Posts tagged Neocon
Posted by Judy Morris
The Crazy Neocon Newtster is Channeling Ron and Rand Paul on Foreign Policy
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a leading neoconservative hawk and staunch supporter of Israel, says the U.S. military interventions he has long supported to promote democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere have backfired and need to be re-evaluated.
“I am a neoconservative. But at some point, even if you are a neoconservative, you need to take a deep breath to ask if our strategies in the Middle East have succeeded,” the 2012 Republican presidential hopeful said in an interview.
Mr. Gingrich supported the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, but he said he has increasingly doubted the strategy of attempting to export democracy by force to countries where the religion and culture are not hospitable to Western values.
“It may be that our capacity to export democracy is a lot more limited than we thought,” he said.
Mr. Gingrich at times has expressed doubts about the U.S. capacity for nation-building, but he said he now has formed his own conclusions about their failures in light of the experiences of the past decade.
“My worry about all this is not new,” Mr. Gingrich said. “But my willingness to reach a conclusion is new.”
Mr. Gingrich said it is time for Republicans to heed some of the anti-interventionist ideas offered by the libertarian-minded Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, and Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, tea party favorite and foreign policy skeptic.
“I don’t mind spying on terrorists, I just don’t like spying on all Americans.” – Rand Paul
By 2016 we will have had 16 years of cluelessness. We’ve used up our margin. We don’t have the luxury of having a guy as president who doesn’t understand where the country is going. We need an adult in the White House, and the neocon nonsense has got to stop. Otherwise, I don’t even want to say.
Paul said the issue resonates particularly with young people, a key demographic Republicans need to attract in order to succeed in national elections.
“If you talk about some privacy issues like that, I think you will find youth coming to you,” said Paul, who said his own decision on whether to run for president won’t come until next year.
Read more from http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/
Written by Daniel McAdams
Jeb Presents Hillary Neo Con of the Year Award
Neo conservatism does not just cross party lines, it is the party line. Both major US parties share the same foreign policy, which is “humanitarian interventionism,” pushing “democracy” at the barrel of a gun, militarized diplomacy, covert and overt support of subversive NGOs overseas, and so on.
The trillions of dollars spent to pursue their pipe dreams destroys our economy and makes us hated and resented throughout the world. They are never right. Their every promise is a lie.
What a perfect example of the two-headed snake that is both major political parties than this news that Jeb Bush is to award Hillary Clinton with the “2013 Liberty Medal.”
Here is Jeb Bush on Hillary Clinton:
“Former Secretary Clinton has dedicated her life to serving and engaging people across the world in democracy. “These efforts as a citizen, an activist, and a leader have earned Secretary Clinton this year’s Liberty Medal.”
Let’s have a look at just a few of the fruits of Hillary Clinton’s “engaging the people across the world in democracy”:
Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton embrace — the epitome of the neo con control over US foreign policy.
The U.S. exports many things, such as jobs, manufacturing and services. The most expensive U.S. export comes directly form the government, democracy, which cost millions of lives.
Neocons afraid American people might see something similar in NSA and IRS Scandals
Both scandals are examples of a government which is much too large. But the neocons fear (as they always have) that Americans will come to understand that “big government” includes much of the military and pretty much all of the burgeoning surveillance state. The neoconservatives, who believe in an activist “big government” so long as it is their kind of big government, who have their roots in Toskyite political theory, who have cheered Mr. Obama’s actions in the Middle East, are afraid that Americans might just put 2 and 2 together. Wasting money on wars which result in dead working class kids, while defense contractors pad their profits isn’t very “conservative.” In fact it’s it’s pretty awful.
Tennessee Needs a Political “Cage Match”
Those of us in Tennessee have seen nothing short of political waltzes performed for our entertainment. Occasionally a small spat may arise but then the waltz continues. This show is scheduled prior to elections in Tennessee, and as normal, one must lead and one must follow. Once the show is done we find that the “leader” only has the leadership ability to lead their hand into our pocket.
Time for a revival, of political sense, is on the Tennessee horizon perhaps. The cage match is about to begin, and lucky for us it is a tag team event. The announcer yells into the microphone… “In this corner, wearing the blueish red, or maybe reddish blue trunks, are the current title holders”. Sadly these titles include expanded spending, complete disregard for those they were elected to represent and the safeguarding of the welfare, and occasional warfare state, by the contributing corporations that fuel their re-election campaigns.
The announcer continues… “representing the great state of” (audience thinking - please don’t say it!) “Tennessee, Alexander, Ramsey and Corker!”. The crowd goes wild, with boos and a chant of “RINO” that is shaking the rafters.
The announcer continues… “and their opponent in the opposite corner wearing red, white and blue trunks, Glenn Jacobs”. Now the crowd stands and cheers thinking maybe this one time justice for We The People of Tennessee will be served.
Final words for the announcer… “Let’s get ready to rumble!”, and we are!
Glenn Jacobs, also known in the wrestling circles as Kane, is considering a run in political arena. Although the match with three to one odds are unfair, for the three, due to political regulations Glenn Jacobs can face but one opponent at a time. In this opening match, titled “RINO Hunt”, should Glenn climb into the ring located a Neo-Con Plaza, Vegas books have Jacobs as a 3:2 favorite despite a slew of early wagers by lobbyists from all corporate and military avenues supporting his potential opponent, Lamar Alexander. Alexander has his share of supporters, but this is unable to be immediately confirmed until all the lobbyist phone numbers have been collected, called and results tallied.
Glenn Jacobs, better known as Kane, is a smart and likable guy. He’s considering a run for U.S. Senate against incumbent Lamar Alexander in 2014. Alexander is everything one might loathe in a mainstream GOPer — he’s for interventions abroad and at home, which in Joe Sobran’s playful definition makes him a “moderate.”
Note in the article, at the Daily Caller, that Jacobs’ influences are Austrian economists. Ron Paul is routinely made fun of at the Daily Caller — duh, Ludwig von who? — for his supposedly eccentric interests (eccentric meaning they’re not held by Mitt Romney or Ted Cruz), but the Caller seems favorable toward Kane. That’s great; I never gripe when one of our people is treated respectfully. I suppose it couldn’t hurt that Kane could pound a neocon into the ground while doing 20 other things (but since he believes in the nonaggression principle, he wouldn’t).
Then we have this brief video piece from Gary Franchi’s Next News Network.
Finally, here is an interview that I posted here for fellow Tennesseans and people elsewhere that Gary and N3 held with Glenn Jacobs recently, to get a better understanding of Glenn Jacobs and his thoughts on the issues.
Folks, should this match come to fruition, and if you have had enough of the lobbyist controlled, Obama supporting, status quo champions of the welfare and warfare state, loving to redistribute your hard earned money to their own special interests, corporate partners and Wall Street, and should you think the great state of Tennessee is long over due for intelligent and responsible leadership, take a look and a listen. You know what, there might be some hope after all this time! It may be time to take the blinders off of those who are unknowingly stuck in the political party “box” mentality, thinking that supporting these lap dog politicians is the only choice they have.
The recent opening of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity was a watershed moment in American history. There has never been anything quite like it. Ideologically diverse, the Ron Paul Institute reaches out to all Americans, and indeed to people all over the world, who find the spectrum of foreign-policy opinion in the United States to be unreasonably narrow. Until Ron Paul and his new institute, there was no resolutely anti-interventionist foreign-policy organization to be found.
Neoconservatives have not responded warmly to the announcement of Ron’s new institute. Whatever their particular gripes, we can be absolutely certain of the real reason for their unhappiness: they have never faced systematic, organized opposition before.
The Democrats would see Lincoln pried out of his temple before supporting nonintervention abroad, so they pose no fundamental problem for the neocons. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is real opposition, and he can mobilize an army. The neocons know it. What’s Tim Pawlenty up to these days? Where are his legions of well-read young fans who seek to carry on his philosophy? You see the point.
For the first time, strict nonintervention will have a permanent voice in American life. It is another nail in the neocon coffin. The neocons know they are losing the young. Bright kids who believe in freedom aren’t rallying to Mitt Romney or David Horowitz, and, like anyone with a critical mind and a moral compass, they are not going along with the regime’s war propaganda.
At this historic moment, I thought it might be appropriate to set down some thoughts on war – a manifesto for peace, as it were.
(1) Our rulers are not a law unto themselves.
Our warmakers believe they are exempt from normal moral rules. Because they are at war, they get to suspend all decency, all the norms that govern the conduct and interaction of human beings in all other circumstances. The anodyne term “collateral damage,” along with perfunctory and meaningless words of regret, are employed when innocent civilians, including children, are maimed and butchered. A private individual behaving this way would be called a sociopath. Give him a fancy title and a nice suit, and he becomes a statesman.
Let us pursue the subversive mission of applying the same moral rules against theft, kidnapping, and murder to our rulers that we apply to everyone else.
(2) Humanize the demonized.
We must encourage all efforts to humanize the populations of countries in the crosshairs of the warmakers. The general public is whipped into a war frenzy without knowing the first thing – or hearing only propaganda – about the people who will die in that war. The establishment’s media won’t tell their story, so it is up to us to use all the resources we as individuals have, especially online, to communicate the most subversive truth of all: that the people on the other side are human beings, too. This will make it marginally more difficult for the warmakers to carry out their Two Minutes’ Hate, and can have the effect of persuading Americans with normal human sympathies to distrust the propaganda that surrounds them.
(3) If we oppose aggression, let us oppose all aggression.
If we believe in the cause of peace, putting a halt to aggressive violence between nations is not enough. We should not want to bring about peace overseas in order that our rulers may turn their guns on peaceful individuals at home. Away with all forms of aggression against peaceful people.
(4) Never use “we” when speaking of the government.
The people and the warmakers are two distinct groups. We must never say “we” when discussing the US government’s foreign policy. For one thing, the warmakers do not care about the opinions of the majority of Americans. It is silly and embarrassing for Americans to speak of “we” when discussing their government’s foreign policy, as if their input were necessary to or desired by those who make war.
But it is also wrong, not to mention mischievous. When people identify themselves so closely with their government, they perceive attacks on their government’s foreign policy as attacks on themselves. It then becomes all the more difficult to reason with them – why, you’re insulting my foreign policy!
Likewise, the use of “we” feeds into war fever. “We” have to get “them.” People root for their governments as they would for a football team. And since we know ourselves to be decent and good, “they” can only be monstrous and evil, and deserving of whatever righteous justice “we” dispense to them.
The antiwar left falls into this error just as often. They appeal to Americans with a catalogue of horrific crimes “we” have committed. But we haven’t committed those crimes. The same sociopaths who victimize Americans themselves every day, and over whom we have no real control, committed those crimes.
(5) War is not “good for the economy.”
A commitment to peace is a wonderful thing and worthy of praise, but it needs to be coupled with an understanding of economics. A well-known US senator recently deplored cuts in military spending because “when you cut military spending you lose jobs.” There is no economic silver lining to war or to preparation for war.
Those who would tell us that war brings prosperity are grossly mistaken, even in the celebrated case of World War II. The particular stimulus that war gives to certain sectors of the economy comes at the expense of civilian needs, and directs resources away from the improvement of the common man’s standard of living.
Ludwig von Mises, the great free-market economist, wrote that “war prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings. The earthquake means good business for construction workers, and cholera improves the business of physicians, pharmacists, and undertakers; but no one has for that reason yet sought to celebrate earthquakes and cholera as stimulators of the productive forces in the general interest.”
Elsewhere, Mises described the essence of so-called war prosperity: it “enriches some by what it takes from others. It is not rising wealth but a shifting of wealth and income.”
(6) Support the free market? Then oppose war.
Ron Paul has restored the proper association of capitalism with peace and nonintervention. Leninists and other leftists, burdened by a false understanding of economics and the market system, used to claim that capitalism needed war, that alleged “overproduction” of goods forced market societies to go abroad – and often to war – in search for external markets for their excess goods.
This was always economic nonsense. It was political nonsense, too: the free market needs no parasitical institution to grease the skids for international commerce, and the same philosophy that urges nonaggression among individual human beings compels nonaggression between geographical areas.
Mises always insisted, contra the Leninists, that war and capitalism could not long coexist. “Of course, in the long run war and the preservation of the market economy are incompatible. Capitalism is essentially a scheme for peaceful nations…. The emergence of the international division of labor requires the total abolition of war…. The market economy involves peaceful cooperation. It bursts asunder when the citizens turn into warriors and, instead of exchanging commodities and services, fight one another.”
“The market economy,” Mises said simply, “means peaceful cooperation and peaceful exchange of goods and services. It cannot persist when wholesale killing is the order of the day.”
Those who believe in the free and unhampered market economy should be especially skeptical of war and military action. War, after all, is the ultimate government program. War has it all: propaganda, censorship, spying, crony contracts, money printing, skyrocketing spending, debt creation, central planning, hubris – everything we associate with the worst interventions into the economy.
“War,” Mises observed, “is harmful, not only to the conquered but to the conqueror. Society has arisen out of the works of peace; the essence of society is peacemaking. Peace and not war is the father of all things. Only economic action has created the wealth around us; labor, not the profession of arms, brings happiness. Peace builds; war destroys.”
See through the propaganda. Stop empowering and enriching the state by cheering its wars. Set aside the television talking points. Look at the world anew, without the prejudices of the past, and without favoring your own government’s version of things.
Be decent. Be human. Do not be deceived by the Joe Bidens, the John McCains, the Barack Obamas and Hillary Clintons. Reject the biggest government program of them all.
Peace builds. War destroys.
May 1, 2013
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former editorial assistant to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and CEO of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com. See his books.
Copyright © 2013 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Ron Paul has been retired from Congress for only a few months, but he’s certainly not shying away from politics. The former US representative has already announced his new project: the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.
In a press release sent to the media Friday afternoon, the Ron Paul camp confirms that the long-time Texas representative will launch a think-tank of sorts in order to carry on his ideologies after his time in office has ended.
“After decades in and out of the US House of Representatives leading the call for a non-interventionist foreign policy and the protection of civil liberties, Dr. Paul is launching a revolutionary new vehicle to expand his efforts. The Institute will serve as the focal point of a new coalition that crosses political, ideological and party lines,” the statement begins.
According to the press release, the Ron Paul Institute will focus mainly on two issues: education and coming generations.
“It will fill the growing demand for information on foreign affairs from a non-interventionist perspective through a lively and diverse website, and will provide unique educational opportunities to university students and others,” his office says.
“The neo-conservative era is dead. The ill-advised policies pushed by the neo-cons have everywhere led to chaos and destruction, and to a hatred of the United States and its people. Multi-trillion dollar wars have not made the world a safer place; they have only bankrupted our economic future. The Ron Paul Institute will provide the tools and the education to chart a new course with the understanding that only through a peaceful foreign policy can we hope for a prosperous tomorrow.”
Ron Paul, 77, says he will formally unveil his latest endeavor next Wednesday at a conference in Washington, DC, only a stone’s throw from the congressional office he occupied for nearly three decades. Slated to attend the conference are the members of the Institute’s board of advisors, which contains a number of high-profile names including noted economist Lew Rockwell, the CEO of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and a longtime collaborator of Paul’s — he served as the congressman’s chief of staff from 1978 to 1982, and later advised the politician as he vied for the presidency.
Also on the Institutes board is Rep. Walter Jones, Jr. (NC), Rep. John Duncan, Jr. (TN), former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH) and Judge Andrew Napolitano.
Just earlier this month, Ron Paul unveiled his own homeschooling curriculum for students, which he describes as a program aimed to provide “education in liberty like no other.”
“Students will be exposed to thinkers they would never encounter in a government school. They will know history and economics better than anyone their age,” Rockwell wrote in an editorial announcing the start of the “Ron Paul Curriculum” published in The Daily Bell.
Photo source: http://rt.com
Published on Jan 26, 2013 by Eduardo89rp
Ron Paul giving the Carl Davis Distinguished Lecture on “The Libertarian Future”
“I don’t think (Ron Paul supporters) have been disrespected.” – Mitt Romney
The Grand Old Party produced a scripted appeal to the faithful. The 2012 Republican Party convention in Tampa, designed to sell a filtered image of a country club version of conservatism, begs the historic substance of a traditional embodiment of true timeless values. Hitting a range of obligatory themes is not equivalent to standing for the principles of a constitutional republic. Appealing to the estranged elements of the GOP needs more than words to restore faith and hope. Reasoned policy stands require a refutation of the failure of the Neoconservative agenda. So do not be duped by the language in the platform.
The indomitable Phyllis Schlafly loves the planks, in the article: Republican Party platform best yet.
“It rejects a long list of United Nations treaties, including the treaty on women’s rights, the treaty on the rights of the child, the treaty on persons with disabilities, the arms trade treaty and the Law of the Sea treaty. The platform also rejects Agenda 21, including its proposal for a global tax and various U.N. declarations on the environment.
Altogether, the 2012 Republican Platform is an excellent document written by grass-roots conservatives. It is a true reflection of American values.”
Now how can any red blooded conservative disagree with a political party that rejects the globalism of the United Nations? Well, our distinguished champion at the Eagle Forum engages in wishful thinking, if she believes that the platform is anything more than tomorrows fish wrapper paper.
For a concise analysis of the irrelevance of the planks in the platform, view the John Nichols: Mitt Romney Versus the Tea Party video. In politics, deeds count, while rhetoric blows away with the wind.
Judge a campaign by the political handlers and their records. Examine the viewpoints that the political endorsers are committed to their core. The notion expressed by the New York Times in Platform’s Sharp Turn to Right Has Conservatives Cheering may give temporary joy, but the ugly underbelly of the NeoCon purity sect is at work to purge the party of the residual of real conservatives.
** I’d like to preface this to the Daily Paul crowd by saying that this was written directly to neo-cons who don’t actually realize that they’re neo-cons and that while some here might not relate to my opinions or share my journey to enlightenment, I feel that many will. **
I’m sick of my only option being which establishment candidate can you stomach the most? How many times will we have to say “I don’t really like any of them, but…” and vote right down party line. I’m 29. I voted for the “compassionate conservative” Bush in 2000 because he was the republican. I defended the hell out of him and voted for him again in 2004, obviously, because he was the republican. Same in ’08. I naively wanted Romney, but voted McCain (like there is any difference) so I could help the team win.
I listened to Rush and Levin and Glenn. I watched Foxnews and only Foxnews, regularly. I’d brag about how “I don’t watch the mainstream media” unable to see the irony that Fox has more viewers than every other cable news channel combined. I would go to Drudge multiple times daily and keep up with only the news cycle that he peddled. I was informed. I knew I was informed. Liberals know nothing, liberals hate and are destroying this country, liberals don’t care about patriotism OR the constitution OR freedom, blah, blah, blah. While that’s true, they don’t I was never looking at the other side of the same coin. Why hadn’t they informed me of the path of destruction, debt, and disregard for our Constitution that the “conservative” majority Congress and Bush had actively been undertaking for the last two decades? Why don’t they ever talk about how deficit spending really started under Reagan, ramped up with Clinton, and then exploded with Bush? And why wasn’t I smart enough to see through it?
The reason is that the “conservative” party was hijacked long before many of us were ever born and we’ve never gotten a chance to truly appreciate or learn about what REAL conservatism is. We get accustomed to getting our news from comfortable sources. Sources that reinforce our beliefs, regardless of whether or not they are right. Here’s something everyone should know: Ron Paul is the last remnant of what, for the majority of our nation’s history, was considered conservative.