Montag, 20. Dezember 2010

Neocon Antipathy Towards Paleo-conservatives and Libertarians

I am struck by the rift between conservatives of different persuasions concerning the War on Terror. Paleoconservatives such as this writer are labeled "lunatic," "liberal," and as an "extreme Ron Paul type" by merely questioning what constitutes winning the War on Terror. On a so-called conservative social network site I rhetorically asked, "Does winning the war mean that the CIA can profit from increased opium production in Afghanistan to fund its covert operations?" Does winning the war mean that profits can be made from oil pumped from Iraq to Israel, where it is shipped to China for refinement and distribution? After being sarcastically asked "to take my meds" I was told that my credible sources "were irrelevant to the discussion" and I was given "a free ride to participate." I was amazed at the mean-spirited attitude of the so-called "board member" and the site's founder that I was convinced that the majority of the participants were neoconservatives, given their warmongering and lack of regard to George Washington's non-interventionist foreign policy. I stated that for the war to be constitutional it must be declared, but to these neoconservatives they did not care about such requirements. I wrote to the "board member" and told him that I did not think that the war was in the best interests of Americans, and that we should follow an American-First foreign policy in keeping with George Washington's non-interventionist stand. Before I knew it I was suspended from the site, which I saw as a badge of honor. Respect for the United States Constitution is sorely needed in rational political discourse- and it needs to be defended against neoconservatives who do not care about the "Supreme Law of the Land". Their "Supreme Law of the Land" is their political self-interests- and it is based on their skewed view of the world that war against Iran is the answer. The "War on Terror" is an unconstitutional war because it was never declared- period. People tell me that Congress "authorized" the war. Authorized? Where does it say "authorize" in the constitution with respect to the war powers of Congress? I love America- and I do not want to see her die a painful economic death of perpetual wars abroad and loss of businesses and jobs at home. Yes, we are at war even though it is based on de facto legality. And even though I do not agree with the war I support it because I love America enough to defend her. I gave my oath to defend her because I am an American Soldier. So when I am accused by some armchair neocon warrior of not caring about the security of my country I think about the treason these neocons harbor in their hearts against our country when they push America to fight a reckless global war against Iran, which would include Russia and China to our detriment and potential destruction. I think it is time for lovers of freedom in America to fight the neocons politically, including some Tea Party winners that will push us into another war for the benefit of the banks, the multinationals, and, yes, Israel.