Many of you have wanted to help Ron Paul in one way or another, but you are not allowed to donate to Ron Paul’s campaign, or you may have maxed out your allowable contribution. Well, here is an easy way to help, which may benefit you in more than one way: Sell all your NWS stock.
Teach FOX News a lesson. Make them bleed green until they put Ron Paul back into the debates.
Probably coincidental, but it need not be if people start selling now. Even if people are skeptical that it has anything to do with Ron Paul supporters, it would be smart to sell your NWS stock just to be safe.
We issue 200,000 student visas a year. One of the hijackers had an F-1 student visa. The majority had tourist, business, or visit visas.
So if you are looking to protect the country, a more logical thing to do is ban (1) male (2) Saudi Arabians (3) between the ages of 21 and 43 (4) religious (5) possibly training in flight school.
And, yet, an irrational “strategy” as such would foment more terrorism:
It is necessary to note that relative deprivation
creating exclusion is a comprehensive phenomenon. It
is not merely a socio-economic driver. In fact, relative
deprivation in terms of political space and human
dignity is often even more significant than socioeconomic
factors. The Palestinians in Israel-occupied
territories, whose mobility is curtailed by the Israeli
defence forces, feel deprived of dignity. The Tamils in
Sri Lanka, who have to give up their linguistic advantage
and political balance of power because of constitutional
changes, feel deprived. The Acholis were socioeconomically
deprived for years but it wasn’t until the
Musevini government began to target them specifically
that they took up arms. The Moros of the Philippines
who see migrants from other parts of the country
dominating their economy feel relatively deprived not
just in an economic sense but also in a political and
cultural context. The Iraqis who see their country
overtaken by an external force feel relatively deprived
irrespective of the economic condition of any
particular citizen.
Another reason why “terrorism” is a poor qualifier. We define terrorism to suit our “needs”.
It is possible for any ideology, delivered by
determined and able leaders, anywhere in the world, to
transform those feeling excluded from their society
into terrorists or extremists. In public discourse,
however, there is an unfortunate effort made to
emphasize certain forms of terrorism. As the global
power structure is dominated by the West, attacks on
Western interests are defined as terrorism. The attacks
that do not target the United States and its allies are
defined as acts of ethnic conflict, freedom struggle, or
mere violence
Terrorism is vague and ill-defined. A “terrorist nation” is too, by consequence.
Western discourse on terrorism, with a focus on
Islamist extremism, is therefore neither entirely about
terrorism nor about Islamist extremism. It is not
entirely about terrorism because it does not include
terrorism practised by several national, sub-national
groups, labeling some of them as liberation
movements. It is not entirely about terrorism because
it hardly considers rural-based revolutionary
organisations, responsible for killing thousands of
people in Asia and Latin America. It is not entirely
about Islamist extremism because it blames the groups
in the Middle East that have no ambition to alter the
international order, while giving inadequate attention
to the specific organisations that want to establish a
Caliphate by violent means and that are positioning
themselves to succeed Al Qaeda in the International
Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders. In
ignoring the threats of terrorism around the world
from nationalist, sub-nationalist and revolutionary
groups that commit violent acts and ignoring the threats
posed by Central and South Asian Islamist
organisations to the global security, Western discourse
is selectively focussed on the Middle East. It is more
about the strategic interests of the West in a particular
region than the threats to humanity emanating from
the ideologies of mass destruction.
The media manipulates the focus and definition of terrorism by framing.
The mutually obsessive discourse in Western and
Islamic societies is manipulated by the media, either
by design or otherwise. If North Korea tests a nuclear
weapon the news disappears from the front page of
most newspapers within a couple of days. If Iraq or
Iran is suspected to have even the most elementary
capacity to develop such a weapon, this is major
news for months after months. If Lord’s Resistance
Army forces children to kill their siblings in thousands,
it is a human interest story that appears only
occasionally in the inside pages. If Iran’s President
threatens Israel, it is major news and the subject of
endless op-ed analysis.
In short, terrorism exists on exclusion. Especially unfair exclusion and perceived loss of dignity.
What do you suppose a disproportionate and ignorant measure like banning students from “terrorist nations” accomplishes?
It gets ignorant people to feel good about their safety. It excludes more people who are already living under conditions that fuel terrorism, and it completely misses the point.
Mr. Speaker, my guess is that in the not-too-distant future so-called
proof will be provided that Saddam Hussein was somehow partially
responsible for the attack on the United States, and it will be
irresistible then for the United States to retaliate against him. This
will greatly and dangerously expand the war and provoke even greater
hatred towards the United States, and it is all so unnecessary. It is
so hard for many Americans to understand how we inadvertently provoke
the Arab Muslim people, and I am not talking about the likes of bin
Laden and his gang. I am talking about the Arab Muslim masses.
Thornton says that it ‘is difficult to predict how long bubbles will last,’ but the geoclassical half of the geo-Austrian theory does provide an indication. Historically, the real-estate cycle has had a duration of 18 years, aside from the interruption of World War II. That puts the next real estate bottom around 2008 [link mine]. If past patterns continue, and so far they are right on schedule, we can expect the next recession to take place towards the end of this decade.
Fighting terrorism the way Bush wants to fight it is stupid. IF you want to fight terrorism, the best way to start is to stop creating terrorists, and furthermore, to stop giving them reasons to attack us.
If you don’t think about why they attack us in the first place, regardless of whether it has to do with us or not, YOU WILL NEVER ADDRESS THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM.
Due to the inaccessibility to English speakers of the Univision debate in Spanish, there are a lot of lies, half-truths, and misreporting about what actually went on there.
I translated the debate to clear up any confusion. As you will see, Ron Paul was cheered loudly for the most part especially regarding his opposition to a mandatory ID card, his opposition to the war, and when he spoke about the importance of the U.S. Constitution. Strangely, he was booed when he advocated normalizing trade and foreign relations with Cuba and Venezuela. As I soon found out, this is because there is a strong hatred among Cuban-Americans for Castro. However, as Ron Paul explained his position further, some began to clap. The rest of the candidates received polite applause after most responses, but none was cheered as loudly as Ron Paul.
Of course, Ron Paul’s advocacy for restoring trade and positive diplomatic relationships with Cuba and Venezuela was not well-received in Miami. In Los Angeles, or a different location, the response to Ron Paul’s argument would have been mostly positive because the logic would not have been clouded by personal anti-Castro resentment.
I can imagine Ron Paul regrets not mentioning that the point of restoring trade and positive relations is not to please Castro, but instead to stop punishing Americans who want to trade, and to stop punishing Cubans who want to trade for the actions of their dictator. Ron Paul did mention that we talked to Khrushchev and others during the Cold War. In an unrelated question Ron Paul even mentioned how we restored relations with Vietnam, to which everyone cheered. This inconsistency in the response of the audience (negative for improved relations with Cuba and positive for improved relations with Vietnam) is very telling; it shows that anti-Cuban sentiment is a rather automatic and deeply-ingrained emotional response, and that while restoring diplomatic relations with Vietnam instead of imposing sanctions is good, doing the same with Cuba (however logical) is unacceptable.
The other Republican candidates demonized Castro, and Giuliani took a shot at Ron Paul by implying he was weak (to which he received a mixed audience response). Although the moderators didn’t grant Ron Paul a rebuttal, Ron Paul comes out on top, and here is why: While Ron Paul is advocating trade and diplomacy, the other Republicans are advertising just how isolationist they are. Quite ironic, since they inaccurately like to call Ron Paul an isolationist.
Ron Paul is willing to talk and trade with all countries. If anyone is an isolationist, it is Giuliani, Romney, and the other Republicans AND Democrats who would not even talk to Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea. Most of the time they oppose trade with China, Syria, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Congo and Lebanon. Perhaps McCain can think twice before he ever calls Ron Paul an isolationist again - it is especially hypocritical of McCain since he tried to get Iran kicked off the FIFA World Cup in Germany (and failed).
Univision GOP Debate: Ron Paul Highlights with English translation (English Subtitles)
*Note: Subtitles are English translations of what the interpreters said in Spanish (that is, what the audience heard in Spanish, and not necessarily a verbatim transcript).
Here is a full transcript of the entire debate
**Youtube has removed the video due to possible copyright infringement issues. If there is enough demand, we may look for a work-around; however, we recommend visiting univision.com instead.
The short answer according to Pat Buchanan: “Who is pushing for attacks on Iran? Israel and its lobby: Cheney and Lieberman”. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps are a strategic and hypocritical excuse. Sensational intelligence is irrelevant. If we go to war, it will be based on Cheney’s whim.
Who is pushing for attacks on Iran? Israel and its lobby. Vice President Cheney. Sen. Joe Lieberman, who has been calling for air strikes on al Quds camps for months. And a War Party facing lasting disgrace for having lied the country into an unnecessary war and for having assured the American people it would be a “cakewalk.”
The arguments for war on Iran are both strategic and political.
Israel is terrified Iran will end its nuclear monopoly in the Middle East and wants an all-out U.S. war on Iran to prevent it. The War Party fears Iran may acquire a nuclear weapon, which would inhibit U.S. freedom of action in the Gulf and convince the Arab states that the United States is yesterday, and they must appease Iran or go nuclear themselves.
If you recall from a previous article on Irrelevant Intelligence, a war with Iran requires no basis in intelligence. According to Gabriel Kolko:
The function of intelligence anywhere is far less to encourage rational behavior–although sometimes that occurs–than to justify a nation’s illusions, and it is the false expectations that conventional wisdom encourages that make wars more likely, a pattern that has only increased since the early twentieth century.
We have made the strategic decision to label Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization for “supplying the weapons that are killing a growing number of American soldiers in Iraq”. This gives the illusion of a just war, since we are “technically” (read: semantically) at war with all terrorist organizations. Such are the wonders of a vague war on terrorism - a vague noun, incidentally.
But there is no good reason to go to war with Iran. If you recall the recent capture of British soldiers at the edge of Iranian waters, it seems that Iranian forces had more legitimacy in that area than the British soldiers did. After all, it is Iran’s neighborhood. If Iran was patrolling the border of American waters, you can be sure we’d capture and question the offending soldiers. Better yet (and I mean this in all sarcasm) we’d place them in a tripled Guantanamo and tested ‘enhanced interrogation’.
While there is no excuse for Iran’s actions, it is hypocritical to be outraged by them. And equally hypocritical is our use of Iran’s little proxy war - allegedly supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents - as they are trying to protect their sphere of influence. According to Pat Buchanan, we did the same when we aided France during the Pastry War in 1846.
It’s only natural to want to maintain the status quo or influence in your neighborhood. This is not an good excuse to go to war with Iran.
Don’t pay attention to new sensational intelligence; it won’t make a difference in the long run. Cheney has incessantly pushed for a war with Iran, and any future problems we have with Iran can be solved by (1) ceasing our needless intervention and (2) looking for other options. If the law of averages - the tendency for a variable to remain stable in the long term - is any indicator, there is no need to be afraid of Iran. Only Cheney and Lieberman’s trigger-happy mindset.
They usually mean the terrorists hate us for our freedoms. But it holds true to neoconservatives, because they too are terrorists.
They hate us for our freedoms
First, they want us to stop criticizing the war. They want to wiretap our phones. They want to control the flow of information on the internet. They want you to get a REAL ID, so they can track your movements “in case you are a terrorist”.
They hate our troops
They want to send our troops to die in a meaningless war.
Meaningless? That’s right - The war in Iraq is meaningless because there is no winning or losing. The point of the war is to taunt Iran and launch the United States into a global conflict that extends the global reach of a few power-hungry politicians. This brings me to the last point:
They hate the United States
By compromising our freedoms, the lives of our troops, and our national security, the neoconservatives are destroying the United States and what it stands for: liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Am I exaggerating? No. If you are a neoconservative who is serious about bringing democracy to the world, you could do it the right way: without force. The world will then stop hating us. If you want to stop terrorism, then look at why the world hates us: our foreign policy.
If you want to incite more hatred and make the world less safe, continue nation-building. If you want to take away our freedoms continue sending our soldiers to meaningless wars. Continue violating our privacy and our right to keep to ourselves. Continue instigating fear with meaningless terror alerts and empty rhetoric. Continue dividing the United States by pretending dissent is un-American.
“I have received more emails than I can count from people around the world who write to say that they wish they could be American citizens in order to have the privilege of voting for Ron Paul.” -Thomas E. Woods, Jr. from Having Fun Doing Good
Blogs in the international community are spreading Ron Paul’s message of freedom and giving tutorials on libertarianism, hoping to inform their fellow compatriots and to rally U.S. citizens in support of Ron Paul. The phenomenon is becoming widespread and growing as meet-up groups form around the world as far as Australia, Belgium, and Baghdad to discuss Ron Paul and create inspiring videos. This is what the world is saying about Ron Paul:
Can you imagine the the effect these kinds of politics would have on our [Latin American] countries, eternally paralyzed in the notion that everything that happens to us is the fault of the gringos? Chavez’s tantrums and his assassination paranoia would fall on completely deaf ears. One less tool in the recruitment arsenal of the [Venezuelan] left.
We want to be a bridge between Belgium and the Ron Paul campaign. Mainly to inform Belgium about Ron Paul—we think Belgium has more to learn from Ron Paul than Ron Paul from Belgium—but also to show to Ron Paul that when he becomes president and visits Belgium, there well be cheering crowds, not demonstrations!
Undoubtedly, Ron Paul is an exemplary model for libertarians around the entire world and Europe in particular. Since the Second World War, Europe got stuck with an increasingly sweeping welfare state which cost more and more money to European states. Reagan and Thatcher also had their influence in Belgium, for example, think of the nickname of the then still young Guy Verhofstadt who was called ‘Baby Thatcher’. When both Thatcher and Reagan disappeared from the picture, Verhofstadt had also went with the European flow. He could, as it turns out, not pursue liberalism alone.
Regardless of of how weak the dollar is currently, the United States is still the leading monetary power. In the case, and I realize that this approaches utopia, that Ron Paul succeeds in eliminating the power of the inflationary Federal Reserve, this undoubtedly will have consequences on the European central bank (ECB).
People who want to seize liberty in their country must for this reason look across the borders. This opportunity is undoubtedly available to those in the US themselves. There is an extremely large chance that the Democrats will win the elections, as people there do not understand the disadvantages of the welfare state the Democrats are enamored with.
He is a principled libertarian/classical liberal by political and economic philosophy. That is enough for him to have many new friends in India and Pakistan — both enormously large countries which are sorely in need of libertarian/classical liberal political and economic philosophy to develop themselves. Moreover, Dr Paul advocates a non-interventionist American foreign policy in the world, and he was a principled opponent of the Iraq war from long before it started. That too is something that people in India and Pakistan appreciate. […]
There are rich Indian-Americans paying big bucks to get close to people like Hillary Clinton. They need to stop being so opportunistic and instead look to what is truly in their adopted country’s and the world’s best interests: that is a Ron Paul Presidency.
[Translation: People in other countries wish they had what we have: Ron Paul.]
America launching aggressive wars in the world is not the way to earn the world’s respect or its leadership. Ron Paul, alone among the likely contenders, knows that.
Maybe this will give people in the United States a sense that there are other people out there who care about what we are doing in the world and who would respect us if we had a leader like Ron Paul and a respective foreign policy.
Ron Paul has become the third most searched name in Google and his videos have transformed into the most watched on YouTube. Nobody has probably heard him mentioned, or ultimately, you have heard his name in passing. It’s about a congressman for the U.S. Republican party who wants to be president in the United States in 2008.
Now, one could ask, what makes a Republican politician so special?
The answer lies in his history and his proposals, since Ron Paul seeks to return liberty to the citizens of the U.S. embodying the original principles of the revolution that gave the country its opportunities. An example we should attentively look at from Chile.
[…]
Ron Paul thus embodies the spirit of the North American “founding fathers”, who drew up the Constitution with the idea of protecting the citizenry from the abuse of the State. In this sense, Ron Paul embodies, the original North American idealist, largely devoting himself to libertarian ideals more so than the conservative ideals.
His discourse and relevance are causing him to win all the debates for the Republican primaries. […]
From now on, [he is] my favorite candidate for the U.S. elections in 2008.
Because Britain is suffering the EXACT same symptoms as the USA. We are being ruled, instead of having real representative democracy. Like us, the USA are being deceived too. Britain has almost being totaly swallowed up by a corrupt, undemocratic European Union. The USA are starting to go down the route of North American Union.
[…]
The USA has managed to do what we haven’t so far and got itself a champion of freedom. The Americans aren’t quite as docile and ready to accept a police state as we seem to be, so they have rallied behind the one politician they have with integrity. Maybe Britain doesn’t have such a person and thus why we are floundering.
Ron Paul winning in the States will send shockwaves of freedom around the world. Maybe the British will rediscover our spines if he does?
Public Polish Television (TVA), supported by our taxes, reported on the online presidential campaign in the United States on August 5, 2007. Peter Krazko informed Poles that the most popular candidate among online users is Barack Obama, an obvious lie. In the course of several minutes, not once is Ron Paul’s name mentioned, who definitively leads on YouTube, the biggest online portal in which users can upload videos, also political in nature. The Polish Television propanda is exposed here.
If I were an American I would vote for this guy, no doubt. I had been having this theory that it was the American foreign policy that was so messed up and it was the reason why America was so hated throughout the world and Ron Paul honestly supported my idea during the second GOP Presidential Debate in South Carolina. During the debate Ron Paul, a congressman from the state of Texas, courageously pointed his finger at American foreign policy of making terrible blowbacks in foreign nations. Ron Paul said that America should listen to the the people who attacked America about the reason why they did it. Ron Paul suggested that the only reason why America was attacked was because America had been messing around in other countries. A statement that resulted a hot debate with Rudy Rudy Giuliani. But I have to say, Ron Paul beat him. He said, “They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free, they attack us because we’re over there. I mean, what would we think if other foreign countries were doing that to us?” […]
Untuk Tasa Nugraza Barley: Aku akan memilih Ron Paul untuk kepentingan kamu dan siapa saja yang tidak dari Amerika Serikat. Terima Kasih untuk artikel kamu yang mendangkan ilham; dan salam Indonesia!
Some people ask us, why we care about an old Congressman from Texas. They ask us, what it has to do with Europe.
Well, it`s pretty simple: we support the only honest politician around. We support the only politician who addresses the REAL problems, who stands up against the lies we are being told.
It`s not our fault we don’t have any of those in Europe.
This is not about the USA. This is not about national entities. And, by the way, this is not about being “Anti-European“. The politics of the EU are “anti-european” as they breed conflict among us.
Thanks for the post. We must secure our own Ron Pauls here in Europe - it is extremely necessarily. And we will do it! The European r3volution will come, it will be so memorable we will tell our children about it :-))) heartfelt greetings, Tuur (RP Belgium)
Ron Paul’s grassroots campaign is especially interesting for functioning with an unknown degree of spontaneity and decentralization. It compels one to imagine a similar occurrence here in Brazil, right?
Ron Paul’s position on the Iraq war deserves special clarification - not only because this is one the more controversial aspects of the campaign, but mainly because it has great chance of being misunderstood by the majority of the Brazilian public.
Ron Paul, like the majority of Brazilian journalists, is against the Iraq war; however, his reasons for it are very different from that of our journalists. […]
[He is] against the war, but not against the United States […] He can be against the war and at the same time defend American values […]
Military force does not generate democracy: the futility of artificially creating new social orders […] The idea of spreading democracy through military intervention, therefore, is strictly anti-conservative, therefore a true conservative would know that each social order has deep roots in the culture of a people, and could not easily be modified through an external influence - less so if the external influence is military force, which tends to only disorganize effective institutions, without provoking changes in respect to values and ideas.
Therefore, Ron Paul contends that the only role the American government must have in relation to the internal affairs of the other countries is “to give a good example”. That is, the American government must show to the world the benefits of a free society, without involving itself directly in the decision of whether other countries imitate the American model or not. […]
The media has put out the idea that somehow Ron Paul isn’t right for our national security. Really? I wonder how much these critics know about Al Qaeda, our real interests, strategy or world politics.
Students and schools in Belgium and around the world outdo their counterparts in the United States; but it’s not about lack of money, it’s lack of competition and a surplus of bad teachers who have no incentive to teach well. But guess what? Independent schools that spend less money per student, but more per teacher in the United States outdo our public schools as well. How do we fix the problem? Increase competition. Does it still sound strange when Ron Paul says he wants to do away with the Department of Education? Don’t miss the following video:
Stupid in America
Do you want to learn more about Ron Paul? Visit RonPaul2008.com and watch the following video:
One consequence of Ron Paul’s sound foreign policy, is that people around the world will stop hating us - what will that do for terrorism?
Request: Please inform me about any translation errors, particularly in Dutch and Polish. If you come across any notable website supporting Ron Paul, particularly in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia, please send us a link, or post it under comments!
