The Conservative Brotherhood

Back when I was an unwashed conspiracy nut I touted such themes as "The New World Order" and its modus operandi - socialism. Your local outlet of the centralized media probably uses a more palatable terminology (for American audiences)- "A Global New Deal".

Back in my delusional state my real world definition of "socialism" was "fewer capitalist controlling more of the wealth". You may prefer to call it unavoidable action by central banks, nationalization,or the Wharton-friendly "mega-mergers". Call it what you will, but ownership and the money must be going somewhere - and from what I see, it's consolidating into the hands of fewer decision makers. That this is the goal of the mythical New World Order clik is just coincidental.

It perhaps isn't proper for me to burden your attention with my "mood". It is doubtless more appropriate to create a personal website if I want to be a public diarist and display a 'sense of things', feelings, or a series of sensations I can't conjugate or coalesce into a definitive form or craft into an apposite template for the discussion of conservatism. My opinions on matters other than conservatism are not relevant material for this forum, and I try to restrict myself to proper parameters, but once in a while there appear topics that transcend normal boundaries. While I concede that conservatism is colorblind, one such topic is race.

Once again it is necessary to reproach the gangsters who would tyrannize the minds of others, trash the Constitution, and commit genocide of rational human beings while hiding behind the presumed safety of the pulpit. What draws my ire today is a blog dated Feb. 18, 2009 posted by Conservative Black Woman. She submitted a reprint of an article written by Matt Barber (http://conservativeblkwoman.blogspot.com, article entitled "Today's Baal Worshipers") which she characterized as "brilliant". The first paragraph is a paean to the ludicrous subjectivity, anti-intellectualism suited to the Inquisition, hypocrisy, over-all faulty reasoning, and an attempt to somehow equate Christian morality with constitutionality that threads the entire piece. It reads:

I visited the "Booker Rising" site the other day and read something posted by Star Parker. She was decrying the fate of our society and culture because a Minister was prohibited from "counseling", within the immediate environs, women entering an abortion clinic he had staked out.
Her attempt to connect this minister's activity with the economic bailout was lost on me, but I think I did understand and disagree with her reference to the applicability of the First Amendment- you know, the one about freedom of speech. She felt any limitation placed upon him was a violation of this primary Constitutional right, and presumably since it was aired where it was, her stance represented a conservative position. I may be a knot-head, but to me this seems like the all too frequent intellectual malapropism confusing conservatism and morality. And I don't think it does justice to the scholarly vigor applied to the interpretation of the concept of freedom of speech over the years.

Recently my interests have gravitated to subjects not pertinent to this site, so I have only been making occasional visits lately, but last week I find that BGlover and MichaelEmmanuel have registered views on best practices for a stimulus package for the economy. Both feel an income tax suspension, for a limited time, as opposed to a marginal rate decrease, is a better step the government could take to address financial difficulties and stimulate the economy. At first blush their proposal has appeal, but for me, upon consideration, ends up more delicious than nutritious.

Often I think I am in Big Brother's wonderland already. History is rewritten with such audacity I sometimes doubt my own memory. I may possibly be in the early stages of Alzheimer's, but I distinctly remember the economic wisdom of the 1980's, when Japan was the economic behemoth, proclaiming the problem with Americans was that we didn't save enough. Credit, aka, living beyond our means in crass materialistic stupor, as opposed the personal frugality of the average Japanese, was the metaphor for their rise and our decline. Now Washington proposes to either take less or give back more of our money with the proviso that we do our patriotic duty and spend it like crazy. Some pundits and contemporary sages have even expressed fear, "fear" mind you, that skittish Americans might interpret the recent economic convolutions as a caution to save rather than spend. BGlover and MichaelEmmanuel are apparently among Big Brother's second generation, because they obviously were never instructed from the ancient text I reference.

Anthony K. Modafferi III, Esq.

As an attorney and personal friend of Bernard Kerik, the former New York City Police Commissioner, the recent spectacle surrounding Obama’s nomination for Secretary of Treasury, Timothy Geithner, illustrates the overwhelming press bias in favor of Democrat appointees and politicians.

Prominent Democrats – including the President-elect – have labeled Geithner’s failure to pay taxes as a “hiccup,” or “honest mistake,” while excoriating Kerik for allegedly failing to pay nanny-taxes included in a charging instrument that puzzled the trial judge for its failure to abide by basic rules of pleading and which the prosecutor re-wrote to “fix” his sophomoric “mistakes.” The press has regurgitated the government’s charges without any investigation into the circumstances giving rise to these baseless charges. Instead, the press labeled Kerik a “disgrace” while, at the same time, preferred to describe tax-expert Geithner’s own failure to pay taxes as a “hiccup” or an “honest mistake.”