At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

The Republican Media, Ron Paul, and I

posted by Jack Kerwick

I recently submitted what I took to be a spirited defense of Ron Paul to a well regarded right-leaning publication—that is to say, a publication that is widely esteemed by more than a few establishment neoconservative Republican pundits.  It was rejected. 

In what follows, I relay both the essentials of my argument as well as my latest experience with its editors.  I welcome any feedback from readers—including feedback that is critical: if I am wrong, please call me out on it.  I only ask that you supply reasons for your assessment.

The Argumentative Strategy

Identify distortions; State Paul’s positions; Identify contradictions in his critics

In my article—“Setting the Record Straight on Ron Paul”—I pursue a simple, three prong strategy.  Courtesy of his Republican detractors, the political horizon is replete with gross distortions of Dr. Paul’s positions.  I expose these distortions for what they are.  Next, I reiterate what Paul has actually said on the issues.  Finally, I show that by their own standards, Paul’s enemies contradict themselves.

The Strategy in Action

Paul on Domestic Policy

For example, Paul’s Republican rivals inexhaustibly tell us that the Texas Congressman wants to “legalize” drugs, prostitution, and so-called “same sex marriage.”  As anyone who has actually listened to Paul knows all too well, this is not his position.  Rather, it is an end to the federal government’s intervention on behalf of these issues that he seeks.  Paul, that is, believes it is unconstitutional for the federal government to either criminalize or legalize any of these activities.  I observe that by the standards that his critics judge him, they convict themselves.   Familiarity with elementary logic reveals in no time just how inescapable is this verdict. 

Paul insists that the federal government has no constitutional authority to speak to the issues of drugs, prostitution, and “same sex marriage.”  He believes that these are issues best left to the states to determine.  Because of this, his rivals claim that he favors their legalization.  But when it comes to, say, the hot button issue of abortion, these same Republicans—virtually all of them—are just as ready to invoke federalism as is Paul.  It is the states, not the federal government, that has constitutional authority to address abortion, they claim.  By their own reasoning, though, there is no way to circumvent the conclusion that they, then, must favor the legalization of abortion

Such Republicans, I note, are either incapable of adhering to this most fundamental logical demand of consistency or else they are unwilling to do so.  Thus, they are either intellectually or morally confused.  Perhaps they are both.

Foreign Policy and Islamic Terrorism

Ron Paul’s vision of terrorism generally and the 9/11 attacks specifically is another issue that I address by way of this same argumentative strategy. 

Paul’s nemeses repeatedly claim that he “blames” America for the Islamic violence that has been perpetrated against Americans.  This is their distortion of Paul’s position.  In reality, Paul has “blamed” no one, short of the terrorists themselves.  After all, he did vote in favor of military action against the Taliban in the days following the attacks of September 11, 2001.  Least of all can he be said to have ever “blamed” America

“Blame” is a concept located within the universe of moral discourse.  Along with its complement term, “praise,” “blame” belongs to the language of justification.  Paul, in sharp contrast, is concerned with supplying an explanation when he addresses the topic of Islamic terrorism and 9/11.  In other words, he seeks to justify nothing. 

The distinction between explanatory and justificatory modes of discourse is another species of elementary logic.  Again, that Paul’s enemies do not recognize what every college freshmen enrolled in an introductory logic course is expected to recognize renders it impossible to avoid the conclusion that they are either cognitively or morally impoverished—or perhaps a little (or a lot) of both.

However, I continued, let’s just say that Paul is looking to assign blame when he speaks of Islamic terrorism.  According to Paul, the actions that invite Islamic violence are not those of America; they are the actions of the federal government.  Surely Republicans, of all people, can understand that to “blame” the federal government for this or that is most certainly not equivalent to blaming America.  Think about it: it is Republicans, both politicians and pundits, who tirelessly rail against the federal government.  It was Ronald Reagan—a man who counts for no small amount of importance among Republicans—who famously said that (the federal) government is not “the solution” to our problems; all too often it is the problem itself.  Does this mean that Reagan was essentially saying that America is the problem?

If Paul is guilty of bashing “America” because of his observation—one shared by, among other sources, The 9/11 Commission and the Central Intelligence Agency, including the CIA’s Michael Scheuer, who presided over its Osama bin Laden unit for 22 years—that our federal government’s foreign policy provoked this “blowback” phenomenon, then every Republican who criticizes the federal government for anything and everything is equally guilty of bashing America.

Paulophobic Republicans, once more, are inconsistent.  But because of the glaring nature of this inconsistency, it is hard to imagine that they aren’t being dishonest.

Foreign Policy and Foreign Aid

Finally, I looked at the topic of foreign aid andIsrael. 

Paul’s opponents state that he is no friend of Israel.  Why?  Paul, you see, wants to eliminate all foreign aid—which obviously includes foreign aid toIsrael.

Paul opposes foreign aid for the same reason that he opposes all redistributive schemes: it is a redistributive scheme.  But among the various forms of government welfare that prevail in our country, foreign aid is arguably the most egregious, for it requires that the United States government compel its own citizens—the vast majority of whom are not affluent—to part with their resources so as to subsidize the wealthy office holders of the governments of other countries. 

Yet he objects to foreign aid on another ground: the subsidization of other governments makes those governments forever dependent upon those governments that subsidize them. That is, the sovereignty of a nation is compromised inasmuch as it is beholden to another. 

Now, there may be cogent reasons for why Paul may be mistaken as to what being a good ally of Israel(or any other nation) entails.   But it is only ill faith that can account for why his Republican objectors would charge him with being “anti-Israel,” for Paul’s view is that a true champion of Israel(or any other nation) is one who seeks her independence.  By calling for an end to foreign aid, it is exactly this for which he calls.

When we consider that it is Republicans who charge Democrats with “racism” for allegedly desiring to keep blacks dependent upon Big Government, one would think that Republicans more so than anyone else would sympathize would Paul on this topic.  Yet again, Paul’s Republican enemies contradict themselves: if Paul is “anti-Israel” or “anti-Semitic” because of his desire to liberate Israel from its dependence upon Big Government, then it is Republicans, not Democrats, who are “racist” because of their desire to liberate blacks from their dependence upon Big Government.   If, on the other hand, such Republicans insist that respect for persons requires that we affirm their autonomy or independence, then insofar as they want to keepIsrael dependent upon the American government, it is his Republican detractors, not Paul himself, who are the real “anti-Semites.” 

The Editor’s Remarks and My Response

These are the arguments that I made in my article. The editor of this reputable publication rejected it as a “non-starter.”  In an unusually long email, he claimed to be “shocked” and “stunned” that I would accuse his publication of furthering distortions and lies concerning Paul.  He then pointed out that while he has published anti-Paul pieces, he has also published critical pieces of all of the Republican presidential contenders.

Although he spent most of his time defending his publication against my charges, he managed to criticize my piece for its lack of “objectivity” and its “emotionalism.”  Because I didn’t “cite” a single source, what I submitted was merely my “opinion” of what Ron Paul has said—nothing more. 

The editor’s comments call for several responses.

First, it is worth noting that not once did he question either the substance or the logic of my arguments.  Nor could he, for, in my humble judgment, the substance was true and the logic impeccable. 

Second, it is true that I did not cite any sources.  Yet it is equally true that most articles written in this venue, including no inconsiderable number of anti-Paul essays that had been published at this specific publication, are typically devoid of citations.  Besides, those of Paul’s positions to which I spoke are public knowledge: everyone knows what he says about the federal government and its role vis-à-vis drugs, prostitution, and marriage, and everyone knows what he thinks about foreign aid.  We are also all too familiar with his opponents’ criticisms.

Third, this publication has, to its credit, published a couple of defenses of Paul.  And yes, it has indeed published articles taking some of the other candidates to task.  But, first of all, for every one pro-Paul piece there have been numerous critiques.  This in and by itself is fair enough.  What is most unfair, though, is the nature of these critiques.  In fact, they can’t really be said to be critiques at all.  They are, rather, the standard diet of character attacks that we have come to expect from the Republican-dominated media: Paul is “insane,” “nutzo,” and “mad.”  He is a “conspiracy monger” and an “anti-Semite” who “blames the Jews” for Islamic attacks against theUnited States.  Paul is a “racist,” a “bigot,” and a “crackpot,” someone who is little better than “an apologist for the KKK!”  No other candidate comes close to suffering this same abuse. 

Fourth, the editor determines that my defense of Paul isn’t “worthy” of his publication because it is not “objective.”  At the same time, he permits the foregoing trash to make it to print.

Finally, there appears to be some confusion as to the meaning of “objectivity.”  This is pardonable, for fewer words have been as mired in ambiguity as this one.  If by “objective” we mean non-partisan and/or dispassionate, then I confess that my argument on Paul’s behalf was resolutely non-objective.  At the same time, no argument fits this description of objectivity.  If, though, an objective analysis is one that is supported by reasons that are at once true and that answer to the universal requirement of logical consistency, then my defense was most certainly objective. 

Conclusion and a Call for Feedback

At least this is the case as far as I can tell.  Any readers who think that perhaps I have overreacted, as the editor accuses me of doing, or who have any other thoughts about this little episode, please, let me know.

Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.

originally published at The New American

Would Newt, Mitt, and Rick vote for Ron?

posted by Jack Kerwick

When Republicans had one of their debates in Florida, moderator Brian Williams asked Congressman Ron Paul whether he would endorse Newt Gingrich in the event that the former Speaker of the House won his party’s nomination.  Indicating that, at the very least, he wouldn’t rule out the possibility altogether, Paul was more than a bit gracious.  Nowadays, Gingrich speaks somewhat sensibly on economic matters, Paul implied, but his foreign policy vision leaves much to be desired.

I confess, I wished that the good doctor would not have been so accommodating.

I would have loved to have heard Paul say something along the following lines:

“Brian, you yourself just acknowledged that, unlike Governor Romney, Senator Santorum, and Speaker Gingrich, I not only have a solid and ever growing base of grassroots supporters, but a base composed in no small measure of youthful voters whose passion and commitment is unsurpassed.  There has been no other candidate in this race from the outset—for that matter, no other politician in all of Washington D.C.—who has succeeded in energizing citizens from across the political spectrum and every walk of life as I have managed to do.  Republicans, Democrats, and Independents; conservatives, liberals, libertarians, and moderates; college students, Wall Street ‘occupiers,’ and active military personnel; Hollywood actors, like Vince Vaughn, and 22 year CIA veteran and one-time head of the Osama bin Laden unit Michael Scheuer;  Christians, Jews, and atheists; blacks, Hispanics, and whites;  my supporters hail from all across the land. 

“Polls show that in a head-to-head match up with President Obama, I do as well as Mitt Romney and significantly better than Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.  In fact, these same polls show that I do better than all of the candidates—including President Obama—among those voters without whom no general election can be won: independents. 

“The question that should be asked is this: Would Newt or, for that matter, any other candidate, endorse me should I get the nomination?”

Paul could continue:

“Not too long ago, if I am not mistaken, Newt told Wolf Blitzer that he would not vote for me over Barack Obama.  This in and of itself raises a thicket of questions:

“What in the world would possess a self-declared ‘conservative,’ a self-avowed proponent of ‘limited government,’ to, in effect, even if not necessarily by intention, side with a presidential candidate who he himself has described as a ‘socialist’ and ‘Saul Alinsky radical’ over a constitutionalist like myself?!

“If Newt would really prefer Obama over me, doesn’t this suggest that for all of his rhetoric, Newt’s thinking is more akin to that of the President’s than to my own?  And if this is so, doesn’t this mean that while it may be possible to distinguish his philosophy of governing from that of Obama’s, the distinction in question is one without a difference?

“How could any champion of liberty and the constitutional government that makes it possible endorse anyone who thinks as Obama thinks?

“If Newt has since revised the thoughts that he expressed to Wolf Blitzer, I would be interested in knowing, Newt, what has changed?”

If no moderator or interviewer will ask Gingrich or any of the other candidates whether they would support Ron Paul in the event that he should receive his party’s nomination, perhaps Paul should ask the question himself during one of these debates.  This would be an effective strategy for a couple of reasons.

First, the question of whether Paul will either run on a third party ticket or endorse the Republican nominee presupposes and reinforces the notion that he is not a serious candidate.  In turning the question around on his opponents, he beats this anti-Paul prejudice back.

Second, in turning this question back upon his opponents, Paul reminds them, the media, and voters everywhere that this race isn’t even close to being finished.

Third, this provides Paul the opportunity to test his opponents’ sincerity.  We have been told that if Paul abandons the GOP for a third party, he will be responsible for insuring a second term for Obama—something that, under no circumstances, can the country afford.  Hence, it would be worst than irresponsible—it would be reckless—for Paul not to endorse the Republican nominee—regardless of who he is.  In forcing this question upon Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney, Paul forces them to reveal whether or not they plan on living by this same line of reasoning if and when they find themselves having to choose between Paul and Obama. 

Paul is a man on a mission.  He is obsessed, not with winning his party’s nomination, much less the presidency, but with seeing to it that more and more Americans hear his message of liberty.  Paul really does want to save the country.  Yet he is under no delusions that either he or any other person can do so within four or even eight years.  The salvation of the country, he knows, lies in renewing the spirit of liberty within the breasts of every American.

He is a wise and honest man.  I just hope that during his campaign to restore America to her constitutional roots, he manages to find some room for the forgoing questions. 

Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.

 

Political Language

posted by Jack Kerwick

As expected, many of the terms of which our political universe consists are on display more frequently than usual during this election season.  Now, then, is as good a time as any to revisit these time-worn concepts.

Capitalism

For some reason, the self-avowed nemeses of the planned economy—whether we call this “socialism,” “communism,” or anything else—insist on describing their property arrangements of choice as “capitalism.”  Given that the latter term was coined by collectivists—communists specifically—this is beyond a merely misfortunate selection of names.  In using the language of their enemies, self-avowed “capitalists” actually weaken their own position.

There are a couple of reasons for this.

For one, the left has been remarkably successful in ensconcing the figure of “the blood-sucking ‘capitalist’” in the popular imagination. Not everyone is a doctrinaire leftist, mind you, but the left’s “march” through our culture’s institutions—the institution of popular media, specifically—has not been without its effect upon Americans at large.  Among the half-baked notions that they have imbibed is this notion of the greedy “capitalist.”

Second, “capitalism” is an “ism.”  That is, the word denotes a system.  More specifically, it implies an economic system.  Within the context of politics, the term “system” invariably suggests a consciously designed societal blueprint to the subscription of which its architect, government, compels the populace.  This image is all the more prominent when it is considered that “capitalism” is located on a continuum with such government-directed economic systems as socialism and communism.

So, the defenders of “capitalism” can all too easily be misunderstood as championing but another economic plan.  Worse, they lend themselves to being depicted as advocating a plan according to which it is “the rich,” the “capitalists,” who will be awarded the lion’s share of “the economic pie” at the expense of “the working class.”

Free Enterprise System

Sometimes the proponents of “capitalism” speak of America as a “free enterprise system.”  Granted, the latter is a preferable term to the former.  Still, though, it is confused.

The United States Constitution barely succeeded in being ratified.  Examination of both the quarrels that transpired between anti-Federalists and Federalists as well as the Constitution itself discloses a conception of America that has since fallen on hard times. America, according to this understanding, is not any sort of “enterprise system” at all, whether “free” or otherwise.

Any enterprise is distinguished on account of its end, goal, or purpose.  War would be a key example of an enterprise.  The purpose of war is victory.  It is this purpose and this purpose alone that unites the participants in a war and renders them joint-enterprisers. During times of war, the only decisions and actions that are approved are those that contribute toward, or at least do not frustrate, the realization of the end of victory. Business would be another illustration of an enterprise.  Profit is the ultimate purpose of any business and the actors in a business are joint-enterprisers whose actions are expected to serve this end.

The point here is that America was never intended to be any sort of enterprise.  In vain will we search the Constitution for a purpose to which the resources of American citizens are to be deployed.  What we do encounter when we turn to it are the conditions necessary for citizens to embark upon the enterprises of their own choosing.  Put another way, the Constitution—through its wide dispersal of authority and power—provides for the liberty that Americans were intended by their progenitors to enjoy.   But, it is crucial to grasp, this liberty is not itself an end or purpose.  Rather, it is the indispensable precondition for the pursuit of any and all purposes.

Thus, the self-declared enemies of socialism and other species of economic collectivism should from now on juxtapose with their rivals’ socialism, not “the free enterprise system,” and certainly not “capitalism,” but, simply, liberty.  

The State and ‘Statists’

There are few words that have suffered as much abuse as “the state.”  In spite of the negative connotations that it has come to assume, the word itself is a good one, for it is by far the least misleading name that we can ascribe those sovereign political entities that are the stuff of the modern world. 

The United Statesis a state.  Mind you, it isn’t the government of the United States that is a state.  The state that is America encompasses the latter’s government and its culture.    

From this perspective, two things follow.

First, anyone and everyone who isn’t an anarchist is a “statist.”  Second, anti-collectivists should refrain from chiding collectivists for being “statists” and, instead, simply call them “collectivists.”

Conclusion

These are just some of our key political terms that need to be liberated from the ambiguity in which they’ve been cast.  This is no merely academic exercise, for how we think depends upon the words we use.  

 

“Conservatives” and Martin Luther King, Jr.

posted by Jack Kerwick

Every January,America honors the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr.  Perhaps because it has now been decades since this occasion has been declared a federal holiday, most Americans today—especially the young—have no recollection of just how much resistance its proponents faced.  More specifically, the lion’s share of this resistance came from just that party whose media apologists now regularly join with their leftist counterparts in paying the obligatory praise to this iconic reverend.

The self-sworn guardians of Republican “conservative” orthodoxy, those anti-leftists who spend several hours each day at least five days a week (correctly) drawing attention to the socialistic agenda of Barack Obama and his party, invariably pay homage to Dr. King.  This is, at the very least, ironic, for far from being the conservative hero of popular Republican lore, King was not only a leftist, but a radical leftist—whether measured by the standards of our generation or those of his own.

The Martin Luther King, Jr. upon whom Republicans routinely lavish praise is a fiction.  More precisely, it is a fiction spawned from the union of ideological convenience and intellectual laziness.  This King, a virtual saint who tirelessly promoted and died for the sake of a vision of color-blindness, is a prophet who offered to America its one and only chance at redemption.  For this legendary figure, race or color is as morally relevant a characteristic as a wart or a pimple.

But, as black leftist and King admirer Michael Eric Dyson insists, only by focusing on a single line from a single speech—King’s “I Have a Dream” speech—can Republicans justify this reading of King.  By now, it is with the greatest of ease that most Americans can recite this famous line: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”  In his I May Not Get There With You: The True Martin Luther King, Jr., Dyson laments “the conservative misappropriation” of King’s words and insists that King is not the “advocate of a color-blind society” that Republicans and “conservatives” make him out to be (emphasis mine).

Dyson argues compellingly for his contention that King was a radical.  To begin with, let us look at King’s position on what we today call “affirmative action.”

Republicans routinely assume that since King was a staunch champion of “equal opportunity,” he would never have countenanced “affirmative action” policies.  But as Dyson is quick to show, this assumption couldn’t be further from the truth.

According to King, “the struggle for rights is, at bottom, a struggle for opportunities,”  it is true, yet he was equally insistent upon his belief that “with equal opportunity must come the practical, realistic aid which will equip” blacks to “seize” this opportunity.  King declared that “the nation must not only radically readjust its attitude toward the Negro in the compelling present, but must incorporate in its planning some compensatory consideration for the handicaps he has inherited from the past” (emphasis mine).

King, then, rejected the dichotomous terms in which the Republican relates “equality of opportunity” with “equality of results.”  To put the point more bluntly, King very much favored a system—a “massive” system, as he described it—of mostly race-based policies providing blacks with preferential treatment.  “I am proposing,” King wrote, “that, just as we granted a GI Bill of Rights to war veterans, America launch a broad-based and gigantic Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged, our veterans of the long siege of denial” (emphases mine).

King admitted that “the idea of reforming the existing institutions of” American society that he once held was a mistake. He came to believe that nothing less than “a reconstruction of the entire society, a revolution of values,” is needed (emphasis mine).   Such a “fundamental transformation,” as Barack Obama would put it some forty years later, is necessary, for it became King’s considered judgment that “America is a racist country.”  Most whites, King asserted, “are unconscious racists” who, as such, must be compelled to insure blacks their just desserts.

America, according to King, “was born in genocide,” “racial hatred,” and “racial supremacy.”  Insofar as it was founded by slave holders—particularly those slave holders who authored the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence—it “has a lot of repenting to do.”  Blacks had good reason to be distrustful ofAmerica, King proclaimed, because its creed as it is embodied in the Declaration “has never had any real meaning in terms of implementation” in the lives of blacks.  Furthermore, “a nation that put as many Japanese in a concentration camp as”Americadid during World War II “will put black people in a concentration camp,” King assured his followers.

This “reconstruction of the entire society,” this “revolution of values” for which King called has a name, and it is a name that he ascribed to it.  It is called “democratic socialism.

Many people today tend to look upon the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as being the civil rights movement’s two signature achievements.  This, though, is not a view that King shared.  Such laws and the changes that they attended “were at best surface changes,” he said, “not really substantive changes” at all.  Moreover, since these bills had become law, “the plight of the Negro poor” had actually “worsened [.]”  King was convinced that “the roots” of the problem lie in “the system rather than in men or faulty operations.”  Hence, he concluded, the antidote lies in “a redistribution of economic power.”

Now, King confesses that what he is “saying” is “that something is wrong…with capitalism [.]”  This is “the system” that is the root of the great injustices on which King sets his sights.  In order, then, to address injustice, this system must be abolished in favor of another.  With what system does King seek to replace “capitalism?”  His answer is to the point.  Since “there must be a better distribution of wealth,” “maybe America must move toward a Democratic Socialism” (emphases mine).

Not only did King charge America with being a “racist” country founded in racial “genocide” and “hatred.”  Not only did he demand the abolition of economic liberty as Americans had traditionally conceived it—“capitalism”—in favor of “Democratic Socialism.”  King accused America of being “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today,” characterized the Vietnam War as “senseless” and “unjust,” and declared thatAmerica’s prosecution of the Vietnam War was “racist.”

There is one final consideration that accentuates the irony of self-sworn “conservatives”—“Reagan conservatives,” as many of them like to regard themselves—heaping praise upon King: King disdained Ronald Wilson Reagan.  That he held Reagan in contempt becomes obvious when we remember that King very rarely disparaged those public figures with whom he disagreed.  Yet in Reagan’s case, he was ready to make an exception.  Of Reagan King stated: “When a Hollywood performer, lacking distinction even as an actor, can become a leading war hawk candidate for the presidency only the irrationalities induced by a war psychosis can explain such a melancholy turn of events.”

The civil rights movement of which King was at the vanguard began as a revolt against Southern-style Jim Crow segregation.  Under this system, not only did government directly practice racial discrimination but it as well compelled private property owners to engage in this activity.  There is no mystery as to why any self-styled disciple of liberty would commend King for the courage and conviction that he displayed resisting this great injustice.

However, it is either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty that accounts for why they would heap praise upon him for the incalculable contributions he made toward the advancement of a leftist agenda that is supposed to be against everything for which they stand.

Previous Posts

Neocon Leftists, "American Exceptionalism," and Immigration
Paul Greenberg’s last article proves what many of us have long known: neoconservatives are leftists by another name. Greenberg waxes orgasmic over President Obama’s decision to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.  However, like every other champion of amnesty, he unequivocally denie

posted 9:10:41pm Nov. 25, 2014 | read full post »

Against "Saving People From Themselves": Thomas Szasz vs. the Drug Prohibitionists
Few things are as effective in eliciting the ire of neoconservative Republicans as is talk of decriminalizing recreational drug use. Given that the Republican Party is supposed to be the party of personal responsibility and “limited government,” this is indeed a tragic commentary on the times

posted 9:56:40pm Nov. 23, 2014 | read full post »

Republicans, Democrats, and White Men
Following their party’s crushing defeat at the polls, some Democratic strategists are now claiming that it is Democrats’ “failure to communicate” with white men that accounts for their dramatic reversal of fortunes. In contrast, Republican talking heads insist upon either trivializing or

posted 9:20:56pm Nov. 07, 2014 | read full post »

Why I Did Not Vote this Election Day
As I write this, it’s Election Day. It is the first Election Day in 24 years that I haven’t voted. Every election cycle, Republican operatives in the media—“conservative” talk radio hosts, Fox News pundits, and the like—insist to their audiences that a decision on their part to do

posted 9:47:14pm Nov. 04, 2014 | read full post »

Losing the Language: How the GOP Undermines Itself--and Liberty
As the mid-term elections approach, it’s high time for Republican commentators to walk the walk. Just the other morning, Mark Steyn, busily promoting his new book, made an appearance on Bill Bennett’s radio program. The latter agreed enthusiastically with the former that in order for conserva

posted 10:16:04pm Oct. 23, 2014 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.