Why are we baiting Putin?

May 11, 2006

Pat Buchanan also thought this issue was important.

Why Are We Baiting Putin?

by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted May 09, 2006

“(N)o legitimate interest is served when oil and gas become tools of intimidation or blackmail, either by supply management or attempt to monopolize transportation,” thundered Vice President Cheney to the international pro-democracy conference in Vilnius, Lithuania.

“(N)o one can justify actions that undermine the territorial integrity of a neighbor, or interfere with democratic movements.”

Cheney’s remarks were directed straight at the Kremlin and President Vladimir Putin, who is to host the G-8 Conference in July.

Cheering Cheney on is John McCain, front-runner for the GOP nomination, who has urged President Bush to snub Putin by boycotting the G-8 summit. What the GOP is thus offering the nation right now is seven more years of in-your-face bellicosity in foreign policy.

What does McCain think we would accomplish — other than a new parading of our moral superiority — by so public an insult to Putin and Russia as a Bush boycott of the St. Petersburg summit? Do we not have enough trouble in this world, do we not have enough people hating us and Bush that we have to get into Putin’s face and antagonize the largest nation on earth and a co-equal nuclear power? What is the purpose of this confrontation diplomacy? What does it accomplish?

Does Cheney not recall our “Captive Nations Resolutions,” calling for the liberation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which, though free between the two world wars, had long belonged to the Russian empire? Does he not recall conservative support for the breakup of the Soviet Union? Does he not recall conservative support for the secession of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia, and more recently Kosovo, from a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia?

What concerns Cheney is Moscow’s support for the secession of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia. Georgia’s president was also elected with the aid of pro-democracy NGOs, mostly funded by Uncle Sam. All these color-coded revolutions in East Europe and Central Asia bear the label, Made in the U.S.A.

The effect of U.S. expansion of NATO deep into Eastern Europe, U.S. interference in the politics of the former Soviet republics, and U.S. siting of military bases in the Balkans, Eastern Europe and Central Asia has been to unite Russia and China, and undo the diplomacy of several successive U.S. presidents.

How has this made us more secure?

If we don’t want these people in our backyard, what are we doing in theirs? If we don’t stop behaving like the British Empire, we will end up like the British Empire.

More at Human Events

Advertisements

Now thats a Bomb!

May 10, 2006

LAS VEGAS – A non-nuclear explosion expected to generate a mushroom cloud over the Nevada desert will be postponed at least three weeks, while a federal court reviews plans for the blast, test officials said Tuesday.

It claims the planned 700-ton ammonium nitrate and fuel oil bomb will kick up radioactive fallout left from nuclear weapons tests conducted from 1951 to 1992 at the Nevada Test Site and irreparably desecrate land that members of the Western Shoshone tribe have never acknowledged turning over to the U.S.

I believe the Oklahoma City bomb was between 1 and 2 tons.

The federal Defense Threat Reduction Agency claims the explosion will help design a weapon to penetrate hardened and deeply buried targets. Critics have called it a surrogate for a low-yield nuclear “bunker-buster” bomb.

Duh!


Conservative Anarchists

May 10, 2006

The rage of late on the web is to describe a division of the Conservative Movement that in many areas defies it being a part of said movement.

It started with “Conservative-Libertarian” then became “Gonzo-Conservative”, recently the term “South Park Conservative” has been coined to describe those of us that possesses social views that diverge from the average conservative.

This has caused many of us on the Right to use “libertarian” as a means of self-description.
Yet, there may be a better term for those devoted to the free market, the nation’s defense, and many other personal rights issues.

Because of the conservative nature of our tendencies, we have used very safe and un-combative terms to describe what our position essentially is, a form of anarchism.
The problem with the modern conservative movement, at least those in power, is that there is no representation of economic conservatives.
The Republicans may control Congress, but Liberals – Democratic and Republican – control the budget.

What is Anarchy?

Some people consider it to be chaos, but in political terms it means a society without need for a government.
Utopian yes, but with the hybridization with Conservative ideals it is definitely not leftist.
The crux of this theory is that there is no form of government smaller than no government at all.

We are not the religious righties and we want more than just tax cuts.
We will put up with the social agenda as long as the ideals of limited government are upheld.
Without the promotion of conservative economic policies that limit the size and scope of government, many in this movement will not support the social agenda of the right.

It is undeniable that political correctness and the smugness of liberals has generated a hybrid breed of conservative; one who possesses earthy cultural trappings but can no longer tolerate the self-righteousness and mock seriousness inherent to the emotion fueled left.
This has created a a leftist movement that abides by an “Illiberal Liberalism.” This is the difference between classic Jeffersonian liberalism and modern anti-Republican Liberalism.

The way that this is practiced is through leftists appealing to tolerance after people disagree with them, while simultaneously condemning whatever is mouthed by the Right as racist, homophobic, sexist, elitist, and/or just mean-spirited.
The attacks on those diverging from politically correct dogma are a severe and integral to the “toleration” and “diversity” endemic to us anti-liberals.
The famous quote by Nat Hentoff, “free speech for me — but not for thee,” resonates loudly.

This double-standard and lust for censorship is perhaps what is most repulsive about the modern American Left.
And to those who insist that Conservatism and Anarchism cannot coexist: Reagan was for small government, I am for even smaller government – none.


What are we trying to conserve?

May 8, 2006

What is it that we are trying to do?

We are trying to change things. Things that we feel are not good or in the best intrests of the country.

We want lower taxes.
We want less government.
We want a better education system.
We want more jobs here in America.
We want less babies murdered.

Now you may say “you right wingers just want to turn back the clock.”

That couldn’t be farther from the truth.

What is in the past?

Abuse and exploitation of workers, children, women, and minorities.
Blatant destruction of the enviroment without penalty.
Stagnant economies.
Basicly all the bad things of the past.

The idea that the ole days were good is completely false.
Sure things were simplier back then, but that doesn’t mean things were better.
All that means is that people we ignorant of what was happening.

What does all this mean?
We who call ourselves conservative are not trying to roll things back or keep things the same.
We are looking to the long term.

Our definition of Progress is Less Government.
Our view of the better life is more money and finacial security for EVERY social class, not just the elite classes.
Our idea of freedom is less dependence on the government.

The people rather than disconnected officials 2000 miles away should be making the choices for themselves.

In other words, self-determination.
It used to be a very liberal concept.
1


The Real Reason the GOP is Wrong on Immigration

May 7, 2006

Many of us have wondered why the GOP in Washington is just so wrong on the immigration issue.

The answer is quite simple actually.

The GOP failed to pass Social Security Reform last year. This year the first of the Baby Boomers start retiring.

Someone is going to have to pay into that failing system. Because of their inability to fix the system, the logic seems to be that by making 11 million illegals – legal, that this will shore up the contribution side of Social Security.

Clearly this is an Act of Strategery.

The Republicans today, are playing CYA so that when Social Security goes under, they aren’t the group that failed to fix the system.

Essentially what the GOP is doing is creating a under-class to subsidies American retirees.

At best this is Fuzzy Logic.

Because they failed to reform one system, they think that tossing out the laws of a 2nd system will solve the problems of the 1st system.

But when you control the Executive and Legislative Branches and still fail to pass real reform, can you blame them for wanting to shift the blame to the next generation of lawmakers?


Russia Claims Cheney is starting a new Cold War

May 5, 2006

More on the story from yesterday

MOSCOW (Reuters) – A speech by Vice President Dick Cheney strongly critical of the Kremlin marks the start of a new Cold War that could drive Moscow away from its new-found Western allies, the Russian press said on Friday.

In shocked reaction to the harshest U.S. criticism of Moscow for years, commentators said Washington had created an anti-Russian cordon of Western-aligned states stretching from the Baltic almost to the Caspian Sea.

The Russian press agreed, comparing Cheney’s words to a 1946 speech by British statesman Winston Churchill in Fulton, Missouri, when he said Europe was divided by an “Iron Curtain.”

“Enemy at the Gates. Dick Cheney made a Fulton speech in Vilnius,” said business daily Kommersant’s front page headline.

“Vice President Dick Cheney made a keynote speech on relations between the West and Russia in which he practically established the start of the second Cold War … The Cold War has restarted, only now the front lines have shifted,” it said.

Many of us never thought the Cold War really ended.


The United States May Have to Live with a Nuclear Iran

May 4, 2006

From Intellectual Conservative:

The invasion of Iraq and subsequent U.S. military threats against Iran have actually intensified the Iranian desire to get nuclear weapons to keep the superpower out.

Unbelievably, a belligerent Bush administration is trying to rattle the saber again against Iran, because of its defiance of the United Nations Security Council’s resolution against Iran’s nuclear program. In the long-term, such blustering by a superpower is only likely to speed the efforts of Iran and other countries with nuclear aspirations to get atomic weapons.

Military threats or actions can cause countries that are developing nuclear technology to accelerate their atomic program and shroud the location of the facilities to protect them from bombing. The invasion of Iraq and subsequent U.S. military threats against Iran have actually intensified the Iranian desire to get nuclear weapons to keep the superpower out. Iran has hidden and buried nuclear facilities and put them in populated areas, which would be difficult for the United States to bomb without causing an international outcry. U.S. intelligence is unlikely to know the locations of all of the Iranian nuclear facilities, and Iran may even have a separate parallel set of facilities unbeknownst to the international community.