Prophetic Words from 1955

What's better than brilliant, well-reasoned writing? Brilliant, well-reasoned writing that is also unblinkingly, frighteningly prophetic.

Consider the current state of the GOP:

Radical conservatives in this country have an interesting time of it, for when they are not being suppressed or mutilated by the Liberals, they are being ignored or humiliated by a great many of those of the well-fed Right, whose ignorance and amorality have never been exaggerated for the same reason that one cannot exaggerate infinity.

Here's more, also from the happy post-war years, before a radical Supreme Court had had much time to swing its axe at the architecture of the Constitution. This was nine years before the Beatles hit Ed Sullivan and boys discovered bangs, before the Beats and the Hippies and the Yippies, before Jack Kerouac and Ginsberg, before sex, drugs, rock-n-roll. Before a counter-culture generation worked itself into a frenzy of rebellion against bourgeoisie values--which basically meant rebellion without any meaningful cause, or better, rebellion without an object.

And what do rebels without an object object to? Whatever bothers them at the moment. Parents, teachers, rules, society ("The Establishment"), jobs, the boss ("The Man"), lack of jobs, crime, men who fight crime, post-war peace and prosperity, zits, bras, churches that suggest actions have consequences, the consequences themselves, (unplanned pregnancies), people who want to bring down their high, an existence that requires effort, etcetera ad infinitum.

Again--it's 1955. People are as proud of America as they have ever been. They instinctively respect the one nation that was able to save the world from the three evil empires of World War Two, and the only nation standing in the way of the Death Machines of Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao (who some argue were busy killing as many as 60 million of their own people).

The inroads that relativism has made on the American soul are not so easily evident. One must recently have lived on or close to a college campus to have a vivid intimation of what has happened. It is there that we see how a number of energetic social innovators, plugging their grand designs, succeeded over the years in capturing the liberal intellectual imagination. And since ideas rule the world, the ideologues, having won over the intellectual class, simply walked in and started to run things.

Run just about everything. There never was an age of conformity quite like this one, or a camaraderie quite like the Liberals.' Drop a little itching powder in Jimmy Wechler's bath [think George Stephanopoulos] and before he has scratched himself for the third time, Arthur Schlesinger will have denounced you in a dozen books and speeches, Archibald MacLeish [think Norman Lear] will have written ten cantos about our age of terror, Harper's will have published them, and everyone in sight will have been nominated for a Freedom Award [Nobel Prize].

This was National Review's Mission Statement, written by William F. Buckley, Jr., November 19, 1955. May he rest in peace.

President Obama and the Heretics

Barack Obama is not a Muslim. That much is clear, though there are good reasons to ask the question. But he is a member of a false religion nonetheless. Unfortunately, like all heresies, his "church" does not seek to annihilate Christendom, but merely to alter it slightly.

Nevertheless, Black Liberation Theology, especially as preached by Obama's pastor, is so radically different from the gospel of the New Testament as to constitute a new gospel altogether.

In Galatians 1: 8 Paul writes, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should come to you preaching a gospel that is contrary to what we have preached to you, let him be accursed."

President Obama

As I write, the momentum appears to be with Barack Hussein Obama. It's hard to believe it--a man with a name like that--but Americans have been nothing if not accomodating in the wake of 9/11. Here is a young man, handsome, charming, and with oratorical skills we have not seen since Ronald Reagan. He's generally happy, winsome, and comes off as an optimist--which is not easy for a Democrat. The first time I heard him speak, I was stunned and astonished. He is a fantastic speaker.

Hillary's right--it's all meaningless platitudes and poetic nothingness: It's time for change. Things will change. We are change. You are change, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. (Can I get change for a dollar?)

But in an evenly divided nation--where a charmless fear-monger like Al Gore almost won--no one is going to be beating Obama easily. Add to that the RINO shill-for-the-liberals that is John McCain, and the Republicans don't stand a chance. No matter how many of the people once stabbed in the back by McCain eventually come out and rally for him, some of us are not going to buy it.

Does anyone actually believe the Lesser of Two Evils Argument is enough to defeat one of the best speech makers since MLK?* Bob Dole, is that the best you can do? President Bush the Elder, is there no better defense of McCain than that--that he's not as horrible as the Democrats? And what's with calling McCain a "Reagan Conservative"? Saying that destroys all your credibility. In fact, it's more than mere "puffing," as they say in law school. It sounds like a lie.

(*Although--a vast gulf lies between President Obama and Reverend King, as King's speeches possessed not only high-rhetoric, but also substantive content.)

Anything can happen in politics, but the odds are with B. Hussein Obama.

CONGRATULATIONS, DEMOCRATS!!

Congratulations, Democrats! You can't lose! No matter what happens now, you get either moderate Democrat McCain, serious Democrat Clinton, or Marxist Democrat Obama. To the victor go the spoils.

Sam Houston Would Agree With Ron Paul

"The great misfortune is that a notion obtains with those in power, that the world, or the people require more governing than is necessary. To govern too well is a great science, but no country is ever improved by too much governing. . . most men think when they are elevated to position, that it requires an effort to discharge their duties, and they leave common sense out of the question."

Sam Houston.

I Vote for Ron Paul

After searching for a candidate who is conservative--and who didn't just figure out he was conservative in the last year or two--I've landed on an option I think is at least a far cry from a Hillary endorsement.

Dr. Ron Paul (obstetrician) is clearly the most conservative candidate running. He is against tax increases. He supports a flat tax and the abolition of the IRS. He also favors pulling out of the UN, NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, WTO, the ICC and most other international organizations/treaties that threaten our national sovereignty (look at the threat the EU poses to the UK, for example).

On the home front, Dr. Paul believes in a smaller government, and is "tired of the federal government kicking its ball into his yard." He favors doing away with most of the huge, bloated federal agencies that continue to drain our tax revenue, stifle creativity, and smother independence.

And just to be clear, he has always supported the invasion of Afghanistan to defeat those who attacked us on 9/11. He did not support a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, because it was done without the Constitutionally required Congressional Declaration of War. I love Bush, but I have to say, when weighing a brand-new tactic dressed up with the fancy term "Bush Doctrine," versus the venerated Constitution, (drafted by the Founding Fathers, ratified by the States, credited by 200 years of court decisions from the USSC) I have to go with the Constitution.

For thirty years, Dr. Paul has hewn to a strict constructionist view of the Constitution that, frankly, makes him an anomoly in this age (or any age). On the other hand, here is one candidate who is committed to a clearly defined set of principles, not to his own power.

As I have told most of you before, please read some of his articles. You will have to admit they are refreshing in this age of television politicians who too often will say anything to get elected, and seem to understand so little about the principles that made this nation great. (Too many Republicans depart from GOP principles after they are elected. Again, I love Bush on several issues: great judicial nominees, good on security, but he has never been interested in shrinking government. "Compassionate Conservative" was always not-too-veiled code for "Republicans who will keep giving your wages to the poor, to the illegal aliens, to Africans dying of malaria who could be saved with DDT," etc.)

I don't expect Dr. Paul to become the president, not now or ever. But given his allegiance to the Constitution and the principles of the Founders, I want to do anything I can to see that his message gets out. In the sixties, the right-thinking Goldwater was defeated as well--but some believed he blazed a trail for the coming of Ronald Reagan. I think somewhere out there in America is a Ron Paul supporter who could be the next Gipper. You never know.

All I ask is that you read some of his short, well-written articles, and give his positions the thought they deserve. I also signed up as an endorser, so at some point I assume my name will come up here. More interestingly, you might want to consider the section called Acclaim for Ron Paul. The comments from people all over the spectrum are very interesting.