taxing and borrowing and telling us what to buy–you will be voted out of office. 

“Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one’s government is not necessarily to secure freedom.” 

~Friedrich A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty

 

“It is the true believer’s ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacle not baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence.”

~Eric Hoffer, The True Believer, page 76

PS. Glenn, love the new set background–easy on the eyes. 

Background Articles and Videos

 

Chicago Does Socialism

By Victor Davis Hanson

 “…One perhaps can forgive erstwhile Obama adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski’s stupid hypothetical speculation about shooting down Israeli planes over Iraq. And maybe the nominations of Charles Freeman and Samantha Power — not known as friends to Israel — were of no importance. Some raised an eyebrow, too, over Obama’s past close affinities with the anti-Semitic Reverend Jeremiah Wright and anti-Israelis like Bill Ayers and Rashid Khalidi. But finally, the most recent outreach to the terrorist regimes in Damascus and Tehran, when juxtaposed with the hysterics over a few apartment buildings in Jerusalem, has cemented the notion that Obama really has radical ideas about altering the traditional American support for the Jewish state.

In other words, again, connect these seemingly isolated dots and a picture emerges of a new radical foreign policy of “neutralism.” Traditional allies are ignored, and old enemies are courted — until both are on the same moral and political plane. The one constant is that a socialist anti-Western philosophy abroad (which blames the West for a nation’s own self-inflicted misery) wins sympathy with the Obama administration, while capitalist Western culture is seen as mostly passé.

In any isolated circumstance, we are willing to give the president of the United States a pass on a particular disturbing decision. But after 14 months of them, the Obama particulars add up to a remaking of America that is now clear and consistent: Grow government; redistribute income; establish permanent political constituencies of dependents; increase entitlements; hike taxes; demonize “them” while deifying their supposed victims; seek global neutrality abroad; and always play fast and loose with the truth.

What do we end up with?

You might call it: Chicago does socialism.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/429378/chicago-does-socialism/victor-davis-hanson?page=1

 

Barack Obama’s Stealth Socialism

“…Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He’s disguising the wealth transfers as “investments” — “to make America more competitive,” he says, or “that give us a fighting chance,” whatever that means. 

Among his proposed “investments”: 

  • “Universal,” “guaranteed” health care.
  • “Free” college tuition.
  • “Universal national service” (a la Havana).
  • “Universal 401(k)s” (in which the government would match contributions made by “low- and moderate-income families”).
  • “Free” job training (even for criminals).
  • “Wage insurance” (to supplement dislocated union workers’ old income levels).
  • “Free” child care and “universal” preschool.
  • More subsidized public housing.
  • A fatter earned income tax credit for “working poor.”
  • And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.

His new New Deal also guarantees a “living wage,” with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and “fair trade” and “fair labor practices,” with breaks for “patriot employers” who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for “nonpatriot” companies that don’t. 

That’s just for starters — first-term stuff. …” 

http://www.military-money-matters.com/barack-obamas-stealth-socialism.html 

Obama & Friends – A History Of Radicalism (Part 1 of 6)

Obama & Friends – A History Of Radicalism (Part 2 of 6)

Obama & Friends – A History Of Radicalism (Part 3 of 6)

Obama & Friends – A History Of Radicalism (Part 4 of 6)

Obama & Friends – A History Of Radicalism (Part 5 of 6)

Obama & Friends – A History Of Radicalism (Part 6 of 6)

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Mark Levin–Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto–Videos

Cloward Piven

Massive Budget Deficit Spending, National Debt and Tax Increases–Obama Successful Cloward-Piven Strategy–Over 30 Million Seek Jobs and Food Stamps or SNAP!

The Cloward-Piven Strategy Of The Progressive Radical Socialists: Wrecking The U.S. Economy By Massive Government Dependence, Spending, Deficits, Debts, Taxes And Regulations!

Cloward Piven Strategy–The Crisis Strategy Of Barack Obama

President Obama’s Cloward-Piven Strategy of Controlled Crisis Creation Crippling Capitalism–Coup D-Etat On America

Collectivism: Socialism, Communism, Progressivism and Fascism

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Walter Block–Videos

Thomas DiLorenzo–The Economic Model of the Fascist State–Videos

G. William Domhoff: Who Runs America–Videos

Jonah Goldberg–Liberal Fascism–Videos

Paul Edward Gottfried–Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and the Welfare State–Videos

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism vs. Collectivism–Videos

Mark Levin–Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto–Videos

George Gerald Reisman–Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian–Videos

Today’s Progressives–Obama’s Radical Socialist Democratic Party

The Racist Test for Judge Sonya Sotomayor and President Obama–Racism Unmasked!

Calling and Raising The Stakes for Race Card Players–Obama and Sotomayor

George Soros: Government Interventionist and Global Socialist–Obama’s Puppeter Master–Videos

George Soros: Barack Obama’s Money Man and Agenda Puppeter

The Cloward-Piven Strategy Of The Progressive Radical Socialists: Wrecking The U.S. Economy By Massive Government Dependence, Spending, Deficits, Debts, Taxes And Regulations!

President Barack Obama’s Role Model–President Franklin D. Roosevelt–The Worse President For The U.S. and World Economies and The American People–With The Same Results–High Unemployment Rates–Over 25 Million American Citizens Seeking Full Time Jobs Today–Worse Than The Over 13 Million Seeking Jobs During The Worse of The Great Depression!

Progressives

Progressive Radical Socialist Health Care Plan Written In Prison By Convicted Felon Richard Creamer!

Obamanomics–New Deal Progressive Radical Socialist Interventionism

Eugenics, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, and Designer Babies–Videos

The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Robert Higgs–Videos

The Obama Depression: Lessons Learned–Deja Vu!

Lord Christopher Monckton–Climate Change–Treaty–Videos

Progressive Radical Socialist Canned Criticism of American People: Danger, Profits, and Wrong Thinking

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!

Obama’s Civilian National Security Force–Youth Corp Wave–Friendly Fascism Faces–Cons–Crooks–Communists–Communities–Corps!

Obama’s Hidden Agenda and Covert Cadre of Marxists, Communists, Progressives, Radicals, Socialists–Far Left Democrats Destroying Capitalism and The American Republic

Yuri Bezmenov On KGB Soviet Propaganda and Subversion–Videos

The Bloody History of Communism–Videos

Obama Youth–Civilian National Security Force–National Socialism–Hitler Youth–Brownshirts– Redux?–Collectivism!

American Progressive Liberal Fascism–The Wave of The Future Or Back To Past Mistakes?

Today’s Progressives–Obama’s Radical Socialist Democratic Party

President Obama–Killer of The American Dream and Market Capitalism–Stop The Radical Socialists Before They Kill You!

The Progressive Radical Socialist Family Tree–ACORN & AmeriCorps–Time To Chop It Down

It Is Official–America On The Obama Road To Fascism–Thomas Sowell!

President Obama and His Keynesian Spending Cult of The Fascist Democrat Radicals–FDRs

Economists

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Frederic Bastiat–The Law–Videos

Walter Block–Videos

Walter Block–Introduction To Libertarianism–Videos

Yaron Brook–Videos

Thomas DiLorenzo–The Economic Model of the Fascist State–Videos

Paul Edward Gottfried–Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and the Welfare State–Videos

David Gordon–Five Best Books on the Current Crisis–Video

David Gordon–The Confused Literature of Globalization–Videos

Friedrich Hayek–Videos

Henry Hazlitt–Economics In One Lesson–Videos

The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Robert Higgs–Videos

Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Ethics of Money Production–Videos

Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Life and Work of Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Milton Friedman–Videos

Milton Friedman on Education–Videos

Milton Friedman–Debate In Iceland–Videos

Milton Friedman–Free To Choose–On Donahue –Videos

Israel Kirzner–On Entrepreneurship–Vidoes

Liberal Fascism–Jonah Goldberg–Videos

Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Robert P. Murphy–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

George Gerald Reisman–Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Libertarianism–Video

Rothbard On Keynes–Videos

Murray Rothbard– What Has Government Done to Our Money?–Videos

Peter Schiff–Videos

Schiff, Forbers and Bloomberg Nail The Financial Crisis and Recession–Mistakes Were Made–Greed, Arrogance, Stupidity–Three Chinese Curses!

Larry Sechrest–The Anticapitalists: Barbarians at the Gate–Videos

L. William Seidman on The Economic Crisis: Causes and Cures–Videos

Amity Shlaes–Videos

Julian Simon–Videos

Julian Simon–The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment–Videos

Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions–Videos

Thomas Sowell On The Housing Boom and Bust–Videos

Peter Thiel–Videos

Thomas E. Woods, Jr.–Videos

Thomas E. Woods–The Economic Crisis and The Federal Reserve–Videos

Tom Woods–Lectures On Liberty–Videos

Tom Woods On Personal Rights and Property Ownership

Tom Woods–Smashing Myths and Restoring Sound Money–Videos

Tom Woods–Who Killed The Constitution

Tom Wright On The FairTax–Videos

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Robert Baer and Victor Davis Hanson: A Nuclear Iran–Videos

Posted on April 6, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Religion, Resources, Science, Security, Strategy, Taxes, Technology, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

Robert Baer and Victor Davis Hanson: A Nuclear Iran – 1/4

Robert Baer and Victor Davis Hanson: A Nuclear Iran – 2/4

Robert Baer and Victor Davis Hanson: A Nuclear Iran – 3/4

Robert Baer and Victor Davis Hanson: A Nuclear Iran – 4/4

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

The Traitors Treaty On Nuclear Weapon Cuts–Progressive Radical Socialist Barack Obama–Regime Change On January 20, 2013–Countdown

Iranian Green Revolution Regime Change or The Iranian War–Sooner Rather Than Latter–Videos

Victor Davis Hanson–The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Traitors Treaty–Progressive Radical Socialist Barack Obama–Regime Change On January 20, 2013–Countdown

Posted on April 6, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Technology, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

33 Minutes

Rush Limbaugh – Obama to Alter Conditions for Use of Nuclear Weapons

Obama on Missile Defense & Nuclear Weapons

Obama Outlines Sweeping Goal of Nuclear Free World

Obama limits US nuclear arms use

New Nuclear Arms Treaty

US Russia Nuclear Arms Agrement (1)

Peace in our Time September 1938

FDR Warns of Fifth Column 1940/5/27

Kennedy addresses the nation on the Cuban Missile Crisis

Russia Navy Holidays in Caribbean

Russia tests world’s most powerful bomb

MOAB – Future Weapons

Watch Former KGB Spy, Professor Oleg Kalugin

How To Brainwash A Nation

KGB training of 1960’s radicals – Pt 2

Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America

Mark Levin – The promise from Barack Obama that the US will not respond with nuclear weapons

 

 

Fox News ” We Need a Nuclear Japan ” Columnist Charles Krauthammer ( Japanese subtitle )

33 Minutes – America’s Missile Defense in a New Missile Age

What country recruited the progressive radical socialist Barack Obama when he was attending college? 

The American people would like to know. 

The Central Intelligence Agency’s good old boy network better get on the case and finally leak  to the new media the long overdue security background investigation of Barack Obama that knows the answer to this question. 

The nuclear weapons treaty is a roadmap to American weakness and Chinese and Russian strength. 

The nuclear weapons treaty will only encourage such nations as Iran and North Korea to develop nuclear weapons of their own. 

The progressive radical socialist Democratic Party are America’ s fifth column and Trojan horse. 

Obama is hopeless. 

The progressive radical socialist Democratic Party Obama leads are committing political suicide and will try by hook or by crook to pass any law they can before next November elections. 

The American people pushback and backlash will teach the progressive radical socialists of both parties a lesson they need to learn the hard way. 

The time has come to replace the progressive radical socialist Democratic Party with a new political party with the tea party patriots as its base. 

The American people are outraged at the fiscal irresponsibility of both the Democratic and Republican parties resulting in massive deficits and an exploding national debt. 

Now President Obama threatens the American people’s own physical safety by encouraging the enemies of the American people to not worry about a nuclear weapons attack provided some conditions are met. 

President Obama is delusional and hopeless. 

The American people no longer believe or trust President Obama due to his daily lying. 

America’s enemies are laughing at the educated fool. 

Any senator that votes for this treaty should be defeated when he or she next comes up for re-election. 

Time to throw these traitors out of office, if not in prison. 

 

Background Articles and Videos

Victor Davis Hanson: A Noble, Bad Idea- President Obama’s new nuclear policy is ill-timed and ill-conceived

“…First, the president putting forth this comprehensive agenda is not an old hawk like Reagan or the Bushes, but rather one who has apologized, bowed, and backpedaled abroad in courting enemies like Syria and Iran while snubbing old friends such as Britain and Israel. Context matters. Fairly or not, the world will see these latest pronouncements as more in line with the abstract idealism of a Nobel Peace Prize laureate than with the leader of the world’s sole superpower, on whom billions in the real world rely to keep the peace through deterrence. 

Further, Obama is currently engaged in an ongoing war against radical Islam, whose adherents seek to gain weapons of mass destruction. He operates in a landscape in which nuclear proliferation is on the rise from Iran to North Korea, and when a host of other anti-American autocracies such as Syria and Venezuela either boast about their desire to obtain nuclear weapons or have already stealthily built reactors. The timing, in other words, could not be worse. Appearances also matter. 

Second, the American people will not stand for any Commander-in-Chief ruling out, in advance, the use of nuclear weapons, even in the event that the nation is attacked with biological or chemical weapons. Just imagine: al Qaeda conducts a deadly anthrax attack in Manhattan that kills thousands, while the architects of such destruction retreat to underground sanctuaries along the Afghan-Pakistani border; or Hezbollah operatives release nerve gas in an American mall that is traced directly to a plant in the Iranian desert. I doubt seriously whether any president would rule out the use of a tactical nuclear weapon if it militarily proved the best option to prevent further carnage. 

Third, ambiguity is essential in nuclear poker. All nuclear states must at some point play the game. A potentially aggressive state never quite knows how bad the reaction might be should it gamble and initiate an attack—and this is what keeps the peace. Predictability and limiting options on the part of responsible states only invite unpredictability and the expansion of choices for known bad actors. …” 

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon0406vdh.html 

Truman and the Principles of U.S. Foreign Policy

Jimmy Carter rejected the postwar consensus. President Obama appears to be

“…Mr. Obama exhibits both the initial inexperience—and some of the naïveté—of Harry Truman when he took office. He has framed the challenge of radical Islam largely in terms of what a contrite America must do to apologize to the Muslim world, instead of addressing endemic religious intolerance, autocracy, statist economies, tribalism and gender apartheid that help fuel extremism. 

 

The Obama administration reaches out to enemies such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al Assad, the Castro brothers and Hugo Chávez. It pays far less attention to British, Colombian, French, Israeli and Japanese allies. In unilateral fashion we withdrew promises of land-based antiballistic missile defense from Eastern Europe, giddy that we might appease the Russians into abrogating their patronage of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But so far the centrifuges keep spinning while we appear unreliable to friends, compliant to rivals, and weak to enemies. The administration has also promised greater support to the U.N., seemingly unworried that the organization’s illiberal majority has often appeased or abetted autocratic governments. 

Will an inexperienced Barack Obama, in the fashion of Harry Truman, learn quickly that the world is chaotic and unstable—best dealt with through strength and unabashed confidence in America’s historic role galvanizing democratic allies to confront illiberal aggressors? 

 

Or will a sermonizing Mr. Obama follow the aberrant Democratic path of the sanctimonious Jimmy Carter: finger-wagging at allies, appeasing enemies, publicly faulting his less than perfect predecessors, and hectoring the American people to evolve beyond their supposed prejudices? 

 

America awaits the president’s choice. The world’s safety hinges upon it.” 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704335904574495141362744118.html 

Morning Bell: The Road to a New Nuclear Arms Race

‘…Unfortunately for Americans, President Obama’s new strategy will have the exact opposite result of its intended effect. Instead of incentivizing countries to give up nuclear ambitions, it creates new incentives for them to maintain or develop their own nuclear programs. First look at the Russians, who clearly still see their nuclear weapons as the cornerstone of their defense, no matter how much President Obama wishes it were otherwise. Moscow has no interest in diminishing its own nuclear arsenal, but it is perfectly happy to allow the Obama administration to weaken the U.S. deterrent until it is on equal footing with Russia’s currently mediocre might. 

A country like Iran is equally unimpressed with President Obama’s unilateral disarmament strategy. Tehran wants to be the pre-eminent power in the Middle East, and as a nuclear state it can more credibly make that claim. But more importantly, nuclear weapons would also boost the current regime’s domestic survival. Nuclear powers do not mess in the internal affairs of other nuclear powers. Witness Tiananmen Square. The ayatollahs believe that, when they have the bomb, they can crush the freedom-loving opposition with total impunity. They are counting the days. 

First START and now the NPR demonstrate a shift by the Obama administration away from relying on nuclear deterrence to protect America and toward reliance on unverifiable international treaties. But as President Obama makes our nuclear arsenal smaller, less reliable and less usable, it becomes a far less credible deterrent to nuclear attack. Rather than serve as an example for other nation’s to follow, President Obama’s nuclear weakness will only give America’s enemies every incentive to advance their own programs. The President’s arms control “road” is more likely to lead to a new arms race, rather than to “zero.” …” 

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/06/morning-bell-the-road-to-a-new-nuclear-arms-race/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell 

China wants US and Russia to disarm

William R. Hawkins 

“…The new agreement would cut U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons by about one-third. But a bilateral agreement will not move towards a nuclear free world if other powers not party to the negotiations are expanding their arsenals. Case in point, China. 

Beijing was not impressed by the U.S.-Russian agreement. An editorial i n the Communist Party foreign affairs journal Global Times asked for praise to be withheld. 

The winding path the world has taken toward nuclear disarmament has given rise to suspicion toward the real determination of the two countries to put their words into action….. Efforts taken by the US and Russia in the past 20 years have been far from enough…. 

Even after Obama ambitiously outlined his vision for a nuke-free world in his address in Prague last year, the nuclear weapons-related budget of his administration has disappointingly risen. The entrenched interests of the defense industry and the deep-rooted Cold War mentality of some nuclear hawks have made the force of resistance too strong to overcome. 

Skepticism is mounting over how determined Russia is in its nuclear disarmament, too. 

Yet, China is moving ahead with is own nuclear weapons programs, unimpaired by any international agreements. Richard D. Fisher, Jr. concisely described Beijing’s arms buildup in Jane’s Intelligence Review last year, …” 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/china_wants_us_and_russia_to_d.html 

Engaging China and Russia on Nuclear Disarmament

How to take over from the inside :Spies For Hire Part 1 of 3

How to take over from the inside :Spies For Hire Part 2 of 3

How to take over from the inside :Spies For Hire Part 3 of 3

Related Post On Pronk Palisades

CIA’s Good Ol’d Boys Investigation of Obama’s Progressive Radical Socialist Network Results In Obama–The Red Diaper Baby–Do Do Wee Wee Upped–It’s Time For A Diaper Change!

Yuri Bezmenov ex KGB Psycological Warfare Techniques–Videos

CIA Rattles White House Cage Over Walking Back The Cat On Obama–Lapdog Holder Barks At CIA–No Bite!

CIA Old Boy Network–Walking Back The Cat–Barack Obama–Who Recruited Him and For What End?

Barack Obama The Birth Certificate Artful Dodger Forever–Give It Up!–No One Is Above The Law and US Constitution

Rule of Law or Rule of Man–Supreme Court Cracking The Constitution?

Lieutenant Columbo to President Obama–I really love my work sir! One more question?

Columbo: One More Question Senator Obama–Why will you not show the American People your birth certificate?

General Patton Lives

Collectivism: Socialism, Communism, Progressivism and Fascism

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Walter Block–Videos

Thomas DiLorenzo–The Economic Model of the Fascist State–Videos

G. William Domhoff: Who Runs America–Videos

Jonah Goldberg–Liberal Fascism–Videos

Paul Edward Gottfried–Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and the Welfare State–Videos

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism vs. Collectivism–Videos

George Gerald Reisman–Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian–Videos

Today’s Progressives–Obama’s Radical Socialist Democratic Party

It Is Official–America On The Obama Road To Fascism–Thomas Sowell!

President Obama and His Keynesian Spending Cult of The Fascist Democrat Radicals–FDRs

The Racist Test for Judge Sonya Sotomayor and President Obama–Racism Unmasked!

Calling and Raising The Stakes for Race Card Players–Obama and Sotomayor

George Soros: Government Interventionist and Global Socialist–Obama’s Puppeter Master–Videos

George Soros: Barack Obama’s Money Man and Agenda Puppeter

The Cloward-Piven Strategy Of The Progressive Radical Socialists: Wrecking The U.S. Economy By Massive Government Dependence, Spending, Deficits, Debts, Taxes And Regulations!

The Cloward-Piven Strategy Of The Progressive Radical Socialists: Wrecking The U.S. Economy By Massive Government Dependence!

President Barack Obama’s Role Model–President Franklin D. Roosevelt–The Worse President For The U.S. and World Economies and The American People–With The Same Results–High Unemployment Rates–Over 25 Million American Citizens Seeking Full Time Jobs Today–Worse Than The Over 13 Million Seeking Jobs During The Worse of The Great Depression!

Progressives

Progressive Radical Socialist Health Care Plan Written In Prison By Convicted Felon Richard Creamer!

Obamanomics–New Deal Progressive Radical Socialist Interventionism

Eugenics, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, and Designer Babies–Videos

The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Robert Higgs–Videos

The Obama Depression: Lessons Learned–Deja Vu!

Lord Christopher Monckton–Climate Change–Treaty–Videos

Progressive Radical Socialist Canned Criticism of American People: Danger, Profits, and Wrong Thinking

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!

Obama’s Civilian National Security Force–Youth Corp Wave–Friendly Fascism Faces–Cons–Crooks–Communists–Communities–Corps!

Obama’s Hidden Agenda and Covert Cadre of Marxists, Communists, Progressives, Radicals, Socialists–Far Left Democrats Destroying Capitalism and The American Republic

Yuri Bezmenov On KGB Soviet Propaganda and Subversion–Videos

KGB Defector Yuri Bezmenov: Soviet Subversion of the Free World Press–Videos

The Bloody History of Communism–Videos

Obama Youth–Civilian National Security Force–National Socialism–Hitler Youth–Brownshirts– Redux?–Collectivism!

American Progressive Liberal Fascism–The Wave of The Future Or Back To Past Mistakes?

Today’s Progressives–Obama’s Radical Socialist Democratic Party

President Obama–Killer of The American Dream and Market Capitalism–Stop The Radical Socialists Before They Kill You!

The Progressive Radical Socialist Family Tree–ACORN & AmeriCorps–Time To Chop It Down

It Is Official–America On The Obama Road To Fascism–Thomas Sowell!

President Obama and His Keynesian Spending Cult of The Fascist Democrat Radicals–FDRs

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Patrick J. Buchanan–Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War–Videos

Posted on January 26, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Foreign Policy, government spending, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Raves, Security, Technology, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

 

Patrick Buchanan on his book ‘Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2426421007058157682#

Pat Buchanan – Today Show – Unnecessary War

Pat Buchanan: Hitler wasn’t a threat to U.S.

Pat Buchanan On Antiwar Radio Part 1 of 5

Pat Buchanan On Antiwar Radio Part 2 of 5

Pat Buchanan On Antiwar Radio Part 3 of 5

Pat Buchanan On Antiwar Radio Part 4 of 5

In Defense of WWII

Background Articles and Videos

“…Synopsis

Were World Wars I and II—which can now be seen as a thirty-year paroxysm of slaughter and destruction—inevitable? Were they necessary wars? Were the bloodiest and most devastating conflicts ever suffered by mankind fated by forces beyond men’s control? Or were they products of calamitous failures of judgment? In this monumental and provocative history, Patrick Buchanan makes the case that, if not for the blunders of British statesmen—Winston Churchill first among them—the horrors of two world wars and the Holocaust might have been avoided and the British Empire might never have collapsed into ruins. Half a century of murderous oppression of scores of millions under the iron boot of Communist tyranny might never have happened, and Europe’s central role in world affairs might have been sustained for many generations.

Among the British and Churchillian blunders were:

• The secret decision of a tiny cabal in the inner Cabinet in 1906 to take Britain straight to war against Germany, should she invade France
• The vengeful Treaty of Versailles that muti- lated Germany, leaving her bitter, betrayed, and receptive to the appeal of Adolf Hitler
• Britain’s capitulation, at Churchill’s urging, to American pressure to sever the Anglo- Japanese alliance, insulting and isolating Japan, pushing her onto the path of militarism and conquest
• The 1935 sanctions that drove Italy straight into the Axis with Hitler
• The greatest blunder in British history: the unsolicited war guarantee to Poland of March 1939—that guaranteed the Second World War
• Churchill’s astonishingblindness to Stalin’s true ambitions.

Certain to create controversy and spirited argument, Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War” is a grand and bold insight into the historic failures of judgment that ended centuries of European rule and guaranteed a future no one who lived in that vanished world could ever have envisioned.

Biography

PATRICK J. BUCHANAN was a senior adviser to three American presidents; ran twice for the Republican presidential nomination, in 1992 and 1996; and was the Reform Party candidate in 2000. The author of nine other books, including the bestsellers Right from the Beginning; A Republic, Not an Empire; The Death of the West; State of Emergency; and Day of Reckoning, Buchanan is a syndicated columnist and founding member of three of America’s foremost public affairs shows: NBC’s The McLaughlin Group and CNN’s The Capital Gang and Crossfire. He is now a senior political analyst for MSNBC. …”

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Churchill-Hitler-and-The-Unnecessary-War/Patrick-J-Buchanan/e/9780307405159

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Victor Davis Hanson, Anne-Marie Slaughter, and Stephen Stedman–THE BEST DEFENSE: Preventive War–Videos

Andrew C. McCarthy–Willful Blindness–Videos

Philip Bobbitt–Terror and Consent–Videos

Peter Robinson–Conversations With Authors–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

President Obama’s Announces His Half A Loaf Retreat and Defeat Strategy To The World–Time For Someone In The Know To Blow The Whistle On The Obama Hokey Pokey!

Posted on December 1, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Foreign Policy, government spending, People, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , |

 

Obama: More Troops to Aghanistan; Timetable to Leave

obama speech afghanistan

Reaction to Afghanistan Speech – CNN

Reaction to Afghanistan Strategy

 

Glenn Beck Show – December 1, 2009 – Pt 2 of 7 – Susan Ferrechio

Obama to announce Afghanistan troop strategy Tuesday

Democrats Afghanistan Strategy Counter Productive

General McChrystal Speech

 

General McChrystal Speech Part 2

General McChrystal Speech Part 3

Reasons for Optimism in Afghanistan? – General Jack Keane

Beating The Taliban By The Book – Afghanistan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MLv2Cg7_go

 

The top secret classified detailed report prepared by General McCrystal apparently asked for 60,000 additional troops with an absolute minimum of 40,000 and the strategy was a “game changer.”

This would require the deployment of between about twelve and sixteen army combat brigades.

President Obama announced tonight that an additional 30,000 troops would be deployed or about eight combat brigades.

This represents 50% or what General McCrystal asked for and 75% of the absolute minimum.

Will NATO come up with additional 10,000 to 30,000 troops?

If not, the minimum resources requested falls far short.

Combined this with an eighteen to thirty-six month time schedule and victory is clearly not the goal of this war.

Counterinsurgency warfare does not usually have such a short time line and should not be announced no matter how long or short it is.

The disclosure of a timeline for withdrawal was to try to placate President Obama progressive radical socialist base in the Democratic Party. This only gives the Taliban a weapon to intimidate those who support what the US is doing in Afghanistan.

A three year timeline that just happens to coinside with the 2012 elections in the United States means the President wants all or most of the troops out of Afghanistan as well as Iraq before the 2012 election campaign. The timeline appears to be paced by election politics rather than military necessity.

Just remember that this President lies regulary and there are enough loopholes in the speech that the President could get out sooner or much latter depending on what is happening on the ground.

Does the United States Army have the necessary trained, equipped and available combat brigades for such a deployment?

Apparently not.

The force structure was deeply cut under President Clinton and now when the troops are needed, they are simply not enough for victory.

Will the whistle be blown?

I doubt it, but expect more and more leaks.

Mission impossible will quickly become Obama’s retreat and defeat strategy.

President Obama or the I/me President is simply not committed to this effort.

The President is more interested and committed to health insurance reform and a cap and trade energy tax than waging war in Afghanistan.

Either give General McCrystal 50,000 troops or fourteen combat brigades over the next three years or leave Afghanistan now.

“In war there is no substitute for victory.” said General Douglas MacArthur.

President Obama never says victory.

The American people are now searching for an Obama exit strategy.

The Obama retreat and defeat strategy will not make the progressive radical socialist–peace at any price-wing of the Democratic Party happy.

Code Pink, Woman for Peace, have already given Obama’s plan a song and dance–The Hokey Pokey:

How to do the Hokey Pokey 

 

 

Background Articles and Videos

Thomas Barnett: The Pentagon’s new map for war and peace

The Pentagons New Map – Thomas Barnett lecture

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4689061169761152025

 

At War with General Jack Keane

Conversations with History: Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson: War in the Post Modern World – why the new laws of conflict are surreal

 

General McCrystal’s Afghanistan Assessment: An Alternate View

Brian Matos

 

“…The key takeaway from this assessment is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way we think and operate,” states McCrystal on page 1-1 of the report. Later in the report he elaborates by saying that U.S. and NATO forces must change their mind set from killing the enemy alone, to protecting the entire civilian population from the Taliban, Al Qeada, violent ethic extremists and internal criminals. The change in mind set would require U.S. troops to blend in with the population, getting closer than ever before and risking immense danger by trusting local leaders who may double cross them.

The General calls for a full counter insurgency which will require more “resources” than what the NATO and U.S. forces now have. The report does not make clear how many resources, a.k.a troops, it will take to launch this Iraq-like surge, nor does it make any suggestion that more “resources” will come from other NATO nations. …”

“…McCrystal ends his assessment by simply stating, “Through proper resourcing, rigorous implementation, and sustained political will, this refocused strategy offers (the coalition) the best prospect for success in this important mission.” ”

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2204403/general_mccrystals_afghanistan_assessment.html

Brigade Unit of Action

“…The Army normally deployed forces in 2,500 to 4,200-soldier Brigade Combat Teams. These consist of a ground-maneuver brigade (most divisions have three) augmented by other units, such as artillery battalions, which are controlled by the division commander.

The new “brigade based” structure will replace the current arrangement, designed for the Cold War when the Army was prepared to fight giant set-piece battles on European soil, where the support roles were organized at the division level. It will improve the deployment ratio so that there can be two brigades at home for every one deployed overseas.Brigade combat teams will be restructured into Brigade Units of Action. Once transitioned, BUAs will enable greater capacity for rapid packaging and responsive and sustained employment to support combatant commanders. BUAs will also enhance the expeditionary and campaign qualities of Army forces by better enabling Joint/coalition operations. The transition to BUAs will also increase the brigade-equivalent forces available to meet both enduring and emerging mission requirements.

Within the force the Army will have formations that are leaner, that rely on Joint force capabilities and that rely on information. The Army is going to build these future force teams around a combat team, and is not going to wait until 2010. The Army began this change in 2004 (with) a movement to brigade combat teams where the brigade commander will have everything he needs to execute the operation. The brigade combat team will all be packaged within one team – formed that way, packaged that way – and will deploy as an entity, not as a number of small units pulled together when the flag goes up.

The restructuring would leave a division with three types of brigades: heavy, with armor; light, with motorized infantry, and airborne. This new Brigade Units of Action is different from the Units of Action the Army is forming to achieve the Future Combat Systems [FCS]. The FCS first unit equipped (FUE)-one battalion equivalent-in 2008 and an initial operating capability of one brigade Unit of Action (UoA) in 2010.

Growing the fourth includes taking much of the division-level support elements — such as engineers, military intelligence, supply and maintenance units — and making them organic to the brigade structure.

The service will move some enabling resources – such as air defense, signal and intelligence – to the brigade level. Each brigade unit of action will have one fewer company-size element and less artillerymen. However, it will have more military policemen, better command and control assets to talk to each other over long distances, and more certified troops to call in close air support. The brigade unit of action will have enough command and control capability to operate independently. This pushes support roles down to the brigade level. It takes the support brigades — those that do artillery, supply and maintenance, for the most part — and sprinkle their personnel across the Brigade. …”

Structure of the U.S. Army

Officially, a member of the U.S. Army is called a Soldier which is written with a capital letter.

The U.S. Army is structured:

  1. Field Army: Usually four star level (GEN).
  2. Corps: Consists of two or more divisions and organic support brigades. Commanders are generally at three star level (LTG).
  3. Division Commanders: Generally two star level (MG).
  4. Brigade (or group): Composed of typically three or more battalions, and commanded by a Colonel (Col). (See Regiment for combat arms units.)
  5. Battalion (or squadron): Most units are organized into battalions. Cavalry units are formed into squadrons. A battalion-sized unit is commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel (LTC), supported by a Command Sergeant Major/E-9 (CSM). This unit consists of a Battalion Commander (CO, LTC), a Battalion Executive Officer (XO,MAJ), a Command Sergeant Major (CSM) and headquarters, 3-5 Company Commanders (CPT), 3-5 Company Executive Officers (1LT), 3-5 First Sergeants (1SG) and headquarters, 6 or more Platoon Leaders (2LT/1LT), 6 or more Platoon sergeants (SFC),and 12 or more Squad Leaders (any NCO).
  6. Company (or battery/troop): Artillery units are formed into batteries. Cavalry units are formed into troops. A company-sized unit is usually led by a Company Commander usually the rank of Captain/O-3 (CPT) supported by a First Sergeant/E-8 (1SG). This unit consists of a Company Commander (CO, CPT), a Company Executive Officer (XO,1LT), A First Sergeant(1SG) and a headquarters, Two or more Platoon Leaders (2LT/1LT), two or more Platoon Searents (SFC), and four or more Squad Leaders (any NCO).
  7. Platoon: Usually led by a lieutenant supported by a Sergeant First Class/E-7 (SFC). This unit consists of a Platoon Leader (2LT/1LT), a Platoon Sergeant (SFC), and two or more Squad Leaders (any NCO).
  8. Section: Usually directed by Staff Sergeants/E-6 (SSG) whom supply guidance for junior NCO Squad leaders. Often used in conjunction with platoons at the company level.
  9. Squad: Squad leaders are often Staff Sergeants/E-6 (SSG), Sergeants/E-5 (SGT), or Corporals/E-4 (CPL). This unit consists of eight to ten Soldiers.
  10. Fire team: Usually consists of four Soldiers: a fire team leader, a grenadier, and two riflemen. Fire team leaders are often Corporal/E-4 (CPL).

The Army is organized by function. Combat forces include Infantry, Armor, Cavalry, Artillery, and Special Forces. Combat support troops include Army Aviation, Army Corps of Engineers, Quartermaster Corps, Medical Corps, Transportation Corps, Ordnance Corps, Adjutant General’s Corps, Signal Corps, Intelligence Corps. Support troops include the Judge Advocate General’s Corps.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/US_Army

United States Army Brigade

In the United States Army, a brigade is smaller than a division and roughly equal to or a little larger than a regiment. Strength typically ranges from 2,500 to 4,000 personnel. Army brigades formerly contained two or more and typically five regiments, during the American Civil War and continuing as a formation through WW 1, but this structure is now considered obsolete since an Army reorganization before WW 2. The US Army has moved to a new generic brigade combat team formation which contain combat elements and their support units, and is standard across the active US Army, US Army Reserve, and the Army National Guard.

In the United States Marine Corps, brigades are only formed for certain missions. Unlike the United States Army, the Marines have intact regimental structures. A Marine brigade is formed only for special expeditionary duty, for which it is outfitted like a smaller Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF). For example, TF TARAWA (2d MEB) during the Operation Iraqi Freedom campaign.

The Brigade Commander is usually a colonel, although a lieutenant colonel can be selected for brigade command in lieu of an available colonel. A typical tour of duty for this assignment is twenty four to thirty six months.

A brigade commander enjoys an appreciably sized headquarters and staff to assist him or her in commanding the brigade and its subordinate battalion units. The typical staff includes:

  • a brigade deputy commanding officer, usually a lieutenant colonel
  • a brigade executive officer, usually a lieutenant colonel
  • a brigade command sergeant major
  • a personnel officer (S1), usually a major
  • an intelligence officer (S2), usually a major
  • an operations officer (S3), usually a lieutenant colonel
  • a logistics officer (S4), usually a major
  • a communications officer (S6), usually a major
  • a medical officer, usually a major
  • a Judge Advocate General (legal) officer, usually a major
  • a brigade chaplain, usually a major

In addition, the headquarters will include additional junior staff officers, non-commissioned officers, and enlisted support personnel in the occupational specialities of the staff sections; these personnel will ordinarily be assigned to the brigade’s headquarters and headquarters company.

Book TV: Lt. Col. John Nagl “The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuDlrrRDfUw

Mission Impossible? Deconstructing Counter-insurgency in Afghanistan 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

President Obama’s West Point Speech on War in Afghanistan–Cadet Honor Code–Generals Marshall and MacArthur Speeches On Peace and War–Duty, Honor, Country

Obama’s Berlin Speech: The First New World Order Citizen–Fellow Traveler World Citizen!

Victor Davis Hanson–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Victor Davis Hanson–Videos

Posted on September 3, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Culture, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Strategy, Uncategorized, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

Victor Davis Hanson: War in the Post Modern World – why the new laws of conflict are surreal

In Defense of WWII

THE BEST DEFENSE: Preventive Warcklash

WHO NEEDS THE UNITED NATIONS? Reforming the United Nations

Victor Hanson – Illegal Immigration Backlash

1 of 4: Victor Davis Hanson: “Political Challenges Facing the Obama Administration”

2 of 4: Victor Davis Hanson: “Political Challenges Facing the Obama Administration”

3 of 4: Victor Davis Hanson: “Political Challenges Facing the Obama Administration”

4 of 4: Victor Davis Hanson: “Political Challenges Facing the Obama Administration”

Victor Davis Hanson (1/6)

Victor Davis Hanson (2/6)

Victor Davis Hanson (3/6)

 

Victor Davis Hanson (4/6)

 

Victor Davis Hanson (5/6)

Victor Davis Hanson (6/6)

Victor Davis Hanson (1/14)

Victor Davis Hanson (2/14)

Victor Davis Hanson (3/14)

Victor Davis Hanson (4/14)

Victor Davis Hanson (5/14)

Victor Davis Hanson (6/14)

Victor Davis Hanson (7/14)

Victor Davis Hanson (8/14)

Victor Davis Hanson (9/14)

Victor Davis Hanson (10/14)

Victor Davis Hanson (11/14)

Victor Davis Hanson (12/14)

Victor Davis Hanson (13/14)

Victor Davis Hanson (14/14)

Preemptive War Debate (Part 1)

Preemptive War Debate (Part 2)

Preemptive War Debate (Part 3)

Preemptive War Debate (Part 4)

Preemptive War Debate (Part 5)

Preemptive War Debate (Part 6)

Preemptive War Debate (Part 7)

Preemptive War Debate (Part 8)

War and Democracy in Ancient and Contemporary Middle East

 

Conversations with History: Victor Davis Hanson

Political Correctness – A God That Failed?

Victor Davis Hanson – Is the “War on Terror” Really a War?

War and Democracy in Ancient and Contemporary Middle East

Sarah Palin, Victim of Elitism? – Victor Davis Hanson

 

Victor Davis Hanson Questions Obama’s Political Past

Victor Davis Hanson: Obama, Palin, and the Culture Wars

http://fora.tv/2008/10/20/Victor_Davis_Hanson_Obama_Palin_and_the_Culture_Wars

Background Articles and Videos

Victor Davis Hanson 

“… Victor Davis Hanson (born 1953 in Fowler, California) is a military historian, columnist, political essayist and former classics professor, notable as a scholar of ancient warfare. He has been a commentator on modern warfare and contemporary politics for National Review and other media outlets, and was a strong supporter of the policies of US President George W. Bush.

Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007[1] and the US$250,000 Bradley prize from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in 2008.[2]

Hanson is also a farmer (growing raisin grapes on a family farm near Fresno, California) and a critic of social trends related to farming and agrarianism. …”

“…Works

  • Warfare and Agriculture in Classical Greece. University of California Press, 1983. ISBN 0-520-21025-5
  • The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece. Alfred A. Knopf, 1989. ISBN 0-394-57188-6
  • Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience, editor, Routledge, 1991. ISBN 0-415-04148-1
  • The Other Greeks: The Family Farm and the Agrarian Roots of Western Civilization, Free Press, 1995. ISBN 0-02-913751-9
  • Fields Without Dreams: Defending the Agrarian Idea, Free Press, 1996. ISBN 0-684-82299-7
  • Who Killed Homer?: The Demise of Classical Education and the Recovery of Greek Wisdom, with John Heath, Encounter Books, 2001. ISBN 1-893554-26-0
  • The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny, Free Press, 1999. ISBN 0-684-84502-4
  • The Wars of the Ancient Greeks: And the Invention of Western Military Culture, Cassell, 1999. ISBN 0-304-35222-5
  • The Land Was Everything: Letters from an American Farmer, Free Press, 2000. ISBN 0-684-84501-6
  • Bonfire of the Humanities: Rescuing the Classics in an Impoverished Age, with John Heath and Bruce S. Thornton, ISI Books, 2001. ISBN 1-882926-54-4
  • Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power, Doubleday, 2001. ISBN 0-385-50052-1
    Published in the UK as Why the West Has Won: Carnage and Culture from Salamis to Vietnam, Faber, 2001. ISBN 0-571-20417-1
  • An Autumn of War: What America Learned from September 11 and the War on Terrorism, Anchor Books, 2002. ISBN 1-4000-3113-3
    A collection of essays, mostly from National Review, covering events occurring between September 11, 2001 and January 2002
  • Mexifornia: A State of Becoming, Encounter Books, 2003. ISBN 1-893554-73-2
  • Ripples of Battle: How Wars Fought Long Ago Still Determine How We Fight, How We Live, and How We Think, Doubleday, 2003. ISBN 0-385-50400-4
  • Between War and Peace: Lessons from Afghanistan and Iraq, Random House, 2004. ISBN 0-8129-7273-2
    A collection of essays, mostly from National Review, covering events occurring between January 2002 and July 2003
  • A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War, Random House, 2005. ISBN 1-4000-6095-8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Davis_Hanson

Books By Victor Davis Hanson 

http://books.google.com/books?as_auth=Victor+Davis+Hanson&source=an&ei=J-KfSraJL-SPtgflzrzcDw&sa=X&oi=book_group&ct=title&cad=author-navigational&resnum=4

Victor Davis Hanson: Our Road to Oceania

“…Despite the absence of another 9/11-like attack, we are still told by the new terrorism czar, John Brennan, that the old war was largely a Bush failure. Administration officials keep inventing euphemisms. Some have dubbed the war on terror “an overseas contingency operation.”

We were once told that military tribunals, renditions, the Patriot Act and Predator drone attacks in Pakistan were George Bush’s assault on the Constitution rather than necessary tools to fight radical Islamic terrorists.

Not now. These policies are no longer criticized — even though they still operate more or less as they did under Bush. Guantanamo is still open, but no longer considered a gulag. The once-terrible war in Iraq disappeared off the front pages around late January of this year.

George Orwell, a man of the left, warned us that freedom and truth are not just endangered by easily identifiable goose-stepping goons in jackboots. More often he felt that state collectivism would come from an all-powerful government — run by a charismatic egalitarian, promising to protect us from selfish, greedy reactionaries.

Orwell was onto something.”

http://www.theunion.com/article/20090814/NEWS/908139982/1026/NONE&parentprofile=1056

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Peter Robinson–Conversations With Authors–Videos

Frederic Bastiat–The Law–Videos

Yaron Brook–Videos

Friedrich Hayek–Videos

Milton Friedman–Videos

Milton Friedman on Education–Videos

Ludwig von Mises–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

Peter Schiff–Videos

Schiff, Forbers and Bloomberg Nail The Financial Crisis and Recession–Mistakes Were Made–Greed, Arrogance, Stupidity–Three Chinese Curses!

L. William Seidman on The Economic Crisis: Causes and Cures–Videos

Amity Shlaes–Videos

Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions–Videos

Thomas E. Woods, Jr.–Videos

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Peter Robinson–Conversations With Authors–Videos

Posted on September 1, 2009. Filed under: Babies, Blogroll, Books, Climate, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Films, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, history, Homes, Immigration, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Medicine, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Strategy, Taxes, Technology, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Lincoln with Harry Jaffa

 

LAND OF LINCOLN: Abraham Lincoln and American History

 

Crisis Management with John Taylor

 

 The Economy According to Taylor and Judd

 

Thomas Sowell on the Housing Boom and Bust

 

Thomas Sowell and a Conflict of Visions

 

Thomas Sowell talks about his new book Economic Facts and Fallacies

PAY IT FORWARD: Social Security Reform

 

Charles Kesler on the Grand Liberal Project

 

Shelby Steele: Barack Obama and the Politics of Race.

 

Uncommon Knowledge: The Great Depression with Amity Shlaes

 

The World According to John Bolton

 

War Policy with Douglas Feith

 

The Middle East with Daniel Pipes

 

COMMANDING HEIGHTS: American Empire

 

At War with General Jack Keane

 

Intelligence and Security with James Woolsey

 

WILSON’S GHOST: Robert S. McNamara

 

Trotsky with Hitchens and Service

 

In Defense of WWII

 

GIVE WAR A CHANCE? The Utility of War

 

THE FRENCH KISS-OFF: The History of French and American Relationship

 

The Politics of Hollywood with Andrew Breitbart

 

The World According to Andrew Klavan

 

The Word According to Tom Wolfe

 

HITCH-COCKED: A Conversation with Christopher Hitchens

 

The Rise and Fall of Liberalism

 

The U.S. Economy with Peter Thiel

 

Equality Man

 

Africa with Dambisa Moyo

 

THE GRAND OLD, OLD PARTY: The Future of the Republican Party

 

Michael Barone

 

Crisis & the Law with Richard Epstein

 

Law and Justice with Antonin Scalia

 

ROBERT’S RULES OF ORDER: A Conversation with Robert Bork

 

The Founders and Us

 

ALEXANDER THE GREAT: Alexander Hamilton


 

 

Peter Robinson interviews Fresno State Classicist Bruce Thornton about his new book Decline and Fall: Europe’s Slow Suicide.

 

FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE: Global Poverty and the World Bank

 

LAND OF THE SETTING SUN? The Future of Japan

 

TRADING PLACES: Is Outsourcing Good for America?

 

The Environment with Steven Hayward

 

TAKE IT TO THE LIMITS: Milton Friedman on Libertarianism

 

Economic trade-offs debate

MONKEY BUSINESS: Evolution and Intelligent Design

MAKING THE GRADE: The No Child Left Behind Act

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson

http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uk

 

Rhetoric and Reality in the Education Stimulus Bill

 

Voucher controversy

 

MIND THE GAP: The Racial Gap in Education

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Frederic Bastiat–The Law–Videos

Yaron Brook–Videos

Friedrich Hayek–Videos

Milton Friedman–Videos

Milton Friedman on Education–Videos

Ludwig von Mises–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

Peter Schiff–Videos

Schiff, Forbers and Bloomberg Nail The Financial Crisis and Recession–Mistakes Were Made–Greed, Arrogance, Stupidity–Three Chinese Curses!

L. William Seidman on The Economic Crisis: Causes and Cures–Videos

Amity Shlaes–Videos

Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions–Videos

Thomas E. Woods, Jr.–Videos

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

Neoconservatives–Not New and Not Conservative–American Empire Interventionists

Posted on September 16, 2008. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Economics, Foreign Policy, Immigration, Links, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Resources, Taxes, Video, War | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

The Beatles – Revolution

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

~Thomas Jefferson et al,

The Declaration of Independence

UPDATED

The Truth About Neocons

Many movement conservatives deeply resent being called neoconservatives or neocons.

I consider myself to be a movement conservative that is comfortable in both the traditionalist and libertarian wings of the conservative movement represented by the works of the late Russell Kirk, Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and Friederick Hayek.

While I agree with neoconservatives on many occasions and issues, I part company when they advocate preemptive attacks on nations that have not attacked the United States, democracy nation-building, open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens, where I agree with Pat Buchanan. I part company with Mr. Buchanan’s views on free trade. I am a free trader.

Neoconservatives are first and foremost big government conservatives, which I regard as the problem, not the solution. I agree with the late President Ronald Reagan:

A Reminder from Ronald Reagan

Should Senator McCain be elected President, which I think he will, and should Senator McCain propose neoconservative policies and programs, I for one will advocate and support the formation of another political party.

I will follow the sage advice of Dick Armey and leave.

Dick Armey discusses big government conservatism

I am tired of being betrayed by Republicans who say one thing to get elected and turn around and do the exact opposite–Presidents George H. Bush and George W. Bush to name two, who I voted for with great expectations and now have very deep regrets for doing so.

Both Presidents increased taxes– the first directly and the second indirectly by massive deficit spending and open borders resulting in dramatic increases in local and state taxes to provide for education, services, medical care, welfare, jails, and prisons for illegal aliens. Not a single Federal department was eliminated such as Education, Agriculture, Energy, Labor, and Commerce for starters. Few spending bills were vetoed, a sheer mockery of fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets.

Bush Has Doubled National Debt with Deficits

You can say I am a conservative, libertarian, or classical liberal, but please not a neoconservative, and if things are not changed or reformed in Washington, I will not be voting Republican much longer.

Background Articles and Videos

Thomas Barnett: The Pentagon’s new map for war and peace

The Pentagons New Map – Thomas Barnett lecture

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4689061169761152025

Neoconservatism

Neoconservatism is a right-wing political philosophy that emerged in the United States from the rejection of the social liberalism, moral relativism, and New Left counterculture of the 1960s. It influenced the presidential administrations of George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, representing a realignment in American politics, and the transition of some liberals to the right of the political spectrum; hence the term, which refers to being ‘new’ conservatives.[1][2]

The term neoconservative was originally used as a criticism against liberals who had “moved to the right”.[3][4] Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the usage of neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy.[5] According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by “the notion that liberalism” had failed and “no longer knew what it was talking about.”[1]

The first major neoconservative to embrace the term and considered its founder is Irving Kristol, an American Jew from an orthodox Jewish family[6], and father of William Kristol who became the founder of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century. Irving Kristol had been an active supporter of Trotskyism, but wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article “Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed ‘Neoconservative.'”[3] Kristol’s ideas had been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine.[7]. Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled “The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan’s Foreign Policy”.[8][9] The Reagan Doctrine was considered anti-Communist and in opposition to Soviet Union global influence and considered central to American foreign policy until the end of the Cold War, shortly before Bill Clinton became president of the United States. Neoconservative influence on American foreign policy later became central with the Bush Doctrine.

Prominent neoconservative periodicals are Commentary and The Weekly Standard. Neoconservatives are associated with foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), The Heritage Foundation, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Neocons aiding ’08 Republicans

“Most Americans disapprove of the Iraq war and of exporting democracy by force, yet neoconservative proponents of those policies advise the leading Republican presidential hopefuls.

“There is an overwhelming presence of neoconservatives and absence of traditional conservatives that I don’t know what to make of,” said Richard V. Allen, former Reagan White House national security adviser.

Advisers to Sen. John McCain of Arizona include Robert Kagan, co-founder of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC), while former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani’s policy team includes Norman Podhoretz, a founder of the neoconservative movement, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney gets advice from Dan Senor, who counseled L. Paul Bremer III, the Coalition Provisional Authority administrator in Iraq.

Critics say neoconservatism casts American foreign policy as a new and benevolent form of imperialism, and conflicts with the traditional conservative, who prefers U.S. military power be reserved for defending against direct threats to America‘s vital interests. …”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/06/neocons-aiding-08-republicans/

The Neocons’ Palin Project

by Patrick J. Buchanan

“…In fairness to Palin, on issues like NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, her answers reflect the views of the man who chose her. She has no option at present but to follow the line laid down by Scheunemann.

But make no mistake. Sarah Palin is no neocon. She did not come by her beliefs by studying Leo Strauss. She is a traditionalist whose values are those of family, faith, community and country, not some utopian ideology.

Wasilla, Alaska, is not a natural habitat of neoconservatives.

And her unrehearsed answers to Gibson’s questions reveal her natural conservatism. Asked if she agrees with the Bush Doctrine, Palin asked for clarification. “In what respect, Charlie?”

Gibson: “Do we have the right of an anticipatory self-defense?”

Yes, said Palin, “if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against (the) American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.”

Exactly. The intelligence must be legit and the threat “imminent.” …”

http://townhall.com/Columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2008/09/16/the_neocons_palin_project?page=2

American Enterprise Institute

“The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is a conservative think tank, founded in 1943. According to the institute its mission is “to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism — limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate.”[1] AEI is an independent, non-profit organization. It is supported primarily by grants and contributions from foundations, corporations, and individuals. It is located in Washington, D.C.

AEI has emerged as one of the leading architects of the second Bush administration’s public policy.[2] More than twenty AEI alumni and current visiting scholars and fellows have served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government’s many panels and commissions.[3] Former United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is a visiting scholar, and Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney and former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, is a senior fellow.[4]

AEI is often cited as a right-leaning counterpart to the left-leaning Brookings Institution.[5][6] In 1998, AEI and Brookings established the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies.[7] In 2006, the two organizations jointly launched the AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project.[8]

AEI has connections with the neoconservative movement in American politics.[9] Irving Kristol, widely regarded as the movement’s founder, is a Senior Fellow at AEI. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute

Project for the New American Century

“The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., co-founded in early 1997 as “a non-profit educational organization” by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC’s stated goal is “to promote American global leadership.”[1] Fundamental to the PNAC are the views that “American leadership is both good for America and good for the world” and support for “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity.”[2] It has exerted strong influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S President George W. Bush and strongly affected the George Bush administration’s development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.[3][4] ….”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Flight of the Neocons
From liberal hawks to “National Greatness” conservatives
Michael C. Moynihan | May 2008 Print Edition

“…To Heilbrunn, the legacy of neoconservatism is one of long-term disaster for the Republican Party, an ideological digression that “quite possibly not only destroyed conservatism as a political force for years to come but also created an Iraq syndrome that tarnishes the idea of intervention for several decades.” This sounds right. The surge has undeniably mitigated the violence in Iraq, but it seems likely that—barring a continued military presence in Iraq for “100 years,” as John McCain posited—the neocons’ nation-building project will be a millstone around the movement’s neck. The Iraq fiasco will also obscure the fact that many of their Cold War–era arguments with the left were prescient. They were right about the ineffectiveness of Great Society welfare programs and about the colossal evil of the communist bloc.

But the failures of the neoconservative approach to both foreign and domestic policy are recognized even by consummate neocon David Frum, partial author of the infamous “axis of evil” State of the Union speech. In his recently released book Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again, Frum concedes Heilbrunn’s point that a conservative regeneration is needed after the Bush administration’s big spending and disastrous foreign policy. While Frum is upbeat about conservatism’s prospects, Heilbrunn ends They Knew They Were Right on an ominous note: “These reckless minds…aren’t going away. Quite the contrary.”

Perhaps. But unless Iraq becomes an Arab version of Switzerland in the next decade, I wouldn’t bet on it. …”

http://www.reason.com/news/show/125472.html

John McCain, Neoconservative

“…The neoconservatives, who believe, or pretend to believe, that supposed foes abroad always represent new Hitlers and that wimpy liberals are about to recapitulate the appeasement that English liberals espoused in the 1930s, are constantly searching for a new Churchill. They see Churchill as the last great representative of the Victorian era in contrast to the weaklings that surrounded him. (George W. Bush himself keeps a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office.) For the neocons, McCain, a military hero who has written a number of books and become a politician, eerily resembles Churchill himself. McCain himself has made his admiration for Churchill abundantly apparent in his most recent book, Hard Call, in which he hails the great man’s prescience in warning of Germany’s aggressive intentions in the run-up to both World War I and World War II. But more to the point, McCain represents for the neocons the ultimate synthesis of war hero and politician. And McCain, in turn, has been increasingly drawn to the neocons’ militaristic vision of the U.S. as an empire that can set wrong aright around the globe.The neocons became close to McCain in the 1990s, when they supported American intervention in the Balkans. According to the New Republic’s John Judis, the first sign of neocon influence on McCain came in 1999. McCain delivered a speech at Kansas State University in which he touted “national greatness conservatism,” arguing: “The United States is the indispensable nation because we have proven to be the greatest force for good in human history.” He went on to state that the U.S. should have “every intention of continuing to use our primacy in world affairs for humanity’s benefit.”

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/john-mccain-neoconservative.html

The Open-Borders Conspiracy
By Robert Locke
FrontPageMagazine.com

“If I could choose to have my readers learn one and only one thing from what I write, it would be that America’s problems are not the result of blind, much less inevitable, forces, but are the consequences of deliberate political action by motivated individuals and groups. Nowhere is this clearer than in the case of our ongoing immigration crisis. Let’s trace the lines of influence in the open-borders conspiracy, a word I use despite its connotations of grassy knollology because in this case it is factually appropriate. Given who has been pushing mass immigration in America and how open they have been about why they are doing it, it boggles my mind that anyone who considers himself conservative can still support this policy. …”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/850953/posts

Shamnesty John McCain is back in full force: No, he never “got the message”
By Michelle Malkin

“…And, now, straight from the campaign trail with Arnold “Move Left” Schwarzenegger, McCain has shed every last pretense that he “got the message” from grass-roots immigration enforcement proponents and is back to his full, open-borders shamnesty push. No surprise to any of you. But his complete regression back to the “comprehensive immigration reform” euphemism is a notable milestone.

Also, you don’t need to guess anymore how he would have voted on the Feinstein/Craig illegal alien farmworker amnesty: …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/22/shamnesty-john-mccain-is-back-in-full-force-no-he-never-got-the-message/

Translation: McCain’s suck up to La Raza

By Michelle Malkin

The other half of the La Raza twins is set to speak today at 12:45 Pacific time. While John McCain’s lips move this afternoon during his speech to the Race’s open-borders lovefest, let me serve as your interpreter:

MCCAIN: My friends, you are right. Those people who killed my shamnesty bill have ill intentions. They are bigots, just like my friend Lindsay Graham told you they were when he spoke before you two years ago. …”

My friends, I don’t want to talk about securing the border any more than you do. But trust me, when the “border” is “secure” (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), then we’ll do what we all want to do: Formalize our Sanctuary Nation. Rejoice that illegal aliens are serving in the military. And sanctimoniously demonize and marginalize all those pesky bigots who keep obsessing about immigration enforcement and national security. I’m as committed to peddling sob-story platitudes and whitewashing your ethnic nationalism as you are! (What was that about the 15 things about The Race you should know? Shhhhhhhhhhh!)

Just work with me here, ok? Brother Obama may have marched with you at the Chicago May Day illegal alien parade. But I have a lifetime commitment to Hispandering! And you have showered with me with honors for my open-borders work.

Remember?

They don’t call me La Raza’s voice in Washington for nothing.

Just ask my friend, Juan Hernandez.

My friends.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/07/14/translation-mccains-suck-up-to-la-raza/

Mexico–United States border

“The international border between Mexico and the United States runs from San Diego, California, and Tijuana, Baja California, in the west to Matamoros, Tamaulipas, and Brownsville, Texas, in the east. It traverses a variety of terrains, ranging from major urban areas to inhospitable deserts. From the Gulf of Mexico it follows the course of the Rio Grande (Río Bravo del Norte) to the border crossing at El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua; westward from that binational conurbation it crosses vast tracts of the Sonoran and Chihuahuan Desert, the Colorado River Delta, westward to the binational conurbation of San Diego and Tijuana before reaching the Pacific Ocean.

The border’s total length is 3,169 km (1,969 miles), according to figures given by the International Boundary and Water Commission.[1] It is the most frequently crossed international border in the world, with about 250 million legal crossings every year.[2]

The nearly 2000 mile (3,138 km or 1,950 miles) international border follows the middle of the Rio Grande — according to the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo between the two nations, “along the deepest channel” — from its mouth on the Gulf of Mexico a distance of 2,019 km (1,254 miles) to a point just upstream of El Paso and Ciudad Juárez. It then follows an alignment westward overland and marked by monuments a distance of 858 km (533 miles) to the Colorado River, during which it reaches its highest elevation at the intersection with the Continental Divide. Thence it follows the middle of that river northward a distance of 38 km (24 miles), and then it again follows an alignment westward overland and marked by monuments a distance of 226 km (141 miles) to the Pacific Ocean.

The region along the boundary is characterised by deserts, rugged mountains, abundant sunshine and by two major rivers — the Colorado and the Rio Grande (Río Bravo del Norte) — which provide life-giving waters to the largely arid but fertile lands along the rivers in both countries.

The U.S. states along the border, from west to east, are:

California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.

The Mexican states are:

Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas.

In the United States, Texas has the longest stretch of the border of any State, while California has the shortest. In Mexico, Chihuahua has the longest border, while Nuevo León has the shortest. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_border

Us-mexico-border.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Us-mexico-border.jpg

Re: John McCain Defends Amnesty & Open Borders Juan Hernandez

Who Is Juan Hernandez?

John McCain Defends Amnesty & Open Borders Juan Hernandez

Lou Dobbs – These Candidates Would Say ANYTHING

The Dangers of the “North American Union” by Jerome Corsi

Why Bill Kristol thinks Ron Paul is a “Crackpot”

Charlie Rose – WOLFOWITZ / HOLMES

Paul Wolfowitz speaks at Hudson Institute

Countdown – No Iranian Nukes and Wolfowitz is Back

Paul Wolfowitz speech June 6 2001

 Iraq War Mastermind Speaks Out

Charlie Rose – Sen. Dick Durbin / Douglas Feith / Sen. Ron Wyden

Book TV: Douglas Feith, author of “War and Decision”

Riz Khan – Richard Perle – 18 Mar 08

Charlie Rose – PERL & FRUM

Who is Randy Scheunemann?

Bill Kristol Anthology

Neo-cons War Lobbying To Bomb Iran

NeoConservative Charles Krauthammer discusses U.S. options against Russia

Dr. Charles Krauthammer part 1

Dr. Charles Krauthammer part 2

Krauthammer: What will Obama give to Iran?

Next President 1

Next President 2

Why I love Charles Krauthammer

Bolton and Krauthammer on Russian Expansion past Georgia

Fred Kagan on Jim Lehrer

Fred Kagan Debates Nir Rosen on Iraq Surge (Part 1)

Iraq, the Neocons and the Israel Lobby – John Mearsheimer

Conversations With History: John Mearsheimer and Steve Walt

the Washington Report, Ep.1 with Michael Ledeen (Part 2)

 the Washington Report, Ep.1 with Michael Ledeen (Part 2)

John Bolton – Does Iran Need a “Regime Change?”

Neocon John Bolton Pushes War Against Iran

Norman Podhoretz on Iran

Norman Podhoretz on His New Book

Riz Khan- The Neocons and Iran- 10 Dec 07

Beyond Iraq: The Challenges Confronting US (1 of 2), 2008

Beyond Iraq: The Challenges Confronting US (2 of 2), 2008

Charlie Rose: March 4, 2003 with Ron Brownstein and Robert Kagan

Why CIA Veterans Are Scared of McCain

“…These critics point especially to the McCain campaign’s top national security adviser Randy Scheunemann—who ran a front group promoting war with Iraq and the fabrications of controversial Iraqi exile politician Ahmad Chalabi, the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, and who has lobbied for aggressive NATO expansion. Scheunemann’s record, they argue, encapsulates everything wrong with the past eight years of Bush leadership on intelligence issues, from a penchant for foreign policy freelancing and secret contacts with unreliable fabricators, to neoconservatives’ disdain for the perceived bureaucratic timidity of the CIA and State Department, to their avowed hostility for diplomacy with adversaries. If McCain wins, “the military has won,” says one former senior CIA officer. “We will no longer have a civilian intelligence arm. Yes, we will have analysts. But we won’t have any real civilian intelligence capability.”

“McCain would be an absolute disaster,” says a second recently retired senior US intelligence operations officer. “He is prejudiced against the CIA. The day after the 2004 election when Bush won, McCain came on TV and gave an interview in which he said something to the effect of, ‘The CIA tried to sabotage this election. They’ve made their bed and now they have to lay in it.’ I used to like McCain, but he is inconsistent.” Columnist Robert Novak quoted McCain in November 2004 as saying, “With CIA leaks intended to harm the re-election campaign of the president of the United States, it is not only dysfunctional but a rogue organization.”

McCain is influenced by a circle of hardline Republican legislators and congressional staff as well as disgruntled former Agency officials “who all had these long-standing grudges against people in the Agency,” the former senior intelligence officer said. “They think the CIA is a hotbed of liberals. Right-wing, nutty paranoia stuff. They all love the military and hate the CIA. Because the CIA tells them stuff they don’t want to hear.” …”

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/08/why-cia-veterans-are-scared-of-mccain.html

McCain’s ACU Ratings
By Randall Hoven

“…What this means is that McCain’s ACU ratings since 1998 put him on the liberal side among Republicans. The few Republicans consistently more liberal than McCain would be Chafee (formerly R-RI), Collins (R-ME), Snowe (R-ME) and Specter (R-PA). One could expect senators from northeastern states to be more liberal since their constituencies demand it, but McCain represents the fairly conservative state of Arizona. (Arizona’s other senator, Kyl, has a lifetime rating of 96.9, and half the representatives from there have ratings of 94.7 or higher.)

How much more liberal would McCain vote if his constituency put even the slightest pressure on him in that direction?

On the other hand, Senator Clinton (D-NY) has a lifetime ACU rating of 9 (83rd place) and Senator Obama (D-IL) has a rating of 8 (86th place).

Not much the cheer about here.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/mccains_acu_ratings.html

Whose War?      PDF

A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Buchanan accuses ‘McCain’s neocon warmonger’ of treason Stephen C. Webster
“…According to conservative commentator and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, Sen. John McCain’s chief foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann is a ‘dual loyalist,’ ‘neocon warmonger’ involved in activities that ‘none dare call treason.’

Scheunemann’s former employer, Orion Strategies, is a lobbying firm with strong ties to Mikheil Saakashvili’s administration in Georgia.

Since Georgia attempted to retake South Ossetia by force, triggering a sharp, violent rebuke by Russian forces, Sen. McCain has been by far the most strident advocate of US support for the former Soviet state. And his top adviser, says Buchanan, may well be the next Henry Kissinger or Zbigniew Brzezinski.

“He is a dual loyalist, a foreign agent whose assignment is to get America committed to spilling the blood of her sons for client regimes who have made this moral mercenary a rich man,” he wrote. …”

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Buchanan_accuses_McCains_neocon_warmonger_of_0822.html

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/mar/24/00007/

Among the Neocons      PDF

A foot soldier in the ideological wars relates

By Scott McConnell

“…Two new issues broke apart the 1980s Reaganite conservative consensus. The first was immigration. By the late 1980s, the impact of the 1965 immigration law had begun greatly to accelerate the pace of immigration. Younger readers may not recall the vital role National Review began to play in analyzing that law and the social, environmental, and political consequences it brought about. The battle was joined when John O’Sullivan (NR’s editor since 1988) published in 1992 Peter Brimelow’s explosive “Time to Rethink Immigration,” which quickly became the most debated conservative magazine article of the year. The piece forced the immigration debate into the open within the conservative movement, where it fused with the populist revolt breaking out in California over Proposition 187, an anti-illegal-alien measure. For the next five years, the magazine put what it called “The National Question” in the spotlight, publishing cover stories by Brimelow, Fred Iklé, O’Sullivan, and eventually (as I was won over to the magazine’s position) one by me.

The neoconservatives, to my complete surprise, were not pleased.

In the summer of 1995, Neal Kozodoy gave me a copy of a letter. Written by Irwin Steltzer to the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, it was making its way around the upper echelons of the neocon magazines and think tanks. Steltzer is a Bronx-born economist and Weekly Standard editor who lives part-time in London. While a gifted economic essayist, his most important function is surely as the ideological gendarme for Rupert Murdoch’s American media properties.

Steltzer wrote to Kristol (and the wider world) that he was canceling his subscription to National Review because of its “increasingly offensive positions on such topics as immigration.” He went on then to complain about a piece by Richard Neuhaus on anti-Semitism, which, Steltzer charged, was itself anti-Semitic. He added, apropos of a quote of Kristol’s that appeared in Neuhaus’s article, that he was “always suspicious” of Father Neuhaus’s excerpting, “particularly in an article which contains cunningly placed little adjectives and descriptions.” He concluded with a more general comment about John O’Sullivan’s National Review: “Add to this NR’s applause for the immigration statutes of the 1920’s, designed to keep eastern European Jews out, and you have a not-very-subtle form of anti-Semitism, dressed up as an attack on liberalism.”

Bill Buckley stood by his editor initially, but not for long. Within two years, O’Sullivan was eased out, replaced by the youthful Rich Lowry, who immediately upon assuming his new post fired Peter Brimelow.

In the very early years of the neocon-paleocon skirmish, Russell Kirk, the somewhat fogeyish father of postwar American intellectual conservatism, gave a speech about the neocons at the Heritage Foundation. He generally praised them but added some words of caution. Quoting from a friend’s letter, Kirk said, “It is significant that when the Neo-Cons wish to damn any conservative who has appealed for a grant from a conservative foundation, they tell the officers of the foundation the conservative is a fascist.” I, of course, had heard of neocon campaigns against other conservatives, but the targets were not men I knew or agreed with. But I did know O’Sullivan and Neuhaus, and the Russell Kirk remark that had once seemed overheated became a good deal less so. …”

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/apr/21/00007/

Idealism and Its Discontents
Thinking on the neoconservative slur.

Victor Davis Hanson

“…Third, Iraq is not the sole touchstone of neoconservative thought. Many traditional conservatives, both Democrats and Republicans, who favor balanced budgets, an end to illegal immigration, and more sober judgment on entitlements, came to the conclusion after September 11 that the many lives of Saddam Hussein had run out. Indeed, one of the ironies of this war is the spectacle of many who called for the removal of Saddam Hussein in the late 1990s now turning on the war, while many who would have never supported such preemption before 9/11 insist on giving the administration full support in the midst of the present fighting.

Fourth, traditional conservatives especially distrust neoconservatives because, well, they are not entirely conservative and confuse the public about the virtues of the hallowed native reluctance to spend blood and treasure abroad for dubiously idealistic purposes. In contrast, progressives dislike them because their promotion of democracy can complicate liberalism, as if it were a fine and noble thing to insist on elections in the former Third World, even if need be through force. And every ideology saves its greatest venom for the perceived apostate: Thus Zell Miller infuriates liberals in the way John McCain or Chuck Hagel does conservatives.

Fifth, the battlefield adjudicates perceptions. Before the Iraqi invasion, neoconservatives took a beating in the acrimonious lead-up to the war about which scenarios were proffered about millions of refugees and thousands of American dead. Yet after the three-week victory, even television hosts were boasting, “We are all neoconservatives now.” Then the messy post-bellum Iraqi reconstruction brought back disdain, while successful elections and a consensual government could well win admiration. For most, ideology or belief matters not nearly as much as impressions of being judged as smart, successful, and “cutting-edge” — a constantly changing and amorphous image that in Washington is predicated on the 24-hour news cycle.

Finally, radical foreign-policy changes always upset the status quo and beg for conspiratorial exegesis. After 1948, the Cold Warriors were felt to have appropriated the Democratic party from the Henry Wallace wing, and they suffered abuse both from the naïve Left who saw them as veritable McCarthyites, and from the isolationist Right who did not want to continue the sacrifices of internationalism endlessly on into the postwar peace. …”

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200501210758.asp

The Neoconservative Cabal

Joshua Muravchik

“…Who makes up this potent faction? Within the administration, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is usually identified as the key actor, together with Richard Perle, a member and until recently the chairman of the Defense Advisory Board. A handful of other high-level Bush appointees are often named as adherents of the neocon faith, including Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of State John Bolton, National Security Council staff member Elliott Abrams, and Vice Presidential aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI, where I work), the Weekly Standard magazine, and William Kristol’s Project for a New American Century–all three rent offices in the same building–are often described as constituting the movement’s Washington command center. And then, of course, there is this magazine, crucible of so much neoconservative thought.

The history of neoconservatism is less sensational than its current usage implies. The term came into currency in the mid-1970’s as an anathema–pronounced, by upholders of leftist orthodoxy, against a group of intellectuals, centered mostly in Commentary and the quarterly Public Interest, who then still thought of themselves as liberals but were at odds with the dominant thinking of the Left. One part of this group consisted of writers about domestic policy–Irving Kristol, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, James Q. Wilson, Nathan Glazer–who had developed misgivings about the programs of the New Deal or Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. The other main contingent focused on foreign policy, and especially on the decline of America’s position vis-a-vis the Soviet Union in the wake of the Vietnam war. The names here included, among others, Podhoretz, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Eugene V. Rostow. Although, at first, most of these people resisted the label neoconservative, eventually almost all of them acquiesced in it. …”

“…On September 11, we learned in the most dreadful way that terrorists would not be appeased by our diffidence; quite the contrary. We saw–they themselves told us–that they intended to go on murdering us in ever larger numbers as long as they could. A sharp change of course was required, and the neoconservatives, who had been warning for years that terror must not be appeased, stood vindicated–much as, more grandly, Churchill was vindicated by Hitler’s depredations after Munich.

Not only did the neocons have an analysis of what had gone wrong in American policy, they also stood ready with proposals for what to do now: to wage war on the terror groups and to seek to end or transform governments that supported them, especially those possessing the means to furnish terrorists with the wherewithal to kill even more Americans than on September 11. Neocons also offered a long-term strategy for making the Middle East less of a hotbed of terrorism: implanting democracy in the region and thereby helping to foment a less violent approach to politics.

No neoconservative was elevated in office after September 11, as Churchill had been to prime minister after the collapse of the Munich agreement, but policies espoused by neoconservatives were embraced by the Bush administration. Was this because Bush learned them from the likes of Wolfowitz and Perle? Or did he and his top advisers–none of them known as a neocon–reach similar conclusions on their own? We may have to await the President’s memoirs to learn the answer to that narrow question, but every American has reason to be grateful for the result.

If these policies should fail, for whatever reason–including a recurrence of national faint-heartedness–then neoconservative ideas will no doubt be discredited. But this matters hardly at all compared with what we will have lost. For, if they fail, either we will then be at the mercy of ever more murderous terrorism or we will have to seek alternative methods of coping with it–methods that are likely to involve a much more painful and frightening course of action than the admittedly daunting one that still lies before us.

If, however, the policies succeed, then the world will have been delivered from an awful scourge, and there will be credit enough to go around–some of it, one trusts, even for the lately much demonized neoconservatives. …”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/991206/posts

Notice: U.S. WMD Retaliation Doctrine Has Changed

By Michelle Malkin

“…There’s a very important catch in the Weekly Standard by spy-dude Elbridge Colby, who notes a crucial change in our plans to respond to terrorist use of WMD’s. We’ve long held that states which assist in WMD terror would be held accountable. But February 8, we expanded our potential retribution schedule:

Instead of merely threatening that states that support terror attacks will be held responsible–already a staple of U.S. policy–Hadley goes further, threatening non-state actors who “enabl[e]” terrorists to strike with WMD. This careful choice of words would seem to expand our retaliatory standard to encompass complicity and perhaps even negligence. Not only states, but groups and individuals as well, should now be on notice that they will be held accountable for participation in, support for, complicity in, or even negligence in the face of WMD strikes against the United States or its allies. This strategy makes a great deal of sense; catastrophic terrorism is a threat that both justifies and requires a more exacting standard of behavior.

Individuals? Whoever could they mean?

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/10/notice-us-wmd-retaliation-doctrine-has-changed/

Charlie Rose – Georgia/Russia Conflict

Power Play

The nature of nations, like people, never changes. Today’s political realists say economics rather than military might has become the guiding principle of countries, but the conflict in Georgia shows otherwise, argues Robert Kagan.

By ROBERT KAGAN

“…Where are the realists? When Russian tanks rolled into Georgia, it ought to have been their moment. Here was Vladimir Putin, a cold-eyed realist if ever there was one, taking advantage of a favorable opportunity to shift the European balance of power in his favor — a 21st century Frederick the Great or Bismarck, launching a small but decisive war on a weaker neighbor while a surprised and dumbfounded world looked on helplessly. Here was a man and a nation pursuing “interest defined as power,” to use the famous phrase of Hans Morgenthau, acting in obedience to what Mr. Morgenthau called the “objective law” of international power politics. Yet where are Mr. Morgenthau’s disciples to remind us that Russia’s latest military action is neither extraordinary nor unexpected nor aberrant but entirely normal and natural, that it is but a harbinger of what is yet to come because the behavior of nations, like human nature, is unchanging?

Today’s “realists,” who we’re told are locked in some titanic struggle with “neoconservatives” on issues ranging from Iraq, Iran and the Middle East to China and North Korea, would be almost unrecognizable to their forebears. Rather than talk about power, they talk about the United Nations, world opinion and international law. They propose vast new international conferences, a la Woodrow Wilson, to solve intractable, decades-old problems. They argue that the United States should negotiate with adversaries not because America is strong but because it is weak. Power is no answer to the vast majority of the challenges we face, they insist, and, indeed, is counterproductive because it undermines the possibility of international consensus. …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122005366593885103.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The Neoconservative Persuasion

Irving Kristol

“…Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the “American grain.” It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked. Of course, those worthies are in no way overlooked by a large, probably the largest, segment of the Republican party, with the result that most Republican politicians know nothing and could not care less about neoconservatism. Nevertheless, they cannot be blind to the fact that neoconservative policies, reaching out beyond the traditional political and financial base, have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters. Nor has it passed official notice that it is the neoconservative public policies, not the traditional Republican ones, that result in popular Republican presidencies One of these policies, most visible and controversial, is cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth. Neocons are familiar with intellectual history and aware that it is only in the last two centuries that democracy has become a respectable option among political thinkers. In earlier times, democracy meant an inherently turbulent political regime, with the “have-nots” and the “haves” engaged in a perpetual and utterly destructive class struggle. It was only the prospect of economic growth in which everyone prospered, if not equally or simultaneously, that gave modern democracies their legitimacy and durability. The cost of this emphasis on economic growth has been an attitude toward public finance that is far less risk averse than is the case among more traditional conservatives. Neocons would prefer not to have large budget deficits, but it is in the nature of democracy–because it seems to be in the nature of human nature–that political demagogy will frequently result in economic recklessness, so that one sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth. It is a basic assumption of neoconservatism that, as a consequence of the spread of affluence among all classes, a property-owning and tax-paying population will, in time, become less vulnerable to egalitarian illusions and demagogic appeals and more sensible about the fundamentals of economic reckoning.

This leads to the issue of the role of the state. Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study alternative ways of delivering these services. But they are impatient with the Hayekian notion that we are on “the road to serfdom.” Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his “The Man Versus the State,” was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today’s America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not. Though they find much to be critical about, they tend to seek intellectual guidance in the democratic wisdom of Tocqueville, rather than in the Tory nostalgia of, say, Russell Kirk.

But it is only to a degree that neocons are comfortable in modern America. The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives–though not with those libertarian conservatives who are conservative in economics but unmindful of the culture. The upshot is a quite unexpected alliance between neocons, who include a fair proportion of secular intellectuals, and religious traditionalists. They are united on issues concerning the quality of education, the relations of church and state, the regulation of pornography, and the like, all of which they regard as proper candidates for the government’s attention. And since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power. Because religious conservatism is so feeble in Europe, the neoconservative potential there is correspondingly weak.

AND THEN, of course, there is foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention. This is surprising since there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience. (The favorite neoconservative text on foreign affairs, thanks to professors Leo Strauss of Chicago and Donald Kagan of Yale, is Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War.) These attitudes can be summarized in the following “theses” (as a Marxist would say): First, patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public institutions. Precisely because we are a nation of immigrants, this is a powerful American sentiment. Second, world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. International institutions that point to an ultimate world government should be regarded with the deepest suspicion. Third, statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies. This is not as easy as it sounds, as the history of the Cold War revealed. The number of intelligent men who could not count the Soviet Union as an enemy, even though this was its own self-definition, was absolutely astonishing. …”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1141481/posts

The Neoconservatives: An Endangered Species

by Kirk, Russell

“…Selfish and Uninstructed. I offer you two specimens of the rejection of the Neoconservatives that I encounter nowadays in many quarters. My first extract is from a letter recently received from a very distinguished historian in Pennsylvania. “I have burned my bridges with most (not all) of the Konservatives, and especially with the neo- conservatives, who are selfish and uninstructed radicals and progressives, wishing to pour cement all over the country and make the world safe for democracy, well beyond the dreams of Wilson,” he writes to me. “A feeling for the land, for its conservation, and for the strong modesty of a traditional patriotism (as distinct from nationalism) none of them has.”

My second instance of the spreading distaste for Neoconservatives comes from a well-known literary scholar. “I would not be at all surprised to see the Neo-Cons jump ship if Dukakis is elected; they would be perfectly capable of making an accommodation with the socialist wing of the Democratic Party,” he tells me …… It is significant that when the Neo-Cons wish to damn any conservative who has appealed for a grant to a conservative foundation, they tell the officers of the foundation that the conservative is a fascist…. I believe that the chief enemy of American conservatism has not been the Marxists, nor even the socialist liberals in the Democratic Party, but the Neo-Conservatives, who have sabotaged the movement from within and exploited it for their own selfish purposes.”

Simple Old Label. Now the strictures of the gentlemen I have quoted cannot well apply to some of the better known people called Neoconservatives; for there are among that group high-minded men and women of principle. Our difficulty here is very like that I encountered when I lectured, a few months ago, on the Libertarians: the appellation Neoconservative, like the appellation Libertarian, is so widely employed, and so variously, as to seem to include people of radically opposed views. What is a Neoconservative, really? Is he, as Harrington and Steinfels saw him, a liberal who opportunistically has turned his coat? Is he primarily a seeker after power and the main chance? Or is he a man who has new ideas about the defense of the Permanent Things? For my part, I wish that certain so-called Neoconservatives whose views and lives I approve, like certain libertarians for whom I have a fellow feeling, would content themselves, as do I, with the simple old label Conservative.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL178.cfm

A Concord of Visions

How the neoconservative right adopted the worst errors of the left

None of this is to say that all good flows from the politics of the constrained vision and all ills from the unconstrained view. For my taste—and that of most libertarians, I suspect—Sowell’s constrained vision in its purer forms is probably a shade too constrained, too ready to assume that old customs continue to serve their traditional functions under changed circumstances. But it is the worst features of the unconstrained vision—its hubris, its pretense to omnicompetence—that have taken hold of the right. And if there is wisdom in each of the two perspectives, it should be worrying that, for all the other differences between the major parties, between progressives and conservatives, in this one fundamental way the political landscape increasingly offers only half the picture—different refractions of the same unconstrained vision. With the waning of the constrained perspective’s tempering influence, we’re left with a political vision that’s dangerously double.”

http://www.reason.com/news/show/117049.html

No moderate, no realist, McCain the neocon

Ron Paul revolution against empire and draft

Pat Buchanan vs Neo-Cons

Pat Buchanan on John McCain’s warmongering nature

Pat Buchanan:”McCain will make Cheney look like Gandhi”

Anne Norton Defines Neocons

Israel, Iran and the New Neocons

Newshour: “Neo-Cons Pushing for War with Iran” – Pt 1 of 2

Newshour: “Neo-Cons Pushing for War with Iran” – Pt 2 of 2

1. The Neocons – Ideology and Fantasy (Part 1 of 14)

2. The Neocons – Rumsfeld’s Imaginary War (2/14)

3. The Neocons – Birth of Islamic Extremists

4. The Neocons – Recruiting Christians / Concept of Terror

5. The Neocons – CIA’s $1Billion Backs Future Terrorists

6. The Neocons – Ignored Warning of Terrorists

7. Then Neocons – Destruction of the Republican Party

8. The Neocons – Clinton’s Blowjob / Extremist Rampage

9. The Neocons – “There’s No Al-Qaeda Organization”

10. The Neocons – “We’re Gonna Find Those Evil Doers”

11. The Neocons – Hunt for Osama / The Disney Terrorists

12. The Neocons – Godzilla was a Terrorist Mentor

13. The Neocons – Dirty Bomb / Precautionary Principle

14. The Neocons – Fear is the Only Agenda

Leo Strauss

Leo Strauss

Leo Strauss (September 20, 1899 – October 18, 1973) was a German-born Jewish-American political philosopher who specialized in the study of classical political philosophy. He spent most of his career as a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, where he taught several generations of students and published fifteen books. Since his death, he has come to be regarded as one of the intellectual fathers of neoconservatism in the United States. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss

Irving Kristol

Irving Kristol

Irving Kristol

Irving Kristol (born January 22, 1920, Brooklyn, New York City, New York) is considered the founder of American neoconservatism. He is married to conservative author and emerita professor Gertrude Himmelfarb and is the father of William Kristol.

Kristol was born into an orthodox Jewish family. However, he maintains that belief had nothing to do with his family’s observance.[1] He earned his B.A. in History from the City College of New York in 1940, where he was an active Trotskyist. Before graduating, he met Gertrude Himmelfarb at a Trotskyist meeting, and they married on January 18, 1942.[2] He wrote in 1983 that he was “proud” to have been a member of the Fourth International in 1940.[3] From 1941 to 1944, he served as staff sergeant in the armored infantry in Europe in World War II. After the war, he was stationed in Marseilles for a year.[4]

He was the managing editor of Commentary magazine from 1947 to 1952, co-founder of the British-based Encounter and its editor from 1953 to 1958 when he handed over the reins to his friend and City College classmate Melvin J. Lasky[5], editor of the Reporter from 1959 to 1960, executive vice-president of Basic Books from 1961 to 1969, and professor of social thought at the New York University Graduate School of Business from 1969 to 1988. Since 1988, he has been John M. Olin Distinguished Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He has used these positions and publications to animate the neo-conservative movement, arguing for low taxes, a well-funded and internationally active military, conservative social policy, and a minimalist interpretation of First Amendment rights. For example, he once stated that “I don’t think the advocacy of homosexuality really falls under the First Amendment any more than the advocacy or publication of pornography does.”[6]

Kristol is the founder of the politics and culture journal The Public Interest and the foreign affairs journal The National Interest. He was co-editor of The Public Interest (first with Daniel Bell, then with Nathan Glazer) from its founding in 1965 until 2002 and publisher of The National Interest from its founding in 1985 until 2001.

He is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute since 1988, a lifetime member of the Council on Foreign Relations since 1972, a member of the Wall Street Journal Board of Contributors since 1972, and president of National Affairs, Inc.

Kristol suggests of himself, “Ever since I can remember, I’ve been a neo-something: a neo-Marxist, a neo-Trotskyist, a neo-liberal, a neo-conservative; in religion a neo-orthodox even while I was a neo-Trotskyist and a neo-Marxist. I’m going to end up a neo-that’s all, neo dash nothing.”[7]

In July 2002, President George W. Bush awarded Kristol the Presidential Medal of Freedom. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol

Russell Kirk

Russell Kirk

“Russell Kirk (19 October 1918 – 29 April 1994) was an American political theorist, historian, social critic, literary critic, and fiction author known for his influence on 20th century American conservatism. His 1953 book, The Conservative Mind, gave shape to the amorphous post-World War II conservative movement. It traced the development of conservative thought in the Anglo-American tradition, giving special importance to the ideas of Edmund Burke. …”

“…The Conservative Mind

The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Santayana[3], the published version of Kirk’s doctoral dissertation, contributed materially to the 20th century Burke revival. It also drew attention to:

  • Conservative statesmen such as John Adams, George Canning, John C. Calhoun, Joseph de Maistre, Benjamin Disraeli, and Arthur Balfour;
  • The conservative implications of writings by well-known authors such as Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Walter Scott, James Fenimore Cooper, Nathaniel Hawthorne, James Russell Lowell, George Gissing, George Santayana, and T. S. Eliot;
  • British and American authors such as Fisher Ames, John Randolph of Roanoke, Orestes Brownson, John Henry Newman, Walter Bagehot, Henry James Sumner Maine, William Edward Hartpole Lecky, Edwin Lawrence Godkin, William Hurrell Mallock, Leslie Stephen, Albert Venn Dicey, Paul Elmer More, and Irving Babbitt.

The Portable Conservative Reader (1982), which Kirk edited, contains sample writings by most of the above.

Not everyone agreed with Kirk’s reading of the conservative heritage and tradition. For example, Harry Jaffa (a student of Leo Strauss) wrote: “Kirk was a poor Burke scholar. Burke’s attack on metaphysical reasoning related only to modern philosophy’s attempt to eliminate skeptical doubt from its premises and hence from its conclusions.”[4]

Russello (2004) argues that Kirk adapted what 19th century American Catholic thinker Orestes Brownson called “territorial democracy” to articulate a version of federalism that was based on premises that differ in part from those of the Founders and other conservatives. Kirk further believed that territorial democracy could reconcile the tension between treating the states as mere provinces of the central government, and as autonomous political units independent of Washington. Finally, territorial democracy allowed Kirk to set out a theory of individual rights grounded in the particular historical circumstances of the United States, while rejecting a universal conception of such rights.

Principles

Kirk developed six “canons” of conservatism, which Russello (2004) described as follows:

  1. A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;
  2. An affection for the “variety and mystery” of human existence;
  3. A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize “natural” distinctions;
  4. A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;
  5. A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and
  6. A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.

Kirk said that Christianity and Western Civilization are “unimaginable apart from one another.” [5] and that “all culture arises out of religion. When religious faith decays, culture must decline, though often seeming to flourish for a space after the religion which has nourished it has sunk into disbelief.” [6] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Kirk

Milton Friedman

“…Milton Friedman (born July 31, 1912 – died November 16, 2006) was an American Nobel Laureate economist and public intellectual. He is best known among scholars for his theoretical and empirical research, especially consumption analysis, monetary history and theory, and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy.[1] A global public followed his restatement of a libertarian political philosophy that insisted on minimizing the role of government in favor of the private sector. As a leader of the Chicago School of economics, based at the University of Chicago, he had a widespread influence in shaping the research agenda of the entire profession. Friedman’s many monographs, books, scholarly articles, papers, magazine columns, television programs, videos and lectures cover a broad range of topics in microeconomics, macroeconomics, economic history, and public policy issues. The Economist hailed him as “the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century…possibly of all of it”.[2]

Originally a Keynesian supporter of the New Deal and advocate of high taxes, in the 1950s his reinterpretation of the Keynesian consumption function challenged the basic keynesian model. In the 1960s he promoted an alternative macroeconomic policy called monetarism. He theorized there existed a “natural rate of unemployment” and he argued the central government could not micromanage the economy because people would realize what the government was doing and shift their behavior to neutralize the impact of policies. He rejected the Phillips Curve and predicted that Keynesian policies would cause “stagflation” (high unemployment and low growth). He argued that a steady expansion of the money supply was the only wise policy, and warned against efforts by the treasury or central bank to do otherwise.

Influenced by his close friend George Stigler, Friedman opposed government regulation of all sorts, as well as public schooling. Friedman’s political philosophy, which he considered classically liberal and libertarian, stressed the advantages of the marketplace and the disadvantages of government intervention and regulation, strongly influencing the outlook of American conservatives and libertarians. In his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman advocated minimizing the role of government in a free market as a means of creating political and social freedom. His books and essays were widely read and even circulated underground behind the Iron Curtain.[3][4]

Friedman’s methodological innovations were widely accepted by economists, but his policy prescriptions were highly controversial. Most economists in the 1960s rejected them, but since then they had a growing international influence (especially in the U.S. and Britain), and in the 21st century have gained wide acceptance among many economists. He thus lived to see some of his laissez-faire ideas embraced by the mainstream,[5] especially during the 1980s. His views of monetary policy, taxation, privatization and deregulation informed the policy of governments around the globe, especially the administrations of Ronald Reagan in the U.S., Brian Mulroney in Canada, Margaret Thatcher in Britain, and Augusto Pinochet in Chile, and (after 1989) in Eastern Europe. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

Ludwig von Mises

Mises in his library

Mises in his library

Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises (pronounced [ˈluːtvɪç fɔn ˈmiːzəs]) (September 29, 1881 – October 10, 1973) was an Austrian Economist, philosopher, and a major influence on the modern libertarian movement.

Because of his Jewish origin and his opinions, he had to emigrate to Switzerland and then settled in the USA.

The Ludwig von Mises Institute is named after him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises

Ludwig von Mises Institute

http://mises.org/

Friedrich Hayek

“Friedrich August von Hayek, CH (May 8, 1899 – March 23, 1992) was an Austrian-British economist and political philosopher known for his defence of classical liberalism and free-market capitalism against socialist and collectivist thought in the mid-20th century. He is considered to be one of the most important economists and political philosophers of the twentieth century.[1] One of the most influential members of the Austrian School of economics, he also made significant contributions in the fields of jurisprudence and cognitive science. He shared the 1974 Nobel Prize in Economics with ideological rival Gunnar Myrdal “for their pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena.”[2] He also received the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1991.[3] He is considered to be one of the major forces of change from the dominant interventionist and Keynesian policies of the first part of the 20th century back to towards classical liberalism after the 1980s. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 1 of 4)

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 2 of 4)

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 3 of 4)

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)

Charlie Rose – Economist Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman Debates Naomi Klein

The Power of Choice – Milton Friedman

INFLATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT

Nobel Memorial Lecture, December 13, 1976

by MILTON FRIEDMAN

The University of Chicago, Illinois, USA

“…One of my great teachers, Wesley C. Mitchell, impressed on me the basic

reason why scholars have every incentive to pursue a value-free science, whatever

their values and however strongly they may wish to spread and promote

them. In order to recommend a course of action to achieve an objective, we

must first know whether that course of action will in fact promote the objective.

Positive scientific knowledge that enables us to predict the consequences of a

possible course of action is clearly a prerequisite for the normative judgment

whether that course of action is desirable. The Road to Hell is paved with

good intentions, precisely because of the neglect of this rather obvious point.

This point is particularly important in economics. Many countries around

the world are today experiencing socially destructive inflation, abnormally

high unemployment, misuse of economic resources, and, in some cases, the

suppression of human freedom not because evil men deliberately sought to

achieve these results, nor because of differences in values among their citizens,

but because of erroneous judgments about the consequences of government

measures: errors that at least in principle are capable of being corrected by

the progress of positive economic science. …”

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1976/friedman-lecture.pdf

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Unconstrained Obama vs. Constrained McCain: A Conflict of Visions

The Unsinkable Sarah Palin for The American People vs. Condescending Charlie Gibson for The American Elites

The American People: Start Drilling and Control The Border. When? Now!

Open Borders — The Unintended Consequences — Mexicans Invade USA, Russians Invade Georgia

Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP)–The Ultimate Iranian Terrorist Weapon

The Coming Joint US and Israeli Military Offensive with Syria and Iran–Just Waiting for the Casus Belli?

Solzhenitsyn On Writers and Lying–May He Rest In Peace

Clear, Hold, Build– Strategy for Victory In Iraq–Now Ready for Prime Time in America– Operation Criminal Alien Removal (CAR)!

Appeasers and Oath Breakers All: Bush, Clinton, Bush, McCain, Clinton, Obama…Who is next?

Obama and McCain–Socialism and Appeasement!

The Big Lie–935 Lies of The Center for Public Integrity

Why immigration will be the number 1 political issue in the 2008 Presidential Election! — Gum Balls

Presidential Candidates on Illegal Immigration, Criminal Alien Removal and Social Service Benefits

The Cost of Comprehensive Immigration Reform–McCain and Obama Are Hopeless–It is the Economy Stupid!

John McCain’s Position on Illegal Immigration and Criminal Alien Removal?

Presidential Election 2008: American Elites Vs. American People

Alan Keyes on Immigration

US Immigration Videos

The New American Century–Video

Hijacking Catastrophe–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 9 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...