Monday, October 02, 2017

What Is Neoconservatism? Who are the Neocons?

What Is Neoconservatism? Who are the Neocons?

Everything You Should Know about the Neoconservative Movement

By Julio Severo
Recently, Pope Francis said, “America has a distorted vision of the world,” warning against Trump’s “dangerous alliance” with Russia that he fears will harm Islamic immigrants.”
John McCain
Why is the pope so worried about an alliance between U.S. and Russia?
To see Russia as a threat is a traditional neocon approach.
Actually, in his campaign Donald Trump, who is the U.S. president today, countered this approach by attacking, and being attacked by, Republican Senator John McCain and hordes of neocons. Trump made abundantly clear that he wanted an alliance with Russia against Islamic terror.

Franklin Graham, a U.S.-Russian Alliance Is Necessary

Franklin Graham, the son of the legendary evangelist Billy Graham and who was one of the Christian and Jewish leaders chosen to offer prayers at Trump’s presidential inaugural, has asked prayers also for a U.S.-Russia alliance against Islamic terror.
Graham, who would be labeled a “fundamentalist terrorist” by pope’s closest associates, sees such union as very essential.
Different of the Catholic pope, who sees such alliance as “dangerous,” evangelical Graham sees such alliance as necessary against Islamic dangers.
Consistent with pope’s wishes, neocons have asked sanctions and hostility against current Russia, which is conservative.
Neocons thrive on wars. They need to support their military industrial complex. So if the endless Islamic wars are extinguished, the neocons’ profits are gone. For them, it is more advantageous to make Russia a bogeyman and scapegoat and have a U.S.-Islamic alliance against the Russian bogeyman than having a U.S.-Russian alliance against Islam and its incessant wars and terrorism. If the world achieves peace, neocons go bankrupt. If America stops her incessant military meddling in the affairs of other nations, neocons go bankrupt.
With Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, McCain was a vocal supporter of the Ukrainian revolution, and of the U.S. providing arms to Ukraine against Russia, saying the Obama sanctions imposed against Russia were not enough. McCain has also been instrumental for the U.S., under Obama and now under Trump, providing arms to Islamic rebels in Syria and imposing sanctions on the Syrian government.
So if Trump wanted an alliance with Russia, why has he capitulated to McCain and neocons?
The best analysis came from Scott Lively, who said,
“I believe President Trump will begin to shift back to some of his seemingly abandoned campaign promises, including an alliance with Russia, which I think is the best possible geopolitical outcome for pro-family conservatives. Many people are angry with him for capitulating to McCain and the neo-cons on Syria and on Obama’s Cold War revival re Russia. However, I think those capitulations are probably unavoidable because the US State and Defense department are the deepest strongholds of globalist power in our government and the hardest for the White House to control. Taking and exercising control in those departments is a slow, systematic process that should grow incrementally easier as Mr. Trump consolidates control across the rest of the Executive Branch. If I am right in my analysis, we’ll see significant policy changes within a year and obvious steps in the right direction soon.”
John McCain has reportedly received over $100,000 from billionaire liberal activist-funder George Soros, who, by the way, has campaigned also against Russia.
Because Russia was the main opposition to Soros’s revolution in Ukraine, Soros has attacked mainly Putin. In his article titled “Putin is a bigger threat to Europe’s existence than ISIS,” Soros said, “The leaders of the US and the EU are making a grievous error in thinking that president Vladimir Putin’s Russia is a potential ally in the fight against Islamic State. The evidence contradicts them. Putin’s aim is to foster the EU’s disintegration.”
Capitulation to the neocons leads to disaster. What will Trump gain by capitulating to McCain, who has capitulated to Soros?
What will Trump gain by capitulating to McCain, who wants the U.S. government meddling in Ukraine and Syria against Russia?

Why Does the Left Accuse Trump of Collusion with Russia?

There is also a desperate effort to accuse Trump of “collusion” with Russia, as if Russia were a big threat to be shunned, as if Russia were the biggest communist threat in the world.
Actually, modern Russia is much more conservative, including in pro-family values.
Yet, there is actually a U.S. “collusion” with the largest communist nation in the world. The United States has made China the most powerful communist-capitalist nation in the world. If China has the biggest communist army in the world, it is thanks exclusively to the countless economic incentives from U.S. to the Chinese communist government.
Communist China has been supported by Democrats and Republicans, by Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump. All the conservative and socialist U.S. presidents have had “collusion” with the largest communist nation in the world in a lesser or larger scale. All of them are to blame, because all of them have in a lesser or larger scale followed the neocon agenda.
All of these presidents have different views on pro-family issues, but in neocon ambitions, all of them are equal in a lesser or larger scale. Some of them are ideologically different, with Carter, Clinton and Obama adhering to the socialist agenda and with Reagan, Bush and Trump adhering the conservative agenda. But all of them follow the neocon agenda that seems mandatory by the deep State.

Bill Clinton and George Bush: Example of a Union Between Left-Wingers and Right-Wingers Under the Neocon Flag

What has a conservative president in common with a socialist president? What has a pro-family president in common with a pro-abortion and pro-sodomy president?
In pro-family terms, nothing. In neocon terms, everything. In 2014 George W. Bush described Bill Clinton as a “brother from another mother” in a gushing interview about their surprising friendship, according to Daily Mail.
He added that his own father “serves as a father figure” to Clinton, who pushed the elder Bush out of office in 1992.
Daily Mail reported that after becoming president, Clinton frequently sought Bush Sr.’s advice, just as Bush Jr. did with Clinton when he was elected America’s 43rd president.
Did these mutual advices include abortion and homosexuality? After all, before Obama, Clinton was the most prominent pro-abortion and pro-sodomy U.S. president. In contrast, Bush was generally pro-life and pro-family.
Does their friendship involve moral clashes? No, because their union is not based on pro-family interests, but only on neocon ambitions.
A real conservative Christian would never do vote for a socialist candidate. But neoconservatives (neocons) in the Deep State have conservative candidates for conservative constituents and they have socialist candidates for socialist constituents, and all of these candidates are submissive to the neocon agenda.
What is a neocon? Neoconservatives are present in both the Democratic and the Republican Parties and their focus and priority is not to conserve pro-life, pro-family and Christian values. They seek to conserve and expand the U.S. military, economic and political hegemony around the world. Neocons work with any U.S. president having this focus, whether a right-wing Bush or a left-wing Obama.
U.S. neoconservatism focuses on foreign policy as its main concern, to keep the United States as the only superpower molding the New World Order.

How the Neoconservative Movement Was Born

The term “neoconservative” was popularized in the United States in 1973 by socialist leader Michael Harrington, who used the term to define the ideology of Irving Kristol, Daniel Bell and Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Daniel Bell was a Jew who once described himself as a “socialist in economics, a liberal in politics, and a conservative in culture.”
Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a Catholic member of the pro-abortion and pro-sodomy Democratic Party.
Irving Kristol, dubbed the “godfather of neo-conservatism,” was a powerful liberal writer during the 1950s and 1960s. He had grown disenchanted with the Democratic Party by 1970 and switched to the Republican Party, welcoming the name “neoconservative” for the band of liberal intellectuals he brought with him.
Kristol described a neoconservative as a “liberal mugged by reality.” He was immensely persuasive in the shaping of the neocon movement, especially among Catholics.
During the Cold War era, most neoconservatives vigorously opposed the Soviet Union. Even though most neocons stand against communism, their ideology, which gives no priority to the Christian values that founded America, is basically socialist, except for the exacerbate warmongering and expansionist nationalism. Hillary Clinton is an example. She was opposed to North Korea, an officially communist nation. As a 2016 presidential candidate, she was supported by the most capitalist conglomerates in the world, but she is opposed to pro-family and Christian values. In a sense, she is capitalist. In a sense, she is socialist. But in every sense, she is neocon.
In American politics, a neoconservative is someone presented as a conservative but who usually does not participate in the March for Life and does not stand up for traditional marriage. Neocons emphasize putting America first in a very militaristic nationalism. They support attacking and even overthrowing foreign governments, even when the result is more persecution of Christians. Some neocons have profited immensely from the military-industrial complex.

Neocons Led Bush to Invade Iraq, instead of Saudi Arabia

Even though neocons praise the Iraq War, DailyMail said that this war “was one of the biggest mistakes made in the history of modern America.” In 2016, Trump condemned the Iraq War.
Both George W. Bush and senator Hillary Clinton approved it. From a Christian and humanitarian perspective, this war was a total disaster for Christians.
Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, there were over 2 million Christians. Today, they number less than 300,000. The U.S. military presence in Iraq did not protect Christians and even after the genocide, the U.S. massively opened its immigration doors to Muslims, not their Christian victims.
The ten Islamic terrorists who attacked the U.S. on 9/11 were not from Iraq. They were from Saudi Arabia. Even so, the U.S. did not invade and attack Saudi Arabia, which is, in fact, the biggest sponsor of worldwide Islamic terrorism. The U.S. invaded Iraq as if the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqis.
Saddam Hussein was not a good man, but at least he protected Christian minorities much better than the U.S. did after the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. military mission in Iraq was a failure and eventually brought ISIS and chaos and genocide to Christians.
The difference is: Iraq under Hussein was an enemy of Saudi Arabia, which has been always a friend and ally of U.S. neocons and presidents, including the Bushes, the Clintons, Obama and Trump.
The U.S. invasion of Iraq left a predictable vacuum that resulted in the murder of thousands of Christians there and the rise of ISIS. During the Republican presidential primaries in 2016, Donald Trump humiliated the neocons’ insistence on war in Iraq, Ukraine, Libya and Syria, even though as president Trump has followed their insistence.
Trump is doing today, regarding to Syria, virtually everything he had condemned in Hillary, Obama and neocons, and Syrian Christians, who had supported Trump, are discontented.
The highest priority of the neoconservatives has been to increase military action by the United States in the Middle East and to expand it to a confrontation against Russia. There is a revolving door between some neocons and highly paid positions in the defense industry, which may explain the constant neoconservative demands for more wars.
Neoconservatives favor expensive foreign interventionism with massive federal spending, often to replace a dictator with a new system of government that may be worse, especially for Christians. Sometimes this is expressed as a desire to install a democracy in a culture incompatible with it.
The neoconservative position was discredited in the failure of democracy in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. In all of these nations, which were home to Christian communities and churches, a measure of tolerance was replaced by Islamic radicalism and purge of Christians after U.S. interventions, and today no Christian church is left in Afghanistan.

Neocons, Globalism and U.S. Hegemony

In contrast to traditional conservatives, neoconservatives favor globalism through U.S. hegemony, downplay Christian values and are unlikely to actively oppose abortion and the homosexual agenda. Neocons do not care about the evangelical foundation of America and they do not care about making alliances with Islamic terror groups to confront Russia. Neocons favor strong active U.S. interventions in world affairs.
On foreign policy, neoconservatives believe the mission of the United States is to install democracy around the world. When fulfilling this mission, both Bushes talked about a New World Order.
A second main line of development of neoconservatism was strongly influenced by the work of German-American political philosopher Leo Strauss. Some of Strauss’ students include former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz under George W. Bush. Wolfowitz, an American-Jewish neocon, had a known affair with Shaha Riza, a Muslim woman who grew up in Saudi Arabia. (It reminds former CIA director John Brennan, who converted to Islam in Saudi Arabia. U.S. neocons want to be close to Islam, and even to the communist China, but not close to Christian Russia.)
According to Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy in the Reagan administration and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, Wolfowitz created the Wolfowitz doctrine, which is basis for the U.S. foreign policy toward Russia. His doctrine regards any power sufficiently strong to remain independent of Washington’s influence to be “hostile.”
The Wolfowitz doctrine justifies Washington’s dominance of all regions in the world. It is, according to Roberts, consistent with the neoconservative ideology of the U.S. as the “indispensable” and “exceptional” country entitled to world hegemony.
Roberts said that “Russia is in the way of U.S. world hegemony” and that “Unless the Wolfowitz doctrine is abandoned, nuclear war is the likely outcome.”
Yet, the Wolfowitz doctrine can be used not only against Russia. In 2008 American prophet Chuck Pierce told us, a small group of Brazilians in São Paulo, Brazil, that “God had removed his national anointing from the U.S. in 2008.”
“Pierce also said that God was looking for another nation to grant this anointing. He told that if Brazil got closer to Israel, God was going to give the anointing to Brazil. Then he had a vision about what would happen if Brazil began to develop into an international power: He saw the U.S. government encircling and stifling Brazil economically and militarily. He saw the U.S. filled with envy. He saw the U.S. totally determined to hinder Brazil’s economic rise. What I understood from his vision is that the U.S., as the only superpower today, will not accept the rise of any other nation to rival its hegemony. The development of every nation is to be under the submission of U.S. interests, and these are wicked interests, because the U.S. government has abandoned the Lord long ago. The U.S. sees the economic rise of other nations as competing with its power.“
Perceiving or not, Pierce described neocons, who demand all the nations to be dependent on the U.S.
Neoconservatives are often described as “conservative,” but their positions on social issues are mixed. There are two main groups of neocons:
* There are neoconservatives who hold to liberal positions on social matters, and are unlikely to agree with Christian conservatives on issues like abortion, prayer in school and same-sex marriage.
* There are neoconservatives who tend to have greater degrees of agreement with Christian and cultural conservatives on social issues.
Neoconservatives differ from libertarians in that neoconservatives tend to support Big Government policies to further their military objectives.

In the Fight against Neocons in 2016, the Only Major Support for Trump Came from Evangelicals

Because in his 2016 campaign Trump had openly opposed neocons and their ambition for more U.S. military expansion, Commentary, the leading neoconservative magazine in the U.S., said, somewhat hyperbolically, that Mr. Trump is “the No. 1 threat to American security” — bigger than the Islamic State. Very similar to Soros, who sees Putin as a threat bigger than ISIS.
The big lesson in last U.S. election was the way neocons were exposed by Trump, notwithstanding Trump, as president, essentially abandoned his anti-neocon speeches and actions.
Because of Trump’s confrontation with neocons in 2016, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said that Trump “has had every establishment off his side. Trump does not have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment. Banks, intelligence, arms companies, foreign money, etc. are all united behind Hillary Clinton. And the media as well. Media owners, and the journalists themselves.”
Assange’s assumption proved true. After the election, it was confirmed that officially white evangelicals gave victory to Trump.
It was not neocons who gave victory to Trump. It was not the military-industrial complex that gave him the victory. It was not the Vatican that gave victory to him. In fact, the pope’s closest associates have labeled Trump’s Christian supporters “fundamentalist terrorists.”
It was white evangelicals gave victory to Trump.
But for some reason, Trump has not continued his confrontation with neocons, at least not in the first year of his presidency.
If evangelicals were the only major group supporting Trump in the last U.S. elections, where was the second largest Christian group in America, Catholics? Why were not they supporting Trump? Why most U.S. Catholics preferred neocon Hillary?

Why Are Catholics More Involved in the Neoconservative Movement?

A simple Google search shows that Catholics are predominantly mentioned as predominantly involved in neocon politics and geopolitics.
A search for “Catholic neoconservatives” delivers 3,100 results.
A search for “evangelical neoconservatives” delivers just 43 results.
A search for “Protestant neoconservatives” delivers just 4 results.
Evangelicals and Protestants, in this search, account for about 1 percent of Christian neocons. Religiously, Catholics are in the Christian frontlines in the neoconservative movement. If this search is correct, it explains the “neocon” opposition from the pope to a U.S.-Russian alliance against Islamic terror. It seems that the Vatican would prefer alliance with Islamic terrorists than with Russia — not to mention with Israel.
It is not known why Catholics would sacrifice Christian and pro-life and pro-family values for a foreign policy of U.S. ideological interventionism and expansionism that slaughter other Christians. For example, in the Iraq War thousands and thousands of Christians were sacrificed in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion, approved by right-wing Bush. Later, left-wing Obama expanded the sacrifice when his left-wing State Secretary Hillary Clinton helped create ISIS, which has been torturing, raping and slaughtering Christians masses in Iraq and Syria.
The U.S. foreign policy, carried by neocons in the Republican Party and Democratic Party, has been very bad for Christians in the Middle East.
Most Christians slaughtered in Syria and Iraq are Orthodox Christians. Because powerful U.S. neocons are Catholics, some could wonder if they would approve such invasion, meddling and massacres in Syria and Iraq if Christians there were exclusively Catholic.
Actually, the U.S. has been soft with Islamic terror against Middle East Christians in the same way the Vatican has been soft.
A conflict between Christian powers, motivated by a millennial hostility between Catholics and Orthodox Christians, but masked as insincere concerns about the communism of the defunct Soviet Union, is everything Islam needs to advance more and keep its yearly martyrdom of 100,000 Christians.

America: The Vatican’s New Italy

The same Vatican that is soft with Islam is now more aligned, in terms of global governance, with the U.S. government. There are scholarly works confirming that the Vatican is very connected to the U.S. In fact, the survival of the State-Church Vatican has been dependent on the U.S.
Is such “union” beneficial to the original U.S. evangelical conservatism?
Even under Pope John Paul 2, who was a pro-life and pro-family champion, conservatism was not as strong as thought. He did what conservative Ronald Reagan never did. While John Paul 2 lost no opportunity to be with the Palestinian terrorist leader Yasser Arafat (with abundant pictures proving their glad meetings), Reagan deliberately boycotted every opportunity to meet the Islamic terrorist leader, threatening to boycott his presence even at the United Nations.
While the U.S. conservative president boycotted the terrorist leader, the “conservative” pope embraced him, thereby proving that the Vatican is really soft with Islam and its terrorists.
According to Catholic sources, the Catholic Church has received millions in dollars to facilitate Islamic immigrant invasion in U.S. This explains partially why the pope is worried that an U.S.-Russian alliance will harm Islamic immigration to the U.S. That is, it will harm directly the Vatican’s pockets.
The big question is: How did a nation born essentially Protestant and pro-Israel and pro-Jews unite itself with a State-Church historically against Russia, Israel and Jews and it is soft with Islam, including by facilitating Islamic immigrant invasion in U.S?
“Rome in America: Transnational Catholic Ideology from the Risorgimento to Fascism,” by Peter R. D’Agostino, shows that in the past, the essential association was between the Vatican and Italy. Now it is increasingly between the Vatican and the U.S. In effect, the U.S. has become the Vatican’s new Italy.
Another fundamental book is “Parallel Empires: The Vatican and the United States — Two Centuries of Alliance and Conflict,” by Massimo Franco, which says:
“The Vatican view [under Pope John Paul II] is that the American response to [Islamic] terrorism, the battlefront of the third millennium, is too strident and more likely to exacerbate the problem than to solve it. While Islamic fundamentalism is the main threat to the West, Vatican officials press their arguments that historically Islam and Christian communities have generally managed to coexist in the Arab world.”
This explains the soft U.S. stance on Islamic terror. But what does explain a hard U.S. stance on Orthodox Russia?
For centuries, Catholics advocated an Italian nationalism (and an overwhelming majority of popes were Italian) because the Vatican was linked to Italy. Today, Catholics, even in Brazil, the largest Catholic nation in the world, defend an exacerbated American warmongering nationalism. Why? For the same old reason: The Vatican today is connected to the United States in many respects and ambitions.

The Vatican and Its Historical Hostility to the Orthodox Church

There was a time, before the foundation of the Soviet Union, when Catholics, even U.S. Catholics, wanted the supremacy of the Vatican. Now Catholics heavily involved in the neocon movement want the U.S. supremacy, not in pro-family advocacy, but exclusively in military and political hegemony. Why?
Most U.S. suspicions of the current Russia come from Catholic neocons. Catholics have for one thousand years had suspicions of the Christian Orthodox Church. And today the largest Orthodox Christian nation in the world is Russia. Before the birth of the Soviet Union, they had suspicions of Russia — for religious reasons. During the Soviet Union, they had suspicions, rightly shared by evangelicals, over Soviet Marxism. But after the Soviet Union’s downfall, why do their suspicions remain?
Catholics had many suspicions of the largely Protestant and capitalist U.S. society, but they overcame this prejudice. Why not in regard to an Christian Orthodox Church that is fighting for the same pro-family values as Reagan’s America did?

Trump Was the First U.S. Candidate to Confront Neocons

As a Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump was the first American in the U.S. history to confront neocons in the Democratic Party and Republican Party. He was not a conservative in the Christian sense of having a history of pro-family advocacy, but he had not the neocon advocacy of Hillary Clinton, shared by George H. W. Bush and many other Republicans, to conserve and expand the U.S. military, economic and political hegemony, especially through NATO, at the expense of Christians values and even Christian lives.
While both Republican and Democratic neocons want greater U.S. military interventions in Syria, Iraq and Ukraine, which are not U.S. territories and do not have a U.S. population, Trump wanted the U.S. to stop this meddling, including NATO meddling.
Trump wanted a partnership with Russia against Islamic terror, but neocons — including Obama, Hillary and both Bushes — wanted a partnership with Islam against Russia.
Even though personally Trump has a personal moral life as doubtful as Bill Clinton, he was right and very courageous to confront neocons and their ambitions in 2016.
God can use strange things and men to speak to people and nations. I believe that He used Trump to speak the truth in the neocon issue. Much Christian blood has been shed by neocons, through wars and Islamic violence.
How had Trump confronted neocons? He blasted them over the Iraq War and the U.S. meddling in Syria and Ukraine and demonization of Russia.
According to DailyMail, Trump had “criticized Clinton’s handling of U.S.-Russian relations while Secretary of State and said her harsh criticism of Putin raised questions about ‘how she is going to go back and negotiate with this man who she has made to be so evil’ if she wins the presidency.”
Demonization of Putin and Russia is the core of the neocon passions.

Ukraine: A Sample of Neocon Interventions

The Ukrainian case is a showcase of neocon ambitions. While Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and George Soros were calling the Ukrainian revolution a people’s revolution, in a WND report Savage said,
“The situation in Ukraine has been painted as a conflict between Vladimir Putin’s Russia, the so-called bad guys, and Ukrainian rebels, the so-called good guys who seek to oust Russia from a position of influence in Ukraine and install a new government that will be responsive to the Ukrainian people. Don’t believe a word of it. The Ukrainian nationalists are fascists. Washington’s original purpose for staging a coup in Ukraine was to move Ukraine away from Russia and bring Ukraine into the European Union. In other words, the neocons and the bought-and-paid-for ‘moderates’ in the Obama administration wanted to wrest control of Ukraine from Putin’s hands and gain economic and energy control over the country. As Dr. Stephen F. Cohen has pointed out, Western nations, with the U.S. leading the way, have been provoking Putin for decades. We’ve expanded NATO to include former Soviet states – Ukraine looks like the next target – and we’ve attacked allies of Russia, including Libya and Iraq. The U.S. – along with other Western nations – through our incursions into the politics, economics and national security of Russia and several of its allies, has effectively caused the situation that is now unfolding in Ukraine. Cohen is right.”
Savage pointed that Obama and his neocons, not conservatives, created a revolution in Ukraine to draw it away from Russia and put it, eventually, into NATO’s orbit.
While Trump had praised Russia in 2016 and his advisers were supporting pro-Russian forces in Ukraine, neocons have openly praised the Ukrainian revolution as the best democratic example against dictatorship. The Ukrainian revolution was the biggest Soros revolution, massively funded by him.
John McCain and other neocons want Ukraine in NATO and are willing to go to war over it. In contrast, Trump had shown no willingness to follow neocon passions for war in Ukraine against Russia.
On September 2016, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko invited Trump for a meeting, but, according to DailyMail, “the Ukrainian government says the Republican candidate blew them off.”
Yet, Hillary Clinton met Poroshenko and promised him that she would stand with Ukraine against “Russian aggression.”
While neocons want Ukraine in NATO’s orbit and they are using the Ukrainian situation to strengthen NATO, Trump had again been in conflict with their interests. Yet, now as president Trump has abandoned his anti-neocon promises and followed Hillary’s bad example.
Patrick J. Buchanan, a Republican pro-life traditionalist Catholic who was an adviser to President Ronald Reagan, has addressed the Ukrainian issue. Buchanan is hated by the neocons. He said that in crafting his platform on which he would run, candidate Donald Trump inflicted a major defeat on the War Party.
“The platform committee rejected a plank to pull us deeper into Ukraine, by successfully opposing new U.S. arms transfers to Kiev. Improved relations with Russia were what candidate Trump had promised, and what Americans would vote for in November,” said Buchanan in his WND article “Is Trump’s Russia policy being hijacked?
He also said that on Ukraine, vice president Mike Pence stated, “We stand with you.”

Mike Pence: a Protestant Strong in Neocon Wars But Weak in the War against the Gay Agenda

Pence also backed Trump’s decision to keep some homosexual decrees by Obama.
“I think throughout the campaign, President Trump made it clear that discrimination would have no place in our administration,” Pence said.
“Discrimination” talk was basically the same strategy Obama and Hillary used to promote the gay agenda.
“He was the very first Republican nominee to mention the LGBTQ community at our Republican National Convention and was applauded for it. And I was there applauding with him,” added Pence.
If Pence brags that Trump was the first Republican candidate to praise the LGBTQ community, Obama was the first president to appoint a special envoy for the homosexual agenda. How does Pence expect Trump to surpass Obama?
When he was the Indiana governor, Pence approved the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to protect religious people from persecution by gay activists. But after widespread pressure and boycotts, including from big businesses such as Apple and Wal-Mart, Pence rolled back his religious freedom law. His cowardly changes marked the largest step toward special homosexual rights there in history, according to pro-family activists who studied the language of the changed law.
So in regard to neocon’s warmongering ambitions, Pence, who is a Protestant, stands with them. But in regard to war against the homosexual agenda, Pence, who initially sides with Christians, swiftly backtracks to stand with homosexualists.

Neocon Protestants Want America in the Ukrainian War But Not in the War against the Gay Agenda

Protestant blogger Warren Throckmorton asked active U.S. military involvement in Ukraine, and he has asked Christians not to get involved in wars to oppose homosexual supremacists in their agenda to destroy true marriage. Are now Christian interests less important than neocon ambitions?
Have Protestants capitulated to the neocons?
Buchanan asks another question: Has Trump capitulated to the neocons?
He explains that Kurt Volker, the new U.S. special representative for Ukraine negotiations, is the architect of the new arms package from Trump to Ukraine.
Buchanan said that Volker is a “former staffer of Sen. McCain… and executive director of the neocon McCain Institute.”
McCain is one of the most rabid neocons in the U.S. Congress.
Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that was initiated by Obama, Soros and neocons.
The best explanation about neocons’ intent was given by Savage, who said in WND:
“The neocons… thrive on military conflict. When the world is at war, the neocons and the defense contractors who work with them make enormous amounts of money. The neocons don’t care which side you’re on, as long as they can work with you to create a political situation that they can grow into a war from which they will profit.”
Savage is right. And Trump used to agree with him, because Trump had been reading his books and had a very positive interview with Savage. But neocon-minded individuals do not agree. The Trevor Loudon blog said in 2016,
“If Trump is elected, you will have the Russians… in the White House. Trump’s advisers are very connected to Vladimir Putin and Russia. Trump himself has many ties as well and is friends with Putin. This is why Putin will try to sabotage Clinton with leaked emails, etc.”
Trump’s approach to seek to get along with Russia and meet Putin was correct, but despised by neocons.

Conservative Ronald Reagan Sought Peace, Not Wars

Ronald Reagan tried Trump’s approach in the past, when Russia was the Soviet Union and was officially atheistic and communist. In that time, America under Reagan officially valued the Bible and Christian values. Today, the U.S. society officially despises these values, while Russia has officially left atheism and has embraced its Orthodox Christian Church.
It impossible for socialists Hillary and Obama to get along with modern Russia, especially after Russians passed a law banning homosexual propaganda to children.
Yet, if it was possible for evangelical Reagan to seek to get along with Soviet atheistic leaders, why should Trump be accused today of “collusion” for seeking to get along with a non-atheistic Russia?
He should be commended, not attacked, for seeking an alliance with conservative Russia.

Neocons, in Collusion with China, the Largest Communist Nation in the World, Accuse Trump of Collusion with Russia

Collusion is what the U.S. government has had for decades with the communist China, making it a powerful capitalist nation. The U.S. government has never made Russia rich. So where is the “collusion” with Russia? The only U.S. collusion is with China.
Neocons and their love of Islamic partnership against Russia and hatred of Russia are the biggest challenge. In this respect, Trump’s confrontation with neocons in 2016 is to be commended and imitated.
The heavy Catholic involvement with the neocon movement should be studied.
Even though former U.S. President George H. W. Bush were a hard-core neocon, his son, former U.S. President George W. Bush, was a good evangelical misled by neocons, who filled his administration. Reagan also was misled by them. As said Scott Lively, Bush was just their puppet. Many evangelicals have been duped by the neocons’ warmongering nationalism.
Incredible thing. Trump, a Presbyterian, had no history of confrontation with neocons and no history of Christian activism. But it is obvious that he played a very important role by showing who neocons are and what they are after. Sadly, his 2016 confrontation did not survive in his presidency.
Perhaps Scott Lively’s analysis will be fulfilled: “I believe President Trump will begin to shift back to some of his seemingly abandoned campaign promises, including an alliance with Russia, which I think is the best possible geopolitical outcome for pro-family conservatives.”
Perceiving or not, in his 2016 campaign Trump was used by God and left a powerful example and model to help evangelicals and other Christians fight neocons.
Neocons are engaged in blood-shedding of Christians in other nations. They should be stopped. Trump wanted to do it, but the pressure was too strong. Where are evangelicals and their holy pressure?

U.S. Evangelicals Should Sue the GOP for Capitulation to Neocons and Their Wars

Since evangelicals were the main base of voters who elected Trump, evangelical leaders, churches and organizations should sue the GOP. When U.S. evangelicals do not resist the neocons, the result is blood-shedding of Christians.
The neocons in the Congress have tied Trump’s hands. But evangelical leaders, churches and organizations should sue the GOP for capitulating to the will of the neocons, Democrats and socialists and for forcing Trump to do the neocons’ will.
Trump’s hands are tied by a Congress controlled by “conservative” Republicans who have capitulated to the neocons. What will evangelicals do to untie Trump?
It is time for U.S. evangelical leaders, churches and organizations to sue the GOP for the implementation of the original anti-neocon Trump Agenda.
It is time also for Christians around the world to pray that God may neutralize the neocons and their malevolent power in the U.S. government and in the U.S. military industrial complex.
U.S. evangelicals should sue the GOP for the genocide of Christians in Syria and Iraq in the trail of U.S. interventions and invasions. Even Trump condemned the Bush invasion of Iraq.
It is time for evangelicals to condemn the aggressive neocon military imperialism that is using the U.S. government.
If Trump is unable to fulfill his anti-neocon model shown in his 2016 campaign, America will need to choose a better model. Roy Moore, a brilliantly conservative Christian judge, may eventually become the best option.
With information from Conservapedia, WND (WorldNetDaily), DailyMail and other news channels.
Portuguese version of this article: O que é neoconservadorismo? Quem são os neocons?
Recommended Reading:

No comments :