BlogWonks

Things are not always as they seem. Marxism's war on religion presents evidence-a-plenty that this notion is true.

From both the left, in the name of Social Democracy, and from the right, in the name of Secular Government, Marx's Atheistic teammates have pushed, shoved and pressed upon religion in public life until a bipartisan squeeze has effectively crushed what was once publicly pervasive into the less than popular enclave of that which is now publicly suppressed.

Christianity, today, though tarred and feathered, spit upon and lied about, has not given up however, and thanks be to God has begun to grow up, wake up, and in many instances live up to its duty to fight back.

Good news.

But not necessarily good enough – for while many Christians have come to table fully arrayed in the armor of God, with faith and reason, love and patience, perseverance and persistence, moral courage and good works, doing what ever it takes, and then some, to slow, check, and at times, reverse our nation's amoral freefall into possible oblivion; there are other Christians, some of them Christian ministers, sad to say, that are among our worst enemies, whether by intent or not.

They are the sort who, when the going gets tough, look not to themselves or to God, or to both, but to the state to bail them out, or lift them up, or even in fairly good times to move them forward (in their careers), as if God and His congregation, and their own two strong hands aren't good enough to take them where they need to go, to do what they need to do, without a state subsidy, or a dole, or a handout, or a cushy cushion.

That's a problem. For there are also many in the state, or a great number who are vying for power within the state, who are more than willing to oblige whatever beggar comes along in rags or in robes, if it means more votes, more recognition, and for the very few dedicated ideologues among them, an advancement of the ubiquitous revolution of Marx & Lenin.

Enter Compassionate Conservatism, a ‘safe' middle ground approach, call it an ‘inclusive' approach if you will (for it has a little bit of something for everyone), that mixes the best of Communism (come again? – ‘its charitable nature,' they say) with the best of Capitalism (‘its efficiency'); and discards the worst of both (Communism's sluggish bureaucracy; Capitalism's heartlessness; – we lessee-fairists are all ‘dog eat dog Scrooges' you know!), with it seems, this hidden goal, in the short run to exploit yet another group for a few million votes, and in the long run to undermine Christianity.

Mind you, few will see it that way, or plan it that way, some going so far as to actually believe they are doing Christianity a good turn, and serving God in the process. It matters not. Results are results. If you plant nothing but a stinking dead fish in the soil, you're not going to produce golden ears of corn. Socialism is socialism is socialism, even when the smiling socialists sell wings, halos, hymnals, and harps, and read "Christianity Today" in their leisure.

The ‘New' Strategy

The new strategy is essentially an old one (as most new strategies are), excavated and resurrected by the Monks of the Third Way (Compassionate Conservatism's 1990's forerunner). It goes something like this:

‘If you can't beat them, join them.' Better yet, tweak that; throw in for good measure, ‘If you can't beat them, cajole them, bribe them, promise them, pray with them, sing Hallelujah with them, and finally say unto them whatever they want to hear so long as they vote for you, and join hands with you in a prayer for sweet, compassionate Uncle Leviathan.

It's just socialism with a progressive, twist mind you. Nothing to fear.

And it's bound to work. In fact, it IS working.

The Sales Pitch

To purchase the national soul – even with something so delicious as a free lunch – requires considerable skill, and an A-1 sales pitch. Compassionate Conservatism has one. Here it is: ‘We like you. We trust you. You're the backbone of our country, the first line of our defense, the traditional source of welfare to our poor. And, you know, we say this from our heart of hearts, you did it better than the federal government ever did back in the old days, through volunteerism, through a faith-based approach, through genuine love. You know this is true. So do we.

‘Times have changed, however. Not as many people contribute to private charities as in the past. It's a shame. We know you're struggling, and could use a little help.

‘On the other hand, times have changed with the federal government as well. We've grown too large, too impersonal, too inflexible for this business of helping people. It's made many Americans cynical about government welfare programs. I can't blame them. We need to fix welfare. We need your help too.

‘There are just some things that you do, that we could never do, that personal touch, that local, close to the problem, common sense solution, and the ability to not only feed the stomach, but heal the soul.

‘Nevertheless, while we're not very good at that – it's not our job! – there are things we do, do better. Like ‘raise' money, provide organizational skills, and tap into a vast network or ‘advisors' and ‘experts' who have seen what has and has not worked.

‘Maybe now you're seeing what I'm seeing. It's becoming increasingly clear that we need each other, that it's time to put away old ideas of how things work, that it's for the government to stop thinking its job is to hinder the church and it's time for the church to stop thinking its job is to fear the government. We can work together and make for better times and a better America than we've ever seen before. We'll give you the tools you need to succeed with your mission. In turn, you'll provide the personal touch, ingenuity, and faith, to help us better fulfill our mission. Thus, by our meeting half way between private and public, between too little government and too much government we can prove to the world for the first time in history that government can be the friend of all, and the enemy of none.'

Somebody hand me an American flag and a Holy Bible; I'm feeling patriotic and religious all at the same time!

The Lure

The pitch is obviously a good one, ‘we've finally wised up, we need each other, so let's be partners with well defined roles. We'll do what we do best. You'll do what you do best. That ever unreachable Utopia is finally within our grasp.'

Yet, there's still something suspicious about this for many, something eerily dangerous about combining God and Mammon even when the message and its messenger is a smooth one.

We need a big prize to lure in Peter's big fish, and his myriad schools of little fish. The lure is quite familiar, as well. Tried and tested. Dyed in the wool – with a new twist: An assortment of bribes and bridges to the ‘needy,' though the needy are not your typical pack of peasants from the past, rather they are now churches, charities, private schools, state and city governments, corporations, and ordinary, run-of-the-mill, hard working – but tight on funds – groups and individuals, to include parents fed up with the quality of the schools they send their kids too. You know, the ‘working poor,' or the ‘worthy poor'; or the otherwise economically strapped through no fault of their own, poor – big time businesses included, who because they employ ‘the working poor,' can't be permitted to fail, lest we all fail.

And so what could be a better solution, a more laudable solution, a more American solution then a kind, gentle, and prosperous benefactor to unload an array of ‘free' goodies, with this intent only, to lend a ‘helping' hand to the backbone of America, to ‘help' them help themselves, and in turn, ‘help' their neighbor, and ‘help' America?

Sign me up! I'm standing at attention! The Stars and Stripes march again! The state has returned to its roots, with a fresh, smart, intelligent, progressive 21st Century approach! Hurray!

Remember, we are not talking about food stamps for the slothful, medical coverage for illegal aliens, soup kitchens or free housing for dead beats derelicts (though mind you, none of these programs are going away). No, just a Santa Claus-like list of ‘free' facilities, ‘free' text books, ‘free' teachers, ‘free' police officers, ‘free' training, and ‘free' schools for those who will make good use of them, in fact better use of them then the federal government ever could.

And regarding the schools, the benevolent benefactor, who will insure ‘no child is left behind,' permits parents to take their pick between charter, Christian, or secular private schools – after all, this newly enlightened benefactor believes in defending our right to ‘free' choice, and well, competitive markets even in public institutions.

A mixture of compassion and competitive markets is what it's all about. Balance, balance, finally some balance.

A Sure Sale

Let's admit it. This was a brilliant stroke. Offer to ‘save' those in the private sector still struggling upward against the disastrous effects of socialism, by inviting them to stop fighting socialism by partaking of the spoils themselves, of course, being ever careful not to state it quite so bluntly. Yet come on, think about it. What could be smarter? As the noose tightens around the neck of each newly dependent pastor, parent, professional, and private administrator, each will be equally wrapped up in gratitude that the rope was ‘free;' their captors, compassionate; and the program vaguely capitalistic.

The Moral Premises of Compassionate Conservatism – Just in Case

Still, even with such a good pitch, and such shiny lures, not every fish in the sea snaps at the first sight of the lure. Besides, men are not fish. Men think! Men have principles! And well, beyond that, getting back to the thinking idea, some men think harder than others. There is a class of this sort. We call them, or wait a minute, they call themselves ‘the intellectuals.' Money matters little to them. Influence and praise do. They love to be flattered, love to have their ears tickled, and love to have politicians pay them public homage.

So for them a confession of sensible premises, a creed, if you will, is presented at the alter as an intellectual offering. With words like these, they pray:

Private enterprise, private charity, and local decision making is best, and when complimented by civic virtue, collectively represent the foundation stone of America's success story. Amen. Private citizens and private corporations in the interest of human progress ought to be free to pursue their economic, educational, and moral affairs with relatively few fetters placed upon them by government. Amen

Freedom, however, requires responsibility. Amen.

Therefore, all private citizens, corporations, and churches are bound to exercise their liberties without infringing upon the rights of others. Amen and Amen.

So far, so conservative, so sensible, and so Very Holy. Who could object? The intellectual conservative's ears are tickled. Homage to their god is paid. But here the homage ends. Buyer Beware!

Conservative, Christian, Jew, Entrepreneur, Parent, State and Local Government beware! ‘Freedom,' says the Compassionate Conservative, ‘also requires another type of responsibility, thus:

All private citizens and corporations are not only bound by right-protecting negative laws, ‘the thou shalt nots,' but are likewise expected to perform certain good deeds, ‘the thou shalts' or positive laws, for in behalf of their neighbors, their community, and their nation.

Compassionate Conservatism calls this civic duty, or more hauntingly as is done at the U.N., in Russia, and in China, this is about ‘civil society.' And while the duty to do good and to be civil sounds somewhat like the Christian call to service, or early America's plea for civic virtue, it is neither, for there are two key differences:

1. Civic virtue and Christian religion persuade. Civil society and Compassionate Conservatism demand. 2. Civic virtue and Christianity look to the Sermon on the Mount. Civil society and Compassionate Conservatism looks to the harangues of Karl Marx.

Not surprisingly, Compassionate Conservatism, for all its trust in the individual and the local decision-maker, possesses an intrinsic distrust for human agency. It is not willing to let go and trust man to serve man. It feels compelled to intervene and make up for man's moral shortcomings. Liberty must be ‘coached,' charity must be subsidized. And virtue, trouble abounds there. For one virtue above all others must be instilled in us by them, ‘tolerance, tolerance, and more tolerance!' Tolerance is the code word of all code words in this faith, and suffice it to say Compassionate Conservatism's, Third Way definition of tolerance is not the rational Biblical one which teaches us to "hate the sin but love the sinner," but the fanatical Marxist one which censures those who would dare to call sin, ‘sin.'

This new brand of tolerance legalizes debauchery in favor of social progress, and demonizes orthodox religion in favor of social solidarity.

Compassionate Conservatism, therefore, in substance is destined to be cruel and despotic. It preaches life, but denounces "litmus tests.' It preaches love of neighbor, but steals from the rich to give to the poor. It praises private industry, but sends them subsidies and ‘advisors.' It defends free markets, but erects elaborate regional regulatory schemes. It claims that we need more local government, but labors for the new world order. It cries for greater accountability, but outlaws negative campaign speech. And it clamors for Democracy, but demands that citizens ‘Shut up and vote!' as they now do in Canada.

As for the truly poor or handicapped, those who socialists have coddled and crippled for generations, they are stuck now as young single mothers, unprepared to face the world, simultaneously charged by Compassionate Conservatives to choose between the communist obligation to work, and the parens patria mandate to watch over their children.

Welfare will still be available, but short lived. Reliance on self and family will be encouraged, but monitored. If the mother fails, Third Way Compassionate ‘Boy's Towns' have been suggested, which will scoop up either the hungry or the neglected children left behind. The state, therefore, wins the prize it forever coveted. Such is compassionate reform. Mother works for the state, the child, by and by is owned by the state.

Claims, Claims, Claims

Third Way Compassionate Conservatism claims to deeply believe that re-enthroning private enterprise, private charity, local decision making, and civil society are noteworthy long term goals.

But there is a catch. In the short run Compassionate Conservatism believes that we must first work with things as they are, not as we wish them to be. Thus, their solution is for the federal Government to stimulate that which is private and that which is local back to life through the ‘compassion' of federal block grants, federal advisors, and federal government private partnerships. (1)

These grants, advisors, and partnerships are to be directed to everything private and everything local to help people help themselves, as already noted, with one whopper of a promise: They will ‘forever only help, and ‘forever only advise.'

Time to Think Clearly

You don't say. Are we honestly supposed to believe that purse strings are not purse strings? There's a cloud-cuckoo-land theory for you! But history, common sense, and the law counter with fact, logic, and precedent, that ‘purse strings have been, are now, and always will be purse strings!'

How could we forget that one of the very things Compassionate Conservatism sets its eye on – saving education – was subverted by the very same kinds of federal aid programs designed back in the 1960's for the ‘poorest of the poor, in the poorest of the poorest schools,' with the very same promise, to ‘not control, but only aid' state and local schools in their compassionate duty?

We should not forget. We should remember.

We should remember the 1963 Supreme Court decisions of Engel v. Vitale, and Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schemp got away with banning God, the Bible, virtue, and the religious side of U.S. history from the public classroom, because federal aid to those same schools gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court exercised that jurisdiction.

We should remember, the U.S. president at the time defended these same two decisions, using a line of rationale Compassionate Conservatism blindly ignores: "That which the government subsidizes, it has the right to control."

It has. It does. And it will.

What responsible parent would not do the same? Money parents pay out to dependent children is not given without terms, limits, and a checkup system in place. Parents ‘trust, but they verify.' All worthy stewards do. The state will do the same; you can count on it. Could any point of history, law, and common sense be clearer?

The Predictable Result

Alexander Hamilton warned 213 years ago: "Those who pay are the masters of those who are paid." (2)

It is common sense. For any of us to believe otherwise is to miss the mark with religion in public life, to vainly imagine in our hearts that the road to the New Jerusalem is paved in federal green. Let it be known from this moment forward, such a one who believes in this, has abandoned all logic, reason, historical sense and faith for a horde of emotion, irrationality, speculation, and superstition.

Doles undermine free agency, and are paid for via legal theft. Thus, Compassionate Conservatism – that name shifter of Third Way, Futurism, even progressive Marxist-Leninism roots – is not conservative and is not compassionate. It is but the latest in a series of schemes designed to derail the last remnants of true conservatism and true compassion. If we are then to stand by America and stand by our religions, whatever they may be, we ought to reject Compassionate Conservatism and its state appointed, state subsidized, and state dependent ministers with all the energy of our souls.

Footnotes

1. This idea of government private partnerships was one of the leading proposals by Fabian Socialist John Maynard Keynes in his "The Death of Lessee-Faire."

2. Madison, James. "The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787," Friday, June 22, 1787, Alexander Hamilton speaking.

MensNewsDaily.com contributor Steve Farrell is a pundit with NewsMax.com, associate professor of political economy at George Wythe College, editor of the Liberty Letters, and the author of the inspirational novel, "Dark Rose."

Fathers-4-Justice (F4J) and the National Coalition of Free Men, Los Angeles (NCFMLA) invite you to meet fellow grand parents, children, women and men who are joined together to stop the unfair practices of lawyers and family court.  Have lunch in the park with people like you who need to be heard and need to take action. Bring your story and join us for hot dogs, soft drinks and conversation. This is a great opportunity to meet new friends and realize that you are not alone in your experiences.

The protest rally and picnic will be held, July 22, 2007 (Sunday), from 9:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. at the Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks Park in Los Angeles County.

The picnic in the park will be located at the corner of Hazeltine and Huston (above) in the S.E. corner of the park, or if that spot is taken, 100 yards to the west in front of the Gymnasium (below).

The address of the park.Gynasium is:

14201 Huston Street
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423

Here is a link to Mapquest for the VNSO Park,

http://tinyurl.com/2aqsz8

Together we will make a difference! 

This morning my Mozilla start page opened up to a link of a featured video from The View in which the hosts purportedly went after some blogger for one reason or another. I clicked on it but honestly was not familiar with their sacrificial lamb, Perez Hilton, before doing so. Yet The View is a show I know quite well as it is a toxic societal cesspool and the perfect embodiment of the self-absorption and narcissism that so afflicts and debilitates the essence of so many modern women. If its hosts were going to roast young Mr. Hilton then I thought I would respond by providing a testament to their bias and irrationality.

They began the episode by introducing him and pointing out that he had “the most hated website in Hollywood.” The hosts also let their audience know that what was about to transpire was a gigantic conflict of interest because all four of the harpies on stage were probably castigated at one time or another by Mr. Hilton.

An examination of his website reveals it to be exactly the trivial and irrelevant sort of thing one would expect, but its political incorrectness gave it unexpected value. The guy says whatever he wants and will entertain his readers by defiling whatever or whomever he wants—and thank God for that!

After scanning a few of his headlines and neo-stories I was quite pleased. This is the type of doppelganger who can do a tsunami’s worth of damage to our societal engineers. Even if you could care less about the moronic celebrities to which he has seemingly devoted his life you still have to appreciate his irreverence. The man is an asset.

For example, I was rolling after reading what he had to say about some large lesbian who bullied him at L.A.’s Outfest:

The night was so much fun until this drunk bitch that was volunteering began getting belligerent with Perez. She even shoved us off the stage TWICE for no apparent reason, other than she was drunk. Security eventually escorted that ho out of the building.
And, luck would have it, as we were going through the pictures from last night, the drunk douche (above with horns) was in one of our photos. Isn’t she sexy?????

At any rate, what was so remarkable about The View’s attempt to take down Mr. Hilton was the cowardice, imbecility, and incompetence that the hosts displayed in the process. All four of these mental featherweights grilled him and had nothing to show for their efforts.

They sat him in the strategic position of having two harridans on his right and two harridans on his left. Perhaps they hoped that this would destabilize him in the midst of their assault. This was a faulty assumption. Mr. Hilton was calm and unflappable throughout the interview. In fact he was fifty times more professional than anyone else on stage. Their emotion addled commentary did not befoul him as he responded to their ire with good cheer and pleasantries. I do not know how many The View fanatics he won over but he clearly outclassed all four of these half-witted beasts.

For the past forty years, the dominant theme of our politics has been emotion over reason. Here, the show’s anchors displayed considerable self-righteousness and faux outrage over Perez’s alleged ridicule of children. Maybe they hoped to alienate him from their affect-plagued audience, but they failed to cite one example of his ever humiliating a child. When I perused his site I could not find one instance of his ever doing so.

The truth is that many of us have been illogically besieged in this manner by self-indulgent emotionacs and the tactic they took with Mr. Hilton was pure subterfuge. The priestesses used the holy shrine of children as a mace with which to flail the young man and continued with the same inane trope while avoiding the mentioning of any specifics.

The truth is that they were infuriated by the way Mr. Hilton had satirized them, or people like them, in the past and were now out for blood. Luckily, they were too witless to spill any. Their obvious irritability and condescension undermined their best efforts to vilify the young dish artist.

One of them, Elisabeth Hasselback, mentioned at outset that his nickname for her was “Elisabitch” and then proceeded to prove Mr. Hilton quite prescient in his understanding of human personality for the duration of the interview. Another seemed to following a pre-written script by making note of the out-and-proud Mr. Hilton’s being gay—even though he had already responded to a question about his earnings with the quip, “a lady doesn’t discuss her finances.”

The bottom line here is that Mr. Hilton’s acerbic treatment of celebrities is exactly what those vapid and intellectually impoverished bonobos deserve. That our glitterati are so incensed by his daggers lets the world know exactly how non-substantive and brittle they actually are. This elite spends their days partying, navel gazing, and wasting the lives with which they were blessed.

What better proof of the extent to which our culture has declined than when a conservative writer feels warm, paternal, and protective towards a homosexual gossip columnist. Yes, these are gay days indeed. Bravo young man, at least to me, you are absolutely fabulous.

Bernard Chapin is the author of Escape from Gangsta Island and a soon-to-be released book on women. He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

In the past, I’ve advocated that we support the President in his request for funding for military operations in Iraq. I supported the President’s view of having no attachments to the Iraq Funding bill…as it should have been. I was under the impression that after getting the war funding needed, that we would go on the offense with a vengeance. I haven’t seen it.  Thus, my view of the Iraq war has taken a new direction.

For the sake of bipartisanship and for the sake of the precious lives of our troops in battle, I would hope that President Bush would at least sit down and meet with concerned Republican lawmakers in Washington who represent a growing consensus among their constituents who want to see an end to the Iraq war. President Bush has been plunging ahead full force with a troop surge, but that has left many unnerved. Why commit more troops to Iraq without showing the full brunt of our military’s might?

The reason President Bush has advisors is so they can tell him the best course to take in fighting terrorism and the war in Iraq. It would be best if the President lent an ear to all who have concerns.  He can’t go about making decisions on Iraq on his own, or from a select few.

President Bush is losing Republican support left and right and it doesn’t seem to faze him. He is going about things his own way.

A lot of times, when I hear President Bush speak to the American people as he tells us to expect heavier fighting (as if casualties on our side expect to rise)…I wonder, why are we thinking in that mentality? When we go on an offensive operation, shouldn’t we have the mentality that it is our enemy that will suffer the consequences of heavy losses?  The American people need not worry, right?

We have the capability of causing heavy losses on our enemies and we won’t do it. Never in the history of the world have we seen a desire by our enemies to control, dominate, or wipe us out and our way of life. But it seems we are not taking that scenario serious enough.

We got rid of one tyrant, Saddam Hussein. The US has sophisticated means of collecting intelligence, no doubt aided by satellites. We can pinpoint a wanted terrorist in no time. Once we have established that we have in sight the enemy, why not take him out? I am still waiting to see Osama Bin Laden caught or wiped out. We certainly are able to find who we need to find.  This question needs to be asked…why are we limiting ourselves in this global fight on terror?

Something else that has bothered me…the fact that we are charging our troops with supposed “war crimes” against civilians.  No war will be painless…we’ve been more brutal in the past and civilians caught in the heat of battle have suffered far greater. Today, our military is fighting with the utmost care they possibly could to avoid any civilian casualties; it’s changing even how we fight wars.

A soldier is trained to kill. He is to identify the enemy and go after them to kill.  This war has seen terrorists use, time and again, women and children as human shields. If the enemy wishes to use that tactic, then they are putting their own citizens at peril. It is not the fault of American troops and our allies to hold back because civilians get caught up in the war strategy of the enemy. Why is there no outcry from humanitarian groups to terrorists to cease using women and children? No, the fault always lies with our troops. It’s a disgrace!

War is necessary to remove the threat of evil, to confront and defeat evil. We must not play around with evil.  We should never treat terrorism as if it were some law enforcement issue. Defeat it and move on.

Considering the position I am now taking, I am not protesting war for the sake of it; I truly feel we need our troops home to protect against any future attacks against this country and to fortify, increase, and strengthen our troops. Some of them have done a number of tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and are no doubt weary. 

I do not advocate that we make our troops abandon their presence in Iraq right now; I really believe we need to employ a different strategy so we CAN exit sometime in the future. I really hope that we step up offensively and with a vengeance; the way we are going now seems to drag on.

I just wrote an article only hours ago and mentioned an amendment backed by Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee that would seek the help of our allies more and would see us eventually leaving Iraq. But if we do not go on the offensive, then the strategy that the amendment offers seems the wiser choice.

Iraq needs to step up and govern their country, same for Afghanistan. We came to help in those countries (and in other countries throughout the globe) and that’s all.  Now we need help back at home.  The border situation seems to be out of control (our border to the South); the US Border Patrol is needing help. No one terrorist should even come CLOSE in succeeding in another attack on America!  I say this because it was reported today that US intelligence suggests Al-Qaeda is looking to execute more attacks on American soil by infiltration or by agents already on American soil. 

The President needs to think of Americans here at home.  And no, I don’t think regular law enforcement can handle a terrorist intent on inflicting mass causalities. Our troops can help here. 

Most Americans want an end to our role in Iraq; we need to be fortified at home.  Defending our beloved homeland takes more importance over any other matters right now. We may not know what to expect in the future. Iran is said to be focused in getting nuclear material; Iranian President Mahmood Ahmadinejad wants an end to the West and our way of life, China is rapidly increasing their military for a reason. America must not be vulnerable militarily.

Let’s think of our troops and their families, and move to see an end to US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. We can use our full might of the military if only our military were allowed to. President Bush used to talk tough (as he should) on “taking it to the enemy” so if he is going to talk that way, he should deliver. The US doesn’t bluff.

C’mon! Let’s kick butt, let our troops do their jobs!
 

 *Felicia (Fee) Benamon is a political columnist who writes for various conservative sites including RenewAmerica.us, Michnews.com, Daley-Times Post, Renaissance Women ( http://www.rwnetwork.net/ ) , Capitolhillcoffeehouse.com, TheConservativeVoice.com, Mensnewsdaily.com, ConservativeCrusader.com, and other news sites like AmericanChronicle.com.  She is a columnist and a reporter for the Mid-South Patriot ( www.freewebs.com/midsouth-patriot ) in Memphis, TN.  Felicia hails from a military background, and has been politically active since the 2000 elections.  She has been a guest speaker on a variety of conservative internet talk radio shows. 

You may email Felicia: Feereports@aol.com  

One way we can honor the lives of those who have fought in wars past and present is to not only actively support them while they are engaged in battle, but here at home, being mindful of what is going on in our country and working to bring about positive change. It is positive to support our troops, to pray for them, our President, our nation, and our leaders in Washington. We must also act to let our voices be heard.Like many of you, I’ve endured hearing of more troop deaths in the War on Terror. Frankly, I’m getting sick of it as our leaders in Washington have not sent our men and women to war with all that they need. The main function of the military during times of war is not so much nation building as we are doing now (although that is good), but it is to search and destroy the enemy. We have to be on the offense, eliminating the threat. That MUST be the case all the time. But since we only go on the offensive only half of the time in Iraq specifically, perhaps we should be looking at other ways to be successful in Iraq.

Four years into the war in Iraq, our troops are still fighting, but they have had to wait for helpful resources that could have saved lives.  Meanwhile, the enemy plots and plans and carries out gruesome attacks on our soldiers through roadside bombs and IEDs. The number of IED deaths our troops have sustained, has risen.  And American troops are now just receiving the newer Mine Resistant Ambush Protected combat vehicles to protect them from IEDs, but why so late?

When you send men and women into battle in confidence and honor, you are saying “I respect you and I respect your ability to do what you have trained and dedicated your life to doing, therefore I will give you the appropriate tools (at the beginning of the war) to carry out the mission.”  To do less than that, is mocking them. 

Why are we so callous with our troops’ lives? Why are we not taking care of them as we should? The mainstream media would be happy to report any failing on the part of the Bush administration to supply our troops with all they need, and the Bush administration is helping to solidify that view, I believe.

I would caution that my voice does NOT equate to those who are against the war on the Left. I am simply asking the tough questions and writing in defense of our brave men and women who deserve all the best we can give them. It is fine to voice an opinion if one thinks that there have been mistakes made; mistakes that we REALLY should correct so that we may be victorious.

  

Our leaders in Washington must know…our troops aren’t expendable as they fight and die while our government makes decisions as we go along.  We must know what needs to be done and execute it quickly.

Alternate Strategy

It has been okay to say that we will press forward and fight; we must be successful in the War on Terror. But what good will it do if all we are doing is running on defensive measures with limited resources?  That’s what is fueling my frustration.  

Since we have failed to use more offensive tactics in the war in Iraq, leaders in Washington are looking at alternative ways to move forward in Iraq. More Republican senators have come forth and expressed their dissatisfaction with what is occurring currently.  They are thinking logically.

Senator Lamar Alexander, a Republican senator from my state of Tennessee has come together with other Republican and Democrat senators and recommended that the advice of the Iraq Study Group be taken into consideration in the future when dealing with operations in Iraq.

The DOD Authorization Bill would have an “amendment” attached that would set benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet in order for us to continue giving support to them. It would require troops to mainly be provided for “training”…and their overall mission would either be for “training, force protection, and counter-terrorism.”  A new “diplomatic offensive” in Iraq would include the help of those neighboring countries in the region to help Iraq stabilize itself.

Read more: http://alexander.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=1217

An operation that completely includes our allies and the help of willing neighboring countries of Iraq will yield a better result in getting Iraq under control. 

American soldiers are not occupiers of any country.  The longer we stay in Iraq, the more that label holds. Coming up with a strategy to draw down our troops little by little is more responsible than plunging full speed ahead without an offensive strategy.  Employing more troops to the battlefield won’t do any good if there is no clear action to take to remove the enemy from this earth.  A successful offensive military strategy would show the full power of the US military and see our enemy defeated, which would help in the speedy recovery of Iraq and return home of our troops. But that’s not happening.

As we head towards a 5th year at war in Iraq, we must remember our troops who are working SO hard to provide freedoms for others.  But they need every tool at their disposal to be successful.  

I would urge the President to consider how long and hard our troops have been working in Iraq to help that country up on its feet, and that they need help.  As a country, we may also face future threats and we need our military to be in top notch from.  That means the troops need the prayers of the American people, and our complete backing (including the backing of those in Washington) of their role in Iraq.  And it isn’t ”anti-war” to consider other alternatives to handling our current situation in Iraq.

When we say we support the troops, we must mean it. They are our countrymen and we must remember their needs as if they were our own.

Our troops must not grow weary in Iraq.
*Felicia (Fee) Benamon is a political columnist who writes for various conservative sites including RenewAmerica.us, Michnews.com, Daley-Times Post, Renaissance Women ( http://www.rwnetwork.net/ ) , Capitolhillcoffeehouse.com, TheConservativeVoice.com, Mensnewsdaily.com, ConservativeCrusader.com, and other news sites like AmericanChronicle.com.  She is a columnist and a reporter for the Mid-South Patriot ( www.freewebs.com/midsouth-patriot ) in Memphis, TN.  Felicia hails from a military background, and has been politically active since the 2000 elections.  She has been a guest speaker on various conservative internet talk radio shows. 

You may email Felicia: Feereports@aol.com.  

David Yezzi is Executive Editor of The New Criterion and the former director of New York’s Unterberg Poetry Center of the 92nd Street Y. He is a well-known poet whose published collections include The Hidden Model and Sad Is Eros. His libretto for a chamber opera by David Conte, Firebird Motel, was released as a CD earlier this year by Arsis. His essays have appeared at Poetry, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times Book Review, The New York Sun, and The New Yorker. He has earned degrees from Carnegie Mellon University and Columbia University School of the Arts.

BC: First off, let me ask about you poetry. Why should people bother to read it? What unique advantages does it offer over other literary genres?

David Yezzi: Well, I’m not sure that people should bother to read most poetry. A lot of what gets written in any age is complete dreck—perhaps now more than ever, since so many of the people writing poetry don’t read it (as a recent report from the National Endowment for the Arts showed). The real thing is extremely rare: As Randell Jarrell famously put it, “A good poet is someone who manages, in a lifetime of standing out in thunderstorms, to be struck by lightning five or six times.”

John Huston has a great sequence in his screenplay for The Treasure of the Sierra Madre that gets at the scarcity of 24 karat verse. Walter Huston, the director’s father, is talking to Humphry Bogart and a group of deadbeats at the Hotel Oso Negro about prospecting for gold. He could have just as easily been talking about prospecting for poetry. Houston says: “Answer me this one, will ya? Why is gold worth some twenty bucks an ounce?” He describes it this way, “A thousand men, say, go searching for gold. After six months, one of ‘em’s lucky, one out of a thousand. His find represents not only his own labor but nine hundred and ninety-nine others to boot. That’s, eh, six thousand months, five hundred years scrabbling over a mountain going hungry and thirsty. An ounce of gold, Mister, is worth what it is because of the human labor that went in to the finding and the gitten of it.”

It seems a relatively easy prospect on the face of it. As the poet and critic Yvor Winters defined it: A poem is a statement in words about a human experience, with special attention paid to emotion and to the connotative aspects of words. A real bonanza—a great poem—achieves an indelible and memorable expression for feelings connected to a human experience. The greatest poems are worth waiting for (and wading through a lot of the inferior stuff for). In many cases, it is not until a poet gives voice to a particular emotion by rendering it in words that one can experience it fully for the first time.

BC: Who are your favorite poets? Likewise, which ones do you find to be the most overrated?

David Yezzi: I recently led a seminar on W. H. Auden at the West Chester Poetry Conference in Pennsylvania and heard a reading by one of my very favorite contemporary poets, Kay Ryan. Ryan is hilarious and completely no nonsense. Her poems are not for those, as the renaissance poet Fulke Greville put it, on whose foot the black ox (of melancholy) has not already trod.

The British poet Geoffrey Hill is someone that I’m always interested in, even in his more difficult later books. He is a very great poet, perhaps the finest now writing in English. Interestingly, he has been without a publisher in this country in recent years, despite encomia from Harold Bloom, John Hollander, Christopher Ricks, and many other prominent critics. Yale University Press stepped into the breach last year and bought out Hill’s latest, Without Title. Yale will publish his next book in 2008, I believe.

There are many fine younger poets whom I admire: Ben Downing, John Foy, Joshua Mehigan, A. E. Stallings. We’ve also had the good fortune at The New Criterion to publish a number of excellent younger poets who won the New Criterion Poetry Prize: Bill Coyle, Geoffrey Brock, Adam Kirsch, and forthcoming this fall a terrific book by Jill Allyn Rosser called Foiled Again.

In terms of the overrated, critics like our own William Logan are superb at sticking a pin in the bubble reputation. It’s true that sometimes the balance needs redressing. With three kids (a five-year-old daughter and twin two-year-old boys), I feel like I have less and less time to spend on the overrated—I simply don’t read poets that don’t grab my attention and hold it in the din of squalling toddlers. Vita brevis.

BC: Is poetry dying? If so, what factors have brought about its decline?

David Yezzi: A perennial call goes out sounding the decline of poetry, but it seems to me that things are much as they have always been—though where the next Shakespeare is lurking I hardly know. As I’ve said, there’s never very much of the genuine about. One difference in recent decades, however, has been the loss of the tools themselves. Traditional verse technique is no longer required to be a revered poet and well-paid professor of poetry. In fact, quite the opposite is the case; metered verse and rhyme are now seen as clear indications of a poet’s lack of feeling.

Fortunately, poems have always been written in traditional verse, even in the free-verse heyday of the later twentieth century. I suspect they always will be. Good poems are nigh impossible write, and any poet who abandons certain time-tested and powerful tools and techniques (on political or aesthetic grounds) does so at his peril. Formal verse technique is strong medicine—the most precise instrument we have for calibrating shades of meaning and emotion. Doing without it is not just playing tennis with the net down (as Robert Frost said) but playing without a ball. I’m not opposed to free verse, but I am opposed to those who are reflexively for it to the exclusion of all else.

A few years ago I wrote an essay on this subject for The New Criterion.

BC: When I was in college we used to go down to a bookshop in Cleveland Heights and hear readings but now I find that many of these readings are termed “spoken word.” What exactly does spoken word mean?

David Yezzi: I’ve read poems at the Bowery Poetry Club and the Nuyorican Poets Cafe in New York—both bastions of what I think of as “spoken word.” I’m not sure that I know what the term means beyond poetry read or recited to an audience. Poetry “slams”—a kind of hipster version on the old Welsh eisteddfod, I suppose—are increasingly popular. I’ve never “slammed,” though I once judged high-school students in a recitation contest, in which they memorized and recited well-known poems. I wish more teachers encouraged their students to memorize poems.

BC: A couple of years ago I saw at the Chicago Book Fair a compilation of Tupac Shakur’s collected poems. What do you make of the way in which rap is now considered poetry?

David Yezzi: We are at a point in the arts, I think, where the question isn’t so much, “Is it art?” or “Is it poetry?” Basically, if someone says it is, then I’m inclined to concede the point. I would then hasten to get on with the business of answering the more important question, “Is it any good?” I must admit that I haven’t read the late rapper’s poems or heard them read out (which might even be more to the point for a rapper).

Geoffrey Hill has criticized rap in his book Speech! Speech! for what I take to be his aversion to language wielded as a cudgel, to a timber in rhetoric that strips language of subtlety of expression and espouses a modulated violence in words. I suspect that a poet like Hill, who has devoted his life to perceiving how even the most minute aspects of language have had life-or-death consequences in our history, would naturally recoil from rap’s steamroller approach. Perhaps I’ve misread him, but I can see how that might be the case.

BC: I notice that you’ve made audio files of poems. Is this “delivery system” (if you will) a viable approach for saving poetry or at least expanding its readership?

David Yezzi: Yes, I’ve done recordings for The Atlantic Monthly, The Cortland Review, and Salon. I’m not sure how many people listen to them, but I do believe that poetry readings in general (whether live, on the radio, or recorded) do get poetry out to an expanded audience. I certainly cherish the recordings I have of Auden, Richard Wilbur, Marianne Moore, Geoffrey Hill, and many others. Yeats, of course, was a real crooner. There’s even an old wax cylinder recording that people believe to be Walt Whitman reading a few lines from his poem “America.” I suppose .mpgs will soon seem woefully outmoded in much the same way.

BC: How politicized is poetry nowadays? How much has politicization of the academy corrupted the art form?

David Yezzi: I recently participated in an exchange with another poet in the June issue of Poetry magazine in which, to my surprise, a number of old political hobbyhorses got paraded around the paddock.

The political entrenchment of the academy has been reported in all it’s gruesomeness by my colleague Roger Kimball, editor of The New Criterion. I would only add that things are equally entrenched from an aesthetic standpoint. It’s not that masters degrees in poetry, which function as excellent cash cows for universities across the country, are completely worthless. I have one myself, and I can say that they are only almost completely worthless. They do have one serious downside however: students seeking preferment begin to write like their teachers. They then graduate with a degree that is really only useful to teach creative writing in a program much like the one from which they have just graduated. Their students learn to write like they do and so on. This has had quite a deadening effect on contemporary poetry in general, I think.

BC: Thanks for your time, David.

Bernard Chapin is the author of Escape from Gangsta Island and a soon-to-be released book on women. He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

Roman Genn is one of the most distinctive cartoonists in the world with a style both striking and vivacious. In my opinion, his bravery and irreverence are a crucial factor behind his artistic success and excellence. Those of us who read National Review have long been aware of his work as he is their principal cartoonist. A special store devoted to his prints has been created at their website. He also maintains rgenn.com where one can read his full biography and also examine a significant number of his caricatures and oil paintings. His work has appeared at most of the major media outlets such as The New York Sun, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times, and The New York Times. Luckily for us, Roman’s big personality and sense of humor are on display in the interview below.

BC: Roman, the first thing I have to ask you about is your new role as a big time artist. You’ve just had a major show out in Los Angeles so should we now refer to you as an artist formerly known as a caricaturist? In all seriousness, does the art world look down on cartoonists?

Roman Genn: Yes. In fact Leonardo still suffers greatly from that reputation, and Goya and Daumier also never managed to recover. To avoid their pitiful fate, I spend most of my time in front of the mirror practicing achromatic utterances on Foucault and collecting the wrinkles in the middle of my forehead in the sagacious manner of One Who Has Learned the Laws of Nature. I need to work on my “tired of life” smile some more, though. It still doesn’t match my black pants.

BC: How do critics react to your political orientation? Was, “the house cartoonist for National Review,” used by them to alert potential buyers that a buck for you is a buck for the right wing?

Roman Genn: A buck for me will unquestionably go to traditionally liberal causes: Booze & Women! (Well…one woman.) No one suspects a thing - I have skillfully camouflaged my dreadful Ludendorffian beliefs with libertarian social values. Besides, I heavily rely on human vanity – for, next to war, art is the greatest way to immortalize a reputation.

BC: As a conservative who is probably speaking to conservatives in this interview, what do you make of the art world? Is it as goofy as we imagine it to be?

Roman Genn: Are you in fact suggesting that the stalagmites of dried dreck garnished with polysyllable waffling are less profound than Velasquez’s de Gongora?!!! But seriously, there are many excellent artists working today who unfortunately lack the indispensable gifts necessary for demagoguery and self-promotion, while the bad ones are full of passionate intensity. Roger Kimball and James Panero do an excellent job covering those trends for The New Criterion.

BC: Speaking of right wing, how would you characterize your views today? What’s your opinion of Mr. Bush?

Roman Genn: He lost me with that wristwatch of his (known as the Albanian incident). A Man incapable of protecting his accessories from third world thieves does not deserve to run this country. Unless, of course, he stuck it back in his pocket. In that case, we should amend the Constitution and reelect him for a third term.

BC: Pardon my ignorance in regards to the actual production process, but I must ask you as to how your work is created. Do you paint, ink, or sketch upon a large canvass and then reduce the product to whatever size is most convenient?

Roman Genn: She Who Inspires promised me a kiss for anything in oil and thru a complicated mathematical calculation I came to the conclusion that ten pieces would multiply the reward tenfold, thus the current series “Gloria mundi” came to be.

I try to paint from life, but I had such a miserable experience with Bonaparte, who wouldn’t sit still and kept mumbling about catching a cold and something incoherent about Wellington (my French is not that good, not to mention that awful Corsican accent of his), so I finally decided to work from photos, videos and to harass historians, soldiers and journalists into consulting me on technicalities. For example, former federal judge Abraham Sofaer (who was in the unique position to sit in judgment of Ariel Sharon) was vital in providing an invaluable first hand observation on the General’s personality. For Orwell’s portrayal I mostly relied on the superb writings of Robert Conquest, David Pryce-Jones and Christopher Hitchens, in addition to Orwell’s own, to guide me. Some historians would suggest different directions—Bernard Lewis recommended Liddell Hart, but Pryce-Jones advised to go with Aldington for a study of T.E. Lawrence. The Neruda piece was prompted by a lovely elegy from Dorfman in the Los Angeles Times, titled “Neruda’s verses howl against terror of today and yesterday.” A bloodthirsty reactionary like me couldn’t ignore such peculiar admiration of a Stalinist lackey!

And sometimes it’s a quote I see that inspires me, like Churchill’ s, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” Or Napoleon’s “I love power. But it is as an artist that I love it. I love it as a musician loves his violin, to draw out its sounds and chords and harmonies.”

BC: What is your work routine like?

Roman Genn: Nine to five (9pm till about 5 am, that is) I spend listening to books on tape—usually Paul Johnson, William Manchester or some other wise Brit. The first half of the day is usually wasted contemplating the murder of the leaf blowers and tree trimmers, which I think should be made legal in the State of California!

BC: Some of your pieces, such as the clever depictions of Napoleon Bonaparte and Winston Churchill that you just alluded to, rely heavily on the viewer having a background knowledge of history. Does this fact limit your commercial appeal? It seems to me that the general population is about as interested in history as they are in quadratic equations.

Roman Genn: Yes, Sir Winston’s life and achievements are undoubtedly less interesting than Ms. Hilton’s current legal predicament. As Liddell Hart put it to J.M. Scammell, “I’ve done enough knight-errantry of forlorn heroes to know the difficulty. If I had done Hannibal instead of Scipio, or Lee instead of Sherman, I should have sold double or treble.” Pity he doesn’t know we still read him.

BC: I have to ask you, as I know that you’re as much of a history fanatic as I am, what is it about the past that so enthralls you? How might you sell our need to examine antiquity to a skeptic? I honestly believe it is as big a conduit for the understanding of humans as is psychology.

Roman Genn: I derive immense pleasure from saying “not quite, actually in 1815…” every time someone screams “Unprecedented!” Psychology is not completely detached though, probably the flaws and ambitions of those who have the power to influence the currents of nations determine the course of events more that anything else. But our inability to gain knowledge from history is staggering nonetheless. For instance, it is my deepest belief (and here I differ from my fellow conservatives) that modern democracies are incapable of fighting effectively and wining a war of any duration against nonwestern opponents. (Notable exceptions being, what Bernard Lewis calls Kuwaitus interruptus and the Israeli wars), reasons being primarily, the complete lack of understanding of ideological warfare, as well as the inability to control the home front. And yet no lessons have been learned and no changes have been made. It is our great fortune thus far that our current adversaries do not employ Mansteins and Guderians, but that may very well change, so who knows? All of this, plus other minor things, lead me to believe that this is going be a long and interesting century….

BC: Is there a period that you enjoy studying more than any other? What is it your favorite?

Roman Genn: Probably the period from 1929 to 1945, the “subterranean world, where pathological fantasies disguised as ideas were churned out by crooks and half-educated fanatics for the benefit of the ignorant and superstitious” in Norman Cohn’s words, the very culmination of the ravaged century. The sheer immensity of that struggle and tragedy fascinates me.

BC: As one who experienced the madness of the Soviet Union first hand, are you at all worried about the effect the Nanny State has had on America? If government “has to move” every time somebody is hurt, then how can we avoid becoming mini-Soviets ourselves?

Roman Genn: Well, someone was definitely hurting every time the Soviets moved! However, the one thing their bureaucratic brothers in the DHS could learn from them is the practice of accepting small cash donations in appreciation of the promptness and efficiency of processing applications from law-abiding residents (I need a damn passport to go on the NR cruise!)

BC: Does any part of you lament the eventual loss of Russia? Its population seems to be declining with each passing minute. Do you still think of it as your homeland?

Roman Genn: All of it is a clever ruse, designed to deceive Mark Steyn. When the Motherland calls, billions of patriotic sperms are going to aufmarsch from of their assembly areas, advancing en masse and, swiftly overwhelming the intended uterus, heroically plant the Imperial Tricolor in the ovum! As for being nostalgic-I definitely miss homicidal alcoholics with delusions of grandeur.

Bernard Chapin is a writer living in Chicago. He is the author of Escape from Gangsta Island, and is currently at work on a book concerning women. He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

The lamestream media told you:

With state legislatures wrapping up their sessions across America, budget cuts and reduced spending may lead to reduced fire, police, roadwork and other essential services. Legislators who have worked hard on tax rebates, tax reductions and lower government spending may have hurt the public at large with ill-conceived spending cuts.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Although reporters are highly prone to repeat empty statements about cutting police, fire and essential services in hard financial times, there appears to be no logical grounds for doing so, other than a mindless lapdog mentality pervasive in the “news” business.

The obvious top choice for cuts when funds are short is bureaucratic waste, not the fire department.

This is followed by agency redundancies, worthless regulatory programs, burdensome funding of pork recipients and other gross governmental waste. Even a moron knows you cut police and fire last, not first. Because that’s less sensational and would not instill a sense of fear to increase spending, it is ignored, and the media faithfully promotes the government’s agenda.

Newspapers and network TV viewership continue to decline.