3 posts tagged “neoconservative”
I just finished reading a day old email with a Frontpagemag.com letterhead by David Horowitz. The subject on the email: “A Message to Disgruntled Conservatives: Get Over It!” Horowitz’s blog has a different title yet apparently the same content: Birth certificate, Hussein name, Hillary garbage.
Horowitz actually writes a very supportive article for Barack Hussein Obama. Horowitz basically writes the Conservatives that are going after the Birth Certificate issue of BHO’s citizenship (Some are calling Obamagate) is “right-wing trash talk.”
Now check this out: David Horowitz is one of the true heroes working to educate Americans about the nature of Islam/Mohammedanism. This makes Horowitz a hero in my book; however this article is laced with self-righteous anger.
Horowitz claims the significant of amount voters that elected Obama renders irrelevant the veracity or the lack of veracity of Obama’s citizenship. Horowitz even goes so far as to NOT bring up the U.S. Constitution because the will of the voters overrides the letter of law in the Constitution.
Horowitz goes on to rail Conservatives about the attitude given toward Hillary as Secretary of State and the accusation that BHO is a closet Islamist Muslim. I have to say on the last two points I am in complete agreement with Horowitz.
Although Hillary is a domestic societal change Leftist, her record in the Senate has demonstrated a good grasp of foreign policy and the need to fight the Islamic terrorists. This is in contradistinction from BHO’s thoughts of not setting any pre-conditions for negotiations with America’s enemies.
As for being a Muslim, I don’t believe it one bit. I do believe BHO has been ensconced in Islamic culture and the typical pro-Arab and anti-Israel Leftist stand pertaining to how things should work out politically in the Middle East.
I am still convinced BHO is a closet Marxist because of past associations with avowed Marxists that have influenced everything to an entrance into Harvard to working on Slanted Left community solutions with an unrepentant oxymoron anti-war yet violent American terrorist who sought the destruction of the American government to establish a Marxist utopia. (Ayers claimed he did not kill anyone in his bombing days however booklets and eyewitness infiltrators demonstrate a willingness to kill Americans who did not conform to the envisioned Marxist utopia.)
Whether or not the BHO’s birth certificate of original birth exists or demonstrates a birth in Hawaii or Kenya is important because the cloud of darkness illustrates a propensity to lie.
The influence of Black Liberation Theology (BLT) Marxist Jeremiah Wright (ergo racist) is downplayed by BHO. Only a gullible sucker could believe that – it’s a BHO lie. This BLT influence extends to Wrights good Chicago community buddy Black Muslim racist Louis Farrakhan no matter the verbal BHO denials.
I do have to admit though that BHO’s Cabinet choices are way more centrist than the obvious ideology that BHO gravitates toward. Maybe BHO is an American first and a Leftist Marxist second. Time will tell with that.
The thing I disagree with Horowitz the most is his concept that votes override the U.S. Constitution. This very same attitude is how a Slanted Left judiciary in America has disdained Constitutional interpretation for Constitutional transforming to fit the Bench’s view of how a Constitution should evolve without the involvement of people and Congress.
Personally I would be flabbergasted if SCOTUS even looks at the BHO’s birth certificate issue on the merit that the Governor of Hawaii (a Democrat) has certified BHO was born in Hawaii. Once a SCOTUS decides to not even look at the various civil suits concerning place of birth and citizenship, the issue will become moot and something to be scrutinized by curious historians in the future.
So far I have come across only one avowed Conservative (via the old GOOGLE) who believes David Horowitz has shown his true colors. Patrick Krey posting on the blog Political Class Dismissed takes the paleocon opportunity to call David Horowitz a neocon ergo a closet Leftist.
Now it is true those that are pegged as neocons (which is a group of people that hardly have monolithic agreement) have Leftist and even Marxist roots. Paleocons miss the fact these multifaceted EX-Leftists are “EX.” An epiphany occurred that Leftist/Marxist ideology is a failed pattern to govern for the greater good. Hence the ex-Leftist and/or ex-Marxist became Conservatives yet with a different twist: the promotion of global Democracy as a means toward peace rather than conquest and forced re-education camps or executions. Basically the loose difference between Paleocons and Neocons is the former emphasizes less government involvement with individuals and a domestic non-international perspective while the later emphasizes the use of military strength to rid the world of despots and terrorists strengthening global interdependence via democratic institutions.
This is what makes Neocons great educators on the nature of Islam trying to overcome the Politically Correct subculture which both the Left and many on the Right bow toward.
PC culture is like a domestic family in a row boat. The leader tells the family not to rock the boat so that no one gets hurt. All the while hooligans are hiding around the bend to do more than rock the family leader’s boat, they plan to capsize it and take their possessions. Kill the males and abuse the females.
Maybe the leader sees the trouble coming around the bend. The leader still tells the family not to rock the boat. The leader will speak with the hooligans and surely have the moral imperative to not hurt humans for the purpose of self-aggrandizement.
The hooligan leader says sure, turning to smile at his fellow hooligans. Hooligan leader says, “Come to shore and we will respect your humanity as the hooligans in the background sharpen their knives in preparation for the acquisition of easy booty.
So I have to say I do not agree with Horowitz concerning constitutional issues yet he still is a hero for being one of many educating America and the West that there are Islamic hooligans that cannot be trusted.
JRH 12-2-08
Here are some interesting thoughts from Ted Belman of Israpundit on the insights of one of Rudy Giuliani’s foreign policy advisors – Norman Podhoretz.
JRH 11/22/07
****************************
Podhoretz, like Bush, is staying the course.
By Ted Belman
November 10, 2007
Ever since being introduced to Commentary Magazine in the sixties I have been an avid reader of Commentary and fan of Norman Podhoretz. Tonight I attended a lecture given by him.
You may recall he was responsible for preparing the intellectual groundwork that enabled Ronald Reagan to win the Whitehouse. He led the battle against Oslo. Unfortunately he also supported the disengagement from Gaza.
So where is he at now aside from being appointed by Giuliani as policy advisor?
1. He believes that history will vindicate Bush much as it did Harry Truman. Truman had to fight Communism and developed the doctrine of containment. He had many detractors from such policy and lost the elections to Eisenhower who was vocally against containment but once in office, made no changes to the policy. Similarly, Podhoretz believes that the Bush Doctrine, which he identified as pre-emption militarily and democratization politically, will be continued by the next administration be it Democrat or Republican.
2. He had great praise for the American soldiers and their patriotism. He suggests that these young people are reflective of the American heartland from which they came. They and the heartland have the right stuff. He reminded us that a NY Times writer remarked, after Nixon won office much to the consternation of pundits, “I don’t know anyone who voted for him”. Hopefully the Democrats today are similarly out of touch.
3. He is very hard on Condi. He says she used to be a realist in foreign policy having been mentored by Scowcroft. Then, when she came over to the Whitehouse, she abandonned (sic) such thinking. During Bush’s first year in office, he had to endure a State Department and CIA which were openly hostile to his policies that it was their duty to uphold. He sent Condi there to whip it into line. Unfortunately it whipped her into line. Bush has absolutely no confidence that anything will come of Condi’s efforts. Now is just not the time to expect progress. He is letting her run with it expecting her and her policies to crash and burn taking the realists down with them. For him that would be a good thing. It would restore the Bush Doctrine.
4. Olmert, he says is, partly to blame because he is too eager for for (sic) a settlement. Its not just American pressure.
5. He recently wrote an article that the only thing worse than bombing Iran is not bombing Iran. He expects Bush to order an air assault before he leaves office.
5. (sic) Everyone believed that Hussein was developing WMD’s. While this was one of the reason’s (sic) for invading Iran (sic) [should read Iraq], the main reason was to start the process of democratization as a means of transforming the ME. Podhoretz and Bush both believe in the Bush doctrine.
6. He did not get a chance to comment on Bush’s relationship with the Saudis but he did comment that neither Saudi Arabia or China would bring the US down, economically, because they too would suffer.
I consider myself more of a neoconservative than a mere conservative, even though neocons have a target pasted to their brains these days. The fact of the matter is I was a Slanted Left kind-of-guy in my youth with a huge belief in the Collective solving the ills of global poverty and human rights.
My slow transference toward the Right was the result of a few things, viz. that the Collective tended to be authoritarian and despotic rather than possessing Liberty, Freedom and Prosperity. I don’t know, I may have a bit of the Collective in my blood, however definitely not the vision of Marx, Lenin and Mao.
If there is ever a valid Collective it will under the auspices of the Liberty, Freedom and Morality that finds a foundation in Christianity.
Saying that, here is a wonderful essay about neocons from James Lewis:
JRH
*********************************
Why Isn't the Whole Left Neoconservative?
By James Lewis
December 21, 2006
American Thinker
Now that neocons are being slow-roasted in effigy all over the world, this may be the right time to ask the question: Why isn't the whole Left neoconservative? Remember that neocons like Norman Podhoretz and Daniel P. Moynihan were former left-wingers who saw the light --- which only seems like common sense, after witnessing Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Kims (Dad and Junior), and the whole mass-murdering gang of cutthroats.
After the Soviet Union crashed and no one could possibly ignore the bloody mess the Left kept making over seventy long years. So why didn't all the decent Leftists just read their Milton Friedman and grow up?
That's what the so-called neocons did, and more power to them. I take it as obvious that they were correct and morally decent, in learning to see how wrong they had been. They grew up. My question is: What happened to all the others?
Or to ask it a different way: Why is it that in Britain, of all countries, a BBC4 survey showed that the greatest philosopher of all time is considered to be ... Karl Marx? A hate-filled parasitical scribbler who spent his life in the British Museum, stoking the fires that killed 100 million people in the 20th century? What is wrong with British education that the plain facts do not shout out for themselves?
The fact that the Left never, ever learns gives the lie to all its high-falutin' claims of "idealism," "progressivism," and superior morality. There is one and only one reason the Left isn't blamed for its misdeeds: It still controls the organs of propaganda, following der Übermenschlicher Karl. Thus some 90 percent of our media functionairies are left wingers. A predominant percentage of professors and teachers are, too.
To hold on to their beliefs leftists must shut down any competing ideas, which is precisely what they do. Just take your favorite leftist friends, and tell them some obvious fact they don't want to hear. You can see it working right in front of your eyes: They just won't hear it. Like the stone idols of the Bible, they have eyes, but cannot see; ears, but cannot hear. (Ps. 115) As long as they control the dominant media, our society will keep teetering at the brink of destruction.
All this is relevant today, because the Western world has just realized (again!) that multiculturalism, the latest mass delusion from the elites, comes down to societal suicide. Ooops! In exchange for the Multiculti Cult we get the Twin Towers on 9/11, carnage in London, Madrid, Mumbai, Bali and Baghdad, nightly riots in the banlieus of France, hateful anti-Americanism throughout Europe and America, and yes, the rise of yet another version of Left Fascism, this time marked by loudly voiced race hatred and anti-Semitism. Who could be surprised? Yet nobody blames the snake-oil peddlers for those deadly toxins.
Europe is still suffering from the intellectual monopoly of socialism. "Sophisticated" Europe doesn't see any respectable alternative to the Left, since conservatism is constantly and deliberately confounded with fascism. The American Left tries to ape the Euromyth that any decent and moral person must be a Leftist --- but so far only American professors believe it. Since in the tunnel-vision of the anointed there is no alternative to themselves, if one fairy-tale of Earthly Paradise is seen to crash, another one must instantly take its place. That is why the commissars of Post-Modernism and Multiculturalism suddenly rose to power all over the West in the 1970s and 80s. The faithful had to find a new way to justify their idee fixe.
Such mental fixedness is utterly irrational. A psychiatrist would have to ask whether the people who keep peddling the same toxins over and over again are themselves deeply malevolent and destructive: Whether unconsciously they really want to murder their societies. Why else would they keep pushing toward chaos?
So I ask again: Why isn't everybody on the Left a neocon? Why isn't Hillary? Chomsky? John Kerry? All those Sixties leftovers who never learned --- why are they so intellectually stuck? Have they no decency?
So hurray for the Neocons, say I, and long may they bug the Left.
James Lewis blogs at Dangerous Times.
© American Thinker 2006
Hat tip to Dissecting the Left.
