The American people are not hearing the whole story in the mainstream media. 30 second and 2 minute sound-bites are not sufficient for a real discussion on the issues that the public, and indeed the world, need to hear and be educated about.
Listen to this short interview with Dr Ron Paul on Antiwar Radio. Scott Horton asks Dr Paul about the nature of an American empire and the current financial situation.
Direct MP3 link.
UPDATE: For a nice history of the horrific middle east boondoggle have a listen to Eric Margolis interviewed by Lew Rockwell.
Say No to conflict with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia!!
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Foreign Policy Needs to Change. Who will help us?
Ron Paul and Dwight D. Eisenhower – True Patriots
"Did President Eisenhower envision that the U.S. would have troops stationed in 70% of the world’s countries? According to the Defense Department’s latest "Personnel Strengths" report, the United States now has troops stationed in 147 countries and 10 territories. This is the greatest number of countries that the United States has ever had troops in. Why are we policing the world? What is the point of having 57,000 troops in Germany and 33,000 troops in Japan? Germany and Japan each spend $40 billion per year on their military. Can’t they defend themselves at this point? We defeated them 60 years ago. It is time to leave. This is a prelude to decades of occupation in Iraq. Don’t believe the blather about withdrawal. The military has no intention of withdrawing."
"It appears that the biggest winners of the War on Terror are the CEO’s of the defense contractors. I wonder if they realized how rich they would become as they watched the Twin Towers crumble to the ground. They have virtually tripled their annual income, while the average American scratched out a 20% increase over 6 years. They have managed to generate the tremendous profits and personal wealth while only employing 10% more employees. Boeing and Raytheon were actually able to reduce their workforce. How productive. These contractors will do everything in their power to retain and increase these fabulous profits."
Written by Jim Quinn: Senior Director of Strategic Planning, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
"Did President Eisenhower envision that the U.S. would have troops stationed in 70% of the world’s countries? According to the Defense Department’s latest "Personnel Strengths" report, the United States now has troops stationed in 147 countries and 10 territories. This is the greatest number of countries that the United States has ever had troops in. Why are we policing the world? What is the point of having 57,000 troops in Germany and 33,000 troops in Japan? Germany and Japan each spend $40 billion per year on their military. Can’t they defend themselves at this point? We defeated them 60 years ago. It is time to leave. This is a prelude to decades of occupation in Iraq. Don’t believe the blather about withdrawal. The military has no intention of withdrawing."
"It appears that the biggest winners of the War on Terror are the CEO’s of the defense contractors. I wonder if they realized how rich they would become as they watched the Twin Towers crumble to the ground. They have virtually tripled their annual income, while the average American scratched out a 20% increase over 6 years. They have managed to generate the tremendous profits and personal wealth while only employing 10% more employees. Boeing and Raytheon were actually able to reduce their workforce. How productive. These contractors will do everything in their power to retain and increase these fabulous profits."
President Eisenhower’s final words are the most chilling. "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." We did not heed his wisdom. Laurence Vance, author of "What’s Wrong with the U.S. Global Empire?", contends that our foreign policy "is not right, it’s unnatural, it’s very expensive, it’s against the principles of the Founding Fathers, it fosters undesirable activity, it increases hatred of Americans, it perverts the purpose of the military, it increases the size and scope of the government, it makes countries dependent on the presence of the U.S. military, and finally, because the United States is not the world’s policeman." War and non-stop conflict benefit the military industrial complex. It is in their best interest for them to support candidates that favor an aggressive foreign policy. This could lead to Defense companies using their influence to provoke conflict throughout the world.
In conclusion, I again turn to the wisdom of Ron Paul, the only presidential candidate speaking the truth to the American public. In a speech before Congress several months before the Iraq invasion, his words were reminiscent of President Eisenhower’s.
"The basic moral principle underpinning a non-interventionist foreign policy is that of rejecting the initiation of force against others. It is based on non-violence and friendship unless attacked, self-determination, and self-defense while avoiding confrontation, even when we disagree with the way other countries run their affairs. It simply means that we should mind our own business and not be influenced by special interests that have an ax to grind or benefits to gain by controlling our foreign policy. Manipulating our country into conflicts that are none of our business and unrelated to national security provides no benefits to us, while exposing us to great risks financially and militarily."
"If we followed a constitutional policy of non-intervention, we would never have to entertain the aggressive notion of preemptive war based on speculation of what a country might do at some future date. Political pressure by other countries to alter our foreign policy for their benefit would never be a consideration. Commercial interests and our citizens investing overseas could not expect our armies to follow them and protect their profits."
If as a country we continue to allow our politicians and their military industrial complex corporate sponsors to spend $700+ billion per year on weapons, to the detriment of higher education, alternative energy projects, and national infrastructure needs, we will be paying an extremely high price. We are in a classic guns or butter scenario. The Bush Administration has decided to choose guns while borrowing from our grandchildren and the Chinese to pay for the butter. This can work for a while, but as deficits accumulate, the dollar plummets, and inflation rears its ugly head, our great country will decline as other empires who overstepped their bounds declined.
Read the full article here. Complete with charts etc.Written by Jim Quinn: Senior Director of Strategic Planning, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Neocons: Incommunicado
Leave it to Christopher Manion to smash the silence that is seemingly an integral aspect in the official neoconservatives strategy on domination.
Scott Horton interviews this son of Clarence Manion, who's no Michael A. Ledeen, and they discuss some history in "conservative" ideology, who 'holds the line' on these ideas, and what the impetus is behind this grouping. This audio primer can lead one to a better understanding of what the reality and hence speculative expectations can be under neocon influences.
Manion: "Neoconservatives will always blame someone else."
Scott Horton interviews this son of Clarence Manion, who's no Michael A. Ledeen, and they discuss some history in "conservative" ideology, who 'holds the line' on these ideas, and what the impetus is behind this grouping. This audio primer can lead one to a better understanding of what the reality and hence speculative expectations can be under neocon influences.
Manion: "Neoconservatives will always blame someone else."
Monday, November 10, 2008
Please help fund this peaceful effort.
If you consider yourself a genuine stalwart in defense of the innocent go now and contribute what you can to this great source of information about who-what-when-where-and-why so much war is sold to the highest bidder and paid for by the unknown.
Why Ron Paul Lost the Nomination
Peter Schiff is interviewed by people who don't understand their guests positions. [Youtube]
The fact that Peter has been interviewed so frequently in recent times is great and it is testimony to the fact that there is a demand for more and diverse voices on this ever-elusive subject. I completely encourage more discussion and debate on this topic of economics.
[For another angle on the Obama election, etc. check out this Nov 8 2008 radio broadcast]
There are seriously neglected yet valid points of view to be exploited.
And that's what I wanted to criticize....
The questions they ask are fine, and the conversation is never lame, and the point Peter makes is allowed to be heard. But....
If CNBC agreed with his position they would help promote it. Instead, they ask a question, allow Schiff to respond, and then follow up with short injections of obvious non-knowledgeable questions or outright ridiculous remarks. The video contains a few remarks like "I don't disagree with what you're saying [Peter]," "gold has no inherent value [CNBC]," "i love talking to you because sometimes it makes sense [CNBC]
I can only assume that the purpose of airing the interview and Peter's positions is genuine on some level, yet purposefully displayed to lead the viewer. If you tell a lie long enough you start to believe it as they say. Likewise, so long as any notions like that of Peter Schiff are displayed as politically unfeasible, political suicide, irrational, fringe, or misguided, and so long as those ideas that are promoted by most of the mainstream press and other political leaders, which are in obvious and stark contrast to Schiff's ideas, one can expect the general populace, short of thinking for themselves, to continue their blissful march off the edge of a cliff.
So essentially, it is reminiscent of the reaction to Ron Paul's campaign, not only did the Republican Party shut out Ron Paul and make it known that they don't believe what Ron Paul believes, the media was no help and only helped to remove Ron Paul from any spotlight and thereby deprive the voters of a more rounded discussion on the issues. (Not that the major media is ever a good example of educational material)
One can only trust that the viewers can think for themselves on some level and I hope they make it known that the treatment of such reasonable voices has been unjust and undeserving. Peter Schiff and those like him are continuing to gain popularity due to the reality of the situation. As it becomes clearer that their positions are closer to the truth than people may have wanted to admit in the past, interviews such these have become more prevalent and respectful. (Looking at older media on this same material one can see the attitude towards Schiff's positions as undeniably hostile. Ron Paul's Presidential Debate youtube clips are evidence that he was right on target, thought the press at the time either ignored him or downplayed his remarks. Attacking him gained nothing and doing so only served to give Ron Paul more media which is not what any of those in the establishment wanted to see.)
Just as Peter has been given more airtime lately, Paul has also been interviewed as a representative of the millions of people who support and acknowledge the validity of the arguments they put forth. The demand is there, the price will get cheaper and more people will buy in, but the market is being stripped of its power and replaced with red-tape and political monitors. What can we expect in the next election?
Having seen what the Party was like in the primaries this time around, it will be difficult to participate next time around, but if there is another Ron Paul, I may go once again to help gain such a person the nomination.
The fact that Peter has been interviewed so frequently in recent times is great and it is testimony to the fact that there is a demand for more and diverse voices on this ever-elusive subject. I completely encourage more discussion and debate on this topic of economics.
[For another angle on the Obama election, etc. check out this Nov 8 2008 radio broadcast]
There are seriously neglected yet valid points of view to be exploited.
And that's what I wanted to criticize....
The questions they ask are fine, and the conversation is never lame, and the point Peter makes is allowed to be heard. But....
If CNBC agreed with his position they would help promote it. Instead, they ask a question, allow Schiff to respond, and then follow up with short injections of obvious non-knowledgeable questions or outright ridiculous remarks. The video contains a few remarks like "I don't disagree with what you're saying [Peter]," "gold has no inherent value [CNBC]," "i love talking to you because sometimes it makes sense [CNBC]
I can only assume that the purpose of airing the interview and Peter's positions is genuine on some level, yet purposefully displayed to lead the viewer. If you tell a lie long enough you start to believe it as they say. Likewise, so long as any notions like that of Peter Schiff are displayed as politically unfeasible, political suicide, irrational, fringe, or misguided, and so long as those ideas that are promoted by most of the mainstream press and other political leaders, which are in obvious and stark contrast to Schiff's ideas, one can expect the general populace, short of thinking for themselves, to continue their blissful march off the edge of a cliff.
So essentially, it is reminiscent of the reaction to Ron Paul's campaign, not only did the Republican Party shut out Ron Paul and make it known that they don't believe what Ron Paul believes, the media was no help and only helped to remove Ron Paul from any spotlight and thereby deprive the voters of a more rounded discussion on the issues. (Not that the major media is ever a good example of educational material)
One can only trust that the viewers can think for themselves on some level and I hope they make it known that the treatment of such reasonable voices has been unjust and undeserving. Peter Schiff and those like him are continuing to gain popularity due to the reality of the situation. As it becomes clearer that their positions are closer to the truth than people may have wanted to admit in the past, interviews such these have become more prevalent and respectful. (Looking at older media on this same material one can see the attitude towards Schiff's positions as undeniably hostile. Ron Paul's Presidential Debate youtube clips are evidence that he was right on target, thought the press at the time either ignored him or downplayed his remarks. Attacking him gained nothing and doing so only served to give Ron Paul more media which is not what any of those in the establishment wanted to see.)
Just as Peter has been given more airtime lately, Paul has also been interviewed as a representative of the millions of people who support and acknowledge the validity of the arguments they put forth. The demand is there, the price will get cheaper and more people will buy in, but the market is being stripped of its power and replaced with red-tape and political monitors. What can we expect in the next election?
Having seen what the Party was like in the primaries this time around, it will be difficult to participate next time around, but if there is another Ron Paul, I may go once again to help gain such a person the nomination.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Economics and a Way in life.
Surely one of Rockwell's finest pieces of work.
LoL...
LoL...
~ "Google trends records a massive increase in searches for Austrian economics, with the leading city for most such searches being Washington, DC, but extending to all areas of the world." ~ ·Lew Rockwell·
Google Trends
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Lectures on current economics.
Peter Boettke gives a great presentation at the FFF. The first lecture begins with the market, theory, and current interpretations vs history.
The 2 Part gives a good intro to the austrian school of economics.
The 2 Part gives a good intro to the austrian school of economics.
World News for Nov 2, 2008
Joan Mariner on Guantonamo. Let's close this monstrosity, but let's do it right.
[Listen to this little known episode in American history of what happens when POWs are left to the political whims of bureaucrats. President of the FFF tells all]
The latest [Nov 2] antiwar.com/radio interview is on the 'legality' of torture. Daphne Eviatar is lawyer and journalist for the Washington Independent.
Robert Dreyfuss gives Scott Horton the low-down on national boundaries, international militarism, and what this means to America, the next President, and ultimately the world. (I might add, the President is not the leader of the US so much as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces which are in permanent deployment, i.e., The emperor of the world.)
[Listen to this little known episode in American history of what happens when POWs are left to the political whims of bureaucrats. President of the FFF tells all]
The latest [Nov 2] antiwar.com/radio interview is on the 'legality' of torture. Daphne Eviatar is lawyer and journalist for the Washington Independent.
Robert Dreyfuss gives Scott Horton the low-down on national boundaries, international militarism, and what this means to America, the next President, and ultimately the world. (I might add, the President is not the leader of the US so much as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces which are in permanent deployment, i.e., The emperor of the world.)
"The Future of Libertarianism"
Justin Raimondo speaks at the Future of Freedom Foundation.
On Kochtopus and the Rothbardians...and who will prevail.
Q & A here (part 6)
Roderick T. Long presents his lecture on Rothbard's Left & Right, 40 Years Later.
Be sure to see Long's: An Anarchist Legal Order, part of the Foundation of Libertarian Ethics series.
On Kochtopus and the Rothbardians...and who will prevail.
Q & A here (part 6)
Roderick T. Long presents his lecture on Rothbard's Left & Right, 40 Years Later.
Be sure to see Long's: An Anarchist Legal Order, part of the Foundation of Libertarian Ethics series.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)