Ron Paul sells out to the Zionist Lobby

Business insider reports:

Ron Paul Shocks Campaign Staff With New Position On Israel

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul revealed this week that he would support moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, a surprising position that contradicts conventional wisdom about Paul's stance toward the Jewish state.

Paul first made this position known Wednesday night, during a private meeting with evangelical leaders interested in helping the Texas Congressman reach out to the conservative Christian community.

According to a transcript of the meeting obtained by Business Insider, the leaders started off the meeting by asking Paul whether he would sign an Executive Order to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a major policy objective for Israeli hardliners and many leaders in the Christian Right.

"The real issue here is not what America wants, but what does Israel want," Paul told evangelical leaders, according to a transcript of the meeting obtained by Business Insider. "If Israel wants their capital to be Jerusalem, then the United States should honor that."

"How would we like it if some other nation said 'We decided to recognize New York City as your capital instead, so we will build our embassy there?'" he added.

Even Paul's senior campaign aides were surprised by his response.

"We were floored," senior advisor Doug Wead told Business Insider. "It sounds like pure Ron Paul, but it still caught us off guard...If someone would have asked him that in a national debate, I suppose it would have popped right out, but nobody did!"

Wead added that Paul's position "makes sense after the fact," noting that the candidate has frequently emphasized Israel's sovereignty.

Still, Paul's stance will likely come as a surprise to GOP leaders, most of whom view Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy ideas — and particularly his stance towards Israel — as his greatest weakness. The septuagenarian Congressman has largely been snubbed by the right-wing Jewish community, and was even excluded from a December presidential candidates' forum hosted by the Republican Jewish Coalition because of his "misguided and extreme" foreign policy views.

"I appreciate what he said about Israel — as a matter of fact, I was pleasantly surprised," Brian Jacobs, a Texas pastor who attended Wednesday's meeting, told Business Insider. "It helped answer a lot of questions that I had."

Ironically, Paul and Newt Gingrich are now the only presidential candidates who have said that they are in favor of recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moving the U.S. Embassy there. President Barack Obama has postponed moving the Embassy. Romney "would like to see the U.S. Embassy eventually moved to Jerusalem," campaign spokesman Andrea Saul said in a statement emailed to Business Insider.

While Paul's position is unlikely to change the near-certain outcome of the Republican primary, it could help Paul gain support among evangelical leaders, many of whom have been hesitant to support Romney. Jacobs, who has worked as a consultant for televangelist Billy Graham, told Business Insider that several evangelical leaders have started to express interest in talking to Paul in the wake of Rick Santorum's departure from the race.

Jacobs said he is now working with the Paul campaign to organize conference calls between the candidate and evangelical leaders. Christian television producer Justin Machacek, who also attended Wednesday's meeting, said he is working on arranging a larger meeting between Paul and other conservative Christian groups.

A relationship with Christian Right powerbrokers could give Ron Paul more leverage within the party, as Romney tries to unite the GOP after this year's divisive primary fight. It could also help broaden the Paul coalition, setting the stage for a future run by Paul's son, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul.

"100% of Christian leaders that I've talked to, do you know the one thing they like about Ron Paul? His son Rand Paul," Jacobs told Business Insider. "Every Christian leader will say, 'You know I'm not quite sure if Ron Paul can win the nomination'…but in the same breath, they tag it with, "But I sure do like the way his son has followed him.'" 

-------

Commentary: this is really a very sad development as for all his dogmatic and misguided views on economic topics, Ron Paul always held a deeply moral and fundamentally logical and sound position on US foreign policy and to see this otherwise honorable man cave in, albeit in private, to one of the most immoral and evil lobbies on the planet is terrible way for Ron Paul to end his political career.  The only good thing coming from this is now we can honestly say that the Republican Party is truly entirely composed of lunatics, imbeciles and prostitutes.

The Saker

Israel creates a super PAC to attack Ron Paul

Ron Paul's economics: a very toxic brew indeed

It appears that Ron Paul did well in the Iowa caucuses tonight.  On one hand, I am rather delighted by this, but on the other, I am also very concerned that a lot of people are seeing only one side of Ron Paul's ideology.  There is, however, a much darker side to Ron Paul, one which we all must have the courage and intellectual honesty to look at and not kid ourselves about its nature.

Now, before all of you Ron Paul fans get mad at me for posting this, I want to assure you of two thing:

a) I like Ron Paul's views on foreign policy and civil rights

b) I like and respect Ron Paul as a person

However, I always considered his 'Austrian' and 'Laisser Faire' economics as utter nonsense at best, or absolute lunacy at worst.  But now they are gaining more and more traction with the US public and I think that it is therefore time to honestly discuss these ideas here.

As a theory, 'Austrian' economics are fantastic.  But so are Marxism and Anarchism.  These theories all suffer from the same problem: highly loaded assumptions.  In the case of 'Austrian economics', the flaw is basic, but huge: the concept of a free market.  The fact is, of course, that there never was such a thing and that it will never exist.  Markets are always, by definition, regulated by somebody.  In the words of the brilliant economist Michael Hudson:

Every economy is planned. This traditionally has been the function of government. Relinquishing this role under the slogan of “free markets” leaves it in the hands of banks. 

One might wonder why a political and economic theory based on a so self-evidently flawed idea has so many followers.  The fact is, of course, that this theory has followers in significant numbers only in the USA.  Why?  Because of three uniquely American circumstances:

The evil nature of the state in US history:

It is a fact that throughout the history of the USA the state as always been on the side of the rich and powerful and not of the masses.  Not only that, but the US state has spent trillions of dollars in waste, mismanagement and fraud.  So it is no wonder that most Americans instinctively dislike a state which has almost never done anything useful for them.  Why would Americans care for a state when they never lived in a society in which the state did care for the common folks?  From its very inception the US state was both multi-genocidal (extermination of numerous Indian nations), slave-owning (Black slavery), plutocratic (Robber Barons) and oligarchic (Masonic).  There is a good case to be made that the US state has been one of the worst ones in mankind's history, so its no wonder that it is also distrusted and hated by so many Americans.

The insular nature of the US society:

The vast majority Americans are hopelessly insular.  Not to offend anybody here, but this is an undeniable fact.  Not all Americans, of course, but the vast majority.  They know only one language, they have rarely, if ever, been abroad.  When they are abroad they don't really interact with the locals and, last but not least, they are largely ignorant of world history.  I have yet to meet a US libertarian who could even pronounce "laisser faire" correctly, nevermind understand why this idea has been universally rejected by the rest of mankind.  This is why Americans have these bizarre views about Obama being a 'socialist' or why they don't realize that civilized mankind has, for example, rejected the death penalty and adopted universal health care as a right for all.  No,  Americans will still passionately argue about issues which have already been settled pretty much everywhere else on this planet.

Then there are those Americans who are aware of the bigger planet out there, but still fall back on some form or another of 'American exceptionalism" (let them Euroliberals have their health care, this is not the American way!).  The fact that what US libertarians call "statism" has been accepted and adopted by the rest of mankind therefore has no influence inside the USA at all.  As the lyrics of a song which was popular in the late eighties say: "if it's good enough for Texas it's good enough for me"... 

The unbridled power of US corporation:

It is well established that the "Tea Party" has been largely financed by the Koch brothers.  But this is just the tip of the iceberg.  The roots of this corporate libertarianism go back much further, to Ronald Reagan and his famous words in his first inaugural address:

Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem

That statement was the slogan under which US corporations marched into a real crusade against any form of control over them.   We all know what happened after that: massive deregulations crippled entire sectors of the economy and nation, worker's rights collapsed, social safeguards were wiped-off, unions all but died, and every bit of the power vacuum left by a retreating state was immediately filled by US corporations.  The difference being that while the US people had at least a modicum of control over their government, they had none over the corporations.  Corporate America recognized that, and ever since it has backed anything on the spectrum going from Reaganomics to Austrian libertarian theories.

Compare these factors with the situation in Europe where most Europeans did, at one time or another of their lives, get real, valuable services from their government, where corporations are carefully controlled and regulated and the consumer thereby protected, where civil and worker's rights are considered "social achievements" (acquis sociaux in French) never to be rescinded (although under US pressure politicians like Merkel, Papanderou, Sarkozy, Blair and Co. are now trying hard to dismantle them).  Sure, there were plenty of incompetent, corrupt and outright evil governments in Europe, but there were always enough counter-examples sufficiently nearby (geographically or historically) to always remind Europeans that the solution to bad government is good government, not no government.

So we are really dealing with a misnomer here.  Austrian Laisser Faire economics should really be called "US Turbocapitalsm" (term concocted by Ed Luttwak), or "US hypercapitalism" or even simply plutocracy.  

Coming back to Ron Paul, I invite you all to listen to the interview of Webster Tarpley recorded by Bonnie Faulkner for her show Guns and Butter.  Tarpley and Faulkner take a close look at Ron Paul's economic program and what it would mean if implemented.

For the direct link to the audio click here.

For the web page with the interview, click here.

The real danger:

Having said all these highly critical things about Ron Paul and his delusional and outright dangerous economic views, let me say that I understand that it is a fact that a US President has far more influence on foreign policy than in internal politics where he must contend with a Congress which can block the implementation of his economic policies and a Federal Reserve which will fight with everything it has to prevent Ron Paul from abolishing it (let me add here that this idea, to abolish the Fed, is an excellent and fundamentally sound economic idea of Ron Paul!).  Finally, there is no doubt in my mind that if Ron Paul was elected President he would be simply murdered by the US "deep state".

So my concern is not that Ron Paul would instantly create millions of starving Americans by giving them a maximum of 15 dollars per week in food stamps or that he would wreck WIC, but that his ideology can be used by Corporate America to further weaken the state and strengthening the power of Wall Street.  All this libertarian nonsense really serves only one practical purpose: to turn citizens of a state into corporate subjects/slaves.

Michael Hudson is quite correct.   What we are witnessing in the USA (and, to a lesser degree, in Europe) is a return to feudalism, where the 99% serve the 1%, a society in which the people become simply a means of production for their corporate overlords.  Laisser Faire indeed...

So ask yourself this question: do Ron Paul's economic ideas strengthen or weaken the power of Corporate America over the US people?

The answer is, I think, sadly obvious.

The Saker

PS: please do listen to the Tarpley interview before commenting here, as it makes no sense to discuss vague declarations of intentions.  What we must do is fully fathom is what a Ron Paul Presidency would mean for the US economy.

Check out how Jewish Democrats meddle in the *Republican* race

Check out what I found in my email box today:

-------

Dear NJDC Supporter,

 

Jewish Republicans and Jewish Democrats disagree about so much, but there's one thing on which we see eye-to-eye: Ron Paul is bad news when it comes to Israel.

 

The New York Times reported Sunday about some of Paul's fringe following, which also includes white supremacists and anti-Zionists -- and how Paul would "not disavow their support." The Ron Paul newsletters that traffic in racism and conspiracy theories are now legendary. If you have any doubts, watch him in the video slam U.S. support for Israel on Iranian government television ( click here or the image at right to watch the video).

 

But now comes another discovery surrounding Ron Paul: As JTA reports today, a former Paul staffer, who is Jewish, explains that his boss was "most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general." To top it off, he notes that Paul "strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII."

 

Ron Paul has every reason to be taken seriously given the " rock-solid" campaign he's waging. I wrote in the Huffington Post about how serious a threat Paul is, what NJDC has done surrounding Democratic outliers in the past, and how Jewish Republicans should do more than pay lip service.

 

With the Iowa Caucus one week away, the time to act is TODAY. Please take these three steps right now to encourage the GOP to take this threat seriously!

 

*  Send an email to Mitt Romney (click to send) telling him that you find Ron Paul's views to be abhorrent -- and that as someone who claims to be a leader, the time has come for Romney to break the silence and condemn these dangerous views regarding Israel and so much more.

 

*  Send a message to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus (click to send) indicating that as leader of the Republican Party, you demand that he break the silence and condemn the abhorrent positions of Republican Rep. Ron Paul -- the current GOP leader in the polls in the Iowa Caucus.

 

*  Forward this critical effort to your friends and family -- help make sure they take action surrounding this presidential frontrunner today.

 

Both former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and RNC Chairman Priebus have not hesitated to level false criticism at Democrats over Israel; but when it comes to Ron Paul, where Jewish Democrats and Republicans alike agree that he's no friend, Romney and Priebus have been silent.

 

Please help encourage them to "find their voice" by taking action today.

 

Sincerely,

David A. Harris
President and CEO 

-------

Note: I hesitated whether to calls this post "Check out how Jewish Democrats meddle in the *Republican* race" or "Check out how Zionist Democrats meddle in the *Republican* race" but then I simply decided to call these folks what they call themselves.   I personally dislike the conflation of Jewish=Zionist, but then neither do I like to use cute euphemisms.  Lastly, not being a Jew myself, it really is not my problem whether these folks give all Jews a bad name or not.   Their problem, let them deal with it.

As for the substance of this email, it really shows to what degree tribalism supercedes largely irrelevant differences between the "Republicrats" and the "Demolicans".  What matters to them is Israel, as for the USA, its just a tool.

The Saker

Ron Paul is "fed up" with the TSA! Where is everybody else?!

Is Ron Paul the only US politician out there with enough decency, common sense and dignity to fed up with the TSA thugs run amok on the orders of Chertoff and his minions?!

Though I totally disagree with many of his views, I really admire Ron Paul.  Too bad his son us such a sorry piece of Koch fanboy garbage...

Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul FINALLY act together!

An Act Of War - Statement of Congressman Ron Paul

By Congressman Ron Paul via Informationclearinghouse

Statement of Congressman Ron Paul - United States House of Representatives

Statement on Motion to Instruct Conferees on HR 2194, Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act - April 22, 2010:

Mr. Speaker I rise in opposition to this motion to instruct House conferees on HR 2194, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act, and I rise in strong opposition again to the underlying bill and to its Senate version as well. I object to this entire push for war on Iran, however it is disguised. Listening to the debate on the Floor on this motion and the underlying bill it feels as if we are back in 2002 all over again: the same falsehoods and distortions used to push the United States into a disastrous and unnecessary one trillion dollar war on Iraq are being trotted out again to lead us to what will likely be an even more disastrous and costly war on Iran. The parallels are astonishing.

We hear war advocates today on the Floor scare-mongering about reports that in one year Iran will have missiles that can hit the United States. Where have we heard this bombast before? Anyone remember the claims that Iraqi drones were going to fly over the United States and attack us? These “drones” ended up being pure propaganda – the UN chief weapons inspector concluded in 2004 that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had ever developed unpiloted drones for use on enemy targets. Of course by then the propagandists had gotten their war so the truth did not matter much.

We hear war advocates on the floor today arguing that we cannot afford to sit around and wait for Iran to detonate a nuclear weapon. Where have we heard this before? Anyone remember then-Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s oft-repeated quip about Iraq: that we cannot wait for the smoking gun to appear as a mushroom cloud.

We need to see all this for what it is: Propaganda to speed us to war against Iran for the benefit of special interests.

Let us remember a few important things. Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has never been found in violation of that treaty. Iran is not capable of enriching uranium to the necessary level to manufacture nuclear weapons. According to the entire US Intelligence Community, Iran is not currently working on a nuclear weapons program. These are facts, and to point them out does not make one a supporter or fan of the Iranian regime. Those pushing war on Iran will ignore or distort these facts to serve their agenda, though, so it is important and necessary to point them out.

Some of my well-intentioned colleagues may be tempted to vote for sanctions on Iran because they view this as a way to avoid war on Iran. I will ask them whether the sanctions on Iraq satisfied those pushing for war at that time. Or whether the application of ever-stronger sanctions in fact helped war advocates make their case for war on Iraq: as each round of new sanctions failed to “work” – to change the regime – war became the only remaining regime-change option.

This legislation, whether the House or Senate version, will lead us to war on Iran. The sanctions in this bill, and the blockade of Iran necessary to fully enforce them, are in themselves acts of war according to international law. A vote for sanctions on Iran is a vote for war against Iran. I urge my colleagues in the strongest terms to turn back from this unnecessary and counterproductive march to war.
-------
Commentary:

This bill which had 343 co-sponsors passed in the House of Representatives on Dec 15, 2009 by roll call vote. The vote was held under a suspension of the rules to cut debate short and pass the bill, needing a two-thirds majority. This usually occurs for non-controversial legislation. The totals were 412 Ayes, 12 Nays, 10 Present/Not Voting. On March 11, 2010, the bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

These are the names of the Representatives who voted against the bill in the House:

Baldwin, Blumenauer, Conyers, Duncan, Flake, Hinchey, Kucinich, Lynch, McDermott, Moore (WI), Paul, Stark.

These answered "present" (abstained):

Johnson, E. B., Kilpatrick (MI), Lee (CA), Waters

Bottom line: AIPAC controls Congress at about 98% and the even though the USA is already going bankrupt because it is involved in 5,5 wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and, covertly, Iran) - all of which it is loosing - Congress is overwhelmingly eager to begin yet another war on behalf of the only openly racist and genocidal state on the planet.

And in the meanwhile, the US media icon Time is celebrating the 50 year anniversary of The Pill.

What would it take to wake up this stupidified population of zombies?

The Saker

Ron Paul: State of the Republic Address

Joint press conference by Ron Paul, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader

Tired of listening to the two factions (the Republicrats and Demoblicans) of the War Party?

Then listen to the voices of the *real* American opposition:

Ron Paul says it's time to end the empire

Ron Paul: Iranians Tested Missiles AFTER Israel had WAR GAMES!

Absolutely brilliant questionning of Petraeus and Crocker by Rep. Ron Paul

As my readers have already noticed, I am rather angry at Rep. Ron Paul for throwing in the towel in the 2008 election instead of doing what this SOB Lieberman (successfully) did and run as an independent. Still, when I heard Ron Paul's remarks to Petraeus and Crocker I found myself daydreaming about what a Paul Presidency could have meant to the rest of the world (I am not supportive of his socio-economic theories and agenda; however, there is no way he could impose it on the country without Congress anyway).

What Ron Paul said to General "ass-kissing little chickenshit" Betrayus was nothing short of brilliant.

Judge for yourself:

The only two choices for the 2008 Presidential election: Nader vs Solzhenitsyn

I just came across this table on Ralph Nader's website and decided I would share it with you: (please click on image for a better view)



I want to stress here that I am *not* trying to convince anyone to vote for Nader. Not that I have anything against Nader, not at all - I like the man, its just that I think that voting legitimizes a system which cannot be reformed and which is illegitimate beyond imagination. No, all I am trying to illustrate with this table is a) that McCain=Obama=Clinton and that b) Nader is the only alternative, whether good or bad, to the Neocon War Party's two branches.

As I wrote many times in this blog, the choice between the two factions of the "Republicrat Party" is about as meaningful as the choice between (Kosher) Pepsi and (Kosher) Coke: no choice at all. Now that Kucinich, Paul and Gravel are officially out, the only person still running for the Presidency who does not fully endorse a messianic imperial view of the USA is Ralph Nader. By refusing to recognize the Democrats as a meaningful alternative to the Republicans Nader has already done his country a great service.

We now will see if Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel have the integrity and guts to do the only decent and logical thing (at least for somebody who belives that the system can be reformed from within): endorse Nader.

None of this will make any difference, however slight. The Neocons and the Israel Lobby have a firm grip on both factions of the War Party, they have already infiltrated the campaigns of Mc Cain, Clinton and, to a marginally lesser degree, Obama. Little will change with Dubya's long awaited departure from the White House besides Hillary and Obama providing some charm and intelligence, if not culture, to a post occupied by a Neanderthal-like President for the past eight years. A welcome change for sure, but not something substantial.

Clinton was elected as a "liberal" and he threw million of poor Americans (mostly kids) into the streets, Dubya was elected on a "modest" foreign policy only to start an orgy of Imperial wars. So what is the point of all this? Why spend millions every four years for a presidential campaign which has no relevance whatsoever for the future of the USA?

The real point is to conceal the nature of the *system* by instead focusing on personalities. The proverbial tree concealing the forest if you wish.

Americans are educated or, rather, brainwashed into believing that puppet #1 is dramatically different from puppet #2 and that the electoral circus actually has a meaning. By focusing all the public attention on the candidates the system's propaganda machine successfully distracts the American public from the real cause and nature of the political system ruling over it.

In this context one has to admit that Nader is part of the system no less than Hillary, Obama or Mc Cain: he provides the system with a safety valve and a thin veneer of democratic legitimacy. Still, his platform does serve to shed some light on the forces which really control it all. Hence my ambivalence about the idea of voting for him (a purely theoretical one, for sure, since I do not hold the Imperial citizenship, nor will I ever in the future).

If you have any faith left at all in the American democracy, then, by all means, vote Nader as any other vote is a vote against the American Republic (and for a Fascist Empire). If you, like myself, believe that the system cannot be reformed no matter what, then stay away from it. Limit yourself to an "internal exile" and follow Solzhenitsyn's advice to live not by the lies. This method brought down the Soviet Union and it will also eventually bring down the American Empire.

Ron Paul throws in the towel (straight in the face of those who believed in him)

Ron Paul has published a message explaining that he is giving up the race. Sure, he declares his determination to "fight on", but without a national campaign staff; he wants to focus on his constituents in his home district whom he declares unwilling to "let down", unlike the rest of his supporters, I suppose. Here is the most important part of Ron Paul's statement:

"Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties -- just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican"

So there we have it: as with the rest of them, his loyalty to the Party supersedes his loyalty to his country. You see, he "is a Republican and he will always remain a Republican" , nevermind that he used to be a Libertarian in the past. He does not explain any further why exactly being inside the party of Dubya, Guiliani or McCain is more important than preventing a Fascist from sitting in the White House, from having imperial wars, mass poverty, the wholesale violation of civil right or a lunatic Federal Reserve bankrupting the USA.

Nevermind the raised $5'000'000+ still proudly displayed on the campaign website: the Revolution is over: very few Americans will ever take a seemingly principled candidate seriously again, not after this ugly about face. By not even trying to reach out to the other anti-war candidates (Kucinich, Gravel, Nader) and by rejecting even the possibility of a third party candidacy Ron Paul has shown not only his own moral limits but, even more importantly, the limits of hoping that the system can reform itself provided some well-intentioned people show up to do it. If anything good did come from the Ron Paul campaign, it is now the indisputable proof that:

1) any participation in the US political system, be it by running in it or by voting, only perpetuates it; the system cannot be reformed, redirected or otherwise salvaged: it needs to be completely destroyed.

2) unlike the British or Soviet empires, the USraelian Empire will not collapse from within: it can only be brought down from the outside. Unlike the British or the Russians, Americans simply do not have what it takes to get rid of their own ugly, evil, bloated and metastasizing Empire, no matter how "ubuesque" it has become.

So Ron Paul did an immense service to his country after all: he destroyed the last illusion any rationally thinking American could harbor in his heart about some politician working within the system would bring about any change. For all the empty talk about revolution, McCain, Obama or Hillary will sit in the White House soon. The remaining choices are as meaningful as the choice between the SS and the SA in Hitler's Germany. For a while Gravel, Kucinich and Paul gave some of us the illusion that this might not really be the case. That illusion is now gone. As with any illusion - that is a good riddance.

Finally, Action! Ron Paul Introduces Bill to Defend Constitution!

by Naomi Wolf

It's not every day that there is something concrete you can do to save democracy in one powerful stroke and make sure your kids don't come of age in an American in which we are no longer protected by the rule of law. I have been writing about the terrifying and precipitous assault on our liberties and our very system of checks and balances; I have crossed the country with this message -- today I am in Boston -- and I have heard across the nation that (as usual) the people are ahead of the leaders and the pundits. Americans of all backgrounds are alarmed and outraged and ready to take action against these vicious assaults on the rule of law. But what I hear again and again is: "What can we do?"

Here is what you can do, and it is big, big news. If we do this together in our millions we are safer; and if we fail to act we miss an historic opening and risk far worse to come.

There are two new organizations that are driving a grassroots push to restore the rule of law: the American Freedom Agenda was started by leaders who are conservative: Bruce Fein, who was a Reagan administration official in the Department of Justice, and others. The American Freedom Campaign was started by progressives. Both groups advance comparable 10 point legislative agendas that would stabilize democracy long enough for us to forestall the worst and regroup for more long-term reparation of the Constitution and the rule of law. Both would, if passed, protect Americans from the scary stories of abuse and recrimination I am hearing every single day -- journalists intimidated, prisoners tortured, innocent citizens spied on by the State in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Both would make it illegal for any administration to commit the kinds of crimes against America and its constitution that we have seen under this one: the innocent lawyer Brandon Mayfield's home broken into, the innocent software engineer Maher Arar kept prisoner by U.S. agents in an interrogation cell in a U.S. airport and prevented from calling his lawyer, and journalists reporting on abuses by the government threatened by the state with prosecution that could keep them in jail for a decade. Urgently it would close the horrific legal possibility for the president to call you or me an "enemy combatant" tomorrow -- JUST BECAUSE HE SAYS SO -- and lock us up in solitary confinement for years.

Passing the legislative agenda of either group would make it clear that American citizens -- in spite of a heretofore craven and compliant Congress -- refuse to stand by silently while a group of criminals systematically violates the core structure of the democracy our Founders put in place for us.

The big news is that this idea can now become a law and a law creates a reality.

On Monday, Rep. Ron Paul, the outsider Republican presidential candidate who has long upheld these values and who was an early voice warning of the grave danger to all of us of these abuses, introduced the AFA's legislative package into Congress. (The mainstream press has an irrational habit of disparaging outsider candidates -- as if corrupt money and machine endorsements equal seriousness of purpose -- even though the Founders hoped that the system they established would lead citizens, ideally those unembedded in the establishment, to offer their service to the nation.) It is the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 [PDF], and you should read it in its entirety: just as accounts of the recent abuses send chills down your spine, this beautifully argued document feels historic and has the ring of great power to correct great injustice.

What does it do? According to an alert put out by the American Freedom campaign, it would accomplish the following:

"The American Freedom Agenda Act would bar the use of evidence obtained through torture; require that federal intelligence gathering is conducted in accordance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA); create a mechanism for challenging presidential signing statements; repeal the Military Commissions Act, which, among other things, denies habeas corpus to certain detainees; prohibit kidnapping, detentions, and torture abroad; protect journalists who publish information received from the executive branch; and ensure that secret evidence is not used to designate individuals or organizations with a presence in the U.S. as foreign terrorists."

Ron Paul was the first of all the presidential candidates, red or blue, to step up in this way -- and all credit is due to him for getting there first. May the others of both parties race to follow his lead. These days, as we have seen from how reluctant some candidates have been -- even on the Democratic sign -- even to sign a mere pledge to uphold the Constitution, it takes some courage to stand fast against the assaults of this administration -- and their manipulations of the terms "patriotism" and "terror threat" -- and insist with legislation on the Founders' vision and on restoring democracy.

A groundswell of millions of Americans of all parties rising up to insist on passage of the AFA legislation means that we are awake -- we get it -- and that we assert that an alert citizenry, not a whipped-dog Congress or a violently abusive executive, decides what happens in this nation still. I am not a voter on his side of the ballot -- but I will move heaven and earth to support the passage of this lifesaving agenda. (Interestingly when I run into Paul's supporters -- who are deeply alert to the abuses of democracy -- and I demur by saying I am a Democrat, it is they who rightly assure me that these issues transcend party).

There is no way to overstate how crucial this piece of legislation is. We are at a turning point, and without the restoration of the rule of law the "blueprint" for what I have called a "fascist shift" -- the closing down of democracy -- calls for scarier recriminations against citizens, greater tightening of social controls -- the ever-growing, disturbingly political TSA watch list is, alarmingly, due to go from the airlines' administration to that of the TSA itself -- and more corruptions of the electoral process. Blackwater is a truly terrifying wild card. Without the rule of law we will be powerless as each of these assaults on liberty continue to escalate. With it we can fight back.

This is the answer both to those who say "What we can do?" and to those who claim (actually, sometimes whine) "there is nothing we can do." And if we don't act on this now we will get the democracy we deserve -- which is no democracy at all.

Put aside your partisan ideal world -- sometimes issues simply transcend partisanship -- and if ever there is an issue that is above and separate from party politics, it is the restoration of the democratic system we inherited. There are good people and passionate patriots across the political spectrum.

We at the AFC are putting out a call to pass this set of laws. Pick up the phone -- every day. Email your representative -- every day. Let them hear from millions of Americans a day. Let them hear from twenty. Please play hardball -- the times demand it and nice girls and boys have managed to get this Congress to do literally nothing at all to protect liberty.

Congressmen and women say off the record that they can't support liberty, much as they'd like to, because they are scared of "looking soft on terror" and they want to run out the clock -- a naive and self-serving posture in a time of crisis. Make them more scared of you if they don't. Tell them you will bombard their donors with the message that they have sold out liberty. Tell them you will denounce them as traitors to the Constitution in your local and regional letters to the editor and op-eds. Tell them they are unpatriotic to stand by while liberty is disemboweled. Tell them you will stop at nothing to ensure their future defeat unless they support this and make it the law of the land.

Let's do it. There is no excuse now. The restoration of democracy is up to you -- as the Founders intended it should be.

Ron Paul on US policies towards Cuba

Struggling for Relevance in Cuba: Still No Cigars

by Rep. Ron Paul

Since Raul Castro seems to be transitioning to a more permanent position of power, the administration has begun talking about Cuba policy again. One would think we would be able to survey the results of the last 45 years and come to logical conclusions. Changing course never seems to be an option, however, no matter how futile or counterproductive our past actions have been.

The Cuban embargo began officially in 1962 as a means to put pressure on the communist dictatorship to change its ways. After 45 years, the Cuban economy has struggled, but Cuba's dictatorship is no closer to stepping to the beat of our drum. Any ailments have consistently and successfully been blamed on U.S. capitalism instead of Cuban communism. They have substituted trade with others for trade with the U.S., and they are "awash" in development funds from abroad. Our isolationist policies with regard to Cuba, meanwhile, have hardly won the hearts and minds of Cubans or Cuban-Americans, many of whom are isolated from families because this political animosity.

In the name of helping Cubans, the U.S. administration is calling for multibillions of taxpayer dollars in foreign aid and subsidies for Internet access, education, and business development for Cubans under the condition that the Cuban government demonstrates certain changes. In the same breath, they claim lifting the embargo would only help the dictatorship. This is exactly backward. Free trade is the best thing for people in both Cuba and the U.S. Government subsidies would enrich those in power in Cuba at the expense of already overtaxed Americans!

The irony of supposed free-marketeers inducing communists to freedom with government handouts should not be missed. We call for a free and private press in Cuba while our attempts to propagandize Cubans through the U.S.-government-run Radio/TV Marti have wasted $600 million in American taxpayer dollars.

It's time to stop talking solely in terms of what's best for the Cuban people. How about the wishes of the American people, who are consistently in favor of diplomacy with Cuba? Let's stop the hysterics about the freedom of Cubans – which is not our government's responsibility – and consider freedom of the American people, which is. Americans want the freedom to travel and trade with their Cuban neighbors, as they are free to travel and trade with Vietnam and China. Those Americans who do not wish to interact with a country whose model of governance they oppose are free to boycott. The point being: it is Americans who live in a free country, and as free people we should choose whom to buy from or where to travel – not our government.

Our current administration is perceived as irrelevant, at best, in Cuba and the message is falling on deaf ears there. If the administration really wanted to extend the hand of friendship, they would allow the American people the freedom to act as their own ambassadors through trade and travel. Considering the lack of success government has had in engendering friendship with Cuba, it is time for government to get out of the way and let the people reach out.

Support the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007

by Rep. Ron Paul

I am introducing a comprehensive piece of legislation to restore the American Constitution and to restore the liberties that have been sadly eroded over the past several years.

This legislation seeks to restore the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers to prevent abuse of Americans by their government. This proposed legislation would repeal the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and re-establish the traditional practice that military commissions may be used to try war crimes in places of active hostility where a rapid trial is necessary to preserve evidence or prevent chaos.

The legislation clarifies that no information shall be admitted as evidence if it is obtained from the defendant through the use of torture or coercion. It codifies the FISA process as the means by which foreign intelligence may be obtained and it gives members of the Senate and the House of Representatives standing in court to challenge presidential signing statements that declares the president’s intent to disregard certain aspects of a law passed in the US Congress. It prohibits kidnapping and extraordinary rendition of prisoners to foreign countries on the president’s unilateral determination that the suspect is an enemy combatant. It defends the first amendment by clarifying that journalists are not to be prevented from publishing information received from the legislative or executive branch unless such publication would cause immediate, direct, and irreparable harm to the United States.

Finally, the legislation would prohibit the use of secret evidence to designate an individual or organization with a United States presence to be a foreign terrorist or foreign terrorist organization.

I invite my colleagues to join my efforts to restore the US Constitution by enacting the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007.

Ron Paul introduces the 'American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007' to the House

H.R. 3835: To restore the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers

Bill Status

Introduced:	Oct 15, 2007
Sponsor:	Rep. Ronald Paul [R-TX]
Status:	Introduced
	Go to Bill Status Page

Introduced in House: This is the original text of the bill as it was written by its sponsor and submitted to the House for consideration.

Text of Legislation

HR 3835 IH

110th CONGRESS1st Session H. R. 3835

To restore the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 15, 2007

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Select Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

---

A BILL

To restore the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings- Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Unchecked power by any branch leads to oppressive transgressions on individual freedoms and ill-considered government policies.

(2) The Founding Fathers enshrined checks and balances in the Constitution to protect against government abuses to derail ill-conceived domestic or foreign endeavors.

(3) Checks and balances make the Nation safer by preventing abuses that would be exploited by Al Qaeda to boost terrorist recruitment, would deter foreign governments from cooperating in defeating international terrorism, and would make the American people reluctant to support aggressive counter-terrorism measures.

(4) Checks and balances have withered since 9/11 and an alarming concentration of power has been accumulated in the presidency based on hyper-inflated fears of international terrorism and a desire permanently to alter the equilibrium of power between the three branches of government.

(5) The unprecedented constitutional powers claimed by the President since 9/11 subtracted national security and have been asserted for non-national security purposes.

(6) Experience demonstrates that global terrorism can be thwarted, deterred, and punished through muscular application of law enforcement measures and prosecutions in Federal civilian courts in lieu of military commissions or military law.

(7) Congressional oversight of the executive branch is necessary to prevent secret government, which undermines self-government and invites lawlessness and maladministration.

(8) The post-9/11 challenges to checks and balances are unique in the Nation's history because the war on global terrorism has no discernable end.

(b) Purpose- The American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 is intended to restore the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

SEC. 3. MILITARY COMMISSIONS; ENEMY COMBATANTS; HABEAS CORPUS.

(a) The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is hereby repealed.

(b) The President is authorized to establish military commissions for the trial of war crimes only in places of active hostilities against the United States where an immediate trial is necessary to preserve fresh evidence or to prevent local anarchy.

(c) The President is prohibited from detaining any individual indefinitely as an unlawful enemy combatant absent proof by substantial evidence that the individual has directly engaged in active hostilities against the United States, provided that no United States citizen shall be detained as an unlawful enemy combatant.

(d) Any individual detained as an enemy combatant by the United States shall be entitled to petition for a writ of habeas corpus under section 2241 of title 28, United States Code.

SEC. 4. TORTURE OR COERCED CONFESSIONS.

No civilian or military tribunal of the United States shall admit as evidence statements extracted from the defendant by torture or coercion.

SEC. 5. INTELLIGENCE GATHERING.

No Federal agency shall gather foreign intelligence in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). The President's constitutional power to gather foreign intelligence is subordinated to this provision.

SEC. 6. PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS.

The House of Representatives and Senate collectively shall enjoy standing to file a declaratory judgment action in an appropriate Federal district court to challenge the constitutionality of a presidential signing statement that declares the President's intent to disregard provisions of a bill he has signed into law because he believes they are unconstitutional.

SEC. 7. KIDNAPPING, DETENTIONS, AND TORTURE ABROAD.

No officer or agent of the United States shall kidnap, imprison, or torture any person abroad based solely on the President's belief that the subject of the kidnapping, imprisonment, or torture is a criminal or enemy combatant; provided that kidnapping shall be permitted if undertaken with the intent of bringing the kidnapped person for prosecution or interrogation to gather intelligence before a tribunal that meets international standards of fairness and due process. A knowing violation of this section shall be punished as a felony punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to 2 years.

SEC. 8. JOURNALIST EXCEPTION TO ESPIONAGE ACT.

Nothing in the Espionage Act of 1917 shall prohibit a journalist from publishing information received from the executive branch or Congress unless the publication would cause direct, immediate, and irreparable harm to the national security of the United States.

SEC. 9. USE OF SECRET EVIDENCE TO MAKE FOREIGN TERRORIST DESIGNATIONS.

Notwithstanding any other law, secret evidence shall not be used by the President or any other member of the executive branch to designate an individual or organization with a United States presence as a foreign terrorist or foreign terrorist organization for purposes of the criminal law or otherwise imposing criminal or civil sanctions.

Ron Paul - the man and his message

After I finished writing my piece about my biggest fear about Ron Paul I felt that I should post this short video introducing him and his ideas. I truly believe that Ron Paul represents a unique and most important phenomenon in American politics and the best, and probably the only, chance to prevent the election of an openly Fascist president in 2008. While Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel the other two anti-Fascist candidates running, they simply do not have what it takes to oppose the Neocons and their brand of Fascism. Please take the time to watch this short video introducing the man and his ideas:

My biggest fear about Ron Paul

I have to admit that I like Ron Paul. A lot. While Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinch are also speaking up against the transformation of the USA into a Neocon empire, the former, while certainly sincere and well-meaning, is too prone to antics and the latter showed an unforgivable lack of courage when he abstained during the vote on the infamous House Resolution 1400. In contrast, Ron Paul has shown impeccable character and courage in opposing the Neocons and he has a sterling record on refusing to vote for idiotic and propagandistic resolutions in Congress. Nobody, not even his opponents. seriously disputes that he is an honest and dedicated man.

The fact is that Ron Paul is in a league of his own. Not only that, but from all the anti-Neocon candidates he is the only one who has a conceivable chance, however small, of getting the nomination of his party (that could only happen if the Republicans finally realize that Ron Paul is the only Republican who, being anti-war, could beat the AIPAC-controlled Hillary).

Some of Ron Paul's views raise concern among my friends. For example, Ron Paul's belief that the Social Security Administration, the CIA, the FBI or the IRS should be eliminated might, at first glance, appear somewhat bizarre, but one must keep in mind a couple of things here:

1. Many federal administrations have, in the past, proven to be highly ineffective (can anyone name a single success of the CIA?)
2. Some federal functions could be better implemented on the state level
3. These are long-term goals and not something which Ron Paul would try to immediately implement if elected
4. None of these reforms could be implemented without Congress anyway

These standard objections to Ron Paul's program really do not worry me at all.

More worrisome is Ron Paul's beliefs in the values of deregulation such as, for example, "Internet neutrality" which he opposes. I can only explain that kind of irrational phobia of any regulation, no matter how obviously needed, by the typical "blindspot" of all US libertarians who, on principle and by definition, consider anything "government" as bad and who therefore automatically blame any corporate excesses upon government and its supposed "corporatism". US libertarians are simply unable to accept the fact the corporations needs to be reined in by the civil society. They will always argue that a "truly free market" would resolve all issues of corporate greed, abuse, corruption and exploitation, nevermind that there has never, ever, been a truly free market anywhere and that there shall never be one either (the very concept of truly free market is based upon the idea of perfect competition which, in turn, is predicated on the two false assumptions of 1) perfect access by all to all information and 2) that information is free).

Nevertheless, this valid objection to Ron Paul's idea on corporate power versus society needs to be placed in context. For one thing, corporate greed and power has reached such levels in the USA that it can scarcely be made worse: the US is already a country "by the corporations and for the corporations" in which none of the mechanisms which serve to keep corporations in check in civilized societies (unions, laws, regulations, elected representatives, etc.) have survived. Frankly, there is nothing Ron Paul could do to make this situation worse. Furthermore, even if some regulatory control over the corporate world, or some meager social right of the US worker, could conceivably be removed by a Ron Paul administration it would only very marginally affect the social Auschwitz which the USA has already become. In fact, I would argue that considering how toxic many US regulations are, or how pathetically vacuous US workers "right" have become over the past decades, some reduction in the federal red-tape just might be helpful, in particular if state and local governments substitute themselves to Washington on a more local and decentralized level.

Lastly, any valid criticism of some aspects of Ron Paul's program should be contrasted with the two most salient and immensely important pillars of his entire worldview: a total rejection of imperial policies and wars of aggression abroad and an uncompromising dedication to civil rights domestically.

No, what really worries me about Ron Paul is something he said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN. When Blitzer asked him whether he would consider running as an independent third party candidate Ron Paul replied: "I never think about that, I have no intention of doing that".

Contrast this with this entry on the Lew Rockwell blog:
-------

The House He Lives in Really Is America to Him

Posted by Mike Tennant at July 6, 2007 03:21 PM

A member of the Pittsburgh Ron Paul Meetup Group, who wishes to be known here merely as "Freedom Fighter," wrote the following to the members of our group today:

I am 60 years old. I have always voted for smaller government and to uphold the Constitution. I have never gotten what I voted for. Today I put my home up for sale. I am taking the proceeds and going to spend it promoting Ron Paul. That is the best way to spend my grandchildren's inheritance. They will benefit more by having President Ron Paul than having $100,000 of fiat money. Our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor. The Revolution has begun.

Now that's putting your money where your mouth is!

-------

Indeed, this is an amazing example of courage and dedication. The question I ask is what will happen to this man if Ron Paul does not get the Republican nomination or if he is not elected President? Would the "Revolution", to use the expression of this Ron Paul supporter, simply be over?

As I have written before, there is only one thing which stands in the way of an openly Fascist President in 2008: a so-called "third party" candidate who would seek to unite behind him on a minimalistic "Jeffersonian" political platform all those in the USA who care about peace and liberty. Considering that these are the values which brought a majority of Americans to send the Democrats into Congress during the last election it is not unreasonable to assume that a majority of Americans would now support such values if given the option, the total betrayal of these voters by the AIPAC-controlled Democrats.

Sure, there is a core of mostly "inbred rednecks" who still believe the lies of the Neocons and who would actually welcome the election of a Fascist President in 2008. And there is a core of pseudo-liberal Democrats who will vote for Hillary just because she is a woman or for Obama because he is Black. But if you give the American population the choice between Neocon imperialism and even more internal control on one hand and a return to a republic and an end to wars of agression on the other I think that no more than 30% of the population will choose the former.

Even if a third party candidate is not elected and even if, as seems likely, Hillary returns to the White House next year, the struggle will not be over. A Hillary Administration, or a Guiliani one for that matter, will fully hand over all US power to the Neocons and AIPAC. It does not take some amazing gift of prophecy to see what that will result in: a bloodbath in the Middle-East and an ugly, and possibly bloody, repression of the internal opposition inside the USA.

In this context I ask two basic questions:

1) Does Ron Paul have the moral right not to run as an independent if he does not get the Republican nomination?

2) Does Ron Paul have the moral right to simply go back to "life as usual" when a Fascist becomes the President in 2008?

My own and unequivocal answer to these two questions is a resounding: NO!

Not only does Ron Paul have a duty to his country, but he also has a duty to all his supporters, like the man who sold his house to give the money to the Paul campaign. For Ron Paul to simply leave the stage and let down all the people who truly believed in him and who sacrificed so much for him would be a complete betrayal.

If Ron Paul does not become President in 2008, by 2010 the entire county will be begging for him to come back and save whatever can be saved from the Neocon folly and its consequences. But if in the meanwhile Ron Paul simply goes back to Congress, or back to Texas, and leaves all his supporters crushed by disappointment, nobody will ever believe any politician again and Americans will cease to believe that there can be an alternative to Fascism. In that case the Ron Paul supporter who sold his house would have been wiser to keep it for his children.

Ron Paul can think about his nomination and election next year, but I sure hope that he also prepares for the worst-case scenario as well. I only hope that he misspoke when he said to Blitzer "I have no intention of doing that".

PS: FYI - click here for my two first articles about American fascism and the only thing which, in my opinion, can prevent it.