Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $13,249
15%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 15% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Keyword: americanconservative

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Groundhog Day for Immigration (Rubio's plan is same as Dems)

    01/14/2013 8:33:57 PM PST · by Bigtigermike · 23 replies
    National Review ^ | Monday January 14, 2013 | Mark Krikorian
    The Wall Street Journal profile on Rubio’s amnesty plan makes me want to take piano lessons or learn ice sculpture — because it’s Groundhog Day for immigration policy, and it’s like yesterday never happened. But the specific policies Ned Ryerson.......er...Rubio is selling are just the same old, same old: “earned” amnesty for illegal aliens plus de facto unlimited immigration, in exchange for promises to some day implement E-Verify and build more fencing. Even worse, what makes me want to throw a toaster into the bath tub is the utter lack of awareness that nothing Rubio’s saying is even remotely novel....
  • Hagel Allies Coordinate Smear Campaign Against Critics, Emails Reveal

    01/14/2013 3:35:52 PM PST · by Nachum · 27 replies
    Free Beacon ^ | 1/14/13 | Adam Kredo
    A group of anti-Israel activists and journalists are engaged in a coordinated campaign to stifle criticism of controversial secretary of defense nominee Chuck Hagel by attacking the former Republican senator’s critics, according to emails obtained by the Free Beacon. Fenton communications chief executive officer David Fenton, the Atlantic’s national correspondent James Fallows, former diplomat Charles ‘Chas’ Freeman, Just Foreign Policy director Robert Naiman, and American Conservative founding editor Scott McConnell participated in a recent email exchange dedicated to silencing Hagel’s critics, the emails reveal. The emailers targeted recent comments made by Elliott Abrams, a former Bush administration National Security Council...
  • Scapegoats anyone?--Push to blame the Iraq war on "Jewish influence" sounds a familiar theme

    03/13/2003 4:49:57 AM PST · by SJackson · 16 replies · 678+ views
    Jewish World Review ^ | 3-13-03 | Jonathan S. Tobin
    Push to blame the Iraq war on "Jewish influence" sounds a familiar theme http://www.jewishworldreview.com | A few months ago, a great deal of tut-tutting and dignified outrage emanated from much of the civilized world over the broadcast of a series on Egyptian television which sought to dramatize the "truth" of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But, as the debate over President Bush's rightful determination to pursue war against the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein heats up, it looks like the dimwitted propagandists who write scripts for Egyptian potboilers have been sharing sources with prominent Washington pundits, leftist anti-war...
  • The Right Choice? - - The [paleo]conservative case for Barack Obama

    03/26/2008 2:51:50 PM PDT · by TSchmereL · 25 replies · 615+ views
    The American Conservative ^ | March 24, 2008 | Andrew J. Bacevich
    So why consider Obama? For one reason only: because this liberal Democrat has promised to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq. . . . [Because we want history to render a negative verdict on Iraq to discredit the doctrine of preventive war.]
  • Losing the Will to Fight

    10/10/2006 8:48:28 PM PDT · by duckln · 21 replies · 727+ views
    American Conservative Magazine ^ | 10/7/06 | Patrick J. Buchanan
    Snip In the aftermath of 9/11, when President Bush ordered the U.S. military to remove the Taliban, who had given sanctuary to al-Qaeda and Osama, America was with him. When he identified Saddam as an integral part of an Axis of Evil hell-bent on America’s destruction, the nation supported him. Now America is not so sure. Preventive war as the antidote to terror seems, now that Anbar province has become the world’s newest base camp of terror, to have failed us. Democracy as the surest guarantee of U.S. security, now that Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Moqtada al-Sadr are...
  • Inside the neo-con Pentagon (Ted Kennedy's Wacko Foreign Policy Expert)

    04/18/2004 7:01:13 PM PDT · by Spotsy · 26 replies · 310+ views
    The Toronto Star ^ | Apr. 18, 2004 | KAREN KWIATKOWSKI
    Inside the neo-con PentagonOfficer reveals how Bush appointees suppressed facts and twisted truth to drive America to war with Iraq . In July of last year, after just over 20 years of service, I retired as a lieutenant-colonel in the U.S. Air Force. My career started in 1978 with the smooth seduction of a full four-year ROTC scholarship. It ended with 10 months of duty in a strange new country, observing up close and personal a process of decision-making for war not sanctioned by the Constitution. ~snip~ The education I would receive there was intense, fascinating and frightening. While the...
  • A Factually Correct Guide for Max Boot

    03/22/2005 7:56:09 PM PST · by GOPcapitalist · 15 replies · 674+ views
    American Conservative Magazine ^ | 3/22/05 | Thomas E. Woods
    My book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History has received far more attention than I ever expected. Once the book hit number eight on the New York Times bestseller list, the Times’ editorial page condemned it without actually showing where its arguments were mistaken; several weeks later, to my surprise, the Times published a favorable profile of me. The controversy surrounding the book has reached at least two other continents: Brazil’s Folha de S. Paulo, with the highest circulation of any newspaper in Latin America, published a full interview with me, as did a major Catholic newspaper in Ireland....
  • [VANITY] A good Paleonconservative magazine?

    04/26/2004 7:28:34 AM PDT · by MegaSilver · 13 replies · 226+ views
    26 April 2004
    I've been reading National Review for a while now, and thoroughly enjoying it--save for a few writers whom I cannot stand (*coughDavidFrumcough*). But I'm beginning to think that I really ought to get a good Paleoconservative magazine to balance it out and diversify my thought. What would you all recommend? I know Chronicles is kind of the "flagship" mag for Paleocons, but I've heard good things about The American Conservative, as well. What are some of the differences between the two, and which would you prefer? Or is there a third magazine that would be better still?
  • [VANITY] Anyone else not receive National Review this week?

    02/14/2004 5:59:28 PM PST · by MegaSilver · 29 replies · 125+ views
    14 February 2004 | MegaSilver
    Normally, I would have gotten it sometime early this week. I haven't. I did get an unsolicited copy of the Claremont Review of Books, which has a lot of stuff from NR writers (not that I minded; it was a good read). I could just log on to NRO and read the issue there, but I like having the 'zine in front of me to read (since I read so much on the internet). Anyone else have this problem--or is it just me?
  • To Preserve What We Have- American Conservatism - WSJ article by Bill Buckley

    12/11/2002 10:35:00 PM PST · by pittsburgh gop guy · 18 replies · 467+ views
    Wall Street Journal ^ | December 12, 2002 | WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR.
    <p>By WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR.</p> <p>When in 1955 I set out to publish a journal devoted to the interests of U.S. conservatism, I stressed in a preliminary circular pretty much what one would have expected on the subject. It was necessary then, and would be necessary for most of the balance of the millennium, to confront directly the challenge of Soviet-based communism; to explain, and to plead, that whatever the pains and dangers of resisting it, these were worth undergoing. In retrospect, it appears obvious that the effort was worthwhile, but it was less than obvious at crisis points, among them Hungary, Berlin, Cuba and Vietnam. History will document that the high cost of nuclear-stakes resistance dismayed more merely than U.S. Catholic bishops. Resistance a outrance engendered flesh and blood perspectives. It came down to: Is it really worth it? What do we end up having in hand, by developing and redeveloping and updating a nuclear inventory and the hardware to deliver nuclear strikes, whether pre-emptively or punitively?</p>