V: "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
Welcome Back The Spotlight 'O Terror
Green - Low: This setting is here just as a reference point. DHS will never use it because it would mean we didn’t need them anymore.
Blue - Guarded: This rarely used setting on the Stoplight ‘O Terror could indicate things like an undocumented worker within 3 square miles of the president.
Yellow - Elevated: This is the standard level of fear. Don’t expect to see anything lower than this as long as the Regressives are in office. Be scared, but not too scared to vote Republican.
Orange - High: Chertoff heard that someone in the CIA’s brother’s boss’ nephew’s sister-in-law heard about a plan to blow up Amish Country Popcorn Factory in Berne Indiana. It’s ok to pee your pants at this level.
Red - Severe: A terror attack was recently narrowly averted. We can’t release any details but just be thankful we saved your asses. Used frequently before midterm elections. See October Surprise. (Oh My God, Take Away My Freedoms and Protect Me From Them There Terrorists, Like Osama Hussein!!!)
Welcome to my Blog, enjoy your stay!
Congressman Ron Paul, MD - We've Been NeoConned

1984 radio broadcast:
Dialogue between Douglas and a Robert Sungnis:
Ben Douglass Continues the Smear Campaign
Mr. Douglass
: Dear JJG, Since you are not familiar with Sungenis' charges against Schoeman, I will briefly bring you up to speed: Schoeman exercises an anti-Christ, anti-Christian, and anti-Catholic influence over the Church, he is a Jewish racist, and he is purveying one of the most pernicious and nefarious heresies the Church has ever faced.R. Sungenis
: Yes, that’s right. Anyone who says the Old Covenant is not revoked, and by that means not that the Old Testament Scriptures are still a part of the Bible, but that God has some special covenant, whether the Mosaic covenant or some other kind of covenant that is not the New Covenant, with the Jews alone (as is taught by Roy Schoeman, the USCCB catechism, page 131, and other such people, such as Jacob Michael, Mark Shea and David Palm) is preaching heresy, and it is certainly a pernicious and nefarious one at that. There is only one covenant today in operation, and that is the New Covenant in Jesus Christ. All peoples, Jew or Gentile, receive salvation only in the New Covenant and there is no other covenant attached to it or that presently exists.In addition, Mr. Schoeman does, indeed, speak in a way that promotes or endorses Jewish racism, including his comments that the Jews are "blessed by nature" over Gentiles, and that the Jews have this privileged status "despite their lack of faith." Mr. Schoeman believes that Jews are superior to Arabs, and the latter are bad because they are from the adulterous seed of Ishmael. You can read all about it in Schoeman’s book, Salvation is from the Jews. If that is not Jewish racism, what is? Call it what you will. Call it Jewish chauvinism, Jewish superiority, chosen-people syndrome, whatever, it’s all the same, and it is the very thing that has gotten the Jews in trouble with every nation they have been in for the last 2000 years. The fact that Mr. Douglass can’t recognize it when he sees it shows that either he is also a Jewish racist or that he has turned a blind eye to it. You can read about Mr. Schoeman’s other nefarious beliefs on my website at www.catholicintl.com/book-recommendation/14.pdf.
Mr. Douglass
: I worked closely with Sungenis for about 3 years, have argued with him extensively from the inside, and since February have argued with him extensively in public.R. Sungenis
: Yes, that’s right. Mr. Douglass likes to argue. Unfortunately, his present arguments are clouded by the constant pressure that was put on him by the Jewish ideologues that are presently dominating the landscape of Catholicism.Mr. Douglass
: The charge of anti-Semitism is more than justified. Anti-Semitism is prejudice against Jews, and Sungenis has pre-judged the Jews.R. Sungenis
: Sorry, Mr. Douglass. Making up your own definitions of anti-semitism is another form of bigotry and racism, and it is also a breaking of the Eighth Commandment. Anti-semitism has been traditionally defined as hatred of the Jewish race. Mr. Douglass has already admitted to me and many others that I don’t hate theJewish race. Hence, the fact that he takes it upon himself to change the definition to suit his own hateful agenda shows what an underhanded slanderer he really is.
For the record, I don’t pre-judge Jews any more than I pre-judge Protestants, Muslims, Republicans or Democrats. If they do evil and speak against the Catholic Church, I’ll be there to oppose them. It just so happens that the Jews play a big role, both now and in the past, in opposition to Christ, Christianity and the Catholic Church, and it is even worse when converts to the Catholic Church keep perpetuating selected Judaistic errors and try to impose them on the Catholic Church, as does Mr. Schoeman, regardless of what devotion he displays toward Catholicism out of the same mouth.
Mr. Douglass
: He readily, eagerly, and promiscuously gloms onto and regurgitates salacious things he finds on the internet and in print against Jews, without taking the least amount of care to verify them.R. Sungenis
: Mr. Douglass knows that there have only been a few occasions when I either got a source wrong or made a mistake about some news item. Like newspapers that print things that are not always correct, I have made apologies and retractions for anything I have gotten wrong, and will continue to do so. But Mr. Douglass is an extremist and a slanderer. He will take any error and blow it up out of proportion, and then try to give everyone the impression that I just sit at my keyboard everyday just thinking up "promiscuous and salacious" things about the Jews. That is another infraction of the Eighth Commandment against Mr. Douglass, because it is simply not true. Unfortunately, when it comes to the Jews, people like Mr. Douglass often get irrational, because they expect everyone to walk in lock step to what they would like to see concerning the Jews – no criticism, or in Mr. Douglass’ case, only criticism that he approves of first.Mr. Douglass
: Repeatedly, he has done this without so much as reading the whole article he is copy-pasting, and in some cases, without even knowing who wrote the thing (oops, was that a Nazi propaganda tract that I just passed off as my own words?).R. Sungenis
: Mr. Douglass’ slanderous reference to a "Nazi propaganda tract" shows what he is all about. He is about giving impressions to people – bad impressions. He is an expert at demagoguery. He treasures it when he can get people upset and riled up through anti-semitic images that he knows they will be horrified by. The truth is, I have utterly and consistently denounced the Nazis, Nazism and anything to do with anti-semitism, but since Mr. Douglass is in this to win the war of impressions, he thinks nothing of digging up a six year old accusation that Bill Cork (who has since apostasized from the Catholic Church) accused me of deliberately citing. Mr. Douglass knows the accusation isn’t true since he was the one who told me months ago that it came from a Calvin College website, not a Nazi website.By the way, yes, there were a couple of occasions that I made the mistake of not reading the whole article for lack of time, and one of my enemies found some sentence or person they didn’t like in an article, but I quickly accommodated them by taking the article down
or making a disclaimer, and Mr. Douglass was here at CAI to help me do so. But now that he’s out, he thinks it’s ok just to tell half the story so that he can make himself look good and me look bad. Mr. Douglass is simply not to be trusted. He is an expert at telling half-truths which, because he knows what the truth really is, amounts to a lie, and the worst kind, because the intent is to ruin my reputation.
Mr. Douglass
: When someone opposes Sungenis, he asks them whether they are Jewish, proclaims his suspicions about their Jewish ancestry, and accuses them of having a Jewish racial agenda.R. Sungenis
: That sounds bad, doesn’t it? That’s right, because that is exactly Mr. Douglass’ intention. He wants you to think that I seek out Jewish people so that I can criticize them. That makes for good fodder on web blogs for people who read them without knowing what the real truth is. The truth is this: I have asked only three people, Mr. Douglass, Mr. Michael and Mr. Forrest, if they are Jewish. The reason? Because I found that most of my major critics were Jewish or were married to Jews. Imagine that. So the logical question to ask these three gentlemen, who are my most vociferous and prolific critics, is if they are Jewish. So far, Mr. Michael and Mr. Forrest have refused to answer the question, and I’m not even sure Mr. Douglass is telling me the truth, because he lies about so many other things, as you can see from this present rant he just posted.Mr. Douglass
: This is particularly absurd when it is directed at me, who am an anti-Semite by many people's standards.R. Sungenis
: The only thing that is absurd is that Mr. Douglass has enough pride and hubris within his personality that he thinks he can change the definition of anti-semitism just so that he can label me, yet at the same time he exonerates himself with an altogether different definition of anti-semitism! This is the world of the wax nose that Mr. Douglass lives in. Just mold the circumstances any way that is convenient for the moment.Mr. Douglass
: Sungenis' behavior is reprehensible, and the blog is entirely justified. There is a tremendous potential for Catholics to be scandalized and possibly ensnared by Sungenis' anti-Jewish writingsR. Sungenis
: So notice what Mr. Douglass is actually against. He finally told the truth. He’s against "anti-Jewish writings"! There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Don’t speak negatively about the Jews. You can speak negatively about Palestinians, Muslims, Protestant, Democrats, James White, Cardinal Law, Bill Clinton or Madonna, or just about anyone that suits your fancy, but not against the Jews. The only scandal here is that we have someone who purports to be a Catholic telling us that no "anti-Jewish writings" are allowed when, in fact, the whole history of the Catholic Church is filled with "anti-Jewish writings," from the Fathers, to saints, to popes, to even Jesus and Paul themselves. And yes, people like Mr. Douglass are "scandalized" by that part of Catholicism, and that is precisely the ploy the Jews have used today to scare Catholics into submission to their will.Mr. Douglass
: and slanders against fellow Catholics (Jewish converts and otherwise). Reason is a good antidote.R. Sungenis
: Slander against fellow Catholics, Jewish converts? No, this is just another case of Mr. Douglass moving the goal posts to suit his own agenda. To Mr. Douglass, asserting that Mr. Schoeman is fomenting Jewish racism by his comment that the Jews are "blessed by nature…despite their lack of faith" or that the Jews have a "special charism" above Gentile believers, or that God is helping the nation of Israel today to defeat the Arabs who Mr. Schoeman says are from the bastard "seed of Ishmael" and are the world’s troublemakers (which even Mr. Douglass pointed out as a major problem in Schoeman’s book), this is all just "slander" against Mr. Schoeman rather than calling it what it really is – Mr. Schoeman’s camouflaged Jewish racism. From this you can see that Mr. Douglass doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He is such an ideologue for the Jewish people he can’t see heresy and racism when it stares him in the face. Again, please read the 14 problems with Mr. Schoeman’s book on my website www.catholicintl.com/book-recommendation/14.pdf. Mr. Douglass: Lastly, I apologize for Sungenis' poor witness. It will take a geocentric saint for Catholics in large numbers to start taking geocentrism seriously again. Ben Douglass Homepage 06.25.07 - 9:01 pm #R. Sungenis: And I apologize for Mr. Douglass’ poor understanding of the Catholic faith. If he doesn’t have the courage to call Mr. Schoeman’s errors what they really are, especially in the face of the fact that Mr. Schoeman refuses to either explain himself or admit that he has made any errors in his book, then I am ashamed to have to deal with people like Mr. Douglass who purports to be a Catholic apologist but finds himself being more of an apologist for Jews and Judaism than he does for the Catholic Church and Catholic doctrine. As I have said before, today, like never before, we are being infiltrated by a Judaized Catholicism, complete with ready-made Jewish apologists to make the clarion call of "anti-semitism" (complete with their own invented definitions of the accusation) in order to scare everyone into submission. Rest assured, Robert Sungenis, will not bow to their tactics. I will be there to fight them, come hell or high water, as I have been for the last six years.
God protect you all.
more research from this writer into teh deep penetration of the Pro-Israel lobby into Catholicsm:
http://catholicintl.com/catholicissues/bd2.pdf
http://www.jonhs.net/911/protocols_of_zion.htm
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/aipac_exposed_paul_findley_dares_to_speak_out.htm
http://catholicintl.com/book-recomendation/nrbg.pdf
http://catholicintl.com/book-recomendation/ifmay24.pdf
The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy
Roy Schoeman, the Jews, and the Old Covenant ~ Robert Sungenis, Ph.D.
I'm Mad, And I'm Not Going To Take it Anymore ~ Robert Sungenis, Ph.D.
Jewish/Catholic Debate Over OT Messianic Prophecies ~ Robert Sungenis, Ph.D.
My Conversation with the USCCB about the Jews and the Old Covenant ~ Robert Sungenis, Ph.D.
Dialogue on the Old Covenant: Is it Revoked? ~ R. Sungenis
Pope Benedict XVI Says Jews Must Convert to Christianity in order to be Saved ~ R. Sungenis
Overlooked Millions: Non-Jewish Victims of the Holocaust ~ By Karen Silverstrim
Neo-Cons and the Jewish Connection ~ R.Sungenis
The Zionists and the Neo-cons
Judaizers in the Catholic Church.
An Analysis of the Ministries of David Moss and Roy Schoeman ~ Sungenis
Christian Zionism: A Contradiction in Terms ~ Sungenis & Woods
Politics, Religion, Israel and the Seduction of the Catholic Voter
| Akaka (D-HI), Yea Alexander (R-TN), Nay Allard (R-CO), Nay Barrasso (R-WY), Nay Baucus (D-MT), Nay Bayh (D-IN), Nay Bennett (R-UT), Yea Biden (D-DE), Yea Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Bond (R-MO), Yea Boxer (D-CA), Yea Brown (D-OH), Yea Brownback (R-KS), Yea Bunning (R-KY), Nay Burr (R-NC), Yea Byrd (D-WV), Nay Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Cardin (D-MD), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea Casey (D-PA), Yea Chambliss (R-GA), Nay Clinton (D-NY), Yea Coburn (R-OK), Nay Cochran (R-MS), Nay Coleman (R-MN), Yea Collins (R-ME), Yea Conrad (D-ND), Yea Corker (R-TN), Nay Cornyn (R-TX), Nay Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Nay DeMint (R-SC), Nay Dodd (D-CT), Yea Dole (R-NC), Nay | Domenici (R-NM), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Yea Ensign (R-NV), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Nay Feingold (D-WI), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea Grassley (R-IA), Nay Gregg (R-NH), Yea Hagel (R-NE), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Nay Hutchison (R-TX), Nay Inhofe (R-OK), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Nay Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Kennedy (D-MA), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Yea Kyl (R-AZ), Yea Landrieu (D-LA), Nay Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Yea Levin (D-MI), Yea Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Lott (R-MS), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea Martinez (R-FL), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay | McConnell (R-KY), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Yea Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea Obama (D-IL), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea Reed (D-RI), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay Salazar (D-CO), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea Sessions (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Nay Smith (R-OR), Nay Snowe (R-ME), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Nay Stevens (R-AK), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Nay Tester (D-MT), Nay Thune (R-SD), Nay Vitter (R-LA), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Yea Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea Wyden (D-O |
"Reviving the Hamilton Agenda." That's the headline the New York Times gave David Brooks's recent column honoring Alexander Hamilton, the Founding Father perhaps least interested in limiting political power. Unlike his rival Thomas Jefferson, Hamilton favored strong central government and weaker states.
And he didn't trust the free market. He was an old-fashioned mercantilist -- he wanted politicians and bureaucrats to control private economic activities for the sake of special business interests.
In the true Hamiltonian spirit, Brooks also doesn't trust the market -- which means he doesn't trust free, peaceful individuals and private property. He writes, "We Hamiltonians disagree with the limited government conservatives [I assume Brooks has libertarians like me in mind] because, on its own, the market is failing to supply enough human capital."
Now David Brooks is a bright guy, so I wonder how he can blame the free market for failing in this way. He continues, "Despite all the incentives, 30 percent of kids drop out of high school and the college graduation rate has been flat for a generation."
Excuse me, but why is that the market's fault? Government dominates education in America. K-12 education is a coercive, often rigidly unionized government virtual monopoly that fights every attempt to experiment with free-market competition.
Brooks writes that Hamiltonians like him "think government should help people get the tools they need to compete." But when has government ever been good at that?
He claims the state can "increase the quality of human capital" by, for example, providing "Quality preschool [to] help young children from ... disorganized homes. ... "
Really? What is the chance that it would be "quality" preschool if government runs it? Even the acclaimed Head Start has not been shown to have any lasting effect on academic performance.
Why does Brooks think the government is competent enough to "help ... people compete"? He writes that liberals' "programs haven't worked out," but then proposes his own. When I challenged him on that, he said his ideas are in a "different category" and argued that some intervention is effective and necessary.
Please. When I asked Brooks why a government that performed as ineptly as FEMA did after Hurricane Katrina will be better at running preschools, he said, "Some lives are so screwed up, it's hard to make them worse."
Government coercion almost always makes things worse. It discourages individual effort, and sucks capital away from more productive uses.
Brooks, like a good Hamiltonian, favors coercive government micromanagement. He says, "Bigger child tax credits and increasing the earned income tax credit [welfare] can reduce the economic strain on young families. ...
overnment should increase funding for basic research, especially in math, engineering and physics.
"The list could go on."
That's what I'm afraid of.
Government will choose which "basic research" to fund? Does he recall the 1970s synthetic-fuels program or the 1990s Superconducting Super Collider boondoggle ?
Child tax credits? Just cut taxes for everyone!
Brooks even advocates national service, "forcing city kids to work with rural kids, and vice versa."
Why are pundits and politicians so eager to use force against others?
America became an economic power despite, not because of, Hamiltonian intervention. Hong Kong and much of East Asia went from abject poverty to affluence in a few decades not because their governments gave people "tools they need to compete" -- they didn't -- but because they exercised limited powers.
I wish Brooks and other Hamiltonian conservatives understood that freedom and prosperity have nothing to do with bureaucrats managing society through schooling and tax manipulation. Prosperity comes from leaving people free in a legal system that respects their persons and property so they can pursue their dreams while taking responsibility for their actions. Free people find their own tools if the state leaves them alone.
In the era of big government, the last thing we need are champions of the statist Hamilton. What we need now are champions of the libertarian Jefferson, who said in a very un-Hamiltonian way: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
![]() |
| June 27, 2007 |
| Tom Lantos, Warmonger The pious old hypocrite wants to gin up a war with Iran |
| by Justin Raimondo |
| While the American people pine for peace, our leaders are intent on war: that's the anomaly of American "democracy," one that speaks ill of the effort to export our system at gunpoint. Adopt "democracy," and you, too, can be ruled by a warmongering oligarchy. Americans oppose an attack on Iran 2-to-1. By almost every measure, they want negotiations, rather than confrontation, with Tehran. Yet the House Foreign Affairs Committee recently gave its approval to a bill that, in effect, would fire the first shot at the Iranians, imposing draconian sanctions similar to those enacted against Iraq in the run-up to the invasion and occupation of that country. Similarly, this new sanctions regime sets the stage for the coming war with Iran. The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act [.pdf], so-called, doesn't bother targeting goods and services that Iran might put to military use. Instead, it takes a broad-brush approach and openly seeks to strangle Iran economically. The legislation, written by champion warmonger Tom Lantos, would prohibit the import of any and all items from Iran, ban dealings with Iranian banks, stop the export of items having to do with civil aviation, and ratchet up the pressure on other countries to impose similar restrictions. Furthermore, Lantos wants a report from the White House every six months on the "progress" being made to tighten the chokehold on Iran.
With Lantos and the anti-Iran Democrats leading the charge on the political front, the Bush administration is moving on the military front. Recent developments are ominous: namely, the addition of another aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise, to the two already looming off the Iranian coast. (Yes, I know that last link is to Debka.com, hardly a fountainhead of journalistic accuracy, but this Newsweek report prefigured it.) What amounts to a Republican-Democratic pincer movement is evidence that a real consensus has developed in our nation's capital that war with Iran is inevitable. True, there are some minor disagreements along the way, with the Democrats, led by the sickening hypocrite Lantos, demanding these draconian sanctions, and the White House opposing them on the grounds that new sanctions undermine our multilateral diplomatic effort to isolate Tehran. Lantos, that pious old fraud, inserted language in his bill that pays minimal lip service to the idea of resolving this dispute through diplomacy – while the rest of his bill is clearly designed to sink diplomatic initiatives that are bound to run aground on the rocks of sanctions. Lantos really is a piece of work. Here he is insulting Jacques Chirac and calling former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder a "political prostitute" for having the foresight to oppose our disastrous Iraqi adventure. Of Schroeder, Lantos barked: "I referred to him as a political prostitute, now that he's taking big checks from [Russian President Vladimir] Putin. But the sex workers in my district objected, so I will no longer use that phrase." The respectful use of the term "sex workers" indicates Lantos really has no moral objections to prostitution, he merely objects to the nationality of Schroeder's customers. Yet Schroeder's employment in an oil-gas venture that is 51 percent owned by Gazprom no more makes Schroeder a Russian prostitute than big campaign contributions to Lantos from the Washington PAC make him a whore for Israel. Presumably, Schroeder believes trade with Russia is in Germany's (and Europe's) interests, just as Lantos thinks America's current policy of unconditional support for Israel is good for America. As for Chirac, Lantos was at his most bombastic. The former French president, said Lantos, "should go down to the Normandy beaches. He should see those endless rows of white marble crosses and stars of David representing young Americans who gave their lives for the freedom of France." Lantos should go down to Walter Reed Army Hospital and see those endless rows of wounded soldiers maimed in an unwinnable, futile war that he voted to authorize and continues to support. He should go visit this guy and come back and tell us that he was right about Iraq, just as he is about Iran. The coming war with Iran is brought to you by the Dick Cheney wing of the Democratic Party, in collaboration, of course, with the Dick Cheney wing of the GOP. With Lantos one of their chief spokesmen and Hillary Clinton their designated presidential candidate, the Demo-Cheneyites are determined to pull off what their Republican counterparts lack the political capital to accomplish. If the shooting starts under Bush's watch – as is very likely – then the Democrats can blame the Republicans even as they pave the way for war politically, diplomatically, and in every other way possible. As the Democratic presidential candidates dither over Iraq, pretending to oppose the war while continuing the funding without conditions or meaningful oversight, they all agree that a U.S. attack on Iran is "on the table" as long as Tehran maintains its right to develop nuclear power for ostensibly peaceful purposes. Furthermore, the Iraq war and the looming possibility of a conflict with Iran are no longer separable. As I have said numerous times in this space, the Iraq war cannot be contained within Iraq's borders, and the "spillover effect" is bound to result in a border incident that could spark a wider conflict. As Rep. Ron Paul has warned, a Gulf-of-Tonkin-like incident in the Persian Gulf or on the Iran-Iraq border could easily be manufactured by an administration hell-bent on war – and perhaps we are seeing the first signs of it here. The conflict, once initiated, will not be restricted to the Persian Gulf region and the long Iran-Iraq border but will break out all over the Middle East, erupting in Lebanon and rippling outward all the way to Pakistan in a seismic wave that could topple every regime in the region. In this way, the administration's goal of "regime change" throughout the Middle East will be accomplished and the neocons' "domino theory" confirmed – albeit not in a way they ever intended. You'll note that the White House and its pet generals are nowadays referring to the Iraqi insurgency as "al-Qaeda," a neat rhetorical sleight-of-hand that prefigures what may happen once a regional war – the neocons' vaunted "World War IV" – gets started: the ultimate empowerment of America's deadliest enemies. With a pro-al-Qaeda regime ensconced in Islamabad, the prospect of nuclear-armed terrorists – the ultimate bogeyman conjured up by the War Party – will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. In the end, we are confronted with the utter craziness of the War Party and its agenda in the Middle East. This pathological condition was recently reconfirmed by Johann Hari's account of a National Review-sponsored cruise to Puerto Vallarta featuring Norman Podhoretz and Bill Buckley, along with a boatload of neocons and well-heeled red-state-fascist types on board. The Pod Man and Buckley nearly came to blows over the war question, when Buckley asked Poddy if it didn't bother him that the famed "weapons of mass destruction" were nowhere to be found in Iraq. "There were WMD, and they were shipped to Syria," snapped the Pod Man. Syria? Is he serious? I'm afraid he is… Continuing his rant, the Pod Man avers: "This picture of a country in total chaos with no security is false. It has been a triumph. It couldn't have gone better." Better – for whom? Well, for Israeli hardliners, to start with, who now have 150,000 American soldiers in the Middle East to set against another of their mortal enemies. Better for the neocons, who still control the commanding heights of U.S. policymaking centers in Washington and who are now within reach of their goal of "regime change" throughout the region. As for the rest of us, including poor Buckley, who's had his own magazine (and movement) hijacked by the Pod Man and the neocon pod-people – "I have lots of ex-friends on the left; it looks like I'm going to have some ex-friends on the right, too" – if you're sick of war, you're no friend of the Pod Man's. If you're sick of the Pod Man – who is engaged in a friendly competition with Joshua Muravchik for the title of warmonger-in-chief of the bomb-Iran crowd – then get in line, because even the most hard-core conservatives, who once supported the president's relentless policy of aggression in the Middle East, are now having second thoughts. Buckley's face-off with Podhoretz dramatizes, in concentrated form, the slow burn of Republican members of Congress who fear for their seats and the future of the GOP as the neocons drag them down to political oblivion. How long will Republicans, and conservatives in general, consent to carry the millstone of neoconservatism around their necks? Make no mistake about it: we are headed straight for another war in the Middle East, and it is going to be a doozy. The Democrats will protest that they never wanted it, even as they facilitate the war plans of this administration to the nth degree. Don't dare imagine that a change of administrations will avert the coming war with Iran: a Democratic administration in power will just mean that we'll have Cheneyism without Cheney, at least when it comes to Iran. The Iranians claim they aren't building weapons, only developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes because they want to export more of their oil. Yet who could blame them if they were building nukes – after being denounced as the main spoke on the "axis of evil" by the president of the United States and threatened with a heavy U.S. military buildup in Iraq and the Gulf? They once did offer to negotiate over not only their nuclear program but also their support for Hezbollah and radical Palestinian factions – but this offer was rudely rejected at the behest of Cheney and his cohorts. This offer should be reexamined and revived: it could and should provide the basis for a negotiated settlement of all outstanding issues between Washington and Tehran. The United States lived with Soviet nukes aimed at American cities for 50-plus years: we can live with Iranian nukes aimed at Israeli cities (and Israeli nukes targeting Iranian cities). The alternative is war – and a regional conflagration that will have economic and geopolitical consequences that can only be catastrophic for America.
|


am standing waist-deep in the Pacific Ocean, indulging in the polite chit-chat beloved by vacationing Americans. A sweet elderly lady from Los Angeles is sitting on the rocks nearby, telling me dreamily about her son. "Is he your only child?" I ask. "Yes," she answers. "Do you have a child back in England?" she asks me. No, I say. Her face darkens. "You'd better start," she says. "The Muslims are breeding. Soon, they'll have the whole of Europe."
I am getting used to such moments, when holiday geniality bleeds into--well, I'm not sure exactly what. I am traveling on a bright-white cruise ship with two restaurants, five bars, and 500 readers of National Review. Here, the Iraq war has been "an amazing success." Global warming is not happening. Europe is becoming a new Caliphate. And I have nowhere to run.
From time to time, National Review--the bible of American conservatism--organizes a cruise for its readers. Last November, I paid $1,200 to join them. The rules I imposed on myself were simple: If any of the conservative cruisers asked who I was, I answered honestly, telling them I was a journalist. But, mostly, I just tried to blend in--and find out what conservatives say when they think the rest of us aren't listening.
arrive at the dockside in San Diego on a Saturday afternoon and stare up at the Oosterdam, our home for the next seven days. We guests have been told to gather for a cocktail reception on a deck near the top of the ship. There are no big hugs or warm kisses at this gathering. This is a place of starchy introductions. Men approach one another with puffed-out chests and sturdy handshakes. Women are greeted with a single kiss on the cheek. Anything more, of course, would be French.
I adjust and stiffly greet the first man I see. He is a judge, he tells me, with the craggy self- important charm that slowly consumes any judge. He is from Canada, he declares (a little more apologetically), and is the founding president of "Canadians Against Suicide Bombing." Would there be many members of "Canadians for Suicide Bombing?" I ask. Dismayed, he suggests that yes, yes there would.
A bell rings somewhere, and we are all beckoned to dinner. We have been assigned random seats, which will change each night. We will, the pub- licity pack promises, each dine with at least one National Review speaker during our trip.
To my left, I find a middle-aged Floridian with a neat beard. To my right are two elderly New Yorkers who look and sound like late-era Dorothy Parker, minus the alcohol poisoning. They live on Park Avenue, they explain in precise Northern tones. "You must live near the U.N. building," the Floridian says to one of the ladies after the entrée is served. Yes, she responds, shaking her head wearily. "They should suicide-bomb that place," he says. They all chuckle gently.
The conversation ebbs back to friendly chit-chat. So, you're a European, one of the Park Avenue ladies says, before offering witty commentaries on the cities she's visited. Her companion adds, "I went to Paris, and it was so lovely." Her face darkens: "But then you think--it's surrounded by Muslims." The first lady nods: "They're out there, and they're coming." Emboldened, the bearded Floridian wags a finger and says, "Down the line, we're not going to bail out the French again." He mimes picking up a phone and shouts into it, "I can't hear you, Jacques! What's that? The Muslims are doing what to you? I can't hear you!"
Now that this barrier has been broken--everyone agrees the Muslims are devouring the French, and everyone agrees it's funny--the usual suspects are quickly rounded up. Jimmy Carter is "almost a traitor." John McCain is "crazy" because of "all that torture." One of the Park Avenue ladies declares that she gets on her knees every day to "thank God for Fox News." As the wine reaches the Floridian, he sits back and announces, "This cruise is the best money I ever spent."
he next morning, I warily wander into the Vista Lounge--a Vegas-style showroom--for the first of the trip's seminars: a discussion intended to exhume the conservative corpse and discover its cause of death on the black, black night of November 7, 2006.
There is something strange about this discussion, and it takes me a few moments to realize exactly what it is. All the tropes conservatives usually deny in public--that Iraq is another Vietnam, that Bush is fighting a class war on behalf of the rich--are embraced on this shining ship in the middle of the ocean. Yes, they concede, we are fighting another Vietnam; and this time we won't let the weak-kneed liberals lose it. "It's customary to say we lost the Vietnam war, but who's 'we'?" Dinesh D'Souza asks angrily. "The left won by demanding America's humiliation." On this ship, there are no Viet Cong, no three million dead. There is only liberal treachery. Yes, D'Souza says, in a swift shift to domestic politics, "of course" Republican politics is "about class. Republicans are the party of winners, Democrats are the party of losers."
The panel nods, but it doesn't want to stray from Iraq. Robert Bork, Ronald Reagan's one-time nominee to the Supreme Court, mumbles from beneath low-hanging jowls: "The coverage of this war is unbelievable. Even Fox News is unbelievable. You'd think we're the only ones dying. Enemy casualties aren't covered. We're doing an excellent job killing them."
Then, with a judder, the panel runs momentarily aground. Rich Lowry, the preppy, handsome 38-year-old editor of National Review, announces, "The American public isn't concluding we're losing in Iraq for any irrational reason. They're looking at the cold, hard facts." The Vista Lounge is, as one, perplexed. Lowry continues, "I wish it was true that, because we're a superpower, we can't lose. But it's not."
No one argues with him. They just look away, in the same manner that people avoid glancing at a crazy person yelling at a bus stop. Then they return to hyperbole and accusations of treachery against people like their editor. The aging historian Bernard Lewis declares, "The election in the U.S. is being seen by [the bin Ladenists] as a victory on a par with the collapse of the Soviet Union. We should be prepared for whatever comes next." This is why the guests paid up to $6,000. This is what they came for. They give him a wheezing, stooping ovation and break for coffee.
fracture-line in the lumbering certainty of American conservatism is opening right before my eyes. Following the break, Norman Podhoretz and William Buckley--two of the grand old men of the Grand Old Party--begin to feud. Podhoretz will not stop speaking--"I have lots of ex-friends on the left; it looks like I'm going to have some ex-friends on the right, too," he rants--and Buckley says to the chair, "Just take the mike, there's no other way." He says it with a smile, but with heavy eyes.
Podhoretz and Buckley now inhabit opposite poles of post-September 11 American conservatism, and they stare at wholly different Iraqs. Podhoretz is the Brooklyn-born, street-fighting kid who traveled through a long phase of left- liberalism to a pugilistic belief in America's power to redeem the world, one bomb at a time. Today, he is a bristling gray ball of aggression, here to declare that the Iraq war has been "an amazing success." He waves his fist and declaims, "There were WMD, and they were shipped to Syria. ... This picture of a country in total chaos with no security is false. It has been a triumph. It couldn't have gone better." He wants more wars, and fast. He is "certain" Bush will bomb Iran, and "thank God" for that.
Buckley is an urbane old reactionary, drunk on doubts. He founded National Review in 1955--when conservatism was viewed in polite society as a mental affliction--and he has always been skeptical of appeals to "the people," preferring the eternal top-down certainties of Catholicism. He united with Podhoretz in mutual hatred of Godless Communism, but, slouching into his eighties, he possesses a worldview that is ill-suited for the fight to bring democracy to the Muslim world. He was a ghostly presence on the cruise at first, appearing only briefly to shake a few hands. But now he has emerged, and he is fighting.
"Aren't you embarrassed by the absence of these weapons?" Buckley snaps at Podhoretz. He has just explained that he supported the war reluctantly, because Dick Cheney convinced him Saddam Hussein had WMD primed to be fired. "No," Podhoretz replies. "As I say, they were shipped to Syria. During Gulf war one, the entire Iraqi air force was hidden in the deserts in Iran." He says he is "heartbroken" by this "rise of defeatism on the right." He adds, apropos of nothing, "There was nobody better than Don Rumsfeld. This defeatist talk only contributes to the impression we are losing, when I think we're winning."
The audience cheers Podhoretz. The nuanced doubts of Bill Buckley leave them confused. Doesn't he sound like the liberal media? Later, over dinner, a tablemate from Denver calls Buckley "a coward." His wife nods and says, "Buckley's an old man," tapping her head with her finger to suggest dementia.
decide to track down Buckley and Podhoretz separately and ask them for interviews. Bill is sitting forlornly in his cabin, scribbling in a notebook. In 2005, at an event celebrating National Review's fiftieth birthday, President Bush described today's American conservatives as "Bill's children." I ask him if he feels like a parent whose kids grew up to be serial killers. He smiles slightly, and his blue eyes appear to twinkle. Then he sighs, "The answer is no. Because what animated the conservative core for forty years was the Soviet menace, plus the rise of dogmatic socialism. That's pretty well gone."
This does not feel like an optimistic defense of his brood, but it's a theme he returns to repeatedly: The great battles of his life are already won. Still, he ruminates over what his old friend Ronald Reagan would have made of Iraq. "I think the prudent Reagan would have figured here, and the prudent Reagan would have shunned a commitment of the kind that we are now engaged in. ... I think he would have attempted to find some sort of assurance that any exposure by the United States would be exposure to a challenge the dimensions of which we could predict." Lest liberals be too eager to adopt the Gipper as one of their own, Buckley agrees approvingly that Reagan's approach would have been to "find a local strongman" to rule Iraq.
A few floors away, Podhoretz tells me he is losing his voice, "which will make some people very happy." Then he croaks out the standard-issue Wolfowitz line about how, after September 11, the United States had to introduce democracy to the Middle East in order to change the political culture that produced the mass murderers. For somebody who declares democracy to be his goal, he is remarkably blasé about the fact that 80 percent of Iraqis want U.S. troops to leave their country, according to the latest polls. "I don't much care," he says, batting the question away. He goes on to insist that "nobody was tortured in Abu Ghraib or Guantánamo" and that Bush is "a hero." He is, like most people on this cruise, certain the administration will attack Iran.
"I keep telling people we are in World War Four," Podhoretz declares. He fumes at Buckley, George Will, and the other apostate conservatives who refuse to see sense. He again declares victory. And for a moment, here in the Mexican breeze, it is as though, thousands of miles away, Baghdad is not bleeding.
encounter other ghosts of conservatism past wandering the ship as well. From the pool, I see John O'Sullivan, former adviser to Margaret Thatcher and former editor of National Review. And, one morning on the deck, I discover Kenneth Starr, looking like he has stepped out of a long-forgotten 1990s newsreel. His face is round and unlined, like that of an immense, contented baby. As I stare at it, all my repressed bewilderment rises, and I ask: Mr. Starr, do you feel ashamed that, while Osama bin Laden was plotting to murder nearly 3,000 American citizens, you brought the government to a standstill over a few consensual blow-jobs?
He smiles through his teeth and says, in his soft, somnambulant voice, "I am entirely at rest with the process. The House of Representatives worked its will, the Senate worked its will, the chief justice of the United States presided. The constitutional process worked admirably." It's an oddly meek defense, and, the more I challenge him, the more legalistic he becomes, each answer a variation on, "It wasn't my fault."
Several days later, the nautical counter-revolution has docked in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, where passengers will clamber overboard into a nation they want to wall off behind a 1,000-mile fence. One expresses horror at my intention to find a local street kid to show me around, exclaiming, "Do you want to die?" D'Souza summarizes the prevailing sentiment by unveiling what he modestly calls "D'Souza's law of immigration": An immigrant's quality is "proportional to the distance traveled to get to the United States." In other words: Asians trump Latinos.
After wandering Puerto Vallarta without bodily harm, I return for dinner with my special National Review guest: Kate O'Beirne. She's an impossibly tall blonde with the voice of a 1930s screwball star and the arguments of an 1890s Victorian patriarch. She inveighs against feminism and "women who make the world worse" in quick quips. She is sitting among adoring fans with her husband, Jim, who quickly announces that he is Donald Rumsfeld's personnel director. "People keep asking what I'm doing here, with him being fired and all," he says. "But the cruise has been arranged for a long time."
The familiar routine of the dinners--getting-to-know-you chit-chat, followed by raging right-wing echo chamber--is accelerating. Tonight, there is explicit praise for a fascist dictator before the entrée has arrived. I drop the news that there are moves in Germany to have Rumsfeld extradited to face war crimes charges. A red-faced man who looks like an egg with a moustache glued on grumbles, "If the Germans think they can take responsibility for the world, I don't care about German courts. Bomb them." I begin to cite the Pinochet precedent, and O'Beirne snaps, "Treating Don Rumsfeld like Pinochet is disgusting." Egg Man pounds his fist on the table: "Treating Pinochet like that is disgusting. Pinochet is a hero. He saved Chile." "Exactly," adds O'Beirne's husband. "And he privatized Social Security."
The table nods solemnly before marching onward to Topic A: the billion-strong swarm of Muslims who are poised to take over the world. The idea that Europe is being "taken over" is the unifying theme of this cruise. Some people go on singles' cruises, some on ballroom-dancing cruises. This is the Muslims Are Coming cruise. Everyone thinks it. Everyone knows it. And the man most responsible for this insight is sitting only a few tables down: Mark Steyn. He is wearing sunglasses on top of his head and a bright shirt. Steyn's thesis in his new book, America Alone, is simple: The "European races"--i.e., white people--"are too self-absorbed to breed," but the Muslims are multiplying quickly. The inevitable result will be "large-scale evacuation operations circa 2015" as Europe is ceded to Al Qaeda and "Greater France remorselessly evolve
into Greater Bosnia." He offers a light smearing of dubious demographic figures--he needs to turn 20 million European Muslims into more than 150 million in nine years, which is a lot of humping--to "prove" his case.
But facts, figures, and doubt are not on the itinerary of this cruise. With one or two exceptions, the passengers discuss "the Muslims" as a homogenous, sharia-seeking block--already with near-total control of Europe. Over the week, I am asked nine times--I counted--when I am fleeing Europe's encroaching Muslim population for the safety of the United States.
At one of the seminars, a panelist says anti-Americanism comes from both directions in a grasping pincer movement--"The Muslims condemn us for being decadent; the Europeans condemn us for not being decadent enough." Midge Decter, Norman Podhoretz's wife, yells, "The Muslims are right, the Europeans are wrong!" And, instantly, Jay Nordlinger, National Review's managing editor and the panel's chair, says, "I'm afraid a lot of the Europeans are Muslim, Midge." The audience cheers. Somebody shouts, "You tell 'em, Jay!"
He tells 'em. Decter tells 'em. Steyn tells 'em. On this cruise, everyone tells 'em--and, thanks to my European passport, tells me. It is, unsurprisingly, the last thing I hear at the end of the voyage. I'm back on the docks of San Diego, watching the tireless champions of the overdog filter past and say their formal goodbyes. As I turn my back on the ship for the last time, I feel the judge I met the first day place his arm affectionately on my shoulder. "We have written off Britain to the Muslims," he says. "Come to America."
Johann Hari is a columnist for The Independent newspaper in London.