Senator Rand Paul responded to news of neocon propaganda rag The Weekly Standard closing its doors by saying "good riddance."
"Good riddance to the fake conservatives and warmongers," Paul tweeted Tuesday, linking to an article from American Greatness by Chris Buskirk titled, "Death of The Weekly Standard Signals Rebirth of the Right."
Here's an excerpt:
Neoconservatism is dead, long live American conservatism. That’s what I thought when I learned The Weekly Standard would be shuttered by longtime owner Clarity Media. The Standard was a creature of a particular time and place—the 1990s, the Bush-Clinton ascendancy, and Washington, D.C.’s insular, self-referential political class. As such, it never really fit within the broad flow of historic American conservatism. It was always, and intentionally, something different. So perhaps the magazine’s opposition to Donald Trump, his voters, and the America First agenda should come as no surprise.The new neocon movement is Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and the rest of the "Intellectual Dark Web," all of whom the establishment is trying desperately to shove down our throats.
Max Boot described the magazine as “a redoubt of neoconservatism” in 2002 and he was right. If the National Review of the 1970s and ’80s was the journal of Reaganism, The Weekly Standard carried the banner of Bushism. But the Bushes never carried the Reagan mantle and were never conservatives. They were always blithely unconstrained by any identifiable political philosophy other than the unwavering belief that they should run the country. They represented nothing so much as the mid-20th-century country club set that was content to see the size and scope of government expand as long as they got a piece of the action. And The Weekly Standard was there every step of the way, advocating so-called big-government conservatism at home and moral imperialism abroad. All of it failed. The Bush Administration was discredited by its failed policies and incompetence so it was just a matter of time before the chief organ of Bushism failed too.
But the life and death of The Weekly Standard is really the story of the death and rebirth of American conservatism, which is nothing more than the modern political expression of America’s founding principles.
As with other more virulent forms of Left-liberal politics, the neoconservatives maintain a sense of aristocratic entitlement to rule despite having killed almost everything they touched. It is their combination of titanic hubris and priggish moralism that is behind their aggressive advocacy of endless foreign wars and meddling in the internal affairs of other countries. For The Weekly Standard, it made sense to send thousands of Americans to their deaths defending Iraq’s borders, but they wouldn’t lift a finger to protect our own. As the real world results of their misadventures came home to roost, conservatives realized that The Weekly Standard didn’t represent them.
For years, neoconservatives undermined and discredited the work of conservatives from Lincoln to Reagan who held to a set of common principles and a common sense understanding that America is for Americans and it is the job of government to protect the rights and interests of the American people—and only the American people. But over the past few years, Bill Kristol became more transparent about his real beliefs. For example, he let us know in a tweet that he “Obviously strongly prefer(s) normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state” and in another that, “The GOP tax bill’s bringing out my inner socialist.” The point is that Kristol and the Standard’s attachment to conservative principles was always provisional and transactional. The Republican Party and the conservative movement were a temporary vehicle for their personal and policy agendas. Now, Kristol and others have moved on in search of a new host organism.
One of The Weekly Standard's last editorial board pieces was attacking Rand Paul for blocking a bill to give a record $38 billion in military aid to Israel and another bill which seeks to make it illegal to boycott the state of Israel.
The editors wrote:
Kentucky senator Rand Paul is a grandstanding obstructionist whose chief joy seems to be blocking the few bills on which there is wide agreement. That includes at least two bills intended to benefit the state of Israel. One, introduced by Florida’s Marco Rubio and Delaware’s Chris Coons, would authorize $38 billion in security aid to Israel over the next decade. The bill is the outcome of a deal negotiated under President Barack Obama and epitomizes bipartisanship in a divided Congress with 72 co-sponsors. Israel advocates have flooded Paul’s office with calls and emails since he placed the hold in October.For some reason, their "conservative principles" are for giving out billions in foreign aid while the US is trillions in debt and for making it illegal to boycott a foreign country in direct opposition to the First Amendment (even the ADL secretly admitted the anti-BDS bill is blatantly unconstitutional).
He has since placed a separate hold on another bill meant to punish the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. The legislation merely condones state and local measures that prohibit contracts with individuals and companies that boycott Israel—similar to an executive order that Kentucky governor Matt Bevin signed a few weeks ago. Paul and other opponents of the bill say they’re worried it runs afoul of the First Amendment’s right to free speech. But the right to free speech does not entail a right to government contracts.
It sure is interesting how these "principles" are applied!
Follow InformationLiberation on Twitter, Facebook, Gab and Minds.