Naked imperialism cloaked in homeland defense

The loud clarion call of the neoconservative movement and other so-called "independent" thinkers like Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily is the tiresome "we're at war" or something akin to "We're in a War on Terror!"

I have come up with a new term for the changing political lexicon in America.

I've never been high on the standard political labels as they are generally used today.

I just don't see much difference between many of those who call themselves "conservative" and those who call themselves "liberal." As I've pointed out many times, those words mean different things to different people in different places at different times.

They mean almost nothing today in America. If George Bush is a "conservative," the word has lost any meaning whatsoever.

And because my views don't fit neatly into little boxes for my critics, I'm often caricatured and stereotyped in the most despicable ways.

Because I categorically reject the "conservative" label for a variety of reasons, it's amusing to me when some take it a step further – calling me a "neo-con."

Hmm, where to begin. See, this is why political discourse in America is stone cold dead and cannot be revived. Farah apparently of late finally acknowledges that there is not "much difference" between those who identify themselves as "conservatives" and those who identify as "liberals." That's a start and he's finally grabbing the clue branch firmly it would seem. But then, he loses his already tenuous grip on the clue branch completely by confusing the term "neo-con" with an authentic "conservative" as evidenced clearly by his amusement (or is it really bewilderment?) at being labeled a "neocon" by some. As if by his publicly rejecting the term "conservative" ad infinitum that that somehow encompasses all terms and meanings pertaining to the label "conservative." No, no, no! Farah needs to grab two clue branches on his next attempt and maybe he'll hold fast for a season at least. But, sigh, as the following illustrates vividly, he's left the forest completely.

"Neo-con" is the favorite epithet of people like Pat Buchanan and the anti-war crowd. These are the people who, for whatever reason, fail to recognize that America is at war. It's not a question of whether we want to be at war. It's simply the case that others have chosen to war with us. The new anti-warriors seem to think we can pretend we're not.

For many of them, this was not the way they saw the world during the Cold War. This was not the way they perceived the threat from the Soviet Union. They were anti-communists back then. Now they have changed the rules of engagement – but they accuse people like me of changing. Thus, the epithet "neo-con."

But since this group is the one who has changed the way they view real-world threats, real-world enemies, real-world totalitarians who want to kill Americans, kill Christians, kill Jews, kill infidels, I've decided it's the anti-war crowd that needs a new moniker.

So I have come up with a new term. Tell me what you think of my new name for those folks who suddenly define themselves and their worldview by their anti-war stance. I call them "neo-coms."

It's quite obvious that Joe Farah has no idea what the term neocon or neoconservative means as he's confessed as much above.

Firstly, Bill Kristol is one key figure, if not the elitist figure, who managed to elevate the term "neoconservatism" to it's current vogue status among the majority of hapless traditionalist commoners, who know no better because of constitutional ignorance and/or other writings and utterances of founders such as John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton found in the Federalist Papers. But even more amazing (and tragic) than the bliss of the commoner, in general, is the ignorance displayed frequently by media traditionalists and constitutionalists. Could it be feigned ignorance, or is it genuine? You decide. Whether the resultant consequence(s) of deception is intentional or unintentional matters not, it's still eventually realized nonetheless by the innocent and the guilty.

In short, "neoconservatism" is really just a euphemism for the same ol' global socialism/communism, albeit with a pinch of benevolence thrown in, brought to fruition through growth of government in general, but especially centralized government. In other words, the same mindset as any hardcore Marxist, but cloaked for a season with that pinch of benevolence mentioned earlier. What benevolence that does exist would cease assuredly when the ultimate goal of such elitists of that total centralization is realized.

With all this in mind, could one reason some folk label Farah a "neocon" be because he advocates war against myriad states that may or may not hate us, but who have not attacked us? Newsflash! We'll always be hated by other nations and peoples of the world. That's just the way it is and has always been since there were nations. The clarion call, and ultimate excuse for whatever government abuse, almost a cliché today, called the "War on Terror" is in essence nothing more than a Countach vehicle with which government can be expanded speedily and hastily with little to no resistance. Hey, that sure beats expansion at the pace of a Volkswagen. Anyway, it has nothing to do with a real war against a real enemy!! If this so-called WAR ON TERROR (and against Islamic jihadists as Farah loves to scream) that America is mired in was genuine, we'd have attacked Saudi Arabia with a vengeance and crushed the source of Wahhabism quicktime. Has that happened? No. Is it ever going to happen? No! Has Osama bin Laden been eliminated? No. Is it ever going to happen? No! It's amazing how fast folk forget what Bush stated just after 9/11 about getting Bin Laden "dead or alive." Also, the Bush regime has quietly closed the CIA unit dedicated to capturing Osama bin Laden.

Lastly, could one reason Farah is labeled a "neocon" by some be because he has decided himself to label "anti-war zealots" as "neo-coms?" He writes as if there is no such thing as a principled anti-war position, a position that mirrors a view Madison, Jay, Hamilton, or even Jefferson would almost certainly have shared. That would be not to entangle ourselves in alliances to start with and only attack a hostile aggressor who has first attacked us or is, by all detectible means, going to inevitably attack us. That would be the only acceptable time to decide to commit preemptive attacks upon other states. We're not doing any of that. And the desire of most self-identified neocons is to build up the U.S. military for the purpose of preemptive attacks against whatever state(s) that wish not to follow our "world democratic revolution" script. Of course, naturally, the imperial muscle-wielding and "regime changes" would only be imposed upon those banana republics and fiefdoms that are least likely to fight on anything approaching an even keel or even pose a challenge.

But that's beside the point. The inescapable reality here is that it's Farah whose true colors are more aligned with the Left, the neocons, et al not Buchanan! The only topic on which I completely disagree with Buchanan on is his Mideast madness disease, but that's blog fodder for another time.