You can't handel the truth's

The Truth Will Make You Free

Archive for the category “Ron Paul”

Six Romney Family Members Hit Campaign Trail… For RON PAUL

Mitt “just doesn’t understand the constitution like Ron Paul.”

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
March 6, 2012


No less than six relatives of Presidential candidate Mitt Romney have joined the campaign trail in the race for the GOP nomination, but they’re not supporting the former Massachusetts governor, they’re campaigning for Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

Three of Romney’s relatives will even speak at Idaho caucus sites, declaring their support for Paul in a story that is sure to create a buzz around Paul’s campaign as he looks to pick up his first caucus win on Super Tuesday.

The Paul campaign issued a press release Monday introducing five Romney relatives, then issued another release shortly afterwards noting a sixth.

Travis Romney, Troy Romney and Chad Romney, all cousins of Mitt Romney, will speak before Ron Paul crowds in Idaho today. Ty Romney and Jared Romney, whose grandfathers are cousins of former Michigan Governor George Romney, the father of Mitt Romney, have also declared their support for Paul.

“I don’t dislike Mitt at all,” Chad Romney (pictured above) said. “He seems like a nice guy. He just doesn’t understand the constitution like Ron Paul.”

“It’s Ron Paul or bust,” Chad Romney added, “Now, a lot of people will ask me if I’m related,” he said. “And I always say: ‘Yes, I’m related, but I vote for Ron Paul.’ ”

 

When asked who he would vote for if the ticket turns out to be Romney vs Obama, Chad Romney said “I don’t know if I’d vote for either one of them. I’d just write Ron Paul in there.”

“I support Ron Paul because he defends the Constitution, loves America and understands what it means to be an American, including the right to live your life any way you want as long as you respect others,” said Travis Romney, a second cousin once removed from the former Massachusetts governor.

Ty Romney, an attorney in Montana added, “Ron Paul is honest. It’s time to take a stand for honesty. It doesn’t matter whether the truth is popular or not, I know that Ron Paul will always maintain a true principle and I endorse that degree of integrity.”

Paul’s campaign suggests that the endorsements show that the Congressman can win Mormon voters, noting that the Romneys are now members of the “Latter-day Saints for Ron Paul” nationwide coalition.

Paul previously received support from Rick Santorum’s nephew John Garver, who described his own uncle as a “big government”, “status quo” politician, while urging Americans to vote for Ron Paul.

Advertisements

Veterans for Ron Paul DC March Feb 20 2012

Ron Paul Is Secretly Taking Over The GOP — And It’s Driving People Insane

By now, it is clear that the Maine caucuses were a complete mess.

Evidence is mounting that Mitt Romney’s 194-vote victory over Ron Paul was prematurely announced, if not totally wrong. Washington County canceled their caucus on Saturday on account of three inches of snow (hardly a blizzard by Maine standards), and other towns that scheduled their caucuses for this week have been left out of the vote count. Now, it looks like caucuses that did take place before Feb. 11 have also been left out of final tally.

As the full extent of the chaos unfolds, sources close to the Paul campaign tell Business Insider that it is looking increasingly like Romney’s team might have a hand in denying Paul votes, noting that Romney has some admirably ruthless operatives on his side and a powerful incentive to avoid a fifth caucus loss this month.

According to the Paul campaign, the Maine Republican Party is severely under-reporting Paul’s results — and Romney isn’t getting the same treatment. For example, nearly all the towns in Waldo County — a Ron Paul stronghold – held their caucuses on Feb. 4, but the state GOP reported no results for those towns. In Waterville, a college town in Central Maine, results were reported but not included in the party vote count. Paul beat Romney 21-5 there, according to the Kennebec County GOP.

“It’s too common,” senior advisor Doug Wead told Business Insider. “If it was chaos, we would expect strong Romney counties to be unreported, and that’s not what’s happening.”

The Maine Republican Party won’t decide which votes it will count until the executive committee meets next month. But Wead points out that even if Mitt Romney holds on to his slim lead, it will be a Pyrrhic victory.

“He will have disenfranchised all of these people,” Wead said. “It could be a costly victory — it is a mistake.”

The (alleged) bias against Paul may also be the product of an organic opposition to the libertarian Congressman and his army of ardent fans. Paul volunteers tend to be young and relatively new to party politics, and their presence has many state GOP stalwarts feeling territorial.

“People feel threatened — they don’t want to see a bunch of kids who may have voted for Barack Obama take over,” Wead said. “They feel a sense of ownership over the party — but there has to be an accommodation.”

But state party machinations are already starting to backfire. The Paul campaign believes it has won the majority of Maine’s delegates — and the perceived election fraud has galvanized Paul supporters to demand their votes be counted in the state’s straw poll ‘beauty contest.’

Caucus chaos has also proved to be fertile ground for Paul’s quiet takeover of the Republican Party. Since 2008, the campaign and Paul’s Campaign for Liberty PAC have made a concerted effort to get Paul sympathists involved in the political process. Now, tumult in state party organizations has allowed these supporters to rise up the ranks.

“We like strong party leadership when it comes from us,” Paul campaign chair Jesse Benton told Business Insider. “Our people work very hard to make sure that their voice is heard.”

The fruits of this labor are evident in Iowa, where Paul’s former state campaign co-chair A.J. Spiker was just elected as the new chairman of the Iowa Republican Party. Spiker replaces Matt Strawn, who stepped down over this year’s Iowa caucus dustup. In Nevada, the state chair has also resigned over caucus disaster, and several Ron Paul supporters are well-positioned to step up to fill the void. These new leaders not only expand Paul’s influence at the state level, but also help protect Paul and his hard-won delegates from state party machinations as the delegate-selection process moves to district and state conventions, and eventually the Republican National Convention this summer.

“We are always trying to bring people into the party,” Benton said. “I think that is a very positive thing for Republicans. Ron is the person who can build the Republican base, bring new blood into the party. That’s how you build the party.”

In Maine, the caucus disaster has made the state GOP prime for a Ron Paul takeover. And that means that Paul’s hard-won delegates will be protected as the delegate selection process

“We are taking over the party,” Wead told BI. “That’s the important thing — and that is what we are doing in Maine.”

 

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-maine-caucuses-gop-takeover-2012-2#ixzz1mYwFqY00

Obama or More of the Same

11 January 2012 No Comment
Mitt Romney Wins in NH

By Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com 

Mitt Romney, who finished first in New Hampshire last night, got a raw deal from the mainstream media (MSM) and his Republican opponents about a comment that was totally taken out of context.  It was reported that Mitt Romney said, “I like to fire people.”  That would make you think he was some sort of cold hearted person who doesn’t care about people.  What Romney actually said was in the context of health care providers and being able to fire companies who give you bad service.  Romney actually said, “I like to be able to fire people who provide services to me.”  (Click here to hear Romney for yourself.)  I agree with Romney on this one.  This was a totally false representation of what Governor Romney said, and everyone who carried this story and used this in a campaign should be ashamed.

Yesterday, FOX News came to Romney’s defense and rightly so.  FOX gave wall-to-wall coverage defending this injustice, but the “Fair and balanced” network does not apply its righteousness evenly.  What about Congressman Ron Paul?  Many on the MSM and FOX have ignored the presidential candidate.  Some on FOX, such as Judge Andrew Napolitano, have given the Congressman a fair shake, but many have not.  Where was FOX when The CBS “Early Show” left out Ron Paul in a poll done by Suffolk University right after the Iowa Caucuses?   Chief Political Correspondent Jan Crawford said, “A new Suffolk University poll shows him (Romney) with a commanding lead in New Hampshire at almost 30 points above his rivals.”  (Click here and see this biased report from CBS.) 

CBS should fire Crawford, the network’s “Chief Political Correspondent,” for two reasons.  Reason one, for being politically biased in leaving Dr. Paul out of her story even though he held second place in the Suffolk University poll!  The second reason CBS should fire Crawford is because she is an idiot who can’t do second grade math.   The poll totaled only 65% without Paul.  If you are going to do someone in, at least be clever, but I digress.  Why aren’t the people at FOX defending Paul, a Republican?  I think it is because many on that network do not want him to get the GOP nomination.   FOX News made a lot of time to talk to Rick Perry, who finished dead last, but Congressman Paul, who finished a respectable second, got about a minute at around 11:20pm and then was talked about a little more after that.  “Fair and balanced”?  FOX should retire that slogan.  If you are a news organization, you cannot be “Fair and balanced” to only the people you like.

I don’t think either party wants Paul to be the GOP candidate.  Republican and Democratic special interests know both will take a hit under a President Paul.  Republicans, like Romney, will not rein in the banks, stop the ongoing bailouts or truly clean up the kleptocracy we call a financial system.  Obama surely won’t either because he said to reporter Steve Kroft, last December, on “60 Minutes, “I can tell you, just from 40,000 feet, that some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases, some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn’t illegal.”  Kroft didn’t bother to challenge the President, even though he did an expose’ on widespread and systemic mortgage fraud earlier last year.  (Click here for more of this disgusting story.)   

I think Romney will end up the GOP nominee, but I have serious doubts he can defeat Obama and his nearly $1billion war chest.  It will also take more than money to replace the President.  Romney’s main strength is corporate America and its “Super PACs.”  Paul probably would have a better chance of winning.  Paul gets about 50% of the youth vote.  It’s hard for the GOP to comprehend that young people respect Paul, and he’s 76 years old!   I think it is also safe to say that liberal Democrats will not vote for Romney, but Paul on the other hand, would take some votes away from the President’s base.  I mean, let’s face it, a candidate that wants less war and less of the Federal Reserve will appeal to liberals disillusioned with Obama.  Also, consider the “Indefinite Detention” bill the President just signed into law on New Year’s Eve.   The ACLU says this legislation guts the Constitution, and you just can’t get more liberal than these folks.  The left is not happy with Obama’s unyielding support for Wall Street which is a big campaign donor.  Wall Street knows how to rig the game and contributes just as much to the Republicans.  Mitt Romney is their GOP poster boy.  So, if Romney gets the Republican nomination, and it’s not over just yet, the choice will be Obama and more of the same.

Ron Paul is the ONLY Candidate Opposed to the PATRIOT Act, NDAA, and SOPA

Youtube

Ron Paul campaigning in New Hampshire discusses how to restore individual civil liberties, by repealing the USA PATRIOT Act, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and he expressed his opposition to Internet control bill SOPA.

 

Jesse Benton: Ron Paul Is the Strongest Candidate against Obama – YouTube

Ron Paul: The One We’ve Been Looking For

Ron Paul Calls National Defense Authorization Act “Slip Into Tyranny”

Written by Joe Wolverton, II   
Friday, 30 December 2011 10:48

 

A dictator enjoys unrestrained power over the people. The legislative and judicial branches voluntarily cede this power or it’s taken by force. Most of the time, it’s given up easily, out of fear in time of war and civil disturbances, and with support from the people, although the dictator will also accumulate more power with the use of force.” Those prescient words of Republican presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) are taken from his book Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom. The tyrannical assumption of power by the President and the cession of unheralded power to him by the Congress has taken place precisely as Dr. Paul warned.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is an unprecedented, unconstitutional, and unchecked grant of dictatorial power to the President in the name of protecting the security of “the homeland.” Ron Paul described the bill (soon to be signed into law by the President) as a “slip into tyranny,” one that will almost certainly accelerate “our descent into totalitarianism.”
What of the NDAA? Are there indeed provisions contained therein that so ferociously tear at the constitutional fabric of our Republic?
In a word — yes.
This liberty-extinguishing legislation converts America into a war zone and turns Americans into potential suspected terrorists, complete with the full roster of rights typically afforded to terrorists — none.
A key component of this reconciled bill mandates a frightening grant of immense and unconstitutional power to the executive branch. Under the provisions of Section 1021, the President is afforded the absolute power to arrest and detain citizens of the United States without their being informed of any criminal charges, without a trial on the merits of those charges, and without a scintilla of the due process safeguards protected by the Constitution of the United States.
Further, in order to execute the provisions of Section 1021 described in the previous paragraph, subsequent clauses (Section 1022, for example) unlawfully give the President the absolute and unquestionable authority to deploy the armed forces of the United States to apprehend and to indefinitely detain those suspected of threatening the security of the “homeland.” In the language of this legislation, these people are called “covered persons.”
The universe of potential “covered persons” includes every citizen of the United States of America. Any American could one day find himself or herself branded a “belligerent” and thus subject to the complete confiscation of his or her constitutional civil liberties and nearly never-ending incarceration in a military prison.
In his assessment of the danger inherent in such acts, Paul is in good company. This suspension of habeas corpus, a right central to Anglo-American freedom from despotism for over 500 years, was described by Alexander Hamilton as one of “the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.”
Congressman Paul eloquently expressed his assessment of such an assault on liberty:
The president’s widely expanded view of his own authority to detain Americans indefinitely even on American soil is for the first time in this legislation codified in law. That should chill all of us to our cores.
As reported by The Hill, in a phone message to supporters, Paul cited the Founders and their intent to bequeath to their descendants a government fettered in such a way as to threaten as little as possible man’s innate freedom:
The founders wanted to set a high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty. To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured. The Patriot Act, as bad as its violation against the Fourth Amendment was, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act continues that slip into tyranny, and in fact, accelerates it significantly.
Adding insult to injury, Congress has stuffed the bill full of funding for illegal and unconstitutional foreign wars so that the American people will pay over $670 billion dollars for the privilege of being deprived of their God-given rights and for the building of the American empire.
This appalling story doesn’t end there, however. The NDAA’s rap sheet of crimes against the Constitution is long. As Congressman Paul explained:
The Fifth Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning. It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about the due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented and without access to legal counsel. The danger of the NDAA is its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the U.S. government without trial.
While all the foregoing is harrowing and enough to make any reasonable man fear for the future of this Republic, there is another aspect of the law that is perhaps more frightening still. That is the vagueness of the terms. Terms so ill-defined are ripe for the wresting and within the penumbras of these provisions could be found lurking the tools of tyranny. Wrenches that could force anyone into a predetermined “terrorist” hole.
Ron Paul sets forth the source of such chilling concern as contained in the NDAA:
It is no longer limited to members of al Qaeda or the Taliban, but anyone accused of substantially supporting such groups or associated forces. How closely associated, and what constitutes substantial support? What if it was discovered that someone who committed a terrorist act was once involved with a charity? Or suppose a political candidate? Are all donors of that candidate or supporters of that candidate now suspects and subject to indefinite detainment? Is that charity now an associated force?
Despite the bipartisan and bicameral support for the defense budget bill, President Obama originally vowed to veto the measure over his disagreement with the delegation of power over the cases of detainees.
He has since withdrawn his objection and has signaled his intent to sign the bill into law.
The crux of the White House’s opposition to the NDAA was President Obama’s desire that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) should have plenary power over the disposition of issues related to the custody and prosecution of all terror suspects detained domestically.
The Obama administration insisted that cutting out the FBI would reduce the overall effectiveness of investigations, as well as hamstring the efforts of intelligence officers from gathering reliable intelligence from those believed to be fighting against the United States in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Specifically, the White House promised to veto the legislation if it “challenges or constrains the President’s critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, [or] protect the nation.”
Such swords disguised as shields are reminiscent of the words of James Madison. The Father of the Constitution warned, “The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become instruments of tyranny at home.”
Again, Ron Paul finds himself in the company of the Founders. In his closing remarks, Congressman Paul cited very succinctly the indictment that should be handed down by the American people against the NDAA:
The Bill of Rights has no exceptions for really bad people or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the Bill of Rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire United States is a battlefield in the war on terror. This is a very dangerous development, indeed. Beware.

The New Republican Primary Rules Make It Possible For The Republican Establishment To Steal The Nomination From A Candidate They Don’t Like

New Republican primary rules are going to make it basically impossible for any candidate to wrap up the Republican nomination very early in 2012.  In fact, the new Republican primary rules make a “brokered convention” much more likely and they also make it much more likely that the Republican establishment will attempt to steal the nomination away from a candidate that they do not like.  How exactly they would do this will be discussed later in the article.  The key is that most Republican primaries and caucuses will now allocate delegates using a proportional system rather than a “winner take all” system.  Back in 2008, John McCain did very well in early “winner take all” primaries and wrapped up the Republican nomination very, very quickly.  Nothing like that will happen in 2012.  In fact, if the field remains crowded it is going to be very difficult for any candidate to accumulate more than 50 percent of the delegates by the time the Republican national convention rolls around.  As will be discussed later on in this article, that would move the power into the hands of the Republican establishment.

First, let’s try to understand what these new changes are.  Sadly, it appears that even most Republican voters do not understand how things have changed.

The following rule was adopted by the Republican Party back in August 2010….

“Any presidential primary, caucus, convention, or other meeting held for the purpose of selecting delegates to the national convention which occurs prior to the first day of April in the year in which the national convention is held, shall provide for the allocation of delegates on a proportional basis.”

This new rule means that delegates will be apportioned to candidates on a proportional basis in Republican caucuses and primaries that are conducted prior to April 1st.  One notable exception to this rule is Florida, which got approval to remain a “winner take all” state.  So Florida will be very important.

In addition, all of the states that are now using “proportional representation” do not allocate delegates the exact same way.  Each state has slightly different election rules.

But in general, in most of the primaries and caucuses held before April 1st, delegates will be awarded to multiple candidates instead of to just a single candidate.

Therefore, it now becomes much less important who wins each individual state.  Instead, the key is how many delegates a candidate picks up in each state.

The Republicans decided to go to such a system after watching the extended battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in 2008.  The following comes from a recent Huffington Post article….

Don’t look for a quick winner in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. After watching Democrats successfully ride their historic primary battle between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama all the way to the White House in 2008, the Republicans quietly adopted a new rule designed to extend their nominating process this time around.

The rule limits the ability of candidates to win large numbers of delegates in early primaries and caucuses – those held before April – because delegates must be awarded in proportion to the votes a candidate receives.

If proportional representation would have been used back in 2008, the Republican race would have looked much different.  John McCain would have had to battle much, much longer to secure the nomination.

The following comes from fairvote.org….

Consider the 2008 Republican nomination contest. John McCain secured an essentially insurmountable lead on February 5, Super Tuesday. Sen. McCain had become the frontrunner heading into Super Tuesday by winning three key primaries: South Carolina, Florida and New Hampshire. His average percentage share in those contests was just 34.5%, and he never even broke the 40% threshold. Even on February 5, he won only 3 states with a majority of the vote.

Although McCain on Super Tuesday did not capture a majority of the popular vote (and did not, in fact, ever reach a majority of 50% of votes cast in primaries), McCain’s disproportionately large delegate count forced his leading opponents to drop out of the race.

Some even believe that an extended three way race between McCain, Romney and Huckabee could have resulted in a “brokered convention” back in 2008.  The following analysis comes from a recent Daily Kos article….

In 2008, the Republican primary contest was decided quickly and relatively painlessly only because there were winner-take-all rules at the time. Those rules have been changed. If you take the current proportional delegate rules and apply them to the results of the 2008 race through Feb 5th, when the race was still heavily contested, something very surprising happens. John McCain, who took a commanding lead under the winner-take-all rules in effect in most states, instead ends up behind Mitt Romney by eight delegates (with a confidence factor of plus or minus 5 delegates.) The standings, with more than half the delegates decided, would have been as follows.

Romney 439

McCain 431

Huckabee 247

Other 114

This year, there will be very few “winner take all” primaries, and most of those will be at the end of the schedule.

This is going to encourage candidates to stick around longer.  The more delegates that a candidate can accumulate, the more leverage that candidate will have moving into the convention.

Right now, the Republican field is very crowded and nobody has been able to take a commanding lead in the polls.  The possibility that no candidate will be able to accumulate more than 50% of the delegates by the time of the Republican convention seems to grow by the day.

If no candidate has won more than 50% of the delegates by convention time, then it is likely that we will have a brokered convention.

So exactly what is a brokered convention?

The following is how Wikipedia defines a brokered convention….

A brokered convention is a situation in United States politics in which there are not enough delegates ‘won’ during the presidential primary and caucus elections for a single candidate to have a pre-existing majority, during the first official vote for a political party’s presidential-candidate at its nominating convention.

Once the first ballot, or vote, has occurred, and no candidate has a majority of the delegates’ votes, the convention is then considered brokered; thereafter, the nomination is decided through a process of alternating political horse-trading, and additional re-votes. In this circumstance, all regular delegates (who, previously, were pledged to the candidate who had won their respective state’s primary or caucus election) are “released,” and are able to switch their allegiance to a different candidate before the next round of balloting. It is hoped that this ‘freedom’ will result in a re-vote resulting in a clear majority of delegates for one candidate.

Okay, so how does all of this make it possible for the Republican establishment to steal the nomination from a candidate that they do not like?

It is actually very easy.

If the Republican establishment does not like the candidate that is leading in the delegate count, they can try to shoot for a brokered convention.

They can do this by encouraging candidates to say in the race longer in order to water down the vote.

They can also do this by encouraging late entrants into the race in order to steal some delegates away.

In fact, there are persistent rumors that the Republican establishment is already lining up late entrants to enter the race.  The following comes from a recent Wall Street Journal article….

Efforts are underway by some wealthy Republican donors and a group of conservative leaders to investigate whether a new Republican candidate could still get into the presidential race. The talk is still preliminary and somewhat wishful, but it reflects dissatisfaction with the two leading candidates, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

Conservative leaders are looking into whether it is feasible for a dark horse to get on the ballot in select states. The deadline to qualifying for the ballot has passed in Florida, South Carolina, Missouri, and New Hampshire. But a candidate could still get on the ballot in states like Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Michigan and Texas. At the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, voters write in their choice, so there is no formal filing deadline.

The chatter about potential new entrants include former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, businessman Donald Trump, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint.

If a candidate that the Republican establishment does not like gets out to an early lead, the Republican establishment will move heaven and earth in an attempt to keep that candidate from accumulating 50 percent of the delegates.

The goal would be to cause a brokered convention which would enable the Republican establishment to hand pick whatever candidate that they want.

In fact, if a brokered convention happens the Republicans could end up selecting someone that is not even running.

It certainly does not sound very American, but this is a very real possibility.

The Republican establishment is only going to go along with the will of the people as long as they pick the “correct” candidate.

That is why any anti-establishment candidate is going to be facing a huge uphill battle this year.  It would be way too easy for the Republican establishment to force a brokered convention.

Any candidate that wants to avoid a brokered convention is going to have to accumulate more than 50 percent of the delegates before the convention, and that is going to be very difficult to do under the new rules.

Who Leads the Attack On Ron Paul?

Those with the most to lose: Warmongering corporate fascists.

by Tony Cartalucci

December 21, 2011 – From the remorseless liars that brought America into the Iraq War, have kept the US mired in Afghanistan for now over a decade, oversaw the genocide in Libya wrought by NATO-backed Al Qaeda terrorists, and are attempting to incite war with both Syria and Iran, comes a frothing, if not entirely elementary attack against one of the few obstacles that stands in their way of perpetual war fought at America’s expense but for their personal gain. That obstacle is Ron Paul and the Constitutional reawakening he has spurred.

Leading the charge is a slightly misfitting addition to the Neo-Conservative corporate-fascist propaganda machine, openly-homosexual warmongering “libertarian” James Kirchick. While Kirchick’s sexual orientation really is a matter of his own personal business, the necessity of him making it a public issue and the fact that those he works for have used anti-homosexual rhetoric to manipulate the American political landscape for decades is already a display of undermining and astounding hypocrisy.


Photo: James Kirchick, of the Neo-Con corporate-fascist “Foundation for the Defense of Democracies” leads the attack on Ron Paul. Having previously worked for the US State Department funded Radio Free Europe (RFE/RL), he is no stranger to peddling propaganda.

….

Kirchick’s argument is based on the same tired, already addressed “newsletter” published in Ron Paul’s name decades ago, and despite none of the articles cited by Kirchick actually even being written by Ron Paul, he still enjoys preceding each accusation with, “He says…” Kirchick’s servile obedience to the Neo-Con agenda, which has cultivated and is directing Ron Paul’s competition – Cain, Romney, Perry, and Gingrich – is fairly obvious to detect. However, it is now a matter of record that Kirchick literally sits, as a “fellow” within a Neo-Con corporate and US State Department-funded think-tank, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD).

The FDD features as its “executive team,” the likes of James Woolsey and Clifford May while its “leadership council” includes Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Max Kampelman, Bill Kristol, and Senator Joseph Lieberman. Richard Perle, Eric Cantor, Gary Bauer, and Charles Krauthammer sit on the FDD’s “board of advisors,” while Reuel Marc Gerecht, Bill Roggio, and James Kirchick himself sit as FDD “fellows.” Truly exemplary of everything that is wrong with America, and everything Ron Paul and the ideals he promotes aim at fixing, the FDD is a weed that needs to be pulled from America’s political landscape. (For further reading regarding these names, please see “NED & Freedom House are run by Warmongering Imperialists,” “Neo-Cons for Human Rights?” and to see a good example of FDD’s contrived propaganda exposed and in action, “Neo-Con Infomercial: Iranium.”)

Of course, despite a “Democratic” president sitting in the White House, America’s foreign and domestic policy has been drawn up and carried out by corporate-fascists who hold sway over both sides of America’s political aisle. “Obama’s” military adventure in Libya, for instance, was not only supported by what Americans might call “Neo-Conservatives,” but the war itself was drawn up by them in the first place. This indicates an overarching agenda that transcends presidencies and the perceived political ideologies they supposedly adhere to. The necessity then, to keep puppets like Bush or Obama in place is realized, as any truly independent, principled president would expose and disrupt this long running charade.

From April, 2011’s “The Globalists Coming Full Circle:”

“Ten days after 9/11, General Wesley Clark visited the Pentagon where an officer from the Joint Staff warned him of an impending attack on Iraq. After the Afghan invasion, this officer shared with Clark a document handed down from the Office of the Secretary of Defense indicating plans to attack and destroy the governments of 7 countries; Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Lebanon and Libya. General Wesley Clark would go on to share this story in a 2007 speech given to the Commonwealth Club of California where he repeated this list.

Of course, the campaigns have already begun against each of the nations Clark listed. Iraq was invaded, decimated, and has been occupied by US troops since 2003. In 2006, Israel attempted to invade and dismantle Hezbollah in Lebanon but the conflict ended in a stalemate and an eventual Israeli withdrawal. Somalia was attacked by a proxy Ethiopian invasion force with US air support starting in 2007, but it too eventually ended in failure. A silent war has already begun within Iran, including covert military operations, the arming of terrorists, assassinations, and 2 failed US backed color revolutions. Sudan has been recently carved into two states and Syria is now being intentionally destabilized by US trained and funded activists.

And now, of course in Libya’s case, aerial bombardment by US, UK, and French warplanes has begun, while the CIA and MI6 are on the ground attempting to collapse the Qaddafi regime.

Wesley Clark would backtrack in his 2007 talk in California and recall a conversation he had in 1991 with then Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz regarding Desert Storm. Clark was told that America’s intervention in Iraq proved that the US could use its military force and the Soviets wouldn’t stop them. Wolfowitz said the US had 5-10 years to clean up the old Soviet “client regimes” before the next super power rose up and challenged western hegemony. Clark claimed that this, along with the aftermath of 9/11 constituted a policy coup where Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and the other members of the of Project for a New American Century had hijacked US foreign policy to destabilize and turn the nations of the Middle East upside down – much the way they are now. The “Neo-Conservative” element of this current round of destabilization goes deeper than the promotion of war, as the “Neo-Cons” have uncharacteristically dedicated themselves to “human rights” and “democracy” side-by-side with the likes of George Soros and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

General Wesley Clark tells of how Middle East destabilization was planned as far back as 1991, with the destruction of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Iran on the drawing board following the invasion of Afghanistan.

….

Bush campaigned on an anti-war, anti-nation building platform. Obama then pledged to roll back the agenda Bush swindled the nation into, only to then continue it in earnest. All along we have been treated to the theatrics of the corporate-owned media, with pundits on the left and right reacting in shock and surprise as these engineered events unfolded according to plan.
Despite Wolfowitz’ agenda being meted out nearly 20 years ago, the ham-fisted nature of both the operation itself in Libya and the propaganda surrounding it suggests a rushed sense of desperation on the globalists’ behalf. Wesley Clark suggested that the operation to destabilize the Middle East and Northern Africa would take 5 years, starting in 2001. Wolfowitz believed that in 1991 the operation would have taken 5-10 years. The failed FBI attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 was most likely the staged impetus to trigger the first blitzkrieg. Not only did the attacks fail to cause the catastrophic effects needed to justify such an operation, the Egyptian informant assisting the FBI had recorded his conversations with agents [which are published in the NYT] indicating that they were indeed building a bomb for extremists and providing them with real explosives as well.

1993 would have fit in perfectly to tip off Wolfowitz’ plan. Upon failing, he and his PNAC cadre would attempt to destroy the World Trade Center buildings again, this time successfully on September 11, 2001. The catastrophic loss of life, the confusion, and the rage that was left in its wake gave the PNAC what they called a “new Pearl Harbor” they claimed they needed in their September 2000 report titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses.

These men, who in fact helped create Al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan to face the Soviets in the 80s would call on their legion of foreign mercenaries to wreck havoc across the planet, heralding globalist intervention along the way. Certainly this had nothing to do with defending America or spreading “democracy” but rather bolstering the hegemony of the corporate-financier oligarchy that both the PNAC cadre and the bankers who thoroughly saturate Obama’s administration constitute.

What appears to have happened is a costly delay in 1993 and a post-9/11 campaign that has dragged on 5 years longer than expected. With the same clumsy hands fumbling in Libya also trying to stab simultaneously at both Moscow and Beijing with their agenda laid on the table openly for all to see, failure on the globalists’ behalf now may incur a wrathful response from a planet about to truly awaken.

It should be expected that that any excuse to complete regime change in Libya will be made, including creating the conditions necessary to put troops on the ground – be it because of a failing rebellion, a false flag attack carried out in Qaddafi’s name, or even feigned fears the globalists’ own Al Qaeda might “seize” Libya should they not intervene. Similarly, with the US openly admitting to funding subversive activities across the Arab world, in Iran, and even as far as China, the globalists have painted themselves into an irredeemable, inescapable corner of confrontation.”

For those interested in reading the recycled propaganda oafishly wielded by Kirchick for his politically motivated attack, read his latest article, “The Company Ron Paul Keeps.” However, now, readers should have a better appreciation of the company “Kirchick keeps,” the fact that they have done more to send misled American and Israeli troops to their needless deaths than all of Ron Paul’s non-existent “antisemitism” combined, and that Kirchick’s campaign to slander Ron Paul is built on a foundation of fear and self-preservation, not genuine concerns based on a real threat. Kirchick and the “company he keeps” are also wary of an American awakening stoked by the real issues Ron Paul brings to debates – one that isn’t swayed by left or right puppets but instead focuses on the corporate-financier puppet masters to whom all the strings lead.

While Kirchick and company labor under the delusion that Americans stand behind the endless war profiteering carried out by his peers throughout the FDD, its doppelganger the Foreign Policy Institute (FPI), and other corporate-financier driven think-tanks and US taxpayers endlessly funding the purposefully abusive Israeli military, in reality the fact that the US government, as well as the Israeli government have been pursuing the interests of Wall Street and London at the expense of both the American and Israeli people is gaining mainstream traction. Wishing the awakening away will not work.

At this point, now more than ever, instead of being caught up in the minutia of Kirchick’s recycled attacks, we must continue to point out the corporate-financier interests that truly drive America’s agenda, boycott these interests, and replace them entirely with local, pragmatic solutions.

Post Navigation