If You Haven't Read "Neo - CONNED!" By Ron Paul

[TheWizardOfMudd]

Many of you know that Ron Paul is a former libertarian party presidential candidate, now a republican congressman from Texas. Philosophically, he is still a libertarian and I therefore disagree with him strongly on many issues.

However, in this speech he exposes and trashes the Neocons. It is definitely worth the read. Here is a snipet:

"The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post, and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell’s State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire. Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.” This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy.

Let there be no doubt, those in the neocon camp had been anxious to go to war against Iraq for a decade. They justified the use of force to accomplish their goals, even if it required preemptive war. If anyone doubts this assertion, they need only to read of their strategy in “A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” Although they felt morally justified in changing the government in Iraq, they knew that public support was important, and justification had to be given to pursue the war. Of course, a threat to us had to exist before the people and the Congress would go along with war. The majority of Americans became convinced of this threat, which, in actuality, never really existed. Now we have the ongoing debate over the location of weapons of mass destruction. Where was the danger? Was all this killing and spending necessary? How long will this nation building and dying go on? When will we become more concerned about the needs of our own citizens than the problems we sought in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who knows where we’ll go next—Iran, Syria or North Korea?

At the end of the Cold War, the neoconservatives realized a rearrangement of the world was occurring and that our superior economic and military power offered them a perfect opportunity to control the process of remaking the Middle East.

It was recognized that a new era was upon us, and the neocons welcomed Frances Fukuyama’s “end of history” declaration. To them, the debate was over. The West won; the Soviets lost. Old-fashioned communism was dead. Long live the new era of neoconservatism. The struggle may not be over, but the West won the intellectual fight, they reasoned. The only problem is that the neocons decided to define the philosophy of the victors. They have been amazingly successful in their efforts to control the debate over what Western values are and by what methods they will be spread throughout the world . . . ." (more).

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

[Maat]

1. Powerful. Thanks.

I, too, believe that Murdoch and his Empire were critical. They have had a negative impact on my daughter's future and for that, I will never forgive them.

ABB 2004!

[arcane1]

2. it's because of pieces like this...

that I don't feel bad about voting for Paul for president that one time :)

[PatGund]

3. It's pieces like this ....

....that make me glad I worked on his presidential campaign back when I *was* a Lib...... :-)

[arcane1]

4. hehehe

:toast:


if only this were the only kind of Republican we had to deal with, what a world it would be...

[TheWizardOfMudd]

5. Good not to feel bad

I wouldn't hold it against you, arcane1. Paul is impressive in that he is a principled person. He votes "no" on every spending bill because they all contain pork and increase spending. He voted "no" on the Iraq war resolution because, aside from opposing excessive American entanglement with foreign nations, he considered it an unconstitutional delegation of congress's war declaration power. Naturally, he is also against the drug war. He abhors the Patriot Act.

These days, he is certainly siding with democrats a lot more often than republicans.

[reprehensor]

6. It is a great article.

Type it into the search engine at Freerepublic and watch the denial.

For the posters over there that have the stamina to read that long of an article, that is...most of them just diss the article without having read it, and you can tell.

[TheWizardOfMudd]

8. I agree, reprehensor

It is a great article and it was a great speech made on the floor of congress. Too bad it fell on deaf ears!

[TheWizardOfMudd]

7. Paul Slams Fellow Congressmen Over New FCC Fines

Congressional Indecency

Congress is patting itself on the back after passing legislation last week that expands the power of the Federal Communications Commission to crack down on broadcasters with heavy new $500,000 fines. Most politicians were all too eager to appease those demanding that Congress “do something” about racy Super Bowl shows and distasteful radio hosts, especially in an election year. It is clear that most members of Congress gave little thought to the legality or wisdom of the bill, caring only that they be seen as defenders of all things decent.

In doing so, Congress ignored a fundamental truth: government control over radio and television broadcasts is incompatible with a free society. FCC control of broadcast content, whether through licensing, regulations, or fines, is naked censorship that is utterly at odds with the plain words of the First Amendment. It could not be any clearer: “Congress shall make no law.”

The censors from both political parties argue that because the broadcast spectrum is publicly owned, the public has a right to control the content. But “public” ownership really means government ownership. And government ownership means the current gang of bureaucrats in power gets to decide what is heard and seen. Airwaves are far too precious to be owned or controlled by government- like other scarce and valuable natural resources, airwaves should be controlled by market forces. One mistake- nationalizing the airwaves- does not justify another. We should not violate the First Amendment today because of the sins of the past.

There’s nothing new about this latest congressional attack on expression. The political right wing has always embraced censorship, believing that government can foster and protect moral values through strict regulation of speech. But this curious attitude conflicts with the central tenet of conservatism, namely a healthy mistrust of government. Why do conservatives feel compelled to have a federal nanny state protect their children from indecency? Why do conservatives, who once questioned and resisted the growing involvement of government in our lives, now trust FCC bureaucrats to determine moral standards? Conservatives should know that a decent society is rooted in strong families, churches, and civic institutions, not government control of broadcasting.

The political left is no better when it comes to free speech. The left may be more permissive toward lurid or obscene material, but it has zero tolerance for political, religious, and social commentary that falls outside the bounds of rigid political correctness doctrines it created. Liberals are happy to restrict so-called commercial speech; happy to jail those who commit phony hate crimes merely by speaking their minds; and happy to impose speech codes on college campuses.

Conservatives must understand that the powers they grant the FCC today may one day be used against them. It is not hard to imagine a future where criticism of abortion is deemed hate speech against women, or criticism of affirmative action considered an unlawful attack on minorities. It is not hard to imagine President Hillary Clinton ordering the FCC to shut down Rush Limbaugh for using the term “feminazi.” Already a petition has been filed with the Justice department to investigate The Passion of the Christ for possible hate crimes against those who dislike the film’s theology! Big-government conservatives will learn that heavy-handed federal control of speech is far more likely to result in a rigidly secular, politically-correct society than a moral society imbued with Christian virtue.

The First Amendment is worthless if it does not protect unpopular, controversial expression. It is precisely when the sensibilities of many Americans are offended that the First Amendment is needed most. Many of our cherished religious, political, and legal traditions are rooted in once-radical ideas. It’s a short step from regulating words and images to regulating thoughts and ideas.

Ultimately, broadcasters air indecent material only if the market demands it. Congress cannot raise the moral bearing of the American people by edict, but it can destroy liberty in the process. When it comes to decency, the American people should stop looking to government and start looking at themselves.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst031504.htm