They Hate Our Freedoms

[center]‘They’ Hate Our Freedoms
(The Neocons, That Is)

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo[/center]

Perhaps the most ridiculous statement to have emerged from the neoconservative regime that runs the Republican Party is that bin Laden and his gang of terrorists murdered thousands of innocent Americans because “they hate our freedoms.” If you are a Fox News Channel viewer or a Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity/Michael Savage/Michael Medved radio show listener you have probably heard this refrain at least 10,000 times.

But Americans were much freer decades ago, before the governmental Leviathan became as gargantuan as it is now. Why didn’t Muslim terrorists attack us then, if they hate our freedom so much? Whey did they wait until 2001? The obvious answer, which is discussed in the U.S. government’s own 9/11 Commission Report, is that in their minds the terrorists were retaliating for U.S. government interventions in “their” region, the Middle East. It had nothing to do with the freedoms of American citizens but with the desire of the American government to use its military muscle to dominate the entire world, especially the Middle East. Unfortunately for us, murderous thugs like bin Laden apparently believe all the tripe about democracy being “the will of the people,” and so they equate us with the government.

In reality, as opposed to neocon propaganda, it is the neoconservatives who hate American freedom and have waged political war on it since the moment they gained power. Indeed, after 9/11 they immediately used the attack as an excuse to do what they had been planning on doing for a long time, and move the country further in the direction of what the original neocon, William F. Buckley, Jr., called “a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores.”

Buckley believed that such a bureaucracy, with a gigantic military/industrial/CIA/FBI/domestic spying network, was necessary to fight the Cold War. Neocons, who were all very, very depressed when the Cold War ended, have spent their time since then trying to instigate what Newt Gingrich and Norman Podhoretz, among other neoconmen, call “World War IV” (The Cold War was their “World War III”).

Consider just a short list of the neocon attacks on the liberties of the American people. There’s the law passed by the Republican Congress that would give a moron like George W. Bush the ability to declare martial law. Bush himself claims to have the power of “the unitary executive,” a term the founding fathers were certainly unfamiliar with, that supposedly gives him the right to essentially act as a dictator and ignore the Constitution because of the “war on terra,” which he says will last forever.

The so-called PATRIOT Act allows the government to declare that almost anyone who protests government actions is an “enemy combatant” and deprive them of all constitutional rights. The neocons also desire to suspend habeas corpus whenever they want to, a constitutional right that former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez claimed in a statement to a congressional committee is not even a constitutional right.

Warrantless wiretapping is par for the Bush administration course - not that wiretapping with a “warrant” is much better from a civil liberties perspective. The Republican Congress claimed that Bush is exempted from the Geneva Convention and is essentially above the law. He obviously believes that he is.

The war in Iraq was started without a formal declaration of war by Congress, as required by the Constitution, and the U.S. military has been committing war crimes left and right, the most infamous of which occurred in Saddam Hussein’s torture chambers where the torturers were American soldiers instead of Saddam’s henchmen.

The PATRIOT Act allows the government to order individuals and institutions to turn over to it private financial information, travel itineraries, email and phone records, and more, and imposes a gag order that prohibits anyone from revealing that they have been treated in such a way. The Act also abolishes the traditional lawyer-client privilege for anyone declared an “enemy combatant.”

The neocons are calling for a Hitlerian national ID card, which might as well be branded onto everyone’s inner arm once the legislation is passed. Neocon pundit Michelle Malkin has written an entire book urging that Muslim-Americans be rounded up and thrown into concentration camps, just as FDR did with Japanese Americans during World War II. Like all neocons, she cites the abolition of all civil liberties in the Northern states by the Lincoln regime as “justification” for such acts of tyranny.

The odious Ken Masugi of the Claremont Institute, who recently took a leave of absence to write speeches for the even more odious and disgraced former attorney general Alberto Gonzalez, has supported Malkin’s recommendations by approving of the illegal imprisonment of his own people - Japanese Americans - by FDR. (Apparently, Masugi’s insertion of Lincolnite cliches into Gonzalez’ speeches did little to save him).

Bush is an even bigger domestic spender than LBJ was; taxes and government spending have skyrocketed; and he has yet to veto a single spending program in a way that would reduce spending and governmental power. (He did veto one bill because it did not propose spending enough on one of his pet programs).

This is a very brief list of just a few of the attacks on the liberties of the American people that the neocons have gleefully administered in the past six years. All of the neocon pundits, from Limbaugh to Hannity to Liddy, Savage, Medved, and dozens of others, have devoted their careers to spewing propaganda on behalf of the neocon effort to deprive Americans of their constitutional liberties by cementing in place Buckley’s totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores. They hate the free society and always have.

September 7, 2007

I don’t think this guy has actually listened to much Micheal Savage if he thinks of him as some whole-hearted Bush Regime mouthpiece. I give this article a D. Where are the supporting facts for his thesis assertions about the Talk-show hosts? There is not one quote citing how any of these hosts have said anything to the sort. All I see is a bunch of charged language, that is spewing at least as much propaganda as the pundits whom he cites on the NeoCon side.

OK…oohhhh he cites Michelle Malkin…

[quote]Valentinius wrote:
I don’t think this guy has actually listened to much Micheal Savage if he thinks of him as some whole-hearted Bush Regime mouthpiece. I give this article a D. Where are the supporting facts for his thesis assertions about the Talk-show hosts? [/quote]

On April 17, Michael Savage called for “kill[ing] 100 million” Muslims[…]

On his radio show, Savage told listeners that "intelligent people, wealthy people … are very depressed by the weakness that America is showing to these psychotics in the Muslim world. They say, ‘Oh, there’s a billion of them.’ " Savage continued: “I said, ‘So, kill 100 million of them, then there’d be 900 million of them.’ I mean … would you rather us die than them?” Savage added: “Would you rather we disappear or we die? Or would you rather they disappear and they die? Because you’re going to have to make that choice sooner rather than later.”

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604190001

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…< All of the neocon pundits, from , have devoted their careers to spewing propaganda on behalf of the neocon effort to deprive Americans of their constitutional liberties by cementing in place Buckley’s totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores. They hate the free society and always have.

September 7, 2007[/quote]

This is a full of shit statement and irresponsible at best. I seldom listen to talk radio anymore, but when I have, I have also heard the same criticisms come out their (Limbaugh to Hannity to Liddy, Savage, Medved, and dozens of others) mouths, just as much as this nimrod.

My guess is he is just trying to be polarizing for the sake of starting an argument. He just wants to be the dick banger like he came up with this on his own. I heard this same shit, irronically, about a year ago on Rush Limbaugh’s program. The same stuff.

So this guy is just a copy cat nimrod. I wonder what he thinks of the Fairness Doctrine? My guess is that he supports it.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Valentinius wrote:
I don’t think this guy has actually listened to much Micheal Savage if he thinks of him as some whole-hearted Bush Regime mouthpiece. I give this article a D. Where are the supporting facts for his thesis assertions about the Talk-show hosts?

On April 17, Michael Savage called for “kill[ing] 100 million” Muslims[…]

On his radio show, Savage told listeners that "intelligent people, wealthy people … are very depressed by the weakness that America is showing to these psychotics in the Muslim world. They say, ‘Oh, there’s a billion of them.’ " Savage continued: “I said, ‘So, kill 100 million of them, then there’d be 900 million of them.’ I mean … would you rather us die than them?” Savage added: “Would you rather we disappear or we die? Or would you rather they disappear and they die? Because you’re going to have to make that choice sooner rather than later.”

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604190001[/quote]

Savage is a lunatic and he is not a Bush supporter.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Savage is a lunatic and he is not a Bush supporter.[/quote]

Duh! The point is that they have common interests, and as such, can be lumped in together.

Look at the title and the context Savage in which the author associated Savage with Bush.

This commentary does not have to do with Bush or the Bush administration. It is a criticism of the neocon agenda. Bush is just an other neocon puppet crony who supports the agenda.

Is this article an inaccurate description of neocons with regard to liberty? If so, please provide context. I really want to know what makes a neocon tick.

Also, is the term neocon pejorative considering it was term coined by self-described neocons.

Does anyone here consider him or herself a neocon?

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Savage is a lunatic and he is not a Bush supporter.

Duh! The point is that they have common interests, and as such, can be lumped in together.

Look at the title and the context Savage in which the author associated Savage with Bush.[/quote]

The authors association of Savage with Bush is bogus as is the article itself.

They do hate our freedoms. They hate our culture. Just look at Afghanistan with the Taliban in charge. Culture and freedom is at the root of their power mad struggle.

Hate our freedoms? Nah! What they “love” is what they are fighting for …the idea that they’re going to get back what they think they have lost.

Loss is a more powerful motive than gain. If someone took something from you, you’d be motivated to get it back. More motivated than to gain something better than you already have.

merlin

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
They do hate our freedoms. [/quote]

Your “freedom” to intervene unilaterally whenever you feel like it?
Your “freedom” to threaten sovereign countries and invade them?
Your “freedom” to dismiss facts and make emotional decisions?
Your “freedom” to support dictators and terrorists around the world?

If so, count me with the lot.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
They do hate our freedoms.[/quote]

It makes one wonder why, if it is assumed that alleged existential freedoms are responsible for events such as 9/11, Osama Bin Laden and his mujahideen fought so ferociously against the former Soviet Union after the latter’s invasion of Afghanistan during the 1980s. Quite obviously, old Soviet-style Communism was hardly a bastion of liberty.

The notion that Al-Qaeda commit attacks upon the United States and its soldiers is as ridiculous as it is pervasive.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
They do hate our freedoms.

Your “freedom” to intervene unilaterally whenever you feel like it? Your “freedom” to threaten sovereign countries and invade them?
Your “freedom” to dismiss facts and make emotional decisions?
Your “freedom” to support dictators and terrorists around the world?

If so, count me with the lot.[/quote]

Oil. We need oil. Hello? We intervene in the ME because our economy is completely dependent on oil.

We are not going to simply stand around and let arab sheiks and goatherds put us at their mercy. We WILL control the ME and anyone who thinks otherwise is in for a shock. If Iran or any other shithole ever REALLY got in our way, they’re simply dead. We’ll be done talking and having ‘nice’ wars.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Oil. We need oil. Hello? We intervene in the ME because our economy is completely dependent on oil.

We are not going to simply stand around and let arab sheiks and goatherds put us at their mercy. We WILL control the ME and anyone who thinks otherwise is in for a shock. If Iran or any other shithole ever REALLY got in our way, they’re simply dead. We’ll be done talking and having ‘nice’ wars.

[/quote]

honest at least… I thought you are there to bring the fruits of freedom to the pure muslims.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
They do hate our freedoms.

Your “freedom” to intervene unilaterally whenever you feel like it? Your “freedom” to threaten sovereign countries and invade them?
Your “freedom” to dismiss facts and make emotional decisions?
Your “freedom” to support dictators and terrorists around the world?

If so, count me with the lot.

Oil. We need oil. Hello? We intervene in the ME because our economy is completely dependent on oil.

We are not going to simply stand around and let arab sheiks and goatherds put us at their mercy. We WILL control the ME and anyone who thinks otherwise is in for a shock. If Iran or any other shithole ever REALLY got in our way, they’re simply dead. We’ll be done talking and having ‘nice’ wars.

[/quote]

Sad but true. When are people going to get the heads around this reality? As a lone superpower the U.S. could never allow a vacuum of power in a region that is destined to have the final reserves of the greatest resource ever exploited by man.

The big bad greedy U.S. taking the oil for its own selfish purposes is a simplistic notion. We have built an incredible mass of human population and infrastructure worldwide that depends on oil. The entire world is going to find it highly uncomfortable if that oil demand becomes acutely under supplied, not just the U.S…

Religious fanatics that are more concerned with the afterlife than the here and now might welcome such a scenario for whatever reason but more sane rational people are not so eager to experience acute contraction of human population. Many believe such a disaster is inevitable but even if that proves true that does not mean we shouldn’t endeavor to delay it’s onset.

The U.S. will always offend great masses of people whatever the course it takes. The greatest good for the greatest amount is as much as we can hope for and the debate on what that exactly is will never end. People under intense pressure can and will make mistakes.

It is hard to imagine more pressurized positions in the world of men than the command of the U.S. military. I hope for all our sakes the people in such positions rise to the occasion even if delaying the inevitable does prove to be the best we can hope for.

[quote]Mishima wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Oil. We need oil. Hello? We intervene in the ME because our economy is completely dependent on oil.

We are not going to simply stand around and let arab sheiks and goatherds put us at their mercy. We WILL control the ME and anyone who thinks otherwise is in for a shock. If Iran or any other shithole ever REALLY got in our way, they’re simply dead. We’ll be done talking and having ‘nice’ wars.

honest at least… I thought you are there to bring the fruits of freedom to the pure muslims. [/quote]

There is always a hierarchy of goals and priorities. Placing emphasis on more palatable aspects of a policy is the art and craft of politics.

[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
Sad but true. When are people going to get the heads around this reality? As a lone superpower the U.S. could never allow a vacuum of power in a region that is destined to have the final reserves of the greatest resource ever exploited by man.

[/quote]
Oil is irrelevant to economic stability. Oil CAN be replaced by other options. If we leave the middle east and are forced to use our own reserves we will finally have the motivation necessary to rid our habit of the stuff that has caused so much death.

I don’t see what American security has to do with the rest of the world. We are capable of defending ourself. That is all we need worry about. Let the rest of the world also take care of themselves. We can trade peaceably and set an example of freedom. We do not need to flex our military might. That is what bullies do.

Allow me to analogize: Bruce Lee was one bad-ass mutha and could certainly have kicked anyone’s ass but he didn’t start fights with people that didn’t have anything to do with conflict and he didn’t use his strength or knowledge of power to coerce people into submission.

Why don’t we just practice this mentality a little more so we can gain some respect and let the world know at the same time they have nothing to fear from us. This does not mean we have to let sand be kicked in our face.

I also love the colorful rhetoric being used here: “power vacuum”. It sounds so ominous; however it doesn’t mean anything. A soon as we leave people can start being responsible for themselves–we don’t need to be involved in the rest of the worlds power struggles.

When are the neocons going to wrap their head around the fact that it takes a whole lot more than a few terrorists to overthrow a nation? It will never happen. We only need worry about losing our sovereignty if we allow our government to strip our liberty from us.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
They do hate our freedoms.

Your “freedom” to intervene unilaterally whenever you feel like it?

Your “freedom” to threaten sovereign countries and invade them?
[/quote]
The 9/11 attacks were because they knew the US was going to lead a coalition of more than 40 nations in deposing a dictator in Iraq?

Like Saddam and Milosovich who were responsible for the murder of countless Muslims?

[quote]

If so, count me with the lot.[/quote]

We already know you are on those bastards side. At least you are starting to admit it.

He also seem to dislike these freedoms and is willing to kill thousands of innocents so they don’t reach his home country.

Freedom of speech.
Freedom of religion.
Freedom to be clean shaven.
Freedom for women.
Freedom to listen to music.

[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
They do hate our freedoms.

Your “freedom” to intervene unilaterally whenever you feel like it? Your “freedom” to threaten sovereign countries and invade them?
Your “freedom” to dismiss facts and make emotional decisions?
Your “freedom” to support dictators and terrorists around the world?

If so, count me with the lot.

Oil. We need oil. Hello? We intervene in the ME because our economy is completely dependent on oil.

We are not going to simply stand around and let arab sheiks and goatherds put us at their mercy. We WILL control the ME and anyone who thinks otherwise is in for a shock. If Iran or any other shithole ever REALLY got in our way, they’re simply dead. We’ll be done talking and having ‘nice’ wars.

Sad but true. When are people going to get the heads around this reality? As a lone superpower the U.S. could never allow a vacuum of power in a region that is destined to have the final reserves of the greatest resource ever exploited by man.

The big bad greedy U.S. taking the oil for its own selfish purposes is a simplistic notion. We have built an incredible mass of human population and infrastructure worldwide that depends on oil. The entire world is going to find it highly uncomfortable if that oil demand becomes acutely under supplied, not just the U.S…

Religious fanatics that are more concerned with the afterlife than the here and now might welcome such a scenario for whatever reason but more sane rational people are not so eager to experience acute contraction of human population. Many believe such a disaster is inevitable but even if that proves true that does not mean we shouldn’t endeavor to delay it’s onset.

The U.S. will always offend great masses of people whatever the course it takes. The greatest good for the greatest amount is as much as we can hope for and the debate on what that exactly is will never end. People under intense pressure can and will make mistakes.

It is hard to imagine more pressurized positions in the world of men than the command of the U.S. military. I hope for all our sakes the people in such positions rise to the occasion even if delaying the inevitable does prove to be the best we can hope for.
[/quote]

Excellent post. This is the truth that is so often ignored. We cannot and will not withdraw from the world.

We are not going to go home and let tyrants and bandits run the world.

Not to pick on Ron Paul in this thread but I just watched him make a complete ass of himself in the latest debate and fools actually cheered his stance.

How soon would a new dark ages occur if the US abandoned much of the worlds energy supply to Bin Laden and his crew?

Would NK tanks roll south the day after we pulled out of there?

Would Serbs, Croats and Muslims begin slaughtering each other if we pulled out there?

I am so disgusted by people that want to justify the terrorists actions. We know why they hate us. We have the power and they do not.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Oil is irrelevant to economic stability. Oil CAN be replaced by other options. If we leave the middle east and are forced to use our own reserves we will finally have the motivation necessary to rid our habit of the stuff that has caused so much death.

I don’t see what American security has to do with the rest of the world. We are capable of defending ourself. That is all we need worry about. Let the rest of the world also take care of themselves. We can trade peaceably and set an example of freedom. We do not need to flex our military might. That is what bullies do.

Allow me to analogize: Bruce Lee was one bad-ass mutha and could certainly have kicked anyone’s ass but he didn’t start fights with people that didn’t have anything to do with conflict and he didn’t use his strength or knowledge of power to coerce people into submission.

Why don’t we just practice this mentality a little more so we can gain some respect and let the world know at the same time they have nothing to fear from us. This does not mean we have to let sand be kicked in our face.

I also love the colorful rhetoric being used here: “power vacuum”. It sounds so ominous; however it doesn’t mean anything. A soon as we leave people can start being responsible for themselves–we don’t need to be involved in the rest of the worlds power struggles.

When are the neocons going to wrap their head around the fact that it takes a whole lot more than a few terrorists to overthrow a nation? It will never happen. We only need worry about losing our sovereignty if we allow our government to strip our liberty from us.[/quote]

Oil is irrelevant to economic stability? Oil can be replaced by other options? I am sorry but this is wishful thinking with little real world evidence to lend it credibility. And saying that U.S. domestic reserves including Canadian tar sands and North American coal could replace oil only displays that you haven’t truly studied the issue.

The entire reserve in Alaska would only meet world demand for a few months.

Now I am all for a policy of reducing U.S. dependency on foreign oil but it isn’t happening. In fact the opposite is occurring, our demand increases every day. Acting as if reversing this trend is a simple thing to do without risk is naive.

I am not saying it is impossible but that it is simply not happening and it would cost trillions of dollars of investment in economically less competitive energy technology that many experts are reluctant to to call proven.

A vacuum of power may well be colorful rhetoric but that doesn’t invalidate it one iota. Many people are vying for influence over the vast power that ME oil reserves represent. Thinking that the major world players are going to just leave it alone and it will develop just fine without outside assistance is idiotic.

A few terrorist may have trouble overthrowing an entire nation but a few terrorist could easily cripple middle east oil production in a future world that is even more dependent on that energy than we are today. A well organized national government bent on conquest for whatever reason could obviously inflict even greater disruption.

I agree that none of this should be used as a reason for the U.S. government to usurp personal liberty at home but unfortunately government has a life of its own and is notorious for using war to strengthen it’s position. Citizens having to stand up and fight for their right less they be taken away is business as usual.

And please give the Bruce Lee worship a rest. He was a skilled martial artist but he was still a five foot seven hundred and thirty five pound mini man living in an age of bullets. Comparing him to the U.S. military and the complexity of world politics is absurd.