Supporting Ron Paul
Should our American readers help the campaign of Ron Paul?
There are many reasons for and against. His social policies
are old-fashioned, but the bottom line is that Ron Paul is
an isolationist, and this is a good thing for the rest of
the world. Yes, we care about our American brothers and
sisters, but first of all we need to unplug the US. A man
who would take troops back home, who would cut the federal
government down to size and hopefully save America by
bringing its overseas Empire down, is good for us. Some
people speak of positive American involvement, but meanwhile
every American overseas involvement was extremely negative,
leaving heaps of bodies and massive destruction on its
trail. Ron Paul is often presented as an antizionist. He is
no such thing, but it is not necessary either. Peace in the
Middle East would come automatically, by force of gravity,
if American involvement would be cut off. No American aid is
the best the Middle East can wish from our American friends,
because then the sides will be forced to make peace.
Probably one would prefer a man with more positive program
for the US population, but ze ma esh, as we say in
Hebrew, he is all we’ve got. You’ve got until Tuesday to
register as a Republican, and this is surely unpleasant, but
who promised you a rose garden? The Democrats have no clear
anti-war candidate, anyway Obama and La Clinton are not.
That is why it is good to support him.
His chances to succeed are not big, but the man is fighting,
he has much support, and it is good to show that there is a
strong potential for stay-away candidate. Yes, his view of
welfare is rather odd, but this subject should take second
priority next to the real problem, and that is war and
peace. Our friend John Spritzler rightly said that the
elections in the US are hopelessly rigged and it is
difficult to believe that elections will actually deliver
the result we need. This is true, but the campaign will help
people to find their way and their understanding of the
problem.
Our readers objected to “isolationist” – apparently this
word has negative connotation in the US today. They proposed
“non-interventionist”, which is a bit long, or
“stay-at-home”, which is rather disparaging. Probably one
should find out a good and short English word for an
American who wants to deal with American problems.
Contemplation and rebuilding time, time out in the world
affairs but prime time for internal affairs. If Ron Paul (or
somebody else) can give it to the Americans, he will win.
From Charles F. Moreira, Malaysia
The term “isolationist” is probably a pejorative term to
describe those who believed in the principles of the US’
founding fathers who advocated a foreign policy of trade and
friendship with all but entangling alliances with none --
meaning that the US would be like Sweden, Switzerland or
Finland and be more or less politically and militarily
neutral, while having trading relationships with all.
While I have no liking for Ron Paul’s domestic social
policies, he’d do the world a favour by getting the US off
our backs.
Charles
From: John Remington Graham, Quebec
Shamir, -- Ron Paul believes in the intended meaning of the
United States Constitution which was destroyed by the powers
of high finance in the American Civil War, using Abraham
Lincoln, Edwin Stanton, and Salmon Chase as their principal
stooges in order to provoke secession and war, induce
unimaginable casualties, run up a huge national debt,
convert the bonds into an obligatory capital basis for a
dominant and privileged system of banking and currency under
their control, gain control of the money supply and the
major news media, run the country as an invisible
government, and transform the nation into a superpower. The
surrender of Robert E. Lee at Appomattox Court House was the
end of the confederacy of free, sovereign, and independent
States which was established by the Philadelphia Convention,
President George Washington, and the First Congress. If
this tragedy had not occurred, the United States would not
have intervened in the First World War, which means that
Georges Clemenceau and Loyd George would not have been able
to use and betray the United States in
imposing exploitive and unjust terms on Austria Hungary and
Germany, that Adolf Hitler would never have been able to
rise, that there would have been no Second World War, etc.
Think of how much better we would all be off.
Dr. Paul will make a fine effort this year, but his
influence will be indirect. His cause will be well pleaded
and highly appreciated, but will be symbolic, yet least of
all will he be finished as a political voice, for he will
grow in stature and help to moderate our course in future
years. It is too soon to tell whether it will be Hillary
Clinton or Barack Obama for the Democrats, but neither would
be good for the country, for they are only panderers, and
the American people know it, so they will reluctantly elect
either John McCain or Mitt Romney. We may as well accept
reality and proceed from there. The United States will
emerge as a chastened superpower in a world which cannot
exist without superpowers at the moment. A more realistic
approach will be to urge a foreign policy of the United
States in keeping with the principles of Washington's
farewell address, easily accessible on the internet. I
suggest you to read it, as it relates to foreign policy.
Washington was not an isolationist, as myoptic historians
have supposed, for he knew that the United States was
destined to become a great power, but he wanted a foreign
policy based on the enlightened national interests of the
United States, avoiding taking sides in conflicts between
other countries in foreign affairs and cultivating
friendship with both sides in every such dispute as far as
possible. As far as the Middle East is concerned, just
substitute Jews and Arabs for Washington's preoccupation
with neutrality between Britain and France, then read in the
principles of Washington's foreign policy. That is
feasible, and Dr. Paul will have an influence in making it
happen. I certainly hope and feel a fair degree of
confidence that such a change is coming. But we must be
patient, because, after all, Lee surrendered at Appomattox,
the United States was taken over by an international coterie
of high finance, Clemenceau and Lloyd got their way in the
corrupt diplomacy of 1919, Hitler was able to rise, there
was a resulting Cold War, better called the Third World War,
from 1945 to 1991, and it will take awhile for things to
sort out.
The United States are not the great Satan, nor will the
world be better off if the United States withdraw from
influence abroad. The world does not work that way. The
problem is that man is not naturally good, but is rather
a fallen creature in need of redemption.
John Remington Graham
of the Minnesota Bar (#3554X)
From Richard Wilcox, Tokyo
Dear Israel,
I voted by absentee ballot for Ron Paul in the Michigan
primary. I also think he seems to make sense, despite his
capitalist outlook on the world, at least he is strongly
against the Iraq war and calls for removing all foreign US
military bases! But, upon closer inspection one might have
some quibbles about the fellow.
Some advise we cut him a break but he had chances to expose
Zionist Occupied Government and 911 on national TV and
sidestepped and backpedalled on each of these, this is
rather a pisser. Since no one, surely not him, actually
believes he could get elected, at least he should be
forcefully educating the public during this brief
opportunity to break through that vast flowing stream of
nitrogen rich detritus known as the main stream media.
Of course, the media, the voting system, the political
system are all a stacked deck, but that is another issue. I
don’t mean to be a spoiler but here are two items worth
throwing into the mix about Ron Paul.
Best, Richard in Japan
[One of the items blames Ron Paul for not speaking ‘truth’
on 9/11, another one, by a rather extreme writer Christopher
Jon Bjerknes on
http://www.jewishracism.blogspot.com claims that
“Zionist Wolf Blitzer runs to defend Ron Paul and avidly
promotes him. Note the distinction that Ron Paul
reciprocates by promoting Wolf Blitzer who supports him, but
does not support the anti-Zionists who support him. It is
the anti-Zionists who are being deceived and deceiving
themselves, not the Zionists, and it is the Zionist
controlled “alternative” media who are unapologetically
making the Zionist stooge Ron Paul a star.” But then,
Bjerknes probably considers you, me and Adolf Hitler a
Zionist stooge as well, so it does not mean much]
From Tom Mysiewicz, Oregon
Israel Adam,
I also support Ron Paul for the same reasons and with a few
reservations, one of which is that I was a Libertarian when
young. It is like the old nostrum about Communism: if one
is not a Communist when he is 18 he has no heart. If he is
a Communist when he is 30 he has no head.
Ron Paul opposes racism as "tribalism". Depending on what
you mean by "racism" (am I a "racist" if I want to treat all
people equally except in breeding and living matters of my
own choice, but have no objection to having a common set of
laws for all races?) does he also oppose the Zionist
experiment on the grounds that it, too, is racism? I once
submitted this question to Murray Rothbard, the
"objectivist" disciple of Ayn Rand's (or Alicia Rosenbaum).
He did not answer my question but did frown at me.
Then there is gold. It is obvious that for the world to
continue laboring under a paper dollar standard is to be
enslaved. Some sort of alternative to the dollar will be
essential. However, William Jennings Bryan & the Populists
of the 1890s demonstrated that people were being crucified
on a "cross of gold", i.e., farmers and small businesspeople
were forced to run up debts to produce and then had to come
up with interest regardless of the outcome of their
efforts. Increased production with fixed money supply
(gold, in this case) led to falling prices in general. It
was impossible for the overall interest to be paid on the
debts, ensuring bankruptcies. Unless interest-free debt is
generated (and even that would be problematic unless the
money supply had limited elasticity) a new gold standard
would produce the same problems seen in the last go around.
(I was taught economics by one of the four American students
of Ludwig von Mises, a Ron Paul influencer, by the way.)
Regards,
Tom Mysiewicz
From John Wheat Gibson, Texas
I totally agree. Ron Paul’s stupid social policies make no
difference in this era. He will stop the US war against the
whole world, and that is best for the US as well as the rest
of the world. The fascist hypocrites like Hillary Clinton
promise social programs like health care reform, but also
promise to continue endless war for their Zionist
paymasters, which has so destroyed the US economically that
there is nothing left for health care reform. Our ruling
class has beaten all our plowshares and pruning hooks into
swords.
From Tony Lee, Queensland
Everyone but everyone should read this at least twice!
From Elizabeth M. Molchany, Virginia
Dear friend, Shamir:
Ron Paul is a non-interventionist as opposed to an
isolationist. He favors trade and a variety of relations
with the rest of the world. But he insists we must stop
interfering with the sovereign rights of other countries,
rights that none of our other countries, except Kucinich,
Gravel, and, at times, Richardson, will recognize. As first
responders to Charles Gibson’s question about what would
these Democratic candidates do should they be presented
“actionable intelligence” showing that Al-Qaeda was in
Pakistan and where, Obama and Edwards immediately stated
that they would bomb Pakistan with or without the approval
of the Pakistani government. Even worse, of course, are the
Republican candidates who encourage war and more war.
For progressives such as myself, Ron Paul has a number of
uncomfortable positions which he has maintained consistently
over a number of years, such as removing our participation
in the UN. Nevertheless, I, a progressive, have admired him
for about seven years and recognize that there may be no
candidate who fully represents my views, save Kucinich and
Gravel.
With respect to Zionism, Ron Paul frequently speaks out
against the neo-conservatives, yet says that he supports
Israel and wants Israel to have the right to do as they
decide with respect to their behavior towards others. He
says that in denying all countries foreign aid, Israel would
be better off because more aid goes to the Arab recipients
of foreign aid than to Israel. He ought to know, but somehow
I doubt it. It is not an argument which pleases me but I see
these countries as using their “foreign aid” largely for the
purpose of purchasing military weapons.
Only Ron Paul is saying what we all want very much to hear.
He is a good man, a kind man, and my choice for President.
Elizabeth M. Molchany, J.D.
Front Royal, VA
From Jim Dean, Atlanta
Shamir wrote that “the bottom line is that Ron Paul is an
isolationist, and this is a good thing for the rest of the
world.”
Not to be picky...but this is a glass half full or half
empty thing. This could be viewed as Dr. Paul wants America
to be a good neighbor by minding it’s own business. No one
would call a neighbor who did this an isolationist as long
as he was still polite and would come over to help when he
saw a prowler or your house was on fire. But REGIME CHANGE
is surely being a nosey neighbor and that is the foreign
policy abortion that the NeoCons instituted without a public
debate, a subversive act in my book (Jim Dean...Assoc of
Former Intelligence Officers) and I will stand anywhere and
repeat this and let them try to sue me.
As Shamir knows, most all of the past wars have been
commercial wars. The famous WWI era British Parliament
radical Francis Neilson once said there was never
justifiable reason for British and French bakers, farmers,
mechanics and taxi drivers to fight and maim and kill their
German counterparts. Neither stood to gain anything from it.
Only the elites did. And that is exactly the same situation
we have now.
****His chances to succeed are not too big, but the man is
fighting, he has much support, ***
The earth is moving under our feet, Adam. Finally,
complainers over here are getting their check books out and
accepting that there is no free ride if we want to save
ourselves. To send someone out to fight for you with no
money is a childish approach. I have been telling people
this for years and they did not like to hear it. They wanted
Santa Claus to pick up the tab.
What I am praying will happen is that people come to
understand that the funding of fighting back is a lifelong
struggle and needs to be a monthly permanent expense. One
million American putting up $25 a month can do a lot of
damage to the elitist problem we have here with $25 million
a month as public relations ammo. Much of the country is fed
up with elite control of the Dems and Repubs, but we are
boxed in with nowhere else to go. Ain’t democracy wonderful
:-)
The funding that Ron Paul is getting scared the elites more
than Ron Paul does. They fear that even if he does not win,
someone with more charisma might come along and hook up with
that financial support, maybe even doubling it. The elites
know what a message with money behind it can do.
My big fear is that we will miss the conversion of the Net
movement to ‘boots on the ground’. By that I mean that
active people on the Net are often on party members, and
even fewer are actual local delegates which is easy to do
and multiples your political significance a hundred times
instantly. I discovered this late in life and it was a major
regret. Once you call a politician and their staff types
your name into the database and you come up as a delegate
they become a lot more friendly. I got more ‘entre’ panache
by being a delegate than a journalist, or even calling with
a veteran hat on (which comes in second to a delegate).
If you have 15% percent of the party delegates in a county
you can usually swing who gets to be county chairman, as
they are often 40-60% close races. This is the big open door
for reformers than many do not know about, nor do party
members want you to now. Many county parties like their
group to be small because it is easier to control. Given the
choice of 250 members versus a 1000, they prefer
250...because, heaven forbid, new people coming in actually
have the gall to want to change things.
I get emails from the Ron Paul Georgia campaign, but they do
not respond to emails, nor do they return phone calls.
Despite raising a lot of money I cannot see any professional
infrastructure at all. Historically this means if/when he
loses this reform movement will go up in smoke because his
presidential candidacy is all that is holding it together.
There are rumors that he is saving money to run as a third
party candidate if he loses the Repub primary. If he did do
that he could throw the presidential election to the Dems.
The thinking being that reforming the Republicans would be
easy if they went down in defeat and we could get rid of all
the old leadership as punishment for taking us down the
tubes.
And lastly, despite the war and international focus of your
piece, people here are really worried about the Ponzi scheme
deal our economy has become and are really worried about the
bottom falling out. Middle class financial equity has been
shifting to the elite pocketbooks and only they are in good
position to buy assets cheaply during a recession. We have
an insane immigration situation which neither party has any
intentions of dealing with seriously.
At this point we are a democracy in name only. We are being
ruled. The elites have their hooks deep into both parties
and their major interests will be protected no matter which
side wins. But they do not have Ron Paul in their pocket. If
he gains more momentum they will crank up the slime machine.
More and more are concerned with voting machine fraud here.
All my computer Intel people tell me that it is mere child’s
play to rig these machines. The code they write in to do
this can erase itself when it is done so a later check up
with not find anything. Here some good U-tube Congressional
testimony on it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq9WVuKGwOM
Stalin had the word on this long ago...something about
people having the vote was not a problem. Who was counting
the votes was where you had to make sure you had control.
Jim Dean
Heritage TV...Atlanta
Below – polemics between Karin Maria Friedemann and John
Spritzler.
Hit Piece Bruises Ron Paul
MariaHussain.wordpress.com
Martin Peretz, owner of the New Republic and funder of
Hillary really hurt Paul yesterday. It was a typical Peretz
thing to do - smear someone as a “homophobe” and “racist”
the day of the election. The New Republic’s Jamie Kirchick
ludicrously claimed that Ron Paul personally called Martin
Luther King a “gay pedophile,” and other outlandish claims
he later retracted as mere gossip.
A very similar thing happened in Somerville on the eve of
the vote about whether or not city funds should be invested
in Israel or locally - in order to make it sound more
“controversial” than the issue really was, all the neocon
pundits went crazy, making up stories about how I am a
supporter of the local investment movement and I’m a
homophobic terrorist supporter that hangs out with David
Duke. This is a common tactic. It makes you seem really
“scary” to liberals. Liberals whose vote we were counting
on.
If the American people can’t get beyond the “homophobic”
smear in order to save their country, America probably
deserves to be crushed like a bug quite frankly. People act
exactly like insects. Running around doing what “they”
expect, never thinking.
We have to be prepared in advance. I mentioned a couple
weeks ago the Zionist press is going to do this. Dr. Paul
needed a pre-emptive attack - a statement on how his program
is best for Blacks and Gays. As we all know, there is no
difference between Huckabee and Hillary when it comes to
AIPAC issues. This game is a distraction. But there is a
comeback.
Is Dr. Paul a racist? No, Dr. Paul WILL SET YOU FREE. We
need to emphasize his prison release program and make sure
people realize that Hillary and Obama are NOT going to end
war, they want new wars. Ron Paul is the Black Man’s Best
Friend. He is going to bring your sons home from the war and
release all non-violent drug offenders from prison his first
day in office, he said. Ron Paul has more Black supporters
than any other Republican candidate and more active US
military personnel supporters than any other candidate.
The issue is not which candidate will win or lose. The real
issue is are we going to lose our country? Americans are
such sheep. If we don’t somehow teach our friends to
mistrust the media and double check everything, that’s it
for USA.
The sad part is that Dr. Paul was polling at 17% but then a
lot of those people went to vote Democratic because they
were embarrassed by the homophobic racist smear that was
circulated on the internet. It is true that there was
reportedly voter fraud. The hand count of the votes puts Dr.
Paul at 15% not 8% as the newsmedia erroneously reported.
But that still means he lost 2% of the expected vote and all
of the fence-sitters who could have put him above 20% just
because of this typical Jewish smear tactic that was
coordinated and planned to not give Ron Paul time to answer
the accusations before the election.
Dr. Paul will not be counted as a winner unless he wins by
an overwhelming landslide. Even then, the neocons might send
in the National Guard to prevent him from taking office,
except the Guard is in Iraq. (How convenient.) What happens
next? No country in the world knows what the next step is,
how to get free. The question is, how much longer will
Americans fall for these tricks?
RON PAUL’S RESPONSE
Ron Paul has already responded to these ridiculous
accusations and slammed them as political haymaking to
coincide with the New Hampshire primary. “The quotations in
The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent
what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered
such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. In fact,
I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we
should only be concerned with the content of a person’s
character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the
floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: `I rise in great
respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who
stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against
unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a
decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious
political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine
full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I
did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product.
For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral
responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went
out under my name.”
[We invite readers to share their views on Mr. Kirchick’s
article by e mailing him at james.kirchick@gmail.com.]
Dr. Paul has an honest opinion. The neo-liberals have think
tanks working night and day doing marketing analysis and
using psychology to turn the public away from Dr. Paul.
There are Israeli/neocon spies that keep tabs on every
political activist in Boston and do write-ups about them in
Jerusalem, and meet with the local & Israeli government
about how to neutralize them. In Palestine they just use a
laser gun if someone starts telling the truth. In America
they character assassinate more often. Like we have any
importance whatsoever. They flew the mayor of Somerville to
talk to Ariel Sharon about how to silence eleven Boston
responsible investment activists.
Basically how the Lobby won it (and it was a close race, 45
to 55%) was they made a bunch of slick posters with Deval
Patrick’s face on it, AND they released a number of news
reports and commentaries that totally twisted the positions
and arguments of both sides, so that the average voter would
be confused about what they were voting for or against. They
also used a lot of psychological pressure labeling people as
“racists” “anti-Semites” etc. so that the people who would
normally support the ballot initiative got scared away.
These people are very serious about not wanting Dr. Paul’s
voice to be heard and they don’t want him to win. But they
always use the same tactics.
If they don’t succeed in turning Dr. Paul’s name into mud,
they will turn on the organizers of the movement. It’s going
to go on and on and we have to strategize. Is there a
strategic planning wing of the People for Paul movement?
From John Spritzler:
The policies of the U.S. government are not determined by
who we vote for. It is naive to think that they are.
Virtually every modern war the U.S. government has waged was
waged under the administration of a president who, when
running for office, promised not to wage that war:
Woodrow Wilson, FDR,
Lyndon "I won't send American boys to fight an Asian war"
Johnson, Richard ("I have a secret plan to end the Vietnam
war") Nixon, George W. ("I'm against nation building") Bush.
Bill Clinton campaigned on a promise to oppose NAFTA and
then, when elected, put NAFTA on the fast track. Key
government policies are determined by a corporate/government
elite composed of upper class individuals and other
individuals who curry their favor (like Kissinger, Rice,
Clinton etc.) The elections are intended to keep people on a
treadmill of fruitless activity every four years so that
they will never take the kind of collective action that is
required to actually defeat the power of the plutocracy who
hold the real power in the United States. The subjective
honesty and integrity of a candidate are only important
insofar as they determine whether or not the mass media will
allow that candidate to succeed in winning an election (the
elite want a dishonest person to win, not an honest person.)
Ron Paul may be honest; I don't know. But what is clear as
day is that his self-described "libertarian" ideology is
pure capitalist ideology: it glorifies the individual
pursuit of self-interest with people competing against each
other (the opposite of solidarity) and the idea that as long
as the "playing field is level" it is proper and natural
that there will be winners and losers in life with the
winners having huge personal fortunes and the losers having
to work for "low wage" jobs. Ron Paul opposes government
interference in the "playing field" of life because he wants
people to be "free" to become a "winner" in the competitin
of life. Ron Paul may not like what the winners in such a
social system are doing today, but his ideology nonetheless
reinforces the legitimacy of these winners and thereby
increases their ability to grab and hold onto their power
and do whatever they wish. Ron Paul's campaign is not going
to result in a President Ron Paul, but it does spread the
idea that our capitalist social system is natural and
proper, and that the winners in that system deserve the
wealth and power they have. This, of course, hepls the
Zionists immensely.
From: Karin Maria Friedemann to John Spritzler
John, You are repeating Zionist trash propaganda. Wake up.
You have until Tuesday to register Republican.
There is nothing in Ron Paul's platform that strengthens the
warmonger. That is why FOX censors him. He has promised to
save Social Security by cutting billions of dollars in wars
and foreign aid. He has promised he is not going to put
people out on the street. In fact he has promised to release
all non-violent drug offenders from our prison system. Yes,
he wants them to find a job. That is what you stand for.
Ron Paul is opposed to getting the US involved in Darfur and
Iran. When he says he wants our military to patrol our own
borders, that is "code" for getting them out of Iraq and
Afghanistan and Europe. He is speaking to his audience. In
fact he is a sort of Republican version of Chuck Turner. A
community leader.
Ron Paul is a great man. He is a sincere believer in the US
Constitution. If you don't throw all your support behind him
and get us out of Iraq now, then everything you ever claimed
to stand for has been proven false. Ron Paul is the only
presidential candidate in my lifetime that wants to limit
the government. Support him.
He has promised an economic solution to the illegal
immigration problem. He's not going to round them up. He is
just saying fine, if you want to come here illegally, then
you shouldn't expect us to subsidize your life. He actually
does propose a plan allowing several million immigrants to
come here legally.
An Air Force Veteran that served in Korea and Vietnam as a
flight surgeon he has also delivered 4000 babies. He and his
wife Carol have been married for 50 years. They have 18
grandchildren. A 10-term Texas Congressman, Ron Paul has a
reputation for honesty and integrity. He keeps his promises.
He has never voted for a tax increase or for an unbalanced
budget. As a socialist, you might prefer a more "tax and
spend" philosophy. But Ron Paul is not opposed to garbage
pick up and public schools. This is just fantasy.
Ron Paul has a philosophy of limited government, and free
trade. The Arabs love him. They believe in free trade. All
the problems in the Islamic and Arab and African world are
because of sanctions and other aggressive US interventions
in their economic freedom. Ron Paul will lift the sanctions
against Cuba and Iran. Basically he's a really decent person
who promised to give us what we have been saying we want.
Ron Paul is also the only presidential candidate that
inspires people to want to take a bullet for him. He can
unite this country but not with good people believing and
gratuitously passing on typical Zionist hype. Either you can
go on and on about how nobody lives up to your ideals, or
you can be loyal to the Constitution.
If you want to create an anti-war movement that gets beyond
the hippies, you have to rally around what the mainstream
Americans believe in more than they believe in the Bible.
That is the US Constitution. Most of the problems we are in
today as a country come from not following our own
Constitutional Law.
Karin
