Monday, December 10, 2018

December 10, 2018

MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey

Banning those Hateful Christmas Songs—What Would Dante Say?


It was one of those little things—one of those sudden interruptions of a pre-planned schedule—that stops you in your tracks, that convinces you to alter what you had hoped to accomplish during the day. As I briefly caught a segment of “Fox & Friends” this morning before turning over to hear some classic Christmas music and prepare my Christmas cards—there she was, Deanna Martin, daughter of the late Dean Martin, interviewed about the recent spate of banning of the romantic Christmas song, “Baby it’s cold outside.”

I did a double-take. I remembered vaguely the song. It was written back in 1944 by lyricist/composer Frank Loesser, and then featured in the 1949 musical comedy, the film Neptune’s Daughter starring Esther Williams, Red Skelton, and Ricardo Montalban. It actually won an Academy Award for best song that year.

But in December 2018 the song was being banned by radio stations as an example of “toxic masculinity” and “sexism.”

Here is a portion of a report featured on National Public Radio (NPR):

“…The call and response duet has a female voice trying to tear herself away from her date in myriad ways: "I've got to go away ... Hey, what's in this drink?" And finally, "The answer is no."   But her declarations of "no" are far from final, with the male voice, wheedling "Mind if I move in closer ... Gosh, your lips are delicious ... How can you do this thing to me?"

Cleveland's WDOK put its foot down where the female voice could not, announcing its ban of the song last week. "I do realize that when the song was written in 1944, it was a different time, but now while reading it, it seems very manipulative and wrong," host Glenn Anderson wrote on the station's web site. "The world we live in is extra sensitive now, and people get easily offended, but in a world where #MeToo has finally given women the voice they deserve, the song has no place." Brian Figula, program director of KOIT saw the headlines and determined the song would have no place at his San Francisco station. He banned it on Monday.” [Amy Held, “'Baby, It's Cold Outside,' Seen As Sexist, Frozen Out By Radio Stations,” ]

The cries of “date rape” and “toxic masculinity” resounded on feminist Web sites, via Twitter, and Facebook. “Ban it!” they screamed. “It is an ugly example of historic male dominance and manipulation of women!” they wrote.

But just as the effort to exile one more piece of historic Americana gained momentum there was, as well, a backlash from angry listeners to have the song restored, and a few stations have, given the public outrage, altered course and brought the song back.

Nevertheless, this most recent example of what feminism has brought us got me thinking: just in the past several years there have been dozens of similar episodes, calls to ban or expunge songs associated with Christmas and the Christmas holiday. Those efforts have usually employed the twin accusations of “racism” and “sexism”—charges that have been weaponized by the post-Marxist Left and the Progressives who now dominate not just the Mainstream Media, but the Democratic Party, and almost the entirety of academia and, increasingly, Hollywood. And in numerous cases, the results have seen familiar tunes, previously considered part of our historic musical heritage and holiday season, disappear from the airwaves.

Years ago, I recall similar efforts: Remember the old familiar religious hymns, “Onward, Christian Soldiers” and “From Greenland’s Icy Mountains”? Both were denounced as “colonialist,” “fostering Western imperialism,” and “racist.” The late Bishop Vincent S. Waters, Catholic Bishop of Raleigh, more than fifty years ago would host Saturday breakfasts to which a wide variety of religious and secular leaders were invited. I was a regular attendee, and at one of those breakfasts he had me seated right next to the Reverend W. W. Finlator, pastor of the Pullen Memorial Baptist Church. Pullen Memorial was arguably the most liberal congregation in Raleigh, maybe in all of North Carolina. It had seceded from the Southern Baptist Convention, and its minister, Reverend Finlator, was by any definition, a vocal denizen of the “religious left”—an oxymoron, if there ever was one.

Back in 1970 I think my dear friend, Bishop Waters, had seated me there on purpose, for as soon as our conversations began, Finlator and I were at crossed swords, and, in particular, about music; first about the use of the traditional Latin liturgy (which I staunchly favored), but then turning to those hymns sung in many Protestant churches, and the efforts to purge them because somehow, somewhere, they might offend an Aborigine or Bantu in the jungles of darkest Africa. Like most Progressivists Finlator believed that Christianity in its public worship and manifestations and how it crafted its message, must change with the times. Truth was dependent on the spirit of the age and needed to reflect that in both its approach and its message.

For me this was—and is—the total inversion of the truth of that message, of the Gospel, and, effectively, of the consistent and never-changing teaching of the Church.

Reflecting now on the more recent controversies over those favorite songs we sing at Christmas and the attacks made on them as “racist” or “sexist,” the conversations I had with W. W. Finlator have come back to me.

The same #Resist movement that has spawned violent demonstrations about our historical monuments, most specifically those honoring Confederate veterans—the same #MeToo frenzy that demands the emasculation of men in the name of “women’s equality”—the same Progressivists who demand that those Nativity creches in front of public buildings be removed—the same zealots who file lawsuits to ban prayer before a school board or town council meeting—those folks are all part and parcel of the same hounds of Hell who loathe the very mention of traditional religion, who cannot sleep as long as one symbol of historic Christian faith—one symbol vaguely connected to or representative of Western Christian heritage—remains in public view, or in earshot. They may direct their emphases to this or that despised aspect of our traditions, but they emerge from essentially the same infernal source, and their disfiguring lunacy is both a self-consuming madness and utterly destructive of the civilization and its culture which we have inherited.

Just a few days I came upon what may capture the eventuality of this infectious and rancid brew—a fetid “rough beast” that encapsulates it all. A professor of clinical psychology and “sexuality studies,” Eric Sprankle, at Minnesota State University-Mankato,

“…has accused God of sexual misconduct for impregnating Mary, the mother of Jesus, without her 'consent'. Eric Sprankle, an associate professor of clinical psychology and sexuality studies at Minnesota State University-Mankato, criticized the Biblical Christmas story, saying the Christian deity was 'predatory' .  'The virgin birth story is about an all-knowing, all-powerful deity impregnating a human teen,' Sprankle wrote on Twitter. 'There is no definition of consent that would include that scenario. Happy Holidays.” []

Thus, an all-powerful Male, indeed a deity, forcing Himself on an innocent teenage girl, “without her consent.” If this isn’t “rape” and “toxic masculinity,” then, pray tell, what is? “To put someone in this position is an unethical abuse of power at best and grossly predatory at worst,” the professor wrote.

The article from the London Daily Mail goes on to identify just who this Professor Sprankle is: “Sprankle is an apparent Satanist, whose Twitter bio includes the phrase 'Hail Satan' in Latin.  He has also posted pictures of the Satanic Christmas decorations in his home, and complained about the abundance of Christian student groups and lack of Satanic groups on his university's campus.”

So, there you have it—the ultimate expression of the ultimate destination where this multifaceted movement for “liberation” is urgently headed. But the “liberation” proposed and advanced is our delivery into the clutches of pure Evil which emits from the very Bowels of Hell.

The great poet Dante Alighieri, in his The Divine Comedy, imagined as perhaps no other secular visionary what that Evil entailed. In Part III, “Inferno,” in the lowest level of Hell he describes the frozen lake in which the souls of the worst of the damned remain imprisoned for eternity, ruled by, “the Emperor of the Realm of Woe [who] stood forth out of the ice from midway up his breast.” Indescribable pain, utter and uncontrollable frenzy and madness, and unalleviated and concentrated hatred for the Good—characterize the souls, the subjects of that dark lord. And that same fate is held up, disguised as a tempting bauble to inveigle us all.

The Apostle in I Peter 5:8 describes and warns us of this:  Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour.” (Douai-Rheims Version)

The surest way to reject the “roaring lion,” this Hydra-headed Behemoth and its diverse and multifaceted modern incarnations intent of gorging on the entrails of Western Christian civilization, is to forcefully reject it and send it reeling back to the lower level of Hell from whence it came.

Friday, December 7, 2018

December 7, 2018

MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey

BOOKS FOR CHRISTMAS – My Annual List of Books I’ve Read and Highly Recommend


At Christmas Time many of us think about giving gifts to friends and to those we love. Each year in this MY CORNER series I like to offer a list of books that I think would be excellent Christmas gifts.

So, again this year, I offer a short list of books that I’ve read (I admit I haven’t had as much time as I would like to read!) and that I believe would make excellent gifts, or that, perhaps, you might wish to own and read yourself.

From time immemorial it has been the custom in Christian lands to give gifts, to give presents to our loved ones and dear friends. In a sense, that custom mirrors the Greatest Gift of All, the coming of Our Blessed Lord in a lowly stable in Bethlehem of Judaea a little over two 2,000 years ago. On our human level we express and share that joy with other humans.

In recent days, as I searched for some age-appropriate gifts for my two young grand-nephews, fighting the crowds and the horrific traffic, I got to thinking about this wonderful tradition and just what it means, or, at least should mean: not just the onerous obligation “to get something” for Uncle Bill or Cousin Jane, not just the requirement to get out in all the hurly-burly and swirl of frantic last minute shoppers. But the very real joy of showing Our Savior’s love in us by sharing it with someone we love. Indeed, the joy occasioned by our giving in some ways outweighs the joy in the eyes and expressions of the recipients of our gifts.

Here is my list, with brief information about each one, and how to purchase them:

First—and this is a perennial favorite: GENERAL LEE AND SANTA CLAUS (Scuppernong Press: It is available via Amazon, but much quicker via the publisher Scuppernong Press.  Here is what I said about this charming volume last year:

“One such tale that I vividly recall [growing up] was what we knew as 'General Lee and Santa Claus'.  Although my father would usually just recite it to us, we later found out that it had actually been published shortly after the War Between the States (1867). We had no reason to doubt it, and, indeed, until this day there is some debate about whether the incident recalled actually occurred. But as good Southerners, devoted to our land and our people and our traditions, even if tinged in legend, we knew that it must have been true!  [….]I give thanks to Jennifer Uhlank for her summary…it is just like I remember it:

“I recently came across an interesting Christmas-y story about General Robert E Lee. I am not sure the story is true, but I found it interesting, so I thought I would share it with you. The story was written about by Louise Clack in her 1867 book titled General Lee and Santa Claus: Mrs. Louise Clack’s Christmas Gift to Her Little Southern Friends.

“As the story goes, sometime after the end of the Civil War, three young southern girls were confused as to why no Southern children received toys at Christmas during the war years. Their aunt suggested that the reason was because General Lee would not allow Santa to cross the lines into territory held by the South. The inquisitive girls took it upon themselves to write General Lee and find out if, in fact, this was the case. They greased the wheels by complimenting Lee, saying he was the “goodest man that ever lived” and that he “always spoke the truth.” Their letter continued as follows:

“Please tell us whether Santa Claus loves the little rebel children, for we think he don't; because he did not come to see us for four Christmas Eves. Auntie thinks you would not let him cross the lines, and we don't know how to find out unless we write and ask you. We all love you dearly, and we want to send you something; but we have not anything nice enough; we lost all our toys in the war. Birdie wants to send you one of our white kittens—the one with black ears; but Auntie thinks maybe you don't like kittens. We say little prayers for you every night, dear General Lee, and ask God to make you ever so happy.”

“They signed the letter with ‘Your little friends, Lutie, Birdie, and Minnie’.

“According to Mrs. Clack, General Lee wrote the little girls back, thanking them for their prayers, and explaining to them what happened to their toys. His letter stated the following:

“The first Christmas Eve of the war I was walking up and down in the camp ground, when I thought I heard a singular noise above my head; and on looking to find out from whence it came, I saw the queerest, funniest-looking little old fellow riding along in a sleigh through the air. On closer inspection, he proved to be Santa Claus.

“Halt! Halt!, I said; but at this the funny fellow laughed, and did not seem inclined to obey, so again I cried Halt!. And he drove down to my side with a sleigh full of toys. I was very sorry for him when I saw the disappointed expression of his face when I told him he could go no further South; and when he exclaimed, Oh, what will my little Southern children do! I felt more sorry, for I love little children to be happy, and especially at Christmas. But of one thing I was certain—I knew my little friends would prefer me to do my duty, rather than have all the toys in the world; so I said: Santa Claus, take every one of the toys you have back as far as Baltimore, sell them, and with the money you get buy medicines, bandages, ointments, and delicacies for our sick and wounded men; do it and do it quickly—it will be all right with the children.”

“Lee continued his letter, stating that Santa saluted, drove away, and returned before dawn with not only the requested supplies, but much more for the sick and wounded men, and that Santa did this every Christmas Eve during the war. Lee closed his letter by inviting the three girls to write him again and signed off with, ‘Your true friend, General Robert E. Lee’.

“I have no proof that these letters were ever truly written or exchanged. Whether they were real or simply a work of Mrs. Clack’s imagination, I thought they gave an interesting perspective on that period in our nation's history.’

GENERAL LEE AND SANTA CLAUS would make an ideal Christmas present for both a child OR an adult, and is one of those short volumes that could be read out to smaller children by parents. Scuppernong Press can get your order to you within a week…an ideal Christmas present!

Second, what may be the most significant, indeed, most critical book published this year: Tucker Carlson’s SHIP OF FOOLS (Free Press, easily obtained via Amazon). I have actually given this book as gift to a friend—who is not college educated—and who told me that it was most important book he had read in years! Basically, Carlson, who is a fearless Fox News commentator, presents a running, highly-readable, highly-understandable survey of the basic takeover going on in America currently, where the elites in BOTH political parties, both the Democrats AND Republicans, ride roughshod over the voters and citizens, promising one thing, but when in Washington and in the major power centers, basically turning our nation into one large plantation controlled by them, used by them, raped (if I may use that overused term) by them.

Carlson points out that, in contradistinction to the consistent claims made by Democrats, it is they who have now become the rich and powerful, the party of billionaires living in their gated mansions and who demand that the rest of us pay our taxes while they manage to avoid theirs. And GOP power brokers go along…or, at least, have gone along until Donald Trump began to shake things up a bit.   In his traversal Carlson examines the use of such accusations a “racist” or “sexist” to attack those who dissent; he takes a hard look—frankly, extremely frightening—at the immigration crisis and what it means for our future; and he offers a scary picture of academia, now converted into a hyper-revolutionary hotbed turning out radicals who wish to totally convert this nation….  This is a must read for anyone concerned about our future.

Third, while the so-called “Russia Investigation”—that effort by quasi- and non-legal means to overturn the 2016 election—goes forth on behalf of the elites of the “deep state,” there is a volume that offers some significant background, necessary for reference as this not-so-silent coup against a sitting president, the Mueller Investigation, continues…and will probably even intensify when the Democrats take over the US House of Representative this coming January 2019. It is Greg Jarrett’s THE RUSSIA HOAX: THE ILLICIT SCHEME TO CLEAR HILLARY CLINTON AND FRAME DONALD TRUMP (Broadside/HarperCollins). Although the revelations continue, this study is a basic primer, a tool, if you will, which is invaluable for its detailed account and mountain of information.

Fourth, back to the South: I have a good friend, Joseph Jay (his pen name, as he is in grad school presently), who has just written a short but very powerful and convincing study: SACRED CONVICTION: THE SOUTH’S STAND FOR BIBLICAL AUTHORITY (Shotwell Publishing, Columbia, SC). His volume, just ninety-five pages, is a concise but conclusive defense of the Old South in its defense of Biblical Christianity, and in so doing Jay examines the writings of the great Southern divines and writers of the past, and the debates they had with their Northern brethren over the Bible and its interpretation. Fully documented and footnoted, Jay also includes a full bibliography; the works of great classic theologians like James Henley Thornwell and Robert Lewis Dabney are cited and employed, plus various contemporary sources as well. In a sense, Joseph Jay takes up where the late historian Eugene Genovese led in such volumes as his THE MIND OF THE MASTER CLASS and in his various scholarly essays on Thornwell and the Southern Calvinist tradition.  Let me add, that while my religious tradition is Catholic, I found very much in this volume of significant value that all defenders of traditional Christianity AND the South will appreciate. You need this book.

Fourth, something different…and which was actually published back in 2013, but that I’ve only now gotten around to reading: Cambridge University Professor Christopher Clark’s THE SLEEPWALKERS: HOW EUROPE WENT TO WAR IN 1914 (Harper, 2013). I agree with all the reviewers I have read about this mammoth 700 page volume: it may well just be the definitive study of how the Great War, the centennial of the conclusion of which we are now commemorating, began and how it went from being an assassination in a remote Bosnian city in the Balkans into a conflagration that destroyed much of old Europe, ushering in the age of dictators and Communism, and forever changing world history—for the worse.  Professor Clark does not set out to specifically assign blame, but rather to show how events spiraled out of control and how various Foreign Offices of major powers, in particular in France and England, attempted to manipulate the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir apparent to the Austro-Hungarian throne, for their own purposes.

Back on November 13, in a published column in THE UNZ REVIEW about Veterans’ Day ( I wrote the following:

“…historians such as Bard College professor Sean McMeekin (in July 1914: Countdown to War, Basic Books, 2013) and Cambridge University’s Christopher Clark (in The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914; Harper, 2013) have overwhelmingly confirmed that earlier, if once hotly debated revisionist view. In the words of reviewer Eric Margolis:

`The Sleepwalkers’ shows how officials and politicians in Britain and France conspired to transform Serbia’s murder of Austro-Hungary’s Crown Prince into a continent-wide conflict. France burned for revenge for its defeat in the 1870 Franco-Prussian War and loss of Alsace-Lorraine. Britain feared German commercial and naval competition. At the time, the British Empire controlled one quarter of the world’s surface. Italy longed to conquer Austria-Hungary’s South Tyrol. Turkey feared Russia’s desire for the Straits. Austria-Hungary feared Russian expansion.

Prof Clark clearly shows how the French and British maneuvered poorly-led Germany into the war. The Germans were petrified of being crushed between two hostile powers, France and Russia. The longer the Germans waited, the more the military odds turned against them….Britain kept stirring the pot, determined to defeat commercial and colonial rival, Germany. The rush to war became a gigantic clockwork that no one could stop. [Eric Margolis, “Are We Headed for Another Tragedy Like World War I?”, November 10, 2018, at: ]

Although 700 pages this volume reads like one giant detective novel—but you know the outcome, and you realize half-way through that this will forever change everything, that millions will die, and that civilization will be fatally wounded.  To understand this, THE SLEEPWALKERS is fundamental.

Lastly, I must blow my own horn, so to speak: My anthology of thirty-five years of writing essays, review, and articles about the South, its heritage, and the attacks on it, has now appeared. It is THE LAND WE LOVE: THE SOUTH AND ITS HERITAGE (Scuppernong Press, hardback, 308 pages; November, 2018), and it is available directly from the publisher, from, and via Barnes & Noble.

Initially, after Amazon had sold all the copies it had on hand, it could only offer the book with a month or two delay; but now, using a third party, it can dispatch copies to you that will arrive by December 18 [ ]

However, should you desire to receive a more rapid delivery, the publisher Scuppernong Press has copies for immediate shipment:

Finally, Barnes & Noble also offers the book, and you may purchase it there (they also offer some web site specials), using their marketplace sellers somewhat inexpensively, also:

One final word: as this is December 7, let us recall this day in history, seventy-seven years ago. The veterans of that war that began for us back then are now few and becoming a handful by the day, and the men and women that experienced the attack at Pearl Harbor are even fewer. We honor their sacrifice in a war they did not make nor want. Rest in peace, but remain in our memory and thoughts!

Sunday, December 2, 2018

December 2, 2018

MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey

George H. W. Bush, RIP - but What Is His Legacy?


I realize that it is both impolitic and a bit irreverent to speak ill of the dead. Morally, we are obliged to pray for the repose of the souls of the departed.  As the words of the Introit of the ancient Requiem liturgy declare: “Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat eis” – “Eternal rest give to them, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them.” And, certainly, in the case of former President George Herbert Walker Bush this injunction should apply. America’s youngest naval aviator at age 18 in World War II (and holder of the Distinguished Flying Cross and Presidential Unit Citation for his valorous actions), a dedicated family man, husband, and father, and a public servant for much of his life, we owe appropriate respect to our nation’s 41st president.

But that said, there is a much more equanimous and critical judgment that must be rendered, and, in the future the role and life of George H. W. Bush must be placed into proper context. For despite the personal qualities that have been rightly attributed to him, he also was patriarch of one of the “Eastern Establishment’s” premiere and most influential families, the man who as President Reagan’s vice-president entered the Gipper’s administration with near-absolute control over personnel appointments, and who, in spite of his public embrace of “Reaganism,” did as much an anyone to undermine and weaken its promises and initial impetus.  In other words, he was the agent of the old GOP elite who managed to reign in much of the earlier expectations that many staunch conservatives—those Reaganauts, so-called—had.

And his succession to the presidency in 1989 only confirmed that, affirming that the Republican power brokers had not lost their authority, had not lost their grip on power.

Certainly, the 41st president did not bear full responsibility for all that happened.  President Reagan, himself, in many ways misjudged the resilience of the Establishment whose objectives and overall advancement only suffered a minor setback with his election in 1980. Just as with Donald Trump, Reagan the outsider faced the immense task of filling thousands of government positions and fell back on standard GOP professionals and the “counsel” of “worthies” inside the Washington Beltway or gathered in the smoke-filled rooms on Wall Street. And their loyalty was not necessarily to the Reagan agenda.

Does it not remind us of how certain intransigent Never Trumpers prior to the 2016 election—e.g. Nikki Haley, John Bolton—could then take their “Roads to Canossa” after the election and end up dominating, at the least, the foreign policy of the Trump administration (contrary to the America First agenda enunciated during the 2016 campaign)? And does it not explain a certain naivete’ that characterized both Reagan and President Trump? How, otherwise, to explain Trump interviewing zealous anti-Trumpers Mitt Romney  and Elliott Abrams for high positions, or Reagan bowing largely to Bush Republicans not to abolish the US Department of Education?

The Trumpian revolution is, arguably, more substantial and wide-reaching—and far more desperate—than the Reagan revolution. The times and circumstances are far more dire and critical: the very future of our sharply divided nation hangs in the balance. The niceties and mostly polite exchanges that characterized political debate in 1980 or 1988 have been swept aside, today only vague memories to be evoked by fossilized “Bush men” who have filled Fox News over the past couple of days, oozing their continuous praise for George the Elder with a torrent of verbal and visual obsequious beatification (I confess that after about an hour of that I switched over to Sirius XM Symphony Hall…always a refuge for anyone weary of the dross of contemporary American politics!).

But these days in thinking about President Bush the senior, I remembered I had published two essays on the Bush family, the Bush dynasty, back in 2014 and then in 2015.  [cf. “Bush family liberalism: The ghost of Prescott Bush haunts us still,” CDN, July 2, 2014, at:  and, “These Bushes Are Poisonous,” The Unz Review, March 3, 2015, at:]

In re-reading what I had written then, what came through is that I would change nothing were I to write these essays today. Admittedly, my tone is very critical, even at times harsh, and I am aware of the earlier injunction I cite above about not speaking ill of the dead. Nevertheless, I believe that a fuller accounting of the role of the Bush family, and, indeed, of the deleterious effects it has had in more recent American history, need to be kept in mind, even as we offer our respects.

[To be totally transparent: I chaired the Buchanan for President campaign in North Carolina during 1991-1992 and worked to unseat President Bush in the GOP primaries, and I would do it again, if called on.]

Here is the March 2015 essay:

The latest news that Jeb Bush has named two very public and outspoken homosexuals to prominent positions in his campaign confirms fully the worst fears that many grass roots traditional conservatives have regarding his role in Republican politics leading up to the 2016 elections. According to columnist Steve Deace in a February 28 piece, titled, “Jeb Bush Comes Out of the Closet,” Bush has tapped David Kochel, who proudly calls himself a “Rainbow Jihadist,” to be a senior advisor, and Tim Miller, “one of D.C.’s 30 most influential homosexuals,” to be his communications chief.

About Miller, Deace copies some of his social media postings that are bound to arouse the ire of traditional conservatives.

One posting that captures attention depicts a picture of a child hugging someone dressed as the Easter bunny with the caption, “On 1 yr. anniversary of Iowa gay marriage ruling, (Iowa Family Policy Council’s) worst fears are realized: Rabbit/Child love-making.”

Miller also comments on Sesame Street: “If Bert was gay, why didn’t he wax his eyebrows? A symposium on grooming and heteronormativity.”

On his Facebook page Miller brags of his participation in events like: “DC Protest Against CA Proposition 8;” “SUGARTIT: A dirty Polaroid style New Year’s Eve;” “BYGays AllCity Happy Hour feat;” and “Homo/Sonic: Natty Boom Birthday Explosion!”

As Deace rightly comments, “…that’s straight out of the Republican Party platform, right? Just like Bush’s support for amnesty and Common Core. Bottom line: The GOP establishment’s poster boy just hired a flak that enjoys lampooning the very base of the party he claims to serve. The very base of the party that supported both his father and brother in competitive primaries, and played key roles in them not only winning the nomination but the presidency.”

But none of this should come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the history of the Bush family. Beginning with Yankee patriarch and Wall Street banker, Prescott Bush, that history is one of calculated pretense to sounding like whatever best advances the political and financial fortunes of the family. But down deep the Bushes, arguably, have never been conservatives. In recent years, the Bushes have sometimes sounded “conservative,” but in the darker recesses of their thinking, they reject basic principles that give essential life and form to conservatism.

Take a cursory look at Prescott Bush. He was the archetypal patrician New England progressive Republican. Just read a few lines from the Wikipedia about him:

“Prescott Bush was politically active on social issues. He was involved with the American Birth Control League as early as 1942, and served as the treasurer of the first national capital campaign of Planned Parenthood in 1947 [....]

“From 1947 to 1950, he served as Connecticut Republican finance chairman, and was the Republican candidate for the United States Senate in 1950. A columnist in Boston said that Bush ‘is coming on to be known as President Truman’s Harry Hopkins. Nobody knows Mr. Bush and he hasn’t a Chinaman’s chance.’ (Harry Hopkins [a Communist fellow traveler] had been one of FDR‘s closest advisors.) Bush’s ties with Planned Parenthood also hurt him in heavily Catholic Connecticut, and were the basis of a last-minute campaign in churches by Bush’s opponents; the family vigorously denied the connection, but Bush lost to [William] Benton by only 1,000 votes.”

Prescott became United States Senator from Connecticut through appointment in late 1952, and he served until 1963. Continuing on from the Wiki:

“On December 2, 1954, Prescott Bush was part of the large (67–22) majority to censure Wisconsin Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy after McCarthy had taken on the U.S. Army and the Eisenhower administration. During the debate leading to the censure, Bush said that McCarthy had ‘caused dangerous divisions among the American people because of his attitude and the attitude he has encouraged among his followers: that there can be no honest differences of opinion with him. Either you must follow Senator McCarthy blindly, not daring to express any doubts or disagreements about any of his actions, or, in his eyes, you must be a Communist, a Communist sympathizer, or a fool who has been duped by the Communist line’


“In terms of issues, Bush often agreed with New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. According to Theodore H. White’s book about the 1964 election, Bush and Rockefeller were longtime friends. Bush favored a Nixon-Rockefeller ticket for 1960.”

This is the legacy of Rockefeller Wall Street Republicanism that George H. W. and succeeding members of the family inherited. Long since before George Sr.’s election in 1988 the examples abound that confirm the persistence of this heritage among the Bushes.

More recently, George Sr. and Barbara participated in a “lesbian wedding” in Maine, serving as official witnesses for the ceremony. As The Washington Post commented (September 25, 2013): “Other members of the Bush circle — including granddaughter Barbara, daughter-in-law and former first lady Laura, and Dick Cheney — have expressed varying levels of support for gay marriage, which became legal in Maine in December.”

And on September 13, 2013, current contender Jeb made cozy with Hillary Clinton. According to The Washington Times, Bush, as chairman of the National Constitution Center, awarded Clinton the 2013 Liberty Medal, remarking one year after the Benghazi attack:

“I want to say thank you to both Secretary Clinton and to President Clinton….Thank for your service to our country. We’re united by love of country and public service.”

What that event actually denoted is something profound about the Bush “establishment” ethos, how it actually transcends political parties, and how it broadly embraces and forms an integral part of a financial and political oligarchy, or managerial elite, who believe that they are destined not only to govern this nation, but to run it as their satrapy. It’s not rocket science to understand that Bush’s strong support for Common Core and what amounts to amnesty for illegal immigrants reveal to us that the ghost of Prescott has seeped out for public view once more through this latest representative of the clan.

George Bush the Younger doesn’t escape conservative scrutiny, either. There are various articles and stories in print and on the Web detailing that the Bush presidency was most definitely not a conservative one. A 2011 article in The Washington Monthly highlighted some of the issues that separated him from conservatives: “Bush was wrong about everything from education (NCLB) to health care (Medicare Part D), immigration (comprehensive reform) to international aid (PEPFAR), national service (AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corp) to foreign policy (growing Republican skepticism about Afghanistan).”

Liberal columnist Richard Cohen also noticed what he termed Bush’s “neo-liberalism,” especially in education and the role of the Federal government:

“Bush has extended the [Education] department’s reach in a manner that Democrats could not have envisaged. I am referring, of course, to the 2001 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, better known as No Child Left Behind. I will spare you the act’s details, but it pretty much tells the states to shape up or face a loss of federal funds. It is precisely the sort of law that conservatives predicted Washington would someday seek — and it did.”

Since George the First, the national GOP has given us the following presidential candidates: Bob Dole, George the Younger, John McCain, and the hapless Mitt Romney—not a real, philosophical conservative among the lot of them. In fact, conservatives, who arguably make up a majority of the Republican base, haven’t exercised much control over the party apparatus since Reagan. And even back then, based on the testimony of the few conservatives who worked in the Reagan White House, Reagan permitted George H. W. to control and fill most appointments from the get go. You can imagine what types of folks were approved for service.

Until the Bush/Establishment grip is fully exorcized (and the Karl Roves and John McCains finally interred for good), this nation will have no real opposition to the ongoing, steep decline into neo-Marxist multicultural totalitarianism.

The Jeb Bush appointments are just one more confirmation that the Bushes–the Bush family, and indeed, the Republican Establishment—are about as poisonous to traditional conservatism as the arsenic that figured in those classic films from the 1940s. When the so-called “conservative” party in American politics undercuts and sabotages just about every conservative principle they are supposed (and were purportedly elected) to defend, you’ve got to wonder what’s going on.

The simple answer is that in the US today we have two revolutionary Leftist parties on the national level: one that wants to advance the Revolution quickly, and the other—led by folks like Jeb Bush—that insidiously pushes more or less the same agenda, but does it quietly, even surreptitiously, while–with a straight face—protesting that it opposes that radical agenda.

For the past thirty plus years grass roots traditional conservatives have been taken for one immense and intense “ride”: fooled, bamboozled, and tricked by unkept—in fact never intended to be kept—promises by the “loyal opposition.”

The Neoconservatives, those intellectual descendants of Leon Trotsky and his ideas of global revolution and “equality,” now dominate the leadership echelons of the GOP and control FOX News, The Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal, the National Review. Increasingly they demand that we acknowledge that same sex marriage and open borders are here to stay and now must be fully baptized as conservative. On such issues they intersect with and provide the fodder for a Jeb Bush and those like him.

The only problem is that this (Neo)conservative “alternative” is based philosophically on the very same egalitarian postulates as espoused by the Neocons’ supposed enemies on the hard Left. And, if both forces in our political milieu have the same basic philosophical template, the eventual result won’t be hard to figure out—let’s see, full Obamacare (thanks to the “conservative” John Roberts and a pusillanimous, cowardly GOP Congress), same sex marriage (recall the elder Bushes joyfully participating in a “lesbian wedding” in Maine), open borders (Jeb, the Chamber of Commerce, and the GOP establishment are for it), and perpetual wars in foreign countries many of us have never heard of (quick–parachute John McCain into Lower Slobovia, so he can save those folks!) to “impose liberal democracy and egalitarianism” (to quote Allan Bloom) on poor souls barely out of the Middle Ages, or maybe to die for Wall Street or for the secular State of Israel.

And our poor, befuddled conservative base is told by the Establishment: “You have no place to go; it’s either us, or–shudder!–Hillary!” Ouch! And too many tele-evangelists join in, implicitly, with the same message, and, ironically, rally round men and women who are taking us down the same road to perdition as those over on the hard Left. Talk about the brain collapse of Christianity! One thing I learned in four years studying Moral Theology in Switzerland is that the “lesser evil” option doesn’t work when (1) both choices are formally evil, and (2) there is a third choice. And in such a case, staying home or voting for a third party candidate would be legitimate, even required, moral choices.

The specter of Prescott Bush still casts a spell over the Bush family and the Republican establishment, now with the collaboration of many (neo)conservatives. All along, despite some occasionally pleasant words, the Bushes have been enablers. As congressional Republicans continue to sell out America on everything from illegal immigration to Obamacare, traditional conservatives need to be told, once again, that the GOP “establishment” is not on their side. Prescott Bush’s ghost lives and prospers at the RNC and in the halls of the US Congress.

A Jeb vs. Hillary contest in 2016 probably means the icing on the cake of the end of America, for what that’s worth. Alas, when your country is dying an ugly, spasmodically foul death, you don’t call in assassins to finish it off.

The Bushes are poisonous, more so than poison ivy, which will go away after treatment. They are like a terminal cancer, and eventually they will do you in….

December 10, 2018 MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey Banning those Hateful Christmas Songs—What Would Dante Say? Friends, ...