View Full Version : Ann Coulter vs. Bill Kristol: Beginnings of a Conservative Schism?
Lucille
07-09-2010, 08:46 AM
Ann Coulter vs. Bill Kristol: Beginnings of a Conservative Schism? (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/08/ann-coulter-vs-bill-kristol-beginnings-of-a-conservative-schis/)
[...] Coulter is not the first conservative to warn that Afghanistan could turn into a quagmire. George Will and Tony Blankley have raised that very point. But Coulter has made it in a way that directly -- and personally -- challenges conservative orthodoxy. And it's catching on. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough tweeted Coulter's column out to his followers, adding, "Thank you, Ann Coulter. She speaks out against the GOP now being for permanent war. She is right."
And if conservatives are asked to choose sides between, say, the elected leader of the Republican National Committee (Steele) and the titular head of the Democratic National Committee (Obama), how many will decide that Obama's Afghanistan policies are not worth the trouble? Maybe it was unavoidable, but it does seem as if Coulter's comments today hearken back to the 1990s -- when Bill Clinton was in the Oval Office -- and conservatives criticized his efforts in places like Bosnia and Kosovo as "nation building."
Clearly, things have changed since 2008, when candidates John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and even Mitt Romney represented the mainstream viewpoint, and when Congressman Ron Paul was essentially mocked for his isolationist tendencies and his desire for a "humble foreign policy." Today, Paul's positions are enjoying resurgence, and his son, Rand Paul, is poised to be elected to the U.S. Senate. How quickly things change.
Regardless, debating this policy is healthy, and conservatives are justified to have this discussion. There are conservative arguments to be made for -- or against -- continuing the war in Afghanistan, just as I believe a principled conservative case could have been made (and was, in some quarters) against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This is a debate that conservatives, and all Americans, should keep having. War is not something to be entered into lightly; nor should support for it ever be contingent on whether the commander in chief has a D after his name, or an R.
Lucille
07-09-2010, 08:51 AM
Joe Scarborough: For Too Long, McCain, Kristol, Graham & Lieberman Have Defined GOP Foreign Policy (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/09/joe-scarborough-for-too-long-mccain-kristol-and-graham-have-def/)
For too long you have had John McCain and you've had Bill Kristol, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman define what it meant to be a Republican when it came to foreign policy. When, in fact, historically, the Republican Party has usually been for restraint. They're accused of isolationists in the past and seems like a small group of people want to fight every war at every corner of the planet and not good for the party ... This is a very important op-ed that Ann Coulter wrote yesterday.
FrankRep
07-09-2010, 08:58 AM
CPAC: "Conservatism" at the Crossroads - Ron Paul vs. the Neoconservatives
This year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) highlighted two contrasting views of conservatism — the constitutionalists whose most famous standard-bearer is Ron Paul and the big-government neoconservatives represented by the likes of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. By William F. Jasper
CPAC: "Conservatism" at the Crossroads (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3013-cpac-qconservatismq-at-the-crossroads)
William F. Jasper | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
24 February 2010
President Barack Obama's first year in office has done much to stir broad and angry opposition to his autocratic rule and his efforts to nationalize and socialize virtually the entire American economy. However, as the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) (http://www.cpac.org/), which met recently in Washington, D.C., demonstrated, the opposition is far from unified. The three-day event (February 18-20) at the Washington Marriott Wardman Park Hotel was a factious, inharmonious affair exposing the deep philosophical divisions and conflicting political goals within the loosely defined "conservative movement."
Launched in 1973 by the American Conservative Union and Young Americans for Freedom, CPAC has been the annual "premiere" gathering of conservatives, featuring future, current, or past Presidents of the United States, Governors, Members of Congress, authors, academics, commentators, and celebrities. While ostensibly nonpartisan, CPAC has been essentially a Republican event, with a sprinkling of Libertarians and exiled anti-communist Democrats. That changed this year, however, owing largely to the repudiation of the GOP in the 2008 elections and the repudiation by rank-and-file conservatives of the Big Government Republican Party exemplified by George W. Bush and most of the GOP leaders in Congress. This year's conference, the largest ever, was particularly notable for the large presence of activists from Congressman Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty, an outgrowth of his energetic and highly visible 2008 presidential campaign in the Republican primaries. In addition, independent Tea Party activists, many of whom also were activated by the Ron Paul campaign, comprised a significant contingent of the more than 10,000 attendees at the CPAC confab.
The Bush-Cheney wing of the Republican Party and the neoconservative scribblers at National Review who favor a borrow-borrow/spend-spend domestic policy only slightly less lavish than the Democrats and a foreign policy of "perpetual war for perpetual peace" have targeted both the Ron Paul supporters and Tea Party activists for ridicule and exclusion. But the CPAC organizers wisely decided that in the interest of "big tent conservatism" they should not bow to the Republican establishment's wish to bar those "unruly" elements that condemn and oppose GOP policies that are incompatible with the genuine conservative philosophy of our nation's Founders. Those policies include most especially the Republican Party's conversion on matters such as foreign interventionism, binge spending, corporate bailouts, expansion of federal Leviathan and federal police authority, and evisceration of the Bill of Rights.
The conflicting forces at play were very evident at the concluding events of the CPAC summit on Saturday evening, when the results of the annual "straw poll" of CPAC attendees (http://66.147.244.188/~conserz8/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/2-10-CPAC-Straw-Poll-Final-Compatibility-Mode.pdf) were revealed, just prior to the final address by Fox TV commentator and talk radio star Glenn Beck. The Bush-Cheney Republicans were stunned when the winner for the preferred Republican nominee for President in 2012 was announced. Rep. Ron Paul, the maverick Texas Republican, was far and away the leader, with 31 percent of the vote. A loud chorus of "boos" from Mitt Romney supporters greeted the Ron Paul victory announcement. Romney had won the three previous CPAC straw polls, but this year the former Massachusetts Governor — a pro-abortion, tax-and-spend liberal, whose RomneyCare healthcare package prefigured ObamaCare — came in a distant second, at 22 percent. GOP heartthrob and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was even further behind, at seven percent, with Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty following closely at six percent, Indiana Congressman Mike Pence at five percent, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee tying at four percent.
The Ron Paul upset was a stinging rebuke to the Bush-Cheney-Romney-McCain-Giuliani-Gingrich "moderate" wing of the GOP, as well as to the Beltway conservative establishment that has been their enabling force. A confluence of many factors was responsible for this establishment rout at CPAC, but chief among them has been the widespread disgust and anger over the onrushing financial calamity that threatens to completely annihilate our economic system. The neocon Republicans, who would like to have the Obama Democrats take all the blame for the debacle, are rightly seen by the conservative rank and file as hugely complicit. The day of economic reckoning is upon us, and many have come to recognize that Dr. Ron Paul has been a solitary voice in Washington, D.C., for the past couple decades, decrying the suicidal fiscal and monetary policies that now threaten to sweep away the most free and prosperous nation in history. Seeing the political writing on the wall, more than 300 members of the House have belatedly decided to jump on board Paul's legislation to mandate a long-overdue audit of the Federal Reserve System.
It is this finger-to-the-hurricane reality check that has also caused many of the Republican elite to back off of their earlier bashing of the Tea Party activists and try instead to co-opt the whole Tea Party movement into a grassroots subsidiary of the GOP. The verdict is still out on whether or not that co-opting effort will be successful; but the CPAC experience seems to indicate that there is still a strong resistance from many conservative activists to backing any of the "usual suspects" the Republican neocon hierarchy may try to put forward as standard bearers in this year's midterm elections, or in the 2012 presidential run.
Throughout the three-day event, the GOP establishment could count on rousing applause for its "golden boys" — from at least a sizeable portion of the audience. Mitt Romney (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4821851), Dick Armey, Bill Bennett (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4869982), John Bolton (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4871205), Newt Gingrich (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4875655), George Will, John Boehner, Haley Barbour, Michael Steele, Fred Thompson, and Dick Cheney all received cordial-to-enthusiastic welcomes. But the most fervent and heartfelt ovations went to those who could be categorized as contrarians and insurgents: former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4817992), who is challenging establishment-backed Governor Charlie Crist for Florida's open Senate seat; former Representative J.D. Hayworth (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2998-interviewing-mccain-challenger-jd-hayworth), who is challenging 23-year incumbent John McCain's effort for a fifth term in the Senate; Sen. Jim DeMint (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4818563) of South Carolina, who sponsored a companion Senate bill to Ron Paul's audit-the-fed legislation in the House; Judge Andrew Napolitano, the pugnacious Fox commentator, author, and columnist; Thomas Woods, the best-selling author-historian and free-market advocate; and, of course, Rep. Ron Paul, whose book-signing line stretched, it seemed, from the Marriott to somewhere just West of his Houston, Texas, congressional district.
The thunderous response to Glenn Beck's rousing headliner speech (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4881432) could not have been lost on the CPAC leaders and Republican pols, whether watching up close or from afar. Unlike many of the other speakers who were aglow with Republican triumphalism over Team Obama's recent poll declines, Beck lashed out at the Republican Party's complicity in promoting the cancer of "Progressivism," and called on the GOP to emulate Tiger Woods' public repentance and admit it has sinned.
Beck, who is a recovering alcoholic, said he believes in the concept of redemption but that he doesn't think the GOP has taken the first step to achieving it. "I have not yet heard people in the Republican Party admit they have a problem," Beck told the jam-packed Marriott ballroom audience. "I have not seen a come-to-Jesus meeting.... 'Hello, my name is the Republican Party and I've got a problem. I'm addicted to spending and big government.'... They need that moment."
While other CPAC speakers preached optimism and Ronald Reagan's positive "It's morning in America" message, Beck took a different tack. "It's still morning in America," he said, but then added: "It happens to be a kind of a head-pounding, vomiting, hangover kind of morning in America." The pundits, politicians, and analysts who claim that our economic crisis has passed are lying, he warned; there is worse yet to come.
Those lines, like many additional blasts in his speech aimed at the GOP's "progressive" leadership, echoed the irritation felt by many, if not most, CPAC attendees toward RINO (Republican In Name Only) politicians who dance in the conservative chorus line at election time but then tango with the liberal Democrats once they get to Washington. Beck's appeal to return to limited, constitutional government and his pointed attacks on the Federal Reserve, the income tax, the League of Nations, the New Deal, welfare, corporate bailouts, and "spreading democracy" at gunpoint sounded more like typical red meat fare at a Ron Paul rally than the neocon talking points that have become the standard Republican version of "conservatism."
In fact, Beck's speech echoed the messages of earlier speakers at the conference such as Ron Paul, Andrew Napolitano, and Thomas Woods, who indicted the Republican complicity in promoting socialism and condemned the establishment neoconservatives who have betrayed the principles they claim to champion by dressing up statist nostrums in conservative attire. The tension between the paleoconservatives (small government constitutionalists of the "Old Right") and the neoconservatives was evident following the Presidential Banquet on Thursday evening, when around 1,500 attendees gathered in the Marshall Ballroom to hear Paul, Napolitano, and Woods, while a comparable number stayed in the main ballroom to hear neocon icon George Will. Judge Napolitano delivered an especially fiery and impassioned denunciation of the neocon promotion of foreign wars and the simultaneous destruction of liberty and constitutionally limited government at home. Pointing toward the other ballroom, the judge decried the fact that many CPAC participants had actually applauded former Vice President Dick Cheney.
CPAC's paleocon-neocon tension had been running long before the conference began. In addition to the continuing conflict between the Republican establishment and the Ron Paul forces over the Federal Reserve and perpetual global wars to "spread democracy" under the guise of fighting terrorism, the neocon bloggers at National Review, FrontpageMagazine.com, and elsewhere were frothing at the mouth over the "invasion" of CPAC by Tea Party "wingnuts" and (horrors!) the "crackpots" of the John Birch Society — the parent organization of this magazine. The Birch Society, which was a co-sponsor of this year's CPAC event, operated two side-by-side booths in the conference exhibit hall, with one of the booths serving as a video studio. Throughout the course of the three-day forum, dozens of conference speakers, authors, candidates, and organization leaders stopped by to be interviewed. (Some of these interviews can be seen online at Video News Network (http://www.libertynewsnetwork.tv/).)
Birch Society President John F. McManus, who was at the CPAC conference, found most participants warmly welcomed the Society and its consistent message of limited constitutional government. The Society, which celebrated it's 50th anniversary in 2008, was attacked by National Review's William F. Buckley and exiled from "respectable" anti-communist and conservative circles by the Buckleyite Republican establishment.
With the help of the New York Times, the Washington Post, PBS, and other bastions of the liberal-left establishment, Buckley was able to redefine conservatism and co-opt the conservative movement into gradually embracing the very collectivist policies, programs, and principles it had once firmly opposed. "Buckley got the movement to think in terms of 'conservative,' which is undefined, instead of 'constitutionalist,' which strictly and definitively limits government power," McManus explained to a reporter who stopped by the JBS booth at CPAC. McManus's 2002 book, William F. Buckley: Pied Piper for the Establishment (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=William+F.+Buckley%3A+Pied+Piper&x=0&y=0), is a penetrating look at the man who is revered by many as the patron saint of "modern conservatism." As McManus notes, however, Buckley's "modern conservatism" soon became neoconservatism, a fusion of conservative rhetoric with collectivist philosophy. Buckley's main mentors were former Trotskyites Wilmoore Kendall, James Burnham, Irving Kristol, and Norman Podhoretz. These founding fathers of neoconservatism had rejected some, but not all, of their former communist beliefs.
According to neocon godfather Irving Kristol, neoconservatives favor a "conservative welfare state," an oxymoron if ever there was one. "Neocons," Irving Kristol admitted, "do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable." Redefining conservatism, Kristol wrote: "We accepted the New Deal in principle, and had little affection for the kind of isolationism that permeated American conservatism."
Buckley, Kristol, and their fellow neocons knew they had to proceed slowly at first, however, if they were to keep traditional, constitutionalist conservatives on board for the transformation. Thus when Buckley penned the mission statement for National Review (http://article.nationalreview.com/346187/our-mission-statement/william-f-buckley-jr) in 1955, it was freighted with appeals to traditional paleoconservative concerns.
National Review, he wrote, "stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it."
He pretended to oppose FDR's New Deal, an execrable, socialist program to all conservatives. He stated:
Conservatives in this country - at least those who have not made their peace with the New Deal, and there is serious question whether there are others - are non-licensed nonconformists.... Radical conservatives in this country have an interesting time of it, for when they are not being suppressed or mutilated by the Liberals, they are being ignored or humiliated by a great many of those of the well-fed Right, whose ignorance and amorality have never been exaggerated for the same reason that one cannot exaggerate infinity.
Buckley and his "well-fed Right" at National Review would go on to suppress, mutilate, ignore, and humiliate many of the leaders and luminaries of the conservative movement, betraying many who had befriended and helped them. This included authors John T. Flynn and Frank Chodorov, economist Murray Rothbard, Ohio Senator Robert Taft, the Chicago Tribune's Robert McCormick, John Birch Society founder Robert Welch, National Review editor Joseph Sobran, and writers Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis — to name a few.
The 1955 National Review mission statement also declares: "The growth of government (the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly." But, of course, that is completely undercut by the neocon embrace of the welfare state.
The mission statement further states: "No superstition has more effectively bewitched America's Liberal elite than the fashionable concepts of world government, the United Nations, internationalism, ..., etc." Buckley also announced opposition to any efforts "to surrender U.S. sovereignty to a world organization." However, Buckley and the National Review neocons soon accepted the United Nations and joined the liberals in lampooning the Birch Society and others who saw in it dangers of world government and threats to U.S. sovereignty. Likewise, the neocons have embraced the World Trade Organization (WTO) and other UN attacks on national sovereignty.
Buckley also joined the liberals in favoring gun-control legislation and national service, as well as coming out in favor of abortion and removing restrictions on homosexuals in the military. He was also a frequent writer for the nation's "premiere" pornography vehicles Penthouse and Playboy, but then, Buckley was no champion of "traditional values," despite his tendency publicly to wear his Catholic legacy — whenever it advanced his agenda. This amoral path is still trod by Buckley's successors at National Review — Jonah Goldberg, Rich Lowrey, David Frum, et al — who had conniptions over the Birchers being invited to CPAC, but celebrated CPAC's welcome of GOProud (http://www.cpac.org/), the "conservative" homosexual organization, as a co-sponsor of the conference.
"The John Birch Society has remained true to the ideals of America's Founding Fathers, to the Constitution, and to the moral principles on which our nation was founded, which certainly can't be said of the neoconservatives," notes McManus. "We cannot hope to recapture America's greatness and return to sound, constitutional government if 'conservatives' do not adhere to eternal verities and continue to allow their adversaries to define and redefine the terms under which we operate."
SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3013-cpac-qconservatismq-at-the-crossroads
Related articles:
"Mount Vernon Statement" - A Warning (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2962-mount-vernon-statement-a-warning)
Interviewing McCain Challenger J.D. Hayworth (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2998-interviewing-mccain-challenger-jd-hayworth)
"Crazy, kooky" Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2993-crazy-kooky-paul-wins-cpac-straw-poll)
CPAC, the JBS and Conservatism's Real Fringe (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/2981-cpac-the-jbs-and-conservatisms-real-fringe)
Matt Collins
07-09-2010, 11:37 AM
This is fascinating. We need to push this!
heavenlyboy34
07-09-2010, 11:48 AM
It's unfortunate that Jasper associates Beck with libertarianism and RP. :(
FrankRep
07-09-2010, 11:51 AM
It's unfortunate that Jasper associates Beck with libertarianism and RP. :(
Glenn Beck is basically a libertarian except on the war issue. "Libertarian" is a broad term.
Kotin
07-09-2010, 12:00 PM
This is fascinating. We need to push this!
Indeed.. That bit about Ron and Rand is priceless!!
Original_Intent
07-09-2010, 12:02 PM
Did we win yet?:)
lester1/2jr
07-09-2010, 12:13 PM
its amazing that the absolute least popular republicans are the ones most associated with foreign policy: cheney, mcCain, graham
Imaginos
07-09-2010, 12:20 PM
Pursuing American interest has never been Bill Kristol's agenda.
He works for special interest groups.
Always has been, always will be.
YumYum
07-09-2010, 01:10 PM
Bill Kristol's father was Irving Kristol, the founder of the neocon movement. During WWII, while Americans were dying overseas, the young Irving Kristol and his communist Zionist friends (all of which got out of the draft), would spend hours debating the virtues of Trotsky communism verses Stalinist communism in the coffee houses of New York City. These Zionist communists (also known as "Trotsky's Kids) ended up being the "victims" of the McCarthy investigations of the early 1950's. The children of the Trotsky Kids, who were appalled at the government's treatment of their parents and their parent's communist friends, enrolled in Berkley and put freedom of speech to the test. All seemed to go well until Trotsky's "grand kids" found LSD/marijuana and unlimited amounts of sex with shiksas. They let their hair grow out and gave up shaving and soap. They became hippies. Their parents (the Irving Kristol gang), were absolutely appalled at their newly enlightened children's behavior. The Zionist parents threatened their kids to change their behavior; demanding them to stop the anti-war rhetoric; cut their hair; take a bath; finish their education, and settle down with a nice Zionist girl, or face being cut off financially. The hippies listened, did what they were told, and become BMW driving yuppies working on Wall Street. They were also the new neocons that cut a deal with Reagan. These former hippies are the same people that Reagan attacked while governor, by stating: “A hippie is someone who looks like Tarzan, walks like Jane, and smells like Cheetah”.
Bill Kristol avoided the Vietnam draft, just as his father had done, and yet he thinks nothing of sending me and others to our deaths in Iran.
Please read "They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons" by Jacob Heilbrunn.
Heilbrunn exposes the whole neocon conspiracy, and he can't be called an "anti-Semite" because he himself is a devout Jew.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/0385511817/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books
FrankRep
07-09-2010, 01:33 PM
Bill Kristol's father was Irving Kristol, the founder of the neocon movement.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories/AP_9-2009/irvingkristol-ap.jpg
Irving Kristol, the man who delightedly accepted the title of neoconservatism’s “godfather,” passed away on September 18 at age 89. by John F. McManus
The Passing of Irving Kristol (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/1951-the-passing-of-irving-kristol)
John F. McManus | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
24 September 2009
The man who delightedly accepted the title of neoconservatism’s “godfather” passed away on September 18 at age 89. Sad to report, the neoconservatism Irving Kristol fastened on conservative Republicans endures, and it is not good for America.
After years as an unabashed youthful Trostskyite in New York City, Kristol claimed that the excesses of the New Left in the 1960s and the crimes of communism drove him into the Republican Party. But in his 1995 book Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, he stated, “I regard myself as lucky to have been a young Trotskyite and I have not a single bitter memory.”
Younger Americans know little of Leon Trotsky, the lesser-known partner of Vladimir Lenin who teamed with the more famous Russian thug to convert their nation into one of history’s bloodiest tyrannies. After Lenin’s death, Trotsky then partnered with the more ruthless Josef Stalin before being denounced and exiled as the result of a power struggle. Murdered in Mexico by one of Stalin’s agents, Trotsky then became a hero to international socialists who always favored the tyranny of big government and centralized power, but they wanted it chosen by people rather than forcing it down people’s throats with police state brutality.
Praised for his so-called contributions to the conservative movement and the Republican Party, Kristol was much more the personification of a Trojan Horse within America’s right wing. His own definition of the movement he launched, given in his 1995 book, claimed that neoconservatism “accepted the New Deal in principle, and had little affection for the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism.”
Accepting FDR’s socialism and rejecting America’s tradition of minding one’s own business and avoiding entangling alliances defines what it means to be a Trotskyite. Also a strong supporter of the United Nations, Kristol never ceased being Trotsky’s disciple.
Unceasingly injecting his views into many within the GOP, Kristol could claim as neoconservative step-children the likes of William Bennett, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Dick Cheney, and a host of officials in the George W. Bush administration. Given stature by his books and his own publication, The National Interest, Kristol’s influence had earlier solidly invaded the Reagan administration, courtesy of Jack Kemp.
In June 1991, Kristol used the pages of the Wall Street Journal to bare details about an invitation-only conference for “two dozen conservative leaders” sponsored by William F. Buckley’s National Review. Neoconservatism’s godfather enthusiastically reported that upon arrival the attendees “regarded themselves as conservatives first and Republicans second” but left with their priorities completely reversed. They were now Republicans first and supporters of the first President Bush’s increased taxation, expansion of federal powers, use of U.S. armed forces to enforce UN Security Council resolutions, and other elements of neoconservatism.
Buckley himself, regarded by many as the paragon of conservatism, had become a clever promoter of neoconservatism’s socialism and internationalism. The neocons had so successfully stolen the conservative label that columnist Sam Francis could write in 1993 that “the whole concept of conservatism in American is totally devoid of meaning, in large part because conservatives made the seminal error of allowing dilettantes like Mr. Buckley define it for them in the first place.” Anyone who cares to learn the hidden truths about Buckley’s many betrayals can find them in my own 2002 book, William F. Buckley, Jr.: Pied Piper for the Establishment.
Americans who formerly approved being called “conservative” have lately preferred being labeled “constitutionalist.” But not “American Values” leader Gary Bauer, considered a conservative leader by many. Obviously a neoconservative himself, Bauer paid tribute to the fallen neocon godfather by claiming, “It is impossible to imagine modern American conservatism without the powerful intellect of Irving Kristol.” He’s correct about that. But note that Bauer referred not just to conservatism but to “modern” conservatism, another term for the neoconservatism that is the legacy of Irving Kristol.
SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/1951-the-passing-of-irving-kristol
YumYum
07-09-2010, 04:27 PM
Another point regarding the Kristol Gang. The "Death of the Hippie", which was sponsored by Trotsky's grand-kids, happened 1967, the same time as the Six Day War. Even though war protests continued on Universities throughout this country, the majority of Trotsky's grand-kids stopped the anti-war protests.
America had supported Israel in the Six Day War, much to the Israeli government's surprise, and the Israeli leaders immediately realized that they needed a "pro-war America"; not an "anti-war America". A "pro-war America" could provide military equipment (which we did), and even military support and intervention for Israel. An "anti-war America" was not on the agenda of the Zionist movement after the success of the Six Day War. After receiving the U.S. government's 100% unconditional support for the Six Day War, Israel had to stop the anti-war rhetoric that was sweeping America. Say "goodbye" to the anti-war Trotsky grand-kids. Trotsky's grand-kids now loved war.
Because the Democrats had a strong anti-war platform (with the exception of Humphrey, who did change in time), the Trotsky grand-kids (the friends of Bill Kristol), sabotaged the Democratic Convention in 1968, using the anti-war platform as an excuse to make sure that the Democratic Party was split and would not win the election. Too many Democrats were against the war, and the Kristol Gang needed a man in office that would keep the war going in Vietnam. By doing this, the U.S. under Nixon, sent billions of dollars in free military weaponry to Israel to suppress any 'Soviet threat". Nixon gave financial aid to Israel, and the United States has given aid to Israel every year since then, even though "financial aid" had always been given previously to other countries who were in distress on a "one-time basis".
Nixon opened the door for the neocons to gain power. Nixon loved and respected the Israelis, but didn't like American Jews; thus upsetting many Jews in America. Once the neocons had a strong foothold, Nixon was useless and discarded, and Ronald Reagan became their next target: "A man", declared one Zionist neocon, "that you could reason with."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/0385511817/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books
catdd
07-09-2010, 04:36 PM
Interesting. I knew someone sabotaged it but I wasn't sure who or how.
AlterEgo
07-09-2010, 04:48 PM
i want to be in ann coulters great divide heh
paulitics
07-09-2010, 06:23 PM
Bill Kristol's father was Irving Kristol, the founder of the neocon movement. During WWII, while Americans were dying overseas, the young Irving Kristol and his communist Zionist friends (all of which got out of the draft), would spend hours debating the virtues of Trotsky communism verses Stalinist communism in the coffee houses of New York City. These Zionist communists (also known as "Trotsky's Kids) ended up being the "victims" of the McCarthy investigations of the early 1950's. The children of the Trotsky Kids, who were appalled at the government's treatment of their parents and their parent's communist friends, enrolled in Berkley and put freedom of speech to the test. All seemed to go well until Trotsky's "grand kids" found LSD/marijuana and unlimited amounts of sex with shiksas. They let their hair grow out and gave up shaving and soap. They became hippies. Their parents (the Irving Kristol gang), were absolutely appalled at their newly enlightened children's behavior. The Zionist parents threatened their kids to change their behavior; demanding them to stop the anti-war rhetoric; cut their hair; take a bath; finish their education, and settle down with a nice Zionist girl, or face being cut off financially. The hippies listened, did what they were told, and become BMW driving yuppies working on Wall Street. They were also the new neocons that cut a deal with Reagan. These former hippies are the same people that Reagan attacked while governor, by stating: “A hippie is someone who looks like Tarzan, walks like Jane, and smells like Cheetah”.
Bill Kristol avoided the Vietnam draft, just as his father had done, and yet he thinks nothing of sending me and others to our deaths in Iran.
Please read "They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons" by Jacob Heilbrunn.
Heilbrunn exposes the whole neocon conspiracy, and he can't be called an "anti-Semite" because he himself is a devout Jew.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/0385511817/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books
Irvin Kristol was also funded by the CIA. Sounds like a conspiracy theory, but in fact it is true. I wouldn't be surprised if his son is also funded since nobody buys his publication either.
So why does the CIA fund neocons? Question of the day.
low preference guy
07-09-2010, 06:28 PM
So why does the CIA fund neocons? Question of the day.
Because they are sadists who enjoy torturing people, and neocons policies create an environment to do that.
A Son of Liberty
07-09-2010, 06:37 PM
Ann Coulter is a despicable, evil hag. She'll have to do far more than obliquely partisan posturing that musters all the courage of attacking Bill-freaking-Kristol - that easiest of targets - to convince me she's starting to "get it".
Where's the :barf: emote?
At the end of the day, Ann Coulter suggesting that Afghanistan is a no-win war is a good thing. Attacking her for writing that is foolish when it stands much more in line with our way of thinking than Kristol's. More likely than not, if Kristol gets into a sparring match with Coulter, we'll come away the winners because Kristol has no argument.
low preference guy
07-09-2010, 06:48 PM
At the end of the day, Ann Coulter suggesting that Afghanistan is a no-win war is a good thing. Attacking her for writing that is foolish when it stands much more in line with our way of thinking than Kristol's.
Yeah. Some people are really weird in that they want to sort of have a deep emotional connection with pundits and entertainers.
Ann Coulter did something that is good to advance criticisms of the Afghanistan War. We want that. So we just take the opportunity to further criticize the War. No need to get all emotional about it.
YumYum
07-09-2010, 06:53 PM
So why does the CIA fund neocons? Question of the day.
Very good question. If the CIA is funding the neocons, which I believe they could be, where will they go if the Republican Party splits?
I do not believe Ann Coulter and Michael Steele are spouting off irresponsibly; there is a motive.
Ann Coulter is an Evangelical Christian, and she offended Jewish interviewer Donny Deutsch (and the whole Jewish community, myself included) by proclaiming that Christians such as herself believe that a Christian America would be ideal. She asserted boldly: "“We just want Jews to be perfected”. The mud hit the air conditioner. The Jews wanted her out.
But she remained, unlike Helen Thomas (who has been forever forgotten), and has changed her pro-war views. The question is why? Is she getting back at the Jews for turning on her? Or, is she deliberately splitting the Republican Party to give the Democrats the elections, on the basis that Obama and the Democrats have promised the Israeli Lobby that they will support an invasion of Iran?
The woman is a media prostitute and could care less about liberals verses conservatives. She sells books; she makes money: she can be bought and sold.
A Son of Liberty
07-09-2010, 06:55 PM
Yeah. Some people are really weird in that they want to sort of have a deep emotional connection with pundits and entertainers.
Ann Coulter did something that is good to advance criticisms of the Afghanistan War. We want that. So we just take the opportunity to further criticize the War. No need to get all emotional about it.
No chance at all she's seeking to direct the Republican meme? She's legitimately opposed to the Afghanistan war on philosophical grounds? Riiiiiiight.
See, the thing is, Ann's going to get right behind the next Republican-sanctioned imperial action. She's "coming around" on this one because it's politically expedient, right now.
Fool me once, shame on you...
A Son of Liberty
07-09-2010, 06:58 PM
But she remained, unlike Helen Thomas (who has been forever forgotten), and has changed her pro-war views. The question is why? Is she getting back at the Jews for turning on her?
It's quite simple: Obama has made Afghanistan his war. Obama is a Democrat. Ann is a Republican. Ergo, Ann opposes the Afghanistan War.
low preference guy
07-09-2010, 06:58 PM
She's legitimately opposed to the Afghanistan war on philosophical grounds?
Who cares? She is criticizing the War. That gives us an opportunity to criticize the war more and it will be accepted more easily. That's all there is to it.
Why do you care about the reasons Ann Coulter opposes it?
A Son of Liberty
07-09-2010, 07:01 PM
Who cares? He is criticizing the War. That gives us an opportunity to criticize the war more and it will be accepted more easily. That's all there is to it.
Why do you care about the reasons Ann Coulter opposes?
Because it matters to me why people oppose war. What good is her opposition to this war when the next one comes along and she supports it? War has not been opposed. This particular one has been.
lester1/2jr
07-09-2010, 07:01 PM
it's good but I don't think she'll win this one.
the base is not happy with the wars and is not going to extoll them, not ice you don't see them brought up at tea parties, but they don't feel comfortable criticizing the war while the troops are out there. in general
low preference guy
07-09-2010, 07:09 PM
Because it matters to me why people oppose war. What good is her opposition to this war when the next one comes along and she supports it? War has not been opposed. This particular one has been.
Ann Coulter =\= People.
We can still convince people to be opposed for the right reasons, even if they are more open only because a partisan hack made it more acceptable.
Brian4Liberty
07-09-2010, 07:15 PM
Michael Savage made his choice clear today. He declared war on Bill Kristol, The Weekly Standard and neo-conservatives in general.
Of course like the vast majority, he was for the Iraq war at the time...
YumYum
07-09-2010, 07:18 PM
She could be against the war because it will free up the troops to invade Iran. How can somebody be for the war and the killing of Muslims, and then change her tune so suddenly?
Everything, whether it has to do with Democrats or Republicans, centers around war with Iran. That is where we are headed.
A Son of Liberty
07-09-2010, 07:23 PM
Ann Coulter =\= People.
:D :thumb:
We can still convince people to be opposed for the right reasons, even if they are more open only because a partisan hack made it more acceptable.
That would be great. As long as she opposes the next one, too. She'll still have the forum - we won't.
libertybrewcity
07-09-2010, 07:27 PM
YouTube - Ann Coulter endorses Ron Paul in 2012 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPygNYXXQGk)
Who cares? She is criticizing the War. That gives us an opportunity to criticize the war more and it will be accepted more easily. That's all there is to it.
Why do you care about the reasons Ann Coulter opposes it?
Completely agree. If someone comes up to me and offers to end the Afghanistan War and bring the troops home but he has bad motives, I'm going to take him up on his offer. RPF would probably not since his motives unknown or bad.
I am for stopping the war and don't care who suggests it be stopped and the troops brought home. If tomorrow Obama says he is bringing the troops home, then good, I support that. How about we try to end the war first and worry about why politicians/pundits oppose it later?
michaelwise
07-09-2010, 07:33 PM
US Foreign Policy = Money for Arms Manufacturers
I just thank God for the complete and total economic collapse of the US so this happy horse shit will stop.
YumYum
07-09-2010, 07:33 PM
Completely agree. If someone comes up to me and offers to end the Afghanistan War and bring the troops home but he has bad motives, I'm going to take him up on his offer. RPF would probably not since his motives unknown or bad.
I am for stopping the war and don't care who suggests it be stopped and the troops brought home. If tomorrow Obama says he is bringing the troops home, then good, I support that. How about we try to end the war first and worry about why politicians/pundits oppose it later?
Did she say she is for bringing the troops home? I think she is only against the Afghanistan occupation.
Did she say she is for bringing the troops home? I think she is only against the Afghanistan occupation.
...Which would be what Afghanistan has become. If she is for ending the occupation, it is likely she isn't for those troops staying in Afghanistan doing nothing, so they would likely be sent home.
YumYum
07-09-2010, 07:37 PM
...Which would be what Afghanistan has become. If she is for ending the occupation, it is likely she isn't for those troops staying in Afghanistan doing nothing, so they would likely be sent home.
Or....sent in to invade Iran.
Or....sent in to invade Iran.
She probably would have mentioned that somewhere since Kristol and the Gang are in favor of that.
james1906
07-09-2010, 07:46 PM
http://video.adultswim.com/the-boondocks/let-a-bitch-work.html
axiomata
07-09-2010, 07:50 PM
It is quite amazing, that Coulter, who for years gleefully carried water for the neoconservative policy setters, can with one article, painlessly switch to the anti-neocon side of the great schism.
FrankRep
08-14-2010, 11:48 PM
Irvin Kristol was also funded by the CIA. Sounds like a conspiracy theory, but in fact it is true.
Check this out:
Mises, Murray Rothbard: Was the National Review a CIA operation? | William Buckley Jr
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=232584
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.