[Ed Current]

"Now let me say right off: I am not pro-life."

Frum ended his paragraph with "I have thought about this issue just as hard as you have, and I'm not going to change my mind."

Mark Harrington, "Terror in the Womb: The Forgotten Victims," The Radio Activist, 11 Sept 2003. "Interestingly, more Americans were killed by abortionists on September 11 (about 4,300) than were killed by Islamic terrorists (about 3,000). Assuming 3,000 deaths among the 50,000 people who worked at the World Trade Center, about one in seventeen was killed. One in three unborn babies is killed by abortion every day. On September 11, it would have been six times safer to be a worker in the Twin Towers than it was to be a baby in her mother's womb." http://www.markharringtonlive.com/main/index.php?option=articles&task=viewarticle&artid=7&Itemid=3

"State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims (Fetal Homicide)," National Right to Life Committee, February 20, 2004 http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/Statehomicidelaws092302.html

The testimony of American Holocaust survivor, Gianna Jessen, on 20 July 2000 before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution concerning the "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2000," says it all to those who still have a conscience:

"My name is Gianna Jessen. I would like to say thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I count it no small thing to speak the truth. I depend solely on the grace of God to do this. I am 23 years old. I was aborted and I did not die. My biological mother was 7 months pregnant when she went to Planned Parenthood in southern California and they advised her to have a late-term saline abortion.

A saline abortion is a solution of salt saline that is injected into the mothers womb. The baby then gulps the solution, it burns the baby inside and out and then the mother is to deliver a dead baby within 24 hours.

This happened to me! I remained in the solution for approximately 18 hours and was delivered ALIVE on April 6, 1977 at 6:00 am in a California abortion clinic. There were young women in the room who had already been given their injections and were waiting to deliver dead babies. When they saw me they experienced the horror of murder. A nurse called an ambulance, while the abortionist was not yet on duty, and had me transferred to the hospital. I weighed a mere two pounds. I was saved by the sheer power of Jesus Christ.

Ladies and gentleman I should be blind, burned.....I should be dead! And yet, I live! Due to a lack of oxygen supply during the abortion I live with cerebral palsy. [...] Adolph Hitler once said: '"The receptive ability of the great masses is only very limited, their understanding is small; on the other hand their forgetfulness is great. This being so, all effective propaganda should be limited to a very few points which in turn, should be used as slogans until the very last man is able to imagine what is meant by such words.'" Today's slogans are: "'a woman's right to choose"' and "freedom of choice," etcetera." http://www.house.gov/judiciary/jess0720.htm

 

 

[Bogey78O]

Let's not forget that great clarifying moment when the Cold War forced us to fund Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.

Nice line. Too bad it's not true.

[Gustafm1000]

All I know is I hate Bill Kristol. He was for McCain in '00 to the point of ripping on Bush constantly, has been a lukewarm supporter in Bush's first term and would jump ship in a second if it would benefit him and his worldview. I've said it before, other than Fred Barnes the Weekly Standard can eat a d***. I'll take most of the National Review writers any day of the week.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

"Now let me say right off: I am not pro-life."

The statement of a true dork. No genuine conservative need listen to this type of smarmy crap.

[etradervic]

This isolationist element is not representative of conservatives.

Also, the neoconservative movement started in the '60s not after 911.

[swilhelm73]

Wow, the author can't even get past the first paragraph without lying...

Hussein was a Soviet ally in the 80s, not an American one.

And America never funded Osama.

Though I see the author manages to list off leftist talking point after leftist talking point.

[ex-snook]

"The neocons--and they admit this--are hawks first, and Republicans or conservatives second. "

"Upon futher review" are hawks chickenhawks first.

And that's why I'm Conservative first.

[tame]

the 'con' in "neocon" is an abbreviation for 'con-artist', and NOT 'conservative'.

[swilhelm73]

Neocon
noun

1) Leftspeak for a Jewish conservative

2) Leftspeak for a conservative

3) Leftspeak for a conservative who isn't a useful idiot

[hlmencken3]

Could someone point me to an explanation of why "neocons" believe essentially that America is exempt from history? That Islam has somehow changed its collective mind about its repeated attempts to conquer all non-Muslims?

The USA being the leading non-Muslim country, it seems natural that jihadis would target America.

Some of these neocons seem smart. They must have answered these questions. Anyone know where?

[Remember_Salamis]

I think the PaleoCons and Buchananites dislike jews, I mean "NeoCons", as much as they dislike liberals. The fact is that there are multiple factions withing the GOP, and we have disagreements (unlike the Democratic Party). Shoot, PaleoCons are protectionists, and I don't see that completely jiving with the rest of the party. We have overlapping issue in common.

---

Religious right - or some argue interchangeably, the Christian right, is an important GOP faction consisting of conservatives united on social issues, embracing traditional Judeo-Christian moral values. They are against abortion and gay marriage and favor school prayer, and interpret the establishment clause of the First Amendment as prohibiting only the official establishment of a state church, as opposed to the more secularist view that the clause requires a strict separation of church and state. (Since the 1960s, the latter interpretation has generally been favored by the Supreme Court.) Some of this faction argue that the American colonies and the United States were founded to be Christian societies, although also tolerant of other Abrahamic religions. Some estimate religious conservatives represent the largest faction of the GOP in numbers. Prominent social conservatives include Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Senator Rick Santorum.

Paleoconservatives - This group has a blue-collar, populist tinge with a strong distrust of a centralized federal government, and has heavy appeal among rural Republicans. They are conservative on social issues (e.g. support for gun deregulation) and oppose multiculturalism, but favor a protectionist economic policy and isolationist foreign policy. Many are also active against illegal immigration, or, in more extreme cases, all immigration. Prominent paleoconservatives, such as Pat Buchanan, have spoken against NAFTA and what they see as a neoconservative take-over of the party. Some with similar views are in the Democratic Party.

Neoconservatives - The term may be disputable since many alleged neoconservatives have denied the existence of such a category. Nevertheless, neoconservatives are generally regarded as the most militaristic branch of the party, in favor of an aggressive pre-emptive foreign policy. Many were once active members of the American Left, now "disillusioned" with the perceived extreme relativism and "anti-Americanism" of the 1960s protest generation. They favor unilateralism over reliance on international organizations and treaties, believing such commitments are often against America's interests. They began rising to significant influence during the Reagan administration. Those considered among the neoconservative circles include Jeane Kirkpatrick and Paul Wolfowitz.

Moderates - Moderates within the GOP are a minority within the party, most popular in the Northeast and Pacific regions of the U.S. They tend to be fiscally conservative (e.g. balanced budgets) and more progressive on social issues (e.g. supporting domestic partnerships, affirmative action, abortion rights, some gun control measures, etc.). On foreign policy, they are less militaristic than conservatives and neo-conservatives, opting for bilateral negoations and peace talks as a solution to global discord before direct military intervention. Moderate Republicans today include U.S. Senators Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter. Members of some of the other factions sometimes characterize moderates as "Republican In Name Only".

Fiscal Conservatives - This faction overlaps with most other factions of the GOP. They are pro-business free-traders, receiving fervent support among corporations and the nation's economic elite. They favor large tax cuts, reduced domestic spending, privatization of Social Security, equal taxation, and decreased regulation of business and the environment. Prominent fiscal conservatives include the late Senator Barry Goldwater, and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[A. Pole]

I will take Bush over Kerry, but Kerry over Buchanan or any of the lesser Buchananites on the right.

Getting ready to jump the ship if Kerry wins?

[A. Pole]

Kristol continued, "If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me, too."

Hawkish liberals? Like Mr. Holbrook or Mrs. Albright?

[JohnnyZ]

All this grouping of people under neo- and paleo- and taking some writer's comments and applying them to whole movements is pretty ridiculous IMO. Since people can make up whatever definition they want for each term they simply invent an unflattering definition and then denounce it.

Big waste of time.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Specifically, some moderate-to-liberal hawks temporarily rose to the forefront of the American right and started calling the shots

Fascinating. Who, pray tell, were these people "calling the shots"? Let me guess, Bush (you know - the President guy?) was merely their puppet, right?

This kind of talk just gets dumber every time I heard it.

in some cases declaring who was and who wasn't fit to be part of the conservative movement.

I'll be fascinated to hear about these "cases" and why they matter.

Many of these hawks, called neocons,

It's funny how far the definition of "neocon" has strayed. Now it means "moderate-to-liberal hawks"?

Many of these hawks, called neocons, spent the aftermath of 9/11 and the run-up to the Iraq war denouncing the conservatives who voiced opposition to Bush's planned wars.

In other words, group A favored war with Iraq, group B didn't, thus group B opposed group A and meanwhile group A opposed (oh sorry "denounced") group B.

How sinister!!1

But now, after the war, with some of the dust settled, their differences with the right are becoming clearer, and their continued alliance with conservatives comes into question.

Still waiting to hear who these "they" are. And when was this "alliance" ratified? These articles about "neocons" are so mysterious...

While neocons have reputations as esoteric Straussians,

LOL. Did this guy just throw the adjective "esoteric" on there because it sounded neat? Does he even know what "Straussian" means?

Frum: "I Am not Pro-Life"

Ok wait, so after all that buildup about "alliances" and dust settling and denouncing, what we get is that a guy who favored war with Iraq isn't pro-life?

Oh. my. GOSH. Could this get any more boring?

Frum declared it unimaginable that Bob Novak (my boss), Pat Buchanan, Scott McConnell and other anti-war writers "would call themselves 'conservatives.'"

Ok so I can understand a certain antipathy on the part of the writer towards David Frum. Who is Frum to say that, Why should we pay any attention to what Frum says, Why should we care about David Frum, etc? What the writer doesn't seem to get is that I, as a reader of this sinister piece about "neocons", am now asking the same question: Why should I care about David Frum?

[boring play by play he-said/he-said skipped]

The neocons--and they admit this--are hawks first, and Republicans or conservatives second.

(yawn) The point being? And this still mischaracterizes what "neocons" are all about to a laughable extent. It's not so much that they're "hawks" as that they're hawkish when it comes to certain things. It's what those things are, that is essential to the "neocon" definition, yet this writer doesn't even seem to know what they are. To him, it's all very simple and broad-brushed: "neocons" = "hawks". *slaps forehead*

[gay marriage] What happened to Frum's demand that conservatism must now be "an optimistic conservatism"? For the neocons, this marching order is for foreign policy, not for culture wars.

Yes, that sounds right; "culture wars" as such don't interest "neocons" very much.. they're not very "conservative" on such things. This is news? Who didn't know this?

So a war most conservatives had backed as a preemptive and unapologetic defense of our homeland and our allies from killer weapons was being explained to us after the fact as a humanitarian mission and an enforcement of UN resolutions.

Sigh. This is the same stupid "your list of reasons for the war must contain only one thing!" argument we usually get from the left.

The war was all these things. What this "conservative" seems to be saying is that if someone, somewhere, can point to "social justice" as being on the List of reasons for the war, that's bad.

But that's stupid.

In other words, the war had become a liberal war. Liberal not just as a social justice or UN mission, but liberal as part of an ambitious plan to use the state to remake society.

There's no "had become" about it! Remaking that society was ALWAYS part of the original plan. Take a look at the text of the original War-Powers resolution approved by Congress. This is the closest thing you will find to a "List of reasons for the war". And guess what appears on it?

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

In other words, here is our Congress, in broad daylight, plain as day, explicitly stating (and approving by majority vote) that one of the reasons for fighting this war is that we, the United States, support the removal of the Hussein regime and promoting the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime. This bipartisan "sense of Congress" goes back to the Clinton years! There was nothing secret about it and it is not a new thing recently invented by Wolfie or Kraut - it's been there all along. How stupid do you have to be not to see something that was written in the War Powers resolution itself all along, and to be "surprised" that someone would bring it up?

For crying out loud. A lot of these lamebrained arguments would be put to bed if certain people would just read the damn War Powers resolution.

Iraq was just one piece in the puzzle of reshaping the entire Middle East and spreading Democracy to every corner of the world--an undertaking many conservatives (not just the paleos) would judge more fitting for the left's utopianists than the right's conservatives.

Conservatism is not about crossing your arms and going "harrumph" at the suggestion that good things can and ought to be made to happen at a pragmatic, feasible pace. No "neocon" is suggesting that we conquer the whole world in one fell swoop. As the author points out, "neocons" wanted to proceed to Syria, and notice, we did not. Um, what happened?? I thought the "neocons" were "calling the shots"??

What happened is that this whole "neocon" conspiracy theory is tripe and obsession with it has made an awful lot of smart people stupid as mush.

It's true enough that spreading democracy for the sake of spreading democracy has a natural constituency, or should have a natural constituency, on the left. But that doesn't mean that there can't be instances where the interests of the left overlap with those of the right (in national security, a Jacksonian belief in going on offense). Iraq happens to have been one such case and this seems to have sent some of the "paleo" cons into a tizzy. They will become so much less boring when they snap out of it.

After Hussein has fallen, the neocons, tireless soldiers, march on.

OK sorry but WTF does this mean. "Neocons" are still writing articles? Well heck, so is this hack, the "tireless soldier" who wrote this dumb article.

They tell us to abandon the culture wars at home and instead to find more overseas battles.

"They" do? We're back to "they", eh?

What a dizzying display. The article starts with a bunch of sweeping proclamations about what "they" are doing. In the meat of the article we get some boring, but detailed, textual analyses of some arguments that three (3) people have presented: Frum, Kristol, and Kraut. Now we're back to "they", stripped of specifics again, back in the dizzying heady world of metaphors and dark shadows. "They" are "on the march", "they" are "telling us" to do this and that.

I'll say it again, this obsession with conspiracy theories is really making paleocons sound dumber.

And they let us know that if we balk as the battle moves to fronts we never imagined, they will have no trouble finding a new movement, and even a new president, to march beneath their flag.

Stripped of the hifalutin rhetoric, this means: "neocons" favor doing X, and if they cannot find a constituency for X among party A, they will seek it among party B.

Well DUH. It's called "politics". Welcome to it, ye paleocons! I know it's scary but it works.

[stands2reason]

OUR SAVIOR HAS COME AT LAST!!!

Ed Current

Since Oct 1, 2004

view home page, enter name:

~ About ~ Links ~ Contact ~ In Forum ~ Mail To ~

Return

Welcome to the Center for Communitarian Neoconitus Control and Prevention.

A significant and very vocal minority of F.R. members don't understand genuine conservatism, or fully understand and vehemently reject it. They have a mental disorder known as communitarian neoconitus, which is a liberal/globalist related disease that infects the region of the brain where political opinions are formed and maintained. This affliction causes them to rabidly promote and vote for a welfare/warfare state.

It must be noted that there is a love/hate relationship with political/philosophical/religious lables. Once a label is affixed, caricature and strawmen arguments are likely to occur from the opponents which forces some of the proponents to discard what they would otherwise proudly display.

Some individuals have eclectic perspectives without internal consistency that defy labeling. Nevertheless, nouveau philosophies that have apparent coherence occasionally surface and attract enough adherents to create a demand for labels.

If someone talks like a communitarian/neocon and votes like a communitarian/neocon they probably are communitarian/neocon, whether or not they fully recognize that the consequences of their attitude and action are fatal to the American Republic.

What Is communitarian neoconitus?

A fusion of the communitarian political left with the neconservative political right with emphasis on the synthesis.

A neo-conservative is really "a liberal who has been mugged by reality." - Irving Kristol

Communitarianism synthesizes the unalienable Rights possessed by individuals which are granted by the Creator and codified in U.S. Constitution and the laws of various states with Marxist international government. Communitarianism subordinates the discovered God given rights of individuals to the fabricated group rights recognized & mandated by national government in pursuit of global government and is the current reigning Hegelian dialectic paradigm of Western globalists.

Joseph Farah @ WorldNetDaily describes communitarianism "as a form of communism for people who believe in God." Communitarian theology, like liberation theology, is an aberrant form of Christian theology. Biblical references are quoted within a nebulous context to decieve the Christianized masses. Communitarists share the vision of anti-Christian world government with the communists. Communitarists, by constructing a new age god compatible with Judaism, Christianity and Islam, hope to succeed in swaying the masses and consummating the new world order of global government, where the communists failed by rejecting God and alienating the masses.

But wait, there's more!!!

[x]

Again, no one should have been surprised. Kristol's close ally, columnist Charles Krauthammer, never hid his admiration for Wilson, FDR and Truman, who he recently called "three giants of the twentieth century." Neocon publisher Lord Conrad Black wrote a paean to FDR. Kristol has given LBJ the A-Okay.

I gather Black believes that FDR saved representative government. He may be wrong (Black also admires Napoleon, and his own father sharply disagreed with him about Roosevelt). Indeed, in many ways FDR wasn't an admirable man or leader, and even those who don't hate him have come to ask whether we could have done better than Franklin Roosevelt and whether he's really on the same level with earlier American political heroes.

But the question of when one should simply dismiss arguments and when one should give them a hearing is a tough one. Spend enough time with people who never entertain or consider ideas that they don't agree with, and one may come to make a point of considering dissenting ideas, even if one doesn't agree with them in the end. The person who can make a good case in such matters is worthy of a hearing.

So yes, these guys are wrong, and that does damage their credibility, but every now and then, it does pay to reconsider questions that one's always assumed to be closed, if only so that one's understanding isn't manipulated or directed by those who wave this or that red flag to stop discussion, without ever really examining questions on their merits.

[Tempest]

I guess the Neo-libs are so desperate to pigeonhold Republicans because they can't stand it when people who define themselves as conservatives make resonable compromises and appeal to a broader population.

I'm sorry America and her people come before the interest of a myopic cultural dinosaur.

[goldstategop]

As a neo-con I find myself NOT recognizing this characterization - we all know neo-con is really a euphemism for "dirty Jew." Anyway, I do plead guilty to being a hawk first, a conservative second, and lastly being a Republican. My priorities are keeping this country safe, advancing freedom, and helping a political party that helps to secure these twin objectives. For me always, country comes before party. And for the record, I haven't marched Left and I don't know of a neo-con who has.

[4.1O dana super trac pak]

Read later.

[hosepipe]

Neo-cons are ex-democrats.. You can remove the demotroll from the party but its damn hard to remove the demotroll from the demotroll... even then you have all that hair all over their backs and that hump.. and they stink...