What Is Neoconservatism? Who are the Neocons?
Everything You Should Know about the Neoconservative Movement
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 |
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.
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.”
In my
article “Brazil, the Next (Regional or Global)
Threat to the U.S. Economic Supremacy?”
I noted:
“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.
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.
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
“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 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?
Source: Last Days Watchman
Recommended Reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment