THE PALEOCRAT TRIBUNE

Conservatism is, as Samuel Francis would write in a book by the same title, a beautiful loser. A movement with no creed, no agreed upon set of icons, and no consensus on just what they wish to conserve. Heaven forbid that I decry them for traits common to most all political movements. But to pretend that there is a consensus within the movement, as the more loud and proud would like everyone to believe, is to play the part of the village idiot.

The question I am often asked is where I believe myself to fit in amongst the conservative horde. This was never a difficult question to answer. I have always found myself somewhere between paleolibertarianism and paleoconservativism. Any way you went with it, “paleo” was the necessary prefix.

There were certrainly areas of tension. Finding my home on issues concerning was Wall St. and Main St., tariffs and laissez-faire, as well as restrictionism and amnesty was no easy task. There are still a number of unresolved tensions, but I presume this will be the case for the duration of my life. At any rate, I have found what I would generally refer to as home.

But it would be foolish of me to pretend that I am a cookie-cutter paleoconservative. I maintain a number of positions that may be considered anathema by many of the paleos. My preference for culturism over racialism hasn’t won me many brownie points amongst the more hardline of the crowd. My distaste for capitalism and tentative take on industrialism would place me in dock with many. But my positions on health care, environmentalism, animal treatment, labor unions, and a Just/Living Wage would possibly have me thrown to the gallows along with the ghosts of excommunicants past.

So what am I? Where do I fit? Not sure. But I don’t think I’d prefer it any other way.

For any and all who love Catholic Social Doctrine and all things Distributist, this Yahoo Group is for thee.

“Both Capitalism and Socialism tend to see humanity as a conglomeration of numbers, not men with immortal souls.”

Roy F. Moore

I’ve never been one for conspiracy theories, but I’ve also never been afraid to admit when something seems a little odd. The particular “fringe” theory I currently have in mind is the one surrounding Barack Obama’s birth certificate. Below are links that have been sent to me as well as a video.

I’m not ready to jump on board with the “Obama is not a U.S. citizen” crowd… but I’m hard-pressed to explain why not.

Doug Wilson’s take on the matter.

Right Mind posting Newsmax on controversy

Part II of my interview with Kristen Day, the Executive Director of Democrats for Life of America, and author of “Democrats for Life: Pro-Life Politics and the Silenced Majority.”

Palin’s gone rogue!

Well, what did the McCain team expect? They asked a maverick to join another maverick on a maverick campaign! Now they complain that she is a tad too mavericky? C’mon…

NOTE: U.S. Congressman Maury Maverick, the grandson of the original maverick, coined the word “gobbledygook.” Ironically, this is Palin’s native tongue.

For more details, view VIDEO.

Since having discussed my opinion on the drug war during a recent edition of Paleo Radio (Mon., Oct. 20), I have been bombarded with questions and requests to further clarify my position. It is for this reason that I am writing this particular post. My goal isn’t to convince anyone of my position, but simply to make appropriate clarifications and answer a few of the more common questions I have received.

My position:

I believe that those drugs currently deemed illicit (not legally permitted or authorized; unlicensed; unlawful) should be moderately decriminalized.

A brief explanation:

My position is premised, in part, on the belief that the use of these particular drugs falls within the moral category of a sin rather than a crime. While admitting that all crimes are (or ought to be) sin, we must never forget that not all sins are (or ought to be) criminalized. The question, then, is not whether or not the use of these drugs is morally acceptable, medically advisable, or situationally permissible, but if they should remain criminalized. My answer to this specific question is, in short, no.

Common questions from listeners, readers, friends and family:

Don’t you think drug use would sky-rocket?

Possibly. But this is hardly grounds for making it (or keeping it as) a crime. The legalization of alcohol certainly contributes to its widespread popularity. The same can be said of tobacco and caffiene. They are drugs, widely accessible, and greeted with general acceptance. They also happen to be highly addictive and potentially deadly. The line between illicit and licit, at least in the cases mentioned here, are as costly as they are arbitrary.

So you support drug use?

Sometimes. If I have a headache, I reach for my Tylenol. For those who have siezures, I would see no problem with taking Depacote or even Lithium. Those with panic or anxiety disorders are encouraged to take Ambien, Xanex, or Clonazepam. For children with ADHD (if you believe in such a thing), I would strongly encourage the use of caffiene over typical regimens of Adderall or Ritalin. There are medications for cholesterol, heart problems, muscle pain, and a host of other ailments. There are also natural remedies to these problems, and the market for such therapy is growing.

The point, though, is to demonstrate the foolishnes of the question. The question ought not to be about whether or not I support drug use, but with whether or not the line dividing the drugs we consider licit and those we consider illicit is reasonable. I say that it is not.

Do you support medical marijuana?

Of course. If it can be used, used it. We currently have medications far more addictive and with far more short- and long-term consequences than marijuana. Most people who have asked me this question have taken, or known someone who has taken, Morphine or Codeine for pain. These are derived from opiates. Once again, the dividing line between licit and illicit is absurd.

For those in Michigan, this issue is being put up to a vote on Nov. 4. It is Proposal I. I’ve endorsed it.

So you don’t support any laws whatsoever?

On a federal level, the government should restrict itself to issues pertaining to the interstate, commerce, and trade, specifically on the borders with incoming drugs. But as for federal laws criminalizing the producing, selling, and consumption of what are currently considered illicit drugs, these can (and should) be taken off the books. This would force the federal government to return to pre-1914 Harrison Narcotics Tax Act standards and activities.

States, on the other hand, may regulate it as they wish. Some would be more liberal than others, but states deal with situations like this on a regular basis. Some states don’t allow the sale of corn whiskey. Some states ban the sale of certain fireworks. Other states have differing gun laws. This would just be another thing to add to the list of state distinctives.

How would there be any regulating drugs?

This presumes that society has but one regulatory agency, and that this is the state. But even without the criminalization of drugs, society is comprised of a number of regulatory influences and agencies. Social norms limit what many people do, if for no other reason than that they are norms. Families have rules that the members abide by. Individuals typically wish to be moderate and sober in hope of excelling in their various endeavors. Churches will likely continue to prohibit the use of these drugs, though they may incorporate these newly decriminalized drugs into those accepted on medicinal grounds. Schools and sports associations could put in place (or keep in place) rules they have concerning the use of various drugs. Employers and Unions could place restrictions on its use, especially during work hours. Local and state lawmakers could include these drugs within the scope of laws regulating the public use of alcohol. These are just a few examples of what could (and should) happen were we to decriminalize drugs.

Conclusion:

While I am confident that many will disagree with my position as well as the rationale behind my position, it is my hope that the listeners and viewers having expressed concern will be better familiarized with my view as well as the reasons I have for holding such a position. If there are questions I did not answer that you would like to have answered, please let me know. I am more than willing to discuss this matter in greater detail. In fact, with the economic crisis we are experiencing, there may be no better time to discuss this particular issue.

It is often the little things that kill. Unfortunately, little things typically get overlooked. The old cause-and-effect story of a kingdom being lost on account of a nail falling from a horse’s hoof is rather appropriate. Were it not for what most consider a rather insignificant detail the empire would still be standing strong. But as the story goes, the domino-effect took place as one small setback created yet another until ending in the demise of a great people and vibrant kingdom.

This imagery came to mind as I perused a copy of Proposal 2, sent to me by my state senator. This particular proposal calls for increased deregulation of embryonic stem-cell research in the state of Michigan.

I do not wish here to deal with the traditional arguments against embryonic stem-cell research. Instead, I wish only to comment on what many on both sides of the issue may or may not recognize as the far-reaching ramifications of this particular proposal.

It is my contention that this proposal, while appearing rather modest, goes to the very core of the debate over abortion and abortifacient contraceptives.

On the one hand, arguing that embryonic stem-cell research is either morally neutral or should be restricted to a set number of pre-existing lines, the foundation of pro-life philosophy essentially disappears. If life is not sacred from the moment of conception, then one is left with the pro-choice crowd wishing to establish an arbitrary and unscientific stage of human development where mere tissue obtains what we would legally refer to as personhood.

On the other hand, if the pro-choice crowd concedes, as the proposal does, that stem cells would not be taken “from human embryos more than 14 days after cell division begins,” then pro-choice advocates will be left having to justify not only the rationale behind such an arbitrary decision, but also their continued advocacy of most all medical abortion. They’ll have to explain why they would permit the poisoning and dissection of babies who are well beyond 14 days after the point where cell division begins. In sum, why restrict experimentation on babies that they are already more than willing to deprive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without due process of law, going so far as to inflict upon them what is nothing less than the most cruel and unusual of punishments? Their line of logic would place these poor innocent souls within the scope of their scalpel, making them prime candidates for such experimentation.

In either case, the vote will have far-reaching affects on the way the abortion and contraception debate is framed. Does either side fully understand the full reach of their position on this “modest” proposal? I highly doubt it. But as I said in this beginning of this post, the little things are all too often overlooked. The question, then, is what philosophy these “little things” will kill.

Editor’s note: It is my belief that both the student wishing create a Hispanic student organization and the Olivet College faculty involved in the process were unaware of what MEChA stood for, what the organization has said, and what type of shenanigans MEChA has been affiliated with over the years. In my opinion, It was a matter of understandable ignorance and genuine innocence.

Olivet College tip-toed a dangerous line when recently considering the reactivation of its long dormant chapter of MEChA. Unbeknownst to the student wishing to form the club, the head of the Multicultural Department, and the Vice President and Dean of Student Life, MEChA is a militant Chicano student organization fueled by cultural nationalism and racialist fury.

Here is the one-question wrecking-ball that brought the hopes of MEChA crashing down:

“What steps will Olivet College be taking to distance themselves from the militant racism expressed by MEChA’s national organization and embodied within their core documents?”

The student heading up the drive for the student organization as well as the head of the Multicultural Department quickly revamped the idea, shelving what one hopes to be permanently any hope of MEChA ever having a presence amongst the student body of Olivet College. One can only believe that this incident will cause the administration to begin taking a little time to investigate student organizations before sending emails to the student body stating their intention to reactivate a hate-club that should have probably never been chartered in the first place.

Iraqi Children Caught in the Fog of War

Block your ears from the cries of mothers and children seeing streets streaming with the blood of their loved ones. Force yourself to ignore the screams of anguish from the elderly who watch their dreams breathe their last breath. Continue to convince yourself that all is well so long as it is happening to those people over there. Better “over there” to “those people” than “over here” to “us,” right?

The Great Commission has devolved into a crusade for secular democracy. Worst of all may be that many have forgetten that these two are not one and the same. But never mind the inherent conflict between this crusade and the reality of Original Sin. Push aside all questions about means and ends. Such serious considerations tends to confuse simple masses and inevitably muddles up what the rulers see as a crystal clear mandate

Plowshares are hammered into swords. Religious leaders bless the lambs of their fold as they trade in their fleece for the coarse hair of of the pack they wish to join. But little Johnny-Q and Sally Sue look so strong, so brave… so American.

Close your eyes, bid them farewell, and praise Caesar for his benevolence. Refuse to second guess, repudiate all reason, and deem repugnant any and all who call for the return of Johnny-Q and Sally Sue, who pray for casting off of military garb, who envision the day when swords are turned into plowshares, and who dare to shed a tear for the lives and dreams lost in the fog of war… especially if it is one of them over there.