So says William Kristol in this sweeping and thought-provoking essay. If his comparison of the featured players holds, it would make for a more engaging and a "let’s-get-to-the-heart-of-our-differences" campaign. I am increasingly persuaded that his narrative of what will happen with Obama is correct. I do think that he will hold more appeal, in the end, than Hillary for the Dems. But I’m not so settled in an opinion about what the GOP will do. If I’ve learned anything about the GOP from watching politics all these years it’s this: the GOP almost never does the thing that is most likely to make life easier on itself! Still, a large part of me hopes that Kristol knows more about this than I do.
Bill Kristol thinks that the U.S. should (1) give billions of dollars to defend the borders of Israel and to deport foreigners from Iraq, and he simultaneously supports (2) the third-world, open-borders invasion of the USA. Question: Is this or is it not treason?
Maybe your singular bigoted focus on Mexico to the detriment of broader national security interests is also treason.
The third-world invasion of the U.S. is the greatest issue facing is today: it is the question whether we shall remain a Western country or turn into a third-world wasteland.
Fred Thompson is a neocon globalist. As a real conservative, I could never vote for him. I’ve already signed the Conservative Exodus Project. Not that I would vote for Crackhead Obama. I wouldn’t. I’d vote Constitution Party.
Yes, we will soon be a third-world wasteland and Obama is a crackhead. Thank you for proving my point about stupid comments.
Dear "Conservative Patriot,"
Do you really think that you are advancing the argument for closed borders by being a mouth-breathing bigot and a spamming multi-posting troll? You behave more like someone from moveon.org impersonating what they believe conservatives to be than any rational conservative I know. Do you think you can hector and annoy people into leaving the Republican party or coming around to your views? People get mad at Dain, but at least he posts arguments...
I don’t know enough about Thompson at this stage to be encouraged about his potential into the race. Has he been profiled yet on the web?
First off, no real conservative would ever call someone a "bigot." The very charge of "racism" was popularized by NeoMarxists (Frankfurt School) to undermine Western Civilization. Anyone who accuses another of being a "bigot" or "racist" not only is no conservative, but he’s an enemy of Western Civilization.
Second, the third-world invasion of the West is real, and it should be everyone’s #1 issue.. Just read Jean Raspail’s Camp of the Saints, the "best conservative novel ever written." Any true conservative will try to conserver / preserve his people, his ancestral traditions, and his ancestral institutions against these third-world hordes.
Bill Kristol is most certainly guilty of treason. This guy is not even loyal to the U.S. Some say he has "dual loyalty," but even that is generous. He has single loyalty, and it is not to the U.S. Neocons see the U.S. only as a fast supply of cash and soldiers for endless Middle East wars. Hacks like Strauss have set up the bogeyman of "historicism" but it is really just a Trojan horse for them to undermine and destroy the real West, for they detest the real America, with its real British and European past and traditions. Russell Kirk was right on the money when he said that neocons have "mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States."
wow, this one went off the rails pretty quick!
Hmm.
Since banning is probably impossible, I’d suggest just deleting the comments from Lex/Randall and others who cannot stay on the subject of the post.
There is this fantasy afoot that if we somehow distance ourselves from Jews and the Israelis, that if somehow we demonstrate that we can be just as anti-Semitic as anybody else out there, that we’ll be spared the doom that is approaching.
No greater mistake can be made.
There is no one on this planet that can be fed to islam that will satiate the bloodlust oozing from within islam.
And for all those desirous of a way out, I can provide one in a single word: VICTORY! "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there will be no survival...."
I think their posts are relevant. Aristotle said that one of the means of argumentation, when it relates to information not deduction, is to look at the reliability of the source. Bill Kristol is an unreliable source. He’s a traitor to the West.
"I’d suggest just deleting the comments from Lex/Randall and others who cannot stay on the subject of the post." - John. Typical left-wing / neocon tactic. Instead of debating the truth of a statement, they immediately resort to censorship.
There are certainly topics on which I find Kristol to be a poor guide. But the discussion of Thompson and Obama, which is what this thread is supposed to be about, is not one of them, "Tom". Or is it "Lex"?
Okay, Lex, if I can’t call you a bigot, how about I just call you an asshole and leave it at that.
Hal: I would prefer that, and in the process you mustn�t resort to NeoMarxists tactics to undermine Western Civilization. Any time you call someone a "racist" or "bigot" you are just doing the Left�s dirty work for them.
Dan:
There is no "victory." What would be "victory"? The conversion of the Middle East to liberal democracy is Jacobin, not conservative. We cannot end terrorism in the Middle East, nor is it our duty even to try. If we want to end terrorism in the West, though, we should (1) cut off all aid to the Middle East, (2) withdraw all troops from the Middle East), and (3) deport all Muslims from the West, and (4) end all immigration from the third world. Now, let me ask you. If you deport all Muslims from the West, how can they commit terrorist attacks? But is GW Bush doing this? No, he’s doing the opposite: endless neocon wars in the Middle East, and he just increased 10-fold the number of visas from Muslim countries.
Oh Victory is easy to understand, so long as you don’t wander off into the weeds of political correctness. Victory consists of your enemy dead. Very much dead. His would be friends wised up by the sight enemy corpses, renounces jihad, gives up the attempt to conquer the globe in the name of their deluded "prophet." That’s a for starters.
Victory consists of our enemies no longer pouring billions into satanic hate all across the planet. Victory consists of the Palestinian death cult be properly crushed. Victory consists of Hezbollah being wiped from the planet, likewise Hamas. Victory consists in the Allawite regime in Syria being crushed.
If you notice, "crushed," "wiped out" feature prominently in the answer.
Victory consists of OPEC’s ability to control prices being demolished. The destruction of the OPEC Cartel is as important a war objective as was the destruction of the refining and synthetic capacities of the Third Reich.
Victory is only a mystery if you refuse to impose your will on the battlefield, refuse to extend your will across the battlespace, and are too dainty to close with and destroy your enemy.
I’ve studied war ever since I was a boy, ever since I could read. I grew up next to a Military library. Victory is easy to explain.
But if you want something far more difficult to articulate, try defeat, try loss, try failure of nerve, and then try out your explanations for rationalizing that defeat, that loss, that failure of nerve.
I am sick to see those that claim to be of the traditional right to become once again enanted by the rant of the Burcher like speak of aliens and jews. Again something happened to the conservative movement in the 90s, did getting successful mean all the freeks come out of the closet and shout I’m a true Conservative. Who cares, its pure ideology and for those who speak of conservativism as mere conservation... how is that anylonger possible given that today that would require perpetuation of the outragous?
I had an out of control post to the Bradford responce down there.. but this is just out of it.
The questions for conservatives have always been how to get our policy sucessfully implements.. not how right are our policies. Wonderfully correct policies that are un-implementable because they are unable to get the necessarily votes aren’t good policies they are dreams and when was mere dreaming good conservative practice?
I lost respect for Pat Bucannan when in one of the books in the 90s he suggested it was a mistake to go to War with Hitler that isolation was the best course of action for the US. How is this Conservative??? Burke would laugh at this as head in the sand thinking that was unacceptable to tyrants be they from the right or the left. Was FDR a liberal, yes.. but was fight Hitler right, yes.. but if that meant we’d keep FDR in power inorder to defeat Hitler, then that is a price sometime one has to make.. because on the comparative scale of things you have to take the lesser of two evils.. never the mast optimal choice (this Augustianian teaching is the core of the Conservativism that Kirk, Kendall and Bradford taught me!!!).
As for the whine .. oh you are using left wing neomarxist tactics used by comment no 8 and again later.. gee when has name calling been only a neomarkist game.. its one for free for all. Heck go look at Burke’s writings, he had some nasty comments for certain Bigots who attacked Irishmen and Catholics. So I am sorry it alright for a conservative to call a spade a spade.
Pat Buchanan’s foreign policy is wrong...it’s the one problem I’ve had with his brand of politics. Yet, if we use such mistakes/contradictions to reject any political thinker’s point of view, pretty soon we could reject anyone who expresses an opinion. Pat is right about a great number of things, but his attitudes about foreign policy and Israel aren’t among them. Take from Pat (or any other thinker) what you will, leave the rest.