Robert Stacy McCain’s point about Rand Paul’s partial opposition to the Civil Rights Act stemming from concerns over government overreach rather than bigotry is well taken. But I think he’d do well to familiarize himself a bit more with Rand’s record (and how it ties into his father’s) before proclaiming that “Having now crossed this bridge, however, conservatives must fight the fight we are in and not waste time wishing we had met the enemy on some other field.” Yes, conservatives will always be victimized by left-wing race baiting, but the Pauls are special cases, given how much they benefit from racists. (Hat tip: Lisa Graas)
conservatism
Rand Wins, America Loses
I’ve put a lot of effort here and on NewsReal into defending Sarah Palin from various attacks.
Tonight, I regret every word of it.
Thanks in no small part to her endorsement (as well as that of James Dobson, Jim DeMint, & Erick Erickson), the deranged Rand Paul won the Kentucky GOP’s Senate nomination (more on Paul’s hideous record here and here).
Palin’s celebration of Paul’s victory on tonight’s “Hannity” consisted entirely of empty blather straight out of the Paul camp’s press releases: the grassroots are rising up, the establishment better take notice, blah blah blah. Does she know anything about Paul’s record? About how he’s diametrically opposed to her own views on national security?
Some of you who don’t share Paul’s affinity for appeasement or his tolerance of bigotry might nevertheless think Paul’s win is no big deal, because he only has one vote and most foreign policy will be set by the executive branch. But first, consider that Democrats campaign for keeps – we all know the lengths to which Democrats will go to falsely smear conservatives as extremists; just imagine the field day they’ll have with all of the real dirt in Rand’s closet. I predict a Democrat victory in the general election.
Second, odds are that more than a few mushy Republican pols and would-be candidates will interpret Paul’s win, and his legitimization by other mainstream “true” conservatives, as an indication that it’s okay and/or smart politics to tack left on defense issues. Do we really want two pro-appeasement political parties?
I hope Jim DeMint is rewarded with the primary challenge of his life. And Sarah Palin has proven that she does not deserve the presidency.
The Paul File Continued (Updated)
The following is an addendum to my recent NewsReal posts about Ron & Rand Paul’s disgusting relationship with radicalism and their dangerous misrepresentation of facts on all things national-security and foreign-policy related:
During the 2008 Republican National Convention, Ron Paul held a counter-event, & the campaign invited crackpot Jesse Ventura to speak there. Ventura’s tirade about what “really happened” on 9/11 was met with wild applause by Paul’s audience.
On 9/11 Truther Alex Jones’ show in 2007, Paul claimed, “if you have a 9/11 incident or something like that, they use that to do the things that they had planned all along.”
In January 2008, Paul’s Midland County, MI, campaign coordinator was one Randy Gray, who happened to moonlight as “a longstanding active and vocal organizer for the Knight’s Party faction of the Ku Klux Klan.” The campaign did not comment on the controversy, but did scrub all traces of Gray from their websites. Continue reading
Pop-Quiz for Paulites
Who was the first president to go to war without making a formal declaration of war?
George W. Bush? Nope.
Give up? Continue reading
Lincoln Derangement Syndrome
Somebody named JD Longstreet is very, very upset that Southerners and Southern history are not given the respect they deserve in the media, schools and commentary class (hat tip to Ol’ Broad). Given the Left’s infernal obsession with casting conservative views and traditional American values as racist, I would be inclined to sympathize with him…except for the fact that his post rapidly devolves into an unhinged, duplicitous tirade that is guilty of the very historical revisionism Longstreet claims to oppose.
Because I apparently didn’t have enough better to occupy my time with tonight, I decided to conduct a closer examination of this post. Click on through to check out my findings – if you dare: Continue reading
He’s Back…
Insufferable gasbag “Marcus Brutus” is once again plaguing NewsReal with his presence. Just like before, he’s whining about “slander” against the object of his most-unhealthy affection, Ron & Rand Paul, and just like before, his hubris is making him look like the lying buffoon, not me.
Food for Thought: Prager on Ethical Monotheism
Longtime readers know I’m a huge Dennis Prager fan. Years ago, he wrote a thought-provoking essay called “Ethical Monotheism.” Here’s a snippet:
Ethical monotheism means two things:
1. There is one God from whom emanates one morality for all humanity.
2. God’s primary demand of people is that they act decently toward one another.
If all people subscribed to this simple belief—which does not entail leaving, or joining, any specific religion, or giving up any national identity—the world would experience far less evil.
Let me explain the components of ethical monotheism.
God
Monotheism means belief in “one God.” Before discussing the importance of the “mono,” or God’s oneness, we need a basic understanding of the nature of God.
The God of ethical monotheism is the God first revealed to the world in the Hebrew Bible. Through it, we can establish God’s four primary characteristics:
- 1. God is supranatural.
- 2. God is personal.
- 3. God is good.
- 4. God is holy.
Dropping any one of the first three attributes invalidates ethical monotheism (it is possible, though difficult, to ignore holiness and still lead an ethical life).
God is supranatural, meaning “above nature” (I do not use the more common term “supernatural” because it is less precise and conjures up irrationality). This is why Genesis, the Bible’s first book, opens with, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” in a world in which nearly all people worshipped nature, the Bible’s intention was to emphasize that nature is utterly subservient to God who made it. Obviously, therefore, God is not a part of nature, and nature is not God.
It is not possible for God to be part of nature for two reasons.
First, nature is finite and God is infinite. If God were within nature, He would be limited, and God, who is not physical, has no limits (I use the pronoun “He”” not because I believe God is a male, but because the neuter pronoun “It” depersonalizes God. You cannot talk to, relate to, love, or obey an “It.”).
Second, and more important, nature is amoral. Nature knows nothing of good and evil. In nature there is one rule—survival of the fittest. There is no right, only might. If a creature is weak, kill it. Only human beings could have moral rules such as, “If it is weak, protect it.” Only human beings can feel themselves ethically obligated to strangers.
Read the rest here when you have the chance.
Will Amnesty Torpedo the GOP’s Comeback?
Now that healthcare reform has passed, there’s been chatter about a possible amnesty encore. Some speculate that “immigration reform could KO health care.” On the surface, that seems to make sense – the public hates ObamaCare and everything the Democrats did to pass it, and given how much they hated amnesty when President Bush pushed it, trying again could backfire spectacularly on the Democrats.
However, it could also end up killing all the momentum and goodwill the GOP’s built up with the public over health care. The GOP will have enough trouble maintaining momentum on healthcare going into 2010 and keeping it all the way to 2012, and unlike healthcare, a fair number of prominent Republicans can be expected to defect to the Left on immigration, casting fresh doubts in voters’ minds as to their judgment, responsibility, values, and trustworthiness.
RNC Chair Michael Steele needs to get in front of this as soon as possible by committing to support only anti-amnesty candidates and opposing any pro-amnesty ones. If the GOP is to regain the public’s trust, it has to make it crystal clear that its defectors – even leaders such as McCain, Kyl, Graham, and McConnell, are just that: defectors.
Introducing the Official CFO Store! (UPDATED)
The Conservative Armory: The Official CFO Store
Finally! All the intolerant, judgmental, right-wing wit and wisdom you’ve come to know and love from this blog is now available in pithy, wearable form! With tea parties and town halls popping up all over the place, it must be tough for poor Janet Napolitano to keep tabs on so many extremists. Why not help her out by proudly wearing your conservative views for all to see? It’s the compassionate thing to do!
Right now the store has a healthy mix of conservative, pro-life, historical, and anti-Obama t-shirts, plus one of the Web’s finest (and, near as I can tell, only) selections of anti-Ron Paul gear. I’ll be adding new designs as I think of ’em, so be sure to check back regularly!
UPDATE: I set the products to “Private” while I make some adjustments. It’ll be back up soon.
Who Is the Right’s Charles Johnson?
Looks like others are starting to notice that John Doe debates like a foul-mouthed twelve-year-old. For the record, I think Dan Riehl’s original criticism of Glenn Beck, while valid, was over the top, but it’s hilarious to hear Doe equate him with Charles Johnson, because it seems to me that Doe is the Johnson wannabe, not Riehl. While Charles Johnson smears decent conservatives as too “extreme,” John Doe smears decent conservatives as not extreme enough.
Conservative Standards 