← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Fire Pen

Thread 7836

Thread ID: 7836 | Posts: 2 | Started: 2003-07-03

Wayback Archive

Fire Pen [OP]

2003-07-03 23:11 | User Profile

[Published in USA Daily 5/8/03 By Charles Angione]

Many of those we refer to as neo-conservatives are former liberals, “New Deal” socialists and world order internationalists who abandoned the increasingly bizarre leftist movement as part of the broad Reagan conservative revolution. Though espousing more traditional behavior, old habits are hard to break, and these zealots, apparently retaining their leftist hubris, continue to employ the same intolerant combativeness and liberal character assassination techniques towards anyone – especially true conservatives -- who disagrees with their vision of U.S. empire.

Who could have imagined, for example, reading a cover story in the pages of Bill Buckley’s once revered National Review wherein former Bush speechwriter David Frum calls Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, Joe Sobran, Charley Reese, and others “unpatriotic.” The Canadian immigrant isn’t content to call these highly respected gentlemen merely mistaken, or even stupid. No, they are “unpatriotic,” a word the neocons casually throw around much like their liberals counterparts use “Racist.”

Such “thought police” Nazis equate patriotism with blind obedience to our president and our government. Questioning in any way the rightness or unconstitutionality of the president’s war, or of certain outrageously dictatorial provisions of The Patriot Act, qualifies one for the “unpatriotic” charge. This, as if Americans should not remain vigilant of their liberty during times of war when, historically, governments tend to trample on individual rights. “Love your country, but fear your government,” is not a motto they embrace. And knowing that conservatives do not feel comfortable finding themselves in agreement with liberals, neocons perpetuate the notion that it is only sixties type leftist radicals who oppose the war. The press seems to be buying it – and so are some traditional conservatives.

It is not only about the war, however. Oppose mass immigration and you are, of course, a racist. It is, perhaps, this issue alone which causes many of us traditional conservatives to doubt the honesty of the Bush administration. We might otherwise have concluded that the president was simply misled or honestly mistaken about his pre-emptive war policy. His infamous “compassionate conservatism” might, after all, have been what was behind his record liberal spending (including his massive $8 billion education bill), his weak-kneed stance on affirmative action and gun control, and his generally disappointing performance.

How can we take the president at his word, though, when he professes to be protecting and defending the United States against terrorism while doing absolutely nothing to protect and defend our borders from the thousands of aliens invading our country daily. This is still the best and easiest way for terrorists to infiltrate America. Furthermore, many in the Mexican army are available to assist them for a price, as proven by the hundreds of incursions into the U.S. by Mexican soldiers assisting drug smugglers, at times even firing on our border patrol. How easy would it be to drive a truck across our border carrying a nuclear missile? Protecting our borders is something that the president is supposed to do. Instead, Mr. Bush proposes to give illegal aliens yet another amnesty and wants a “guest worker” (read open borders) program. Neither will he crack down on the outrageous abuses and incompetence in the INS and the State Department, which allowed entry to the 9-11 murderers. While willing to spill American blood in defending the borders of Afghanistan and Iraq, he will not risk his political capital to defend our own borders -- and the Americans under continual attack on those borders.

And then there is the Israel phenomenon. Israel is an old friend to whom we are committed to help live in peace and security. The mere mention of an Israeli lobby, however, or the suggestion that Israel’s interests do not always exactly coincide with America’s, makes one not merely anti-Israel but anti-Semitic. In fact, since Jews are prominently represented in the movement, the very label “neoconservative” has been denounced by some neocons as a “code word” for Jewish conservative. Even Rush Limbaugh seems to have been taken in by this ethnic baiting.

To be sure, many neocons are Jews: William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard; Richard Pearl, administration policy wonk, David Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense; Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary: among many others (but also William Bennett, Jeanne Kirkpatric, and many other gentile luminaries as well).

And neo-conservatives, Jews and gentiles alike, do seem to share an uncommonly passionate allegiance to furthering the interests of Israel, sometimes at the expense of America’s interests. The above notwithstanding, the code word charge is, of course, patently ridiculous. Jews also enjoy a prominent presence among liberals, communists and libertarians. Are these code words also?

Unfortunately, the neocons have all but taken over the conservative movement while we traditional conservatives were content to make compromises in order to fight the cold war and to get Republicans elected. The neocons run most of the conservative print and radio and TV media. We traditional conservatives are holding our own, however, and maybe gaining on them -- especially on the internet. From this base we will continue to fight the good fight for the universal truths of American conservatism and for the return to the constitutional republic of our founding fathers.

Faust

2003-07-04 00:04 | User Profile

A great Article!!! :gun: :gun: :gun: