Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods discuss Rothbard and the Koch Brothers
People & Power – The Koch Brothers
I am a classical liberal or libertarian.
I greatly admire the works of Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, The Von Mises Institute, Cato Institute, Reason and the Koch brothers.
Competition is what it is all about. This is a mistake the Kock borthers made in not encouraging instead of discouraging the formation of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and trying to marginalize Murray Rothbard. What is needed is many Cato Institutes and Ludwig von Mises Institutes spreading the word on the benefits of free market capitalism and limited government.
The Republican Party establishment, sad to say, is controlled by progressive neoconservatives, which is why many classical liberals or libertarians have left the Republican Party and are now independents.
Nixon, Ford, Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, and Romney are all big government progressive Republicans. They may talk conservative, but walk as big government spenders. Limited government and fiscal responsibility are the last thing these big government progressive neoconservatives want. The Republican Party has became the party of war and the Democratic Party has become the party of welfare. The result is the warfare and welfare economy and state.
It is only a matter of time before a new political party will emerge that will reflect the views of libertarian conservatives, traditional conservatives, social/religious conservatives and national defense conservatives.
Both the Democratic and Republican party leaderships are so permeated with progressives or liberals that they are both lost causes.
Background Articles and Videos
“…The Koch family ( /ˈkoʊk/ KOHK) of industrialists and businessmen is most notable for their control of Koch Industries, the second largest privately owned company in the United States. The family business was started by Fred C. Koch, who developed a new cracking method for the refinement of heavy oil into gasoline. Fred’s four sons became involved in litigation against each other in the 1980s and 1990s. According to the Koch Family Foundations and Philanthropy website, “the foundations and the individual giving of Koch family members” have financially supported organizations “fostering entrepreneurship, education, human services, at-risk youth, arts and culture, and medical research.” 
David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch—the two brothers still with Koch Industries—are affiliated with the Koch family foundations. Annual revenues for Koch Industries have been “estimated to be a hundred billion dollars.” 
Main article: Political activities of the Koch family
David and Charles have funded conservative and libertarian policy and advocacy groups in the United States. Since the 1980s the Koch foundations have given more than $100 million to such organizations, among these think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, as well as more recently Americans for Prosperity. Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks are Koch-linked organizations that have been linked to the Tea Party movement.
Fred C. Koch (1900–1967), American chemical engineer and entrepreneur who founded the oil refinery firm that later became Koch Industries
Mary Robinson Koch (October 17, 1907 – December 21, 1990), wife of Fred C. and namesake of the company tanker vessel Mary R. Koch
Four sons of Fred C. and Mary Robinson Koch:
Frederick R. Koch (born 1933), collector and philanthropist
Charles G. Koch (born 1935), Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Koch Industries
David H. Koch (born 1940), Executive Vice President of Koch Industries
William Koch (born 1940), businessman, sailor, and collector
David Koch Theatre
Charles Koch Arena
David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research
The Science of Success, a book by Charles Koch in which he attributes the success of the family business to Market-Based Management
^ Koch, Charles C. (2007). The Science of Success: How Market-Based Management Built the World’s Largest Private Company. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-470-13988-2.
^ “Koch Industries, Inc.”. Company Profile Report. Hoover’s, Inc.. 2010. http://www.hoovers.com/company/Koch_Industries_Inc/cftjki-1.html. Retrieved 10 May 2010. “[W]hen he tried to market his invention, the major oil companies sued him for patent infringement. Koch eventually won the lawsuits (after 15 years in court), but the controversy made it tough to attract many US customers.”
^ “Epic struggle among Koch brothers ends”. Houston Chronicle: p. 2. 26 May 2001.
“…Koch Industries, Inc. (/ˈkoʊk/), is an American multinational conglomerate corporation based in Wichita, Kansas, United States, with subsidiaries involved in manufacturing, trading and investments. Koch also owns Invista, Georgia-Pacific, Flint Hills Resources, Koch Pipeline, Koch Fertilizer, Koch Minerals and Matador Cattle Company. Koch companies are involved in core industries such as the manufacturing, refining and distribution of petroleum, chemicals, energy, fiber, intermediates and polymers, minerals, fertilizers, pulp and paper, chemical technology equipment, ranching, finance, commodities trading, as well as other ventures and investments. The firm employs 50,000 people in the United States and another 20,000 in 59 other countries.
In 2011, Forbes called it the second largest privately held company in the United States (after Cargill) with an annual revenue of about $98 billion, down from the largest in 2006. If Koch Industries were a public company in 2007, it would rank about 16 in the Fortune 500.
Fred C. Koch, for whom Koch Industries, Inc. is named, co-founded the company in 1940 and developed an innovative crude oil refining process. His sons, Charles G. Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer, and David H. Koch, executive vice president, are principal owners of the company after they bought out their brothers, Frederick and William, for $1.1 billion in 1983. Charles and David H. Koch each own 42% of Koch Industries, and Charles has stated that the company will publicly offer shares “literally over my dead body”.
In 1925, Fred C. Koch joined MIT classmate Lewis E. Winkler at an engineering firm in Wichita, Kansas, which was renamed the Winkler-Koch Engineering Company. In 1927 they developed a more efficient thermal cracking process for turning crude oil into gasoline. This process threatened the competitive advantage of established oil companies, which sued for patent infringement. Temporarily forced out of business in the United States, they turned to other markets, including the Soviet Union, where Winkler-Koch built 15 cracking units between 1929 and 1932. During this time, Koch came to despise communism and Joseph Stalin’s regime. In his 1960 book, A Business Man Looks at Communism, Koch wrote that he found the USSR to be “a land of hunger, misery, and terror.” According to Charles G. Koch, “Virtually every engineer he worked with [there] was purged.”
In 1940, Koch joined new partners to create a new firm, the Wood River Oil and Refining Company, which is today known as Koch Industries. In 1946 the firm acquired the Rock Island refinery and crude oil gathering system near Duncan, Oklahoma. Wood River was later renamed the Rock Island Oil & Refining Company. Charles G. Koch joined Rock Island in 1961, having started his career at the management consulting firm Arthur D. Little. He became president in 1966 and chairman at age 32, upon his father’s death the following year.
The company was renamed Koch Industries in honor of Fred Koch, the year after his death. At that time, it was primarily an engineering firm with part interest in a Minnesota refinery, a crude oil-gathering system in Oklahoma, and some cattle ranches. In 1968, Charles approached Union Oil of California about buying their interest in Great Northern Oil Company and its Pine Bend Refinery but the discussions quickly stalled after Union asked for a large premium. In 1969, Union Oil began trying to market their interest in Great Northern by telling potential buyers that Koch’s controlling interest could be thwarted by currying favor with another owner, J. Howard Marshall II. When Marshall discovered this he threw his lot in with Koch, they together acquired a majority interest in the company and ultimately bought Union’s interest. Ownership of Pine Bend refinery led to several new businesses and capabilities, including chemicals, fibers, polymers, asphalt and other commodities such as petroleum coke and sulfur. These were followed by global commodity trading, gas liquids processing, real estate, pulp and paper, risk management and finance.
In 1970, Charles was joined at the family firm by his brother David H. Koch. Having started as a technical services manager, David became president of Koch Engineering in 1979.
Among Koch Industries’ subsidiaries across various industries are:
Georgia-Pacific is a paper and pulp company that produces “Brawny” paper towels, “Angel Soft” toilet paper, “Mardi Gras” napkins and towels, “Quilted Northern” toilet paper and paper towels, “Dixie” paper plates, bowls, napkins and cups, “Sparkle” paper towels, and “Vanity Fair” paper napkins, bowls, plates and tablecloths. The Atlanta-based company has operations in 27 states.
INVISTA is a polymer and fibers company that makes “Stainmaster” carpet, and “Lycra” fiber, among other products.
Koch Pipeline Company LP
Koch Pipeline Company LP, which owns and operates 4,000 miles (6,400 km) of pipeline used to transport oil, natural gas liquids and chemicals. Its pipelines are located across Wisconsin, Minnesota, Texas, Missouri, Iowa, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Alberta, Canada. The firm operates offices in Wichita, Kansas, St. Paul, Minnesota and Corpus Christi, Texas.
In 1946 Wood River Oil Co. (a precursor company to Koch Industries) purchased Rock Island Oil and Refining Co. As a part of the transaction, it acquired a crude-oil pipeline in Oklahoma. As a result of construction and investments, Wood River acquired other pipelines in the U.S. and Canada. “In the ensuing years,” according to Koch Pipeline’s website, “the company bought, sold and built pipeline systems transporting crude oil and refined products, as well as natural gas, natural gas liquids and anhydrous ammonia (for fertilizer).” Koch Pipeline and its affiliates currently maintain a 4,000-mile network of pipelines.
In January 2000, Koch Pipeline agreed to a $35 million settlement with the U.S. Justice Department and the State of Texas. This settlement, including a $30 million civil fine, represented compensation for three hundred oil spills in Texas and five other states dating back to 1990.
Koch’s Sterling butane pipeline had a leak in Lively, Texas, on August 24, 1996. Two teenagers were killed when the gas exploded and burned. The National Transportation Safety Board concluded that severe external pipeline corrosion was the cause of the failure, and recommended to Koch to improve corrosion evaluation procedures. Although Koch distributed pamphlets about safety around the pipelines, they failed to maintain an up-to-date mailing list. Only 5 out of 45 residences in the area of the accident had received pamphlets. The families of the dead had not.
In 1999, a Texas jury found that negligence had led to the rupture of the Koch pipeline and awarded the victims’ families $296 million — “the largest compensatory damages judgment in a wrongful death case against a corporation in U.S. history”.
In a statement released in 2010, Koch Industries offered this comment:
The August, 1996 pipeline accident in Texas was a tragedy. Koch accepted responsibility immediately for the incident, which is the only event of its kind in the company’s history. The thorough review conducted of this pipeline the year before the accident did not uncover any issues that posed a foreseeable threat to public safety. The bacteria-induced corrosion that caused the accident acted more quickly to damage this pipeline than had ever been documented by any industry expert. Koch’s cooperative efforts to identify the source and cause of this problem so that this knowledge could be shared throughout industry were praised by the National Transportation Safety Board, which did a two-year investigation into this incident.
Flint Hill Resources LP
Flint Hill Resources LP, originally called Koch Petroleum Group, is a major refining and chemicals company based in Wichita, Kansas. It sells products such as gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, ethanol, polymers, intermediate chemicals, base oils and asphalt. It operates oil refineries in six states. Flint Hill has chemical plants in Illinois, Texas and Michigan. The firm is also a major manufacturer of asphalt used for paving and roofing applications. It operates 13 asphalt terminals located in six states including Alaska (2 terminals), Wisconsin (2), Iowa (3), Minnesota (4), Nebraska (1), and North Dakota(1). The firm manages the purchasing of domestic crude oil from Texas and Colorado offices, has four ethanol plants across Iowa, operates three refineries in Alaska, Texas, and Minnesota, and has a refinery terminal in Alaska. The Minnesota refinery can process 320,000 barrels (51,000 m3) of crude a day, most of which comes from from Alberta, Canada, and handles one quarter of all Canadian oil sands crude entering the U.S. It also operates fuel terminals in Wisconsin (4 locations), Texas (6), and one each in Iowa and Minnesota.
In March 1999, Koch Petroleum Group acknowledged that it had negligently dumped hundreds of thousands of gallons of aviation fuel into wetlands from its refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota, and that it had illegally dumped a million gallons of high-ammonia wastewater onto the ground and into the Mississippi River. Koch Petroleum paid a $6 million fine and $2 million in remediation costs, and was ordered to serve three years of probation.
In April 2001, the company reached a $20 million settlement in exchange for admitting to covering up environmental violations at its refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas.
In June 2003, the US Commerce Department fined Flint Hill Resources a $200,000 civil penalty. The fine settled charges that the company exported crude petroleum from the US to Canada without proper US government authorization. The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security said from July 1997 to March 1999, Koch Petroleum (later called Flint Hill Resources) committed 40 violations of Export Administration Regulations.
In 2005, Koch’s Flint Hills Resources refinery was recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Air Awards program for reducing air emissions by 50 percent while expanding operations. The EPA has worked with Flint Hills Resources to develop “strategies for curtailing so-called ‘upset’ emissions, in what agency and company sources say could lead to guidance to minimize such emissions from petroleum refineries and other industrial facilities.” The EPA described the process as a “model for other companies.”
In 2006, Flint Hill Resources was fined nearly $16,000 by the EPA for 10 separate violations of the Clean Air Act at its Alaska oil refinery facilities, and required to spend another $60,000 on safety equipment needed to help prevent future violations.
Koch Fertilizer, LLC
Koch Fertilizer, LLC, which is one of the world’s largest makers of nitrogen fertilizers. Koch Fertilizer owns or has interests in fertilizer plants the United States, Canada, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela, and Italy, among others. Koch Fertilizer was formed in 1988 when the Koch companies purchased the Gulf Central Pipeline and ammonia terminals connected to the pipeline. The next year, the Koch Nitrogen Company was formed in order to market ammonia. The next few years saw purchases of various ammonia facilities in Louisiana, Canada, and elsewhere, and ammonia sales agreements with firms in Australia, the U.K., and other countries. The year 2010 saw the founding of Koch Methanol, LLC, and Koch Agronomic Services, LLC. In October 2010, a plant in Venezuela was nationalized by the government. In 2011, the firm acquired the British fertilizer firm J&H Bunn Limited.
Koch Agricultural Company
Koch Agricultural Company’s Matador Cattle Company division operates three ranches totaling 425,000 acres (1,720 km2) located in Beaverhead, Montana, Matador, Texas and the Flint Hills of eastern Kansas. There are more than 15,000 head of cattle raised on the ranches.
The Matador Land and Cattle Company was founded in 1882 by Scottish investors, whose acquisition included 2.5 million acres in four Texas counties. In 1951, the company was sold to Lazard Freres and Company, which in turn sold some of the Texas land to Fred C. Koch. In 1952 Koch formed Matador Cattle Company, and later one of his companies purchased part of Matador Ranch, which was brought together with other Koch ranches in Montana and Kansas. Today, according to the ranch’s website, it “is owned and operated by Matador Cattle Company, a division of Koch Agriculture Company, which is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Koch Industries.”
Koch’s Matador Ranch in Texas earned the Lone Star Land Steward award for outstanding natural resource management in 2010. The Montana ranch has earned several environmental stewardship awards, including the EPA Regional Administrator’s award.
Environmental and safety record
From 1999 to 2003, Koch Industries was assessed “more than $400 million in fines, penalties and judgments.” Another source points out that Koch has had only “eight instances of alleged misconduct … over the span of 63 years” despite being a giant multinational, and that this compares favorably to the fines, penalties and judgments accrued by the similarly large General Electric corporation.
Pollution and resource fines
In May 2001, Koch Industries paid $25 million to the federal government to settle a federal lawsuit that found the company had improperly taken more oil than it had paid for from federal and Indian land.
In 2007, Koch Nitrogen’s plant in Enid, Oklahoma, was listed as the third highest company releasing toxic chemicals in Oklahoma, according to the EPA, ranking behind Perma-Fix Environmental Services in Tulsa and Weyerhaeuser Co. in Valliant. The facility produces about 10% of the US national production of anhydrous ammonia, as well as urea and UAN.
In 2010, Koch Industries was ranked 10th on the list of top US corporate air polluters, the “Toxic 100 Air Polluters”, by the Political Economic Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Awards and certifications
This section relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications. Please add citations from reliable sources. (May 2011)
According to its website, Koch Industries and its subsidiaries received 289 stewardship awards over the two years ending January 2011.
Koch Industries’ headquarters in Wichita has been certified for meeting the Energy Star standards for superior energy efficiency and environmental protection. As of 2010[update] it is the only Wichita office building to be so recognized. A Tulsa, Oklahoma site of the Koch-owned John Zink Company site was part of the EPA’s National Environmental Performance Track program from 2003 until 2009 when the program was suspended.
In 2011, the Midway-Kansas Chapter of the American Red Cross awarded Koch Industries with a Corporate Excellence Award for its long-standing commitment to the humanitarian mission of Red Cross.
In 2008, Koch Industries discovered that the French affiliate Koch-Glitsch had violated bribery laws allegedly securing contracts in Algeria, Egypt, India, Morocco, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia after an investigation by Ethics Compliance officer, Egorova-Farines. After Koch Industries’ investigative team looked into her findings, the four employees involved were terminated. A Bloomberg article states that Egorova-Farines’ reported her findings immediately, and even after Koch’s investigators substantiated the findings, her “superiors removed her from the inquiry in August 2008 and fired her in June 2009, calling her incompetent.” Koch Industries’ general counsel, Mark Holden, gave a different account of the events to Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post. Holden stated that Egorova-Farines failed to promptly share the findings, choosing instead to give the information to a manager at Koch-Glitsch who was later fired for bribery. Rubin writes that, according to Holden, “Egorova-Farines was not fired but instead ran into performance problems, left the company to go on leave and never returned.” Egorova-Farines sued Koch-Glitsch for wrongful termination in France. Rubin writes that she lost and “was ordered to pay costs for bringing a frivolous case.”
In May 2011, a Utah judge dismissed a Koch Industries lawsuit alleging that Youth For Climate Truth, in releasing a fake Koch Industries press release, had infringed on Koch Industries’ trademark.
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2011)
This section may stray from the topic of the article into the topic of another article, Political activities of the Koch family. Please help improve this section or discuss this issue on the talk page. (November 2011)
See also: Political activities of the Koch family
Koch Industries has spent more than $50 million to lobby in Washington since 2006, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
The company has opposed the regulation of financial derivatives and limits on greenhouse gases. It sponsors free market foundations and causes. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, many of Koch Industries’ contributions have gone toward achieving legislation on energy issues, defense appropriations and financial regulatory reform. According to Greenpeace, the company has “had a quiet but dominant role in a high-profile national policy debate on global warming,” and has out-spent ExxonMobil (another corporation active in fighting climate change science and legislation) in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change. “From 2005 to 2008, ExxonMobil spent $8.9 million while the Koch Industries-controlled foundations contributed $24.9 million in funding.” Another Greenpeace study states that between 1997 and 2008 Koch Industries donated nearly $48 million to groups which doubt or oppose the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Koch Industries replied saying the Greenpeace report “distorts the environmental record of our companies.”[context?]
One policy proposal to control global warming that Koch Industries has come out against is Low Carbon Fuel Standards, such as were passed in 2007 in California. According to Koch Industries, “LCFS would cripple refiners that rely on heavy crude feedstocks to provide the transportation fuels that keep America moving.”
According to a critic of the Mercatus Center and the Kochs, the political activity by some of the Koch-supported foundations — such as Mercatus Center — helps the company financially.[relevant to this paragraph? – discuss] According to Thomas McGarity, a law professor at the University of Texas who specializes in environmental issues, “Koch has been constantly in trouble with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Mercatus has constantly hammered” on the EPA.[relevant to this paragraph? – discuss] The founder of the Mercatus Center, Richard H. Fink, also heads Koch Industries’ lobbying operation in Washington DC. According to a study by the progressive media watchdog Media Matters for America, Koch Industries (and other Koch brothers-owned companies) “have benefited from nearly a $100 million in government contracts since 2000.”
Koch Industries have also been active in supporting and opposing politicians, including presidents. According to Jane Mayer, During the US 2000 election campaign, Koch Industries spent some $900,000 to support the candidacies of George W. Bush and other Republicans.[neutrality is disputed] It has funded opposition campaigns against programs of the Obama administration — “from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus”. The Koch Industries website includes an opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal by Charles Koch, one of the company’s owners, “Why Koch Industries is Speaking Out” The article states:
Because of our activism, we’ve been vilified by various groups. Despite this criticism, we’re determined to keep contributing and standing up for those politicians, like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who are taking these challenges [deficit spending by governments] seriously.
^ “SUMMARY JUDGMENTS: Our daily legal-news aggregator for May 11, 2011” Thompson Reuters News and Insight
^ Secretive Republican Donors Are Planning Ahead by Kate Zernike published October 19, 2010, New York Times
^ Pulling the Wraps Off Koch Industries By LESLIE WAYNE; Published: November 20, 1994; New York Times; ” Their donations reflect their belief in libertarian and free market philosophies or their personal interests.”
^ OpenSecrets, Summary of Koch Industries
^ Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine . greenpeace.org . 30 March 2010]
^ abcdefg Covert Operations The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama. by Jane Mayer . newyorker.com . August 30, 2010
“…Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. …”
“…It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies. …”
Below is Glenn Beck’s hit piece on Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy.
You See … Even Glenn Beck thinks Ron Paul is an American Taliban Congressmen
Apparently, Beck skipped over Washington’s warning and advice about “the insidious wiles of foreign influences” and “to steer clear of permanent alliance.”
Beck would be well advised to heed Washington’s advice.
Instead he has become a shill for Israel, the Israel lobby and the neoconservatives.
Beck has said in the past that he was a libertarian.
Do not be fooled, he is a pro-Israel big government neoconservative.
Ron Paul on Glenn Beck 6-27-11
Ron Paul This Speech Gave Me Chills
Ron Paul U S foreign Policy AIPAC Israel greatest obstacle no respect for the constitution
Is Ron Paul Really An Anti-Semite or the only one with the balls to tell us the truth!?
SA@TAC – Why Foreign Policy Matters Most
The Truth About Terror | by The Southern Avenger
SA@TAC – Is Glenn Beck Killing the Tea Party?
SA@TAC – Ron Paul’s Conservative Foreign Policy
SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative’
The Lunacy of Norman Podhoretz by the Southern Avenger
Suggest Beck and his followers read George Nash’s book, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America.
I always had some doubts about Glenn Beck and frankly never completely trusted him.
He is not a libertarian when it comes to foreign policy, but a closet neoconservative, that pops out of the closet to relieve himself, usually on the champion of the U.S. Constitution, Ron Paul.
Beck is no friend to principled conservative and libertarian, Ron Paul.
Beck, like Romney’s father, has been “brainwashed” about what needs to be done in the Middle East.
George Romney Brainwashing 1968 ElectionWallDotOrg
How to Brainwash a Nation
Romney, Gingrich and Paul on A Nuclear Iran – CBS News & National Journal GOP Debate
The only way Iran will not have a nuclear weapon is if Israel and the United States start a undeclared war with Iran and start World War III in the Middle East.
All Ron Paul is saying is follow the Constitution; go to Congress, make you case and if war is declared, win it.
Neither the progressives nor the neoconservatives want to do this for the simple reason the American people might say, “Are you nuts?”
Israel will most likely have to go it alone in attacking Iran.
The National Review has been captured by the neoconservatives and who did they put on their cover, Mitt Romney for president.
Ron Paul wants a non-interventionist government policy both at home and abroad, as do I.
Beck actually agrees with Paul when he says that we should get out of the region, as do I.
Beck’s problem is he went to Israel and was given the “treatment” or “brainwashing” by the Government of Israel as have several other talk radio show host including Rush Limbaugh among several others.
The Communists used to do this with their carefully selected “useful” idiots.
I actually agree with Beck and Israel about the threat in the Middle East and Iran from radical Islam.
Iran has been at war with the United States using proxies for over thirty years.
Where we disagree is what to do about it.
Starting a world war by the United States attacking Iran is folly.
Ron Paul wants to bring the troops home from around the world, dismantle the American empire of hundreds of military bases abroad and stop the U.S. government from empire or nation building and policing the world.
Let the people in these countries fight their own battles–Arabs against Iranians, Sunni against the Shia, Turkey against Syria and Iran, tribe against tribe, family against family.
America needs to simply mind its own business.
This is exactly what Washington and Paul are saying.
The majority of the American people are concluding after tens of thousands of American deaths and wounded and several trillions of dollars spent on undeclared wars that is would be far cheaper to bring the troops home and obtain our energy domestically.
Both the Democratic and Republican Party establishments and leaderships are deeply penetrated by both progressives and neoconservatives that want big government and a welfare and warfare economy that promotes collectivism and dependency on the government.
The progressive and neoconservatives are afraid of Ron Paul for the simple reason he might very well get elected President.
Question: Who is against Ron Paul?
Answer: Large U.S. banks, the military industrial complex, large U.S. corporation, unions, federal, state, and local governments and their bureaucracies, lawyers, accountants, lobbyists, many foreign governments who rely on U.S. for foreign aid, United Nations, progressives (including the majority of the media and the academy) and neoconservatives including several radio talk show hosts and their regular guests (for example Bill Bennett and his neoconservative guests from the American Enterprise Institute).
Paul must be doing something right for he is scarring the hell out of both the Democratic and Republican establishment and their propagandist on the right, middle and center.
Reminds me of an old Barry Goldwater political ad:
Nikita Khrushchev Ad: Barry Goldwater 1964 Presidential Campaign Commercial
In your heart, you know Ron Paul is right.
I now consider Beck to be a “useful idiot” for the neoconservatives and the Israel lobby.
Beck at least in the past tired to connect the dots.
Beck’s weakness is he does not want to connect all the dots especially those that lead to advertisers such as large corporations.
It never occurs to Beck that if Ron Paul is so wise about the economy, why is he so wrong about foreign policy.
Here are three very big clues for Beck:
Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex
Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy America
Ezra Taft Benson on The John Birch Society
“…This is an excerpt of an hour-long talk given in 1965 by Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson, just 4 years after having left the cabinet in Washington DC where he served the full 8 years (despite all predictions that he would be the first one in the cabinet to be removed given his severe anti-socialist policies). He sought to undo the bondage and destruction brought on by the New Deal as government now had moved far outside of it’s jurisdiction and constitutional bounds. Visit http://www.JBS.org for more information about The John Birch Society. …”
Government interventionism at home and abroad resulted in the welfare and warfare economy with massive government spending and dependency.
Beck is confusing the American people.
The American people and Ron Paul are going in same direction.
Beck manifestly lies when he says that Ron Paul is going in the same direction as Romney and Gingrich.
Both Romney and Gingrich want bigger government not one that is limited in size and scope.
Both Romney and Gingrich want an interventionist foreign policy with America policing the world and nation building.
Both Romney and Gingrich wanted a mandated health insurance plan before they discovered that the American people do not.
Giveme a break.
The progressives, neoconservatives and the Israel lobby support either Romney or Gingrich not Ron Paul!
Ron Paul opposes foreign aid to all nations including Israel.
As a result many Jewish Americans conclude he must be an anti-Semite and anti-Israel.
No he is not. Paul is against foreign aid and for a non-interventionist foreign policy.
I cannot think of one talk radio show host that has served in the military, not a single one.
Beck did not wear the uniform of an American soldier, but now goes on his television show to point out he is wearing the lapel pin of the flag of Israel.
If Beck wants to support Israel may I suggest Beck go to Israel and enlist in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).
Shame on Beck for his truly pathetic piece of propaganda and attack on Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is the only candidate running for President that is a veteran.
Dr. Paul served five years in the Air Force as a flight surgeon.
I trust Ron Paul and will vote for him.
I do not trust Obama, Romney, Gingrich, or Perry or their supporters in broadcasting.
Should Romney win the nomination, then the American people could be replacing an incompetent progressive with a competent one.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil.
Instead of attacking Paul, Beck should examine his premises and logic and support him.
The progressive do not care whether Obama, Romney, Perry or even Gingrich are elected president.
Both the progressives and neoconservatives fear the election of Ron Paul.
Paul’s message is resonating with the American people because it is true and principled
Paul will win the Republican nomination.
However, should he not win the Republican nomination, I hope and pray he will form a new party.
Whether as a Republican or an independent, Paul will be our next president with a landslide victory over Obama.
FOX News is No Better than the “Liberal Media” | by The Southern Avenger
“THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated….”
“…Speaking in Washington DC in August 2006 as guests of CAIR, Walt made the point that they never said “the Israel lobby was all powerful.” It was “not some secret cabal that controls [U.S.] foreign policy”; rather, there were “countervailing forces out there, though they are much weaker, and the lobby doesn’t get its way on every single issue.” Walt’s important caveats highlight something missing from both the leftist analysis, exemplified by Zunes, and the more traditional conspiratorial analysis, both of which seem to contend that the ruling elites are monolithic and unfractured.
Among conspiracists, particularly those concerned with the New World Order, the dominant assumption is that all groups are so interconnected that the same objective—world government—must predominate. Any evidence to the contrary is usually dismissed as a contrivance designed to deceive the public, or as a grubby squabble for control of the same project. David Icke, for instance, assures us that most world leaders (Illuminati) “only appear to be in conflict for the purposes of deluding the people into a false reality” (Icke 477).
Yet indisputable evidence of elite factionalism—of the upper echelons of the food-chain chasing different agendas than world government —has long been apparent. In his magnum opus, Tragedy and Hope (1966), for example, Carroll Quigley had observed how, since the 1950s, Wall Street had been challenged by the “new wealth springing up outside the eastern cities, notably in the Southwest and Far West.” As early as 1964, the representatives of this “new wealth,” based in oil, aviation or armaments, had engaged in a financial struggle with the “old wealth” of the East for control of the political process—and ultimately of the White House—to ensure that high government spending on military and space continued (Quigley 1245-1246). This split between the so-called East Coast “Yankees” and the “Cowboys” of the Southwest was subsequently explored at length by Kirkpatrick Sale (1975) and Carl Oglesby (1977).
Seen through the prism of elite factionalism, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is a valuable addition to this neglected field. It highlights in some detail the workings and influence of yet another private grouping that subverts democratic processes in service of a narrow agenda. Of course, some caution is necessary as the outcry over its activities is driven by elite, rather than popular, angst at losing the initiative. But to disregard it, either out of fears of being labeled as anti-Semitic or because it conflicts with other pet theories, would be shortsighted.
Whether the invasion of Iraq was for oil, Israel, or even world government (a contention doggedly advocated by the John Birch Society) will no doubt occupy the minds of various researchers for decades to come. But what should be clear is that in taking issue with the workings of various elite groups, we should not privilege one over the other as targets of our disdain, but recognize that the assault on democracy takes many forms and comes from many quarters and is always at the expense of the powerless.
“By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth.”
“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
Freedom is the Only Solution
Ron Paul on Debt limit and Boehner’s bill
Ron Paul on Freedom Watch: We Are Defaulting Either Way
7-28-11 – Sen. Rand Paul on Fox News with Greta Van Susteran – 07-27-11
Rand Paul Blasts Reid, Boehner Plans [FOX 7-27-2011]
Ron Paul on Freedom Watch 07/27/11
Ron Paul to Congress: If Debt Is the Problem, Why Do You Want More of It?
The Laura Ingraham Show – Speaker John Boehner answers tea party criticism
Office of the Majority Whip | Balanced Budget Amendment Video
Debt Ceiling Crisis: Boehner vs. Tea Party
SA@TAC – Ron Paul’s Pledge to America
Smoke and Mirrors on Spending Cuts
House GOP’s $61 Billion Spending Cuts in Perspective
John Boehner Goes Back On The Head Of The Republican Parties Radio Show Rush Limbaugh
McCain to Republicans: Pushing Balanced Budget Amendment is “Bizarro”
FOX: DeMint Slams Reid & Boehner Plans
Mark Levin Interviews Jim Demint – I’m Not Encouraged By Whats Going On In Washington Right Now
Ron Paul Ad – Conviction
The tea party movement has been betrayed by the Republican Party establishment leadership including John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan.
The big dirty secret the ruling class in Washington D.C. do not want the American people to know is the Fiscal Year 2012 budget will be in deficit by about $1,000 billion.
The Boehner bill will add over $7,000 billion in additional debt over the next ten years and would not balance in any of the next ten years!
This is not fiscally responsible nor is it a “balanced approach”.
This is business as usual and a betrayal of the American people and the conservative, libertarian and tea party movements.
The Democratic and Republican Establishments aka the “ruling class” are addicted to spending money the American people do not have on things the American people do not need.
The Democratic and Republican Establishments try to fool the American people with phony cuts in the growth of the current services baseline budget by emphasizing trillion-dollar “cuts” over a ten-year budget timeframe.
There are never any cuts in the current service baseline budget only cuts in the growth rates over ten years of the budget baseline.
Underwhelming Spending Cuts from Congress and Obama
“Cut, Cap and Balance,” the Debt Ceiling and Federal Spending
The American people are not fooled by this nonsense and rubbish.
The only year that counts is Fiscal Year 2012 that starts October 1, 2011 and ends September 30, 2012.
The only cuts that are real are actual cuts in the budget baseline itself and not cuts in the rate of growth of that baseline.
Dan Mitchell Exposing DC’s Fake Spending-Cut Scam with Judge Napolitano
It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes
Ron Paul to Congress: Freeze Big Government!
Ron Paul knew everything
Stop budgeting to the current services budget baseline and budget to estimated tax revenue collections.
Stop closed-door deals, commissions, select committees and gangs.
Stop lying and misleading the American people.
Vote against any budget that is not balanced.
Vote against any increase in the National Debt ceiling.
Vote for closing permanently Government Departments, agencies and hundreds of programs.
Vote for cutting the Budget Baseline not for cutting the rate of growth of the Budget Baseline!
Vote for the FairTax.
The political ruling class is bought and paid for and are wrecking the economy, destroying jobs and killing the American Dream.
The American people will eventually learn the secret and that both political parties have been lying to them.
A plague on both political parties.
Both political parties are responsible for the bloated budgets and massive deficits.
Let the party establishments clean their own mess up.
The Democratic and Republican Party establishments simply do not give a flip about the American people.
The conservative, libertarian and tea party movements will need to challenge Republican office holders in the primaries and the Democrats in the general election.
Suggest you listen to the late George Carlin.
George Carlin -“Who Really Controls America”
“Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist.”
“Always do whatever’s next.”
Background Articles and Videos
Neither the Republican Party nor Democratic Party Fiscal Year 2012 budget proposals are the road to peace and prosperity but a Tea Party budget with balanced budgets most definitely is:
Which Budgets Are Balanced And Living Within The Means of The American People?
S-1 FY2012 Tea Party’s Balanced/Surplus Budget(Nominal Dollars in Billions)
Debt Held By Public
Peter Ferrara’s Too-Nice Attack on Phony Washington Budget Deals
Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell
“…Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Peter Ferrara of the Institute for Policy Innovation explains that Washington budget deals don’t work because politicians never follow through on promised spending cuts. This is a very relevant argument, since President Obama’s so-called Deficit Reduction Commission supposedly is considering a deal featuring $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases (disturbingly reminiscent of what was promised — but never delivered — as part of the infamous 1982 TEFRA budget scam).
Washington’s traditional approach to balancing the budget is to negotiate an agreement on a package of benefit cuts and tax increases. President Obama’s deficit commission seems likely to recommend just this strategy in December. The problem is that it never works. What happens is the tax increases get permanently adopted into law. But the spending cuts are almost never fully adopted and, even if they are, they are soon swept away in the next spendthrift budget. Then — because taxes weaken incentives to produce — the tax increases don’t raise the revenue that Congress initially projected and budgeted to spend. So the deficit reappears.
In 1982, congressional Democrats promised President Ronald Reagan $3 in spending cuts for every dollar in tax increases. Reagan went to his grave waiting for those spending cuts. Then there was the budget deal in 1990, when President George H.W. Bush agreed to violate his famous campaign pledge — “Read my lips, no new taxes,” he had said in 1988 — in pursuit of a balanced budget. But after the deal, the deficit increased substantially: to $290 billion in 1992 from $221 billion in 1990.
As the excerpt indicates, Peter’s column is solid and everything he writes is correct, but it suffers from one major sin of omission. He should have exposed the dishonest practice of using “current services” or “baseline” budgeting. This is the clever Washington practice of assuming that all previously planned spending increases should go into effect and categorizing any budget that increases spending by a lower amount as a spending cut. In other words, if the hypothetical “baseline” budget increases by 7 percent, and a budget is proposed that increases spending by 4 percent, that 4 percent spending increase magically gets transformed into a 3 percent spending cut.
Politicians love “current services” or “baseline” budgeting for two reasons. First, it allows them to have their cake and eat it too. They can simultaneously shovel more money to interest groups while telling voters they are “cutting” spending. Second, it rigs the process in favor of bigger government. This is because lawmakers who actually propose to restrain the growth of spending can be lambasted for wanting “savage” and “draconian” budget cuts totaling “trillions of dollars” when all they’re actually proposing is to have spending grow by less than the so-called baseline. But since people in the real world use honest math rather than “current services” math, they assume that spending is being reduced next year by some large amount compared to what is being spent this year. And if the phony budget cut numbers sound too big (especially for specific programs such as Medicare or Medicaid), they sometimes conclude that it would be better to raise taxes.
Speaking of which, the same misleading process works on the revenue side of the budget. The politicians automatically get to keep whatever additional revenue is generated by population growth and higher incomes, which is not trivial since revenue in a typical year grows faster than nominal GDP. But when they do a budget deal featuring X dollars of tax increases for every Y dollars of spending cuts, the additional taxes are always on top of the revenue increases that already are occurring. And since the supposed spending cuts invariably are nothing more than reductions in planned increases, it should come as no surprise that the burden of spending always seems to increase. …”
“Senator Jim Demint argued you can’t have a message about small government and fiscal responsibility without it being inextricably linked to religion. That if you want Government to be small, God needs to be big. Reason’s Michael Moynihan explains that Demint is fearful of libertarians and is pushing his religious values on everyone else.”
Demint “More Comfortable” At Tea Party Than Congress
Mark Levin and Jim Demint on Krauthammer, Delaware, Palin, etc…
Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) on Meet the Press – 11-07-10
Senator Jim DeMint Defends Tea Partiers
Sen. Jim DeMint At Tea Party Rally
Jim Demint & Glenn Beck on Ron Paul’s HR 1207 Audit The Fed
SA@Takimag – Ron Paul and Jim DeMint Take on the Fed
Senator Jim DeMint on Reforming Entitlements and the Financial System
Senator Jim DeMint Talks About “Saving Freedom”!
Senate Debates Spending Bill
I am a classical liberal or libertarian and supporter of the conservative and tea party movements and its candidates as well as the FairTax, pro-life movement, and ending the Fed and nation building abroad.
I basically oppose most Federal government intervention into the economy domestically and nation building abroad.
I want a Constitutional government that is limited in size and scope.
I want balanced or surplus budgets that pay down the national debt down.
I am definitely a fiscal conservative, but I have never been nor consider myself to be a social conservative or part of the religious right.
However, I do consider myself to be a traditional conservative.
Nor for that matter do I consider myself to be a neo-conservative or paleoconservative.
In fact I find it insulting as do many classical liberals when they are called either neo-conservative or paleconservative.
Yes I do belive in God and I am pro-life, but I identify my political philosophy as libertarian or classical liberal.
When it comes to fiscal responsibility and limiting the size and scope of the Federal Government I could not agree more with Senator DeMint and the conservative and tea party movements.
However, when Senator DeMint tries to marginalize libertarians, I must speak out.
Please Senator stop trying to marginalize the role of libertarians or classical liberals by saying you cannot be a fiscal conservative without being a social conservative.
It is false to say that if you want to limit the size and scope of limited government you must be a believer in God and follower of a religion or a social conservative.
This is simply not true
You are not doing yourself any good when you do.
I do not think I need to remind you that both Ron Paul and Rand Paul are libertarians and classical liberals.
So to are many independents, Republicans and even some Democrats.
They are all your natural allies.
While many if not most libertarians or classical liberals believe in God and are pro-life, some do not.
Penn & Teller – Patriotism
Penn Says: After the Show
A Gift of a Bible
Penn Says: Mr. Deity
Mr. Deity and the Magic
Mr. Deity and the Skeptic
Background Articles and Videos
Murray N. Rothbard: Libertarianism
Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)
How Abolishing the Fed Would Change Everything | Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Ron Paul on Federal Reserve, banking and economy
Libertarianism in the United States
“..Libertarianism in the United States is a movement promoting limited government and individual liberties. Although libertarianism exists in two major forms worldwide, right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism, right-leaning libertarianism tends to be the dominant form in the United States. The right-leaning Libertarian Party, the third largest political party in the United States as of 2008 with 235,500 registered voters, asserts the following to be core beliefs of Libertarianism:
Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties. …”
In the 1950s many with classical liberal beliefs in the United States began to describe themselves as “libertarian.” Academics as well as proponents of the free market perspectives note that free-market libertarianism has been successfully propagated beyond the US since the 1970s via think tanks and political parties and that libertarianism is increasingly viewed worldwide as a free market position. However, Libertarian socialists Noam Chomsky, Colin Ward and others argue that the term “libertarianism” is globally considered a synonym for anarchism and that the United States is unique in widely associating it with free market ideology.
Arizona United States Senator Barry Goldwater’s libertarian-oriented challenge to authority had a major impact on the libertarian movement, through his book The Conscience of a Conservative and his run for president in 1964. Goldwater’s speech writer, Karl Hess, became a leading libertarian writer and activist.
The Vietnam War split the uneasy alliance between growing numbers of self-identified libertarians, anarchist libertarians, and more traditional conservatives who believed in limiting liberty to uphold moral virtues. Libertarians opposed to the war joined the draft resistance and peace movements and organisations such as Students for a Democratic Society. They began founding their own publications, like Murray Rothbard’s The Libertarian Forum and organizations like the Radical Libertarian Alliance.
The split was aggravated at the 1969 Young Americans for Freedom convention, when more than 300 libertarians organized to take control of the organization from conservatives. The burning of a draft card in protest to a conservative proposal against draft resistance sparked physical confrontations among convention attendees, a walkout by a large number of libertarians, the creation of libertarian organizations like the Society for Individual Liberty, and efforts to recruit potential libertarians from conservative organizations. The split was finalized in 1971 when conservative leader William F. Buckley, Jr., in a 1971 New York Times article, attempted to divorce libertarianism from the freedom movement. He wrote: “The ideological licentiousness that rages through America today makes anarchy attractive to the simple-minded. Even to the ingeniously simple-minded.”
In 1971, David Nolan and a few friends formed the Libertarian Party. Attracting former Democrats, Republicans and independents, it has run a presidential candidate every election year since 1972. By 2006, polls showed that 15 percent of American voters identified themselves as libertarian. Over the years, dozens of libertarian political parties have been formed worldwide. Educational organizations like the Center for Libertarian Studies and the Cato Institute were formed in the 1970s, and others have been created since then.
Philosophical libertarianism gained a significant measure of recognition in academia with the publication of Harvard University professor Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia in 1974. The book won a National Book Award in 1975. According to libertarian essayist Roy Childs, “Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia single-handedly established the legitimacy of libertarianism as a political theory in the world of academia.”
Texas congressman Ron Paul’s campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination was largely oriented towards libertarianism. Paul is affiliated with the libertarian-leaning Republican Liberty Caucus and founded the Campaign for Liberty, a libertarian-leaning membership and lobbying organization.
Well-known libertarian organizations include the Center for Libertarian Studies, the Cato Institute, the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), the International Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL) and the Ludwig von Mises Institute. The Libertarian Party of the United States is the world’s first such party.
The activist Free State Project, formed in 2001, works to bring 20,000 libertarians to the state of New Hampshire to influence state policy. In March 2009, the project website showed that more than 650 were resident there and more than 9,150 had pledged to move there. Less successful similar projects include the Free West Alliance and Free State Wyoming.
United States Congressman Ron Paul, United States Senator Barry Goldwater, and United States President Ronald Reagan popularized libertarian economics and anti-statist rhetoric in the United States and passed some reforms, though many libertarians are ambivalent about his legacy.
Individual influential to libertarianism in the United States include Ayn Rand, Ludwig Von Mises, William F. Buckley, Murray Rothbard, and Milton Friedman. …”
A caller was making a comment when Bill responded that he is a “classical liberal” and had been one for a very long time.
This surprised me for I thought he and his executive producer, Seth Leibsohn, were neoconservatives.
The conservative movement has two major wings the traditionalists and the libertarians.
I would call or label my political philosophy or views traditionalist libertarian or classical liberal or conservative.
However like Hayek, my own preference is classical liberal.
This is especially the case when I am playing with American progressives and liberals who do not have a clue as to what I am talking about.
Both wings of the conservative movement may on occasion agree with the neoconservatives and even admire and respect their writings, however many conservatives do not consider neoconservatives to be either new or conservative and are insulted if you call them a neocon.
The neoconservatives were largely responsible for the strategy for both the Afganistan and Iraq wars.
Many of Bill’s interviews with authors and experts in the foreign policy area are identified or called, rightly or in some cases wrongly, a neoconservatives.
While I accept Bill’s answer, I still suspect he is closet neoconservative.
Your loyal audience would appreciate some amplification and clarity as to the category of your political philosophy.
Bill on July 18, 2010 in commenting upon a caller’s remark stated he was not a libertarian.
Most classical liberals and libertarians in America would equate the two.
TAKE IT TO THE LIMITS: Milton Friedman on Libertarianism
Apparently Bill is a neoconservative after all.
I am not surprised.
Newsmakers Interview: Bill Bennett
William J. Bennett Promotes Conservative Principles
Who are the NeoConservatives?
Ron Paul Calls Out Neoconservatives By Name
The Neoconservative Agenda | John F. McManus
LewRockwell.com Podcast #28 – What is Neoconservatism?
Israeli Lobby corrupts congress and drags USA into wars
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt – The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy
Iraq, the Neocons and the Israel Lobby – John Mearsheimer
Pat Buchanan: “Bush and the neocons” to blame for Iraq crisis, not Obama
Neoconservatists – Who They Are and Their Powers in the Government ( Documentary )
The War Party. Zionism and American NeoCon foreign policy. Part 1 of 5
The War Party. Zionism and American NeoCon foreign policy. Part 2 of 5
The War Party. Zionism and American NeoCon foreign policy. Part 3 of 5
The War Party. Zionism and American NeoCon foreign policy. Part 4 of 5
The War Party. Zionism and American NeoCon foreign policy. Part 5 of 5
SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative
SA@Takimag – Mark Levin Avoids the “Empire” Question
SA@Takimag – Axis of the Expendable: Frum vs. Limbaugh
SA@Takimag – Why Mark Levin Hates Glenn Beck
Victor Gold Speech pt1
Victor Gold Speech pt2
Victor Gold Speech pt3
Neo-cons: Invasion of the Party Snatchers Part 1
Neo-cons: Invasion of the Party Snatchers Part 2
Irving Kristol 1/6 – Father of Neoconservatism
Irving Kristol 2/6 – Father of Neoconservatism
Irving Kristol 3/6 – Father of Neoconservatism
Irving Kristol 4/6 – Father of Neoconservatism
Irving Kristol 5/6 – Father of Neoconservatism
Irving Kristol 6/6 – Father of Neoconservatism
Douglas Murray – Neoconservatism (1/3)
Douglas Murray – Neoconservatism (2/3)
Douglas Murray – Neoconservatism (3/3)
Rothbard on Neoconservatives
Rothbard on the Drug War
Rothbard on the ‘best’ US president
Rothbard on Ron Paul
The Current State of World Affairs | Murray N. Rothbard
“Neoconservatives are the boat people of the McGovern revolution.”
~Patrick J. Buchanan, Where the Right Went Wrong
Background Articles and Videos
The Repellent Neoconservatives
by Murray N. Rothbard
“…Once upon a time in America, there was a left and a right and a center, and within these clearly discernible segments of the ideological spectrum there were distinctly calibrated gradations. Everyone could find an ideological niche without much trouble, and knew pretty well where everyone else stood too. Everyone knew who were the good guys and bad guys, and the varying degrees of rectitude of the guys in between.
By now it is almost a cliché that the old ideological points of reference are no more; that left, right, and center cannot be identified even with a scorecard. One way of describing these changes is to say that left and right have been collapsing toward the center, that is, toward the locus of power. Interests of state have increasingly taken over, leading the “responsible” elements within each ideological group more and more to resemble one another.
We have reached the final pages of Orwell’s Animal Farm, in which the pigs, who had previously been the vanguard of the successful animal revolution against man, now walk erect and even live in the farmhouse, and “the creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from Pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” Specifically, it has become almost impossible to distinguish “responsible” National Review conservatism from right-wing social democracy or from neoconservatism, and even, in some respects, from left-liberalism or the democratic socialism of the Robert Heilbroner variety. …”
“…So, to sum up: the problem is that the bad guys, the ruling classes, have gathered unto themselves the intellectual and media elites, who are able to bamboozle the masses into consenting to their rule, to indoctrinate them, as the Marxists would say, with “false consciousness.” What can we, the right-wing opposition, do about it?
One strategy, endemic to libertarians and classical liberals, is what we can call the “Hayekian” model, after F.A. Hayek, or what I have called “educationism.” Ideas, the model declares, are crucial, and ideas filter down a hierarchy, beginning with top philosophers, then seeping down to lesser philosophers, then academics, and finally to journalists and politicians, and then to the masses. The thing to do is to convert the top philosophers to the correct ideas, they will convert the lesser, and so on, in a kind of “trickle-down effect,” until, at last, the masses are converted and liberty has been achieved.
First, it should be noted that this trickle-down strategy is a very gentle and genteel one, relying on quiet mediation and persuasion in the austere corridors of intellectual cerebration. This strategy fits, by the way, with Hayek’s personality, for Hayek is not exactly known as an intellectual gut-fighter.
Of course, ideas and persuasion are important, but there are several fatal flaws in the Hayekian strategy. First, of course, the strategy at best will take several hundred years, and some of us are a bit more impatient than that. But time is by no means the only problem. Many people have noted, for example, mysterious blockages of the trickle. Thus, most real scientists have a very different view of such environmental questions as Alar than that of a few left-wing hysterics, and yet somehow it is always the same few hysterics that are exclusively quoted by the media. The same applies to the vexed problem of inheritance and IQ testing. So how come the media invariably skew the result, and pick and choose the few leftists in the field? Clearly, because the media, especially the respectable and influential media, begin, and continue, with a strong left-liberal bias.
More generally, the Hayekian trickle-down model overlooks a crucial point: that, and I hate to break this to you, intellectuals, academics and the media are not all motivated by truth alone. As we have seen, the intellectual classes may be part of the solution, but also they are a big part of the problem. For, as we have seen, the intellectuals are part of the ruling class, and their economic interests, as well as their interests in prestige, power and admiration, are wrapped up in the present welfare-warfare state system.
Therefore, in addition to converting intellectuals to the cause, the proper course for the right-wing opposition must necessarily be a strategy of boldness and confrontation, of dynamism and excitement, a strategy, in short, of rousing the masses from their slumber and exposing the arrogant elites that are ruling them, controlling them, taxing them, and ripping them off. …”
“…When Communism and the Soviet Union collapsed several years ago, it seemed evident that a massive reevaluation of American foreign policy had to get under way. For the duration of the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy was simply a bipartisan interventionist crusade against the Soviet Union, and the only differences were precisely how far the global intervention should go.
But when the Soviet Union fell apart, a rethinking seemed absolutely necessary, since what could form the basis of U.S. policy now? But among the intellectual pundits and elites, the molders of U.S. and even world opinion, virtually no rethinking has occurred at all. Except for Pat Buchanan and us paleos, U.S. foreign policy had proceeded as usual, as if the Cold War collapse never happened. How? Buchanan and the “neo-isolationists” urged that American intervention be guided strictly by American national interest. But the liberal/neocon alliance, now tighter than ever before (now that Soviet Communism, which the neocons were harder on, has disappeared), pretended to agree, and then simply and cunningly redefined “national interest” to cover every ill, every grievance, under the sun. Is someone starving somewhere, however remote from our borders? That’s a problem for our national interest. Is someone or some group killing some other group anywhere in the world? That’s our national interest. Is some government not a “democracy” as defined by our liberal-neocon elites? That challenges our national interest. Is someone committing Hate Thought anywhere on the globe? That has to be solved in our national interest.
And so every grievance everywhere constitutes our national interest, and it becomes the obligation of good old Uncle Sam, as the Only Remaining Superpower and the world’s designated Mr. Fixit, to solve each and every one of these problems. For “we cannot stand idly by” while anyone anywhere starves, hits someone over the head, is undemocratic, or commits a Hate Crime.
It should be clear that there is now virtually no foreign policy distinction between the liberals and the neocons, the Tony Lewises and Bill Safires, Commentary and the Washington Post. Wherever the problem is, the liberal-neocon pundits and laptop bombardiers are all invariably whooping it up for U.S. intervention, for outright war, or for the slippery-slope favorite of “sanctions.” Sanctions, the step-by-step escalation of intervention, is a favorite policy of the warmongers. Calling for immediate bombing or invading of Country X as soon as a grievance starts would seem excessive and even nutty to most Americans, who don’t feel the same sense of deep commitment to the U.S.A. as Global Problem-Solver as do the pundits and elites. And sanctions can temporarily slake the thirst for belligerence. And so it’s sanctions: starving the villains, cutting off transportation, trade, confiscating their property in terms of financial assets, and finally, when that doesn’t work, bombing, sending troops, etc. Troops are usually sent first as purely “humanitarian” missionaries, to safeguard the “humane” aid of the UN “peacekeepers.” But in short order, the benighted natives, irrationally turning against all this help and altruism, begin shooting at their beloved helpers, and the fat is in the fire, and the U.S. must face the prospects of sending troops who are ordered to shoot to kill. …”
“…The editors of National Review led a smear campaign against conservatives and libertarians who opposed the war, deeming them “Unpatriotic Conservatives,” and yet now these same people are repeating the arguments of Patrick J. Buchanan, Lew Rockwell, myself, adopting the paleoconservatives critique of “democratic” imperialism. Like Brooks, the National Review editorial makes some minor criticisms of the Bush policy as imperialism “on the cheap,” but the main problem, as far as they are concerned, is:
“An intellectual mistake made prior to the occupation: an underestimation in general of the difficulty of implanting democracy in alien soil, and an overestimation in particular of the sophistication of what is fundamentally still a tribal society and one devastated by decades of tyranny. This was largely, if not entirely, a Wilsonian mistake. The Wilsonian tendency has grown stronger in conservative foreign-policy thought in recent years, with both benefits (idealism should occupy an important place in American foreign policy, and almost always has) and drawbacks (as we have seen in Iraq, the world isn’t as malleable as some Wilsonians would have it).”
One can hardly find anything in this with which to disagree – except to note that one of the biggest and most energetic promoters of this mistaken Wilsonian tendency has been none other than National Review. What else is one to make of Michael Ledeen’s constant paeans to the glories of what he calls “creative destruction” in the Middle East, and countless articles in that magazine urging the extension of the war into Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and beyond? Wasn’t it Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, who infamously suggested the nuking of Mecca as a prelude to the occupation of Saudi Arabia. I suppose one could claim that the mindset of Lowry and his co-thinkers and fellow editors owes more to Dr. Strangelove than to Woodrow Wilson, but this hardly exculpatory. Second only to The Weekly Standard, none have been louder or more consistent in calling for war in the Middle East than National Review.
What is appalling is the utter dishonesty of their arguments: yesterday, Pat Buchanan was an “unpatriotic conservative” for making the very same arguments against the neoconservative’s democracy fetish as National Review now borrows and claims as its own. It was Buchanan, after all, who recently wrote:
“Bush’s world democratic revolution is Wilsonian imperialism, which contains an inherent and perhaps fatal contradiction. Imperialism means we decide the government a nation will have and how its foreign policy shall be oriented. Democracy means they decide. What do we do if we impose democracy on Iraq, and the Iraqis use their freedom to vote to throw us out and confront Israel and claim Kuwait as their long-lost province?”
Buchanan wrote that in the beginning of April, but he had been saying it long before the wisdom of the principle ever dawned on the editors of National Review. In 1999, he outlined what he called a “New Americanism”:
“We need a new foreign policy rooted neither in the Wilsonian Utopianism of the Democrat Party nor the Pax Americana of the Republican think tanks and little magazines, a policy that reflects the goodness and greatness of this Republic, but also an awareness that we were not put on this earth to lord it over other nations. The true third way is a New Americanism that puts America first, but ‘goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy,’ that defends America’s freedom, frontiers, citizens, security, and vital interests, but harbors no desire to impose our vision on any other people.” …”
“There can be no truly moral choice unless that choice is made in freedom; similarly, there can be no really firmly grounded and consistent defense of freedom unless that defense is rooted in moral principle. In concentrating on the ends of choice, the conservative, by neglecting the conditions of choice, loses that very morality of conduct with which he is so concerned. And the libertarian, by concentrating only on the means, or conditions, of choice and ignoring the ends, throws away an essential moral defense of his own position.”
~Murray N. Rothbard
Sarah Palin and Ron Paul
Why Ron Paul Leads The Tea Party, Not Sarah Palin.
Ron Paul: A New Hope
Ron Paul – THE FAIRTAX REVOLUTION
Ron Paul on Taxes
RON PAUL determined to abolish Income Tax
Ron Paul : Don’t tread on me
Ron Paul’s Message to OBAMA!
RON PAUL AD – “Awesome!”
Ron Paul on CNN AC360: Sarah Palin and Tea Party Movement
Sarah Palin thinks Ron Paul is a “cool guy”.. huh?
Glenn Beck interviews Sarah Palin on Fox News Channel
Palin Rallies Boston Tea Party on Tax Day Eve
Sarah Palin – Rogue Interview – Hannity (1)
Sarah Palin – Rogue Interview – Hannity (2)
Sarah Palin – Rogue Interview – Hannity (3)
Sarah Palin – Rogue Interview – Hannity (4)
Sarah Palin – Rogue Interview – Hannity (5)
Vice Presidential Candidate Gov. Sarah Palin (AK) Full Speech at the RNC
Smaller Government and Less Spending…
““Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else’s resources as carefully as he uses his own. So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property.”
Background Articles and Videos
Murray N. Rothbard: Libertarianism
Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)
Election 2012: Barack Obama 42%, Ron Paul 41%
“…Pit maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up, and the race is – virtually dead even.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds Obama with 42% support and Paul with 41% of the vote. Eleven percent (11%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.
Ask the Political Class, though, and it’s a blowout. While 58% of Mainstream voters favor Paul, 95% of the Political Class vote for Obama.
But Republican voters also have decidedly mixed feelings about Paul, who has been an outspoken critic of the party establishment.
Obama earns 79% support from Democrats, but Paul gets just 66% of GOP votes. Voters not affiliated with either major party give Paul a 47% to 28% edge over the president.
Paul, an anti-big government libertarian who engenders unusually strong feelings among his supporters, was an unsuccessful candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. But he continues to have a solid following, especially in the growing Tea Party movement.
Twenty-four percent (24%) of voters now consider themselves a part of the Tea Party movement, an eight-point increase from a month ago. Another 10% say they are not a part of the movement but have close friends or family members who are. …”