Nov 15, 2013

{Reprint} Ron Paul Encyclopedia - Foreign Policy







"The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim."


Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist. He's a non-interventionist. There's a big difference...
 


ABC News Interview (Foreign Policy - Wars)
 Ron Paul: 'America is not the worlds policeman'.

Ron Paul vs Mitt Romney on Foreign Policy and Iran and War Preparation

Ron Paul with Sean Hannity on Iran i e Warmongering and Foriegn Policy

Note: 2 minutes and 15 seconds - Hannity asks 'you want to eliminate the CIA?' Answer by Ron Paul is yes, "They do allot of mischief"
Ron Paul in Congress - Foreign Policy - War Spending and Propaganda makes Us Unsafe


Ron Paul on Georgia and Military Provocation of Russia



US Foreign Policy Is One Of "The War Party" i.e. GOP/BUSH


Notes:

-Shows a video clip of Bush and the claim that 1-2 years was the longest anyone thought the Iraq war would last

-There is a great deal of war weariness

-Romney says he will listen to the Generals (who mostly seem to want to stay) and he wants to leave sooner that Obama wants to, so he has staked contradictory positions.

To say that nobody knew that Iraq could last a long time is inaccurate. In 1994 Dick Cheney said that 'if we removed Saddam, what would we put in it's place?', even went so far as calling it a quagmire...

Even worse, an investigation shows that the evidence suggests that the Bush Administration 'exaggerated and misrepresented' the case for war against Iraq...


On The O'Reilly Show on National Security and Terrorism



Mind blowing: Islamic radicals attacked on 9/11 for having military bases in the Holy Land NOT for the United States people's 'freedom'. This is true. the stated reason by Al-Qaeda for attacking the United States is the military bases in the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia) and the support of tyraniccal regimes in the middle east. With the Arab Spring one reason is beginning to dissolve the other reason would dissolve with Ron Paul's Presidency as he would remove all bases saving a ton of money and there would be non of the nonsense that Al-Qaeda is attacking America's because of their 'freedom' or 'way of life' - that never was, and still isn't, a stated purpose of the terrorists. It was a Bush Administration slogan, which was incorrect as many other statements (see above)

Every normal analysis begins with the knowledge of America's history in the middle east and actual grieviences about ACTIONS taken in the middle eastern countries... this is the source of terrorism as Ron Paul obviously realizes (or he has done some general reading on the topic over the years)...


(Note: Ron Paul also makes a comparison of how it would feel if China invaded US - a method even professionals use to encourage empathy and understanding)
For continuous war you need a continuous enemy, i.e. a "Us vs Them" dynamic...

Clarification of Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Position



Ron Paul believes in non-interventionism NOT isolationism. In other words, Ron Paul's positions on dealing with other countries is primarily about diplomacy and only going to war when attacked but NEVER getting involved in nation biulding.


Dick Cheney vs. Ron Paul

There have been many headlines during the last 24 hours concerning the former Vice President’s dismissive attitude toward Ron Paul, and similarly, Paul’s dismissive attitude toward Dick Cheney.

No doubt, both Republicans represent starkly different GOP brands—on domestic policy, foreign policy and just about everything else you can imagine.

Cheney is the consummate Bush Republican and everything that represents. Paul is the thorough constitutionalist, in the tradition of the Founding Fathers and everything they represented.

But for all practical purposes in this election, the debate between the two essentially breaks down to this:

Dick Cheney: “Deficits don’t matter.”

Ron Paul: “We’re broke.”

Whether voters choose someone more like George W. Bush or George Washington in 2012—whether in the Republican primaries or the general election—will tell us which statement voters take more seriously.

Notice how Ron Paul is ignored especially when it comes to his foreign policy ideas...
Note: Ron Paul is against invasion/war and doesn't attempt to brush the lies of Iraq war under the rug...
IMPORTANT:
1. Over 6 months of primary coverage in 4 minutes!!!
Quotes: A. "There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq" - B."It's trillions of dollars we're spending on these wars" Ron Paul

‎
2. Satire: Colbert Report: Solutions to America's Financial Worries - World War III !!!

‎3. Econ learning & Entertainment: War for economic prosperity!!!

4. Proof of war preparation!!!

5. Wag the dog? Odds of war with #Iran now at 36%!!!

Moving on: Ron Paul views on a Fox News debate...



"Sanctions are not diplomacy. They are a precursor to war and an embarrassment to a country that pays lip service to free trade." Ron Paul
Ron Paul's reply to Rick Santorum : 'We have been in Iran since '53 not '79'
----------------------

AND to Newt Gingrich below...



---------------------

True.

Extract from a New York Times Article: 
The Central Intelligence Agency's secret history of its covert operation to overthrow Iran's government in 1953 offers an inside look at how the agency stumbled into success, despite a series of mishaps that derailed its original plans.
 Written in 1954 by one of the coup's chief planners, the history details how United States and British officials plotted the military coup that returned the shah of Iran to power and toppled Iran's elected prime minister, an ardent nationalist.

Extract from George Washington University's Archive: 
Long-sought by historians, the Wilber history is all the more valuable because it is one of the relatively few documents that still exists after an unknown quantity of materials was destroyed by CIA operatives – reportedly “routinely” – in the 1960s, according to former CIA Director James Woolsey. However, according to an investigation by the National Archives and Records Administration, released in March 2000, “no schedules in effect during the period 1959-1963 provided for the disposal of records related to covert actions and, therefore, the destruction of records related to Iran was unauthorized.” (p. 22) The CIA now says that about 1,000 pages of documentation remain locked in agency vaults.

Ron Paul's Views on Iran is Based in Careful Research...




About 5 minutes into the video Ron Paul is asked about Jihad/Suicide Attacks and he highly recommends the research done by Robert Pape

Take a look at the research he is talking about (or, watch a presentation of his on C-Span)...
The Logic of Suicide Terrorism: It’s the occupation, not the fundamentalism 
The American Conservative: Your new book, Dying to Win, has a subtitle: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Can you just tell us generally on what the book is based, what kind of research went into it, and what your findings were? 
Robert Pape: Over the past two years, I have collected the first complete database of every suicide-terrorist attack around the world from 1980 to early 2004. This research is conducted not only in English but also in native-language sources—Arabic, Hebrew, Russian, and Tamil, and others—so that we can gather information not only from newspapers but also from products from the terrorist community. The terrorists are often quite proud of what they do in their local communities, and they produce albums and all kinds of other information that can be very helpful to understand suicide-terrorist attacks.

This wealth of information creates a new picture about what is motivating suicide terrorism. Islamic fundamentalism is not as closely associated with suicide terrorism as many people think. The world leader in suicide terrorism is a group that you may not be familiar with: the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. 
This is a Marxist group, a completely secular group that draws from the Hindu families of the Tamil regions of the country. They invented the famous suicide vest for their suicide assassination of Rajiv Ghandi in May 1991. The Palestinians got the idea of the suicide vest from the Tamil Tigers. 
TAC: So if Islamic fundamentalism is not necessarily a key variable behind these groups, what is? 
RP: The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw. 
TAC: That would seem to run contrary to a view that one heard during the American election campaign, put forth by people who favor Bush’s policy. That is, we need to fight the terrorists over there, so we don’t have to fight them here. 
RP: Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.


[Notes are in bold]

1. Ron Paul - 'For me this is taking money from poor people and giving it to rich people and it becomes a weapon of war'

That aid often goes to war lords, dictators or politicians is well known (i.e. the rich of that area). That it often contributes to regional instability is less known publicly but is well known otherwise:

Rather, in countries ravaged by both humanitarian catastrophe and civil war, international aid may inflame or prolong the conflict. In a devastated country with no other income, the money spent by aid organisations in rent, per diem payments, taxes to governments or rebel warlords, bodyguards, gasoline, bars, whores and restaurants turns the "aid industry, supposedly neutral and unbiased, into a potentially lethal force the belligerents need to enlist". Even food becomes "a form of arms delivery". Polman gives a case of international NGOs (non-governmental organisations) paying warlords a tax on each child they vaccinate.


2. I would cut all foreign aid, I would treat everyone equally.

Giving more aid to one nation and less aid to another can cause jealousy and even create suspicions of favoritism which would make attempts at diplomacy during a crisis difficult (unless more aid is given... it's a vicious cycle)

We know its OK to treat siblings unequally but fairly. however, the US is not the parent to any other country nor should it assume such responsibilities (as being a 'world policeman' suggests, with 900 bases in 150 countries).


3. Issue of cutting aid to Israel

Israel would be better off without US aid anyways. Full explanation is here.


4. Would you condone Ronald Reagan's tactics of negotiating for hostages

(The not 'Soverign nation argument for negotiations', if accepted, does apply to Palestine as Israel was given statehood through the UN but Palestine wasn't, technically, accept it or not, Palestine is a 'state'.)

Among the most pressing foreign affairs problems facing the U.S. during Reagan's tenure was the activity of various rogue terrorist organizations. In 1980, Reagan campaigned on a pledge to take a firm stand on terrorism. Under his watch, he promised, the U.S. would never negotiate with terrorists. During Reagan's eight years in office hundreds of Americans, including 241 Marines stationed in Beirut, were killed by terrorist acts. Particularly troubling to Reagan was the plight of several U.S. citizens who had been kidnapped and tortured by Muslim extremists in Lebanon. In an effort to win release of the hostages, Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North, along with members of the National Security Council and the CIA, sold weapons to Iran. Iran, at the time engaged in a war with Iraq and considered a terrorist nation by the U.S., was believed to have influence with the hostage-takers. The Iranians were overcharged for the weapons, and North then funneled the extra proceeds from the arms sale to the contras in Nicaragua. The operation resulted in several direct violations of stated U.S. policy and congressional mandate.


5. Ron Paul distinguishes between 'suspects' and 'terrorists'

This is because...

Rand Paul remains committed to his belief that prisoners deserve trials and disposition not indefinite detention.  

His stance remained unchanged even with political support for extra-judicial killings involving Muslim US Citizens.


The ability to kill US Citizens WITHOUT trial brought to you by...

On Killing US Citizens (Case Study - Anway Al Awlaki)

Extract from here:

The United States should be encouraging non-violence in Yemen, respect for human rights and the rule of law. Instead, we have engaged in lawless violence, denying our own citizens fundamental due process.

Recent escalation...



--------------------------------------


Here is an interview with Ron Paul right after Anwar al-Awlaki was assassinated:



Ron Paul is pointing to the Fifth Amendment as the reason for the killing being illegal:

Amendment 5 to the Constitution  (Part of the Bill of Rights)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without 

Amendment 6 
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. ]

Those who say that Anwar al-Awlaki was a traitor to the United States as a Citizen of the US are correct:

Article 3 - Section 3 of the Constitution

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.

Anwar al-Awlaki did encourage war against his country so it did count as treason yet he is not exempt from the law (even in Article 3 Section 3, its obvious the founding fathers thought traitors would be tried in open court).

This is the best write up in mainstream media(CNN) on this topic (in my opinion):

Killing Awlaki was illegal, immoral and dangerous

Extrajudicial killing of terrorists suspects, however, is no more efficacious, lawful or moral than torture. President Obama campaigned against the use of torture, the “global war on terror” and the senseless war in Iraq. He promised to restore America’s standing in the world. He spoke of the importance of adhering to the rule of law and our values in facing the challenge of terrorism and other problems.

In 2001, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, stated on Israeli television the U.S. position regarding Israeli targeted killing of suspected terrorists: “The United States government is very clearly on the record as against targeted assassinations. They are extrajudicial killings, and we do not support that.”

How could we? Killing in war is justifiable morally and legally because of the extraordinary situation of real hostilities. In the limited zones on the planet where two or more contending armed groups fight for territorial control, people are on notice of the danger. In such zones, the necessity to kill without warning is understood. Still, even in combat, there are rules. Civilians may not be directly targeted; principles of necessity and humanity restrain.

Where no such intense armed fighting is occurring, killing is only justified to save a human life immediately. Peacetime human rights and criminal law prevail. The actual facts of fighting determine which rules govern killing. The president has no override authority.

Nor should he want it. These rules apply globally. The U.S. should not weaken them, providing a basis for Russia, Iran, China or Pakistan to declare war against opponents, killing them anywhere with missiles and bombs.

And what about within the U.S.? If the president can target suspects in Yemen, why not here? And why just the president? Why can’t governors order missile strikes on suspected terrorists and other criminals?

The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki and several persons with him on Friday in Yemen did not occur in a battle zone. The killings occurred in a country in the midst of upheaval with various armed and unarmed factions struggling for control. The United States should be encouraging non-violence in Yemen, respect for human rights and the rule of law. Instead, we have engaged in lawless violence, denying our own citizens fundamental due process.

A debate between Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich:

From Wolf Blitzer's Blog;

When it comes to President Obama’s decision to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul couldn’t disagree more. Gingrich says the president did the right thing; Paul says he’s open to trying to impeach the president.

“The fact is, Congressman Paul is wrong about the law,” the former House speaker told me. “He’s wrong about the Constitution.”

Insisting that al-Awlaki was an “enemy combatant,” Gingrich added: “The president was exactly right legally and he was exactly right morally in killing somebody who was a threat to everybody.”

Paul strongly disagrees. He says the president violated the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

“It’s pretty clear that you can’t take a life without due process of law, especially of an American citizen,” Paul told me. “We’ve never had a policy that said we can put somebody on an assassination list by a secret tribunal.”

Note: Ron Paul has called for an impeachment but, "He added, however, that he believed every U.S. president had committed impeachable offenses, and said the success of a push for impeachment would depend on the political conditions in Washington." - Personally, if there is an impeachment process, I think it needs to include allot more people in the trial than just Obama, for example, a member of the last administration who set up secret assassination squads, at least this killing was announced publicly though it leaves the door open for secret assassination squads in the future returning to the scene. in a sense, it was the secret squads that came before the official ones. In other words, transparency in the government's 'war on terror' is another problem.

 MOMENT OF ZEN:

From 'The Colbert Report': Cheney's Secret Assassination Squad
It's hard to believe Dick Cheney had the time to command a secret lawless assassination squad with all the secret lawless torture. (02:10)

Enemies of The Constitution - A Case Study [Domestic and Foreign Policy]

"The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim."

This is the full length 90 min. version of Bill Moyer's 1987 scathing critique of the criminal subterfuge carried out by the Executive Branch of the United States Government to carry out operations which are clearly contrary to the wishes and values of the American people...
Secret Government - The Constitution In Crisis (FULL)
The ability to exercise this power with impunity is facilitated by the National Security Act of 1947. The thrust of the exposé is the Iran-Contra arms and drug-running operations which flooded the streets of our nation with crack cocaine. The significance of the documentary is probably greater today in 2007 than it was when it was made. We now have a situation in which these same forces have committed the most egregious terrorist attack on US soil and have declared a fraudulent so-called "War on Terror". The ruling regime in the US who have conducted the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, are now banging the war drum against Iran.
Video Notes:
1. You start abroad and then you bring this behavior home
2. "A look at a government in the shadows"... 'and where the government will take us if the people let it!'
3. A policy of lies got accidentally exposed!
4. 'Since our adversaries know about our covert operations the only ones fooled are the America people.'
[Continues with history of US that explains how despotism could establish itself in the US] FIRST...
An example of a covert operation in the middle east that few in America know about...
(till possibly now, with Ron Paul on his third run for President)
History of U.S. Intervention in Iran - 1953 Until Present (9 minutes)
Currently...
"The establishment beats the drums of war for Iran & silences those who dare question otherwise. One side is definitely crazy, but it's not who the spinmeisters in D.C. would have you believe."
AND
"At present Iran's forces are sufficient to deter or defend against conventional threats from Iran's weaker neighbors such as post-war Iraq, the GCC, Azerbaijan or Afghanistan but lack the air power and logistical ability to power much beyond Iran's boarders or to confront regional powers such as Turkey or Israel." -US Dept. of Defense
AND
I’m hardly the only one who has noted the discrepancy between official statements and the truth on the ground. A January 2011 report by the Afghan NGO Security Office noted that public statements made by U.S. and ISAF leaders at the end of 2010 were “sharply divergent from IMF, [international military forces, NGO-speak for ISAF] ‘strategic communication’ messages suggesting improvements. We encourage [nongovernment organization personnel] to recognize that no matter how authoritative the source of any such claim, messages of the nature are solely intended to influence American and European public opinion ahead of the withdrawal, and are not intended to offer an accurate portrayal of the situation for those who live and work here.”
BUT
War has become a very profitable enterprise...

SECOND...
A clip from Air America about CIA drug involvements (Starring Mel Gibson)
Info Links...
1. Opium is gone!...
U.N. drug control officers said the Taliban religious militia has nearly wiped out opium production in Afghanistan -- once the world's largest producer -- since banning poppy cultivation last summer. A 12-member team from the U.N. Drug Control Program spent two weeks searching most of the nation's largest opium-producing areas and found so few poppies that they do not expect any opium to come out of Afghanistan this year. "We are not just guessing. We have seen the proof in the fields," said Bernard Frahi, regional director for the U.N. program in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He laid out photographs of vast tracts of land cultivated with wheat alongside pictures of the same fields taken a year earlier -- a sea of blood-red poppies..
2. Opium is back!...
"If international drug- and law-enforcement officials are right, the Taliban might be hiding up to $3.2 billion worth of opium inside Afghanistan, potentially causing huge complications for NATO's decision this month to attack Afghanistan's opium laboratories and smuggling networks.
3. The clincher! =
"Throughout the forty years of the Cold War, the CIA joined with urban gangsters and rural warlords, many of them major drug dealers, to mount covert operations against communists around the globe. In one of history's accidents, the Iron Curtain fell along the border of the Asian opium zone, which stretches across 5,000 miles of mountains from Turkey to Thailand. In Burma during the 1950s, in Laos during the 1970s, and in Afghanistan during the 1980s, the CIA allied with highland warlords to mobilize tribal armies against the Soviet Union and China.".

THIRD

Has this "messing with The Constitution" been brought home?...

1. From PBS = Are we becoming a police state? Five things that have civil liberties advocates nervous - 1. Indefinite military detentions of U.S. citizens, 2. Targeting U.S. citizens for killing, 3. Arresting witnesses for recording police actions, 4. Using GPS to track your every move, 5. Surveillance drones spying on American soil...

2. Everything you didn't want to know about banks, wall street and the FED (On my Colbert Nation blog)

3. The Colbert Report: Cheney's Secret Assassination Squad It's hard to believe Dick Cheney had the time to command a secret lawless assassination squad with all the secret lawless torture. (02:10)

Points to Ponder:
1. There are "900 bases in 150 countries"
2. From The Economist: Indeed, the one lesson that can be drawn from the data is that today's strategic priorities can shape deployments for decades to come, long after the original reason for putting G.I.s in a particular region has gone.
3. "[W]e can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things." Wolfowitz, 2003.
4. Economics perspective: Manufacturing jobs have become more specialized requiring less labor and more technical expertise - i.e. small companies making big ticket items such as fighter jets; this means less people are employed, smaller number of people make huge profits and these huge profits make the economy look like its growing when actually its just a few companies making huge profits benefiting a small group of people. Senator Bernie Sanders also thinks sending manufacturing jobs abroad is bad economic policy.
5. Comedic perspective: Colbert Report: Solutions to America's Financial Worries - World War III
6. Millions of jobs vs hundreds, possibly thousands of jobs, created by small companies with big ticket items.
7. Article: 11 Ways That Amerika Is Becoming More Like North Korea .
8. Interview: Ben Lowy describes his photographic work in Iraq and Afghanistan. Arresting people just because someone says so with any due process of law.
9. "The Pentagon needs to conduct a "serious inquiry" into the Air Force for letting a retired general turned Boeing executive participate in a war game for a $51 billion aerial tanker contract Boeing was competing to win, Sen. John McCain said Thursday in a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta."
10. Remains of 274 Soldiers Dumped in Virginia Landfill - Fox News Video [Original article here.]
11. "They've taken all the heat they want to," Barr said. "They paid a lot of money for an aircraft that doesn't work."
12. Comedic perspective: At last, the U.S. government brings swift justice to hardened criminals on YouTube.
13. Interview: Colbert Report: Stop Online Piracy Act - Danny Goldberg & Jonathan Zittrain.
14. Comedic and serious perspectives on "The Power of Corporate Money."
15. The Empire – the American plutocracy – strikes back, my friends, and cash-laden drones, pilotless and directed from some unknown location, are becoming the weapon of choice. What can you do? Join the hunt to find and disarm them. At “The Caucus,” the government and politics blog of The New York Times, they’re asking readers to help locate and identify the plutocrats writing the checks.
16. Gingrich's Extremist Anti-Palestinian Stance Follows Millions From Top Donor Sheldon Adelson
17. The recent exposure of the NYPD screening an anti-Muslim film to its officers comes on the tails of the AP exposé about CIA and NYPD profiling and infiltrating American-Muslim communities. Democracy Now! speaks with Linda Sarsour of the Arab American Association of New York.
18. VIDEO: "OATH KEEPERS" - SOLDIERS FOR THE US CONSTITUTION [Website: Military, Veterans, and peace officers who will honor their oaths to defend the Constitution, will NOT “just follow orders.”]
19. Post Office Subterfuge: At a time when the U.S. Postal Service is considering deep cuts in services and jobs, an internal watchdog told Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday that a big funding cushion already has been built into the mail service's retirement and health benefit funds.
‎20. "Is this acceptable in someone who has taken an Oath to uphold the Constitution?" Ron Paul ...
House floor speech on the unconstitutional provisions of the NDAA bill.

Ron Paul Is Consistently Against War, Unlike Romney(he supports killing & detaining US Citizens WITHOUT trial, if needed for "National Security")...




"Naturally, every age thinks that all ages before it were prejudiced, and today we think this more than ever and are just as wrong as all previous ages that thought so. How often have we not seen the truth condemned! It is sad but unfortunately true that man learns nothing from history."
- Carl Jung


"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." ― Thomas Jefferson





Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)