Ron Paul Bumpersticker Gets Man Kicked Out of National Park

The Rutherford Institute
May 24, 2011

BLACKSBURG, S.C. — The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of a 73-year-old Virginia resident who was allegedly ordered by a park ranger to remove his car from a national military park in South Carolina because of political messages attached to his vehicle. Jack Faw, whose ancestors fought in the historic battle memorialized at Kings Mountain National Military Park, contacted The Rutherford Institute after being told by a park ranger that the decal promoting a political organization associated with Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), which was displayed on the back window of Faw’s car, was not allowed in the park. In a legal letter to Park officials, constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead warned that the ranger’s directive, which resulted in Faw being forced to leave the park, violated Faw’s First Amendment rights, as well as National Park Service regulations. Whitehead also demanded assurances that Park employees will be properly instructed in how to respect the constitutional rights of visitors to the Park so that Faw and others will not face similar restrictions in the future.

Whitehead’s letter to officials at Kings Mountain National Military Park is available here.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 
  
  

“The display of political messages from a vehicle is unquestionably expression protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “This type of censorship is what you would expect in some foreign regime, not a public park in America.”

Jack Faw is a frequent visitor to Kings Mountain National Military Park in Blacksburg, S.C., which marks the site where three of his ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War. Faw visited the park on May 6, 2011, en route to his home in Virginia. Soon after arriving and in the midst of his tour through the exhibits, Faw was approached by a park ranger who asked Faw to come into the ranger’s office. The ranger informed Faw that he must remove his car from the parking lot because it displayed a political decal that is not allowed in National Parks. On the rear window of Faw’s passenger vehicle is a translucent decal promoting “Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty,” an organization dedicated to reestablishing and furthering the principles embodied in the United States Constitution. Although Faw protested that he had a right to display the decal and asserted it was not causing any disturbance, the ranger insisted that the car be removed from the park, at which point Mr. Faw felt compelled to comply with the order and left the Park.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

Insisting that National Park employees be properly educated about basic constitutional precepts in order to ensure that this incident is not repeated, attorney John Whitehead reminded Park officials that visitors to National Parks do not forfeit their First Amendment rights to speech and expression. Indeed, noted Whitehead, Faw’s political messages on his vehicle appear to be wholly consistent with and allowable under regulations promulgated last October by the National Park Service concerning expressive activities by the public within National Parks. Furthermore, not only is the display of a political message on a vehicle unquestionably expression protected by the First Amendment, but a federal appeals court recently ruled that the right of citizens to freedom of speech applies within the confines of National Parks.

The War on Ron Paul

LewRockwell.com
May 23, 2011

Susan Westfall

Whether the media establishments want to admit it or not, and believe me they don’t, Ron Paul IS the ‘front runner’ for the republican primary. Despite voracious denials and vitriolic arguments from almost every quarter to the contrary, he is the only one with a chance of shutting out Obama for the presidency in 2012. He appeals to all sides of the aisle, and is attracting the much sought after independent swing vote almost as fast as he has the youth of the nation. The Internet is indisputably Ron Paul country as countless polls and google trends have repeatedly shown. The gradual change in political rhetoric flowing out of Washington, D.C. over the last 3 years reflects an explosion of interest in the freedom message he spreads so tirelessly. The continuous growth in popularity of talk and news shows focusing on freedom and the Constitution broadcasts loud and clear the rising prominence of issues he has brought to the debate. For anyone with any powers of discernment, it’s a no-brainer.

Photo by Justin Ruckman.

So why do media pundits, dime a dozen politicians, and innumerable experts of self-aggrandized consequence spend great swathes of time, effort, and someone’s money working so hard to convince the people otherwise? You can’t turn on a TV, pick up a paper or surf the Internet without encountering the words “He can’t win,” or some other lame variation repeated ad nauseam with great gusto. According to all the most acclaimed talking heads, that mythical beast “The Front Runner” has yet to be seen on the horizon and is still to arise from some unknown lair, “blazing a new trail” of GOP fame and success across political skies sometime in the not too distant future. Their blind adherence to this tired refrain boggles the mind. Personally, I can find only one reason for the constant repudiation…fear. Fear of the known…Ron Paul, and fear of the unknown…future largess. The status-quo is cornered and its biggest backers are flailing in desperation through media and political mouthpieces.

With decades of consistency on record as proof, it is well known by all in Washington that Ron Paul will not compromise his principles for money, power or personal gain. Ron Paul is simply…not for sale. Lobbyists for special interests have never been able to rent his vote. This is such an undisputed reality that they don’t even darken the door of his congressional office. His opinion can not be leased by the highest bidder, nor his silence ensured through threats and coercion. He is a man who stands his ground, refusing to back down, flip-flop, or play the political game of corporate footsie that entangles so many on the Hill. This is the kind of strength America not just needs, but deep down hungers for in a president. America does not need a president with the strength to circumvent law by executive order, ignore Congress and engage in needless conflicts, or break international and common law to achieve a victory. Those who stand to lose the most under a president who would not compromise the peoples’ liberties, the Constitution or the rule of law for any reason are deathly afraid of Ron Paul.

If we apply Donald Rumsfeld’s ludicrous scale of measurement, in use long before he popularized the phrase during his tenure as Secretary of Defense, then Ron Paul could aptly be termed a “known, known”. Needless to say, much heated discussion has probably occurred in many a smoky back room about this unpleasant reality. Logic tells us that a good number of those rooms might even be located in the Pentagon. Ron Paul has never made a secret of the fact that he would like to: reduce military spending to that needed for defense only; bring the troops home from all foreign bases; and restore foreign affairs to a non-interventionist policy more befitting a Republic that purports to be the shining example of liberty. Accomplishing these goals would of course mean a vast reduction in the present size and budget of the military industrial complex and can be only a cause for apprehension in those quarters. If recent world events are any indication, the threat must be great indeed. In an unprecedented flurry of efficiency the military, under direction of Commander in Chief Obama, has recently not only rescued another country from tyrannical oppression, but tracked down and killed the world’s worst terrorist, Osama Binladen, thus proving its undoubted worth and necessity. Unfortunately, the tyrant really isn’t gone yet and no one can figure out exactly what happened with the bin laden operation. Nevertheless, we’ve been assured of the worthiness of our current pedal-to-the-metal monetary support for the military industrial complex. If we haven’t then we’re obviously unpatriotic and borderline terrorists ourselves.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 
  
  

Of course no one would actually dare accuse Ron Paul of being unpatriotic. They’d be laughed right off the media stage, no matter how lofty their perch. So the approach is made from a different angle. That of foreign aid. Dr. Paul has clearly stated on numerous occasions that he would cut foreign aid to all countries, not only because of our fiscal situation but also because he believes we should respect the sovereignty of all nations and not try to dictate their policies through bribes or bombs. Cutting foreign aid in and of itself does not seem to be a problem. Polls reflect that a majority of Americans support cuts to foreign aid. However, the idea of cutting all foreign aid brings on an instantaneous and seemingly mass hysteria with regards to Israel. If we dare to look past AIPAC and other lobbyist groups for answers which contain more rational ideas than the usual accusations of anti-semitism, unpatriotic betrayal, or abandonment of democratic friends, informative sources soon surface. In a report by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt of University of Chicago and Harvard University respectively, the “special relationship” between the US and Israel is explained more fully. Surprisingly, the military complex appears to play a weighty role here as well. A brief look at some benefits specific to Israel include: retaining 25% of aid dollars to subsidize its own defense industry instead of spending 100% to subsidize the US defense industry as other countries must do; not having to account for how aid dollars are spent; and being provided ” with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems like the Lavi aircraft that the Pentagon did not want or need.” There is a plethora of information in just this one report that evidences the detrimental effects of the “special relationship” American taxpayers purchase annually with their foreign aid dollars with what would appear to be little or no benefit to themselves. Interestingly, there is growing evidence of a substantive support in Israel itself for an end to US foreign aid which is seen by many there as “an affront against Israeli liberty and sovereignty, as well as a drain on the development of numerous sectors of the Israeli economy, such as the weapons and biotechnology industries.” Based on just the above facts it can be argued that perhaps it’s time for the American people to debate the prudence of an industrial complex deciding our military decisions, instead of a decisive military defending our national borders.

Having hurled their verbal slings and arrows of foreign policy insanity and foreign aid abandonment, most pundits proceed to trot out the next big issue to be refuted…individual liberties. Of course they don’t often mention those actual words, but delve deeply right to the perceived heart of the issue…heroin. Ron Paul wants to “legalize heroin” is touted gleefully to choruses of “and prostitution!” A round of smirks is the cue for visions of marauding bands of crazed, drug abusing prostitutes to begin dancing through the viewers’ heads and scare them out of ever considering Ron Paul as a viable candidate for anything, much less republican party nominee. A thinking person might wonder why the fascination and focus on heroin, other than for the shock value of course, whenever individual liberty is mentioned. “Protecting individual liberty,” Ron Paul often explains, “is the purpose of all government. Individual liberty is the right to your life, the right to your property and the right to keep the fruits of your labor.” With those two simple sentences and a clear constitutional understanding of what they actually mean in regards to federal government overreach, almost everything that the status quo fights to maintain is essentially negated. Is it any wonder the most inflammatory phrases are employed at every opportunity to derail the very idea?

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

No matter how much Washington, D.C. wishes to protect Americans from themselves, lift them out of poverty, provide for their well-being, or ensure their safety from dangerous products and enemies, it cannot do so without infringing on their individual liberties and violating the Constitution. The federal government we live with today no longer serves the interests of the American people, but serves the special interests of: corporate cronyism; militarism for profit influence and empire; centrally planned debt management, counterfeiting, fraud and currency debasement. Those who would maintain the status quo, despite its almost certain destructive end, are beginning to realize just how much they have underestimated the power of a quiet, consistent message of truth delivered to the people by a man of principle. A man who would be president not for the power he could wield over the people, but for the power he would give to the people by restoring their Republic. So war has been declared again, but this time the war is on liberty…and Ron Paul.

Fotolog

Ron Paul Snubs Hannity’s After-Debate Party

You Tube
May 6, 2011

Ron Paul skipped a post-debate interview with Sean Hannity Thursday, opting instead to appear at a nearby Tea Party rally.

MoxNewsDotCom

RELATED:
Ron Paul’s Call For Afghanistan Withdrawal Draws Cheers At Fox News GOP Debate

Pre-Debate CNN Poll finds Ron Paul at 10%, with best odds to beat Obama

Fox News Dirty Tricks Against Ron Paul No “Mistake”

Fox News Dirty Tricks Against Ron Paul No “Mistake”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
February 17, 2011

Forgive me for being cynical, but Fox News’ claim that airing the wrong CPAC footage and then introducing an interview with Ron Paul on the false premise that he had been booed was merely a “mistake” rings somewhat hollow, especially given the fact that Fox, along with the rest of the establishment media networks, have for years consistently denigrated the Congressman’s presidential aspirations with a myriad of dirty tricks, lies and smear campaigns.

As we highlighted yesterday, in a shocking act of mass public deception, Fox News attempted to skew Ron Paul’s 2011 CPAC straw poll win by representing it with footage from the previous year’s CPAC event, at which Mitt Romney supporters had loudly booed the result and Paul supporters had been absent due to a Campaign for Liberty meeting running late

Fox News host Bill Hemmer framed his interview with Paul by immediately bringing up the boos, despite the fact that the real footage of this year’s CPAC poll result showed Paul’s victory being met with a loud chorus of cheers and applause.

In a statement provided to Mediaite, Fox’s Senior Vice President of News Michael Clemente attempted to defuse the growing controversy over the incident by claiming it was all a harmless broadcasting error.

“We made a mistake with some of the video we aired, and plan on issuing a correction on America’s Newsroom tomorrow morning explaining exactly what happened,” said Clemente.

Really? It is plausible that this was just another “mistake”? How about the myriad of other “mistakes” Fox News makes a habit of committing, mistakes that coincidentally all serve to disparage Congressman Paul’s message of liberty and freedom, along with his chances of becoming president?

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 
  
  

“It’s certainly plausible that Fox News merely made a mistake in pulling up the wrong video,” adds Mediaite, noting that the explanation is unlikely to “Satisfy Paul supporters who seem to believe the network tried to disguise how much support the congressman has amongst the GOP base.”

Was it another “mistake” to omit Paul’s name entirely from a Fox News survey last week that asked who would make the best president? Was it a “mistake” that relative nobodies like John Thune and Jon Huntsman were included in the Fox poll and yet Paul was blacklisted entirely despite his CPAC success two years running?

Was it another “mistake” on behalf of Fox News to exclude Paul from a January 6 2008 presidential forum event because they saw the prospect of anti-war opinions being voiced by the most conservative member of the House as a “threat”?

Was it a “mistake” for Fox News to claim that their own May 2007 presidential poll, which Ron Paul won, was unreliable, because online Paul supporters had skewed the result, despite the fact that the survey was conducted via cell phone text messaging and no online votes were taken?

Was it a mere “mistake” for Fox News host Sean Hannity to deride the Texas Congressman’s runaway success in the text messaging poll as nothing more than “Paulites” flood voting, when in reality only one vote per cell phone number was allowed? Hannity’s contention that Ron Paul supporters were “were simply dialing in over and over again” was nothing more than a brazen lie intended to dismiss the Congressman’s widespread popularity. No one at Fox News bothered to correct Hannity and no retraction was issued.

Was it another “mistake” when Fox News started editing Ron Paul’s name out of Associated Press stories they syndicated before the 2008 presidential campaign?

Was it a “mistake” for Fox News to denigrate the fact that Ron Paul received the most campaign donations from members of the U.S. military by attributing it to “libertarian mailing lists”?

Was it a “mistake” when Fox News attempted to smear Ron Paul for having the audacity to appear on the Alex Jones Show and the nerve to merely converse with people who commit the thought crime of not completely trusting the official government version of 9/11?

Was it a “mistake” when Fox News rigged the structure of their entire May 2007 presidential debate and used it as a vehicle for all the other candidates to viciously attack Ron Paul, while Fox’s pre-screened audience rapaciously applauded calls for torture and warmongering?

Was it a mistake when Fox News directors conspired to censor Ron Paul supporters from appearing in camera shots during the Mackinac Republican Conference on September 22, 2007, when they were caught on film stating, “I don’t want these Ron Paul people, but I need shots of audience”?

Was it a “mistake” for Fox News to ignore a story every other news outlet was obliged to report, the record-breaking $4.2 million in campaign donations that Ron Paul achieved in a single day, while instead choosing to obsess about a man in Texas who sat in a bath tub full of snakes?

Were all of the examples contained in the video below showing rampant Fox News and other networks’ bias against Ron Paul simply “mistakes” or something more?

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

Are all these examples merely “mistakes” or are they hard evidence of the fact that Fox News, in alliance with every other establishment media news network, has a deeply ingrained bias against Ron Paul’s message and is scared stiff of him ever building enough momentum to have a chance of becoming president?

—

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.

Ron Paul: I Can Beat “Warmongering” Obama

Ron Paul: I Can Beat “Warmongering” Obama

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
February 15, 2011

During an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Congressman Ron Paul dropped perhaps the biggest hint yet that he is preparing to announce his campaign for the presidency, affirming he has the ability to unite Republicans, independents and progressive to defeat the “warmongering” Barack Obama.

Asked if he could beat Obama, Paul responded, “The reality is it would be very, very difficult, but if you look at the polls, and there aren’t that many, my appeal is to a lot of independents and a lot of progressive Democrats who are sick and tired of Obama for opting out of cutting back on some of this militarism,” adding that his numbers would be even bigger when stacked up against Obama than they would be in a Republican primary.

“He’s a war monger,” Rep. Paul added. “He’s expanding the war. My numbers would be much bigger running against Obama than they will be running against some conservative in the Republican primary.”

Indeed, an April 2010 Rasmussen poll showed that Paul was almost level with Obama if the two were to go head to head for the presidency. Following a 15 point bounce in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings, Obama has pulled away from all potential Republican candidates, but given the momentum Paul could build with his energetic grass roots base, beating Obama would be a distinct possibility.

Despite the fact that a Rasmussen poll released last week showed that Paul was ahead of Sarah Palin in terms of having the ability to beat Obama, a Fox News poll released yesterday, which showed all of the establishment Republican candidates trailing Obama by some margin, did not even include Paul in the survey.

Exemplifying again how the establishment consistently tries to derail Paul’s momentum by ignoring his very existence, obscure names like John Thune and Jon Huntsman were included in the Fox poll and yet Paul was omitted entirely.

During the MSNBC segment, the Congressman pointed out that the debate over military spending was a matter of semantics, arguing that the issue had little to do with “defense” and more to do with propping up the US military-industrial complex and occupying foreign countries.

“I think the problem we have is with the semantics,” said Paul. “They have conditioned us all to use the word defense spending. Who wants to cut defense? I don’t want to cut defense. I want a stronger defense.”

“I want to cut the militarism, the interventionism, the stuff that hurts us, that makes us more vulnerable,” he added. “If we separate defense from militarism, maybe more people would be willing to accept it. Who wants to be on record who says I just voted against the defense budget.”

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 
  
  

“I think it’s a perception and a semantics problem that we have to try to reeducate the people to understand what we’re talking about.”

Paul’s ostracization by the self-proclaimed “conservative” Young Americans for Freedom organization, a group that vehemently supported the Democrat-led war in Vietnam, for his refusal to support the interventionist and neo-liberal expansion of the US military-industrial complex, should be worn as a badge of honor.

“It is a sad day in American history when a one-time conservative-libertarian stalwart has fallen more out of touch with America’s needs for national security than the current feeble and appeasing administration,” YAF’s Senior National Director Jordan Marks said in a statement.

By lumping Ron Paul in with the “feeble and appeasing” Obama administration, Marks attempts to make a distinction between Obama and his predecessor George W. Bush, by portraying Obama as weak on “defense,” when in reality, the Obama war chest has been bigger than anything ever passed under Bush year upon year. Obama’s 2011 war chest swelled to more than 700 billion dollars – that’s more than Bush ever got.

Indeed, as soon as Obama took office his first action was to send 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan and to expand the Bush-era bombings in Pakistan, as well as opening up a new front in Yemen. There are more US troops deployed globally under Obama than there ever were under Bush.

Bush and Obama have both followed identical interventionist foreign policies that mainly revolve around carpet bombing goat herders in broken-backed third world countries, something that Paul rightly points out has nothing to do with the “defense” of the United States.

The fact that Obama has a bigger military budget than Bush ever did gives a pretty clear indication that occupying and invading foreign countries has nothing to do with true conservatism – it comes from the foundational beliefs of those whom the Young Americans for Freedom organization would undoubtedly champion – neo-cons who are nothing more than Trotskyites – they believe wholeheartedly in the welfare-warfare state.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

Ron Paul should be honored to be kicked out of this pitiful little group – because it only crystallizes his character as a real conservative, while the Young Americans for Freedom are nothing more than a mouthpiece for neo-cons who have more in common with historical Marxists than they do the founding fathers of America.

Ron Paul is a true icon of genuine conservatism – every policy he embraces would have a ringing endorsement from the founding fathers – who staunchly advocated a non-interventionist foreign policy.

—

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.

Poll: Ron Paul Has Greater Chance Of Beating Obama Than Palin Does In 2012 *

Poll: Ron Paul Has Greater Chance Of Beating Obama Than Palin Does In 2012

 

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
February 8, 2011

A Rasmussen poll released Monday indicates that Congressman Ron Paul has a better shot of beating Obama in the 2012 presidential election than Sarah Palin would, should both decide to run on the GOP ticket.

As Paul is seemingly on the verge of announcing another presidential bid, The poll shows that more American voters would side with Ron Paul is he were to be pitted against Obama than would vote for Palin.

The poll shows that in these extremely early stages, Ron Paul would poll 35% of votes to Obama’s 44%, where as Sarah Palin would attract 38% to an Obama count of 49%.

The figures mean that at this time the Texas Congressman would score 2% more of the overall vote than the former governor of Alaska.

With a sustained campaign behind him once more, Paul’s figures would undoubtedly shoot up. Indeed, at the height of the backlash against Obama last year, a similar Rasmussen survey found that a hypothetical 2012 election race between Obama and Paul would result in an almost dead heat.

Of course, we should not be surprised by the figures, given that Ron Paul was the figurehead at the inception of the Tea Party movement, which consisted of a small but dedicated team of people who organized Boston Tea Party re-enactment protests in 50 different cities in late 2007, in support of Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign.

The libertarian themed protests became extremely popular, and continued throughout 2008 and into 2009, prompting thousands of people to engage in peaceful political protest.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 
  
  

Since that time the movement has been co-opted by the establishment GOP and figures such as Palin, who is as much a pro-war hawk as the neocons responsible for miring the US in two endless, devastating and extremely costly wars.

Other candidates ranking high against Obama in the poll included the usual GOP establishment crowd of Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.

As we have previously highlighted, perhaps the only saving grace for Obama is the fact that those Republican candidates have all lost popularity at a similar pace to the President. If Obama were to run against any of these individuals, he would probably still win, such is American’s increasing disdain for the two party monopoly.

Ron Paul would be the only Republican candidate to carry a message that resonates with the American people, his thoroughbred anti-war and anti-big government stance.

Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate to have voted against the Iraq war.

Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who will not seek to lead the U.S. into yet more military confrontations.

Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who is not compromised while the likes of Romney and Palin have more skeletons in their closet than a fancy dress boutique.

Ron Paul is the only candidate period who has promised to abolish the IRS, the Federal Reserve and end the fraudulent fiat-based money system that is crippling America’s economy while lining the pockets of the ultra-rich.

Rasmussen surmises from its findings that it is safe to assume that the president’s actual vote total on Election Day 2012 will be close to his overall job approval rating at the time. Therefore, if Obama’s job approval ratings improve from this point forward, it is likely that his support will increase against all Republican candidates. If his job approval ratings fall, his numbers are likely to weaken against all potential candidates.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

Ron Paul has no better chance to become President than in 2012 and we urge him to accept the challenge and provide millions of Americans with genuine hope that the country can still be rescued from its current spiral of terminal decline.

—

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

Ron Paul Monetary Hearing: You Are Invited

Ron Paul Monetary Hearing: You Are Invited

 

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
LRC
February 7, 2011

The historic first hearing of Chairman Ron Paul’s monetary policy committee, to expose the Fed as the prime creator of unemployment and so much human suffering, will take place at: 10:00AM on Wednesday, February 9, 2011, in Room 2128 of the Rayburn House Office Building, the main hearing room of the Financial Services Committee. The witnesses include the eloquent Austro-free-market stars Thomas DiLorenzo of Loyola College and Richard Vedder of Ohio University.

The Fed itself, and at least three big banks, lobbied against Ron’s chairmanship. Republicans who share their fear of the truth worked with Paul Ryan, chairman of the “Budget” Committee, to schedule hearings with Bernanke at the exact same time as Ron’s, to try to diminish the significance of Ron’s. Ryan, btw, is the fair-haired boy of the Republican leadership who gave the boring response to Obama’s boring State of the Empire Address. Like the Republican leadership, Ryan talks about cutting spending, but that is only a ruse. Ryan is a big-government neocon, and so naturally supported TARP, Bush’s prescription drug welfare, his wars, and the empire.

I don’t believe this insider trick will work against Ron, because his support comes not from the regime or the Republican leadership, but from the grassroots. I think the Paulians will pack Ron’s hearings, and not only to show their support for him against the power elite. These hearings will have huge significance in the fight against the Fed, the fractional-reserve banksters, and other destroyers of our prosperity and freedom. It will also be a lot of fun!

Ron Paul Enters Evidence of Bush War Crimes in Congressional Record

Ron Paul Enters Evidence of Bush War Crimes in Congressional Record

 

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
February 4, 2011

Rep. Ron Paul read the text below into the Congressional Record earlier this year. Paul’s statement provides additional evidence to the established fact the globalist, bonesman, and former CIA director George Bush Senior duped Saddam Hussein, exploited his dispute with Kuwait – accusing Kuwait of slant drilling its oil – and gave Hussein a green light to attack Kuwait.

From the Congressional Record, January 26, 2011, Page H503. It was posted on the Veterans Today website.

“The SPEAKER pro tempore.

Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, how did the 20-year war get started?

It had been long assumed that the United States Government, shortly before Iraq invaded Kuwait in August of 1990, gave Saddam Hussein a green light to attack. A State Department cable recently published by WikiLeaks confirmed that U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie did indeed have a conversation with Saddam Hussein one week prior to Iraq’s August 1, 1990, invasion of Kuwait.

Amazingly, the released cable was entitled,

“Saddam’s Message of Friendship to President Bush.” (published below)

In it, Ambassador Glaspie affirmed to Saddam that “the President had instructed her to broaden and deepen our relations with Iraq.” As Saddam Hussein outlined Iraq’s ongoing border dispute with Kuwait, Ambassador Glaspie was quite clear that, “we took no position on these Arab affairs.”

There would have been no reason for Saddam Hussein not to take this assurance at face value. The U.S. was quite supportive of his invasion and war of aggression against Iran in the 1980s. With this approval from the U.S. Government, it wasn’t surprising that the invasion occurred. The shock and surprise was how quickly the tables were turned and our friend, Saddam Hussein, all of a sudden became Hitler personified.

The document was classified, supposedly to protect national security, yet this information in no way jeopardized our security. Instead, it served to keep the truth from the American people about an event leading up to our initial military involvement in Iraq and the region that continues to today.

{time} 1440

The secrecy of the memo was designed to hide the truth from the American people and keep our government from being embarrassed. This was the initial event that had led to so much death and destruction–not to mention the financial costs–these past 20 years.

Our response and persistent militarism toward Iraq was directly related to 9/11, as our presence on the Arabian Peninsula–and in particular Saudi Arabia–was listed by al Qaeda as a major grievance that outraged the radicals (sic) who carried out the heinous attacks against New York and Washington on that fateful day.

Today, the conflict has spread through the Middle East and Central Asia with no end in sight.

The reason this information is so important is that if Congress and the American people had known about this green light incident 20 years ago, they would have been a lot more reluctant to give a green light to our government to pursue the current war–a war that is ongoing and expanding to this very day.

The tough question that remains is was this done deliberately to create the justification to redesign the Middle East, as many neo- conservatives desired, and to secure oil supplies for the West; or was it just a diplomatic blunder followed up by many more strategic military blunders? Regardless, we have blundered into a war that no one seems willing to end.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 
  
  

Julian Assange, the publisher of the WikiLeaks memo, is now considered an enemy of the state. Politicians are calling for drastic punishment and even assassination; and, sadly, the majority of the American people seem to support such moves.

But why should we so fear the truth? Why should our government’s lies and mistakes be hidden from the American people in the name of patriotism? Once it becomes acceptable to equate truth with treason, we can no longer call ourselves a free society.”

Historian Mark Zepezauer notes that the equipment to slant drill Iraq’s oil illegally was bought from National Security Council chief Brent Scowcroft’s old company. Kuwait was pumping out around $14-billion worth of oil from beneath Iraqi territory. “Even the territory they were drilling from had originally been Iraq’s. Slant-drilling is enough to get you shot in Texas, and it’s certainly enough to start a war in the Mideast,” writes Zepezauer.

Iraq invaded Kuwait after it broke off negotiations.

Bush and the United Nations ordered the systematic destruction of facilities essential to civilian life and economic productivity throughout Iraq on January 16, 1991, at 6:30 p.m. EST.

Bush ordered 110,000 air sorties against Iraq, dropping 88,000 tons of bombs, nearly seven times the equivalent of the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, according to a report sent to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal.

“The intention and effort of the bombing of civilian life and facilities was to systematically destroy Iraq’s infrastructure leaving it in a preindustrial condition. Iraq’s civilian population was dependent on industrial capacities,” Ramsey Clarke and others wrote in 1992. “The U.S. assault left Iraq in a near apocalyptic condition as reported by the first United Nations observers after the war.”

The invasion, enforced blockade of Iraq and the international sanctions which decimated the war-ravaged country for over a decade prepared the people of Iraq for the transformation their modern state into a hellhole now wracked by sectarian violence.

Over 500,000 people were slaughtered in Bush’s war. Between 1991 and 1998, there were 500,000 deaths among Iraqi children under five years of age due to brutal sanctions imposed by the United States and the United Nations. “If you include adults, the figure is now almost certainly well over a million,” Hans Von Sponeck said. Sponeck was a UN Assistant Secretary-General and UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq.

George Bush Senior announces his invasion of Iraq in 1991. The war was not declared by Congress as stipulated by the Constitution. It was an executive action by Bush and the globalists with the participation of the United Nations.

Bush’s son re-invaded Iraq under completely bogus circumstances. George Bush Junior killed or contributed to the death of more than 1.4 million human beings, according to Just Foreign Policy. “Iraq deaths. The number is shocking and sobering. It is at least 10 times greater than most estimates cited in the US media, yet it is based on a scientific study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003,” they write.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

The Lancet, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion as of July 2006. Iraqis have continued to be killed since then. The death counter provides a rough daily update of this number based on a rate of increase derived from the Iraq Body Count… The estimate that over a million Iraqis have died received independent confirmation from a prestigious British polling agency in September 2007. Opinion Research Business estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed violently since the US-led invasion. This devastating human toll demands greater recognition. It eclipses the Rwandan genocide and our leaders are directly responsible. Little wonder they do not publicly cite it.

And yet Bush and his son are considered by the establishment and millions of Americans to be esteemed elder statesmen, not war criminals.