Would Ron Paul protect the middle and working class though? While Ron Paul might want to keep the US out of global trade organizations, technically though he would have to convince Congress to de-ratify since NAFTA and the WTO are now laws, but his small government approach probably want lead him to prevent things like outsourcing or negotiate for trading treaties that are fairer to the US. Its arguable point whether free trade benefits the US more in the long run but many of the current problems with trade regarding the US working class is due to free trade bringing in products cheaper than the US can make them. If Ron Paul is true to a libertarian view then the government shouldn't regulate trade like that. Also from the small government point of view would a Ron Paul Admin. take a hard line at corporate malfeasance? Would Ron Paul aggressively enforce workers protection laws, transparency of corporate accounting and other things that protect the average worker and shareholder? Personally for me there's a lot I agree with Ron Paul with but just because he criticizes the Republican party and talks about bringing the country back to a historical Constitutional standard doesn't mean that his policies would protect the middle or working class at all. In fact if you look at the policies that Ron Paul advocates they would take us to a time where the middle and working class was screwed over by big money banks and corporations.
I think it would be very helpful for you to discuss these things with Ron Paul. I am going to be working on a Q&A meeting in the future for such discussion. I know you are not in this area often but we might try for some remote conference hook up too. I talked to his wife last week if something can be worked out I will post it. He has a great focus on the working class and the poor. He is really strong though on states and not federal centralized solutions, I think.... at least I know he favors less federal mandate and more state and local responsibility.
This is a dialectic at its best- Breyer is the liberal of liberals Alito the conservative of conservatives But Breyer is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations which is one of the big policy drivers for our foreign policy, including foreign interventions around the world. The CFR is strongly supportive of globalization and a strong executive admin. Alito is very strongly supportive of strong executive powers almost to the point of giving the executive branch power over all other branches of government. Though both of them are polar opposites on news making issues- abortion, equal rights, business, environment etc They easily compromise on banking issues, the Federal Reserve, globalization, and foreign policy. The very issues that have the greatest threats to our national sovereignty, civil liberties and the expansion and centralization of federal power. They don't seem all that alarmed that by 2010 the national DEBT will be over 50% of GDP. (that should makes us all appreciate good burbon and xanax) Socialist dialectics work by taking opposite views, and using compromise and consensus to acheive gradual movement in a particular direction. Any "really liberal" judge like Breyer will be left on the hot button issues, but still be marching us towards a globalized government centralized in executive powers while leaving larger and larger gaps in wealth in the populace and control in the hands of Central Banks and Industrialist elites. I am not nearly as concerned about Breyer and Alito fighting over abortion as I am their silence over destructive national treaties, executive orders out of control, Central Bank monopolies, globalization, and an executive power cabal that looks more like statism than a free republic. Without a dialectic process we would not be moving in this direction without stronger public resistance. There must be liberals and conservatives, republicans and democrats for the most important agendas to go forward. The power of the UN, the World Bank, the IMF are growing alarmingly without a word spoken by members like Breyer of a Council of Foreign Relations that facilitates this shift in American policy. And the only thing you and I can do about it is post on a message board. Bush has set us up for the destruction of civil rights, habeus corpus, privacy, etc etc and I haven't heard a peep out of Breyer or Alito. (if they said anything, it is only rhetoric they aren't going to do a thing about it) Are they different yes- on hot topic issues. On the control of Bankers and Industrialists in our nations government- two peas in a pod.
^ It seems to me like you are picking and choosing areas of agreement between Breyer and Alito and then saying this is evidence of collusion for moving the country in a direction you don't agree with. Its true that even political opposites might have some areas in common but that doesn't mean that they are somehow in collusion. Also in regard to the areas where you say they are in collusion have you considered that they possibly agree on those because they don't see a Constitutional issue on those or those areas aren't in purview of the Judicial branch. For instance you cite their lack of concern over US national debt. The Judicial branch has the least say over spending than the other branches so its not surprising that Supreme Court Justices would not show concern over the debt. Also in regard to the Federal Reserve and foreign policy the Supreme Court has little say on those as neither are under the purview of the courts. The Constitution doesn't oppose a Federal Reserve and is clear that foreign policy falls under the Executive to manage and the Senate to ratify.
Ask him to do Q & A on Clutchfans D & D. I'm serious. There are a lot of smart and insiteful people here along with people throughout the country and World. He might find a very challenging set of questionaires and also a chance to build wider support. There's nothing wrong with that but many of these issues cannot be effectively enforced at state levels as things like shareholder protections is affected by the state the company incorporates in so a Texas solution might have little bearing on a Delaware incorporated company. Also states cannot negotiate their own trade treaties with other countries.
Well, first off I did not say, nor do I believe they are in collusion. I firmly believe they both cow to the same powerful financial interests. Elite bankers and industrialists. I certainly think Breyer and Alito see each other as enemies of sorts. Basically they are ideological opponents. But my point on them is that they both probably support forces that I believe are the root problem. Groups like the Council on Foreign Relations, the World Bank and the Federal Reserve do not have the best interests of US citizens at heart in my opinion and they are a danger to the middle and lower class American. Bankers are in it for profit. I am pointing out that even though they don't deal alot with strong centralized government issues, or at least often they both more than likely strongly are positioned towards this. Conservatives don't mind a very strong executive branch which threatens freedoms, and Liberals don't mind federalization which can strengthen the executive branch exponentially. Point is on the issues most critical to our nation they are probably in agreement- and it isn't the EPA or the NRA or the NOW. When you move the government more in control of individual lives through socialization and strong federal programs you can still be a liberal with a very progressive social focused policy. When you move the government more in line with strong executive orders and executive powers which threaten civil liberties and take executive control of those programs you can still be a very progressive conservative. Everything Bush is doing with spying and federalizing law enforcement under homeland security will be enjoyed by the next Democratic president not rescinded. Every domestic program Clinton enacted has been kept running nicely by Bush. Bush just likes the facist slant where Clinton the statist slant. But what is the general direction? Strong central government, increasingly intrusive and further in debt. If you do not understand the threat of huge debt then you cannot see how the middle class and the poor are being disenfranchised for a future free nation. National healthcare (heavily federalized), outsourcing of industry, heavy taxation, social statism are not options for a country in drastic debt they are inevitable. When you cannot afford any standard of living, the govt. must intervene and control or you will have blood in the streets. Economic emergencies get people to buy in faster than planes crashing into buildings. Fourteen Trillion dollars in debt is fast pushing the economic emergency button. How long could you live like you do if you had to borrow money just to buy groceries because your past debt have exeeded your income capacity? This is the current wisdom employed by our federal government. Your example of Breyer and Alito is a good example of two judges from very different political backgrounds, but the Supreme Court need only support the President in all of his executive power grabs and his Homeland Security and his Patriot act to work for the favor of the industrial elit and banking elite. I am not concerned about Alito and Breyer working together, just who they cannot and will not fight against. The wealthy elite- the bankers like David Rockefeller who take our money through debt and the industrialists like Dick Cheney (formerly KBR, Halliburton) who get the financing from our debt padding into their pockets. I trust people like Rockefeller and Cheney as much as I do any other dictator in the world- I don't! And there is a group of these people that control these private Federal Reserve Banks and own very large corporations that I don't think give a flip about you and me and this nation. THey would just as soon rule a North American Union as a United States of America. Stay tuned we will all find out how this plays out probably over the next ten years. Good luck. Sishir- BTW my views certainly aren't Ron Paul's views. Alot of my posts come from a hobby I have of reading dissident views, conspiracy theory stuff, alternative news and other crazy stuff as a hobby. I really don't care about alot of that stuff as a pastor I have to devote my spare time to the bible and the church. But I love reading that stuff jsut like I like posting D&D as a chill time. I like Mother Earth News and Free Speech TV also It takes me back to the late '60's when I thought Paul (Beatle) was dead and all you need is love.
agree, but my point is that both sides are controlled by the same interests and played off each other for the american public.
"Collusion" might not be the correct term but if they both cow to the same powerful financial interest you are implying that they are in concert in some ways. There's nothing inherently Unconstitutional about while you may want them to oppose those institutions as interpretters of the Constitution there might not be a basis on how they oppose those. Further if they were to oppose them they have to do so in the framework of cases and can't on their own take action against those institutions. Even though they could comment about them they might not wish to do so since it is out of their Judicial purview or area of expertise. Whil they might be working in parallel directions in regard to government there still is a huge difference in how they perceive the role of government in society and how government exercises its power. Also at the same time while they might both favor a stronger government in some respects they also favor a more limited government in other respect. It appears to me you are only choosing the areas of where they favor a strong government to argue that they working in common cause, even if they aren't colluding. Someone else could take the argument and say they are working in common cause for a smaller government since Breyer would favor limiting the governments when it comes to individual liberties while Alito would favor reducing regulations. Perhaps so but the ends they use those programs too will be different. Just because they both favor a strong government doesn't mean they are the same. For that matter even a Paul adminstration will be hard pressed to repeal those things without having Congress to go along. Of course growing debt is an obvious problem but its not an issue that solely belongs to Ron Paul and there are many in both the Democratic and Republican party that are concerned about it. This is a big issue for Ron Paul but not his alone. This is the point though the Presidency appoints the Supreme Court Justices and most of the rulings regarding the increas in executive power have been narrow rulings. A change in one Justice could mean that many of those rulings are reversed. Here though you are asking for the Supreme Court justices to do something that they are meant to do. Spearhead major policy strategies. Depending on the cases though how they rule though might be different and its not like cases regarding the increase of federal power along with big business are going to be majority rulings. For instance the infamous Kelo case that expanded the eminent domain powers of cities was a 5-4 ruling. You are arguing that both sides serve the same master when it really isn't case because its only a bare majority that does. You might not like them and fear them for good reason but its naive IMO to beleive that there is no difference to them.
Who's Ron Paul? No, seriously... He's a marginal candidate that has been running for president on a continuous basis since the mid-70's. Sort of a more serious minded Pat Paulsen, but with less of a chance of getting elected.
First let me say I am not disagreeing with your points. I am trying to explain my own. Second, the things I don't like about our government are not political issues or Party politics or liberal vs. conservative. That is not an issue for me and I don't believe it is a problem- it is a vehicle for the problem. I am saying that if a small group of powerful bankers have your nation by the b***s through Central Bank debt, and said bankers are the big players in powerful policy makers like NGO's and the other 100 or so powerful policy groups; and said bankers get there way in US policy consistently for over the past 90 years and said bankers have no national or political loyalty and only have shown loyalty to their own profits, if you have given said bankers control over your national economy and the debt is the instrument and control of currency supply and interest rates a powerful switch that the Treasury Dept. is beholden to and said bankers are in collusion with industrialists who also profit from such power then those in government who accept this must either be in denial, in deception, naive, in agreement or a part of the power structure. I would argue that Breyer's membership in the Council on Foreign Relations is enough evidence to me that he is in agreement with our Foreign Policy whether he has any direct effect on it or not, he will be sympathetic in his influence to the direction our government is heading even if it is a strengthening of the executive branch that is dangerous to our Republic and he will not be a voice of dissent in court cases or in his sphere of political influence. To really see this clearly you will need to take the time to google and study the Enron case in relation to the Supreme Court and in relation to Enron's middle east contracts and the invasion of Af. and Iraq. The deeper you probe you will see not collusion between liberals and conservatives, but collusion between liberals and 'elites' and conservatives and 'elites'. Maybe saying they cow down is too strong. Often they just share the same future vision for the nation even though they may differ in the path to take to get their. For instance a far left liberal may say total disarmament will get us to world peace, a far right conservative may say total armament is the best way to assure world peace. Sounds opposite to me, but then in compromise the policy works out that those who need to be armed are armed and those who need to be disarmed are disarmed. Somebody wanted Sadaam out of power, and he is out of power. One thing I will assure you if Iran is suppose to be 'out of power' they will be, regardless of which party is in power. The people who have monetary power and control will get there way, to quote Roosevelt- "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." Franklin D. Roosevelt I do not feel that Breyer and Alito are best buds, with the same POLITICAL agenda, I feel they both support the Federal Reserve Bank, the WTO, the IMF. the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and several other dangers to the future of America as we know it. Whether they have any influence on the bench with these issues is mute, they certainly don't have as much influence as the Congress and President do. I am just saying that there political differences don't tell the whole story of their ideology when you take into account the empire building and globalization happening in today's America. I certainly agree and understand they have little direct impact in these areas unless a related case was before them, I am only pointing out that in these areas they may be on the same page, especially with regard to Foreign Policy and the Central Bank cabal. You used Supreme Court justices to show that liberal democrats and conservative republicans are very different. We all know they are very different, but in what I believe are the most critical problems our nations faces they are not different and actually they are probably in harmony. Ron Paul wants to get rid of the Central Bank, the last president who had the guts to fight it was Andrew Jackson. If you can tell me that Breyer and Alito both want to get rid of the Central Bank then they will be aligned with those who believe in its danger, otherwise I would say given they are very intelligent men and in the highest level of govt. that they support the status quo which makes them two peas on a pod for me. I really don't care about that as long as they are silent concerning the Fed. I would like to know where every politician stands on this. This is the one litmus issue for me. That is why I am going to vote for a candidate who has zero chance. Because it is the right thing for me to do and for conscience. I am only choosing to look at the one area that I believe will actually determine what government my children and grandchildren will live under. Read Orwell's 1984 one more time. If you are telling me that Breyer is opposed to the Patriot Act and Homeland Security please give me hope and quote. Paul will not get elected. The power he is running against is too strong and it is too late for us to do much about it. You don't have a choice you will vote for the republican that is chosen and or the democrat that is chosen, if you want to say we won or we lost. If I know Rep. Paul he is running to get his ideas out there on a better platform. He has great belief in America, in you and I and he believes he can make a difference, and America can change. I don't believe he is running to lose, he is believing he can win, but I also believe he is well aware of what he is up against and had no false hope. The debt is the sympton of the cancer. The cancer is the Fed. Are there many in both parties trying to get rid of the Fed? All the ballyhoo and policital double speak about lowering the debt is a joke as long as we have a Central Bank in control in our nation. Congressmen don't mess with the Washington power structure and survive and the real power makers in Congress are in bed with the cancer. Please name me all in Washington who are standing with Ron Paul saying the Fed must be eliminated. (did a tree just fall in the forest?) Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Torture, Nation Building- don't look at what it appears to be, just stare long and hard at the facts. What happens is supposed to happen. It is not an accident that civil liberties are threatened and even now beginning to be abused (for middle easterner as an example)- how do you think bad things happen to good countries? A little here and a little there and you wake up one day and find out if you dissent to the government you are a terrorist. I don't really care about dissenting, but I do care about our nation becoming dictitorial. The only thing I might be arrested for some day is if they make preaching the bible on Sunday morning a crime if it isn't first approved by the National Department of Tolerance and Equity. Other than that, I don't plan of protesting anything. I am not debating what they are doing, just where they stand on the issues I mentioned. And narrow rulings carry the same weight as unanimous ones. Just keep score of what is happening, don't focus on how we are getting there or you might be led to believe that it is just chance and remember, the people who have power don't mind balance and defeats. It allows them to work without suspicion. I am arguing that they are happy to have bankers in charge of the economy. I remember a bible verse that says the love of money is the root of all evil. And I would argue it is the power base in todays politics. I don't think they would favor removing those in control of our debt and our treasury I think they both are aligned with said bankers. And I think they serve said banker's agendas- which have nothing to do with equal rights and abortion or the environment except as it causes further debt to we the people. I believe they are very different, that is why the Fed is so powerful. both sides of the aisle are content with the power the Fed has. Maybe I could sum up my opinion with this- "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson PRESIDENT JAMES A. GARFIELD: "Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce". CONGRESSMAN LOUIS T. McFADDEN: "The Federal Reserve (Banks) are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this Nation is run by the International Bankers". HORACE GREELEY: "While boasting of our noble deeds were careful to conceal the ugly fact that by an iniquitous money system we have nationalized a system of oppression which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery. THOMAS A. EDISON: "People who will not turn a shovel full of dirt on the project (Muscle Shoals Dam) nor contribute a pound of material, will collect more money from the United States than will the People who supply all the material and do all the work. This is the terrible thing about interest ...But here is the point: If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People. If the currency issued by the People were no good, then the bonds would be no good, either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to insure the National Wealth, must go in debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious value of gold. Interest is the invention of Satan". PRESIDENT WOODROW WILSON: "A great industrial Nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world - no longer a Government of free opinion no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men". (Just before he died, Wilson is reported to have stated to friends that he had been "deceived" and that "I have betrayed my Country". He referred to the Federal Reserve Act passed during his Presidency.) SIR JOSIAH STAMP, (President of the Bank of England in the 1920's, the second richest man in Britain): "Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits". MAJOR L. B. ANGUS: "The modern Banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banks can in fact inflate, mint and unmint the modern ledger-entry currency". RALPH M. HAWTREY (Former Secretary of the British Treasury): "Banks lend by creating credit. They create the means of payment out of nothing". ROBERT H. HEMPHILL (Credit Manager of Federal Reserve Bank, Atlanta, Ga.): "This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon".
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/mich...44/117935695635230.xml&storylist=newsmichigan Michigan GOP leader wants Paul barred from future debates 5/16/2007, 7:07 p.m. ET By JIM DAVENPORT The Associated Press COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The chairman of the Michigan Republican Party said Wednesday that he will try to bar Ron Paul from future GOP presidential debates because of remarks the Texas congressman made that suggested the Sept. 11 attacks were the fault of U.S. foreign policy. Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis said he will circulate a petition among Republican National Committee members to ban Paul from more debates. At a GOP candidates' debate Tuesday night, Paul drew attacks from all sides, most forcefully from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, when he linked the terror attacks to U.S. bombings. "Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," Paul said. Anuzis called the comments "off the wall and out of whack." "I think he would have felt much more comfortable on the stage with the Democrats in what he said last night. And I think that he is a distraction in the Republican primary and he does not represent the base and he does not represent the party," Anuzis said during an RNC state leadership meeting. "Given what he said last night it was just so off the wall and out of whack that I think it was more detrimental than helpful." Anuzis said his petition would go to debate sponsors and broadcasters to discourage inviting Paul. Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign spokesman, said the candidate "is supporting the traditional GOP foreign policy. I think it's a shame when people try to silence the traditional conservative Republican standpoint." After the debate Tuesday, Paul said he didn't' expect his remarks to end his campaign. "The last time I got a message out about my position on the war it boosted us up by tens of thousands and I didn't change my position," Paul said. "I think the American people are sick and tired of this war and want it ended."
As much as I detest the conservative party these days due to their fiscal irresponsibilities, I think Ron Paul is the only one who can save this nation. Oh, and yes, I think the main stream media is ignoring him. He is doing quite well amongst the youth, and the legions of users on the internet though.
Paul's 9/11 explanation deserves to be debated By Roland S. Martin CNN contributor (CNN) -- Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani was declared the winner of Tuesday's Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, largely for his smack down of Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who suggested that America's foreign policy contributed to the destruction on September 11, 2001. Paul, who is more of a libertarian than a Republican, was trying to offer some perspective on the pitfalls of an interventionist policy by the American government in the affairs of the Middle East and other countries. "Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," he said. That set Giuliani off. "That's really an extraordinary statement," said Giuliani. "As someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq; I don't think I've ever heard that before and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11." As the crowd applauded wildly, Giuliani demanded that Paul retract his statements. Paul tried to explain the process known as "blowback" -- which is the result of someone else's action coming back to afflict you -- but the audience drowned him out as the other candidates tried to pounce on him. After watching all the network pundits laud Giuliani, it struck me that they must be the most clueless folks in the world. First, Giuliani must be an idiot to not have heard Paul's rationale before. That issue has been raised countless times in the last six years by any number of experts. Second, when we finish with our emotional response, it would behoove us to actually think about what Paul said and make the effort to understand his rationale. Granted, Americans were severely damaged by the hijacking of U.S. planes, and it has resulted in a worldwide fight against terror. Was it proper for the United States to respond to the attack? Of course! But should we, as a matter of policy, and moral decency, learn to think and comprehend that our actions in one part of the world could very well come back to hurt us, or, as Paul would say, blow back in our face? Absolutely. His real problem wasn't his analysis, but how it came out of his mouth. What has been overlooked is that Paul based his position on the effects of the 1953 ouster by the CIA of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. An excellent account of this story is revealed in Stephen Kinzer's alarming and revealing book, "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq," where he writes that Iran was establishing a government close to a democracy. But Mossadegh wasn't happy that the profit from the country's primary resource -- oil -- was not staying in the country. Instead, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now known British Petroleum, or BP) was getting 93 percent of the profits. Mossadegh didn't like that, and wanted a 50-50 split. Kinzer writes that that didn't sit too well with the British government, but it didn't want to use force to protect its interests. But their biggest friend, the United States, didn't mind, and sought to undermine Mossadegh's tenure as president. After all kinds of measures that disrupted the nation, a coup was financed and led by President Dwight Eisenhower's CIA, and the Shah of Iran was installed as the leader. We trained his goon squads, thus angering generations of Iranians for meddling in that nation's affairs. As Paul noted, what happened in 1953 had a direct relationship to the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in 1979. We viewed that as terrorists who dared attack America. They saw it as ending years of oppression at the hands of the ruthless U.S.-backed Shah regime. As Americans, we believe in forgiving and forgetting, and are terrible at understanding how history affects us today. We are arrogant in not recognizing that when we benefit, someone else may suffer. That will lead to resentment and anger, and if suppressed, will boil over one day. Does that provide a moral justification for what the terrorists did on September 11? Of course not. But we should at least attempt to understand why. Think about it. Do we have the moral justification to explain the killings of more than 100,000 Iraqis as a result of this war? Can we defend the efforts to overthrow other governments whose actions we perceived would jeopardize American business interests? The debate format didn't give Paul the time to explain all of this. But I'm confident this is what he was saying. And yes, we need to understand history and how it plays a vital role in determining matters today. At some point we have to accept the reality that playing big brother to the world -- and yes, sometimes acting as a bully by wrongly asserting our military might -- means that Americans alive at the time may not feel the effects of our foreign policy, but their innocent children will. Even the Bible says that the children will pay for the sins of their fathers. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/18/martin/index.html Is/was Ron Paul right? Personally I think so. And it’s time we stop this silly “they hate us for our freedoms” and “if we leave, they’ll follow us home.”
why would any of those guys want to focus on facts though. thats obviously rudy's main selling point is 911. there is no one in there right mind that would ever say that sept. 11th was justified. just like no one in there right mind would say that the iraq war is justified. if anyone would sit down at cnn, foxnews, msnbc and talk about why these things really happened maybe the average american would wake up. but no they will just keep gobbling up the same spoon fed crap on a dirty silver spoon. and these men will keep clutching at the power they need to keep the money in there pockets.
Of course he is right. The US is THE superpower and has been extending it's influence since the late 19th century. People in Latin America generally hate us because of our foreign policy there and it is the same for the Mid East...different circumstances, though, have led to Islamic extremism and a more focused terrorism. If we were some middle power country that didn't really have an active foreign policy and a history of intervention, we do not get attacked. Also, as stated in the article, people (even mainstream) have said that US foreign policy at least was part of the reason so Rudy claiming to be "Mr 911" and not hearing that before is ridiculous. PS - I love how he reminded everyone that "he was there" during the attack. He is trying to suggest that his views are more expert because he was mayor despite the fact that he never had to care about foreign policy all his life and certainly is not a Mid East expert (since he left office he has made all his money as a "leadership" expert).
The GOP is free to decide who they allow in their debates but I think this would be a big mistake. Like him or hate him Ron Paul represents a viewpoint shared by many and for the GOP to shut him up like that will show that they aren't a big tent party, of course not that they ever were. It also shows that the current GOP is ideologically barren and continues to be tied into a fixed view regarding issues like national security and unwilling to even debate it internally. Then again though something like this isn't surprising for the modern Republican party as they uphold ideological discipline far more than the modern Democratic party.
Well Mr. Anuzis is just following the logic of our Decider in Chief, you are either with us or against us. Ron Paul should be lucky they don't lock him up at Gitmo for being a terrorist sympathizer. The forces in control of the GOP are just downright evil.
