Why are the Neo-Conservatives "More Successful" than Conservatives?

It's because they behave like liberals - mainly because in most ways they are liberals. I was hoping Republicae would write something about Social Democrats and how they are the forefathers of Neocons - the reason social democrats (neocons) are not anti-capitalist is because a) they realize communism makes people fight back too much against the state and b) MAINLY because they realize that capitalism can provide the money to do so many things with. Social Democrats are explicitly about using the money provided by free enterprise to advance their social agenda - namely equality and dismantling the bits of traditional societies they don't like - all their ends are *good* in their view obviously. They basically believe that a ruling group of social democrat types can hold society on a leish forever. To me I see them as intelligent Marxists - they know how far they can push/how much they can control people. A lot of the immigrants from Europe in the early part of the 20th Century - people like Bill Kristol's grandparents, were Social Democrats. They understandably had a problem with European societies (not really fair as most of the trouble was caused by Marxism and then the reaction to it in Nazism) and descrimination etc so wanted to change Western societies and can't tell babies from bathwater (or actually secretly hate the baby too). They are just another kind of socialist. Nearly all European countries are basically social democracies now. And it's not doing them much good.

In other words - they will allow us just enough freedom/capitalism so that we make lots of money for them to tax and play with and to stop us revolting/stop the system totally breaking down. Anyway, these ideas are INCOMPATIBLE with true freedom - they are a totally different strain of political thought from traditional Burkean conservative ideas. THEY ARE NOT CONSERVATIVE AT ALL. They would never, ever have been able to pass themselves off as 'conservatives' 100 years ago.

I would echo that the Neocons are infiltrators, and that they move their scheme via deception and treachery.
They are patient, and work for the long term, typically.

However, when they want to move with speed, they use fear as "rocket fuel". Fear mongering is one of the main tactics for their war mongering. Fear is a great mover of people, and they know this, and they use this.

If you notice, everything in this administration is displayed to be a "crisis" in some way or other, thus requiring rapid and overbearing gov't responses, and permanantly changed rules/laws to accommodate the government's "need" to deal with the "crisis", even though it's obvious that the rules will be in place forever, whether the crisis is "solved" or not. Or even if it was ever a "crisis" to begin with.

It's deception, sheepherding, and profiteering/control.
Essentially, it's treachery.
The gov't is intended to govern, not bring the sheep to market for shearing and slaughter, for the profit of the masters.

The Neocons are truly the most repugnant form of life on this planet.
They infiltrate, lie, deceive, and back-stab, while claiming to be "your friend and ally". It is the worst form of filth. They can't even muster up the ability to be an honorable enemy. They are worms.

However, they are effective because of the deceptions. Now, I don't promote using their tactics. But I recognize them.

IMO, for our efforts, we freedom lovers must do openly and actually, the right things for the nation and our people. The pleasant platitudes that the Neocons falsely claim to be "doing on our behalf, to help us".
We must actually do the things that will make people free, fruitful, and happy. The Neocons lie about it, but we can actually do it if we can get into the wider mix of the game.
So, we must match or overcome their numbers in all the facets of gov't, from local, to state, to federal, and all the organizations, that surround these gov't agencies. And we are already doing that to a small extent, and we can see that it is working for us. The work at the state conventions is exemplary, and should make us all proud. We want to be enough of a force to scare them and make them do things that will tip their hand. Make people see the scurrilous scoundrels that they are.
Our fundraising and organizational abilities is excellent. We simply need more time to complete the push.
I think thatby 2012, if there is any US left by then, could be a very good time for this movement, if we can remain focused and push very hard toward the goals.

I remember watching the Reagan situation in 1980 on TV, even though I was only a teenager at the time.

Rockefeller sent Henry Kissinger to the Republican convention to have closed-door meetings with Reagan. As I understand it from reading up, first Kissinger proposed a "co-Presidency" (essentially what we have now), with Gerald Ford as his Veep. Reagan rejected this. Then Reagan purportedly was told that unless he "played ball" with the CFR, they would "Goldwaterize him" through the media. At that point Reagan agreed to Bush and his cronies.

This is one reason why I am still somewhat skeptical of the delegate takeover strategy. If Ron Paul gets the nomination, there is absolutely no reason to believe that Republican CFR types will support him in any way. So it ultimately should come down to a Third Party run in September, because the Press and the Rockefeller Wing will not support him.

Of course what is currently being done in the campaign is gaining great momentum, but I feel the nomination itself is not Ron's plan. He's too smart to believe in that.

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

Fortune Favors the Bold

I've always felt most "conservatives" were really just mean spirited authoritarians, and the small government stuff was mostly just rhetoric.

________________________________________________________________
"let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeoprady"

Congressman Ron Paul

Good seldom plots against evil, but evil has always plotted against good.

who do you think wins?

The sooner we recognize these people as the unprincipled psychopaths they are, the better off we'll be.

from corporate America, they let greed stand in front of principals.

from corporate America, they let greed stan in front of principals.

... but if we as a movement stick together we can and are making a difference. Help out local candidates when ya can. Here is a prime example, a local candidate of ours that entered the race for the Republican nomination. Local candidates like this could also use a support from the Revolution, visit http://www.unhappytaxpaye... and donate even a small amount like $5. That small amount equals 5 more people we can spread the message too, this is how we win and begin to win.

The Neo-Cons were nothing more then leftist back in the 50s through the 70s until they decided to switch political sides and infest the Republican Party like they had infested the Democratic Party, which by the way is a common tactic for the them. Their lineage goes back to Fabian and Trotsky Socialist tradition. Irving Kristol was a Trotskite who never disavowed or denied that affiliation.

There were two books written by a famous and well-known author named H.G. Wells; one book was titled “Open Conspiracy”, the other was called “The New World Order”. What is amazing is that these, and other books were written by a group that openly declared an agenda to implement a gradual revolution to overthrow the governments of this and other countries…without firing a shot!

Although often overlooked, the fact is that Fabian Socialist has played a major role in the development of the economics and the political aspects of this country. Indeed, there is evidence that the Fabians influenced many of the decisions made “on behalf” of the American People by numerous Administrations. In fact, if we read the writings, the programs and plans of the Fabian Socialists, then carefully review the direction this country has been steered, it becomes evident that there is a very close correlation between that direction and the detailed planning of the Fabians.

The Fabians were not only willing to use any political party to advance their agenda, but could do it in such a way that the political parties were unaware of just what the proposals actually entailed once implemented. I will touch on the lineage of the Fabians at a later point in the article however, it should be noted that not only has the Fabian Socialist compromised the Republican and Democratic Parties, but also the latest push has come from another direct line of Fabians: the very aggressive branch called Neo-Cons. Fabians embrace and promote a policy of elite management to plan and direct society from the lofty halls of power. Social Constructionists, who see society as a business in need of centralized organization and protection. Of course, they see the need to organize and thus protect the People from themselves through Authoritarian State controls.

The Fabian goal, of course, is the centralization of government powers, the virtual nullification of individual Rights in the name of the “common good”, centralized economic planning and socialization of all functions that normally call for individual responsibility. The Fabian Revolution has been an almost silent and bloodless one, but it has been extremely effective in achieving its stated goals of gradual socialization. In the Fabian system, bureaucracy is the primary instrument of transformation, no matter which political party gains power, it is the implementation of bureaucracy that triumphs over constitutional order thus nullifying the ability of government to function normally under what could be considered actual constitutional law. The law of the land is nullified, diluted, eviscerated through a very indirect influence of bureaucratic red tape, regulatory pressure and arbitrary legal applications. It is the sense of relativity of law that they seek to impress upon the government and thus the People.

It is evident that the Fabians have used the existing political systems to advance their cause. In fact, part of their stated agenda is to use established political parties or ideologies as stages of influence. The infiltrate these political organizations with the intent of gradually imparting Fabian Socialism into the political structure of a country.

One Fabian Socialist: Professor Harold Laksi stated that the goal is transform a government to the point that it has “vast powers and can legislate under them by ordinance and decree.”

"Our propaganda is one of permeating - we urged our members to join the Liberal and Radical Associations in their district, or, if they preferred it, the Conservative Associations - we permeated the party organizations and pulled all the strings we could lay our hands on with the utmost adroitness and energy, and we succeeded so well that in 1888 we gained the solid advantage of a Progressive majority full of ideas that would never have come into their heads had not the Fabians put them there." Shaw

“The second World War, which the Marxist-Leninists claimed was necessary to advance their revolutionary strategy for world conquest, not only resulted in a major expansion of the Communist Empire; it also gave the Fabian Socialists the opportunity of expanding bureaucracy in every part of the English-speaking world, including the U.S.A. ?This expansion of bureaucracy, which enables the Fabians and other planners to exercise growing power over all aspects of the life of the individual by holding key bureaucratic positions, also provides the Communists with a perfect cover for their contribution to the revolution. The New Deal program, which President Roosevelt set in motion in 1933, allegedly to deal with the Great Depression crisis, was in fact Fabian inspired, with influential Fabians on both sides of the Atlantic being directly involved in the program. ?The New Deal required a tremendous expansion of bureaucracy. And this bureaucracy provided the perfect protection for large numbers of top Communist agents who progressively worked their way right into the very heart of the Roosevelt Administration, which from 1938 onwards was practically controlled by Communists.

These Governments are also subject to the influences of the Fabians, particularly in the field of economic and financial policy. They must continue to move, however reluctantly, in the same direction as the Socialists until such time as they are prepared to implement economic and financial policies, which are designed to place the full benefit of the free enterprise and private ownership economy at the disposal of the individual. ?Such policies would require less Government and a substantial reduction in bureaucracy.” Lord Hewart-The New Despotism-

If we look at so-called globalization, we will find some striking similarities between what has taken place over the last couple of decades and the Fabian agenda: " The broadsheet [Fabian P.E.P.] mentioned outlined how farmers and manufacturers should be controlled by "duly constituted authority". Small traders should be eliminated: "big consequent changes will follow in the machinery of government". "Whether we like it or not - and many will dislike it intensely - the individualistic manufacturer and farmer will be forced by events to submit to far-reaching changes in outlook and methods." ?"What is required, if with only a view to equitable treatment of individuals, is transfer of ownership of large blocks of land - not necessarily of all the land in the country, but certainly a large proportion of it - into the hands of the proposed statutory corporations and public utility bodies and of land trusts." Fabian Political and Economic Planning Committee.

Sidney Webb pointed out that: "The Fabian Society occupies a different sphere as a Socialist Society from that of the two larger bodies. It includes members of all the other organizations, with a number of active workers chiefly of the middle class, and 'literary proletariat'. . . . The Society exercises a considerable influence, more real than apparent, by the personal participation of its members in nearly all reform movements, as well as by their work at the Universities and in the fields of journalism and the teaching of Political Economy. It is not, however, a numerous body, and makes no attempt to increase its numbers beyond a convenient limit."

Harry Dexter White, Alger Hiss, John Maynard Keynes, Felix Frankfurter, Dean Acheson, Henry Morgenthau, V. Frank Coe, Lauchlin Currie, John Dewey, Harold Laski all were directly connected to the Fabian Socialist and many were extremely influential in the Administrations of FDR, some in the Truman Administration and even the Kennedy Administration. Kennedy himself attended the Fabian Socialist London School of Economics.

J. M. Keynes was not only a welcomed lecturer at the New School, but he was one of the most influential persons in the spread of Fabian Revolutionary Economic policy in history. He was far from a Capitalist Economist, but he was indeed a Fabian revolutionary intent, by his own admission, to the destruction of free market economics and sound monetary policy. "By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some....The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose." - John Maynard Keynes Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920

“When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many pseudo-moral principles which have hagridden us for two hundred years....” John Maynard Keynes. Of course, if you read about Keynes you will quickly learn that not only was he a notorious pedophile, but also advocated the use of drugs to seduce his victims. He processed a very perverted mind-set

“…the only course open to me is to be buoyantly Bolshevik; and as I lie in bed in the morning I reflect with a good deal of satisfaction that, because our rulers are as incompetent as they are mad and wicked, one particular era of a particular kind of civilization is very nearly over.” J.M.Keynes

Joseph A. Shumpeter, Harvard Professor of Economics, and a Marxist himself, regarded Keynes as one of the most skilled at promoting Fabian Economics in a way that would be accepted by American society and rivaled Marxism in undermining capitalism in this country.

In 1956, a book was written by John Strachey, a Fabian theoretician, called “Contemporary Capitalism”, in this book he states pretty clearly that Keynes was not at all interested in saving capitalism in the United States, but destroying it through his economic plan. He also believed that Keynesian Economics would be the key to the Socialist Revolution. In his book, Program for Progress he stated that the Keynesian Inflationary Expansion polices was: “"an indispensable step in the right direction." "the fact that the loss of objectivity, and the intrinsic value of the currency which is involved (i.e., inflation) will sooner or later make necessary, on pain of ever-increasing dislocation, a growing degree of social control . . . for the partial character of the policy will itself lead on to further measures. The very fact that no stability, no permanently workable solution can be found within the limits of this policy will ensure that once a community has been driven by events to tackle its problems in. this way, it cannot halt at the first stage, but must of necessity push on to more thorough going measures of re-organization."

Keynes wrote a book called The End of Laissez-Faire; it is a very important expose in which Keynes is explicit in his determination to see an end to private enterprise and socialized systems would replace it with political and social controls of the State. He even advocated that there should be strict controls on the number of children a family should be allowed. Keynes was not only accepted by the Socialist, but by the Fascists as well, in fact, at the 1942 Fabian International Bureau Conference it was stated: “there is not much difference between the basic economic techniques of Socialism and Nazism.”

Shaw wrote that “Compulsory labor, with death as the final penalty is the keystone of Socialism”. The problem that stood in the way was the economics of individual freedom and that was where John Maynard Keynes came in…Keynes said in a letter to Bernard Shaw that he was writing a book on economic theory [General Theory of Employment Interest and Money] and he told Shaw that his theory: “will largely revolutionize the way the world thinks about economic problems. When my new theory has been duly assimilated and mixed with politics and feelings and passions, I can’t predict what the final upshot will be in its effect on action and affairs.” In fact, when the book was published in 1936 it was a hit among Socialist of all strains.

The world in which we now live has been, in a large part, produced by direct Fabian influence. If you doubt this seemingly amazing statement, then look at the agenda of the Fabians and then look at the progression of our own history from the late 1800s to the present time. It will astound you to find that not only has the agenda of the Fabians directly influenced the manner of government we now have in this country, but that their agenda appears to be continuing as planned. The London School of Economics, founded by the Fabian Socialist to educate the elite in Socialist economics, has some very interesting Alumni, many of who have had either direct influence on the policies of this country’s government or direct leadership roles in this government. In fact, there are Alumni that hold global positions. An extensive list can be found online and include such names as Elliott Abrams, George Soros, John Tower, Pierre Trudeau, John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Richard Perle, Valerie Plame, David Rockefeller, Paul Volcker. Another noted professor in another Fabian establishment: The New School of Social Research, was none other than the father of Neo-Conservativism: Leo Strauss. The connections are not hard to miss nor are the implications of the influences we have all been subjected to over the last 100 years.

Speaking of the Administration of FDR, H.G. Wells stated: “There is a strong opposition on the part of great interests in America to the President, who has made himself the spear-head of the collectivizing drive; they want to put the brake now on his progressive socialization of the nation, and quite possibly, at the cost of increasing social friction, they may slow down the drift to socialism very considerably. But it is unbelievable that they dare provoke the social convulsion that would ensue upon a deliberate reversal of the engines or upon any attempt to return to the glorious days of big business, wild speculation and mounting unemployment before 1927. They will merely slow down the drive. For in the world now all roads lead to socialism or social dissolution.”

We now live in a de facto Socialist regime, one that has been systematically orchestrated through the years, not overtly, but through subterfuge, through incremental legislation and the transformation of traditional political ideologies.

If you read about the man John Maynard Keynes, you will readily begin to see that his character and his economic philosophy were so intertwined that one cannot be completely understood without the other. In fact, he stated on numerous occasions that it was his hope that his economic theories would eventually wipe away the moralistic fiber that restrained those, like himself, who considered themselves Immoralist and Socialist. His economics, as he himself touted, were intended to bring about a Socialistic society based upon the ideals of the Fabian Society.

Now, if you read Keynes, the complete Keynes and even exclude his character, then you must also come to grips with several facts that should be hard to ignore about his economic theories is that they are completely based upon his political ideology and that ideology was Fabian Socialism. It is impossible for anyone to isolate or exclude his Socialism from his theories, especially since those theories continue to directly affect each of our financial future and us.

As Lord Acton stated: "Few discoveries are more irritating than those which expose the pedigree of ideas". I guess he was completely correct…it does appear to irritate a great many people when such ideological pedigrees are exposed. One has to wonder why?

One of Keynes’ comrades: Joseph Schumpeter stated that Keynes could not be credited with a single major improvement in the technique of economic analysis, but that he was skilled in constructing a vehicle to convey his ideology, one that rivaled Marx in undermining the pillars of capitalism. Another of Keynes Fabian comrades stated that Keynesian economic theory would readily promote inflationary credit expansion and that such inflationary expansion policies were “"an indispensable step in the right direction." "The fact that the loss of objectivity, and the intrinsic value of the currency which is involved (i.e., inflation) will sooner or later make necessary, on pain of ever-increasing dislocation, a growing degree of social control . . . for the partial character of the policy will itself lead on to further measures. The very fact that no stability, no permanently workable solution can be found within the limits of this policy will ensure that once a community has been driven by events to tackle its problems in. this way, it cannot halt at the first stage, but must of necessity push on to more thorough going measures of re-organization." It is obvious that the use of the Central Banking System has implemented the use of inflation and monetary devaluation to gradually change this society and ultimately gain even more control over our government and society.

Keynes, as well as the Fabians, were well aware of the importance of influencing government policies through economics, especially when those influences are directly engaged through economics that are politically inspired and what was Keynes’ politics: Fabian Socialism. In his General Theory of Employment Interest and Money, he states: "the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else."

A key indicator about the actual nature of the economic theory of Keynes should be how it was received by Socialist, National Socialist and Communist…it was a hit, highly praised as the ultimate vehicle of eventual Socialistic domination. The influences of Keynesian Fabianism are so prevalent that we rarely consider how our global society has been impacted by his theories and influence. Take the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Keynes was directly involved with the creation of those institutions with Communist Harry Dexter White.

?It becomes pretty clear why the Fabian Socialist thought so highly of Keynes, his theories rapidly became economic policy in the U.S., Great Britain, France, and Germany. Eventually, the Keynes influence over global economics morphed into the system to which we must all submit. Keynesian economic theory has as its foundation government controls and government investment for social purposes that can be seen translated into the policies of FDR and has given rise to what many now deride as corporatism. Yet, there are those who praise both FDR and Keynes while condemning the very things that have resulted from the policies that FDR and Keynes promoted. Keynes theories depend heavily upon centralized control of credit creation, issue and cancellation and the eventual decline of personal savings, of course, we have seen all of effects of such policies and we have yet to see the extent that such policies will ultimately have on our economy, but I dare say that it will prove to be disastrous for most individuals, especially the working men and women of this country. In fact, such policies have already proven to be very detrimental to the working class and the poor because of the thieving debasement of the currency system through Keynesian fiat inflationary policies and “Monopoly Capitalism” of the Central Banking and Corporatists systems.

Once again, Joseph Schumpeter summarized the effects of Keynesian theory by saying it promoted government corporatism as “The perfectly bureaucratized giant industrial unit not only ousts the small or medium-sized firm and 'expropriates' its owners, but in the end it also ousts the entrepreneur and expropriates the bourgeoisie as a class which in the process stands to lose not only its income - but also what is infinitely more important, its function."

Another Fabian admirer of Keynes, Stuart Chase stated, "Mr. Keynes, following Karl Marx, used the great cooperation as an institution increasingly ripe for state control or outright ownership. He finds many parallels with the state trusts of Soviet Russia.” "Big business is by no means antipathetic to Communism. The larger big business grows the more it approximates to Collectivism. It is the upper road of the few instead of the lower road of the masses to Collectivism."

Keynesian economics have proven to be the primary impetus of a long line of debt-dealers, enslaving the vast majority of people in this country in a contrived credit-debtors prison. Of course it should not surprise anyone when another Fabian Socialist, and Keynes associate named Harold Laski to say that “who, remembering that those policies of high taxation and centralization of credit were the demands of the Manifesto issued by Marx and Engels in 1848, can doubt our common inspiration.”

Yet another associate of Keynes, G.D.H. Cole stated that: “In every field the characteristic Fabian policy has been that of permeation. In accordance with their doctrine of continuity the Fabians set out to develop existing institutions by permeating with this or that element of their doctrine those who had power to influence policy, e.g. the civil service, the political parties, the professions, the administration of business, and local government. It was part of their creed that no sharp line could be drawn between socialists and non-socialists and that many who would not call themselves socialists could be persuaded to help with particular reforms for making socialism.”

Concerning the adoption of Keynesian economics by the Neo-Cons should not be surprising in the least, the Neo-Cons stem from the same rootstock of Fabian Socialism. Fabians and obviously others, including the Neo-Conservatives and Social Democrats believe “that more government for the people means less government by the people.”

It is a mistake to overlook the fact that Keynesian economics stems from and advocates a very particular political theory that ultimately seeks a managed economy and social system by elite corporatists and bureaucrats. The context of Keynesian economic theory is directly associated and permeated with the political ideology of Fabian Socialism and Fabian Socialism, at it’s core, seeks, by it’s own admission, to impose a system that intended to sweep away individualism and free enterprise in favor of corporatist collectivism. It is not a very difficult task to compare the economic political events of the last century with the agenda espoused by the Fabian Socialist. In such a comparison it appears that the agenda is right on track and who will pay for it…you and I, our children and grandchildren. The working class or middle class will be effectively be modified into one massive production pool with government mandated income levels under the auspices of corporatism. It is not hard to miss the fact that those who have supported many of the so-called “free-trade” agreements (proven to be the perfect guise for Big-Business/Big-Government Corporatism) have stated that the American public will have to adjust to much lower living standards in the future.

George B. Shaw stated in the most offensive terms possible, contrary to popular opinion, that: “Socialism has nothing to do with almsgiving or personal generosity or kindness to the poor. Socialism abhors poverty and the poor, and has no more to do with relieving them than with relieving riches and the rich; it means to abolish both ruthlessly. Doles and almsgiving are necessary at present as an insurance against rebellion, but they are dangerous social evils.” Indeed, the goal is to have one massive production class of people under the carefully orchestrated management of Socialist elite. He stated that everyone would eventually be subjected to “compulsory well-being” and that “Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but while you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.” Sorry…that’s not the type of world I care to live in or support however, that is exactly the philosophy that not only permeated the Fabian Socialist, but also permeates the politico-economic theories of Keynes.

Shaw went on to say: “Private commercial enterprise will not be completely superseded by nationalization; but it may become bankrupt; and in that case it may demand and receive subsidies from the government.” Government bailouts play a very important role in Fabian Socialism and it has proved to be effective in bringing about a government corporatism in this and other countries.

Shaw, in the same Fabian “sheep skin” as Keynes, also stated that he believed that the claim that the majority of the victims of the extermination camps under German National Socialism had died of "overcrowding." Shaw also said that the leader of Soviet Socialism "... made good by doing things better and much more promptly than parliaments." He declared that the stories of millions of death under famine were nothing more then slander. Remember, Keynes was not only a close friend and comrade to Shaw, but shared the same political ideology and stated on many occasions that his economic theory promoted that political ideology.

Ignorance is the great equalizer and the Fabian Socialists have always depended on that fact.

It is, without doubt, time to take issue with these subversive Socialists in both political parties, both the Neo-Conservative Republicans and the Social Democrats. They both hide underneath sheep’s clothing and it is time to slaughter the wolf before it eats us alive. They deserve the hangman’s noose and a traitors death…they are RED to the core and have embedded themselves within our government and our society like ticks feeding on the blood of a dog.

Fear is a more effective recruiting tool than reason. We subscribe to the thought that if you work hard and rely on yourself you will prosper...neo-conservatives offer the notion that without the protection of a strong central power noone will protect you from terrorism, drug addicts and rampant disease. I recognize the need for government but I want it at the state level. At least then I don't feel helpless to better my own environment. The more I think about it I am less a conservative and more a Republican in the true sense of the word. It just happens to carry with it some conservative principles.

PS - The democrats are just as bad as the neo-conservatives...just not as smart of as organized.

Because neo-cons have an army of people who will whack the competitor.

________________________________________________________________
"let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeoprady"

Congressman Ron Paul