Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Right’s Left Turn
FrontPage Magazine ^ | 5 OCTOBER 2005 | Jacob Laksin

Posted on 10/05/2005 1:55:23 AM PDT by rdb3

The Right’s Left Turn
By Jacob Laksin
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 5, 2005


In late September, as throngs of placard-wielding protestors were descending on the nation’s capital, Lew Rockwell, the nominally libertarian proprietor of the website LewRockwell.com, was holding forth at an anti-war rally convened by the far-left Alabama Peace and Justice Coalition (APJC).

 

That the APJC’s rallying cry – “Spend money for human needs, not war!” – was of questionable accordance with principled libertarianism’s aversion to government largesse, didn’t seem to phase Rockwell, who joined a roster of speakers with an altogether different view about the proper role of the federal government. “I was aware that I was a token non-leftist speaking to a largely leftist audience,” Rockwell later explained on his website. Nonetheless, he noted that, despite some political differences with the gathered crowd, his “speech seemed well received.”

 

And no wonder. With its foam-flecked denunciations of the United States for “the evil of imperialism, the immorality of enslaving a foreign people, the malice of colonialism, and the intolerable brutality of authoritarianism,” its paranoiac allusions to a dissent-crushing “state,” and its unelaborated call for “resistance,” Rockwell’s speech could have been given by any of the more literate ringleaders of the anti-war left.

 

It might be supposed that Rockwell’s base of operations, LewRockwell.com, a gathering ground for a querulous cult of libertarian-anarchist true-believers, would be less amenable to the APJC’s members. On the contrary, a left-wing extremist would find much to admire among the site’s standard fare. Rockwell describes it as “unapologetically idiosyncratic.” That is putting it mildly. Although occasionally plumping for some eccentric ventures—LewRockwell.com is an enthusiastic supporter of the cause of the Confederate South—the default mode of the site is unsubtle ant-Americanism clothed in the garb of “anti-state” libertarianism.

 

Certainly that’s Rockwell’s stock-in-trade. In the disturbed worldview of Rockwell and his ideology-blinkered acolytes, the U.S. government, far from representing the democratic consensus of the American people, is the world’s most oppressive regime. “We are talking about the greatest centralized power on the globe, the world's largest, most well-armed, and most dangerous government, the only government to have ever used nuclear weapons against civilians and the government that has invaded more countries than any other in modern times,” complained Rockwell in June of 2004. Rockwell was still stuck on that theme one year later, even going so far as to endorse the caricature of America as the avatar of the Evil Empire. Americans need to face the reality that most of the world sees our nation as the new evil empire, and many people in the Gulf region are dedicated to making sure that the Iraq War is the last hurrah for American militarism,” he wrote in June of 2005. “How tragic to admit that the analogy is not entirely implausible.”

 

Rockwell’s underlings are even more candid about their contempt for the U.S. The American-led war in Iraq has afforded them the occasion to vent their hostility. For evidence, one need look no further than a December 2004 entry on LewRockwell.com’s blog by contributor Mike Rogers. In the course of cheering the terrorist holdouts in Fallujah, Rogers put up a picture of a bombed-out American tank. In case the message was too muddled, Rogers appended it with a caption: “A toast to the defeat of the evil empire - A prayer for the poor fallen souls.” One might have been forgiven for wondering whether the poor souls in question were American troops or the terrorist diehards responsible for their deaths.

 

More explicit still was LewRockwell.com columnist Karen Kwiatkowski. In a June 2005 column entitled “Unleashing the Resistance,” Kwiatkowski issued a blanket endorsement of the terrorist insurgency in Iraq. “They don’t understand everything that is happening, but most Iraqis have decided to pursue one or more of the countless paths of resistance to the state. All are qualified to resist. None are excluded.” Not only that at, but Kwiatkowski advised American opponents of U.S. foreign policy to take their cues from the insurgents: “We might take a lesson from the growing Iraqi insurgency and the response of that nation nearly destroyed by our pretext-laden invasion and the American neo-Jacobin possession of that country,” she wrote. Kwiatkowski declined to offer specifics. She noted, however, that “my gentle thoughts are increasingly turning to murder.”

 

In common with the more unhinged elements of the far left, LewRockwell.com is committed to propagating the notion that the U.S. is in the grip of a fascist government. Again, Rockwell himself is among the more ardent spokesmen for that view. His political opponents, he insists, are “fascisti,” while anyone with the temerity to voice support for American policies is dismissed as one of the “storm troopers of the regime.” As for the 62 million Americans who voted to reelect George W. Bush, they are—you guessed it—the proponents of “red-state fascism.” Lest such comments be dismissed as mere overheated sloganeering, Rockwell stresses that this “not just rhetoric.” Rather, Rockwell urges his readers to recognize that fascism is a reality, not just a smear term.”

 

Rockwell’s certitude about the essentially fascistic character of the Bush administration has prompted him to embrace an unlikely ally: the far left. The alliance is contracted unambiguously in a December 2004 column Rockwell penned for his website. In it, he urged his libertarian adherents to make common cause with the anti-war left. “In short, what we have alive in the US is an updated and Americanized fascism,” Rockwell explained. The solution, he added, “requires that we face the reality of the current threat forthrightly by extending more rhetorical tolerance leftward and less rightward. What is the most pressing and urgent threat to freedom that we face in our time? It is not from the left.”

 

In the ensuing months, Rockwell and his site began the migration into the territory of far left hysteria. By July of 2004, Rockwell had discovered a full-grown affection for the left. “I have this in common with NPR, Michael Moore, the Black Caucus, and assorted other grasping, complaining, anti-capitalist victim lobbies: a burning desire to see George Bush's fingers pried loose from the levers of power,” he wrote.

 

A convinced believer that the invasion of Afghanistan was “wholly unwarranted,” and that the American-led war to oust Saddam Hussein was “a malevolent hoax,” Rockwell unsurprisingly found much to appreciate about Moore’s conspiratorial documentary, Fahrenheit 9-11, calling it “must-see” movie. LewRockwell.com accordingly ran several flattering reviews of the film. One “conservative critique” of Fahrenheit congratulated Moore for portraying President Bush as “the figurehead of a murderous power elite.” Similarly, a comment on the site’s blog gleefully hailed Moore’s propagandistic assault on the Republican Party, raving that “[t]he film portrays The Party of Lincoln as it always has been: A cabal of money-and-power hungry political hacks enriching themselves through the auspices of the state…”

 

With the presidential election in the offing, Rockwell encouraged readers in a September 2004 column to “look left.” There they could “find fascinating war revisionism, courageous defenses of the innocently detained, principled stands for constitutional rights, well argued exposes of the high and mighty.” How any libertarian worthy of his name could justify defending the most fanatical enemies of civil liberties was not a question that violated Rockwell’s conscience. Instead, in words that would not have been out of place on the pages of the Nation, Rockwell sneered at the “supposedly rightist president who wages war, cuts taxes, and shovels other people’s money at corporate fatcats.”

 

Perhaps mindful that his relentless thumbs-up to the far left’s agenda could alienate libertarian supporters, Rockwell sought to allay their fears in a March 2005 column. Mistrust of the far left, he declared, was misguided. “I used to complain about the universities and their indoctrination of students in leftist theory,” Rockwell explained. “But these days, one has to be grateful that there are at least some pockets of resistance remaining.” So there would be no question about where he stood on an alliance with the left, Rockwell added, “I’m wary of all formal alliances but I do think libertarians need to be strategically flexible and entrepreneurial in finding intellectual allies, even if it means admitting that far better arguments are being made by CounterPunch than National Review.” A subhead that appeared in the column said it all: “Rethinking the Left, for Now”.

Seen against this background, the latest addition to the Lewrockwell.com clan—grieving mother turned anti-war left standard bearer Cindy Sheehan—should not be shocking. In September, the site gave space to an angry rant by Sheehan, in which she delivered herself of the view that the “aggression on Iraq is illegal, immoral and appallingly unnecessary,” and called on supporters to become “extremists.” Come November, Sheehan will be a prominent speaker at a benefit conference for LewRockwell.com. Among the subjects of discussion will be “The Camp Casey revolution and the tipping point for peace” and “How hurricanes and the ‘War on Terror’ embolden the US police state.” Less discussion, one presumes, will focus on how a supposedly libertarian website has become a willing dupe of the far left.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: antiwarright; lewrockwell; lewsers; libertarianism; libertarians; rockwell
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last
Okay, admit it. You thought this was against President Bush, didn't you?

Sike!

Anyway, far-Right, meet far-Left. And to think that they call me crazy for saying this.


If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!

1 posted on 10/05/2005 1:55:24 AM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rdb3
Great post!

If you're not with us, you're against us Rockwell et.al.

A coalition of 62+ million and growing.

2 posted on 10/05/2005 2:06:51 AM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdb3

This man is obviously an idiot and his with his world view he will never go further than being watched by a few other looneys.


3 posted on 10/05/2005 2:25:52 AM PDT by bilhosty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bilhosty
This man is obviously an idiot and his with his world view he will never go further than being watched by a few other looneys.

Maybe. There was a time here when Rockwell was widely respected by some FReepers.


If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!

4 posted on 10/05/2005 2:28:54 AM PDT by rdb3 (NON-conservative, American exceptionalist here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rdb3

The Rockwellians joined the enemy a long time ago. The Rockwelians, Buchananites, paleocons, et al, all aligned themselves with France/Germany/Russia and Iraq against America when we went to war against Saddam Hussein. No surprise to me that they'd join in with the America hating Communist backed International ANSWER and the PinkOs. Traitors all.


5 posted on 10/05/2005 2:30:09 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
The Rockwellians joined the enemy a long time ago. The Rockwelians, Buchananites, paleocons, et al, all aligned themselves with France/Germany/Russia and Iraq against America when we went to war against Saddam Hussein. No surprise to me that they'd join in with the America hating Communist backed International ANSWER and the PinkOs. Traitors all.

It's no secret that I can't stand paleos, be they paleocons or paleolibertarians.


If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!

6 posted on 10/05/2005 2:33:09 AM PDT by rdb3 (NON-conservative, American exceptionalist here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rdb3

Maybe. There was a time here when Rockwell was widely respected by some FReepers.
----
Garbage. He has always been in the tinfoil hat camp. But I agree, his followers and website writers were around to promote the site and its articles. But they were few and far between.

It is like saying that posts from du are "widely respected by some FReepers". If some means the poster, then it is a dumb statement.


7 posted on 10/05/2005 3:18:11 AM PDT by KeyWest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: KeyWest
Garbage. He has always been in the tinfoil hat camp. But I agree, his followers and website writers were around to promote the site and its articles. But they were few and far between.

It's not "garbage." The main people who talked up Rockwell's site were the same ones who viewed Raimondo with respect. I remember that very well.


If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!

8 posted on 10/05/2005 3:37:00 AM PDT by rdb3 (NON-conservative, American exceptionalist here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I find the Libertarians as short sighted as a cripple supporter of Adolf Hitler in the 1930's.
They both have the same goal of world domination, only Adolf has plans for you and your kind that you seem to have missed.
The moral is don't be so dogmatic that your short term friends are really you long term enemies.
9 posted on 10/05/2005 3:39:38 AM PDT by Recon Dad (The Hallmark JDAM - "For those who want to send only the very best")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Recon Dad
The moral is don't be so dogmatic that your short term friends are really you long term enemies.

That reminds me of what my pastor once said in a warning. He said don't be so heavenly minded that you're no earthly good.


If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!

10 posted on 10/05/2005 3:50:06 AM PDT by rdb3 (NON-conservative, American exceptionalist here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rdb3

I'm all for limited government and many of the things the Libertarians stand for. Just remember the paranoid person has enemies too.


11 posted on 10/05/2005 4:01:20 AM PDT by Recon Dad (The Hallmark JDAM - "For those who want to send only the very best")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rdb3

"It's no secret that I can't stand paleos, be they paleocons or paleolibertarians".

I thought I was alone (here on FR) in this line of thinking! Thanks!!!

LLS


12 posted on 10/05/2005 4:03:23 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
That two-thirds that continuously polled in favor of and support of the bj commander have to come from some place.
13 posted on 10/05/2005 4:04:20 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
Thanks for posting, rdb3. I read this early this morning at frontpagemag.org.

I do recall blips over the past 12 years when Lew's columns were educational. The problem I've always had with the Libertarian platform is that so much of what is "great on paper" is simply not realistic in practice. When something is not realistic in practice, it goes into the category of John O'Sullivan's great maxim: Anything not intrinsically right-leaning will inevitably list leftward.

Another inherent problem with Libertarianism, as I see it? "Self-centeredness". There's no concern for others, or in living civilly amid a community. It is inherently, a "what I want" philosophy which undergirds the Libertarian platform.

Libertarianism *can* work but only if ABSOLUTELY everyone adheres to the tenets of Libertarianism. What does this spell? The flipside of potential tyranny.

Socialism, OTOH, also follows the same marks of Libertarianism but with difference -- in Libertarianism, individuals must pull their "own" weight; In Socialism, there has to be a worker/provider class and then the receipients or beneficiaries of the worker/provider class.

IOW, the shortform translation:

Libertarianism: The Kingdom of Self

Socialism: The Kingdom of the Collective "Self".

14 posted on 10/05/2005 4:41:14 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdb3

I too remember those days and you are correct it isn't "garbage" that more than a few supported Rockwell and Justin RaimondoCano.


15 posted on 10/05/2005 4:45:53 AM PDT by ImpBill (Nothing More!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ImpBill
I too remember those days and you are correct it isn't "garbage" that more than a few supported Rockwell and Justin RaimondoCano.

Thank you. I knew it wasn't "garbage" because I was here when I read their nonsense.


If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!

16 posted on 10/05/2005 4:47:19 AM PDT by rdb3 (NON-conservative, American exceptionalist here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Alia
Socialism, OTOH, also follows the same marks of Libertarianism but with difference -- in Libertarianism, individuals must pull their "own" weight; In Socialism, there has to be a worker/provider class and then the receipients or beneficiaries of the worker/provider class.

I haven't compared libertarianism and socialism. I'll look into that.

But my philosophy about libertarianism is that it, too, is a philosophy and can in no way be a self-sustaining political movement.


If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!

17 posted on 10/05/2005 4:51:50 AM PDT by rdb3 (NON-conservative, American exceptionalist here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: rdb3
I agree with you: Libertarianism is a philosophy. It can be a way of "life" but only if everyone around you (including the elected) agree with the "Libertarian" philosophy.

Long-term? Libertarianism very much can lead to anarchy, taken the philosophy to its longer-term logistical endpoint. Why? At the center is "self". So, next door to you lives another "self", and this self has bigger guns than you do, and wants to make you subsurvient to "his" "self". In the Libertarian perspective, there are no intervenors, no laws, except that every person is responsible for the freedoms, wants and wishes of "themselves".

Which is why everytime I read another "evil Republicans with their BIG GUNS" invading countries.. I can only shake my head at their delusions. For this is exactly what Libertarian philosophy would posit -- to get bigger guns to defend one's self, property, family.

But, most Libertarians refuse to discuss the logistical endpoint sum of "libertarianism". No. They wish to stay stuck on the "laissez-faire" line. I like the "laissez-faire" line to a point.

Wikipedia: Laissez-faire

19 posted on 10/05/2005 5:15:29 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
Okay, admit it. You thought this was against President Bush, didn't you?

I admit it. You got me.

20 posted on 10/05/2005 5:17:15 AM PDT by NeoCaveman (trust but verify)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdb3

Lew Rockwell has no aversion whatsoever to printing trash from communists, fascists and even Nazi sympathizers (Noam Chomsky - look it up in Frontpage magazine for details) while completely refusing to identify the Marxist connections of these so-called writers.

There's no excuse not to ID communists and call them what they are.

At best he's a kook.

During my more sinister moods I believe him to be a Marxist plant roaming the net and perverting the concept of national self-defense.


21 posted on 10/05/2005 5:20:55 AM PDT by sergeantdave (Member of Arbor Day Foundation, travelling the country and destroying open space)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alia
Which is why everytime I read another "evil Republicans with their BIG GUNS" invading countries.. I can only shake my head at their delusions. For this is exactly what Libertarian philosophy would posit -- to get bigger guns to defend one's self, property, family.

Some former paleolibertarian FReepers used to argue that it was unconstitutional for us to have a standing army. In fact, one of those world-class idiots said that our Marines, airmen, sailors, and soldiers were on welfare! Why? Just because they were in the military and their salary came from Uncle Sam.


If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!

22 posted on 10/05/2005 5:21:53 AM PDT by rdb3 (NON-conservative, American exceptionalist here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
lol! "unconstitutional for us to have a standing army". LOL! I guess they only posit that each household is its own standing army. Guess if a town were under attack, they'd have to argue against these families coming together to defend themselves.

The US Military is exactly the logical extension of this.

In re the socialism charge against the military. This subject has always held great fascination for me since I was a teenager. I heard it "way" back then given where I was raised.

To a point, the charge is correct; but its a stretch. Yes, the military does have to have what appears to be a socialistic "flavor" in order to have "unit cohesion". And yes, we do pay taxes to pay those in the military to defend us.

When I hear that argument in the here-and-now, I usually ask the "spewer" to tell me what defense of me -- those on the public dole are providing -- how do any of these defend or further my liberties and freedoms.

They get upset, and want to change the subject.

I compare a homeless person getting benefits from Uncle Sam to the military (defending my liberties) -- and they get hysterical that I would dare compare the two.

This tells me, how little thought is involved in what they spew about the military being "socialist". lol.

I haven't heard a single story about anyone on the dole going down to New Orleans to help out, have you?

Libertarians have "big gun" envy, and Socialists have "envy" of everyone and everything, period.

23 posted on 10/05/2005 5:31:30 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Alia
lol! "unconstitutional for us to have a standing army". LOL! I guess they only posit that each household is its own standing army.

That was exactly one of those idiot's argument! I'm not playing.


If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!

24 posted on 10/05/2005 5:36:11 AM PDT by rdb3 (NON-conservative, American exceptionalist here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
Amazing non-argument, no?

In the late 70s, I came across a book which I found useful: The Art of Selfishness (originally authored in 1977)

Good book in re interpersonal relationships and life scope. Principles taken to the large level have far more merit and usefulness than the Libertarian philosophy encompasses. IMHO, of course. There's constructive selfishness, and then there's "stuck on stupid".

George Bush is President. He has nominated Harriet Miers. The "trust me/check out my record" issue is one that mostly Libertarian (or leaning, thereof) are having a hard time with.

The left is railing about cronynism. When in fact, the President is rightfully exercising the options which go with his position.

When D-Carole Mosely-Braun, IL, with her "manager" were "nailed" with fraud (embezzlement), former President Clinton gave her the ambassadorship to New Zealand. Did the left "utter"? Not a word.

Conversely, libertarians did. They were livid, alongside Republicans and conservatives.

It's sad to see the Libertarians taking this perspective on the WOT; they've only undercut their own philosophy. But perhaps, since there is actual thinking going on within the Libertarian party (at times).. perhaps they are hoping to begin encouraging the libbies to think more, hate less.

Just a thought..

25 posted on 10/05/2005 5:54:40 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: rdb3; HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity

One thing I have seen, is that many of the Libertarians hold about the same view as the hard core Liberals except for markets, in which they want no restrictions.

Libertarians are often libertines without the hedonistic commitment.


26 posted on 10/05/2005 6:30:29 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdb3; Alia

Of course what idiot libertatians ignore is that their precious militias were based upon conscription, too.

Not legal conscription. Social conscription. If you got a reputation as a shirker you were an outcast for life. Who wanted to be "coward of the county" ? When your father and brothers are arming themselves, what are you going to do ? Develop a head cold ?


27 posted on 10/05/2005 7:21:37 AM PDT by Sam the Sham (A conservative party tough on illegal immigration could carry California in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
But my philosophy about libertarianism is that it, too, is a philosophy and can in no way be a self-sustaining political movement.

One must first realize that the term "libertarian" has been completely corrupted by the political party of the same name. However, let's take a look at the dictionary definition of the word...

1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

2. One who believes in free will.

While I admit that this type of politics is not commonly practiced in Washington these days, it could become a very viable, self-sustaining political movement. Maybe I'm overly optimistic and hopeful, but I feel that the Republican Liberty Caucus and Mike Pence's RSC are positioning themselves to make great strides in the next decade or so, and to finally put today's big-government school of thought to a rest.

28 posted on 10/05/2005 11:30:59 AM PDT by jmc813 (Bork Miers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Alia

I saw few people shaking heads when freepers were probably the leading oppoonents of Clinton's use of big guns in Kosovo to bring "the rule of law." Heck, those freeper peaceniks opposed the war even while the troops were engaged!!! Had Al Gore been prez on 9-11 most probably would have continued their antiwar approach. Unlike the partisan freeper peaceniks, libertarians are models of consistency.


29 posted on 10/05/2005 1:30:38 PM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jmc813

jmc813 wrote:
Maybe I'm overly optimistic and hopeful, but I feel that the Republican Liberty Caucus and Mike Pence's RSC are positioning themselves to make great strides in the next decade or so, and to finally put today's big-government school of thought to a rest.



REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/721810/posts


30 posted on 10/05/2005 1:55:59 PM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: rdb3

Man, I'm feelin' the love in this thread.


31 posted on 10/05/2005 3:18:28 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

I'm sorry, WHO joined the enemy a long time ago?

http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/009033.html


32 posted on 10/05/2005 4:01:17 PM PDT by armedforliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: armedforliberty

No, you definitely are NOT welcome here. Rockwellian troll zotted. Did you march in the terrorist supporting communist parade too? How many of our soldiers will die in Iraq thanks to you anti-American pro-terrorist protesters giving aid and comfort to the enemy? How many innocent Iraqi citizens will die for your groups misguided treasonous actions? Why should your giving aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime NOT be classified as treason? If I was sitting on the jury when you guys are charged, you would be swinging with your pal Saddam!


33 posted on 10/05/2005 4:12:35 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: armedforliberty

Look up useful idiot in the dictionary, troll. That's right. Describes you perfectly. Get off the phone, MORON!


34 posted on 10/05/2005 4:15:39 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
“supposedly rightist president who wages war, cuts taxes, and shovels other people’s money at corporate fatcats.”

Imagine! Cutting taxes. Oh the horror!

These guys have gone off the deep end.

35 posted on 10/05/2005 4:22:15 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Machina improba! Vel mihi ede potum vel mihi redde nummos meos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
I appreciate your response.

libertarians are models of consistency.

Maybe so, but I'm not always sure what they are "models of consistency" for or about outside their ideology as a political theory group.

36 posted on 10/05/2005 5:30:57 PM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: armedforliberty
Oooh! I love it when the sons of bitches over there begin to squawk like the pansies they are. Read it and weep, Lew! You have your head over here so you might as well "feel" it.


If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!

37 posted on 10/05/2005 7:48:37 PM PDT by rdb3 (NON-conservative, American exceptionalist here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: armedforliberty; All

Revising and extending my remarks.

Why do I call these guys traitors? Well, we recently had the opportunity to witness up close and personal the communist led International Answer and Code PinkO people in action in Crawford and DC. I can tell you first hand that these slimy creeps are the real deal. Socialists, Marxists, Communists, punk anarchists, leftist revolutionaries, you name it.

America haters. Baby killers. They are absolutely in love with every slimeball communist/terrorist/tin-pot dictator in the world. They hate our way of life, hate our freedom and want no limits on the depths of their depravity. That's why they hate God and hate our constitution. No limits means NO limits.

They cannot wait to dissolve our constitution, our borders and our national sovereignty and make us subservient to some global socialistic power. Star-crossed communist utopians dancing, spitting and cussing in the streets. It was a real sight to behold.

Slimy, filthy, foulmouthed creeps. The same kind of long-haired weirdo hippy freaks that slimed us in the 60's. In fact many of them were resurrected hippies. Aging old communist farts trying to relive the glory days when they brought America to her knees and forced her to surrender to the Vietnam communists after having defeated them in battle.

Thank you Walter Cronkite. Puke!.

They hate America. Hate our troops. They are afraid that we're gonna win this war and bring peace and constitutional democracies to the Middle East. Can't have that. Spreading freedom would destroy their plans for global communism. They desperately want America to lose this war and the next one (which will be fought here at home if we do lose this one).

And now we learn here today that Lew Rockwell is part of this filthy traitorous movement. I knew that he and Buchanan and many of the paleocons had long ago gone over the edge with their hate Bush campaigns, and that they sympathized with the French, German, Russian, Iraqi axis against America, but I didn't know how far they would go.

Marching with communists in our nation's capital? Protesting at Army/Navy hospitals in full view of our recovering wounded servicemen? Parading in the streets with white crosses and makeshift coffins, spitting on the memory of our fallen heroes that fought and died for our country? Giving aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime? How low can you go?

How can this be called anything but treason?

If this is what the Rockwells and Buchanans and their followers want and believe, if they want to align themselves and protest against America and march arm-in-arm with their America hating communist comrades during wartime then they're nothing but traitors themselves and should own up to it.

And the rest of us should recognize them for what they are and treat them accordingly.


38 posted on 10/06/2005 3:06:51 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: rdb3

What do you think of "paleoconservatarians"? ;-)

Come on. Agreeing with a particular group of leftists on a particular issue does in no way make one a leftist. Sure, I don't support the war in Iraq, but can anyone here accuse me of being a leftist and back it up? No.

Have we really reached the point in this country when people are considered traitors merely for holding a certain political ideology? Most of the Founding Fathers would be considered traitors today by neocon standards.


39 posted on 10/06/2005 9:35:27 AM PDT by sheltonmac (QUIS CUSTODIET IPSOS CUSTODES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rdb3; Jim Robinson

Can you actually say that America is clearly in a better position after the past 60 years of global military interventionism than we would be had we not gotten involved in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq twice, Iran, Central and South America,... et al ??

Of course the above is a hypothetical question, but I fail to see the logic of those in the pro-war right who contend that preemptive wars, or those which are not fought out of necessity of self defense, can ever solve our problems.

Ultimately, the whole issue hangs on whether or not the United States has the legitimate right to act as "world policeman" in some sort of impossible effort to defend all those people who are being persecuted or slaughtered. (Why do so many of the people we want to protect seem to live near large oil reserves?)

Perhaps you could illustrate the wisdom of our current policy which has our military spread around the globe in well over 100 countries, yet fails to secure our borders and coasts through which terrorists arrive daily.

While I am not here to defend or reject Pat Buchanan, Lew Rockwell, or anyone else's ideas besides my own, I do think that some of the hatred in the Muslim world derives from American presence in their lands.

Remember once upon a time when Patriots named Washington and Jefferson fought the British in order to expel foreign occupiers who thought they knew best how the colonists ought to live in spite of their wishes for self-determination?


40 posted on 10/06/2005 1:20:45 PM PDT by Veritas et equitas ad Votum (If the Constitution "lives and breathes", it dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Veritas et equitas ad Votum

Do you think it's better that we let the Nazis, Communists, terrorists and tyrants of the world continue taking territory by force, capturing resources and building strength unchecked? Do you not recognize that we were attacked on 911 by a force that is determined to wipe us off the face of the earth? And that Saddam Hussein was a murderous madman who saw us as his mortal enemy and one who financed, recruited, supported, harbored and trained terrorist forces? Saddam Hussein had already proved that he was a tyrant who would take whatever he wanted, use whatever weapons he could lay his hands on, kill whomever he pleased and was a clear and present danger to the region, to our allies, to our national interests and to our nation. No one wants war, but sometimes it's necessary to defend yourselves and your allies. Clinton allowed attack after attack to go unanswered and look what it got us. The terrorists must not be allowed to build their forces and carry out their murderous activities unchecked. They must be defeated. It's either them or us. Freedom and terrorism cannot coexist.


41 posted on 10/06/2005 2:00:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Veritas et equitas ad Votum; rdb3; Jim Robinson
Can you actually say that America is clearly in a better position after the past 60 years of global military interventionism than we would be had we not gotten involved in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq twice, Iran, Central and South America,... et al ??

I CAN tell you this much. Given the chance, Saddam was going to come after us. Here. In the US. Clinton IGNORED IT for 8 years. GHW Bush should have finished the job. But if the UN sanctions would have EVER been lifted on Iraq, they were going to come get some.
42 posted on 10/06/2005 10:49:27 PM PDT by MikefromOhio (Just confirm Miers so that FR can have a REAL meltdown. Yes I have popcorn ready.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MikeinIraq
It's hard to argue against a worldview.


If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!

43 posted on 10/06/2005 11:08:24 PM PDT by rdb3 (What's the use when the god of confusion keeps on telling the same lie?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer
thought I was alone (here on FR) in this line of thinking! Thanks!!!

No, you're not alone. I'm just going to be more vocal about this.


If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!

44 posted on 10/07/2005 1:55:19 AM PDT by rdb3 (What's the use when the god of confusion keeps on telling the same lie?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Some thoughts and responses:

No, we weren't wrong to try to stop Hitler or Stalin from building world wide power. But comparing this "war" in Iraq to those efforts is apples and oranges. If we had gone into Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc... and done to those countries what we did to Germany and Japan in the 40's, I would be more supportive of our policy of spreading peace at the point of a gun.

All we're doing now is watching Marines and soldiers die for in a half hearted attempt to "win hearts and minds" before crushing the will of the enemy. We must crush them and totally overwhelm them and remove all thought they may have as to our intent of total victory before trying to "win hearts and minds".

I really question anyone who thinks the ragtag "fighters" we're facing in Iraq today are really any threat to this country. My family down here in little old Florida is in no danger because some suicidal maniacs thousands of miles away have RPGs and rifles.

We thought Saddam was building up some massive WMD programs and stockpiles. He was not. When we figured that out, we should have left Iraq immediately.

I really couldn't care less about the Shia/Sunni wars that have been going on for a thousand years, nor am I so arrogant to believe that we have the ability to make them end by bringing McDonald's and voting booths to Baghdad and Fallujah.

I am willing to support the doctrine of preemption so long as it is for legitimate self defense, but when the mission creeps into one about "spreading democracy" and "establishing a culture of freedom", my support dwindles.

I'm not suggesting that Bubba's strategy was correct, but to insist that Bush's plan is the only alternative to Bubba's is very narrow minded.

Frankly, I don't really believe we are fighting a "War on Terror" anymore unless and until we publicly implement nationwide racial/ethnic profiling, begin trying people for treason and/or sedition, and close the borders.


45 posted on 10/07/2005 10:15:40 AM PDT by Veritas et equitas ad Votum (If the Constitution "lives and breathes", it dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Veritas et equitas ad Votum
Had the madman Saddam Hussein been allowed nukes, he would've been a greater danger to the world than Stalin and Hitler and all of history's past tyrants combined. He would've had the power to hold the entire world hostage and there's no doubt he would've used it. Had he been allowed nukes and had he used them on Israel or any of his neighbors all hell would've broken out. Their would've been no stopping a worldwide nuclear holocaust.

He had to be stopped dead in his tracks before he could wield that power. I'm glad that we destroyed him and his army and his ability to acquire nukes or other WMDs and know that we must continue taking out the remaining tyrants and terrorists in Iraq and wherever else they may rise up. Doesn't matter if they're just a ragtag group of "fighters," actually "terrorists," or a country that recruits, trains, finances or harbors terrorism.

The guys who knocked out the twin towers were just a ragtag bunch. The guys who bombed Spain and London and all the other terrorist attacks attacks around the world, including last week's attack in Oklahoma USA were just a ragtag bunch too.

The scourge of terrorism must be wiped off the face of the planet!! No man, woman or child can be safe or secure or live in freedom until that happens!

If we pull out now we'll only be empowering our enemies like Clinton did. And if we don't kill them over there, I guarantee you they WILL be killing US over here.

Yes, obviously, we must fight to win! That's the whole point. Knock them out before they gain power. Do not let them retake control of Iraq or Afghanistan!

And do not join the mainstream media and traitors on the left in their propaganda war against America which only weakens our will to fight and causes more of our boys and innocent civilians to die in terrorist attacks. The terrorists are our enemy! Do not offer aid and comfort to the enemy!!

Jane Fonda, Walter Cronkite, John Kerry and the propagandists and communist led protesters of the 60s were all traitors to America. They were the domestic enemy we swore an oath to defend against. Today's propagandists and communist led protesters are of exactly the same ilk. Offering aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime is TREASON!

Don't be a tool of the left! Don't be a useful idiot!

46 posted on 10/08/2005 3:02:47 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
If we pull out now we'll only be empowering our enemies like Clinton did. And if we don't kill them over there, I guarantee you they WILL be killing US over here.

It pisses me off that so many people seem to forget that four years ago nearly 3000 people were murdered because we had a guy in the White House for eight years who cared more about sex than fulfilling his Constitutional responsibilities.

47 posted on 10/08/2005 3:08:21 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Veritas et equitas ad Votum
One more thing. In Germany and Japan during WWII, the civilian populations were generally in support of their respective leaders and war efforts and it was necessary to not only bomb their military and their factories and destroy their productive resources and means to wage war, but also to wage war against their cities and farms and destroy their people's will to fight. We were at TOTAL war with Japan and Germany, including at war with their people.

We were never at war with the PEOPLE of Iraq. We were at war with the madman Saddam Hussein and his fascist regime and army. They are now totally destroyed. Iraq has been liberated!

And obviously, we are not at war with the people of Iraq today. The terrorists are. We are Iraq's allies and defenders.

We do not wish to destroy their cities. Just the opposite. We want to help the Iraqis rebuild their cities and their country. And they have demonstrated through their efforts and brave sacrifices at constructing a new constitution and electing their own governments that they wish to live in peace and freedom and be part of the free world.

They are now building their own security forces and wish to destroy their own enemy within and we will continue working with them in that endeavor until the true enemy of freedom, those who would wage a war of terror against innocents, are totally destroyed.

48 posted on 10/08/2005 3:58:21 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Right on Jim. BTTT...


49 posted on 10/09/2005 7:06:59 AM PDT by veronica ("clowns clones clowns/ it's raining clowns/snarling FR obsessed clones/ claws bared clowns"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: rdb3

Lew Rockwell is a horse's ass, IMO. The sad thing is that he and the Libertarian Party have done more to harm the cause of libertarianism than more authoritarian philosophies could ever hope to do.


50 posted on 10/09/2005 7:15:44 AM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson