The Conservative Beacon

Uniting the Conservative Movement

Archive for the ‘Interviews’ Category

Michael Scheuer on Marching Toward Hell, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Other Topics

Posted by Joshua Price on May 16, 2008

Below is our interview with the former head of the Bin Laden unit at the CIA, Michael Scheuer.

This is Mr. Scheuer’s second visit to The Conservative Beacon. He’s here to discuss his new book, Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq. We also discuss America’s situation with Iran, our so-called ally Saudi Arabia, and other foreign policy issues. Mr. Scheuer also talks in-depth about his take on America’s relationship with Israel.

Finally, we are very excited to announce that Mr.Scheuer has agreed to contribute periodically to The Conservative Beacon. Mr. Scheuer’s knowledge and experience will be an invaluable and educational addition to The Conservative Beacon.

Michael Scheuer on Marching Toward Hell

Advertisements

Posted in Interviews, Iran, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »

Steve Emerson on CAIR

Posted by Joshua Price on April 18, 2008

Steve Emerson and his staff at the Investigative Project on Terrorism have compiled a 10 part series exposing the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

The following is our interview with Mr. Emerson about the series:

Steve Emerson on CAIR

Subscribe in a reader

Posted in Interviews, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »

Senator Jim DeMint Interview

Posted by Joshua Price on March 4, 2008

I had the great pleasure yesterday of interviewing South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint. Senator DeMint is a true, traditional conservative fighting for conservatism in the increasingly liberal and socialist Senate.

He has coauthored a wonderful new book, Why We Whisper: Restoring Our Right To Say It’s Wrong. It’s a must-read for any traditional conservative. We have also linked to the Senator’s blog, whywewhisper.com, under the blogroll.

We’re going to try something new. In the next month or so we will moving to a new site address. The site is up right now, but it doesn’t look how it will in several weeks.

The new site allows us to post audio of our interviews, so you can find the interview with Senator DeMint here:

http://theconservativebeacon.net/

REMEMBER: the new site, other than this interview with Senator DeMint, will not be up and running for several more weeks.

Posted in Conservatism, GOP, Interviews | Leave a Comment »

Our Interview with Pat Buchanan (Updated)

Posted by Joshua Price on January 3, 2008

The following is our brief interview with conservative commentator and author Pat Buchanan. He has a new book at entitled Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed are Tearing America Apart.

You can also see Mr. Buchanan regularly on MSNBC.

Price: We are joined by conservative commentator and author of several books, including his latest, Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed are Tearing America Apart.

Mr. Buchanan, thank you very much for taking time to visit with The Conservative Beacon.

Buchanan: Thank you.

Price: I want to begin by asking you about a point you make in the book about America being involved in a cultural war and potentially on the verge of Balkanizing. Why is there such a large anti-nationalist sentiment in this country? It seems to me that we have allowed Hitler to hijack the idea of nationalism and turn it into something grotesque, but yet nationalism, or at least returning to borders, language and culture may be one of the only things to save us.

Buchanan: Well I think Russell Kirk, to whom my book is dedicated, used to tell me “Pat, don’t use the word nationalism, or economic nationalism, call it patriotism. Because patriotism represents love of one’s country and countrymen as well, and basically putting your country first in your heart above all others—and your countrymen. So I think patriotism is probably a better word.

What has happened is there’s a belief that we’re all moving above nations and towards a global economy, and among the educated and others, I think, just as in Europe, people say we’re not Frenchmen, we are Europeans now, not Frenchmen or Germans. I think there’s the same sort of sentiment here in America that we’re citizens of the world, and certainly among the very powerful there is a desire and a drive to eliminate the unique character of the state and the country.

This drive and this movement, which really didn’t exist when I was growing up, has become very powerful. I think the whole multicultural drive is part of it, and this comes out of the 1960’s cultural war and the idea of nation-states as history.

Price: You assert in your new book, Day of Reckoning, that the era of U.S. global economic power is over. How do you propose getting us back in a position to lead the world economically?

Buchanan: Well I think the U.S. is still militarily supreme in the sense that we spend more than the next ten nations combined. Our Air Force and Navy are unrivaled even though they have been cut almost in half since the Reagan years, and our Army is the finest on Earth, as well as the Marine Corps. But they’re very small.

So I don’t think we’re ever going to get back to this period we had called the Pax Americana, where the United States was looked upon as the leader of the world and generally followed.

We’ve got growing economic powers in India, and especially China, which are great new rivals. I think China is probably already the second or third largest economy on Earth now—not the second, but the third perhaps ahead of Germany, Japan is still larger.

But I think in terms of military power too there are rivals, and the United States has lost the moral leadership of the world and the political leadership of the world when constantly out-voted in the United Nations, we’re defied by Russia and China, we’re vilified by Iran and Venezuela—the Europeans don’t follow the America lead. I think an era is over where you can’t go home again—we can’t go back to the Cold War when we had a bipolar world and we can’t go back to the 1991-2006 era where we had a unipolar world. There was one superpower and no others, and no real rival or challenger.

We now are the first nation on Earth that we have rivals, we have challengers and it’s never going to be the same again. I think we have lost our moment.

Price: Now I know you have been very outspoken about the illegal immigration situation for years. My question is, Why won’t we call it what it really is? It’s an invasion by almost every definition. Why won’t we call it that? Is it simply due to political correctness?

Buchanan: One reason is ideology. There’s no question about it, and the other is the myth that America is a nation of immigrants. Clearly we have benefited from immigration, but for the first 240 years since the settlers arrived in Jamestown there was no real immigration. What you had was settlers coming over and basically we were a British-Protestant country through the first wave of immigration—that you could really call it that: a wave—came in 1845 to about 1849 with the Potato Famine in Ireland.

Now, why can’t people deal with this—why can’t they call it an invasion? Well it goes against the grain of their beliefs in some cases, and they don’t want to say that these folks are just like our great-grandparents, but when you have [inaudible] on Ellis Island, that is an invasion.

When you have 12-20 million illegals inside the United States, how can you not call it an invasion? When we had 4 million troops in Europe and we called that the invasion of Europe—D-Day.

This is not like 1919 or 1920. It is not like the old immigration from Europe. The numbers are huge. The melting pot is broken. Huge masses of illegals are pouring into the United States and they are not assimilating.

The melting pot is broken, as I said. The culture is fragmented and it no longer has the unified power it used to have.

We are rolling the dice with our nation; we are rolling the dice with our country and Americans want to know why because they never voted for it. We have empowered politicians of both parties who are in a state of moral and political paralysis, and will not do it for fear of adverse votes or fear of the Mexican lobby, or fear of the Chamber of Commerce or fear of the churches, or fear of somebody else. They refuse to do their duty, and as result, the nation is at risk.

Price: Well Mr. Buchanan I really want to thank you for taking time to visit with The Conservative Beacon, and I hope we can do it again in the near future.

Buchanan: Well thank you.

Subscribe in a reader

Posted in Interviews | Leave a Comment »

Part 2 of our Interview with Dr. Jerome Corsi

Posted by Joshua Price on October 22, 2007

Here is the final part of our interview with Dr. Corsi, writer for World Net Daily and author of several books, including his latest, The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada.

We would really like to thank Dr. Corsi for taking time to visit with us.

As always, please let us know what you think about the interview and any comments you might have about what Dr.Corsi had to say.

Price: I saw the comment Fox mad about extending NAFTA and talk of a regional currency. Why hasn’t more been made of that comment? Why haven’t the media picked up on it?

Dr. Corsi: Well the mainstream media is also in the same hip pocket of the multinational corporations. The multinational corporate structures own about 90% of the media today-that’s fairly alarming.

Then the dependency of the mainstream media for advertising-again from multinational corporations. This is an economic incentive to keep the theme of free trade agreements-which have nothing to do with fair trade-and globalism, which has to do with the desire of these multinational corporations to use slave labor once again.

They don’t want this agenda fully exposed to the American people because it would impact their corporate profits, while the income gap-even in the United States-between the very wealthy and the increasing numbers of the poor are become alarming. The people in the United States realize since 2000- 2005-the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 96.6% of all Americans lost real wages. Only 3.4% of the top gained-and these were largely the CEOs of the multinational corporations and the MBAs and lawyers who serve the multinational corporations.

The American public are aware of this, at a grassroots level, and they don’t think Vicente Fox’s statement is one that the Republican Party or the multinational corporations want out there. Not when the Republican Party is increasingly is in revolt against George W. Bush on sovereignty issues.

Price: Why are we seeing this increase in these globalists and internationalists, and this a move towards a European-like structure here? Is that a predominantly globalist/internationalist concept?

Dr. Corsi: Oh absolutely. The roots of this, intellectually, 30 years ago when I was a graduate student at Harvard and taking international economics courses much of this was being discussed-even at that time the economists were saying, “What is the most natural economic base for currency?” And they were saying that there needed to be unitary monitary currencies established, not by nation-states, which these economists consider incapable [inaudible]. They felt regional markets defined the most efficient structure to have a regional currency.

The multinational corporations, which have been allowed to operate in multiple states-simultaneously-are already beyond nation-states as being a meaningful definition of their business. The multinational corporations are opposed to environmental protection, worker safety regulations, product and quality control regulations. Multinational corporations find these to be just expenses, which they would just soon eliminate and have a regional base in which to operate, like North America and compete with Europe with a common currency for economic efficiency.

You know, when you look at unbridled capitalism, I mean, you can go back to Vienna mercantilism or Venice/Venetian mercantilism and you can see the same thinking that if you just let the corporations rule we’d be fine. I mean, the fundamental, core principal of human fascism-the states needed to be serving the corporate structure. When [inaudible] was doing well, Germany was doing well. And we’re back to that same kind of structure.

When the corporations are let loose to do what they want, they use slaves. I thought we fought a Civil War, at the end of which, we determined it was immoral to African-American slaves in southern agricultural businesses. We forgot about that. I guess it’s okay if we use Chinese slaves, because we can’t see them-that’s preposterous. It’s equally immoral and wrong. We shouldn’t, for the price of cheap flat screen TVs and sneakers at the Wal-Marts and K-Marts, and all of the other -Marts, just ignore that very important moral distinction.

If had not been for the labor union movement in the 1920s and 30s we probably would have suffered a communist revolution in the United States because, once again, capital was totally exploiting labor, and the labor unions demanded that labor be considered one of the constituents of capital that they compensated.

Growing up in the 50s, everybody had health insurance. It was a benefit at the job. Today, now that we have imported millions of Hispanic slaves-not paying them living wages-and the standard is Wal-Mart. You might get a job in the service industry, but good luck to be paid enough to buy the health insurance.

If we don’t see that valuing human capital, we don’t see that having fair trade is a fundamental principle of free trade, then these agreements are going to do what the classical economists predicted: they end up in huge, irreversible trade imbalances. China now has 1. 3 trillion dollars in foreign exchange reserves-80% of which is in dollar assets. The dollar is depreciating, and I’m arguing depreciating on purpose. It’s part of the plan, I believe, that the Treasury is now implementing to try to make it just a slow devaluation so the dollar doesn’t collapse, and it’s not clear if that will be able to managed at this point.

Price: Finally, Dr. Corsi, we have written extensively about the Dubai Ports deal from last year, the Abu Dhabi purchase of a 20% stake in the NASDAQ, and now this much talked about merger between 3Com and a Chinese company, and it seems like those of us who are opposed these types of deals are branded as overly protectionist or anti-capitalist. Why is that? I’m certainly a capitalist, but I also understand that sometimes economics and national security have divergent interests. Why do the globalists brand us anit-capitalist?

Dr. Corsi: First of all, name-calling and insults is the last refuge of a scoundrel in an argument. We’ve known that since the days of [inaudible] and the ancient Greeks. When you get called a name it’s because the other person in the argument doesn’t have analysis, evidence, logic or argument to defeat you. They’ll call you a name so that nobody listens to what you’re saying.

To ask for fair trade does not mean you are, in a pejorative sense, a protectionist. I want aggressive international trade, but not without compromising the economy of the United States and the sovereignty of our laws.

The investment bankers are calling you a name because there’s going to be billions made by the Goldman-Sachs of the world, just putting the United States up for sale. Since they’re already beyond borders and bear no allegiance to the United States of America, their god is money. They will call anybody a name who gets in their way.

There are serious complications with the deals you mentioned. You know, if the United Arab Emirates owns 20% of NASDAQ, now are we going to settle trade disputes in NASDAQ under international law? And does the Sharia apply because the major minority owner is an Islamic country?

It’s the same with China buying 3Com and having national security secrets. We forget that China is building one of the biggest militaries in the world. We cannot lose sight of the fact that just because-you know, we’re told by the investment bankers that if we trade with China they will become our friends. Well, China will not sell our currency because it would cost them a trillion dollars. “They wouldn’t hurt the United States by destroying themselves.” Well, if China is an avowed enemy of the United States and it only costs a trillion dollars to bring the United States to its knees, it might be a bargain at the price.

It’s foolish in terms of national security and sovereignty of our laws-this is the slippery slope. By the time we’ve sold major infrastructure assets to foreigners, we’ve abandon the principle that our laws are sovereign, and that is a consequence when an international court rules against us and foreigners own the assets. We’ll be very hard-pressed to re-insert the sovereignty of our old laws.

I point out to people: sovereignty is not a murky question; it means whether or not we are going to run our own country, or whether we’ve sold our country and are now dependent upon the international capitalists and foreign laws to protect things like our First and Second Amendment, and all of our other freedoms, which not United Nations convention is going to do.

Price: Well Dr. Corsi thank you for taking time to visit with us and I hope we can do it again.

Dr. Corsi: It’s always my pleasure, and I’m honored to talk with you. I admire the work you do.

Subscribe in a reader

Posted in Immigration, Interviews | Leave a Comment »