KEN’S CORNER: Neoconservatives … President Trumps OTHER Nightmare!
Commentary by TLB Contributing Writer: Ken LaRive
The other wing of the Deep State…
In consideration of the Neo-Con, Neo means new. The movement’s founders originated in the 1960s, and originally were liberal socialist Democrats. Only the stripes have changed, and so little about this political affiliation is new.
Since World War 2 ended, Neo-conservatism became a new political thread that infiltrated into the Republican party, and from that time have revolutionized it. The original theme that blended with Republican conservatism no longer recognizable or exists today. Neo-Conservatism is now pro big government, pro big spending, and is considered socialistic at its core. Though they seem to be opposed to a welfare state, they do promote the redistribution of wealth by government controlling incentives and initiatives.
Some Republicans have called Neo-Cons wolves in sheep clothing to indicate that they do not hold either the Libertarian or Paleo-Conservative standard, and are thought to have betrayed the core values of the Republican party. Some also have accused Neo-Cons to be closet Communists and collective Socialists, controlled by big banking consortiums and international businesses who do not have America’s best interest at heart. They also are blamed for the promotion of a one world order, along with their Democratic progressive liberal counterparts of the same ilk.
Others have suggested that the term has lost a consistent and definable meaning due to unwarranted and inconsistent use. For example, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld have all been identified as leading Neoconservatives despite the fact that they have been considered life-long conservative Republicans. Others argue that it is policy that defines a Neoconservative, and that because both Cheney and Rice have supported Irving Kristol’s ideas, they should be considered as such by record and association.
Republican Congressman and Libertarian-Republican Ron Paul has been a long time critic of the Neoconservative movement. He has written emphatically that Neo-conservatives attack freedom, liberty, and shreds the U.S. Constitution. On the House floor Dr. Paul addressed Neoconservative historical roots and indicated that Neo-conservatism is neither new nor conservative. These speeches are easily found on Utube.
According to Wikipedia: “Neo-conservatism is a political philosophy that supports using economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries. In economics, unlike Pale-conservatives and libertarians, neoconservatives generally purport to support a limited welfare state; rhetorically support free markets…”
…and they are willing to interfere by government mandate and sanctions for overriding social and economic purposes using undeclared preemptive war. Ardently, they protect and serve big banks that finance both sides to war, bolstered and defined by a US war machine of their design.
Critics on the right attack Neo-conservatism for involving the United States with preemptive wars in the Middle East, promoting of American exceptionalism by policies that align the United States with Israel.
The book “The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals a”, is the first defined history of the development of American Jewish political conservatism and the rise of a group of Jewish intellectuals and activists who are known as Neoconservatives. It describes the growth of about a dozen such figures in the 1940s and 50s, including Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer and Norman Podhoretz, along with several hundred younger activists such as Paul Wolfowitz, David Brooks and Charles Krauthammer, all of whom have had a powerful impact on American public policy, including what drove us to preemptive war with Iraq.
Author’s note: Disputes over Israel’s church/state Zionist movement is in sharp conflict with Paleo-conservatives who continue to argue that neoconservatives are an illegitimate addition to the conservative movement, and that they do not serve America, but external interests.
This consequential political rift can be traced back to a defining moment 1981. Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Mel Bradford to run the National Endowment for the Humanities was thwarted by neoconservatives who complained that he had once criticized Abraham Lincoln. Because of these allegations, Bradford withdrew.
Though most Americans know little to nothing of these defining distinctions, they are at the root of many of the radical policy changes in America for the last fifty years, creating in its wake an unresponsive top-heavy government, and a country enslaved by their international handlers, like the IMF, The Federal Reserve, and the Rothschild International Banks.
Read more great articles from KEN’S CORNER
From the Author, Ken La Rive – We in the Liberty movement have been fighting to take back this country for less than a decade, peacefully and with the love of God and country in our hearts. Our banner has been trampled on and displaced by a multitude of distractions, further eroding our nation and the cause for Liberty. And so, as we are pulled by forces we cannot fathom, powerful entities with unlimited resources stolen from our future, unaccountable trillions printed out of thin air and put on our backs as debt, we must formulate the most pitiful of all questions any patriot might ask in the final hour: Are we going to fight for our master’s tyranny, or are we going to demand the return of our civil liberties and Constitution? Are we going to choose The Banner of Liberty, or the shackles of voluntary servitude? Will it be a war for corporate profit, or a war to regain our ability to self govern, as the blood and toil of our forefathers presented to us, their children, as a gift? I fear that decision is emanate. I fear that any decision will be a hard one, but my greatest fear of all is that the decision has already been made for us.
Stay tuned to …
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.