Corie Whalen

Although I’m clearly no advocate of his, I was hoping that maybe, just maybe there was some truth to Obama’s ‘change’ rhetoric – at least in the realm of foreign policy in that neoconservative ideology would be ousted. Not so surprisingly, given the nature of politics and the games you’ve gotta play to get to the top, we will, for the most part, see a continuation in the foreign policy status quo.

Philip Giraldi writing for The American Conservative explains the situation quite eloquently in his post entitled Democracy On The March, Again!

Hopefully the anti-war liberals will begin to recognize that neoconservatism is fluid; that it doesn’t belong to the Republican party any more than it does to the Democrats. It’s simply a policy of those who have managed to retain power in DC for some time now. Obama offers very little change in the way of our international policies. We can only hope that the world continues to be fascinated by the God status liberals have bestowed upon him, and that America can ride on the coattails of that for awhile …. When the rest of the world sees no change in our substantive policies, however, I can’t say that I’ll be expecting a big turnaround from the point we’re at now.

I’m reading a couple of chapters of “Trapped in the War on Terror” by Ian Lustick for my Senior Seminar, and I found this quote to be striking and extremely true:

“The notion of a war against al-Qaeda type terrorists arose as an immediate reaction to 9/11. It then rapidly developed into an abstract and far-reaching War on Terror. The supremacist faction within the Bush administration advanced that slogan to launch a neo-imperial war in Iraq; a war that had nothing to do with terrorism but everything to do with extravagant ideological and political ambitions”.

I couldn’t have possibly said it better myself. It’s hard to be an apologist for the Republican party when it was at the center of creating this mess – BUT what people ought to know (and are recognizing more than ever in light of McCain’s defeat) is that the far-left interventionism inspired by ex-communist thinkers, ie: neoconservatism, is what has caused this.

The truly conservative tradition in foreign policy is isolationism, with a strain of internationalism resulting in a realist approach, which was born of the communist threat and resulting Cold War (Eisenhower, Reagan) …. Nothing about GWB’s foreign policy is conservative (even Eisenhower, who was the first Republican to steer the party out of strict isolationism explicitly denounced preemptive war – and at the time, his foreign policy of internationalism was openly modified with the term “liberal”, because it was a radical step in the leftward direction, given that non-interventionist isolationism is the most conservative foreign policy that could exist in America in that we keep to ourselves, have a strong defense, and limit government’s power).

The only Presidents who have gotten us into wars in the last hundred years have been Democrats and Bushes- so think before you assume because President Bush has the R next to his name that he represents conservative philosophy.

The Republican party and the conservative movement have a long path to travel down in the years to come. I personally hope that there’s a chance for a revival of genuine conservatism within the party, because if it keeps going in its current direction, the true conservative movement will forever be disconnected from the party … and I have to assume that the Republicans will go the way of the Whigs if that happens, because worldwide neo-imperialism doesn’t exactly seem too popular – hence Bush’s approval rating.

I, however, have faith that the actual conservative movement itself isn’t fading away any time soon. Our voices may not be readily apparent when the party that’s supposedly ours nominates horrible candidates that don’t represent us – hence McCain’s overall pathetic campaign and lack of conservative enthusiasm for him … (sorry, liberals, who thought the defeat of McCain meant bye bye to conservatism – it only means bye bye to Republicans in Name Only – so I hope).

I’ve had a little bit of faith restored in seeing Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC) – a true conservative – become the Chair of the Republican Governor’s Association. Now, if Michael Steele can win RNC Chair, we’ll be in a MUCH better position than where we were. If Saul Anuzis wins, however, I won’t hold my breath ….

The Senate now has control over what is virtually the same bill as the one rejected by the House. A few new terms have been added, but in the overall scheme of things, they mean nothing. Prior to this morning, I was unaware of how the bill includes provisions that will not only bailout Wall Street but foreign bankers as well. This was largely brought to the attention of the pubic through comments from Brad Sherman (D-CA): “Hundreds of billions of dollars are going to bail out FOREIGN INVESTORS. They know it, they demanded it, and the bill has been carefully written to make sure that can happen”

So, how do we know this is actually the case? Take Karl Denninger’s latest column from this morning that details exactly what provision will do this (this language is directly from the bill):

“(9) TROUBLED ASSETS.—The term ‘‘troubled assets’’ means— (A) residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008, the purchase of which the Secretary determines promotes financial market stability;

and (B) any other financial instrument that the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress.”

As Denninger and Rep. Sherman have noted:

“Notice that conspicuously missing from the definition is the requirement that the asset’s underlying thing (that is, the property that was mortgaged, etc) lies within the United States. Also note that Treasury must tell Congress if they add “new types” of debt, but that Congress has no right of review or censure.

That is, it is perfectly legitimate under the bill for a foreign bank to sell or swap any “crap sandwich” it may hold (irrespective of how or where it originated, so long as a mortgage is the basis for it somewhere) with a bank domiciled in the United States, and said bank may then “PUT” it into the TARP.”

Note also that Representative Sherman said on Kudlow last night that when this was raised with Secretary Paulson he was told that if Congress tried to restrict the ability of the Secretary to purchase assets “laundered” in this fashion from foreigners, that the bill would be vetoed.”

There you have it. Hank Paulson, George Bush and every single Representative in the House (in both parties) who voted for this bill either knowingly or through being coerced by the corrupt “leaders” in this country have and likely will continue to vote to utilize your tax money to put the bad debt of any banker WORLDWIDE on your tab – no questions asked.

If you do not comprehend the gravity of this I suggest you think for a moment about the devastating, ridiculously REAL affect this will have ON YOUR LIFE. The power grab, the debt YOU personally will face as a result (and this won’t likely end with $700 billion – this gives the Secretary of the Treasury to act at his discretion. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, does it not)? Furthermore, one of the most disturbing aspects is how both Presidential candidates have spoken in support of it. Obama offers change? SPARE ME. Let’s see how they vote (if they even do) tonight. I know that it’s easy for people to be comforted by the idea that we truly have a real choice here. Of course we do to an extent by the fact that we can vote (which is obviously something that should never be taken for granted), but on the most central issue of all (economy) we get to choose between absolute crap and a steaming pile of turds. Big government without a decentralization of power or respect for the rule of law offers no choices to the people, as we are seeing right now. We don’t have many legitimate decisions to make as voters directly in regards to this criminal bailout- at least not on the Presidential level at this juncture. We do however, still have a voice, and I truly do believe that voice is what prevented the House from passing the bill. In my opinion, as constituents we have the most pull with our Representatives, which is why I will not so much be contacting my own hack of a Representative (McGovern), but the list provided by FreedomWorks for the following reasons:

“You may be asking, “What can I do to help?” Well, I have an answer for you: spend a few minutes today and tomorrow calling the following 5 representatives that need to be flipped from “yes” to “no” on this bailout bill. These are all legislators who traditionally profess a belief in limited government, but for some reason they have decided to cast their lot with a huge government intervention in the free market.

Help us find out why this is, and ask them to change their vote from “yes” to “no” on the bailout. If enough of us speak with one voice, we can protect this victory by adding to the chorus against the Wall Street Bailout.

Below are the names of our carefully selected target list. Call the capitol switchboard at 1-866-928-3035 and ask to be connected to one of the following legislators:

Rep. Kay Granger
Rep. Adam Putnam
Rep. John Campbell
Rep. Greg Walden
Rep. Joe Wilson
Rep. Pete Sessions

We don’t have much time to convince these folks to do the right thing on the next vote, so please act right now!”

I think it is also wise to call your Senators, since they will be voting first, as they are the “higher-ups” and (I think) more susceptible to falling in line, whereas many of the Representatives feel more responsible to their constituents (as they should). You may also utilize the number that “FreedomWorks” provided to contact your Senator.

And this goes for the principled liberals too. Yes, I feel the most outraged because I think this is a disturbing power grab and an unfathomable affront to free market principles, but take for instance, this comment from Representative Jesse L. Jackson Jr. of Chicago: ‘We need to bail out the country, not the country club” – and he is right; this bill does just that. I know I would not ultimately agree with an approach that Rep. Jackson would come up with, but I do know one thing – all principled Americans in this country must rise up in opposition to this bill. If we do not, we will face very dire consequences and will keep allowing ourselves to be lied to by the likes of people like Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Goldman-Sachs Paulson.

Call Congress and stop it immediately. 1-866-928-3035. Ask to speak with the Senator or Representative of your choice.

While the media reports the partisan blame game antics (whereas in reality the “leaders” in both parties supported burdening taxpayers with Wall Street’s woes and not doing anything to actually deal with the problem at its true roots), you should look to the real source – Paulson, Bernanke, the Federal Reserve, and the corrupt bankers that they have refused to condemn (and all but supported by creating incentives vis a vie bailouts). DO NOT get tricked into thinking it’s one party or the other. Instead, look at the votes (I also recommend reading statements by Karl Denninger and Jim Bunning) – sure, there was a bit of a split among party lines (more Democrats than Republicans voted for it) … However the real issue (and it’s a non-partisan one) is as follows:

The party “leaders” (I put leaders in quotations because I do not respect them enough to believe they lead in a benign manner) Pelosi (Speaker of the House [Democrats]) and Boehner (House Minority Leader [Republicans]) stood “united for a solution” … In reality, the career politicians with the most to lose if they were not reelected stood united for a quick fix that simple laws of economics tell us is putting a band-aid on a bullet wound. Even McCain and Obama were willing to throw $700 billion down the tubes for the sake of political pandering (read Denninger’s article proving how the bailout wouldn’t have worked in the longterm anyway). Think about that – and then think about how voting for members of Congress might just be more important than the Presidential election (it always is in my view – and instances like this illustrate why).

Why then, were these “leaders” willing to do this if both principled liberals as well as conservatives, including hundreds of intelligent economists knew it was wrong? Because it’s an election year. They’d be off the hook for now if things were “looking good” right around the beginning of November. They could simply re-assume their positions as “representatives of the people” (7% of whom supported the bailout bill, mind you), and go along on their merry way. Notice however, that we, the American people, were saved by principled leaders on both sides of the aisle who refused to cave to party pressure and did right by their constituents instead. They did not listen to their party “leaders”, both of whom told Reps with “safe seats” to “just do it” despite the fact that it’s “political suicide” (Translation: We don’t care even remotely what the people we “represent” think. Instead, we’ll play off the polarized party lines image that the media helps us portray. In the meantime however securing our own positions by threatening Reps who are running unopposed or in areas that extremely lean to either party to vote for this bill for purely political reasons).

Think about this, fellow residents of Massachusetts – safe seats – like for the Democrats in our state. Interestingly enough however, the Representatives in Massachusetts (all of whom are Democrats), voted like this: Reps. William Delahunt, Stephen Lynch and John Tierney voted no. Reps. Michael Capuano, Barney Frank, Edward Markey, Jim McGovern, Richard Neal, John Olver and Niki Tsongas voted yes. In my view, this means that you should vote for whomever the opponents of the Barney Frank style hacks are, on principle – and not BLINDLY by party. You voting based solely on party lines and NOT on substantive issues that will change your life enables this sort of behavior and creates the idea of “safe seats”, which clearly gives corrupt partisan “leaders” the ability to manipulate you and your family. Think before you vote!

Here however are examples of the of type principled Representatives I can admire:

1. Conservatives : Thaddeus McCotter

2. Liberals : Dennis Kucinich

I personally agree more with McCotter on issues of economics and in general, but that doesn’t change the fact that true LIBERALS and true CONSERVATIVES (not necessarily Democrats or Republicans) are more willing to look into the longterm effects because they actually care about the people. They recognize that there is life after election day. The party hacks like Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner and Chris Shays clearly either don’t, or simply do not care. Personally, I think it’s the latter explanation coupled with a dangerous amount of self-interest and inability to think under pressure.

There are very few truly brave and principled individuals representing us, but enough of them did pull through yesterday for the American people. They did not fall in line after the threats of Boehner and Pelosi – they represented YOU. I urge you, no matter your ideology, to disregard the media’s obsession with portraying a bipolar “Republican versus Democrat” United States of America, and to look at the hard, cold facts. The vote yesterday shows us something so concrete that even the media shouldn’t be able to spin it (yet they manage). It shows us, plain and simple, who fights for the American people, and who fights for partisan power. Just look: In all, 65 Republicans joined 140 Democrats in voting “yes,” while 133 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted “no.” To me, that says we have 228 intelligent conservative or liberal Representatives of the people who know that viable alternative solutions exist, and 205 Republicans and Democrats who fell victim to Hank Goldman-Sachs Paulson’s scare tactics and/or (likely both) are interested to a disturbing extent in party power and reelection. What does it say to you?

I see it all over facebook; groups proclaiming “Sarah Palin is No Hillary Clinton” …

Really? A conservative isn’t a liberal? What amazing news!

…. But wait, I thought all women involved in politics were ordained to have the exact same views! That’s what post-modern feminist theory espouses. Modern “feminists”, obsessed to an absurd extent with gender, expect women as a “class” (thanks, Marxism) to unite and together fight the ongoing oppression of “female values”, as if all women have the same views and needs simply because of their sexual designation.

This is what I absolutey cannot STAND about (some, not all) modern, far-left wingers. They are so obsessed with race, gender, class and other such various GROUP classifications that nearly all respect for the individual is lost. Of course, I’m not saying that studying race, class and gender doesn’t yield valuable information – we can’t deny that historically, many people were oppressed; but let’s be rational and try to balance these findings with reality ….

If Sarah Palin had the same ideology and beliefs, but were a man, would there be cries that she’s not as good as Hillary Clinton? I doubt it, because the only reason these comparisions are being drawn is because they both happen to have an x chromosome – and that my friends, is sexist.

These “feminists” think that they represent the cutting edge of some bold, post-modern movement, when in reality, they are simply alienating the average American who respects individual autonomy, and can seperate someone’s views from their age, gender, class, etc (the list goes on and on) …

They’re right – Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton … and thank God for that. She hasn’t played the gender card to get where she is … And if you dislike her because she’s conservative and you’re liberal, fine – but don’t bash her for being a strong REPUBLICAN woman. Believe it or not, “feminists”, there are some women who can think for themselves politically and make it in the world because they are respected for who they are as individuals, not as the representative for some sexist agenda that seeks to group people based on gender rather than merit.

You don’t hear those who can respect her as an individual obsessing over Sarah’s gender (whether or not they agree with her; I definitely don’t share her views on everything). But, you hear it from an unfortunately large chunk of select liberals who hate the idea that conservatives could be “progressive” (in that women aren’t oppressed by ‘evil white rich men’ within the Republican party as they’d like to think for their own political purposes).

I mean, maybe it’s just jealousy … But whatever it is I hope the left-wing factions obsessing over her being a female begin to realize that what they are doing does a great disservice to the term feminism … It’s why throughout this blog I’ve put feminist in quotes to describe these misguided lefties, because you can’t really be pro-woman if you discredit a fellow female for not adhearing to YOUR political agenda.

For the love of God, these extremeists need to wake up and realize that not every strong woman HAS to be liberal. She doesn’t have to fit the Hillary mold to deserve respect, and the fact that so many apparently jealous “feminists” (men and women included), seem to think she does to gain respect as a woman is one of the most sexist and disrespectul sentiments I’ve heard in awhile … It actually offends me, not as a woman, but as a reasonable individual who can look past a person’s gender in my judgements of them.

And to even further my point – people have been speculating that perhaps McCain chose her simply because she’s a woman … BUT even if he did (which would only further prove my theory that he’s a Democrat who accidentally registered Republican), that doesn’t mean Palin herself, as an individual, should be judged for that possibility. The truth is that she’s a powerful, bold conservative woman. They do exist, and just because ridiculous extremeists like Nancy Pelosi feel personally threatened by that (see her comments on the women of America “deserving better”) doesn’t mean that politically demeaning someone because of their gender suddenly becomes non-sexist because it fell from the lips of a liberal.

When will the madness stop? Let’s get over sexism, and judge people based on meaningful qualities, like ideology and character.