Mark Levin viciuosly ripping on Ron Paul

[sofia]

Levin was just bashing RP and Michael Schuerer as "isolationists" and "anti-Israel"....He refers to RP supporters as "neo-federalists"????...

Then he said that he was gonna have Gary Johnson on because he makes more sense than Ron Paul!

very nasty stuff

The zionist neo-cons are in full psycho mode over Ron.

[nate895]

I can't say I'm shocked at all.

[Wren]

Then he said that he was gonna have Gary Johnson on because he makes more sense than Ron Paul!


How cute, he's attempting to troll

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/12/9/129048727346139390.jpg

[FrankRep]

sofia, you're anti-Israel. Correct?

(Plus, Pro-Hitler and have been temp-banned from RPFs.com for your views.)

[sofia]

He also said that his supporters are nuts for saying that we started the Tea Party....lol

[AuH20]

Levin is attacking his brothers over one goddamn issue. What an asshole.

[Sola_Fide]

Levin is "for the Constitution" but he rips into the only constitutionalist in the race...

[COpatriot]

Mark Levin shows himself to be a petulant child every time he opens his mouth. Raging neocon.

[BamaFanNKy]

He's gonna try to get Gary as a pawn. Interesting to see what Gary does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Xbwk2PVhT0

[Agorism]

What's a neo-Federalist?

Did he mean anti-Federalists?

[sofia]

Levin is attacking his brothers over one goddamn issue. What an asshole.

Thats the whole point of "Neo-Conservativism"....Infiltrate us...gain our trust....talk like us.


....then promote an Israel First agenda under the banner of "conservatism".

[AuH20]

Mark Levin shows himself to be a petulant child every time he opens his mouth. Raging neocon.

The sad part is that he's not a neocon. We could use his help but he's infatuated with this romanticized view of U.S. military power.

[Lucille]

I listen to a bit of his Paul bashing yesterday, but had to turn it off. I can't stand it. Sounds like he stepped up his attacks today.

"...then they fight you..."

[AuH20]

Thats the whole point of "Neo-Conservativism"....Infiltrate us...gain our trust....talk like us.


....then promote an Israel First agenda under the banner of "conservatism".

You're wrong. He may be a nasty, arrogant man but he's no neocon. You should have heard him take Bush and his cabal to task.

[jmdrake]

I can't say I'm shocked at all.

I'm shocked that Mark Levin would think Gary Johnson might agree with him on foreign policy. But the attacks? That's totally expected.

[Humanae Libertas]

...coming from a guy who wrote a "liberty" book, haha:

http://www.tldm.org/News12/LibertyAndTyranny.jpg

[jmdrake]

You're wrong. He may be a nasty, arrogant man but he's no neocon. You should have heard him take Bush and his cabal to task.

He took them to task on foreign policy? Link please.

[low preference guy]

sofia, you're anti-Israel. Correct?

(Plus, Pro-Hitler and have been temp-banned from RPFs.com for your views.)

please don't hijack the thread. if you have something against the OP, start your own thread! this is a thread about neocon Mark Levin.

[FrankRep]

Thats the whole point of "Neo-Conservativism"....Infiltrate us...gain our trust....talk like us.

....then promote an Israel First agenda under the banner of "conservatism".

Supporting Israel doesn't make you a Neocon.

[sofia]

You're wrong. He may be a nasty, arrogant man but he's no neocon. You should have heard him take Bush and his cabal to task.

His Foreign Policy is 100% neo-con...

He's somewhat conservative on domestic fiscal issues, but he promotoes Paul Rino as some genius.

I have no use for him other than I find his Obama bashing entertaining.

[low preference guy]

Supporting Israel doesn't make you a Neocon.

supporting them with foreign aid and militarily does make you a neocon.

[FrankRep]

His Foreign Policy is 100% neo-con...

Lets be real here.

Sofia, when you say "Neocon," you mean Pro-Israel.

[AuH20]

Let me explain to you something about folks like Levin & Hannity, though Levin is far more cerebral and more of a purist than Hannity. They have a romanticized view of U.S. military power, in that every day is June 6th 1944. Here comes the altruistic Uncle Sam on the horizon ready to vanquish the bad guys. Levin's other positions are much more palatable. He sometime references Barry Goldwater as being the model republican to follow. I think sometimes it's easy for us to denigrate our opponents as the being the ultimate evil, when it's convenient to do so.

[FrankRep]

supporting them with foreign aid and militarily does make you a neocon.

How does giving aid and Military support to Israel make you a Neocon?

[specsaregood]

Lets be real here.


Yes, let's be real. Mark Levin is a douchebag.

[jmdrake]

Supporting Israel doesn't make you a Neocon.

Mark Levin's neoconism isn't limited to his irrational support of Israel. He's also a right wing conspiracy theorist that believes Saddam was involved in 9/11 despite all evidence to the contrary.

http://old.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200511181121.asp
November 18, 2005, 11:21 a.m.
Facts of War
Yes, there were connections between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 bad guys.

What is this baloney that there were no connections between Iraq and Osama bin Laden? Even the 9/11 Commission Report, which I believe is lacking in many respects, includes some useful findings all but ignored today by the media and war critics. Consider the following excerpts:


You can't get more neocon than that. Really. What possible reason would Bush, Cheney and Rumseld have to back away from the Iraq/9-11 connection if there was even a smidgen of truth to that?

[sofia]

Lets be real here.

Sofia, when you say "Neocon," you mean Pro-Israel.

not necessarily....If some Zionist wants to visit Israel..send money there...move there..etc.....but doesnt want to involve my nation in war or take my money for aid...then Im OK with that and wouldnt consider him a neo-con.

The key to neo-conism is the militarism...often in support of crushing Israel's Arab neighbors

[AuH20]

Yes, let's be real. Mark Levin is a douchebag.

He's a douchebag. But this douchebag should be supporting us, based on what he says everyday!!!!

[FrankRep]

Yes, let's be real. Mark Levin is a douchebag.

I don't deny that, but Mark Levin isn't really a Neocon.

[specsaregood]

He's a douchebag. But this douchebag should be supporting us, based on what he says everyday!!!!

That is what makes him a douchebag. He is a shill for the establishment, a gatekeeper of sorts.

[sofia]

I don't deny that, but Mark Levin isn't really a Neocon.

google ron paul's classic speech in which he defines neo-conservatism. ...see how many points he sets forth that fit Levin.

[jmdrake]

I don't deny that, but Mark Levin isn't really a Neocon.

If trying to justify the fake Saddam/9-11 connection as late as 2005 doesn't make you a neocon WRT foreign policy, then there is no such thing as a neocon foreign policy.

[AuH20]

That is what makes him a douchebag. He is a shill for the establishment, a gatekeeper of sorts.

No. He hates the establishment. He just doesn't like our brand of Kirkian/Robert Taft conservatism. So he's going to denigrate us at every chance he gets. Ra Ra Ra. The U.S. Military is going to extinguish evil. He really believes this shit. Mainstream conservatives are used by neos to do their dirty work. They use their love of country to twist their minds.

[AuH20]

Please read this. Neconservatives adore GDP at any cost (crony corporatism is fantastic), cheap illegal labor and central banking. They're international locusts:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001679.html


[An important insight into what makes the neocons tick: they are fixated on the economy because they view democracy as having an inherent tendency toward breakdown that can only be held in check by continual growth. This analysis helps explain why they sometimes seem to treat the economy as a god, letting it supplant all other values. Thus in various symposia in Commentary in the ‘80s and ‘90s on the general question of how America was doing, the keynote would be that America was doing fabulously well--because the economy was doing fabulously well. Expressions of concern about America’s downward cultural and moral slide often sounded like obligatory pieties.]

[In any case, the neoconservatives are so set on aggressively spreading democracy, with its continual upheavals of the old order, that they see continual economic growth as the only way to prevent the class conflict that results from all that upheaval. In other words, the instability they worry about is in part a product of the democratism which they themselves aggressively promote. If America had been content to change less rapidly—say, through much less immigration—then there would be less concern about the need to avoid the kind of leftist egalitarian politics that Kristol worries about in the next paragraph. Of course, the neocons would argue that the continued mass immigration is necessary to keep pumping up the economy and thus avoiding class conflict. But even if that were true in the short run, which I doubt, in the long run the immigration is creating infinitely more class and social conflict than we otherwise would have had.]

[low preference guy]

He's a douchebag. But this douchebag should be supporting us, based on what he says everyday!!!!

Ron Paul's opposition to the neocon's foreign policy is a deal-breaker for Levin. He is a war-loving psycho.

[kahless]

absoultely!...Israel is a terrorist nation that blew up the Twin Towers.

^Posts like this demonstrate to people like Levin that they are right about Ron Paul supporters. Fortunately you are in the minority.

[FrankRep]

google ron paul's classic speech in which he defines neo-conservatism. ...see how many points he sets forth that fit Levin.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0028740211.01._SX140_SY225_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1566632285/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399349&creativeASIN=1566632285)

Neo-conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1566632285/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399349&creativeASIN=1566632285)
- Irving Kristol


Defining Terms: What is a Neoconservative (Neocon)? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?257106-Defining-Terms-What-is-a-Neoconservative-%28Neocon%29)


Neoconservatism's deadly influence:

A look at the roots of neoconservatism and the reasons why this deadly movement must be rejected in favor of the true conservatism as envisioned by our Founders


John F. McManus | The New American (http://www.TheNewAmerican.com/)
Jan 22, 2007



A neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.

--Irving Kristol


The above definition has joyfully and repeatedly been cited by many defenders of neoconservatism. They consider their branch of political thought a benign movement even though its clout has been recognized as dominant over the Bush administration. Kristol likely hopes that everyone who learns of his quip will emit a slight chuckle and remain convinced that neoconservatism is no threat to the nation.

But Irving Kristol, who has willingly accepted the title of "Godfather of Neoconservatism," earlier produced a more incisive definition of the movement he helped to create. In his 1995 book Neoconservatism: the Autobiography of an Idea (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1566632285/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399349&creativeASIN=1566632285), he wrote:



It describes the erosion of liberal faith among a relatively small but talented and articulate group ... (which gradually gained more recruits) toward a more conservative point of view: conservative but different in certain respects from the conservatism of the Republican party. We ... accepted the New Deal in principle, and had little affection for the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism.


There you have it: neoconservatism's most prominent adherent wants it to be linked to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal socialism and, because of its rejection of "isolationism," to be further identified as a champion of meddling in the affairs of other nations. The opposite of isolationism, of course, is interventionism, a tactic favored by all neoconservatives. Earlier, in 1983, Kristol claimed that "a conservative welfare state is perfectly consistent with the neoconservative perspective." Old-line conservatives would justly label the phrase "conservative welfare state" a classic oxymoron. By 1993, in a piece he authored for the Wall Street Journal, the Godfather lauded Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, and Medicaid, even a cash allowance for the children of unwed mothers. Virtually any socialist program can count on support from the neoconservative camp.

As for interventionist meddling, neoconservative Charles Krauthammer candidly presented the movement's attitude in a 1989 article appearing in Kristol's journal, The National Interest. Boldly calling for the integration of the United States, Europe, and Japan, he yearned for a "super-sovereign" state that would be "economically, culturally, and politically hegemonic in the world." Not satisfied with such a novel creation, he further urged a "new universalism [which] would require the conscious depreciation not only of American sovereignty but of the notion of sovereignty in general." And he added: "This is not as outrageous as it sounds." Maybe not to a neoconservative, but a real conservative and especially a constitutionalist wouldn't hesitate for a moment in labeling such ideas "outrageous."

Neoconservatism's Roots

During the 1960s and into the 1970s, the "small but talented and articulate group" Kristol haughtily described sought a new home for its ideology. Leftists to the core, most were followers of Leon Trotsky, the revolutionary communist leader who was expelled from Russia following a power struggle with Stalin in the 1920s. They didn't like Stalin, but they did like the style of communism advocated by Trotsky. In his 1995 book Neoconservatism, Kristol proudly stated, "I regard myself as lucky to have been a young Trotskyite and I have not a single bitter memory." As students of the communist movement well know, Trotsky broke with Stalin in 1927 merely over which tactics would best succeed in achieving the world domination each sought. Run out of Russia by his former partner in monstrous crime, Trotsky ended up in Mexico, never renounced his desire to communize or socialize the world, and went to his Maker when one of Stalin's henchmen plunged an axe into his skull in 1940.

The Trotsky link provides a key to understanding neoconservatives. Writing in 1995 in the CFR journal Foreign Affairs about John Erhman's The Rise of Neoconservatism, reviewer John Judis confirmed that "the other important influence on neoconservatives was the legacy of Trotsky.... Many of the founders of neoconservatism including The Public Interest founder Irving Kristol ... were either members of or close to the Trotskyite left in the late 1930s and early 1940s." Other important early leaders of the movement included Commentary Editor Norman Podhoretz, his wife Midge Decter, Ben Wattenberg, Edward Luttwak, Elliott Abrams, Carl Gershman, Michael Ledeen, and Nathan Glazer. Among later adherents could be found Michael Novak, William Bennett, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Daniel Moynihan, Wall Street Journal editorialist Robert Bartley, and Kristol's son William, who currently presides over The Weekly Standard.

Many of the early neocons were Democrats. But in 1972, they were repulsed by the Democratic candidacy of George McGovern because of his isolationism and his embrace of the countercultural excesses of the New Left (drugs, free love, radical feminism, homosexuality, etc.). What they saw propelled the early neocons to seek a new home in the Republican Party. Irving Kristol explained that the South Dakota senator's strident opposition to the Vietnam War and willing acceptance of the New Left's attack on traditional values "signified that the Democratic Party was not hospitable to any degree of neoconservatism." He wrote that he and a few others arrived at the "obvious conclusion that we would have to try to find a home in the Republican party." Find a home they did! And they were giddily accepted, not only by liberal Republicans but also by many anti-communist GOP conservatives who seemed oblivious to the fact they were welcoming socialists and internationalists into their midst.

Neocons didn't exert much influence during the Ford- and Carter-led 1970s, although many more moved into the GOE They found they had a good friend in Ronald Reagan when he courted them during his 1980 campaign and then gave several of them administration posts when he triumphed. Long on pleasing rhetoric but short on comparable performance, Reagan named Jeane Kirkpatrick ambassador to the UN, and Richard Perle and Elliott Abrams were given posts in the Defense Department. To a man, neocons joined Kristol in praising Reagan for being "the first Republican president to pay tribute to Franklin D. Roosevelt."

More Neocon Successes

No review of the rise of neoconservative prominence is complete without noting the role played by William F. Buckley in bringing it about. In 1991, Buckley sponsored an invitation-only, three-day conference for two dozen conservative Republicans. Enthusiastically described by Kristol, the event saw attendees arrive as conservatives first, but "by the end of the meeting, a significant reversal had occurred.... Most were Republicans first and conservatives second." They would now accept increased taxation, more federal controls, and the use of America's military under UN auspices to build George H.W. Bush's "new world order." (Though Bush never defined the term "new world order," it has long been known to mean socialism and world government, the cardinal tenets of neoconservatism.) Newly identifiable neocons in the first Bush administration included Defense Department leaders Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle. Delighted to be in charge of the world's only remaining superpower, they set out to use America's armed might to force their brand of "democracy" on the world.

Buckley's little-known preference for the neocon agenda, both its foreign and domestic policy elements, deserves mention. In 1952, while he was serving in the CIA in what he later termed a "deep cover" assignment in Mexico, the widely accepted leader of American conservatism wrote in Commonweal magazine of the need for "Big Government for the duration," and for "large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards and the attendant centralization of power in Washington--even with Truman at the reins of it all." Even before Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and other neocon luminaries, and even before anyone had even heard the term neoconservative, Buckley was promoting its agenda. More than any other individual, Buckley succeeded during 50 years of clever duplicity in taking real conservatives away from their roots and into the grasp of the neocons. *

In a 1996 edition of The Essential Neoconservative Reader, editor Mark Gerson jubilantly observed, "The neoconservatives have so changed conservatism that what we now identify as conservatism is largely what was once neoconservatism. And in so doing, they have defined the way vast numbers of Americans view the economy, their polity, and their society." In that same year, veteran conservative columnist Sam Francis observed:



As the Cold War wound down, "exporting democracy" and opposing "isolationism" became the major neoconservative foreign policy goals, reflected in their almost universal support for NAFTA, the World Trade Organization, and United Nations "peacekeeping" missions.


Francis and Gerson, holders of completely contradictory views about the neocon takeover, were nevertheless in solid agreement about its success. A steady stream of neocon policy began flowing from such Washington-based think tanks as the Committee on the Present Danger, American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century, the National Endowment for Democracy, and more.

When the 1994 elections produced huge Republican victories, Irving Kristol considered the stunning GOP success a neocon triumph. He knew, as many others did not, that GOP leader Newt Gingrich would be his ally. The Georgia Republican who was to become House Speaker had backed federal aid to education, land controls, foreign aid, NAFTA, GATT (which became the WTO), the Mexican bailout, the Export-Import Bank, the use of U.S. military force to "democratize" the world, the United Nations, and whatever else would take America away from limited government and non-intervention. His vaunted "Contract with America" was largely inconsequential fluff that kept the GOP from relying on the Constitution. Buckley and the neoconservatives were delighted, and the proud owner of National Review saluted Gingrich as a "greatly gifted" leader. There was little objection from the Clinton White House.

In 2003, one Republican congressman who has never been swept into the neoconservative camp addressed his colleagues in a speech entitled "Neoconned." Dr. Ron Paul noted that replacing the Clinton Democrats with the George W. Bush Republicans "has not made a difference." He attributed the lack of change to neoconservatives who had "diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence." Among the modern-day neocons he named were Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, William Kristol, Michael Ledeen, James Woolsey, Bill Bennett, Frank Gaffhey, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. The redoubtable Texan then summed up the problem facing our nation:



Neoconservatism is not the philosophy of free markets and a wise foreign policy. Instead, it represents big-government welfare at home and a program of using our military might to spread their version of American values throughout the world.


In his speech, Paul condemned American Enterprise leader Michael Ledeen's 1999 characterization of the attack on Pearl Harbor as a "lucky" event that led our nation away from neutrality. Ledeen had actually longed for another such event that could be used to entangle our nation in more overseas adventures. Paul also pointed to the Project for the New American Century's hope expressed in 2000 for "a Pearl Harbor event" that he said "would galvanize the American people to support their ambitious plans to ensure political and economic domination of the world."

Paul never accused neocons of support for or knowledge of the 9/11 event, but he stated very clearly that it has been used "to promote an agenda that strict constitutionalists and devotees of the Founders of this nation find appalling."

After listing 17 neocon beliefs, each of which he rejects, the Texas congressman urged that those responsible for fastening neoconservatism on America must be "exposed" and "their philosophy of pervasive government intrusion rejected." Count this author and this magazine in solid agreement.

* See John F. McManus' book William F. Buckley, Jr.: Pied Piper for the Establishment (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1881919064/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399349&creativeASIN=1881919064) for the history of why Buckley became the favorite of liberals and neocons.


SOURCE:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_2_23/ai_n24999554/pg_4/?tag=content;col1

[Brett85]

supporting them with foreign aid and militarily does make you a neocon.

A neoconservative is somebody who supports spreading freedom and democracy around the world. That's the actual definition.

[low preference guy]

A neoconservative is somebody who supports spreading freedom and democracy around the world. That's the actual definition.

that's why those who say America should send foreign aid and help israel militariliy because they're the only democracy and fountain of peace in the middle east are neocons.

[FrankRep]

Conservatives, Neoconservatives and Constitutionalists


John F. McManus, John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/) President
August 2010


Early members of The John Birch Society commonly labeled their own and the Society’s political preference as “conservative.” These doughty Americans were opposed to government controls, the United Nations, and anything that smacked of communism. Occasionally, someone with a bit of history under his belt would interject that liberals of the 19th Century were the equivalent of conservatives in the 20th. True enough, but “So what!’ was the frequent rejoinder. It had already become obvious that the terms conservative and liberal weren’t defined with any precision.

Jump ahead 20-30 years and JBS members found themselves being lumped together with so-called conservatives who were advocating bigger government and foreign interventionism. Mercifully, some prominent promoters of these very un-conservative views adopted the term “neoconservative” for themselves. The most prominent of the neocons, journalist Irving Kristol, reveled in being characterized as “the godfather of Neoconservatism,” a title he richly deserved.


http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQxKy0xWYQfTN6FrdrHgBH3flC8bukVQ fZsNmmWsNY1zGbX29c&t=1&usg=__xhP1W-LdDRoNYWQ_XDzrcOAXIhA=
Irving Kristol took delight in being characterized as “the godfather of Neoconservatism.”


Kristol spelled out neocon belief in his 1995 opus Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (http://www.amazon.com/Neo-conservatism-Autobiography-Idea-Irving-Kristol/dp/1566632285). He said that it squared with Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” and wanted nothing to do with “the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism.” There you have the definition of neoconservatism: socialism and internationalism. Kristol went so far as to candidly admit, “I regard myself as lucky to have been a young Trotskyite and I have not a single bitter memory.” The partner of Lenin in communizing Russia, Trotsky later fell into disfavor for backing the slower route to deadly totalitarianism. If one accepts Kristol’s definition, and there is no reason not to do so, Trotsky was the first neoconservative.

Though few knew for many years, William Buckley actually preceded Kristol as a neocon, although he postured as a conservative while leading many otherwise patriotic Americans into the neocon swamp. In 1952 while working in “deep cover” (his term) for the CIA in Mexico, Buckley penned an article in the Catholic periodical Commonweal in which he called for “Big Government for the duration,” “a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores,” “large armies and air forces,” and “the attendant centralization of power in Washington.” No neocon ever said it more clearly.

Buckley, of course, is still lauded by unthinking conservatives, especially for his incessant and dishonest castigation of The John Birch Society. If he is the epitome of conservatism, JBS members of the 21st Century want nothing to do with it. Which is why the term “constitutionalist” has been adopted. Unlike conservative or liberal, constitutionalist can be defined. And it can’t be shifted into backing tomorrow what it rejected yesterday. The mass media may refer to the two Bush presidents, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, John McCain, William Kristol and a host of others as “conservatives” but even these propaganda organs wouldn’t call them constitutionalists.

The Constitution is defined. Conservatism is not. Neoconservatism has taken conservatism’s place and, while we emphatically disagree with what Irving Kristol wanted for America, we can at least thank him for his honest definition. Not so with Bill Buckley who bared his real beliefs in 1952 but then dishonestly postured as America’s premier defender for decades.

Today’s neocon favors the United Nations, undeclared wars, a form of socialism slightly milder than what is offered by Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, steps toward world government such as phony free trade agreements, open borders, and a Supreme Court peopled by justices who will “interpret” rather than obey the U.S. Constitution. It is increasingly obvious that Americans are discovering (some are re-discovering) the Constitution. There’s hope for the future there. Let’s do all we can to spread awareness of the worth and the need to enforce the “supreme law of the land.”

[Badger Paul]

""neo-federalists"????..."

I'll drink to that!

[anaconda]

Why do we give Levin any attention whatsoever? Please..I'd like to know. I think it's an absolute waste of our time.

[specsaregood]

No. He hates the establishment.
If you actually believe that, then he has been successful. Talk is cheap.

[S.Shorland]

Neo-Conservatism comes from Leo Strauss.You can watch 'The Power Of Nightmares' on youtube.The 'damoosebelly' upload seems to play the best apart from one episode repeated.

[CJLauderdale4]

...and then today, Levin has someone on who tells him he voted "his principles" in 2008, and voted for Alan Keyes (guess it was a state that had Alan on the ballot). Mark gets mad and says, "Well there you go - Alan had no chance of winning." The guy, "Bob," says, he only votes his principles, and if we all did that we'd be a better country.

Mark let him speak, and then proceeded to agree with his thoughts about voting for people who support the Constitution.

How in the world can anyone take Mark Levin seriously, when all in one segment, he slams the guy for voting his principles (for Keyes), and then agrees with him on his principles - AND had no ammo to intellectually dispute Bob's logic on why Alan Keyes was the wrong vote for the Constitution. The bottom line is that Alan Keyes IS closer to the Constitution, not as close as Ron Paul, but nevertheless, Mark couldn't argue with the man.

This is neo-conservatism - it's the hijacking of a true, liberty-minded group of people, misleading them by using a facade of nationalism and patriotism in support of unnecessary militarism and fiat monetary policy.

Just like a true liberal - Mark couldn't argue against a true constitutionalist voter.

As for Gary Johnson - he's already getting hijacked. Watch this video with the Judge last night, and look at his answers on
- shutting down bases --> that assumes that all programs cut 43% too...good luck with getting COngress to cut the entitlements
- Federal Reserve --> "I would handle it first by balancing the budget" ?? Does he understand that the entitlements alone break the budget? How about competing commodity-backed currencies?
- Closing Gtimo (8:25) --> "woo'd to the other side for keeping it open" ??? WT-?!?!? Just watch the Judge's face when he says he's been woo'd - he's like WHAT?!?!?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsZe2FnecX0&feature=player_embedded

[Ron Paul 2012]

Levin was just bashing RP and Michael Schuerer as "isolationists" and "anti-Israel"....He refers to RP supporters as "neo-federalists"????...

Then he said that he was gonna have Gary Johnson on because he makes more sense than Ron Paul!

very nasty stuff

The zionist neo-cons are in full psycho mode over Ron.

Yes, the sad reality is that you can't call a spade a spade without being mislabeled. Ron Paul correctly points out that Israelis are illegally occupying rightful Palestinian terroritory and people label him an anti-semite.

[Brian4Liberty]

Levin = neo-neo-conservative: Same old neo-conservativsm, with rhetoric about a return to fiscal conservatism, and lip-service to the Constitution.

[AdamT]

Levin is a pathetic joke. Him and his ilk's days are numbered.

[Travlyr]

I listened to Levin's whinny voice for a few months. He doesn't understand liberty or tyranny. How does he get advertisers?

[low preference guy]

I listened to Levin's whinny voice for a few months. He doesn't understand liberty or tyranny. How does he get advertisers?

Levin actually understands liberty very well. He knows, for example, that those who oppose the Patriot Act are statists.


The Statist has also opposed the interception of enemy communications, such as email and cell-phone contacts, without approval from a court. But his position is contrary to all legal precedent, historical practice and highly impractical, given the speed by which such communications occur. Yet again he claims the practice threatens Americans’ civil liberties. Where is the actual evidence of widespread civil liberties abuses against American citizens? It is nonexistent.

Link (http://takimag.com/article/the_tyranny_of_mark_levins_liberty)

[Travlyr]

Levin actually understands liberty very well. He knows, for example, that those who oppose the Patriot Act are statists.


Oh, I see. It's the liberty Hannity and Limbaugh espouse. Democrats are for tyranny, and Republicans like liberty. Got it.

[RonPaulGetsIt]

Lets be honest here...Levin is acting like all the main stream media did last time. The rest of them have been surprisingly civil so far. Perhaps "they" are testing the waters to see how the old school attack mode will play out. They can't ignore him any more and he makes too much sense to simply interview so they are at a loss as to how to proceed.

The political elite don't care who gets elected as long as it is not a real freedom candidate. I get the sense this time around that the hosts of these shows attack Ron at their own Peril.

Career or marching orders?

Levin you are a fool for pretending to be an espouser of Liberty while attacking its greatest defender. You are a fraud and your audience will see through you soon enough. When they do will you continue with your attacks to appease your bosses or will you care more about your audience abandoning you due to your lies and deceipt?

[GuerrillaXXI]

Supporting Israel doesn't make you a Neocon.That's true. However, ALL neocons support Israel. In fact, that was the ulterior motive of those who founded neoconservatism: to hijack the mainstream conservative movement in the US and use it as a vehicle for promoting wars against Israel's enemies. Although most Jews are not neocons, the original neocons were hardcore Zionist Jews almost to a man.

The neocons' first big project was suckering the US into invading Iraq. While Zionist Jews like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith worked inside Bush's administration to fabricate a case for invading Iraq, propagandists like William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Norman Podhoretz, and David Horowitz worked on manipulating public opinion.

Their success speaks for itself. Since 9/11/2001, to be "conservative" has been equated with wanting to "kick Muslim ass" overseas. Americans opposed to this agenda have been derided as "liberals," "unpatriotic," and "traitors." The phrase "anti-Israel and anti-American" (or its reverse) can be found in thousands upon thousands of neocon essays, the purpose obviously being to link the two "anti's" in the minds of Americans. And, of course, the US has been in Iraq for the better part of a decade.

Even the Israeli paper Haaretz is surprisingly forthright about what happened:


The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical...
http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/white-man-s-burden-1.14110

A professor at Cal State Long Beach named Kevin MacDonald has written a superb piece on the history of neoconservatism. Anyone who wants to understand what the neocons are really all about MUST read this essay:

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/UnderstandJI-3.htm

The definition of neoconservatism provided therein makes a lot of sense to me, judging from all the neocon writings I've read over the past ten years (emphasis added):


Neoconservatism is better described in general as a complex interlocking professional and family network centered around Jewish publicists and organizers flexibly deployed to recruit the sympathies of both Jews and non-Jews in harnessing the wealth and power of the United States in the service of Israel. As such, neoconservatism should be considered a semicovert branch of the massive and highly effective pro-Israel lobby, which includes organizations like the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—the most powerful lobbying group in Washington—and the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). Indeed, as discussed below, prominent neoconservatives have been associated with such overtly pro-Israel organizations as the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), and ZOA. (Acronyms of the main neoconservative and pro-Israel activist organizations used in this paper are provided in Table 2.)
...
Compared with their deep and emotionally intense commitment to Israel, neoconservative attitudes on domestic policy seem more or less an afterthought, and they will not be the main focus here. In general, neoconservatives advocate maintaining the social welfare, immigration, and civil rights policies typical of liberalism (and the wider Jewish community) up to about 1970. Some of these policies represent clear examples of Jewish ethnic strategizing—in particular, the role of the entire Jewish political spectrum and the entire organized Jewish community as the moving force behind the immigration law of 1965, which opened the floodgates to nonwhite immigration. (Jewish organizations still favor liberal immigration policies. In 2004, virtually all American Jewish public affairs agencies belong to the National Immigration Forum, the premier open borders immigration-lobbying group.5) Since the neocons have developed a decisive influence in the mainstream conservative movement, their support for nonrestrictive immigration policies has perhaps more significance for the future of the United States than their support for Israel.

As always when discussing Jewish involvement in intellectual movements, there is no implication that all or even most Jews are involved in these movements. As discussed below, the organized Jewish community shares the neocon commitment to the Likud Party in Israel. However, neoconservatism has never been a majority viewpoint in the American Jewish community, at least if being a neoconservative implies voting for the Republican Party. In the 2000 election, 80 percent of Jews voted for Al Gore.6

What does all this have to do with Ron Paul? Simple. Neocons see his non-interventionist stance on foreign policy as an obstacle to their agenda of endless war against the Muslim world. Thus, they hate his guts and want to discredit him as much as possible, including by smearing him as an "anti-Semite."

[Travlyr]

What does all this have to do with Ron Paul? Simple. Neocons see his non-interventionist stance on foreign policy as an obstacle to their agenda of endless war against the Muslim world. Thus, they hate his guts and want to discredit him as much as possible, including by smearing him as an "anti-Semite."

Very concise, thanks. I'm tired of the shared sacrifice that Americans must endure in order to pay for the destruction of the infrastructure & people in the Middle East. This just reinforces why I must support Ron Paul to get some sanity back into the world. Ron Paul 2012!

[Brian4Liberty]

The neocons' first big project was suckering the US into invading Iraq.

Weren't early neo-conservatives involved in the Cold War, especially in it's later years?

[Chowder]

I used to like Mark Levin a lot but his arguments don't add up. He demands that we have the most conservative people in congress but yet ignores Ron Paul.

It just doesn't add up anymore! So the only conclusion is, that Levin isn't who he says he is.

Since Ron Paul is running, what is he going to do now when his supporters are calling him non-stop? He can't keep cutting them off and hanging up on all of them. Otherwise he can say goodbye to his ratings because some of the listeners will catch on to what he's doing.

I mean Mark Levin trashing Ron Paul like this is going to backfire along with the rest of the media. They trashed him in the past but Ron Paul now has over 300% more support than 2008. This is going to be the worst year for the MSM.

Bring it on!

[anaconda]

The sad part is that he's not a neocon. We could use his help but he's infatuated with this romanticized view of U.S. military power.

How is this petty little ignorant man Levin not a neocon? Are you saying he actually believes the neocon proaganda? And, if so, does this disqualify him? Isn't that a bit like saying a menber of the Nazi Party in 1934 was required to have great depth and scope of understanding of 3rd Reich philosophy to really qualify as a Nazi?

[anaconda]

Very concise, thanks. I'm tired of the shared sacrifice that Americans must endure in order to pay for the destruction of the infrastructure & people in the Middle East. This just reinforces why I must support Ron Paul to get some sanity back into the world. Ron Paul 2012!

And Ron needs to somehow EXPOSE these neocons in the debates, and make the People understand. Otherwise the mainstream media attacks get a free pass. Ron needs to stop being on the defensive with this an attack like a pit bull. I am pleased that some of his interviews in the last couple of days show a more irreverent, confident, concise, and proactive Ron Paul narrative style.

[Anti Federalist]

I listened to Levin's whinny voice for a few months. He doesn't understand liberty or tyranny. How does he get advertisers?

I love doing this, and it's all in fun brother.

Whiny

http://ology.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/post-image/dawson-crying-copy.jpg

Whinny

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/12/16/article-1095249-02D18057000005DC-963_468x313.jpg

[Travlyr]

I love doing this, and it's all in fun brother.

That's cool! I'll double check my spell checker from now on... lulz.... ;)

[GuerrillaXXI]

Weren't early neo-conservatives involved in the Cold War, especially in it's later years?Yes, that's correct. The history of the neocon movement stretches back decades prior to the Iraq invasion, and MacDonald's essay gets into that quite a bit. I probably should have said "the neocons' first big success was suckering the US into invading Iraq." At least that seems to be the achievement that really put them on the map, though most of them would certainly have preferred to stay under the radar. Hilariously, some arch neocons like Richard Perle deny to this day that any such thing as a "neocon" exists.

I had never even heard of most of these neocons until shortly after the 9/11 attacks. That's when I learned about outfits such as the Project for a New American Century and saw how the Bush administration (with its cabal of neocon advisers working behind the scenes) was doing everything in its power to fool the public into supporting an invasion of Iraq. I tried to warn everyone I could of what was happening -- that it was a scam, there were no WMDs, etc. -- but few listened, and I got called a "traitor" and a "tinfoil hat wearer" a lot. This was in spite of the fact that one could easily read documents like the following during the run-up to the Iraq invasion -- documents that leave little doubt where the true loyalties of their authors lie:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter-040302.htm

And then there's this gem that states outright why the US was to invade Iraq (and, if the neocons had their way, other Islamic countries):


Democratizing Islam

Paul Eidelberg

Policy Paper No. 141, 2002

“Democratizing Islam” shows that “Islamic fundamentalism” or “Islamism” is in fact authentic Islam – the Islam of Muhammad. To democratize Islam it will be necessary for the United States to conquer Iraq and other Islamic regimes and maintain an occupation force for two or three decades, as was done in post-war Japan and Germany.

A generation of Muslim children will have to be re-educated. Anti-Jewish and anti-Christian verses in the Qur`an should be neutralized by contrary verses and commentaries. The principle of Jihad must be eliminated from the four schools of Islamic law. Islamic regimes must abide by the Seven Noahide Laws of Universal Morality.

Non-Arab states should follow the example of Turkey and remove Arabic from public documents and public education and establish their native language as the only official language of the state. This will diminish pan-Arab as well as pan-Islamic sentiments.

Various Islamic concepts such as “consultation” and “consensus” should be reinterpreted to prescribe a non-secular constitutional democracy. Civil society and political institutions must be developed to counter the authoritarian tendencies of Islamic culture. A market economy conducive to the formation of a middle class will hasten this development.

Decentralization of power is essential. In Islamic countries with large ethnic minorities, it will be necessary to establish a federal system of government based on territoriality. Bicameral legislatures should be established to protect minorities.

Israel can facilitate the democratization of Islam by adopting a model constitution based on Jewish principles. To be true to its heritage, Israel should avoid diplomatic relations with any evil regime. It should call for the expulsion from the UN of any state that violates the democratic provisions of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. By its behavior, Israel’s government should set an example to mankind.http://www.acpr.org.il/publications/policy-papers/pp141-xs.html

[SimpleName]

Ron must have a HUGE rod. Why else would Levin have such brutal animosity toward Ron?

[ChrisDixon]

Levin was just bashing RP and Michael Schuerer as "isolationists" and "anti-Israel".

Hmmm, because some random ego on talk radio knows better than a 22+ year old veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency. Levin fail.

[Brian4Liberty]

Levin opened his show today with an all-out assault on Ron Paul...

[anaconda]

Ron must have a HUGE rod. Why else would Levin have such brutal animosity toward Ron?

Maybe Levin is in the closet like Lawrence O'Donnell, each repressing their lust and passion?

[anaconda]

Levin opened his show today with an all-out assault on Ron Paul...

Any specific comments you recall?

[Brian4Liberty]

Any specific comments you recall?

Didn't take notes, but it was of the "wacky", "crazy", "blames America" nature...

[anaconda]

Didn't take notes, but it was of the "wacky", "crazy", "blames America" nature...

Ron needs some super tight bumper sticker talking points very soon for the "blame America" attacks. Something like "Your damn right that 320 million patriotic Americans blame a few hundred selfish bureaucrats for messing up their country to make themselves and their buddies richer." Or something like that..

[LibertyEagle]

supporting them with foreign aid and militarily does make you a neocon.

No, it doesn't. What it means is that they have the same view on foreign policy with regards to Israel, as do the neoconservatives.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html

Look, I think people are pointing out the overuse of the label, neoconservative. If we slap it on anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with us on foreign policy, it makes the term pretty meaningless. There are a whole lot of people out there who agree with us on just about everything, besides foreign policy. These are the people we have a big chance of winning over. On the other hand, neocons are Trotskyites who really don't care about liberty in any sense of the word. They want big government is almost every facet of our lives.

[low preference guy]

Levin spent like 10 minutes bashing Ron. He is very desperate and sees Ron as a real threat.

[dude58677]

...coming from a guy who wrote a "liberty" book, haha:

http://www.tldm.org/News12/LibertyAndTyranny.jpg

Ah, yes. Ben Benarke's brother. Sure looks like him.