"It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking."
— Ron Paul (End the Fed)
A congressman who would end the Federal Reserve Bank, end the four or five wars America is presently embroiled in, maintain peace, and eliminate redundant government bureaucracy, cutting billions of dollars in wasteful spending?
Texas 14th district representative Ron Paul looks promising, admittedly this isn't saying much in politics if it ever was. Obama looked promising, he promised to end wars, not to start new ones, to shut down Guantanamo Bay, et cetera, and he has gone back on nearly every single promise and attempted to roll out a hugely costly health care bill in an unconstitutional attempt to socialize the nation against the will of several individual states.
He wants to make America look more like Europe and the EU is attempting to Americanize (i.e, homogenize) Europe. All eerily similar to the globalist agenda envisioned and much discussed by the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. And in so doing, Obama has shown himself to clearly to be nothing more than he really was all along, an establishment puppet, an establishment pawn. Obama, don't fool yourself, just because you carry out their agenda, because you are the public face of it, doesn't make you one of them.
But Obama never challenged the establishment so directly, calling out government bodies, corrupt practices, and even discussing the real reasons behind American wars.
Take this speech in the House, for example:
"WikiLeaks release of classified information has generated a lot of attention in the past few weeks. The hysterical reaction makes one wonder if this is not an example of killing the messenger for the bad news. Despite what is claimed, the information that has been so far released, though classified, has caused no known harm to any individual, but it has caused plenty of embarrassment to our government. Losing our grip on our empire is not welcomed by the neoconservatives in charge.
"There is now more information confirming that Saudi Arabia is a principal supporter and financier of al Qaeda, and that this should set off alarm bells since we guarantee its Sharia-run government. This emphasizes even more the fact that no al Qaeda existed in Iraq before 9/11, and yet we went to war against Iraq based on the lie that it did. It has been charged by experts that Julian Assange, the internet publisher of this information, has committed a heinous crime, deserving prosecution for treason and execution, or even assassination.
"But should we not at least ask how the U.S. government should prosecute an Australian citizen for treason for publishing U.S. secret information that he did not steal? And if WikiLeaks is to be prosecuted for publishing classified documents, why shouldn't the Washington Post, the New York Times, and others also published these documents be prosecuted? Actually, some in Congress are threatening this as well.
"The New York Times, as a result of a Supreme Court ruling, was not found guilty in 1971 for the publication of the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg never served a day in prison for his role in obtaining these secret documents. The Pentagon Papers were also inserted into the Congressional record by Senator Mike Gravel, with no charges of any kind being made of breaking any national security laws. Yet the release of this classified information was considered illegal by many, and those who lied us into the Vietnam war, and argued for its prolongation were outraged. But the truth gained from the Pentagon Papers revealed that lies were told about the Gulf of Tonkin attack. which perpetuated a sad and tragic episode in our history.
"Just as with the Vietnam War, the Iraq War was based on lies. We were never threatened by weapons of mass destruction or al Qaeda in Iraq, though the attack on Iraq was based on this false information. Any information which challenges the official propaganda for the war in the Middle East is unwelcome by the administration and the supporters of these unnecessary wars. Few are interested in understanding the relationship of our foreign policy and our presence in the Middle East to the threat of terrorism. Revealing the real nature and goal of our presence in so many Muslim countries is a threat to our empire, and any revelation of this truth is highly resented by those in charge.
"Questions to consider:
"Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?
"Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?
"Number 3: Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?
"Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?
"Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?
"Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?
"Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?
"Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?
"Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?
"Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised 'Let the eyes of vigilance never be closed.' I yield back the balance of my time."
Ron Paul may just be another politician, as full of hot air as Obama was before he came into office, but if you listen closely to the man's words you will notice that his gripes are far more acute than anything Obama said prior presidential status. He hones in on wrongs in the government with precision, often naming government institutions, (or non-government ones such as the Fed). Attacking the Fed and the neocons for lying us into Iraq as they did Vietnam. It would be hard to fathom Paul as an establishment pawn.
But for the very same reasons, it is difficult to imagine him ever securing the GOP nomination and running against Obama in 2012, although recent polls suggest that if he did he would win. However, with Obama invading Libya, maintaining and expanding existing foreign wars, and Europeanizing the homeland, who better than he to do the establishment's bidding 2012-2016. So, yes, it is exceedingly doubtful that we will ever see the likes of someone such as Ron Paul securing any GOP nomination and seriously vying for the highest office in the United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment