(By embracing public schools, the) “bulk of Protestants in the United States have betrayed themselves… to an attitude concerning the rearing of youth which must ever be preposterous and untenable for sincere Christians… (Had) “the statesmen and divines of the Reformation, the Luthers, Calvins, Knoxes, Winthrops, and Mathers.. been asked, What think you of a theory of education which should train the understanding without instructing the religious conscience; which should teach young immortal spirits anything and everything except God; which should thus secularize education, a function essentially spiritual, and should take this parental task from the fathers and mothers, on whom God imposed it, to confer it on the earthly organism, expressly secular and godless? They would have answered with one voice, It is pagan, utterly damnable.”

R. L. Dabney
19th Century Presbyterian Theologian

“The nature of responsibility is such that there can be no neutrality between duty and sin. He that is not with God is against Him…Hence, as there cannot be in any soul a non-Christian state which is not anti-Christian, it follows that any training which attempts to be non-Christian is therefore anti-Christian…To educate the mind without purifying the heart is but to place a sharp sword in the hands of a madman…There can be, no true education without moral culture, and no true moral culture without Christianity. The very power of the teacher in the schoolroom is either moral or it is a degrading brute force.”

R.L.Dabney
19th Century Presbyterian Theologian

“I am as sure as I am of the fact of Christ’s reign that a comprehensive and centralized system of national education separated from religion, as is now commonly proposed, will prove the most appalling enginery for the propagation of anti-Christian and atheistic unbelief, and of anti-social, nihilistic ethics, individual, social, and political, which this sin-rent world has ever seen.”

A. A. Hodge
20th Century Presbyterian Theologian

“I am afraid that the schools will prove the very gates of Hell, unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures, and engraving them on the hearts of youth. I would advise no one to send his child where the Holy Scriptures are not supreme. Every institution in which men and women are not unceasingly occupied with the Word of God must be corrupt.”

Martin Luther
16th Century Reformer

“Education, the great mumbo-jumbo and fraud of the age, purports to equip us to live and is prescribed as a universal remedy for everything from juvenile delinquency to premature senility. For the most part it only serves to enlarge stupidity, inflate conceit, enhance credulity and put those subjected to it at the mercy of brain-washers with printing presses, radio and TV at their disposal.” ~

Malcolm Muggeridge
20th Century Communications Genius

“Every teacher should realize he is a social servant set apart for the maintenance of the proper social order and the securing of the right social growth. In this way the teacher is always the prophet of the true God and the usherer in of the true kingdom of heaven.”

John Dewey
20th Century Philosopher & Educational Social Engineer

“The Basis of Education is always profoundly religious. That is a reality that can neither be avoided in any classroom, nor sanitized out of any curriculum. It is incumbent upon us, therefore, to realize that children do not go to School so much as they go to Temple, they do not learn from the Teacher so much as they learn from the Priest, and they do not learn their lessons so much as they learn their catechism. Any failure to realize the essentially religious nature of all education will result in a failure to protect our children from gods Christians confess to despise.”

Bret L. McAtee
21st Century Reformed Minister

“Hello, my name is Darrell, and I am a recovering Republican. Likewise, I am daily overcoming my adultery with the Religious Right.”

Once upon a time, I actually paid attention to the shenanigans of Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum, otherwise known as the Democrats and Republicans. I wasted my time with “thoughtful” publications such as National Review and Human Events–yes, I honestly took such pabulum seriously. In 1992, I handed out literature for George Bush (to my credit, I had voted for Pat Buchanan in the Michigan primary). By 1994, I was ecstatic at the thought of a GOP takeover of Congress. I foolishly assumed it would lead to an era of good government, responsible policy making, and, of course, a rebirth of freedom (OK, maybe I wasn’t THAT stupid).

By the early 1990’s, I already knew something was amiss in the GOP and the “conservative movement.” As an economics student, I’d stumbled across Mises, Rothbard and the Austrian cohort. My brother had given me an issue of Chronicles magazine pronouncing the death of the movement, and I noticed Pat Buchanan’s increasing disenchantment with the nefarious neocons.

In 1991, Tom Fleming and Murray Rothbard were engines behind the creation of the John Randolph Committee, a nascent attempt to create a new fusionism, melding together paleoconservatives and paleolibertarians. This was an era when hard-edged ideologues on the right were determined to shelve disputes over first principles and build a coalition to challenge the establishment. If Fleming assumed that 80% of what the state did was problematic and Rothbard assumed the number was closer to 95%, couldn’t they agree to move the ball down the field and save discussions about defining state sovereignty for another occasion?

In any case, the paleo movement coalesced around Pat Buchanan in 1992 when he ran in the GOP primaries against the elder Bush. In my naivete, I assumed Pat would find widespread support from conservatives. After all, I reasoned, Poppy had raised taxes, signed dreadful “civil rights” legislation, and presided over a huge increase of the regulatory state.

But instead of hopping on board, most “conservatives” attacked Pat. The prissy George Will, the gluttonous, but virtuous, Bill Bennett, and the monstrous Charles Krauthammer all accused Pat of being Mussolini’s progeny. Jack Kemp and other establishment conservatives piled on, led by NR old man Bill Buckley, who laid the ludicrous charge of anti-Semitism at Pat’s feet (this actually occurred around the time of the first Gulf War, and NR did ultimately issue a “tactical” endorsement of Pat.)

Well, we all remember that Pat inflicted some damage on old man Bush in the early primaries and ultimately was given a spot on the docket at the GOP convention in Houston where he delivered a stem-winder of a speech.

By 1994, a slew of young Republican congressmen were streaming into Washington bringing conservative ideas with them. Bill Clinton had overreached with his socialist health care plan and gun-grabbing schemes, and like the elder Bush had raised taxes, too. Newt Gingrich and company were going to forever scale-back the state and restore a constitutional balance between the regime in Washington and the various outposts of the empire, i.e., the states. Even immigration reform was on the agenda as Californians, led by Pete Wilson, stood up and said “Enough!” to the invasion of their state from the south.

By 1996, though congressional Republicans had been handed their hats by Bill Clinton, another Buchanan campaign was in the offing. This time, Pat got started early, raising money and putting together a staff of excellent young operatives. The conservative alternative to Pat was Phil Gramm, who raised prodigious amounts of money and had the support of “movement” conservatives interested in thwarting the mushy establishmentarian Bob Dole and preventing him from becoming the GOP standard-bearer. In the early primaries and caucuses, Buchanan proved himself formidable. He won the Alaska caucuses and in Louisiana’s race, he faced Gramm man-to-man and won handily, driving the senator from the race.

The contest next moved to Iowa, adjacent to senator Dole’s home state of Kansas. By this time, magazine magnate (and beneficiary of Daddy’s money) Steve Forbes had entered the fray, giving “economic conservatives” a horse in the race. A few weeks out, newspapers were publishing polls indicating that 28 percent of Iowans were for Dole, 26 percent for Forbes, and 12 percent for Buchanan. But with Pat’s victory in Louisiana, the tide was heading in his direction. On election night, exit polls indicated that Dole had beaten back the challenge by a single percentage point. There were also indications that some funny business existed in the counting of ballots in Iowa, but with Dole’s narrow victory, the contest moved to New Hampshire.

By this time, the conservative movement operating in lock step with the establishment media turned on Pat with ferocity. They hauled out the racist/sexist/homophobe charge and played the anti-Semite card. But none of it worked to dissuade the good people of New Hampshire, who delivered a stunning victory to Buchanan on election night.

The elite moved into panic mode. As the race moved to Arizona and South Carolina, it looked like Buchanan could actually win the race. He was leading in the polls in Arizona, and we know from Bob Woodward’s coverage that had Dole finished third in the AZ primaries, he was prepared to exit the race. In AZ, Pat’s populism and his stance on immigration were rousing supporters and all the energy was in the Buchanan camp.

On election day, Arizona’s Governor, Fife Symington, called the Buchanan State HQ to congratulate him on his victory. Just moments after the polls closed, Sen. John McCain, who initially backed Phil Gramm, then switched his support to Bob Dole just before the Arizona primary, sent a FAX to the media extending to the Buchanan Brigade “congratulations for winning a plurality of support from Arizona Republicans.” But after a night of ballot counting, Buchanan was suddenly in third place, behind Forbes and Dole. What happened exactly? Well, we’re not really sure, though there is evidence that the election was stolen from Buchanan and that McCain and Symington just didn’t get the memo.

As the race moved to South Carolina, things were heating up. At 73, Dole looked like a dead man walking, but Ralph Reed and the “Christian right” would come running to his rescue. Concerned that Buchanan was too “extreme” and a likely loser in the general election, Reed and the Christian Coalition began to agitate on behalf of Dole. (By the way, during the 1992 primaries Pat Robertson claimed that God told him he should endorse Bush the Elder over Buchanan. God also whispered in Brother Pat’s ear that Bush would win the general election in a landslide, but I guess you can’t get ‘em all right. Good thing for Robertson Christians don’t read Deuteronomy). Reed, Robertson, and governor David Beasley constructed a firewall in South Carolina and ultimately strangled the Buchanan movement as it was slouching forth to be birthed.

By 2000, religious conservatives completely abandoned ship altogether. With Buchanan running on the Reform Party ticket (that’s another long post for another day), the Religious Right hopped on the Bush Express after his thoughtful musings about Jesus being his favorite philosopher.

Why spill all this ink reviewing “ancient” political history, and what do those events have to do with the leadership of the Religious Right? The neocon/paleocon civil war of the 1990’s provided an opportunity for authentic conservatives to take back their movement from Trotskyite interlopers and castaways from traditional liberalism. Buchanan and his movement represented limited government bound by the Constitution, a foreign policy that put America First, and support for immigration and cultural policies that might have maintained our integrity as a coherent people.

On the other side were imperious neoconservatives, conflating Israeli and American interests, driven to create a Pax Americana at the point of a bayonet. The neocons were aligned with business interests, those who believe in the myth of homo economicus, who sought mass immigration as a means of keeping wages low, and who see tax policy and tort reform as more important than the murder of unborn children.

In this battle of ideas and principles, where did the Christian Coalition along with the Dobson/Falwell/Robertson axis come down? They sided with the Big Business and Big Government faction, i.e., the neocons. They sided with imperialistsic, big-government, warmongers, who care nothing for their issues. In short, in the name of pragmatism and relevance it was the so-called Christian Right, aligned with neoconservatives and the liberal press corps, that swamped what remained of the conservative movement. Evangelical voters were the instrument wielded by the GOP establishment, a rent-a-mob that ultimately destroyed the last remnants of bona fide conservatism and constitutionalism. And what did they get for their efforts? Bob Dole and George W. Bush. I’ll confess that Ralph Reed has been well compensated for selling himself to the highest bidder, but I’m wondering if the rest of these fellas would like to renegotiate for thirty pieces of silver.

John Hannah and David Wurmser are cooperating in the Fitzgerald probe. Today’s Times reports that Cheney was Scooter Libby’s source on the identity of Valerie Plame. The story then says:

Mr. Libby’s notes indicate that Mr. Cheney had gotten his information about Ms. Wilson from George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, in response to questions from the vice president about Mr. Wilson. But they contain no suggestion that either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby knew at the time of Ms. Wilson’s undercover status or that her identity was classified. Disclosing a covert agent’s identity can be a crime, but only if the person who discloses it knows the agent’s undercover status.

If Tenant told the Veep of Ms. Plame’s status, then the storm clouds are gathering, and it’s time to bust out the popcorn.

If Plame-Gate, or Neocon-Gate, seems a bit more complex than a Bill Clinton sex scandal, you may want to check out today’s column by Justin Raimondo over at Anti-War.com. It may also be helpful to listen to this interview Raimondo gave to Scott Horton.

Marin Walker is reporting that the scope of Fitzgerald’s inquiry is way beyond the Plame outing and “has now widened to include the forgery of documents on African uranium that started the investigation.” “Two facts are now known,” says Walker “and between them they do not bode well for the deputy chief of staff at the White House, Karl Rove, President George W Bush’s senior political aide, not for Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby.” Walker continues:

The first is that Fitzgerald last year sought and obtained from the Justice Department permission to widen his investigation from the leak itself to the possibility of cover-ups, perjury and obstruction of justice by witnesses. This has renewed the old saying from the days of the Watergate scandal, that the cover-up can be more legally and politically dangerous than the crime.

The second is that NATO sources have confirmed to United Press International that Fitzgerald’s team of investigators has sought and obtained documentation on the forgeries from the Italian government.

The selective use of intel, building worst-case scenario upon worst-case scenario is about to be put under the microscope.

Meanwhile, Howard Fineman is reporting that the neocons already have an exit strategy–blame the Bushies. In a syndicated column near you, it would be prudent to expect the Perle/Krauthammer/Kristol/Frum/Barnes Axis of Evil to argue that their utopian, neo-Wilsonian imperialism isn’t at fault for the disaster befalling us in Iraq. Heaven forbid! Rather, it is the incompetent and crony-laden administration and their waging of war that was all wrong.

Well, yes, the administration is incompetent and crony-laden. But it is the self-styled laptop bombardiers hiding out in cubicles at the American Enterprise Institute that are the real problem. These jokers have been whooping it up for years, hoping to start wars hither and yon, looking for Uncle Sam to play Mr. Fixit around the world. The irrepressible Murray Rothbard explains the neo fixation with invading the world and describes the neocons aptly:

They like to say: well sure we can get in and “win” easily, but how do we get out? In order to fix up democracy, genocide, poverty, hate, etc., we the United States, must create the country’s infrastructure, set up and train its entire army and police (preferably in the U.S.). We must teach the benighted country about freedom and free elections, create its two Respectable political parties, and begin with a massive multi-billion dollar aid program to make everyone healthy, wealthy, and wise, provide an educational program (replete with dropping huge bags of food by plane so CNN can do handsprings – even if some of the “helped” are killed by the bags), outlaw smoking and junk food, and feed them all with tofu and organically grown mangoes.

Jonathan Chait is more perceptive than your average social conservative poohbah. He argues that the Miers nomination brought to the surface something that was as obvious as the nose on Bill Kristol’s face–social conservatives are riding in the back of the GOP bus and “economic conservatives” are driving. Chait points to the Abramoff scandal as Exhibit A demonstrating the subordination of social conservatives. “The episode,” writes Chait, “shows how GOP leaders view social conservative organizations as “rent-a-mobs” that can be manipulated into nearly any cause.” Chait notes what I’ve pointed out elsewhere, that while some conservatives “criticized Miers, Dobson praised her, and she won unqualified endorsements from Jerry Falwell and groups like the Christian Coalition and the American Center for Law and Justice.” With friends like this, who needs enemies? Or as Chait more colorfully puts it, “With allies like these, Bush doesn’t have much incentive to work harder to reward his social conservative base. No wonder the poor, nutty bastards got hosed again.”

By the way, The New Republic, a standard-bearer of establishment liberalism, has a new blog.

Here is a conservative case for exiting Iraq by the intrepid Ron Paul, via The Nation. Here are couple quotes:

“But isn’t it quite possible that these dangers are simply a consequence of having gone into Iraq in the first place, rather than a consequence of leaving?”

Exactly!

“Isn’t it possible that staying only makes the situation worse? If chaos results after our departure, it’s because we occupied Iraq, not because we left.”

Amen. How ’bout Paul-Tancredo ‘08?

I don’t agree with everything he writes, but since Scott McConnell assumed editorial duties at The American Conservative, each issue is getting better and better. The latest installment contains a piece on the folly of nation building by James Payne. There are also two short pieces that will make you want to scream. The first, by Phil Giraldi, uncovers the waft of corruption at the heart of the Coalition Provisional Government in Iraq. Then there is an absolutely outrageous essay by Steven Baskerville enumerating stories of soldiers who have had their children kidnapped by harlots with the connivance of the state. Here are three cases unearthed by Baskerville:

• “Gary,” an 18-year veteran with an unblemished military and civilian record, was stripped of his child by a California court while deployed in Afghanistan as a Navy SEAL, according to Fox News. Columnist Glenn Sacks reports that he is now being bankrupted by child support and legal fees.

• Bobby Sherrill, a father of two from Parkton, North Carolina, was held hostage in Iraq for nearly five months. The night he returned from the Persian Gulf he was arrested for failing to pay $1,425 in child support while captive.

• While serving in Iraq, Taron James was ordered to pay support for a child he knew could not be his, and DNA tests confirmed his claim. The district attorney and Los Angeles County Child Support Services nevertheless seized his tax refund annually, blocked him from renewing his notary-public license—which caused him to lose his job—ruined his credit, blocked him from obtaining a passport, and forced him to drop out of college.

I haven’t seen the New Yorker piece, but apparently Brent Scowcroft comes out swinging at the administration and the neocons. Meanwhile, Colin Powell’s former right-hand man is squawking up a storm about the Cheney-Rummy cabal, saying of Dougie Feith, “Seldom in my life have I met a dumber man,” and calling Condi Rice “extremely weak.” This is all well and good, I suppose. But where were these fellas when we needed them? Where were the men who possess the character of William Jennings Bryan, willing to resign rather than go along for the ride? Frankly, it’s cowardly and scandalous to say such things now, three years too late.

You know sometimes I get so used to what I consider painfully obvious truths that I forget that not everyone finds the truths that I find to be painfully obvious to be obvious. One of those obvious truths that I casually take for granted is that the General Welfare clause in the Constitution does not provide allowance for our current Welfare State, nor for the mentality that allows the Federal government to pursue rapacious and confiscatory taxation in the name of ‘compassion,’ on some snail darter or lesbian heroin addict.

The Constitution says,

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Now there are those (like my daughters College History Teacher) that want to suggest that the preamble’s call to ‘promote the general Welfare’ was the legitimate Constitutional basis upon which Roosevelt’s Socialistic New Deal could stand. Now perhaps Laura’s History teacher could at least ask himself why very few read the general Welfare clause of the Constitution in this fashion before the destructive politics of the New Deal? Perhaps Laura’s History teacher could consult some history to determine how James Madison (he’s the guy History refers to as the Father of the Constitution) understood the ‘general Welfare’ clause as he debated against those who were concerned that geniuses like Laura’s History teacher would make that clause so elastic as to countenance all manner of economic perfidy.

“Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.”

The Anti-consolidationists were anxious that the general Welfare clause would be a means by which the Federal Government could steal from the citizenry in order to pursue some Mercantilist ambitions. Madison countered this concern by pleading with the Anti-consolidationists to realize that the language of the whole Constitution could never allow for such a fanciful interpretation.

“Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases.”

Now we admire Madison’s reasoning even if we must call into question his ability to assess the future ignorance of those who would come behind him who would indeed find a ‘reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases.’ Madison lamented that his opponents were ’stooping to such a misconstruction,’ in objecting to the Constitution on grounds of the general Welfare clause. Madison underestimated the ability of men to misconstrue and in hindsight the Anti-consolidationists weren’t stooping at all.

Now Madison goes on in Federalist paper #41 to give reasons why the Constitution does not allow Laura’s History teacher to appeal to the general Welfare clause in order to justify the wickedness of the New Deal.

“But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.”

Madison is basically saying to his Anti-consolidationists opponents in their objection that the general Welfare clause will allow for all kinds of fiscal irresponsibility …

“Don’t be idiots mouthing absurdities. It is obvious that this general statement is qualified and limited by the Constitution itself in what follows. No right reasoning person would ever conclude that that the enumeration of the particulars wouldn’t set definitive parameters on the meaning of ‘general Welfare,’ nor would reasonably intelligent people ever conclude that the specifying of the particulars was only intended to confuse and mislead as to what is meant by the ‘general Welfare’ phrase.”

It seems Madison had the same problem I do in forgetting that truths that are so painfully obvious to one person aren’t necessarily obvious to another person. I conclude this because a generation of idiots did rise up mouthing absurdities and justifying it all in the name of the ‘general Welfare’ clause.

Finally, Madison himself gives a historical lesson as to where the phrase ‘general Welfare’ came from.

“The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are “their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. ” The terms of article eighth are still more identical: “All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,” etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules, which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications, which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!”

Madison’s point here is that this language was used before and nobody concluded what the Anti-consolidationists were concluding, to wit, that the Federal Government had the right to do anything it desired in the name of the ‘general Welfare,’ clause.

In the end all the general Welfare clause allowed was for the Federal Government to promote (which, by the way, is a different word than legislate) the good of the whole people and not any particular special interest group. The ABC legislation of Roosevelt’s New Deal was not for the good of the whole people but rather was political payoff to Roosevelt’s political cronies done in order to help Roosevelt solidify an unbeatable Democratic Electoral college.

So, the ‘general Welfare’ clause cannot be appealed to in order to justify the ABC legislation of the New Deal. The ‘general Welfare’ clause cannot be appealed to in order to justify taking money from the taxpayers in order to give money to corporate giants like Archer Daniel Midlands or Boeing. The ‘general Welfare’ clause does not justify taking money from the taxpayers in order to give Foreign Aid to Saudi Arabia so it can free up their money to build and support Islamic Mosques in America. And finally, the ‘general Welfare’ clause certainly cannot be appealed to in order to take wages from the taxpayer in order to pay the wages of College teaches who don’t know what history says about the ‘general Welfare’ clause and who are instrumental in shaping a generation of idiots who mouth absurdities.

Once upon a time, before I grew up, I may have actually considered myself something of a libertarian. However, I picked up my anti-statist knee jerks from Rothbard and Mises rather than substandard Randian screeds or silly science fiction.

The utter silliness of libertarianism struck me this weekend when I found myself sitting in a big easy chair at the local megaplex watching a movie called “Serenity.”

Kathy and I make it out of the house childless on only rare occasions, and decided that a “movie and dinner” date would fit the bill. After eating sumptuous steaks, but no cake, thank you, we realized that in order to get home at a reasonable time, our movie offerings were a tad limited.

Having quickly scanned “Rotten Tomatoes” earlier in the day, I noted that a movie called “Serenity” had been warmly received by critics.

Well, it turns out that “Serenity” was something of a third-rate sci-fi/western thriller from the joker who brought “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” to the small screen.

I enjoy the occasional western and appreciate the flexibility that sci-fi allows in terms of demonstrating the machinations of the shadowy elites, i.e., “The Man”, who rule the masses.

But really, don’t the folks at Lew Rockwell.com, Reason, The American Spectator, professor Cowen, and a slew of lesser known bloggers have better things to do than expound on “libertarian” themes in low-rent movies?

And shouldn’t I find something better to do than complain about it?

With hurricane mania, the Miers and Roberts nominations, the Iraqi disaster, etc., not much ink has been spilled over events in Afghanistan.

You may recall that late last year with the inauguration of Hamid Karzai, hosannas were in the air. Neocon pundit Charles Krauthammer, to take one example, lauded the Christmas “miracle” taking place in Afghanistan. Krauthammer, Washington insider and foreign policy maven, wrote:

“Miracle begets yawn” has been the American reaction to the inauguration of Hamid Karzai as president of Afghanistan. Before our astonishing success in Afghanistan goes completely down the memory hole, let’s recall some very recent history.

For almost a decade before 9/11, we did absolutely nothing about Afghanistan. A few cruise missiles hurled into empty tents, followed by expressions of satisfaction about the “message” we had sent. It was, in fact, a message of utter passivity and unseriousness.

Then comes our Pearl Harbor and the sleeping giant awakes. Within 100 days, al Qaeda is routed and the Taliban overthrown. Then the first election in Afghanistan’s history. Now the inauguration of a deeply respected democrat who, upon being sworn in as legitimate president of his country, thanks America for its liberation.

This, in Afghanistan, just three years ago not just hostile but untouchable…

We should take a moment to celebrate a remarkable success that had long seemed so improbable.

But has the Afghan invasion, which was a necessary consequence of 9/11, proven successful? Bin-laden is still at large, and in the most recent election, we have the spectacle of a majority of newly elected Afghani parliamentarians with links to armed Mujahidin groups. Essentially, the new parliament is dominated by Islamic militants.

Let’s face facts for a moment. Afghanistan will be governed as an Islamic state; however, such a fact does not necessarily imply outright hostility to the United States. On the other hand, there are some inconvenient facts about the democracy push that the Bushies and their neocon hirelings would rather neglect.

Democratism, as Pat Buchanan has written, is “a faith-based ideology that holds democracy to be the cure for mankind’s ills, and its absence to be the principal cause of terror and war.” The fact of the matter is that democracy in most Islamic states would prove disastrous. One need look no farther than the recent “successes” in the Middle East. Lebannon’s election brought to the fore anti-American elements while slight democratic changes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia strengthened Islamic parties. It’s time for someone in our national political dialogue to say the obvious–a policy of democratization will lead, as night follows day, to Islamist domination of Arab politics.

The following is by Wid Lyman, reprinted with permission:

Years ago I heard Rush Limbaugh say that, if the Republicans ever gained control in Washington and did not govern conservatively, he would leave the party. Well, we’ve learned that either he has not remembered his promise, or he did not mean it in the first place. As that goes, this Bush administration governs more liberally than its Democratic predecessor. To that end, is there a Republican-controlled state house anywhere in the nation that governs conservatively? I think not. There is no real difference between the two parties when it comes to actually governing.

Riddle-me-this:

Which two parties have given us … annual federal deficits in the hundreds of billions of dollars; a national debt over 8(!) trillion dollars; the Korean, Vietnam, and Gulf wars; gays and girls in combat; tens of thousands of dead and maimed innocent Iraqis; the Patriot Act; the failed ‘war’ on poverty; the failed ‘war’ on drugs; an unmitigated invasion by millions of illegals across our borders; Roe v. Wade and the legal murder of millions of children; a totally failed public education system; the waste of untold dollars on pork-barrel projects; an energy policy devoid of any plan for the future; NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, the WTO, the UN, etc; an obscene trade deficit with China that imperils our national security; affirmative action; eminent domain laws and practices that ignore the property rights of citizens; hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid that often helps no one but advances the agenda of malevolent dictators; ad nauseum, ad infinitum?

And the tide does not appear to be turning anytime soon. Neither party has within its ranks the will or the manpower to bring about any, even minute, change for the better. The wrecking ball of this 2-in-1 party system is well on the way to destroying the fabric of this free and prosperous nation. Only an act of God could stem the tide.

In the meantime, as a moral (as opposed to political) decision, how can any God-fearing, God-honoring Christian be aligned with a party that brings so much evil into our society? The Republican Party is not conservative, has never been conservative, and offers no hope for the future … not for the country, not for Oklahoma.

I have lived in Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Montana, Florida, and Washington. In none of these states do the Republicans govern conservatively. Though there are conservatives (few and far between) in the ranks, as a party, the Republicans offer no conservative solutions and show no respect for the Constitution. This is true at the national and state levels of government. What percentage of the Republican Party actually governs according to the Constitution?

Now consider, what percentage of the Constitution Party is committed to constitutional principles? Conservative principles? Christian principles? The difference between the two parties, in principle, is staggering. Is it any wonder that conservative, Constitutional, Christian people (including many activists) would switch from the Republican Party to the Constitution Party, out of principle?

Wid Lyman, a political independent, can be reached at ironmanwid@aol.com. This column was written as a rebuttal to this column: http://www.gopwing.com/modules.php?sid=1006.