Tooling around the interwebs and reading various blogs, I came across this post on Mark Levin Fan - Glenn Beck is NOT a Reagan Republican, in which the author states:
"Folks, this article by Peter Wehner nails it."
Really? Nails what exactly?
I'm about 2/3rds of the way through Mark Levin's latest book, Liberty and Tyranny, and I've gotta say, Levin goes after the neoconservative/me-too/moderates with more vengeance than I do! I guess I better step-up my game ... Mark Levin calls them "neo-statists."
Anyways, the post attacking Glenn Beck turned into an attack on "Paulistas" (a term used to describe people who believe in a limited constitutional government). I left a comment on the post, but let me sum up a few thoughts here ...
Yes, John McCain would have been every bit as bad a president as Barack Obama! Today, when asked about what Beck told Katie Cutie last night, McCain responded by saying he's a proud "Teddy Roosevelt Republican." Yeah, um ... Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive! TR was arguably more radical than Obama!
Don't let the 'R' lapel-pin fool you!
Remember, McCain "suspended" his campaign to "bailout" Congress and their cronies, er, I mean, "save the economy." He wanted to buy-up people's mortgages to the tune of around $300 billion, supported his version of "cap and trade," he supports "service-learning," and he supports a whole host of other progressive government programs too.
And what's with it about conservatives and foreign policy?
I supported going into Iraq. But the constant attacks on what was once called "America First" foreign policy is absurd! Do we really think America is so weak, that if we aren't constantly spending billions of dollars and thousands of American lives fighting wars on the other side of the globe, America will be overthrown by Islamo-fascists?
I'm not discounting the threat. I'm just asking the questions that everyone else is afraid to ask.
Like I said before about the Czech/Poland missile defense - Why do I, as an American taxpayer, have to pay for their defense? Isn't that really, just the New Deal on a global scale?
Hey, I'm all for helping out our "friends," but eventually, even your friends have to be able to take care of themselves. I think "dependents" is a more proper term.
A true friend would be able to defend not only themselves, but be able to take action on your behalf whenever you may need help too. And if the Czech Republic and Poland can't afford to do it themselves, maybe they should give capitalism a try! And if they don't like freedom, then let them lick the boots of their masters.
And face it ... American taxpayers don't have another dime to cough-up. Yes, the unthinkable can happen. How will we help our "friends" when it does?
UPDATE:
Crickets chirping .. theCL isn’t responding with his source because he can’t.
I'm more than happy to talk about things. In fact, I left 4 separate responses to various questions asked of me in the comments (including sources). They were deleted. I'll consider the deletion of my comments as proof I won the debate.
First time reading this, and I completely agree.
I have always meant to read-up more about how we got into World War II. Irving Kristol said it took a lot of nudging from Internationalists to get us into the war. I’m not advocating yes/no as to whether we should have or not, but we certainly shouldn’t have continued our aggressive expansion abroad post-WWII.
It’s troublesome to me that so many on the “right” are quick to attack anyone who doesn’t blindly support the Republican Party and/or the war. Talk about arbitrary litmus tests.
Sure, in a “knee-jerk reaction” sense, the anti-war right sounds similar to today’s Left, but morally and philosophically, they’re worlds apart.
I’m OK with “the right” fighting with each other, it’s what we’ve always done. But the blind worship of the State and its politicians, isn’t conservative in any meaningful sense of the word … which is frightening indeed.
I think your comment was spot on. Unfortunately, clear and impartial debate is not something that is accepted at the site you referenced. After reading several of their posts they appear to be emotively constructed with a few facts thrown in for justification. I say this not because they are misaligned with my views, but because hubristic irrationality cannot be reasoned with. I am not asking for acquiescence, but an understanding.
“His argument that there is very little difference between the two parties is silly, and his contempt for parties in general is anti-Burkean…”
Case in point, this statement is completely illogical and disingenuous. And I sincerely doubt that any discussion would dissuade their mental antipathy.