For me, being patriotic means standing up for your
Posted By: COUNTRY, which worried O will not protect.nm on 2009-01-20
In Reply to: You are so off base. BE PATRIOTIC, s tand behind the NEW PRESIDENT OF THE USA !!!! - Mrs. M
nm
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
How patriotic of them -nm
.
Be Patriotic
So I hope everybody out there is buying bonds and drinking their Pepsi, because it really makes a difference. Oh, and GM is in trouble too, so don't forget to buy a car too. Our rich people are depending on us or they are going to fire our neighbor, and we will end up feeding him anyway.
Not saying he not patriotic. I just thought it was,,,sm
an interesting fact after all of the hullabaloo over the last few weeks. I happen to be one who does not think wearing a pin is a sign of patriotism.
I am patriotic. I look at both sides.
It's certain people that refuse to look at the PRESENT ISSUES, not the PAST. I am all for O doing the right things, but right now, it looks like business as usual with the exception of his cabinet picks and this stimulus package.
Sticking to the issues is one thing. Calling some unpatriotic just because they don't agree with you is another.
saw that on the news today. How patriotic of them,
nm
I don't wear a flag pin, and I'm patriotic.
.
Yes I have. I repeat, he is a patriotic American first..sm
I also think that McCain is a patriotic American and have no desire to stomp on him and drag him through the mud just because he is not what I want for president.
He said it was patriotic for the rich to pay more taxes -
I can hardly disagree with him. The rich of the United States are not sending their children to war to die, they don't get dirty when the country needs it, what is wrong with asking them to contribute something more?
You are so off base. BE PATRIOTIC, s tand behind the NEW PRESIDENT OF THE USA !!!!
nm
compassion is standing up
for the wronged and the weak. Your constant assaults on the truth deserve no compassion. We are standing up for the truth which will lead us out of the current darkness that has descended upon our country. As soon as the scoundrels are ejected, hopefully the veil will be lifted. Until then, we will yank out the roots of deception before it can take root and grow and spread.
STANDING OVATION!!!!
.
Thank you Kaydie for standing with me.
These obots need a wake up call!
Standing ovation!!!
Take a bow - best post I've read in a while!
Time for all to be patriotic and fair and back the new president nm
nm
Nobody cares who you voted for, you bash Obama now and that is not patriotic
nm
Still standing by the original statement.
Google "population trends" using the quotes to get exact phrase matches and voila…2,240,000 hits emerge. Scroll on down through the first couple of pages and notice that the links do not take you to blogs and chat room forums. This is the language of academic research scholarship, government institutions, statistical databases, etc. Maybe they too need to be scolded and sent to the dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invasion
1. An act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army
2. The entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3. Entrance as if to take possession or overrun.
4. Infringement by intrusion
Invasion is what we did in Iraq and what Russia did in Georgia. Legal and illegal immigrants alike are not enemies. They do not arrive in armies, nor are they a disease. They do not come here with the express intent to cause trouble, inflict harm, possess, take over, infringe or intrude. These are living, breathing, impoverished human beings who come here looking for work in an attempt to feed themselves and their families.
The underlying causes, conditions and political circumstances have been examined and debated on this forum in excruciating detail and will not be repeated here because that was not the intent of the original post. An opinion was expressed and countered. Some choose to embrace diversity, others choose to fear, still others become outraged and even hateful. The population trend is what it is. The US is a developed country with low birth rates per capita with an aging boomer population. Mexico is a developing country with a much broader youth base with many fertile years in front of them and a much higher per capita birth rate. It is a difference in cultures.
It is quite natural in this circumstance (which also exists in other western developed counties) that the population growth in developing countries like Mexico outpaces that that in the developed countries and, yes, white folks will be outnumbered. It is a simple fact of life and one that we probably should be addressing realistically.
The issue is global, not national. The equalizing affect could be manifested in another "natural" progression…the evolution away from racial division and hatred. I only regret that I will probably not live long enough to see it.
My reasons for not standing behind Obama.......... sm
In no particular order of importance.
1. Lack of qualification, even by his own admission as recently as 2004 when he accepted his Senate seat and stated that he felt he would not be qualified for POTUS.
2. Past associations.
3. Current associations and financial backers.
4. His stance on abortion.
5. His stance on gay marriage.
6. His lack of knowledge of foreign policy. He thinks he can just "sit down and negotiate" with the biggest terrorist nations on earth.
7. Lack of proof of citizenship.
8. Questionable background in terms of religion, which lies deeper than just whether he is Protestant or Catholic or nondenomianational.
9. Issues with many of his campaign "promises" not limited to the Civil Defense Service.
None of my issues with Obama center on anything other than the above. Simply put, I don't trust him.
Cowards never understand standing up for anything....
@
Not standing up to the liberal Democratic party
That's for starters. Here's my short list:
1) Not a strong enough military operation in Iraq and Afhghanistan.
2) Too soft on immigration.
3) Witholding the known valid/verified intelligence that proves there were WMDs in Iraq. (I'll never for my life figure that out).
4) Not hiring Tony Snow sooner to show what absolute idiots are in the White House press corps.
5) Letting the U.N. change his stance on the Lebanon/Israel conflict.
I could go on, but I'm at work and I already know you will absolutely not agree with my perceived Bush mistakes, so I won't waste anymore of my time or breath.
And re not standing up to the liberal Democratic party:
Stand up to whom and why? The Congress is run by Republicans. Bush does whatever he wants, when he wants, regardless of what Congress or the courts deem to be legal or constitutional.
He has already stood up to them by spreading propaganda that anyone who doesn't agree with him is either on the terrorist's side or a fascist. If he gets really mad, he swiftboats them.
This is the reason people want him to get warrants before spying on Americans. A President with such a history of personal revenge can't be trusted to just go after the terrorists. He can't be trusted not to spy on innocent Americans who don't agree with his policies. He can't be trusted to have a good reason to spy. He just can't be trusted, period.
Perfect definition! I'm standing up & cheering...
In applause. Excellent.
I hope you are right, that someone is standing up for the middle class (sm)
But I think what is more likely to happen is that we will ALL be taxed more and we will ALL have less money and it will be spread throughout the world. What you see as wealth and middle class will no longer be the same. Wealth will be being able to afford to feed your family. The jobs will go overseas alright, even more so than they are now. I wish I believed that you are right. That would be great! Unfortunately, I think it is a dream, far from the reality of the nightmare that is coming.
Eligibility case finds standing...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84966
I'm standing outside with my basket. Will it fall soon, I hope? sm
...and please, if you wish to be understood by the widest viewership, confine yourself to smaller words. I believe "irony" has three of them syllerbubble thingies, which is two over the limit.
Bush lied and our brave patriotic soldiers died..PERIOD
Of course Bush lied about WMD and the threat of Iraq..He needed a reason to invade Iraq..If you would do some research you would find many papers that document meetings between Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle and others who devised a way to take over the Middle East in the 1990's..all they needed was a way to present it to the American people, as we would not allow our children to die for no reason. With 9/11, they got the reason and tried to tie up 9/11 with Iraq..I, frankly, think they also had a hand in 9/11..For any who poo poo this..I ask you to do some surfing on the Northwoods Operation..same kind of thing, only in the 1960's..Let a few CIA Hispanic/Cuban operatives invade a few curise ships on Floridas coast, kill a few Americans and we would definitely agree to invading Cuba and killing Casto..Our govt did not agree to it, however, 9/11 seems to me like an updated plan..there are many who also wonder was this an inside job..
Be patriotic. Stand behind your president, not on your prejudices and fears and right wing propagan
nm
Russo's film gets standing ovation in Cannes.sm
Cannes Premiere Gets Standing Ovation
Aaron Russo’s AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM
To Open Across America July 28
CANNES, FRANCE – Aaron Russo’s incendiary political documentary which exposes many of the governmental organizations and entities that have abridged the freedoms of U.S. citizens had its international premiere at Cannes and won a standing ovation. The event, which was held on the beach and filled to capacity, was open to the public and drew a crowd of people who stood along the boardwalk to watch the film.
Through interviews with U.S. Congressmen, as well the former IRS Commissioner, former IRS and FBI agents, tax attorneys and authors, Russo proves conclusively that there is no law requiring citizens to pay a direct tax on their labor. His film connects the dots between money creation, federal income tax, voter fraud, the national identity card (which becomes law in May 2008) and the implementation of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology to track citizens. Neither left nor right-wing in perspective, the film concludes that the U.S. government is taking on the characteristics of a police state. Doc will open on multiple screens in cities across the U.S. beginning July 28.
The international audience at Cannes as well as the European media has been fascinated by Russo’s fiery diatribe against the direction America is heading. The discussion that followed the preview lasted for thirty minutes. Actor Nick Nolte, in Cannes for the premiere of “Over The Hedge,” joined Russo during the event. “The information in this film is something everybody has to know”, said Nolte, who was the lead actor in “Teachers,” a film produced by Russo.
Russo, who is best known as the producer of feature films including “The Rose” with Bette Midler and “Trading Places” with Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd, wrote, produced, and directed the doc. “I am disgusted by the direction America was heading,” says Russo. “I made this movie because I want to live in a free country and I want my kids and grandkids to live in a free country. The American people must abandon the myth that America is still the land of liberty that it once was.”
Russo’s doc already has a tremendous grass root groundswell behind it. The film has previewed in over twenty-five cities with sold out theatres and standing ovations. The website, www.freedomtofascism.com has been had over five hundred thousand (500,000) streams of the video trailer. Additionally, through the website and from grassroots screenings, over $100,000 in non-deductible donations has been collected to help with the theatrical release.
EDITORS AND PRODUCERS:
For Press Inquiries contact press@cinemalibrestudio.com
****************************************************************
Primary Objectives
* Stop the polarization of America
* Stop the domination of the Democratic and Republican parties over our political system
* Shut down the Federal Reserve system
* Return America's gold to Fort Knox and have it audited
* Have Congress and the IRS, in a public forum, reveal the law that requires Americans to pay a direct, unapportioned tax on their labor.
* Make computerized voting illegal in all 50 states
* Keep the internet free and out of the control of large institutions
* Rescind the law called the Real ID Act so Americans never have to carry a National ID Card
* Make it illegal to implant RFID chips in human beings
* Educate juries to the fact that they have the right to determine the law as well as the facts of a case
* Educate juries to the fact that they are not obligated to follow the instructions of a judge
* Stop Globalization because it is the path to a one world government
* Protect our borders
* Restore the environment
* Put an end to the Patriot Act
* Sign up millions of Americans so we can accomplish our objectives
There is a difference between courts agreeing and denying based on standing...
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules....sm
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules
by Connie Hair
01/05/2009
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.
Pelosi’s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”
In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi to object to changes to House Rules this week that would bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress. These procedural abuses, as outlined in the below letter obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, would also include the repeal of six-year limit for committee chairmen and other House Rules reform measures enacted in 1995 as part of the Contract with America.
After decades of Democrat control of the House of Representatives, gross abuses to the legislative process and several high-profile scandals contributed to an overwhelming Republican House Congressional landslide victory in 1994. Reforms to the House Rules as part of the Contract with America were designed to open up to public scrutiny what had become under this decades-long Democrat majority a dangerously secretive House legislative process. The Republican reform of the way the House did business included opening committee meetings to the public and media, making Congress actually subject to federal law, term limits for committee chairmen ending decades-long committee fiefdoms, truth in budgeting, elimination of the committee proxy vote, authorization of a House audit, specific requirements for blanket rules waivers, and guarantees to the then-Democrat minority party to offer amendments to pieces of legislation.
Pelosi’s proposed repeal of decades-long House accountability reforms exposes a tyrannical Democrat leadership poised to assemble legislation in secret, then goose-step it through Congress by the elimination of debate and amendment procedures as part of America’s governing legislative process.
Below is the text of the letter on which the House Republican leadership has signed off.
January 5, 2009
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Madame Speaker,
We hope you and your family had a joyful holiday season, and as we begin a new year and a new Congress, we look forward to working with you, our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and President-elect Obama in tackling the many challenges facing our nation.
President Obama has pledged to lead a government that is open and transparent. With that in mind, we are deeply troubled by media reports indicating that the Democratic leadership is poised to repeal reforms put in place in 1995 that were intended to help restore Americans’ trust and confidence in the People’s House. Specifically, these reports note that the Majority, as part of its rules package governing the new Congress, will end six-year term limits for Committee chairs and further restrict the opportunity for all members to offer alternative legislation. This does not represent change; it is reverting back to the undemocratic one-party rule and backroom deals that the American people rejected more than a decade ago. And it has grave implications for the American people and their freedom, coming at a time when an unprecedented expansion of federal power and spending is being hastily planned by a single party behind closed doors. Republicans will vigorously oppose repealing these reforms if they are brought to a vote on the House floor.
As you know, after Republicans gained the majority in the House in 1995, our chamber adopted rules to limit the terms of all committee chairs to three terms in order to reward new ideas, innovation, and merit rather than the strict longevity that determined chairmanships in the past. This reform was intended to help restore the faith and trust of the American people in their government – a theme central to President-elect Obama’s campaign last year. He promoted a message of “change,” but Madame Speaker, abolishing term limit reform is the opposite of “change.” Instead, it will entrench a handful of Members of the House in positions of permanent power, with little regard for its impact on the American people.
The American people also stand to pay a price if the Majority further shuts down free and open debate on the House floor by refusing to allow all members the opportunity to offer substantive alternatives to important legislation -- the same opportunities that Republicans guaranteed to Democrats as motions to recommit during their 12 years in the Minority. The Majority’s record in the last Congress was the worst in history when it came to having a free and open debate on the issues.
This proposed change also would prevent Members from exposing and offering proposals to eliminate tax increases hidden by the Democratic Majority in larger pieces of legislation. This is not the kind of openness and transparency that President-elect Obama promised. This change would deprive tens of millions of Americans the opportunity to have a voice in the most important policy decisions facing our country.
Madame Speaker, we urge you to reconsider the decision to repeal these reforms, which could come up for a vote as early as tomorrow. Just as a new year brings fresh feelings of optimism and renewal for the American people, so too should a new Congress. Changing the House rules in the manner highlighted by recent media reports would have the opposite effect: further breaching the trust between our nation’s elected representatives and the men and women who send them to Washington to serve their interests and protect their freedom.
Sincerely,
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), Republican Leader
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Republican Whip
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Conference Chairman
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.), Policy Committee Chairman
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wyo.), Conference Vice-Chair
Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), Conference Secretary
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), NRCC Chairman
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Chief Deputy Whip
Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), Rules Committee Ranking Republican
(Click here for a pdf copy of the letter with signatures.)
I think you know what she means...nm
Oh, by all means, it is I who thank you.
''
This means nothing to me
I have seen this and it has been debated as naseum.
As far as winning in Iraq, I am not sure what we are supposed to win.
And please, don't EVER call me your DEAR again. Keep your patronizing on our own board.
Thank you.
It means nothing to you. sm
Yes, by all means, save your anger for being called dear when there it is posted in black and white what the antiwar movement did to our soldiers in Vietnam. Lord love a duck, but I have seen it all now.
Oh, I know what it means....
It is just an uneducated, goofy thing to say...that's all. And you should apologize to all those "grandmas" on this site who you just offended. You are so negative! 
Thanks - that means a lot
Was wondering if anyone would comment. I always question what the government feeds us, but I truly never have in my entire life ever heard our enemies say they hate us because we are free. I always think - how absurd. They just want us to leave them along and stop imposing our viewpoints on them. Thanks again.
I did not know what this means
I'm not sure if you're implying this is a good thing or not and because I didn't know what it means I looked it up. I'll write what I found out and then you can tell me if you think its a good thing or not.
Black theology refers to a variety of Christian theologies which has at its base in the liberation of the marginalized, especially the injustice done towards blacks in American and South African contexts. Black theology mixes liberation theology and the work of Paulo Freire with the civil rights and black power movements.
I had to keep researching certain terms in this because it was still confusing, so I looked up liberation theology and it states that liberation theology is a school of theology within Christianity, particularly in the Roman Catholic Church. Two of the starting points of Liberation theology are first, the question of the original sin, and second, the idea that Christians should make good use of the talents given by God, and that includes intelligence in a general sense, and in particular science.
I then looked up who Paulo Freire is and it says he was a brazilian educator and influential theorist of education. He became familiar with poverty and hunger during the 1929 depression and these experiences shaped his concerns for the poor and would help to construct his particular educational viewpoint.
There's way to much information on both these topics to write here, but to me it sounds like another positive for the Obama's Trinity Unity Church.
Sure you can. :) Means I am doing something right. lol. nm
nm
It means something to me. Obviously not to you....
stop reading my posts if they aggravate you so much. It is a free country. No one is forcing your little mouse to click but you.
Well, that certainly means you are NOT
me his character. Show me one close friend in his past without a shady background, one he does not have to defend. Everyone who has touched his life and made any sort of impression on him has warped his character. Yet, no one who is enamored with him seems to care. They do not care that he stands for nothing, they cannot tell you what his plans for this country are or how he is going to accomplish them. And, they certainly do not want to listen to anything from his past.
Ah, that means you definitely know one or more
xx
maybe she means
congress???
no it means
that I don't wish to spend the time to indulge you
By all means...............sm
let me get that door for you.
It means......
Why didn't you run for election, YOU MIGHT HAVE BECOME THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BECAUSE YOU SEEM TO BE ABLE TO EVEN TELL THE 44TH PRESIDENT-ELECT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BARACK OBAMA, WHAT TO DO.
I guess that when it comes to foreign policy you are in the la-la-land.
It means I won't lie....
But because "several in your town" exist, presumably, that doesn't make you an expert except for maybe in your own grandiose dreams.
Oh, by all means...
Let's jump on this bandwagon instead of discussing the train wreck that IS in the White House.
And, to be honest, this post does NOT deserve to be on the political board. It has nothing to do with politics, just the sore winner Dems continuing to skewer the loser. Palin LOST, people. Let it go.
What she means to say....(sm)
is that I am one of a handful of liberals left on this board. Most everyone else is a republican, so therefore anything I say on here is typically not understood, taken out of context, or simply replied to in terms of character assassination, like the post that I'm responding to now. Just look down the board and you'll see what I'm talking about.
russell means
Russell Means Visits Camp Casey II
Means Says He Understands Power Of Women
By Gene Ellis
ICONOCLAST REPORTER
CAMP CASEY II — Russell Means’ appearance on the stage at Camp Casey II in Crawford yesterday was a surprise to many. For background on this famous Indian (who eschews the government term “Native American”), see brief additional biographical information at the end of this story.
Means, a long-time activist, arrived in Central Texas to support the efforts of Cindy Sheehan and her Iraq war protestors. He well understands the power of women. He spoke, both on stage and in a later interview with the Iconoclast, of the matriarchal society of the American Indian.
Motherhood in America has an inkling of the meaning of this, Means mused, but the Indians live it.
He explained that in a family, the mother is the only member who cannot be replaced. Women live longer than men, can stand more pain, have more endurance, he said. At about this point, Means introduced his wife, Pearl, and received a hug from Joan Baez, who was sitting on the floor of the stage with Cindy Sheehan, listening to Means’ remarks.
Means said that America has a patriarchal society where men rule alone and in fear of the unknown because they are alone. Matriarchy, he pointed out, is not fear-based. In a matriarchal society, each sex is celebrated for its strengths, and there is local control, male/female balance.
During the later interview with the Iconoclast, Means made a point of saying that he is sincere about women taking control of their power, providing a balanced and positive culture. The Blue and Gold Star mothers have an innate understanding of matriarchy, according to Means, even though, as members of a patriarchal society, they have been brainwashed for many years.
In a matriarchal society, all must be responsible.
“If the government of this country imposes so many rules, we feel no responsibility for ourselves, and we become careless,” said Means. To illustrate his point, he used the example of the lack of traffic rules in Italy. Because there are no rules, each person must take it upon his or herself to be responsible, not to be careless, to ensure his or her own safety.
When asked to speak about military recruiters targeting low-income youths, including Indians, Means said that it follows the history of a patriarchal society that the poor kids are to be the common fodder. Even after the Civil War, when Americans wouldn’t join the military, European immigrants were pulled off boats and forced to do two years of subscripted service to obtain citizenship. The poor are always a target for military induction, Means concluded.
Means reiterated that if men rule alone in their citadels of power, they are fearful.
A libertarian, Means paraphrased George Washington, “Government is force, nothing more, nothing less.”
Means added to this his own thoughts, “This government is evil. How can patriots support a president over the Constitution? That is treason. The purpose of the first amendment is to encourage dissent. Without dissent, it is impossible to live free.”
His comments were reminiscent of Margaret Mead’s quote that has graced the back of many a tee shirt in Crawford over the last two weeks. It reads, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
The Los Angeles Times has described Russell Means as the most famous American Indian since Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse.
Means is a life-long indigenous rights/constitutional rights activist, actor, artist, and author. His best selling autobiography “Where White Men Fear to Tread” is currently on its eighth printing. He has a doctorate in Indian Studies, and is also a practicing attorney on the Sioux Indian Reservation in South Dakota.
For more than 30 years, Means has remained active with the American Indian Movement and has traveled and lectured extensively throughout the world while working for over 12 years with the United Nations.
Means became the first national director of The American Indian Movement (AIM). He is known for helping lead his people to stand against the United States government at the Siege of Wounded Knee in 1973.
His vision is for indigenous people to be free — free to be human, free to travel, free to shop, free to trade where they choose, free to choose their own teachers — free to follow the religion of their fathers, free to talk, think and act for themselves, and then, says Means, they will obey every law or submit to the penalty.
About The Siege at Wounded Knee, he wrote, “Our aim at Wounded Knee was to force the U.S. government to live up to its own laws. From that, one can draw the real lesson of our stand there: It is the duty of every responsible American to ensure that their government upholds the spirit and the laws of the United States Constitution. After all, what freedom really means is that you are free to be responsible.”
|
RUSSELL MEANS (right) gets a hug from singer Joan Baez at Camp Casey II on Saturday.
— Iconoclast Photo By Gene Ellis
|
Home
Copyright © 2005 The Lone Star Iconoclast |
Please enlighten me as to what it means.
Considering we will never leave Iraq if Bush plans on placing a permanent military base there.
Actually no, that isn't what Neocon means at all. sm
And I wasn't the one who wrote the things you are responding to, but here is a really good definition of Neocon and perhaps you can see why AG and I and others have stridently objected to being labeled Neocon in the past. Though I have some Neocon friends and I admire most of their beliefs, I am no Neocon. Neither, for that matter, is President Bush, who has been labeled a neocon ad nauseum on these boards.
From Chris Jones:
It would appear that you are unfamiliar with the history of the neo-conservative movement, a history which explains why some folks associate it with Jews and why the use of “neo-con” as a pejorative seems to some to smell of anti-Semitism.
The original “neo-conservatives” were a group of left-of-center intellectuals who became disillusioned with their liberal politics and became conservatives — mostly, but not exclusively, on foreign policy and national security issues. Many, but not all, of these intellectuals were Jewish, and the “center of gravity” of the nascent neo-conservative movement was Commentary magazine and its editors and writers. Prominent among the early neo-conservatives were Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz (who are Jewish) and Jeanne Kirkpatrick (who is (I think) a Gentile). Commentary magazine played the role in the neo-conservative movement that was played by National Review in the broader conservative intellectual movement of the 1960s and 1970s.
The contemporary conservative journalists Bill Kristol and John Podhoretz are the sons of the early neo-conservatives Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz.
The defining characteristic of neo-conservatism, properly so called, is a belief in a robustly activist foreign policy by people who were formerly left-of-center. The movement is associated with Jewish-ness because many of its early leading lights happened to be Jews; but Jewish-ness is accidental to the movement, not characteristic of it. To use “neo-con” as a sort of vaguely anti-Semitic slur is not only dishonorable, but a misuse of language. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen, though.
Regardless, this means we kill them all?
It is their right to live the way they chose. We can't go attacking every one who is a possible threat on more levels than I'm going to go into here. I would rather see our leaders spend the time and money on securing things here rather than wage war there. We are just formulating more hatred. We CAN change whether we are the ones in the war by not going to war, and I shall not blindly trust our leaders to do the right thing because it has been proven time and again that they rarely do.
|
