Ron Paul, the Only Congressman Against Permanent Wars

One brave American is speaking out against war. Representative Ron Paul has been calling for an end to the Federal Reserve, but no radio station will discuss it. I was disappointed when I heard Donald Trump arrogantly state "Ron Paul can't win. Sorry!" I didn't hear Trump say that he would end the Federal Reserve, but I did hear him say that he would “increase military spending." So much for change.I thought that an article by Representative Paul summarized the neocon beliefs (article was much longer and covered a lot):

1.      They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.

2.      They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.

3.      They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends..

4.      They accept the notion that the ends justify the means - that hardball politics is a moral necessity.

5.      They express no opposition to the welfare state.

6.      They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.

7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
8. They believe a powerful government is a benefit.
9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run, should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
11. They hold Leo Strauss* in high esteem.
12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict Constitutionalists).
16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Liberal Party.

*Leo Strauss was a professor at the University of Chicago. One of his books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. Paul Wolfowitz, deputy 'defense' secretary, actually got his Ph.D. under Strauss. Machiavellian isn't it?

Michael Schauer, Former CIA, on Bin Laden File Assignment

I listened to Michael Schauer, author of Osama bin Laden, on Booknotes, and having been married to a Moslem for 24 years, I thought "at last someone with courage is speaking out." He was saying things our controlled media won't allow knowledgeable Americans to say. To me, the real terrorists are in Congress, the media, and the military, enriching themselves by aiding and abetting our corporate criminals by committing crimes against humanity.The author gave a substantive report on what is really happening in our Middle East interventions. Unfortunately, I can list only a few points, in the interest of brevity.

1.      If Congress cannot find a backbone, it must be purged in the coming election.

2.      Nonintervention does not mean 'isolating' ourselves; we have always traded, educated, etc.

3.      We have completely surrounded Iran, a Shiite country, with U.S. military bases in Sunni countries.

4.      To portray Islamists, whether Sunni or Shia, as a limited band of nihilistic fanatics, ready to kill widely and indiscriminately for the pure joy of murdering, and ready to sacrifice their lives is farcical.

5.      Iran's hostage-taking in 1979 has created a hatred for Iran, exploited by politicians, academic journalists and pro Israel organizations. In all of history there has not been a non-threat like Iran that has been more feared by Americans.

6.      If we had wanted to stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon, we could have told our European allies to stop selling Iran the necessary technology in the early 1990s.

7.      Neither we nor Israel has had contact with Iran for 20 years, except for threatening regime change and preemptive strikes.

8.      Most recently Iran has seen more than 400 U.S. Congressmen and Senators turn on their own president in a Washington Speech in 2010, by standing and cheering Benjamin Netanyahu calling for war on Iran. Truth is, Israel has a large, multifaceted, unaccounted-for arsenal of WMDs, and would surely use it.

9.      Iran could not strike America, but America could incinerate Iran.

Western governments encourage their nice, safe, naive college students to twitter young Iranians to urge a political revolution, not caring about how many young Iranians would die in the streets.However, because of 34 years of criminal negligence by the U.S. executive and legislative branches in the area of border control and domestic security, Iran and its Lebanese-Hezbollah surrogates have acquired a large, clandestine infras tructure in the continental U.S., if America or Israel strikes Iran.

Warning About Guests With Moslem-Sounding Names

How could anyone - Moslem or Christian - defend the intervention we have imposed on Islamic nations for over 60 years? We have taken their oil, their lives, and bombed their infrastructures. We've imposed puppet-dictators like the Shah, Mubarak, King Abdullah of Jordan. Children have seen their parents, aunts and uncles blown up and vice versa. America has imposed the worst of its culture on a region that we have no business occupying with our military bases. These countries don't want our porn, alcohol, heavy metal music, and degenerate aspects of our culture - neither do most Americans. We allowed the Shah to bring in sex education and drug education books, and I watched a big difference in the youth from my first visit to Iran in the '60s.Well, if one searches deep enough in the muck, he can come up with Arab­ sounding names like Zuhdi Jasser, a guest on many talk shows, as well as a witness on Rep. Peter King's investigation into radical Islam. What a travesty.My marriage to a Moslem has made me cautious about those who defend what America has done to Islam. Representatives of CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) such as Ibrahim Hooper and others with Arab-sounding names, never have the passion they should have when asked by evil propagandists like Michael Medved, "Do you condemn the murders of U.S. soldiers by that Kosovar Muslim Extremist?" Their answer should be, "Do you condemn America's intervention in the Mideast for 61 years killing hundreds of thousands of Muslims? Do you condemn the American soldiers who proudly posed for pictures with the bones of murdered Afghans? Do you condemn the genocide taking place in Gaza or the Israeli massacres of Sabra and Shatila or Deir Yassin? How about Sharon's bulldozing of Palestinians?" Only one guest, Ahmad Rehad, had the presence to ask about Israeli guilt, without mentioning anything specific.So, when you hear these phonies, remember that the popular Zuhdi Jasser writes for the Mideast Quarterly, a paper founded by Daniel Pipes, a dedicated Zionist madman. We've destroyed the souls of those Islamists who still manage to ask God for help.

Fox and MSNBC Won't Discuss This Tragedy (WYBE Democracy Now)

On March 3, 2011, NATO forces under General David Rodriguez killed nine Afghan children collecting firewood. Helicopter gunships hovered around the children, ages 9-15, including two sets of brothers. The one survivor of the attack was an 11-year­ old boy named Hemat who told the NYT that "the helicopters hovered over us, scanned us, and we saw a green flash from the helicopters. Then they flew back high up, and on the second round, they hovered over us and started shooting. The helicopter gunships shot the boys one after another." This was at least the third incident in two weeks that the Afghan government accused NATO forces of killing large numbers of civilians in air strikes. An Afghan government panel is still investigating claims that some 65 people were killed including 40 children in the U.S. led attack on Wednesday.On Wednesday, General Petraeus, top NATO commander, issued an unusual apology for the attack on the nine boys. In a written statement Petraeus said, "We're deeply sorry for this tragedy and apologize to the Afghan Government, the people of Afghanistan, and most importantly, the surviving family members of those killed by our actions." But he has refused to apologize for other NATO attacks on civilians. Last month, Petraeus shocked his Afghan counterparts when he suggested in a closed meeting that pro Taliban Afghans might be burning the children to exaggerate civilian casualties. Probably he hasn't seen pictures of boasting U.S. soldiers with Afghan bones.Rick Riley of Big Noise Films, independent journalist who has been to Afghanistan a number of times: "Outrageous comment by Petraeus that Afghans would kill their children to receive a few thousand dollars that the U.S. military gives out in condolence payments. But the string of attacks shows that the surge is over. We were going to end our strikes and protect the population." A grandfather said, "An apology is not enough. This happens every day."