Friday, December 30, 2011

Another neocon hit job on Ron Paul

Neoconservative Jonah Goldberg's recent column on Rep. Ron Paul ("The painful naivete of Ron Paul," Dec. 26) is one of many recent neocon hit pieces on the candidate since he rose to the top in the upcoming Iowa primary. Mr. Paul terrifies the neocons because, unlike them, he believes in peace over war, an end to our global empire that we can no longer afford and ending all U.S. foreign aid, including ending the $3 billion that we give to Mr. Goldberg's beloved Israel every year.

Rep. Paul believes in putting America's interests first and dialoguing and trading with friends as well as enemies, including Iran. Mr. Goldberg and his neocon allies, all of whom have close ties to Israel's right-wing Likud Party, promoted the disastrous Iraq war and now are trying to provoke the U.S. into an even more insane war in Iran, in order to remove another regime that is unfriendly to Israel.

Mr. Paul will make an excellent president because he is the only candidate who can turn our country around, both domestically and internationally.

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Neocon Definition of Isolationism

Neocons love to kill in order to get their way. Want oil or any other resource? Kill the leaders that lay claim to the land were it is and install puppet leaders. The puppets get tired of listening to the Devil American politicians and they get killed, new puppets get installed. Sometimes the foreign barbarians get to far out of hand and American soldiers are used. Kill a few hundred thousand of the “enemy”, crush their spirit, take their land and their natural resources and give them a puppet dictator and a few baubles, that will keep them in line for a while.

The Neocons definition of isolationism is: Ron Paul will not let us kill everyone that gets in our way!

Ron Paul (and Michael Jackson and Ayn Rand) vs. Our Central Bankers and Neocon Overloads

Now that we have all these Paul-enthusiast readers, what do we do to keep them? When we said ambiguously negative things about Rand (or Randians) and Michael, we got lots of readers we soon lost when we lost interest in their heroes.

Well, one comment on Paul: The evidence is there that he endorsed the Lew Rockwell/Murray Rothbard strategy of allying with paleocons (meaning, in this context, redneck neoconfederates and such). That strategy was criticized by CATO, REASON MAGAZINE and other relatively mainstream libertarian groups at the time. There’s lots of evidence that Paul abandoned that strategy, although not to the extent of directly alienating those groups. It would actually help him to say he was wrong and distance himself explicitly from Rockwell.

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

My Journey to Ron Paul, from a former Neocon

We can't be taken seriously in wanting to reduce government if we have our own sacred cows. By bringing our troops home from bases overseas they can protect the country and bring that money back domestically. I implore each and every one of you to look at the issues without a preconceived notion.

The way I see it now we have three realistic choices for President in 2012; re-electing President Obama, Mitt Romney or Ron Paul. Is your life better off now than when Obama took office? Mine certainly isn't. Our family has succeeded in spite of government policies rather than because of them. Is Mitt Romney the candidate you can rally behind? His Romneycare debacle in Massachusetts to flip flopping on issues like abortion and simply being a typical politician rule him out for me.

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

One Way To Tell a Neocon

When he says, "America," he means the imperialist presidency's propaganda, conquering, spying, and police-state ops. Take a WaPo editorial writer, who distorts Ron Paul (part of the job description) for FOX.

Monday, December 26, 2011

Ron Paul: Propagandist or Prophet?

So, once again, we see that Ron Paul’s true sin is his failure to jump on board with the war propaganda. A further sin is that he said after 9/11 that “there was ‘glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq.’” But is the contention that those policymakers responsible for the war on Iraq were not happy that they now had the opportunity to do so sustainable? Is Rabinowitz unaware that in 1996, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser coauthored a document prepared for the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, which made the case for overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s regime? Or that the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), whose membership was a virtual who’s who of so-called “neoconservatives” calling for war on Iraq, had a manifesto calling for regime change and stating that the “process of transformation” of the U.S. military into a force to “preserve American military preeminence” around the globe “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”? That PNAC director Robert Kagan acknowledged that the 9/11 attacks were the “Pearl Harbor” he and his ilk were looking for, writing in the Washington Post that 9/11 must be used to “to launch a new era of American internationalism. Let’s not squander this opportunity”?

Yet again, it becomes evidence that Ron Paul’s sin is that he is too willing to be honest with the American people and speak the truth about U.S. foreign policy. Just as Dr. Paul predicted and warned about the housing bubble and financial crisis of 2008, so did he predict and warn prior to 9/11 that U.S. foreign policy would result in what the intelligence community terms “blowback”. Ron Paul has a long record of speaking truth to power and making predictions that have come to pass.

Saturday, December 24, 2011

National Review’s Racist Rants

The whole world should know by now that the neocons at National Review magazine, the War Street Journal, and elsewhere will tell any lie in pursuit of political power. Lying the nation into war with Iraq by spreading the falsehood of "weapons of mass destruction" that were supposedly headed our way was the most atrociously evil act perpetrated by the U.S government and its propaganda organs in decades, having led to the senseless death of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

No one should be surprised that National Review is now engaged in a spectacular act of chutzpah, to put it mildly, by smearing Ron Paul as being insensitive on matters of race. Before anyone gives any credence to the latest smear campaign against Congressman Paul it would be useful to take a look at National Review’s own record of publications on the issue of race relations. It is not a pretty picture.

50 US Experts Implore Obama to Press Syria Harder

Around 50 US-based experts on Middle East policy and strategy signed an open letter to President Barack Obama this week imploring him to demonstrate greater leadership on the Syria crisis.

Their petition calls for tougher sanctions, greater contact with Syria’s opposition and the creation of havens for the protection of Syrian civilians. Signatories include expatriate activists from Syria, Lebanon and Egypt as well as commentators, academics and former top-level national security officials Elliott Abrams, L. Paul Bremer and Douglas Feith.

Possible Ron Paul Iowa Win Drives NeoCons to Apoplexy

Rep. Ron Paul’s top-tier status heading into Iowa and New Hampshire means he definitely can’t be totally ignored by the major media, as he has been in the past. So the censors and blackout artists have been replaced by the smear bund. This past week they got pretty well revved up, but they’re still probably a long way from being in high gear.

As The New American's Jack Kenny noted here a couple of days ago in his article, “Campaign Could Get 'Downright Ugly' if Paul Wins Iowa,” the Big Government Republicans are sharpening their knives for a bloodfest.

But they’re not waiting for the results of the January 3, 2012 Iowa caucuses to get ugly.

Over the past week, the apoplectic attack dogs of the neoconservative kennel were unleashed for a rabid, howling blitz against the Texas Congressman. It’s testimony to Dr. Paul’s squeaky clean personal and political life that the attackers have been forced to fabricate issues with which to clobber him. No sex scandals. No political payoffs from Freddie Mac or favoritism for Goldman Sachs. No political flip-flops on issues. No sellouts to special interests. So how do you attack a straight arrow such as Dr. Paul who is a constitutional purist and has doggedly stuck to his convictions for over three decades of public life? Well, they’re dusting off their playbook from the 2008 presidential campaign, and adding a few new twists. The smear bund is harping on several memes, hoping that sufficient repetition from multiple voices will convince voters that Ron Paul is “dangerous,” “crazy,” a “pacifist,” an “isolationist,” a “conspiracy crank,” and a “grumpy old man.”

Friday, December 23, 2011

I have 4 questions for neocon talk radio

I listen to the neocon assholes on talk radio all the time. I'm a delivery driver and I listen to those pukes a lot while I'm on the road. Next day off I get I'm gonna call into every show I can get in on and say something like this (please don't steal this idea yet)...

Question #1: What form of government did Iran have in 1951??

Answer: They were a democracy and they had elected a Prime Minister named Mohammed Mossadeq. In 1953, however, Eisenhower sent in the newly formed CIA and they overthrew this elected leader and installed the Shah, a theocratic dictator who ruled with an iron fist. He remained in power until 1979, at which time he was overthrown and our hostages were taken... in retaliation for installing the Shah.

Question #2: Who armed, funded and helped to bring to power Sadaam Hussein?

Answer: We did. Again, a heavy-handed dictator who killed his own people with chemical weapons we gave him. It took 2 wars, over 1 million dead Iraqis, and around 10,000 dead American soldiers to eventually remove him from power.

Question #3: Who armed and funded Bin Laden and the radical Islamists in Afghanistan in order to push back the Soviet invasion?

Answer: We did. And the result of that was the attack on 9/11, and thousands of dead American soldiers in the war in Afghanistan.

Question #4: Now do you understand what Ron Paul means by blowback, and how our meddling in the middle east causes more problems than it solves and increases hatred toward Americans?? They don't hate us because of who we are... they hate us because of what we do."

At some point, I'm sure I'll get interrupted, and to that I'll say...

Neocon Says Ron Paul Would Appease Hitler and the Nazis

The effort to viciously undercut Ron Paul’s bid for the presidency knows no bounds. Now that the establishment media campaign to ignore away Paul’s successful campaign has failed and he is rising in the polls as the Iowa caucus nears, the neocons are sharpening their knives.

For instance, Jamie Weinstein, who writes for the Weekly Standard and Fox News, has penned an op-ed over at the Daily Caller saying that if Ron Paul’s foreign policy had been in effect during the Second World War the Nazis would have ended up with nukes and would have won the war. It would have been the “Nazi Century.”

John Kampfner: How did Obama end up appeasing the neocons?

Last Saturday, as normal people were doing their Christmas shopping, I was hidden away in a Sky television studio in debate with a neocon. I was discussing the treatment of Bradley Manning, the American serviceman accused of leaking secrets to WikiLeaks, with John Bolton, one of the leading lights of the American right.

The point I was trying to make was fairly simple. As the self-professed leader of the free world, the United States should abide by the highest practices of international law. These arguments have been rehearsed incessantly over the past decade with reference to Guantanamo, renditions, Abu Ghraib and the Patriot Act. Yet the manner of Manning's incarceration has been truly horrific.

Warning! Neocon Push For War with Iran!

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Mainstream press sniggers at Ron Paul’s antiwar message

Last night I heard several more mainstream voices trashing Ron Paul for his spectacular anti-war comments in Iowa the other night--when he said the runup to war with Iran was reckless and could lead to another million dead, and Iran has good reason to want nukes-- and a couple of those voices were liberal! First neoconservative David Brooks on All Things Considered last night:

And then, Ron Paul really had a bad debate. People like the fact that he's forthright, but the Iran foreign policy, which is a more Libertarian foreign policy, is really unpopular in a socially conservative state like Iowa.

Gingrich Skulking Behind Ron Paul Attacks

GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich, a corporate-financier sponsored Council on Foreign Relations member also was a "distinguished advisor" at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), a warmongering, Neo-Con think-tank and the architects of both the costly unending wars America has been fighting for the last 2 decades and the resulting war profiteering. The FDD is also the same think-tank from which attacks against Ron Paul are being launched via FDD "fellow" James Kirchick.

Compounding this immense conflict of interest and possible fraud, is the fact that Newt Gingrich is also a "former senior fellow," and currently a "scholar" at the American Enterprise Institute which hosted a recent GOP presidential foreign policy debate. Gingrich's biography on the AEI website also states that he is, "an advisory board member of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies," suggesting that indeed, he is a current adviser at the FDD from which recent attacks on Ron Paul have originated.

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

America`s Global Warfare. Military Redeployment to Asia and The Pacific Threatens China

The 2000 Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which was the backbone of the NeoCon's agenda, was predicated on “waging a war without borders”.

The PNAC's declared objectives were to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars” in different regions of the world as well as perform the so-called military “constabulary” duties “associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions”. Global constabulary implies a worldwide process of military policing and interventionism, including covert operations and “regime change”.

This diabolical military project formulated by the NeoCons was adopted and implemented from the very outset of the Obama administration. With a new team of military and foreign policy advisers, Obama has been far more effective in fostering military escalation than his White House predecessor, George Bush Junior....

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Hayek Would Not Be Surprised by the Neocons

In his famous book, The Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek gave several reasons why something like fascism could have been so appealing to so many in twentieth-century Europe. One ingredient, he said, was that it appealed to the lowest common denominator in terms of intelligence and therefore gained a wide audience. Another reason was that it is easier for people to focus on hatred of someone or something as opposed to a more positive outlook, such as a free society. According to Hayek, the Jews were a symbol of capitalism, which is one reason why they were treated the way they were in the Europe of his day. (Let's not forget that "Nazi" was an acronym for National Socialism).

This was brought to my mind from an email from Garrett S., who said that he has met numerous people who have told him that they used to be neocons, but after educating themselves a little in basic economics and the literature of liberty they have become libertarians and Ron Paul supporters. On the other hand, wrote Garrett, he has never come across anyone who has said, "I used to be a libertarian and a Ron Paul supporter, but now that I'm educated I'm a proud neocon."

The neocons are today's version of Hayek's lowest common denominator.

Sad neocon hit piece - The Company Ron Paul Keeps

So it's starting.. The hit pieces will be coming out in full force now that Ron Paul is surging into the lead in Iowa and moving into 2nd in New Hampshire. I found this sad piece of journalism if you can call it that. Full of lie's and brings up "his" racist newsletters.

National ID Card Romney and the NeoCon Traitors

Ron Paul is surging because he opposes another neocon war for Israel

Iowa Republicans are not neoconservatives. Ron Paul has gained ground after a debate in which his refusal to join the Iran warhawks was front and center. Indeed, in my travels around the country, I don’t meet many neoconservatives outside of Washington and New York. It’s one thing to just adore Israel, as the evangelical Christians do; it’s another thing entirely to send American kids off to war, yet again, to fight for Israel’s national security.

Notice that he pins the tail on the ideology, neoconservatism. This is why David Brooks thought Paul had a "bad debate," because he is trying to tell Americans about a dangerous ideology, neoconservatism. Oh and look how much air the NYT gives Ron Paul in its Iowa wrapup this morning. About one paragraph.

Monday, December 19, 2011

Shocker! Neocon Elitists in Iowa Endorse Ted Kennedy Wing of the GOP

The neocons who run the Des Moines Register, which endorsed John McCain in 2008, have endorsed Romney in today's paper. What a surprise. They must have debated endlessly whether or not to endorse the Ted Kennedy wing of the party or the Al Gore wing, currently located in Texas with Governor Rick Perry having been Al Gore's campaign manager in that state when Gore ran for the presidency.

Neocon fantasy

The simultaneous publication of Pat Buchanan's column "Lessons the GOP won't learn," the editorial "North Korea's missiles: Meet the challenge" and Craig Smith's Q&A "Reassessing North Korea's nuke threat" (all Dec. 10 and could not be more appropriate, although Mr. Buchanan's column should be retitled, "Lessons the GOP and the Trib won't learn."

The idea that the United States is threatened by North Korean (or Iranian or Russian) nukes is preposterous and can only spring from the demented Cold War minds of the warmongers at The Heritage Foundation.

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Neocon Demagoguery on Earmarks

From Rick Perry, natch, advocate of presidential dictatorship. Those in favor of presidential power want all power to the executive branch; earmarks retain constitutional authority for the congress. Of course, Ron never voted for pork-barrel spending of any sort.

How Iraq Maneuvered the US Exit

The neocons’ treasured Iraq War myth of their “successful surge” is belied by the actual history of how Iraqi Shiite leaders collaborated with Iran to tamp down internal violence and then destroy neocon plans for long-term U.S. military bases to project power in the Middle East, as Gareth Porter explains.

The real story behind the U.S. withdrawal is how a clever strategy of deception and diplomacy adopted by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in cooperation with Iran outmaneuvered Bush and the U.S. military leadership and got the United States to sign the U.S.-Iraq withdrawal agreement.

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Fact Check: Iran to get Nukes in Months … No evidence, Bachmann is wrong – Neo Cons unite against Paul

There is no doubt that Ron Paul hurt his chances to win the 2012 selection @ last nights FOX Debate in Iowa… By telling the TRUTH.

Voting for the candidate that most wants World War? There are many choices for you then (including Obama)…. Voting for sanity, liberty, and peace? Unfortunately you only have one choice. Ron Paul. – The Tea O Cons have been saying that Iran would have the bomb within months, for years now. Wrong every time, but right now?

And even IF Iran gets nukes, would they commit suicide by using it preemptively? (Haven’t we paid for a ‘Missile Shield’? Does Iran have war satellites to guide missiles to our shores?)

If you believe this propaganda then please tell me why no one has used a nuke since 1945. Answer? Because they would be annihilated. Oh… but Iran is craaaaazy, you know, like Ron Paul…. Like Kim Jong Il …right? That’s the excuse for attacking Iran. It makes no sense and provides no proof.

Friday, December 16, 2011

The Yankees are going home. Now what was that about democracy?

US neocon publications (The WSJ, Commentary, Weekly Standard etc.) are lamenting the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. With newly found prescience, the hacks predict much strife in the country, complete with massacres, deportations and foreign invasions neatly dovetailing with a civil war from hell. A prolonged US military presence would allegedly prevent such outrages, they claim. How prolonged? Well, who's counting among friends? A generation or two, maybe a century or two -- it's the thought that matters. Of course, American presence there since 2003 was coextensive with the best part of a million Iraqis (not to mention 4,500 Americans) dying violent deaths, a coincidence that hints at a causal relationship. But the neocons are adamant: no sacrifice is too big for Democracy. Those poor Iraqis had to die for the bright future of their country becoming like Norway.

Obama the Neocon Banging the War Drums Again? U.S. Troops Mount Near Syria

If Obama is hoping for a “rally around the flag” effect, maybe he shouldn’t hold his crotch during the national anthem.

There are reports surfacing of U.S. troops gathering in Jordan near the Syrian border. It is unclear if the exercise is merely saber-rattling, or the preparatory stages for an excursion into Bashir Assad’s Syria.

The Syrian government has been condemned for its human rights abuses by the United Nations Human Rights Council (which Syria was recently elected to) and even the Arab League.

Neo-Con Rising

The reports of the death of the Neo-Conservative Movement have been greatly exaggerated. Dick Cheney has become a cheerleader for Newt Gingrich whose sole intention seems to be to continue The Long War ad infinitum. On a day when we finally ended the most disastrous strategy of the Neo-Cons, the Iraq War, Gingrich is doubling down on the next war--In Iran.

He painted a chain of events in which an Israeli prime minister asked an American president for help with a conventional military invasion of Iran so that Israel would not have to use its nuclear arsenal to defend itself. Mr. Gingrich implied that he would go along. "What I won't do is allow Israel to be threatened with another Holocaust," he said. "This is a not-very-far-down-the-road decision."

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Lying 'Blackjack' Bill Bennett

Several years ago neocon icon and self-appointed national moral scold Bill Bennett, editor of The Book of Virtues, admitted to squandering his childrens' inheritance by losing some $7 million playing blackjack in Vegas. In addition to being a hypocrite, Bennett is also a liar. Tonight on Sean Hannity's Faux News show he said that Ron Paul believed in "conspiracy theories" about 9/11. He's lying. Ron Paul has been all over the "mainstream" media for the past five years explaining that he thinks 9/11 was a result of typical governmental incompetence. The FAA prohibited airline pilots from carrying firearms, Ron has endlessly pointed out. If they had not done so it is unlikely that 9/11 would ever have occurred. And of course the entire Defense/CIA/FBI establishment failed to even protect their own headquarters. Par for the course for inherently incompetent and bungling government bureaucrats. He has never spun any conspiracy theories and Bill Bennett knows it.

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

American International Policy and the Neoconservative Legacy

But neoconservatism is not the issue here, and Jim Antle is quite right to say so. Neoconservatism is a set (scarcely a system) of ideas that evolved in conversations between, and exchanges of essays by, a group of friends, all more or less of the WW II generation or just after -- Irving Kristol, Daniel P. Moynihan, Robert Bartley, Leo Rosten, and a few others, notably Nathan Glazer and peripherally Mel Lasky (he and Tony Robinson and Stephen Spender were in a damp office in London). They were joined by still others, such as Norman Podhoretz and Neal Kozodoy and The American Spectator's Mr. Tyrrell. The conversation was almost entirely concerned with domestic issues -- civil rights and the public policies that ought, or ought not, to follow their legal and constitutional consolidation in the '50s-60s, welfare matters (e.g., "conservative safety net welfare state" vs. reliance on private goodness and free markets), and many more.

The foreign policy of the first Bush administration -- the resort to war to enforce international borders -- was widely perceived, and surely not inexactly, as a traditional exercise of state power, and it received broad support in our country as well as amongst others, including old allies like France and Britain and new-circumstantial ones like Syria and old-circumstantial ones like Saudi Arabia. Some of them even helped us, as per the Foreign Legion contingent that stayed in the rear, but I have it on good authority that was not for want of volunteering, only Generals Schwarzkopf and Powell were in the unilateral-chain-of-command mode where they felt comfortable and did it their way. The second war began as old-fashioned get-the-varmints warfare, but evolved with the nation-building ambitions of the move into Iraq. The notion of pre-emptive defense and punish-the-dictators and battle-cry-of-freedom-and-democracy beyond our own borders was not a neoconservative notion. It may have been a Wilsonian one, but I leave that to specialists in the matter, as it is not certain President Wilson's "make the world safe for democracy" fantasy was more important in his own mind and in its effect on 20th century history than his "self-determination for all peoples" one. And anyway, neither the president nor his top men were neos in any recognizable sense, certainly not Mr. Rumsfeld or Mr. Cheney or Miss Rice, nor Mr. Wolfowitz, who is widely called a neo but who had taken his distances from the Committee on the Present Danger in the '70s-80s when, organized by Democrats such as Mr. Nitze and Mr. Rostow and Mrs. Kirkpatrick and others and that attracted Senator Jackson as well as President Reagan (before he was president) and was championed by the then-neos, except Mr. Luttwak, but he too always took his distances from them, as did Prof. Bloom and Prof. Wohlstetter, Mr. Wolfowitz's great teachers. Please correct me if I am wrong in any or all of these characterizations, I am quite open to being corrected on points of fact, history, and even, yes, judgment.

Send the Neocon war mongers and war profiteers the bill

In the run-up to the Iraq war there was little serious discussion about what this war of choice by the Neoconservative Bush-Cheney administration would cost. When Lawrence Lindsey, President Bush’s economic adviser, suggested that it might reach $200 billion all told, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld dismissed the estimate as “baloney.” Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz went as far as to suggest that Iraq’s postwar reconstruction would pay for itself through increased oil revenues. Rumsfeld and Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels estimated the total cost of the war in the range of $50 to $60 billion, some of which they believed would be financed by other countries.

The true cost of the war in Iraq, according to our calculations, will, by the time America has extricated itself, exceed $3 trillion. And this is a deliberately conservative estimate. The ultimate cost may well be much higher.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

The 'Neocon' Monroe Doctrine

OK Jeff, I'll bite. If the Monroe Doctrine is neoconservative, when did the United States intervene militarily to spread a particular form of government throughout Latin America? Or pursue regime change in the hemisphere? Or wage preventive war, with or without regime change, against the European powers who might conceivably ignore the doctrine's warning?

It took until the Polk administration for the Monroe Doctrine to be applied in an especially expansionist fashion. After that there was talk of forcibly removing the Spanish from Cuba and the movement of U.S. troops to encourage an end to the French occupation of Mexico. It wasn't really interpreted as justifying U.S. intervention in the internal affairs of Latin American countries until Theodore Roosvelt -- a good bit after the founding generation.

I'll grant that the Roosevelt Corollary is a precursor to neoconservatism. But the Monroe Doctrine was mainly a statement against European intervention in the region, later invoked against Soviet intervention during the Cold War. Noam Chomsky saw it as a statement of U.S. hegemony, however.

Neo-Con Historians Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman?

Are historians and Ron Paul backers Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman now well out front in betraying the Faith of Ron Paul by showing their true leftist...ahhhh.... Neo-Conservative colors?

Mr. Neo...sorry...Gutzman and his fellow leftist Mr. Woods recently appeared on The Mike Church Show to go after me for revealing that the Ron Paul version of the Founding Fathers, the Monroe Doctrine and non-interventionism was considerably less than correct. Doing this all the while defending the idea that the United States has some sort of God-given right to interfere in any country outside its borders -- as long as that country is in the correct hemisphere.

Constitutional Neoconmen

Neocons like Levin, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh who now fancy themselves as constitutionalists since there is a Democrat in the White House are hypocrites of the first order. All during the eight years of the Bush regime their standard response to anyone who would object to the PATRIOT Act and myriad other attacks on constitutional liberty was to proclaim that "9/11 changed everything." Translation: the hell with the constitution; we’re engaged in a never-ending "war on terra," as George W. Bush called it. We need to destroy our constitutional liberties in order to protect our constitutional liberties, they told us. It is the hatred of those liberties by people in the Middle East that caused the terrorists to attack us on 9/11, they ludicrously proclaimed (and still do).

War is not just "the health of the state," as Randolph Bourne sagely stated in his famous essay of that title; it is the health of unlimited and unconstitutional government. Governmental powers always ratchet up during wartime at the expense of constitutional liberty (and prosperity) despite the fact that every federal politician, and every soldier, takes an oath to do the opposite – to defend the Constitution. This notorious "ratchet effect" is described in great detail in Robert Higgs’s classic book, Crisis and Leviathan.

Monday, December 12, 2011

Right-wing listserv targets Israel’s critics

The former spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is shopping a 3,000-word trove of opposition research against bloggers critical of Israel to friendly neoconservative journalists.

I’ve obtained an email sent by Josh Block to a private listserv called the Freedom Community, in which he throws around accusations of anti-Semitism against liberal bloggers and calls on other list members to “echo” and “amplify” his assault and “use the below [research] to attack the bad guys.”

Breitbart Resigns From GOProud Board Over Outing Of Perry’s Strategist

Last week, Jimmy LaSalvia of conservative gay group GOProud called Rick Perry’s gay strategist Tony Fabrizio a “faggot” for working as the strategist in Rick Perry’s campaign—a campaign that aired an unapologetically homophobic ad.

But now Huffington Post co-founder and GOProud advisory board member Andrew Breitbart (the man who released pictures of Anthony Weiner’s privates over the Internet and destroyed Shirley Sherrod’s career with a spurious claim of racism) is outraged that GOProud might have vindictively outed Fabrizio over Perry’s ad.

As a result, Breitbart has resigned from GOProud’s advisory board as of this morning.

Saturday, December 10, 2011

Gingrich, neocon wars, John Bolton as secretary of State?

Hope everyone caught Justin Sink's story in The Hill about Newt Gingrich saying he would name George W. Bush's United Nations ambassador, John Bolton, as his secretary of State. This is not surprising, but is deeply worrisome. Gingrich would bring the neocon war faction to his presidency. This will guarantee a clash with Ron Paul in upcoming debates, and it dramatizes why President Obama has a commanding position on national-security issues compared to Republicans.

John Bolton is one of the leaders of the neocon war faction. He would be an epic disaster as secretary of State. It seems, listening to various Republicans, that their obsessive attacks on Obama are based on their looking for new wars to fight, and current wars to never end.

At the Republican Jewish Coalition Forum

The Terror War years of 2003-2007 feel like ages ago now...though I fondly remember rooting on Jon Stewart as he launched into devestating send-ups of the Republicans and neocons. (That the Bushians and neocons were lunatics (or worse) was, of course, one of the few things that Stewart and I agreed on.)

I was reminded of this time watching Stewart's latest take on the Republican Jewish Coalition Forum. Whatever else he might be, Jon Stewart is brave. He makes criticizng Israel, Zionism, and American foreign policy funny and cool, and it's hard to imagine that won't have consequences.

Friday, December 09, 2011

The Neocons Have Finally Snapped

Any doubt we might have that the Israeli right has lost its mind should be eliminated by the latest column from one of its most prominent media figures, Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post.

Glick, a dual citizen of the United States and Israel, has flipped out over some remarks (which we'll get to later) made last week by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta, and Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman. And here is how she explains those remarks.

Her first explanation is that "the Obama administration is an ideological echo chamber in which only certain positions are permitted".

"Restrained by ideological thought police that outlaw critical thought about the dominant forces in the Islamic world today, US officials have little choice but to place all the blame for everything that goes wrong on the one society they are free to criticise - Israel."

7 Nations on Neocon Hit List

Some 10 years before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., top neoconservatives in the Pentagon orchestrated a major “policy coup” to start wars with multiple Middle Eastern countries and secure total domination of the Middle East in order to take their oil. That’s according to a top former U.S. military officer.

In a speech in San Francisco, top Gen.Wesley Clark recounted a memo drafted by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s office in the wake of 9-11 that was brought to his attention by a top Pentagon official. The neocons’ plot, he was told, was “to attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years—we’re going to start with Iraq, and then we’re going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.” Clark said the neocons “wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.”

Thursday, December 08, 2011

Newt the Neocon calls for military action against Iran

"lrozen: Gingrich calls for regime replacement in Iran, block its imports of petrol, sabotage their refinery, support all dissident grps"

Because, of course, this has worked so well in the past, particularly in the Middle East.

Newt calls himself a student of history, but he hasn't got a fucking clue. Engaging Iran militarily would be a disaster.

Newt's a right-wing militarist, and here he's just sucking up to the neocons, and more specifically to the right-wing Israel lobby that is at the core of neoconservatism, hoping no doubt to secure some Jewish votes (with the early primary in Florida and an opportunity to crush Romney front of mind).

And, of course, he's also a shameless and largely unprincipled partisan. Remember when he was against President Obama's military engagement in Libya?

Neocons Don’t Believe Their Own Anti-Iran Propaganda

Occasionally, leading neoconservative intellectuals forget that the wider world is listening and say things that belie their own case for war. Take, for example, Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. In a recent video statement Pletka said,

The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it’s Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don’t do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, “See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you that Iran wasn’t getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately. …”

And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem.

Wednesday, December 07, 2011

The Washington Post Editorial Board Makes a Hash of the Russian Election

The Washington Post editorial board has become something of a neocon doyen over the past couple of years. What annoys me far more than its politics, though, is the incredibly sloppy and lazy way in which it writes. Its editorial on the recent Russian elections is a perfect example of this.

“No less than Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, Mr. Putin invited the backlash by choosing to retrench rather than reform his regime."

Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement

A book of mine, Leo Strauss and Conservative Movement in America: A Critical Appraisal, is about to come out with Cambridge University Press; and it has a special connection to the Mises Institute. Much of the critical thrust comes from attending conferences sponsored by the Mises Institute and from getting to know my fellow- participants and their writings. Although I harbored strong doubts about my latest subjects even before these encounters, my conversations with David Gordon, Murray Rothbard, Robert Higgs and Thomas DiLorenzo and later, discovering Mises’s comments about Strass gave additional substance to my suspicions. My project became a way of calling attention to a significant body of criticism that the liberal-neoconservative press and most scholarly organizations wouldn’t deign to present. I was upset in particular by the inability of David Gordon (and Lew Rockwell) to find a suitable publisher for a long, incisive work that David had produced about Harry Jaffa’s reading of American history. It was one of the most cerebral "value critiques" by a living thinker that I had seen.

Why, asks David, should Jaffa, a cult figure who is wined and dined by GOP benefactors, be immune from the type of assessment that other authors of scholarly works should have to accept? Why do Straussians like Jaffa, Allan Bloom, Thomas Pangle, and Charles Kesler achieve canonical status as "conservative" thinkers without having their ideas rigorously examined in widely accessible forums? It seems that the only appraisals such figures have to deal with are puff pieces in neoconservative publications and the scribbling of inflamed leftists attacking them as rightwing extremists.

Tuesday, December 06, 2011

How Iran Could Be The Next Neocon Target

Should a Republican nominee win the election, it is most probable that he will be either former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (shown here) or Mitt Romney.

No less a Republican conservative authority than Pat Buchanan ponders what such an outcome might produce:

Is a vote for Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich a vote for yet another unfunded war of choice, this time with a nation, Iran, three times as large and populous as Iraq?

Buchanan finds an eagerness for war against Iran in Republican campaign rhetoric:

Mitt says that if elected he will move carriers into the Persian Gulf and “prepare for war.” Newt is even more hawkish. America should continue “taking out” Iran’s nuclear scientists — i.e., assassinating them — but military action will probably be needed.

DC Neocon Muses Over the Nomination

George Will doesn't like Romney or Gingrich. He does like Rick Perry, who enriches his family, and Jon Huntsman, the next establishment flavor of the week, or so they hope. As a good Beltwayian, George dismisses Ron Paul for being an "isolationist," i.e., an exponent of the Golden Rule and fiscal sanity, who is sick of corporatist mass murder. (Thanks to Murray Sabrin)

Bill Kristol Ignores Israeli Leaders’ Praise Of Obama, Claims The President Is Weakening Israeli Security

After a speech on Friday by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta that implored Israel to make moves to thaw its cool relations with strategic partners and overcome its growing isolation, neoconservative commentators went bananas. Former Bush Mideast hand Elliott Abrams, speaking with neocon Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin, wondered, “Does anyone wonder why Israelis don’t trust this administration to guard their security?” (In September, Abram’s himself said it was “true” that Israel and the U.S. enjoy “the best military-to-military relationship ever.”)

The most overblown response, though, came from right-wing don Bill Kristol. Speaking through a press release from the far-right-wing pressure group he heads, the Emergency Committee for Israel, Kristol attacked President Obama’s comments last weekend to Jewish donors that his administration’s security cooperation with Israel had reached new heights in the partnership. Kristol said:

Monday, December 05, 2011

How Iran Could Be The Next Neocon Target

Should a Republican nominee win the election, it is most probable that he will be either former House Speaker Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. (shown above)

No less a Republican conservative authority than Pat Buchanan ponders what such an outcome might produce:

Is a vote for Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich a vote for yet another unfunded war of choice, this time with a nation, Iran, three times as large and populous as Iraq?

Buchanan finds an eagerness for war against Iran in Republican campaign rhetoric:

Mitt says that if elected he will move carriers into the Persian Gulf and “prepare for war.” Newt is even more hawkish. America should continue “taking out” Iran’s nuclear scientists — i.e., assassinating them — but military action will probably be needed.

Sunday, December 04, 2011

GOP Presidential Hopefuls Turn to Neocons for Foreign Policy Direction

Newt Gingrich is relishing his new front-runner position. The media is slavering over the former Speaker of the House, endowing him with that most desirable designation.

As his poll numbers increase, so does the interest in the policies Gingrich advocates and the identity of the cadre of counselors who have his ear.

As to the former, Gingrich’s appearance at a recent GOP debate where he declared his support for an amnesty program for illegals has given pundits and his opponents plenty of fodder for attack.

In the case of the latter, the roster of advisors that Gingrich has announced reveals the true trajectory that the once and future neoconservative would take were he elected to the White House.

Saturday, December 03, 2011

The Neocon Rush to War Against Iran

Is Iran a threat to America? Or is it a fading power? The Iranian storming of the British embassy should not be interpreted as a sign of growing radicalism in Iran but as testament to the weakness of the regime. It has nothing in common with the 1979 takeover of the American embassy. There is no mass support inside Iran for attacking the United Kingdom. The calls in the Iranian parliament for "death to Britain" have an obligatory feel to them.

Yet the possiblity of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons has prompted a number of neoconservatives to maintain that it's imperative to launch a strike against it. Max Boot's column in the Los Angeles Times is a case in point. Paul Pillar points to the abuse of Nazi analogies in his post today. But Boot's column can be questioned on other grounds as well.

A neo-Can goes over the border in attacking Ron Paul

Only in Washington could a former Walter Mondale speechwriter who was raised in Canada be permitted to pose as a conservative.

That's Charles Krauthammer, who is seen above making an attack on Ron Paul that is positively bizarre.

Krauthammer is among a group of what I call the "Neo-Cans." There are liberal internationalists who have snuck in from Canada disguised as conservatives. Mark Steyn and David Frum also meet the definition.

In the above clip Krauthammer is asked which of the contenders for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination he could support.

Newt-Onian Foreign Policy

Just in case anyone criticizes his proposal for a half dozen or so new wars, Gingrich plays the standard neocon "ace-in-the-hole" strategy of quoting the "sainted" Abraham Lincoln. "We must think anew and act anew," he quotes Lincoln as saying. He praises Lincoln’s response to Fort Sumter, where not a single person was harmed, let along killed. In response to the knocking down of some bricks at the fort, Lincoln responded with a full-scale invasion of all the Southern states, waging total war on the civilian population as well, and killing some 350,000 American citizens in those states. This of course was the very definition of treason under Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution, which defines treason as only "levying war upon the states" or "giving aid and comfort to their enemies."

Gingrich says that secession would have meant "the end of the United States" when in fact the exact opposite is true: The voluntary union of the founding fathers – their United States – was destroyed by Lincoln’s war. To Gingrich, Lincoln’s unconstitutional invasion of the Southern states was "the road to victory." (Lincoln’s greatest failure was his failure to do what all the other major powers of the mid nineteenth century did with regard to slavery, and end it peacefully).

Thursday, December 01, 2011

Are You Ready for Some Neocons?

As the popularity of Newt Gingrich grows, it’s critically important that we understand that Newt is a Neocon, just how dangerous Neocons are, and what kind of foreign policy we could expect from Newt. Those of you who have been active long enough to remember PNAC, know what I’m talking about here. For starters, lets look at Newt’s foreign policy advisors.

When it comes to foreign policy, the Republican frontrunner likes it old-school. Neo-old school.

We’ve had two foreign policy themed debates in the GOP primary now, which have provided ample opportunity to see what a Republican foreign policy would look like in 2013. And in the case of Newt Gingrich, it would probably look like a kind of neocon fantasy land.

Neocons Preoccupied With Islamic Conspiracy Theories

For some in the media and the foreign policy punditry, any criticism of Israel, directly or implicitly, is unacceptable. Blogger Jennifer Rubin noted a sign held by an Arab American that said “Gaza Supports the Occupation of Wall Street,” which she described as a “vile scene.”

That is precisely what has triggered the neoconservative response in places like The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, and the New York Post. In addition to Geller and the talk radio pantheon, the list of leading Republicans and self-styled conservatives who have attacked the Occupy movement is virtually a who’s who of the most passionate supporters of Israel and promoters of Islamophobia, many brought together by an organization called the Emergency Committee for Israel, which is headed by William Kristol of The Weekly Standard. ECI advocates the creation of a “pro-Israel presidency” for the United States.