Once you are awakened by the alt media on the internet you hear everything with new ears. You get a much deeper understanding of what lies underneath the arguments people are making. Ron Paul's message of non intervention in other countries is a perfect example of this. He was portrayed as a fool on foreign policy according to my trusted friend Mark Levin and I agreed, being a true believer in neoconism. So what has now changed? Before my “enlightenment” I received my world view exclusively from RADIO. It was already clear to me that that Television and Newspapers were unreliable sources of information and that they all had one liberal-progressive agenda. The way people were being manipulated to think about the presidential candidates was already obvious to me. The concocted October surprise that Dan Rather cooked up on the eve of the 2000 Bush -Gore election, that at least was exposed, was one eye opener that confirmed I was on the right track. The huge enthusiasm and favoritism of the media for Barack Obama-a person who had no evidence of any competence or abilities in his track record and an easily verifiable past association with radical ideologies was another example. My friends in the RADIO world were good at exposing these things and gained my trust as being reliable sources of information, but even these people had to be taken with a grain of salt. Sorry, I was not going to become a blind follower, a “Levinite”. Yes, Mark Levin had risen to the top of my trusted sources in part because he was the best information available during the times I could listen while not at work. I became the best consumer possible. I could occasionally listen to Michael Savage, especially when he had a 6PM est show as well as get pieces of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Sean Hannity, etc. They all had their strengths and weaknesses and provided some contrast- a form of “quality control” of the Mark Levin show that I was able listen to on a daily basis. All I ever wanted was to understand the truth of what was going on in the world in the hopes of personally being a force of change in a positive direction. I tried to tell anyone who would listen about what I was learning. Then came my introduction to the alt media and a new quality control system could now be put in place. Getting truth from the internet is a long, tedious process. You are confronted with a sea of Red Herring and only with diligence and concentrated effort can you find the truth. This “truth” you find has to always be re-examined and re-evaluated when new information becomes available. So here is my present thinking on neoconservatism, subject to change when new information becomes available. My appeal to Mark Levin (see below) for enlightenment on this very important subject is unlikely to be answered. I was a true believer in neoconservatism without even knowing it. Even 6 months ago I thought of anyone criticizing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as unpatriotic. I believed without question that Israel was our staunchest ally in the middle east and being a small, vulnerable country needed our full support in every way possible. This was re-enforced by the Christian RADIO ministries I was listening to. So, let's “look under the hood” of the neocon movement and show how I was duped into supporting it. It goes back to trusting your sources and I had an awful lot of respect for Mark Levin. I never once did and still don't doubt Mark's patriotism and passion for setting our country's course back in the right direction. He has a true love of the United States and the Constitution and is really putting in a valiant effort to make real, positive changes. I still believe he is a force of good and a truth seeker, but that truth seeking and scrutiny of the facts (as we know them) can't ever be suspended when a “protected” topic is concerned. That is where Mark Levin, and just about every one of the above mentioned RADIO hosts, has failed us. The protected topic in this discussion is the neoconservative agenda (but could also include the subject of Israel and the loose use of the term “antisemitism”). The term neoconservative is deceptive right at the outset. Conservatism, to my thinking, has to do with being a staunch advocate of this country and trying to stop the destructive changes that are being made by the liberal-progressives. It has to do with preserving the financial, economic, and cultural stability of this country and “paying forward” the wonderful environment previous generations have bestowed upon our generation to future generations. A true conservative pays homage to our country's past and doesn't want to erase every aspect of it for a “bright, new” radically different future. So it never occurred to me to be against neoconservatism. Neoconservatism was wedded to all of the above mentioned beliefs by virtually every one of my RADIO mentors and because everything else they advocated was in line with my beliefs I never questioned this unholy union. However, the neocon agenda has nothing to do with conservatism as described above. Neoconservatism, as far as I can tell, is all about an aggressive foreign policy that really has very little to do with national security. It is neither “neo” -new, nor conservative. The primary goal of the neocons is to warp the truth and make false arguments that convince people that these foreign entanglements are the only way to protect the USA and its way of life, our “National Security”. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, but it can only be found in the alt media. In a sense the term neocon may actually be accurate if it stands for the “New Confidence” Scheme that has deceived many, including me. It is a new con but really the same con that has been played on the world for many decades with a new face. Wrapping an American flag around an alien and unhealthy ideology is in some ways ghoulish when you take into account the many lives lost in the execution of this destructive policy. Please enlighten us Mr. Levin. I want to believe in you.