The Conservative Brotherhood - Keeping It Right

Freedom May No Longer Be Credit-Worthy

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:00:54 -0800

The tumultuous silence I hear regarding the recent Supreme Court decision leads me to believe the non-response indicates agreement with its meaning and result. There hasn’t been any shyness of expression on other court decisions equally or less controversial. In fact some have generated enthusiastic dialogue reminiscent of a first year law class. But not this one, as poignant its implications for the practice of democracy may be.

When I put this together with recent questionable actions taken by the government in the affair of the bank bailout and subsequent inability to regulate or re-regulate what seems to me to be immoral capitalism and indefensible greed, I am reminded of past warnings from familiar patriots. Granted these opinions are from perpetually shrinking times when the citizenry identified its own interests as made up of important individual units rather than as the dependent collective fodder of corporations and giant institutions that by proxy subsume the interests of individual citizens to their own. But I will let the words clarify themselves.

Haiti and Us

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:49:36 -0800

The events in Haiti are a good laboratory to examine the notions and conceptions, which especially black Americans, hold or aspire too. On many sites I have read commentary where it seemed the primary goal was to measure, against each other, the profundity of knowledge of the esoterica of Haitian history. There is the pedantic debate on the causes of Haitian poverty; which would seem a premature and un-helpful distraction at this moment of extreme humanitarian crisis. But, this tendency is understandable from those warm and well-fed in America. A famous economist has alluded to Haiti’s “self-inflicted” poverty; as if this is a state of existence metastasized from ignorant or corrupt Haitian economic mentality, and has been idiotically chosen as their cultural identity. Others have suggested the heaven or hell of Haitian life is relative to the position of actionable principles of Haitian society evincing our particularly American number line, giving positive or negative value to “left” or “right” political ideology. What is most in evidence is the almost pathological need of black Americans to assimilate with one or the other dominant ideologies, conservative or liberal, while disregarding the unique perspective that is incumbent in, and is the real value of black American historical perspective. The historical and social evolution of the circumstances of blacks in this country makes it difficult, for me anyway, to ascertain a riflip on the political genome indicating which aforementioned ideology is the dominant or recessive gene determining black American reality.

Worth Hearing Again

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 07:30:00 -0800

The democracynow.org website for Monday Jan. 18, is broadcasting two speechs of Dr. King, in celebration of his birthday. They are worth hearing. One speech, "Beyond Vietnam" I remember hearing at the time, 1967. Until yesterday I hadn't heard or read it since, but I am amazed at the indelible impression it made on my subconscious and conscious mind. When I review my present social and political conscience, I realize that not only the poetry but the deeper meaning of the words sunk into my young mind, otherwise preoccupied with the concerns of youth and pending confrontation with the draft and Vietnam. I finally understand Dr. King's true legacy. It's me. You will be rewarded by listening, and you will be stunned by the more things change the more they stay the same.

Steele or Balsa?

Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:14:26 -0800

All I can say is that Michael Steele had his chance, again and again. There is no need for tough talk now. When he should have stood-up to Limbaugh and held his ground as a person entitled to his intellectual opinion, and holding a formal political office, gained politically, he retreated from the ire of Massa Rush and subordinated himself to a man who holds him in the same regard he holds for black NFL quarterbacks – a necessary and politically correct evil. I’d prefer to refrain from injecting race into discussion of political philosophy and the welfare of the American society, as far as possible. Any who have read my postings know I have iconoclastic economic views; that is different from the free market cultism, which I find doesn’t translate well from the theoretical to the real world. Governmental fiscal conservatism I approve of, but in my opinion, unfettered capitalism as an economic system, requiring unquestioned imposition of that particular artifice of man over the distribution of finite resources, is no less harmful than un-remediated socialism. Human rationality, not submission to brutish nature, must be applied to the affairs of man – economic or otherwise. There can be respectful disagreement over the components of economic conduct and behavior that constitute the greatest advantage to “the general welfare”, but I must question Mr. Limbaugh’s elevation of the role of black people in the economic and political misadventures plaguing the nation at present. To whom is such a foolish calculation aimed? To my ears, which prefer to hear differently, it sounds as if he is inferring the President’s ethnicity is the pathology behind causative policies, present, and even pre-existing his taking office. What other interpretation can be derived from Mr. Limbaugh’s expert sociological opinion that the administration’s focus on humanitarian aid for a nearby, historically impoverished neighbor experiencing the effects of a natural catastrophe is somehow founded in political opportunism solely in the realm(s) of “the light skin and dark skin black community”. Humanitarian aid to Haiti is somehow “a black thing” unrelated to “real” Americanism. Isn’t such retrogressive ignorance worthy of a rebuke by the man charged with making the GOP more inclusive? Steele (and other black “conservatives”) weren’t afraid to challenge Reid on his “negro dialect” comment. Either they stand-up to Limbaugh now or accept being “the negroes that bring him alcohol”, and always and forever be second class citizens in the GOP.

Hamilton's Piracy and Ours

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:12:05 -0800

I read a response by Ripama today 1/08/10 on the Booker Rising site, under the heading "War on Terrorism" where a letter of Alexander Hamilton was transcribed, detailing his opinion on what was done and what should have been done in response to acts perpetrated by the Barbary Pirates. The Hamilton letter was interesting and I hope another example of one of his Federalist colleague’s writing, John Jay in Federalist No. 4, will help to illustrate the point I hope to develop on situational perspective. “But the safety of the people of America against dangers from foreign force depends not only their forbearing to give ‘just’ causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to ‘invite’ hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are ‘pretended’ as well as just causes for war”. The examples of the Barbary Pirates and today’s enemy have only superficial similarities, but the latter may more conveniently fall under the auspices of Jay’s paragraph than Hamilton’s exposition; unless, there is a belief that the empire of the United States has been entirely angelic in acquiring and sustaining ubiquity and pre-eminent power. The distance from the frontiers of empire, in the peaceful environs of domesticity, allows many to avoid the overt and covert violent details of the pursuit of ‘national interests’ that cannot help but to invite the hostility or insult of those favoring their own visualization of their place in the worldly scheme. The conscience of America was titillated more by historical revelation than it was in the drawing rooms contemporary to the events relating to the actions taken against the ‘anti-civilized’ pestilence of Native Americans on the distant plains. Still, there is no special or unique evil in Americans, only the normal human tendency to feel the problem with others is that they’re not like us.

The Gee Whiz? in Jihad

Mon, 04 Jan 2010 07:25:28 -0800

What is the necessity to make heavenly excuses for earthly mayhem? An article was written recently exposing the role of British mosques in the creation of suicide terrorists, including our recent underwear bomber. The recent bombings in Pakistan have also sparked round-about controversy. What words from earthly mouths can convince intelligent people they are receiving supernatural communication? I contend everything that happens on earth is earth stuff. Regarding terrorism, we have earth people, using earth weapons, to kill earthlings, for earth reasons; just as operatives of governments are acting secularly, even if sanctioned and blessed by chaplains. Personally, if I was convinced I was in the presence of the true, only, and actual God, and he told me to kill innocent people, I would tell him to do it himself. His desires, matched with his capabilities, should make my participation superfluous. What advantage will he derive from having one human kill other humans? Is it insidious human insubordination to wonder if the murder of innocents is a requirement to enter into the precincts of heaven, what will be the levy once residing there? And more mundanely, is it permitted to observe that the humane ethical conventions supposedly emanating from a benign, loving, omniscient, omnipotent Being are consistently rendered secondary to the designs of politico-military architects here on earth?

Undergarment Jihad

Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:07:09 -0800

The underwear bomber has again exposed the tender underbelly of the American intellect. By this I mean the tendency to advance ideological platitudes and inanities as maieutic process when addressing concerns on terrorism. It is ridiculous on its face to expect a 100% success rate against a domestic terrorist attack, even if Dick Cheney himself joined the Border Patrol. A determined foe will inevitably be successful; just as they are not immune to our offense. It also reflects what I believe is a fundamental misunderstanding of the conflict, even among those one would expect to know better. We are not at war with Islam. Yes, there are those wishing to make alterations in the existing geo-political power structure. And yes, the only viable weapon they have to wage this war is terrorism. But this weapon, terrorism, is little more than a nuisance, and cannot hope to dislodge or supplant the status quo, unless Islam as a psychological force multiplier convinces the foolish and fearful that this pussy cat is a prowling tiger.

Constitutional Nonfeasance

Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:44:03 -0800

With the latest foiled terrorist plot and the pronouncements from the likes of Rush Limbaugh calling for war with Iran, and Joe Lieberman posturing the same regarding Yemen, it may be a good time to address a matter I hinted at in a previous post when I suggested we have become “a lazy democracy sequestered in a museum of past heroic thoughts and deeds”. The laziness I refer to is the inattention to the duties prescribed by the Constitution. Particularly, I have in mind the duty of the House of Representatives and Senate, “To declare war, grant letters of marquee and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water”. It is obvious the relationship this clause bears to our present controversies regarding the wars we are presently engaged in, together with matters regarding the status of prisoners held in legal limbo.

Commandment or Amendment?

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:27:21 -0800

Conveniently I read a few blogs recently appertaining to a matter that can be discussed as a classical conservative conundrum; that being the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. Most often the conservative blogosphere is clogged with those seeking to impose ecclesiastical duties upon the Constitution, obsessing over the genitals of others, building a façade that gives every fart of Adam Smith the scent of constitutionality, or elevating winning wars over the justification for fighting them. It takes reports of lunatic violence to inspire even casual reconsideration of the twenty-five words in the one sentence that is the entirety of the Second Amendment. Many, it seems to me, reject the challenge of the subject and the necessity our bloody reality compels to reason. In his speech celebrating the first anniversary of the Constitution, James Wilson, whom some consider along with Madison the co-father of the document, asked, “Shall we be supine, and look, in listless languor, for the blessings and enjoyments, to which exertion is inseparably attached? If we would be happy; we must be active. The Constitution and our manners must mutually support and be supported.” A new, weak nation on a forested continent and its heavily urbanized superpower legatee must seek some practical agreement on weaponry in society. In the very first Federalist Paper, Hamilton opined, “The consciousness of good intentions distains ambiguity”. We have been content with ambiguity for too long.

Solomon's Silence

Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:24:30 -0800

The sophistry of partisanship never ceases to amaze me. I read several blogs since the President’s West Point speech making the premise that “victory” in Afghanistan is conservative and desire for withdrawal, restraint, or reappraisal is liberal. I have never felt war is a matter of conservative or liberal perspective. It is a matter of policy. Good policy or bad policy, right or wrong, justified or unjustified, or thrust constitutionally or unconstitutionally upon the body politic. In my opinion, our foolish distraction with the trifles of political ideology when considering matters of war and peace is indicative of a lazy democracy sequestered in a museum of past heroic thoughts and deeds, allowing superficial patriots the belief the lineament of what went before is unquestionably sufficient to sanctify the motives and actions of today. The President’s arcane and apodictic platitudes explaining the need for victory in a war where the virtue of additional investment of blood and treasure required months of intense debate seems to suggest the sour Machiavellian end serves no purpose other than to be politically correct consolation and cover for the ideological spin-doctors of upcoming elections. His Olivian oration notwithstanding, we were left with undefined victory, a mutable enemy, and clear evidence of the monomania infecting our Afghan policies. Our leaders are having ideological pissing contests, a deluge of American and Afghan blood is falling on our faces, and we still have a drought of “national security”. I don’t know his ideological affiliation, but Solomon ain’t singing.

Random Thoughts

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:04:02 -0800

Today the Nobel Peace Prize winner is going to announce the escalation of a war against an enemy no longer situated on the field of battle before the Long Gray Line at West Point. With assuredly Periclean eloquence he will explain to the graduating class, four years removed from high school, the national security necessity of continuing eight years of futile invasion of a nation encompassing 500,000 square miles in response to an attack allegedly plotted by non-Afghans in several tents. He will make clear the accounting sheet tally of $233,000,000,000 spent thus far as unwelcome guests in a country whose national GNP of $7,000,000,000, is one-fourth the size of the sacrosanct bonuses distributed at Goldman Sachs this year. And he will explain their several future deployments to Afghanistan, or to Iraq – the other lie. He will tell them these fool’s errands are worth their young lives. Duty, honor, Goldman.

Ebony and Irony

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:02:43 -0800

The last few days have been a re-education for me. Any pretense of post-racialism crumbles when confronted with headlines where any dubious racial aspect can be introduced. For instance, those by turns convenient and then inconvenient poster children for post-racialism, Obama and Woods, always ignite the sleeping embers of racialism when details of their political and personal lives don’t comport as some would desire. I don’t know if jocularity or apprehension is the proper response when Obama is castigated as half-white and Woods is supposedly insulted by being called only half-black. Both had black fathers but the peculiarities of “the American disease” have rearranged the priority of their respective suffixes without mediating the enmity many display toward foolish and meaningless hyphenations.

God and Man at the Bar

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:58:57 -0800

The House version of health care reform has reignited the abortion argument. Recent commentators have restated their opinions using familiar terminology such as “moral imperative”, “God’s image”, and the newly fashionable “socialist” medicine. There have also been references to the disproportionate number of black fetuses aborted. This statement is often left tantalizingly provocative by the tactical absence of the qualifier “elective”, suggesting that abortion, by design, has a greater involuntary gravitational pull on a mentally deficient race of people. There can be many sociological permutations developed from such a controversial subject and the above examples are among the most common. I will admit I have an intellectual prejudice leaning towards the fusion of sperm and oocyte as the beginning of human life, but I part company with those choosing to make topical adversaries of atheists and socialists. If you want to protest an enemy, go down to your nearest law school. Roe v. Wade was not a theological or moral decision. It was a legal decision.

Empire 2.0

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:45:16 -0800

In previous posts I mentioned the thousand-plus military bases the U.S. has dispersed around the globe. Hopefully interested parties have verified my claims, and if found correct, have been encouraged to modify notions on how this nation may be viewed from other perspectives. It would be easy, it seems to me, for some to regard such omnipresence as a tangible manifestation of empire. Admittedly it is not an empire of the old model, but more accurately Empire 2.0. It isn’t a collection of colonies, but is instead an accumulation of real estate parcels. A few hundred or thousand acres purchased or leased here and there accompanied with Status of Forces agreements, characterizes the modern imperial structure. This arrangement provides local influence without the appearance of gross suzerainty. It provides platforms from which to project military power and buttress American business interests regionally. And overlapped with other strategically placed bases provides American “scent marking” over much of the planet. If the sun never sets on American military real estate it can be argued an empire exists ipso facto. At least it was so argued in the past. This non-traditional structure allows distracted Americans to discount charges of imperialism. However, indigenous citizens seeing the Stars and Stripes waving in their backyards can justifiably question America’s presumed right to hegemony.

Who'd a thunk?

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:27:13 -0800

Did Bob Parks mention "The New World Order"? My, oh my.