FreeRepublic & Rush Limbaugh Meant to Keep Conservatives & Libertarians on the Plantation

On November 19th, Rush Limbaugh caused a stir when he mentioned PrisonPlanet.com on his radio show and linked to them on his website, touting their article 'With Hurricanes At Thirty Year Low, Gore Turns To Photoshop'.

By the end of the day, though, Limbaugh or his handlers had tried to erase all signs of the endorsement, as Paul Joseph Watson pointed out in his article Rush Limbaugh Censors Mention Of Prison Planet From His Own Archives. Watson noted "Any links to the Prison Planet.com story, which were prominently featured all over Limbaugh’s website, have also been deleted and replaced with a similar story by Newsbusters, a Neo-Con news website. What caused Limbaugh to order the material removed? Our guess is that he was probably bombarded with e mails from the legions of virulently retarded Neo-Cons that make up the audience of phony right-wing websites like Free Republic, on which all Alex Jones material is aggressively banned".

In the fourth hour of his November 20th radio show, Alex Jones covered the issue, playing clips and showing screenshots indictaing Limbaugh's duplicity. Paul Joseph Watson, author of both articles, appeared on air to discuss the issue:

Watson: "He's even edited his own trancript to take out the part where he says prisonplanet.com .. So I think he probably, him or the people who run his website started getting a ton of emails yesterday afternoon from these FreeRepublic type neocons who really hate our guts; and any Alex Jones material is aggressively banned from FreeRepublic and those kind of websites. And he just probably got a lot of emails and eventually just removed it; and it's gone it's memory holed."

Jones: "But see all FreeRepublic and Rush Limbaugh and people are doing by being neocons is making themselves obsolete and not even pertinent in the debate. I mean Limbaugh and others are still saying there's no world government, when it's openly being announced. All we're doing is covering what's really happening. and we don't want to be enemies with any of these people, and we understand they're part of the fake right wing, you know, that has to keep conservatives and libertarians on the reservation, on their plantation. But we're here to bring liberty we're here to unlock minds. And we're here to expose the fact that our Republic is falling and imploding. And I want to encourage Rush Limbaugh listeners and supporters to come find the real deal here.

"I mean we're no compromise for this country and freedom and the constitution and the Bill of rights. and we're not gonna attack Ron Paul and stab him in the back. We're the real deal. And dont allow yourself to be co-opted by Rush Limbaugh..."

The Austin, Texas radio host ended the hour by calling out Limbaugh and other fake right-wingers.

Jones: "We don't need you to link to us Rush Limbaugh. You understand that? You're the old fake conservative dinosaur. We are the future.I've financed this whole thing with my listeners. I have no big corporations supporting me. I've built all this with the support. You see Rush Limbaugh making films every 6 months? You see Rush Limbaugh having the number one videos online over and over and over again? No. He had the military industrial complex go give him 600 radio stations. He's hooked up with the CIA on record.

"So go ahead Limbaugh, keep acting like youre the real patriot, and continue; Hey I think its good you're starting to go further. But we're forcing him to go further. This guy all these decades, twenty years has been denying new world order, denying global government. It was his job to keep you asleep while all this was being built. And now hes trying to take on some of our political coloration to stay relevant, okay. We're the future Limbaugh, and you know it and Glenn Beck knows it. And if you want to be the future, wake up and become a patriot. But you cant do that; you can just act like it enough to fool people because you're a creature of the new world order. thanks for the plug, Rush".

In June 2006 Limbaugh, who in recent years has had a gaggle of neocon government-apologist imitators join him on the talk show circuit, was detained at a Florida airport with an illegal Viagra prescription, after returning from a trip to the Dominican Republic.

Hannity, meanwhile, told actor Chuck Norris that Ron Paul is nuts, then a few weeks later called Ron Paul supporters extremists and said that we wouldn't have free speech if it weren't for the "military industrial complex".

Glenn Beck, who was touted by Sarah Palin as a possible running mate if she were to run in 2012, has demonized Ron Paul and his supporters for years, even comparing them to terrorists, while at the same time aiming to attract a constitutional type audience.

. In 1999, Before garnering an reputation for being a staunch Republican apologist, Free Republic owner Jim Robinson had a surprisingly critical opinion about George Bush, who was then running for president:

"So, it doesn't matter if he snorted coke as a youth? It was a long time ago, a youthful in-discretion? Kinda like people who frequented sneakeasies during prohibition? Kind of a cute story, eh? Well, how about all the people whose lives have been destroyed by being arrested for the felony of drug possession? What about the millions of people who are rotting away in your filthy drug infested prisons at this very moment?

"Well, by God, if you people insist on electing another cokehead as President, you damned well better throw open all the prison cell doors and free every man, woman, and child you're holding on drug charges. And if you're gonna elect another drug felon as President, you'd better rescind each and every one of your unconstitutional drug laws now on the books, including all of your unconstitutional search and seizure laws, and your asset forfeiture laws, and your laws that enable your unconstitutional snooping into our bank accounts and cash transactions. Well, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You people are sick! Conservatives my ass. You people are nothing but a bunch of non-thinking hypocrits! You're a shame and a disgrace to the Republic!

"And, I, for one, am tired of taking orders from cokeheads and felons! Elect another one and I'll tell you what. I'll be ready for war! It'll be time to take up arms and run the filthy lying bastards out!" In 2004, Robsinson was questioned as to whether the quote attributed to him was legitimate, and replied in the affirmative: "Guilty as charged. It was a sarcastic reply to an absurd Wall Street Journal op ed piece that was promoting the idea that it doesn't matter if US presidents are illegal drug users. Naturally, I objected."

Occasionally a topic with Infowars content will make it to FreeRepublic such as this one about Obama Joker posters, yet ironically, with over 200 replies, doesn't seem to have one mention of Alex Jones, PrisonPlanet.com, or Infowars.com.

A whole host of internet discussion forums are available as alternatives, some of which have been started by posters who were either banned or left FreeRepublic voluntarily. Other liberty forums focus on libertarian ideology, news and were centered around Congresman Ron Paul's run for the presidency. Here is a partial list: http://www.strike-the-root.com/

And of course, the classic libertarian site LewRockwell.com, which has my previous article at the top of their front page today.

Interesting enough, considering how the Ron Paulies are always claiming Reagan would not have supported the War on Terror, is another portion of that same interview with Reagan.

In discussing Viet Nam, he said, “Well, of course, we never should have sent them halfway around the world. You see, the Eisenhower policy had always been one of logistical support–help the South Vietnamese to be able to resist and take care of themselves, maintain themselves as a nation. It was John Kennedy who sent the first division in there. And he had to do it and when he did it he had to know that they were going to be followed by hundreds of thousands of men, that you couldn’t do it with just one division. I’m not privy nor is anyone else privy to the information that a President has when he makes such a decision, but, then came the mistake. Once you are going to commit yourself to a combat role and you’re going to ask young men to fight and die for your country, then you have a moral obligation as a nation to throw the full resources of the nation behind them and to win that war as quickly as possible and get it over with, and this is where we made the mistake: to pour half a million men in there, to kill 54,000 young men in a cause that Washington, that the government was unable or unwilling to win.”

Seems to me, Ron Paul falls under that category of “unable or unwilling to win.”

Whether or not he would have agreed with the initial invasion of Iraq is speculation on everybody’s part, since Reagan wasn’t faced with an attack like September 11, 2001, but the interview leaves little doubt that once committed, he would have opposed those who have been undermining the effort there.

On Ron Paul’s “Fortress America” concept, Reagan also said, “Fortress America is just what Lenin wanted us to have–whether it is world policeman or not. You know, Lenin said the Communists will take Eastern Europe, they will organize the hordes of Asia, he said they will then move into Latin America, and he said the United States, the last bastion of capitalism, will fall into their outstretched hands like overripe fruit. And that’s all that Fortress America is. Now, you don’t have to come through someone’s beachhead–you just go over them with missiles; and one of these days, under the present policies of the Congress, the United States will stand alone as Lenin envisioned it and then face the ultimatum from the enemy.”

Interesting stuff when you look at an entire interview, not just a selective quote.

How many people do you think bothered to read that thousand + word screed? If you take yourself that seriously, it’s impossible for me to take you seriously. Sorry

I understand that in a world of 30 second sound bytes and and pithy slogans educating most of our populace, a factual review of the history of neo conservatism that reads more then a one line declaration may be difficult for some to follow. Neo conservatism is simply about imperialism and statist government. I see no connection between neos and Jewish, Christian, or any religious group. I won't dissect Ron Pauls 2003 speech in the House for you but I will offer a shorter article that explains the gist of what Mr. Pauls speech says.

The following....

Neoconservatism Made Kristol Clear
by Michael Tennant

Memo to Irving Kristol: Get yourself to a secure, undisclosed location immediately if not sooner. You are in grave danger. No, you needn’t worry about receiving threats from left-wing loonies like Al Gore or his disciple, the Unabomber. You don’t even have to fear the paleoconservatives and libertarians. You should, however, keep your eyes open for members of the National Review/Wall Street Journal crowd. IMPORTANT: If you receive a package in the mail from David Frum, call the bomb squad immediately!

Why do I say Irving Kristol had better keep a close eye on his allies on the “official” right? Simply this: He recently wrote a piece for The Weekly Standard in which he spelled out exactly what neoconservatism is. What’s worse is that ol’ Irv’s description of neoconservatism proves that it is everything its critics have said it is—and worse.

Now that “the ‘godfather’ of all those neocons,” as Kristol describes himself, has spoken on the subject (and written a book entitled Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea), the NR/WSJ crowd can no longer plausibly deny the existence of such a movement, as some have tried to do. In addition, they can no longer plausibly claim that neoconservatism is merely another form of traditional conservatism. Nor can they plausibly insist that neoconservatism has anything at all to do with the American founding and tradition of limited government and avoidance of entangling alliances. Kristol has blown all these arguments out of the water.

Kristol first points out that neoconservatism had “its origin among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s,” just in case anyone had any doubts about its ancestry. At this time the grassroots of the Republican Party, and indeed much of Middle America , was still largely wedded to the ideas of small government at home and a reasonably prudent foreign policy abroad. Barry Goldwater—who Kristol says is “politely overlooked” in the neocon pantheon of “20th-century heroes,” while FDR is included—had, after all, been the Republican presidential nominee in 1964; and Ronald Reagan, who at least espoused relatively conservative ideas even if he didn’t follow through on most of them once in office, was to be elected president in 1980. In other words, neocon ideas were not the ideas of the mainstream right at the time, and their prospects weren’t even looking very bright.

So, says Kristol, “one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.” It’s easy to see the liberal—and, indeed, Straussian, as Kristol claims Leo Strauss as one of the forerunners of neoconservatism—mind at work here. We, the enlightened ones, will “convert” you, the unenlightened, from your backward, parochial ways to our progressive, global ways; and we will do so against your will, by deception if possible, by force if necessary.

The only genuinely conservative idea Kristol attributes to the neocons is an affinity for “cutting tax rates.” Even there, however, Kristol hedges. It’s not that “the particularities of tax cuts . . . interested” the neocons, and it certainly isn’t the case that they view tax cuts as a moral imperative. They are interested in tax cuts only insofar as those cuts “stimulate steady economic growth,” presumably so the natives do not become restless when their bread and circuses peter out and start clamoring for the emperor’s head. Kristol notes that the neocon “emphasis on economic growth” has led to “an attitude toward public finance that is far less risk averse than is the case among more traditional conservatives.” “Neocons,” he adds, “would prefer not to have large budget deficits, but it is in the nature of democracy [and here he may be onto something] . . . that one sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth.” In other words, to heck with the future! Open the floodgates of the treasury while at the same time reducing the revenues coming in, and don’t worry about how your children and grandchildren are going to pay the bills. What matters now is economic growth to keep the sheeple fat, dumb, and happy so that we neocons can retain and expand our power at their expense.

In case what he has written thus far has still failed to convince the reader that neoconservatism is merely a variant on liberalism, Kristol then opens up both barrels with his description of the neocon view of the state. “Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study [note that he doesn’t say implement] alternative ways of delivering these services. But they are impatient with the Hayekian notion that we are on ‘the road to serfdom.’ Neocons 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.” Why, really, should they be alarmed? The state is their god, and they derive their power from expanding its reach. As far as Kristol is concerned, the “19th-century idea” of government as the enemy of human freedom “was a historical eccentricity.” Here again one can see the Marxist mind of “former” liberals at work: The total state is inevitable, so why fight it? Accept it, enjoy it, and get as much as you can out of it. Stop fretting about lost liberty. As a result, “[n]eocons feel at home in today’s America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not.”

Now for the big subject of the day: “foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention,” as Kristol puts it. That, of course, is because neocon foreign policy is exemplified by precisely the foreign policy that the Bush administration has implemented, contrary to Bush’s paean to a “humbler” foreign policy while campaigning. It seeks to dominate the world at any cost, sending troops to far-flung countries ( Afghanistan , Iraq , Liberia ) in pursuit of, well, hegemony, in the guise of bringing liberation and democracy to the oppressed of the world. It is completely contrary to the vision of the Founding Fathers and to the American tradition, which is why it had to be imposed on us against our will as well.

Kristol claims that “there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience.” He lists three “theses” guiding neocon foreign policy and adds, parenthetically, “as a Marxist would say.” (The apple certainly doesn’t fall far from the tree. Does it, Irving ?) Those three theses—that patriotism is a good thing, that world government is a bad thing, and that statesmen should be able to distinguish friends from enemies—seem relatively harmless. To be fair, Kristol is right in saying that there are no core principles behind neocon foreign policy because these three “theses” seem to have little or nothing to do with the paragraphs that follow.

Essentially, neocon foreign policy is that might makes right. Oh, Kristol doesn’t come right out and say this, but his words add up to the same thing. For “a great power,” he writes, “the ‘national interest’ is not a geographical term.” That is, U.S. foreign policy should not be confined to safeguarding the territorial United States . Oh, no. We must be concerned with the entire world. “A larger nation has more extensive interests. And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns.” Yes, according to Irving Kristol, neocon foreign policy applies equally to the Soviet Union and the United States, both of whom have (or had, in the case of the Soviets) “ideological interests” which trump mere territorial concerns. Kristol further notes that since the U.S. “will always feel obliged to defend . . . a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces,” the neocons thus “feel it necessary to defend Israel today.” Apparently only the holding of elections, not what those elected governments’ policies are, matters to neocons, and even then they’re more than willing to give some leeway to cooperative dictators. Once again, I must give Kristol credit for being accurate in his assessment that no central principles (other than the one left unmentioned, spelled p-o-w-e-r) guide the neocons in their quest for “national greatness” (as Kristol’s equally arrogant son, William, put it). It’s clear, though, that this power-grubbing, world-dominating foreign policy is certainly not in the interest of the average American, which is why he has to be converted against his will by the neocons.

Kristol continues to celebrate the power of the U. S. , and he notes that “[w]ith power come responsibilities, whether sought or not, whether welcome or not. And it is a fact that if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you.” The neocons, of course, are not content to let the world find uses for the power they’ve worked so hard to achieve. As a matter of fact, they’re more than happy to “find opportunities to use it.” Whether those “opportunities” are in the best interest of the country or the world is irrelevant; all that matters is that the neocons are the ones finding the opportunities and wielding the power.

Finally, in case any doubt remains as to whether the Bush administration qualifies as neoconservative—and there are still some out there who believe it remains fully within the American conservative tradition—Kristol puts all doubt to rest. Bush and his administration, he says, “turn out to be quite at home in this new political environment, although it is clear they did not anticipate this role any more than their party as a whole did.” Face it, says Kristol: We’ve won, and you traditional conservatives in the Republican Party never saw it coming and still don’t know what hit you. Unfortunately, he’s right.

What’s not to like about neo-cons? Their plans sound inter-denominational to me. There is no linkage between the neo-cons and the Jews and any attempt to say otherwise is said to whitewash a despicable political agenda called neoconservatism.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.