markamerica's blog

Political correctness leaves the US Army leaderless

This week, during an interview by David Gregory, General Casey, Chief of Staff of the US Army, said the following:

"Yeah. I think those concerns are real and I, and I will tell you, David, that they're, they're fueled partially, at least, by the speculation about--based on anecdotal evidence that people are presenting. I think we have to be very careful with that. Our diversity not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."

As soon as one realizes what the general has said in this mind-numbingly idiotic statement, one becomes aware of the trouble we're really facing as a nation.

Damage to 'diversity" is a greater loss than the security of our troops, the 13 people we've lost, and the dozens more who have been injured or maimed? Any general who believes this garbage does not deserve the rank. We have been attacked by a politically/religiously motivated Islamofascist, and all this numbskull general is worried about is the damage done to diversity?

Ahem, Hey General: SCREW DIVERSITY.

Diversity is irrelevant to a fighting force, and in fact can actually hamper or obstruct it.  Focusing on diversity, as a military objective, is the most ludicrous notion we've yet seen. You would be fired, but for the fact that our current President, your boss, doubtless laps up this bilge-water.

I live in central Texas, and this was quite the ordeal for our community, one that hasn't ended yet, in fact, and all you are worried about is diversity, General Casey? Hand in your stars. You are an embarrassment to every soldier who ever wore the uniform of the United States, myself included.

Markamerica

Is it time for RWII?

As I observe the machinations of politics in the United States, one thing has become perfectly clear to me: Our government has increasing contempt for the people, and the Constitution by which it was founded. Last night's passage of a healthcare bill is just the most recent example: Most Americans oppose this bill, and more importantly, it ignores the constitution in virtually every manner possible. This leaves some folks, myself included, in something of a quandry: I have sworn to uphold our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, but what happens when enemies are now running the country and trampling the Constitution?  Where is that line? What's the trigger? How do I know when they have gone too far? When do I act? What actions do I take?

I ask these questions not as some revolutionary kook, but as a guy who looks and sees that his government is plainly in breech of its founding document. Will setting things right now require that I cast off all protection of law as it did our founding fathers? Will I be forced into a position that in order to repair this situation, I must be willing to engage my government in open warefare?

These things I know: I will never participate in the universal healthcare plan, and I will never pay for it, and I will never go to jail because of the foregoing. Must I wait until they 'come and get me' before I launch my resistance? What is the trigger? What is the point at which I become not merely an 'opponent of healthcare reform,' but instead an open counter-revolutionary warrior?

If I adopt that position, what acts must I entertain? This is dangerous ground, because my training instructs me that my best role is as an insurgent. Is this really how I wish to spend what remains of my life? Do I organize with others? What, exactly, is the right course of actions here?

I realize that some of you will respond with various insults, but my question is a serious one: When is enough enough, and when do I know that line has been crossed?  Our Congress has become a terrorist organization, implementing its will without regard to the law which had formed it. Our President is clearly bent upon casting off the Constitution in its entirety. The foxes are not merely in the henhouse, but have control of it. What's a liberty-loving, ordinary guy to do?

Why 'Pragmatism' and 'Moderation' Won't Save the GOP

There is no use denying it.  The President's Healthcare Reform plans are horrible, and seem to be constructed so as to ultimately destroy the privately-funded health insurance that most working Americans enjoy.  There is also no denying the fact that many of the opponents to Democrats' healthcare proposals are senior citizens who receive Medicare coverage.  This fact causes some difficulty for the moderates and pragmatists in the GOP, because while they welcome the opponents of the plans under consideration, under the theory that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," they know that ultimately, their plans too would make some changes to Medicare, or eliminate it over the long haul.  It is this fact that sets up the GOP for massive failure, even if they are able to take advantage of the Democrats' current disfavor among voters. If the GOP is to return to power and remain there, it must do so by stating the full truth, and making the argument for that which not only will work, but also is morally and ethically correct. 

There are no free lunches.  If we start with this basic premise, we must apply it to all portions of the argument.  It is true that the Democrats' plan relies upon some very dubious projections of both revenue and expenditure, but it is also true that even the mildest, most optimistic projections of Medicare spending suggest that within a decade or so, this government program will be devouring resources to the extent that it squeezes out all other expenditures, including national defense, education, and poverty programs.  Social Security ultimately faces the same problem, though its precipice is a decade or two further down the road, but the trend is the same: Unsustainable spending that amounts to free lunches as far as the eye can see, before running off a cliff.

For Republicans, the challenge is more difficult, because while Democrats will promise everything but the kitchen sink, and probably that too with enough pressure, the Republicans have been the more mature and realistic about the problem for decades.  To offer any sort of opposition, however, implies that one has a real alternative in mind.  Right now, the Republicans are nesting on this egg, using only easy measures to define what it is that they would do, not wanting to take up the true nature of the argument that must be had.

Simply put, our government must begin to disassemble the welfare state.  It must begin to do the unthinkable(at least for the last 80 years or so:) It must begin to ask voters to consider the long-term health of the nation at large, sometimes to the clear short-run detriment of those voters.  This is why the Democrats adopt the knowing smile of the Cheshire Cat: They know that ultimately, as the argument now exists, they cannot lose, because Republicans will be compelled to choose between the political expedience of going along with the status quo - a system dominated by governmental expenditures, or change course and run directly into the same opposition Democrats now face from seniors. Of course they know it; it’s their monster and they built it.

Republicans ought to begin to challenge the morality of destroying the nation and its economic future on behalf of free lunches.  Republicans ought to point out that a private insurance system delivers the most good to the largest number of people most of the time.  Republicans ought to point out that just as there are no free lunches, no system is perfect, and there will always be some number of people who 'fall through the cracks.'  Republicans ought to insist that members of Congress and their staff be the first to see cuts in their healthcare options, because none of them are indispensible, and there should be no case in which the government provides more to our elected 'royalty' than it provides to the least of the folks who it does cover.

Republicans should look older Americans in the eyes, and say: "We cannot do this much longer. Each time you receive treatment under Medicare, or receive you Social Security direct deposit, think of your grandchildren and the future they will not have, as they become slaves to subsidize these payments."

Republicans know better, and yet for the sake of political expediency, they will not now say it to the hearing of the world.  That isn't winning an argument. 

Republicans ought to propose some long-term plans to address these issues, as well as healthcare reform generally, but that would require they find something they seem not to have: Courage.  It requires some courage to go forth to voters and argue that they get too much for too little, and that such plans can never work.  It takes courage to explain to people why they must give something up in the short run that will otherwise destroy them in the long run.  It's a bit like talking to an addict, who knows rationally that his addiction will destroy him over the longer run, but who cannot be convinced not to reach for that next fix.

The American people have become accustomed to the illusions of free lunches.  Unless and until we address this basic problem, there will be no rescuing of America.  The only alternative to the long, ever-diminishing, agonizing death of our country lies in telling the American people the truth, convincing them of it, and enlisting their support.  We must begin by showing them the economic and financial facts, and while it is true the Republicans are doing some of that to short run advantage in opposition, they must now complete the picture. They must show that if the answer does not lie in bigger governmental roles, that it does lie elsewhere, and the only place remaining is in the private sphere - the free market.

Republicans have become afraid to talk about the virtue of profit.  Republicans seem to have fallen for the notion that something is inherently evil about seeking it, and until they show how profit makes for growth and prosperity, and how the government curtails any such thing through its interventions, it is a lost cause and a dead argument.  It's time for an improved "Contract with America," but this time, Republicans must fully carry it out and rely upon the support of the American people to see it enacted.

Why Joe Wilson shouldn't have apologized

Last night, President Obama made a speech before a joint session of Congress assembled for that purpose.  As he went through the various points of the Healthcare proposal(s), he got to a point at which he said that illegal aliens would not be provided care in the bill under consideration.

Joe Wilson, a Republican member of Congress from South Carolina, shouted:

"You lie!"

There was something of a minor firestorm after the speech had ended, and John McCain, another pragmatic centrist(and loser,)  condemned Wilson's outburst.

I applaud Joe Wilson, and apparently, the phones at his DC and district offices have been ringing ever since, mostly with the approving voice of support from across the nation.

While Wilson's outburst was a breech of congressional decorum, it is nevertheless important to recognize what it signifies: A general frustration among Conservative Republicans that the Democrats are lying, not 'misleading' or 'obfuscating', but flat-out lying about their healthcare plans.

In committee, an amendment was offered by Sam Johnson to strictly prohibit insurance to illegal aliens, but it was voted down by Democrats.  This is the proof in the pudding supporting Joe Wilson's claim: The President lied. And lies. And lies.

And lies.

This small outburst, condemned by moderates and pragmatists in the Republican party, is exactly what Republicans need to win.  Why do people like McCain always come out on the side of our opponents?  You'd think he'd have learned that he can gain no friends by this, but true to his instincts for wanting to remain inoffensive, McCain comes down on the side of Democrats again.  What of Joe Wilson's claim?  It is true. The President lied. And lies. McCain didn't mention that fact, and didn't address the subject of Wilson's outburst, but only the outburst itself.

It is instructive to recognize that McCain's amnesty agenda for illegal aliens is undoubtedly part of his motive. It's also instructive to recognize that for all the ill Obama is doing, had we elected McCain last fall, our situation might indeed be worse: We would probably have had some form of bail-outs; we likely would have some attempt at healthcare reform, and by now, we would have had the latest iteration of McCain's comprehensive immigration reform bill. McCain supports some form of Cap and Tax, so we might well have had that by now, too. The difference is that Republicans would have been disarmed against it because of a Republican president, just as over the last eight years, Republicans went along in many instances with George Bush's agenda on prescription drugs and education.

While it is objectively a horrible thing for the country that Barack Obama is president, it would be worse for the Republican party to have won with another 'centrist-pragmatist' like John McCain.  Joe Wilson was right: Barack Obama is lying. John McCain sold him out. Again.

How pragmatists lead to their own destruction and the destruction of those who would follow them

Harry Ellis 'negotiates' with terrorists in Die Hard(1988)

Why Pragmatism cannot win the Healthcare Debate

The debate over healthcare has raged for generations.  It has toppled at least one Congress, and threatens to topple another.  Through all of this, the pragmatists have been largely victorious, which means: They have sold us out again.  Healthcare remains a difficult issue for politicians, because of economic and moral questions that must be factored into any debate.  The first failure of 'pragmatists', and the worst, in fact, has been their unwillingness to deal honestly with the American people.  This has led to the abominable side-show of senior citizens, demanding in sincere indignation: "No government Healthcare! Keep your hands off our Medicare!"

From the moment one sees this abortive reasoning put forward, one very quickly becomes aware of the fact that somebody, somewhere in this argument, hasn't been playing it straight all these years with the American people.  To the assembled multitude, I shall now endeavor to do so, and almost nobody will like it, but none will be able to claim I've been anything less than truthful.

There are a few concepts we must cover before we can even begin to untangle healthcare.  The real question in healthcare, in the US, is not about the quality of the care, but instead how it is to be funded.   No other place on the planet offers so many healthcare options.  There is no place else on Earth to go if you cannot be made well in the US.  One can cite some exceptional procedure or treatment here or there, but these are merely the exceptions that prove the rule.  Let us not linger on the care itself, but instead turn to the meat of this issue, as it is and has been for all of the life of its public debate.

Healthcare will be rationed.  This is an explicit fact.  You can run circles trying to disprove it, but by any measure, healthcare, like toilet paper, or gasoline, or food, is rationed.  The question is, however: "Rationed how?" Or, "By what mechanism?" or "According to what standard?" Herein lies the real argument, the true crux of the matter, and it is a tempestuous thing for politicians, because it leaves them no wiggle room. For 'pragmatists' this is certainly uncomfortable ground.

Up until the advent of the 'Great Society' programs of the late 60s, the mechanism for rationing had remained what nature decreed: The free market.  The free market allocates resources in answer to only two questions, and they are interesting to consider: Who is providing a supply, and who is demanding how many units of care?

My argument, to which I will return in due course, is that this had been the most thoroughly moral thing about American healthcare financing until it was supplanted.  However, let us first examine the mechanisms then created in order to set aside the natural rationing provided by the free market.  Medicaid and Medicare were created to provide the mechanism for re-rationing some portion of the available care to those to whom the natural market would not provide it: The elderly, beyond their earning years and unable to afford it, just when they would need it most, and the poor, who couldn't afford it much at all.  The argument was successfully advanced that the rest of us should dedicate some portion of our earnings to pay for the care of these two classes.  More, the argument was successfully made that we should be compelled to do so.  Herein lies the ugly nature of government programs:  Coercion is the prerequisite for their enaction.  This is another fact from which pragmatists readily flee.  They will say "some coercion is necessary," painting the matter in terms of a necessary evil.

Suffice it to say that the concept of a 'necessary evil' is a deadly contradiction in terms, and while I shall leave that subject for another day, it is necessary that you understand the premise behind my argument here: If a thing is necessary, it means there was no other alternative.  In the absence of alternatives, the only available course of action becomes amoral; questions of morality are only in play where choice is possible. No choice? No morality. No morality? No evil. This then leaves you with a solitary and much easier question: Is there no alternative, in fact?

So here we have the moral plea of leftists, and other statists, along with their 'pragmatic' friends at the center stripe: "What should be done about the poor, the elderly, and the infirm?"

This, they leave you as your sole choice, but what have they craftily ignored? They have established a premise that in the name of morality, something must be done.  Really? According to what moral standard? By whose moral authority? The answer? By theirs.

You see, it was never asked if there was any moral authority to club you over the head for your wallet, or at least threaten to, on behalf of somebody who needed a bandage, an aspirin, or a hip replacement.  No, it was presumed from the outset that you exist solely to serve the needs of your fellow man.  Presumed by whom? Why, them, of course.

It would not have been so bad had they only decided to brow-beat you, to implore you like the ringing bell of a Salvation Army's kettle Santa, but instead, they took up arms against you, and leveled the guns of government and said: "Pay, or else. Besides, you'll feel better about it."

This is the same ploy that is being used now, as they push for some form of entrenched governmentally-redirected healthcare cost shifting.  The question isn't whether we should have some form of universal care, but only what particular form it should take.  In the end, they are still going to redistribute the wealth of some Americans at gunpoint, to the advantage of some others.

From there, it's a lose-lose for freedom, and the American people at large.  It is the avoidance of this question that makes the so-called 'pragmatists' dishonest.  It is their sell-out on the first moral premise that dooms us to failure.  By accepting the statists' view of that first premise, the outcome becomes one of inevitability and certainty.  They will get their way, with the help of the pragmatists, and it will be their morality that defines it.

Once you've let them get away with any claim to your wallet, by whichever moral standard, you've thrown open your wallet to all comers, with you as the beggar for your own means.

This is where the rubber meets the road in the debate over healthcare financing, and it is here we must fight it.

The Death of Reason: How the sell-outs in the Republican Party deny victory

This fight has been a long time in coming.  It's been seething beneath the surface ever since Ronald Reagan beat George the First for the nomination in 1980.  On the one side, you have conservatives, ideologically bound to firm principles, from which they will not retreat. On the other, you have the pragmatists or centrists, who will sell out any principle in the name of electoral victory. These two sides have been in a Mexican stand-off for most of three decades, perhaps longer, and in the wake of the complete ouster of Republicans from control of the federal government in 2008,  the battle has now erupted in full.  In 1994, when Newt Gingrich led Republicans to a stunning turnaround in November, the gnashing of teeth had already begun: "We don't want these people running our party."

The first thing one must understand about the pragmatists is that they are interested in "what works[today, this moment.]"  They have no particular attachment to ideas, and therefore feel free to shift and slide from one position seemlessly into another as a snake sheds its skin. The truth of a particular issue is irrelevant, and the governing hypothesis is: "To govern, we must win." At that point, all other imperatives are set aside.  On this basis, we have watched the pragmatists go along with the left on healthcare, education, social security, and defense, as well as foreign policy.  The pragmatists were those who 'led' the Republican Party in Congress as a sort of permanent minority for almost the entirety of the second half of the 20th century.

Yes, their winning strategy, 'surrender to Democrats,' paid off nicely, didn't it? 

So what do they miss? What is absent from their political agenda of flexibility to the demands of the 'political realities' of this moment? They ignore the most important facet of political victory, and longterm health of the general polity of the country: One cannot advance the cause of liberty while surrendering it.

In simplest terms, you cannot make the country freer and wealthier by voting to make it more dictatorial and impoverished.  You cannot allow coercion to be the biggest factor in economies if you wish them to thrive.  These are not strange concept, and yet to the 'pragmatists', those who look for the ever-flexing middle, they will offer what they call a 'tactical retreat' in the name of a 'strategic victory' that never comes.

What is the ugly secret of their plight?  They are statists too, and like all such folk, they wish only to survive another day, and are willing to fight a losing battle knowing that by the time they are finally defeated, they will themselves have gone.  It is what Rand called 'range of the moment thinking' that enables this mass capitulation in the name of non-existent victory.

Let's be honest: The country has marched leftward for at least the last 100 years, and in the few moments it did not, it was not the pragmatists who delivered us a respite from the slide.  Instead, the few fleeting moments of victory the right has known have been when they did not compromise with the left.  The left pleaded for Reagan not to talk about SDI, and mocked him for it, and likewise criticized his move to put the Pershing II in Europe.  Not a few 'pragmatists' in the party attempted to intervene on the side of the left!  Result: The USSR collapsed, unable to compete economically or technologically.  In the afterglow, when Reagan should have been thoroughly lionized and credited with the greatest foreign policy achievement of the last 200 years, the pragmatists showed up to claim credit.

George HW Bush may have been president when the wall came down, but it hadn't been his policies that caused its collapse.

In 1994, when Republican took control of Congress for the first time in half a century, it was because they did not compromise with Clinton on healthcare.  It was because they stood firmly on the side of freedom.  By the time Republicans lost the house in 2006, they had been neutered by more pragmatism in the name of 'victory.'  This presents a lesson every would-be Republican had ought to learn.

What had been a bigger disaster than the Republican senate, back-and-forth, the pragmatists defining every issue? 

No, Americans know where the sell-outs are, and while the Democrats may be monstrous in their desire to grasp and grab at liberty and wealth, to defeat them, we must first discharge their allies from our ranks.  It's time to clean up this mess, and we will.  The day of the pragmatist is over.  Long live the ideologue!

Was the reaction to next Tuesday's school address by Obama 'Astroturf?'

That's one of the questions being posed at present. The Whitehouse is treating this as a tempest in a teapot, but it was severe enough to cause them to re-write their lesson plans and re-think the president's speech. Another question being posed, by ridiculous leftists and their shills, is whether this opposition is motivated by Mr. Obama's race. I consider the source, and suggest strongly to fellow right-wingers that while they should keep the bulk of their political powder dry for bigger targets, they must nevertheless expend a little ammo where needed. This is such a case, and a perfect target.

Today's educational establishment is dominated by leftists, both at the state and federal levels. It is dominated by the teachers' unions, which have been quite supportive and sympathetic to the cause of Obama and the leftist agenda. To pretend otherwise is to ignore all facts, but what is more stunning is that most American parents, busy with earning a paycheck, and leading their lives, have essentially surrendered this ground to the left.

As in virtually every issue, the left becomes arrogant when they control an institution, branch of government, or agency.  This is equally true of the education establishment.  From the time Jimmy Carter and his hacks conceived the Department of Education, the federal government has taken an increasingly dominant role in education, yet I cannot find that spot in the Constitution that enables the federal government to spend a single dime in that endeavor.

Many parents, particularly those on the right, have justly become concerned at the direction of the schools.  After more than a generation of federal domination, the schools increasingly resemble self-propagating institutions that wield too much power in their communities, frequently dominating smaller and even larger municipalities and counties. In many cases, the budgets of school districts far outstrip the local city governments, and are the ever-growing 800 pound gorillas in their communities.  Watching the growth, one parent commented to me recently after a school board meeting in our local district: "They used to say you can't fight city hall, but hell, they're a push-over compared to the school board. They do anything they want, usually out of sight, and out of mind."

So it was that this notion of an address to all school children by Obama was hatched, and since there's some precedent, what with George Bush reading books to children, and his father having tried to pull off a similar thing(to raucous cat-calls from the left) in October 1991, it really isn't a surprise that this would be tried again.  What was a little more than stunning to the administrations of schools around the country was the violence of the reaction against it by an enraged or at least concerned outcry from parents.

Parents did not want their children subjected to propaganda. Imagine that!  That the reaction was more uproarious in so-called 'red states' really isn't a surprise, since they didn't vote for this President, but a little more surprising was the reaction in states that voted for Obama in 2008.

Parents were unaware of what Obama might say, but they had the package of exercises and questions pushed out by the Department of Education as a follow-up guide to the President's speech.  That was enough.

Now, the funny thing, the odd thing about this whole story, is not what has been written or reported, but what has not been mentioned at all.  The left, along with the President's spokepersons, dismissed the whole thing as some form of 'silly season' or 'astroturf.' Yet what had they not been able to say?  Over the healthcare bill, they pointed to talk radio, and to Rush Limbaugh, as their arch enemies, simply out to taunt them any way he (and they)could.  In this case, however, Rush was on vacation.  The alleged leader of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' was absent from behind the golden microphone.  His substitute hosts really hadn't wanted to talk about it, but they were left with no choice: Callers made it the issue. This was repeated throughout the country, on local and national talkshows, in the blogosphere, and on message boards and forums.  The reaction was viral, and it had not been manufactured at EIB or in the GOP headquarters.  Conservative Americans didn't like it.

In the end, most school districts relented, particularly in 'red states.'  The speech would be recorded, or viewing and participation optional, or other solutions.  You might wonder why the schools, havens of leftist thought, would so easily capitulate.  I am here to tell you the answers to that question:

1.) The immediate effect would have been that hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions of parents would have withheld their kids from school next Tuesday.  Remember, public schools are the recipients of federal funds, based on daily attendance that amounts to roughly $35 per head.  This would have made a serious dent in their budgets directly in the beginning of the school year.  In a year in which tax revenues have been down, and passage of local bond elections more difficult owing to higher unemployment, they couldn't risk alienating any parents.

2.) It won't matter anyway. Whether Barack Obama speaks directly to your children on Tuesday, or the educational establishment merely speaks on his behalf for the remainder of the school year, and ever after, they will have their say.  They will make their best attempt at indoctrinating your children, whether or not President Obama's ever given access directly to their young minds.

This is why I would personally urge conservative and libertarian parents alike to pull their kids on Tuesday anyway, and any other day they think the schools have gone too far.  The penalty the school will pay in lost headcount dollars is worth the lesson they will learn.  Schools have increasingly become populated by a faculty that views parents and parental authority with contempt.  They now routinely refer to the children entrusted to them as 'their kids.'  Many of them feel that this is their special calling, to step into the legal role, acting in loco parentis, and have their ways with the minds of your children, through ways large and small, 'making the world a better place' by indoctrinating your children with their moral standards.

There are a great number of very good, sincere and dedicated teachers, and not a few conservatives among their number, but the overwhelming majority are of a leftward tilt, and their bureaucracy is constructed to strict leftwing standards. It is inevitable that too much political indoctrination, and even moral indoctrination in contradiction to parental wishes goes on in public schools.  Take this opportunity to send them a message, and don't be afraid to change direction, get involved with your kids' schools, and even enter the field of teaching.  Conservatives have yielded this ground for too long, and it's time we begin to think about taking it back. Show them that there's nothing silly about this season.

side-bar to editors: Is there some reason comments posted to an earlier entry might have disappeared? THANKS!

Why I Support WorldNetDaily

I have read many center-right attacks on Joe Farah's Worldnetdaily.com over the years, but they all come down to the same thing: "We, the wise folk of the Republican Party, do not wish to be associated with the riff-raff of the [Christian] conservative movement."

I am not a Christian. I don't particularly support the notion that we should teach the Ten Commandments in public schools. I am not aboard with any of that. That said, I cannot help but see the supposed 'Wise folk of the Republican Party' as nothing more than smarmy pseudo-conservatives who have compromised all the root principles to which their alleged ideology lays claim.

The taunts directed at Joe Farah are like so many from the allegedly wiser sect: They lack sincerity. These, who would be our leaders, simply don't get it. We don't need leaders, like lefty-statists do. Leaders on the conservative side are a matter of convenience, but not a necessity. We don't need a cabal of supposedly elite righty-statists leading us around by the nose.

If they don't like stories about Obama's birth certificate, then don't read them. They don't need to agree. I cannot fathom, however, what could be wrong, in this era of political fakery, in demanding that a President provide his bona fides for that office. The requirement is law.

The allegedly 'wiser set' of the Republican party doesn't understand at all, and it threatens to leave them alone, without party to lead. For decades, we have watched as lefty-statists made a mockery of law, the notion of law, the idea of rights, and all that is justice. We have watched them smear and sneer since at least the time of Ronald Reagan. We have watched them line up with enemies of the United States in order to further their opposition. We have watched, and mostly remained silent, except at the polls.

That time is past. While we watched that horror show in progress, we also noticed that those 'wiser republicans' would abandon us and principle at the first hint of danger. Like the philosophical vacuums they are, ever-wishing to remain in the popular and uncontroversial middle, they would take no stand on the side of justice if it was difficult or complicated to explain. No, it is easier to jettison principles and go with the flow. This is why their 'pragmatic' approach denies all truth, in the end: They cannot suffer a moment's discomfort in its name.

To these 'wiser republicans,' this 'new(or next) right,' there can be no truth. Not absolutely.

This is why they must now pummel Joe Farah and WND.com: Joe doesn't flinch under pressure, and it is rewarding him now. Only media elites, lefty-statists, and fake republicans hate Joe Farah's site. Yes, the 'wiser republicans' have again thrown their lots in with the enemy. Make no mistake about it: They are the enemy.

Unless and until the right shamelessly casts off this 'cabal of the wiser,' it is always going to be drug in the direction that cabal flows: Leftward, and downward.

Do I believe everything on Joe Farah's site? No. Do I believe everything on the Six O'clock news? No. Do I agree with all the commentary there? No. Am I glad it's there, anyway? Yes. Am I glad the six O'clock news is on? Yes.

The question most conservatives need to ask themselves is: "Do I believe I can compromise with those who would undermine me?" Look around, all of you, and see with whom it is you've chosen to lie down. The idea of a new(or next) right that is wiser, and better able to lead is the kind of arrogance we generally associate with which politicians and party? Yes, that's quite right. It's okay to think it. It's even all right to say it. These "Next Right" types look a bunch like the old left, don't they? Well, that's why I support Joe Farah's Worldnetdaily.com: He doesn't mind saying it, either.

 Update: Several hours after I posted this, Van Jones, Obama's 'Green Czar', resigned amid a hub-bub over his past associations and advocacies. The first news organization of which I am aware that covered this story and began pummeling the Obama administration over Van Jones was...you guessed it...worldnetdaily.com

Farah is jubilantly taking credit for the ouster, and there can be no doubt he made a significant impact by reporting a story that for months, no other news outfit, left, right or middle, would touch. One of the most interesting parts of this story is that during a press briefing on Friday, Gibbs was asked how he could reject 'conspiracy theories' about Obama's birth certificate while employing an avowed conspiracist... Touché!  The irony that the Van Jones story became well known largely due to the work of Farah's worldnetdaily.com should put to rest the notion that wnd.com is a bad site.