My Ron Paul Rant

You all know about the contraversy about Ron Paul as he said that the US policy was a contributing factor causing the september 11th attacks. But if Rudy would have read the 9/11 commission reports he would have realized that their were many admitting that there was blowback. The amount of people and antiamerican troops in Iraq and afghanistan has only gotten greater, not smaller.
But we've been brainwashed for years by the old media not to think for ourselves, and even the so called alternative media at times. They've tried to propagate the idea that "you can't fight the wars over there so we don't have to fight them here. But come on... you mean to tell me that if Iraq was occupying our holy land, our churches, our temples, our places for prayer, and killing many innocent lives that at least some of us wouldn't get out our tomahawks and guns and fight Mel Gibson Patriotic style all out? Of course we would!... And you mean to tell me that our government wouldn't orginize some sort of attack on Iraq in retaliation? That we wouldn't build up our military, and increasing the advertisement for increased millitary personell? If they were fighting us here, I know that if people were forced to pull out there guns and help that they would be more people joining the military.
Osama Bin Ladin sent out videos saying essentially "we are attacking you because you defend Israel our enemy and have not stopped... We are attacking you because you occupy our neighboring middle east countries..."
The US certainly wouldn't orginize an attack where the intention of killing them involves suiside bombing, but there would be many willing to die to defend it if need be. The logic "a best defense is a good offense" is incredibly faulty, because if they also maintain that same logic, we have no one to defend ourselves, and both countries end up destroying ourselves. They have the homefield advantage...
Meanwhile we have 130 or so countries occupied with US bases set up... there are only 190 countries. We have had troops in Korea, and everywhere. Bush in 2000 claimed that he would engge in no nation building, and use that as a point to beat Al Gore. He also claimed to advocate a humble foreign policy... From Bush's official who was fired (I can't recall his name if someone can help me out that'd be great, otherwize I'll look for a link), it was said that on day one he said "find me a way to go after Sadaam). Personally I'm curious about Bush's motivation. We live in a nation that unfortunately is becomming one of coorperations funding both sides of presidential campaigns... Special interest groups, etc. With Iraq having precious oil that is valuable to companies like Haliburton, it certainly is possible that Bush could only accept the money if he made certain agreements.


I for many years had thought the idea "war is bad, but sometimes there comes a time when it's neccesary." Although I still maintain that idea in some respect that idea has changed considerably and has become much more specific. Even if it is neccesary, it should not be done without the propper support from the representatives. And it should not be done pre emptively.
Dwight D Eisenhower can be found quoted as saying "Pre emptive war is an invension of Hitler, frankly I would not even listen to someone that proposed such an idea." Funny, Eisenhower was a republican.

Bush claims to be a republican, but he goes to war without the congress voting for it, without the approvqal of the UN, he's been quoed as saying "this would be a hcek of a lot easier if this was a dictatorship, as long as I was the dictator". In addition, Bush cliamed to be a man of humble foreign policy and no nation building, but he went to Iraq anyways and that's exactly what he's doing. He also said that he's a republican which stands for limited government. oh really? is that why he spent more money than all of the presidents in history combined? I regrettably supported Bush for 6 years with the 2004 vote being me not really considering him the "lesser of two evils", but more so me paying too much attention to why I disliked Kerry an believing somehow that killing more people in Iraq would lead to less deaths overall. Soon I started to question his actions more and more as I learned more about him. But there came a point when I couldn't write his actions off as the "liberal media bias". I did my own research, and certainly didn't like what I saw. I still think that there's certainly a decent possibility that Bush and Cheney might just be following the demands of special interest groups, and a small probability that he's protecting his secret fraternal order's agenda that both he and Kerry admitted to being members but saying "it's so secret we can't talk about it."
curiously enough, when someone asked about it in a joking matter to John Kerry he was pinned down and tased for not allowing the police to arrest him for expressing his freedom of speech. This resulted in him being tased annd that's when the infamous "dont tase me bro" resulted.
Well the american people seem to want to put an end to this, as do I, and I'm sure you do too...
Ron Paul also represents the people in this regard
He wants to End government secrecy; restore openness of information. (Aug 2007)

http://ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm
I demand some answers. The fact that there is such secracy is peculiar enough, nevermind the fact that people say Cheny ordered a stand down before the trade center was hit the 2nd time. nevermind the connection between Hitler and Bush both being quoted as saying "
"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland"

Adolf Hitler gave this speach when announcing the Gestapo to the people of Nazi Germany:

"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland"
I have only seen written quotes saying that Hitler said that quote, but I have seen video of Bush saying that exact quote.
But one connection is also peculiar. Hitler blamed the bombing of the radio tower on Poland, and eventually it lead to a holywar, which he later blamed the Jews. This was proved later to have been planned by Hitler. Now Bush retaliated to the September 11th attacks going after afghanistan. Somehow it turned to a war in Iraq, and an aggressive offensive pre emptive war in Iraq. Hitler used Pre emptive war and propagated the idea of an offensive war. The scariest thing about it is, both repiublican AND democratic candidates that are given the attention of the media support this preemptive strike.
Even if it's possible that the war would save more lives in the long run, which I know believe to be totally false unless there' somseone that actually starts taking action and declaring war and arming nukes, etc... It's not going to do so by much, and it's costing us 100's of billions of dollars. Think of how much more good we could do with that money.Huckabee, Guiliani, Romeny on one side... Clinton, Edwards, Obama on the other... All of these people are not even taking the idea of pre emptive war off the table involving Iran who doesn't even have an army, navy, military that could scare even a small police force. They don't have nuclear weapons, they may be in thre process of getting one, but if Reagan would have bombed the soviats, you bet the would have the inceentive to use one, and we would have had global nuclear war. Instead we had an arms race, and then after the Soviats realized they couldn't win without sever consequences for both sides, let alone the fact that they were probably just using the aqcuiring of these nukes to gain power and respect and robably weren't going to use it, we then agreed to disarm and disengage the nuclear weapons if they did. If he would have instead attacked, if either one of either us or the soviets atck, that could have meant the end of civilization . Pre emptive war is absolutely idiotic, especially with the possibility of nuclear war. Although I have looked into all of the other issues, for this reason alone is enough to support Ron Paul. Ron Paul wants to bring ALL of our troops home as soon as we can do so safely. That means all the troops that are in Korea, etc. That's saves us Millions oh wait... hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Then he can knock down the size of the government not only restoring our freedoms but saving us billions more. With that he can get rid of the IRS and promote free market and more people will spend money stimulating the economy, not weakening it. Andhe can then get rid of all the government ssecrecy, he can start using the government to print money rather then the federal reserve which is owned by privates banks and cost us interest. Then once the competing currency is down he can get rid of the federal reserve. He can get rid of the korrupt CIA that has lied to people in the past including presidents, and appears to have their own agenda.
This is a country that our forefathers fought, and many of our soldiers fought to keep free, keep the government limited and out of our lives. yet every year it's grown. Thomas Jefferson said something to the extend of, if it doeesn't work democracy), we should not return to a rule similar to Englad, but move more towards n anarchy such asthe native americans (that's a vague memory of what was actually said, but the idea is the same (I will check that quote to find the exact one if need be). For those of you that don't think anarchy can work, well that's exactly what we had in Massachucetts before the Declaration was signed... But people got along just fine without any rules, and they were very kind and friendly. Maybe anarchy can't work with such Tyrants that will invade aND PILLAGE LIKE THE ENGLISH INQUISITION, AND OTHERS MAY DO, BUT WE CERTAINLY CAN DO WITH A GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE THE WAY OUR FOREFATHERS WANTED. tHERE'S ONLY ONE PROBLEM WITH A VERY SMALL LIMITED GOVERNMENT, AND THAT'S THAT SECRET ORGINIZATIONS AND BROTHERHOOD CAN BECOME LARGE ENOUGH ESPECIALLY THROUGH COOPERATIONS FUNDING THE to infiltrate it. People can have connections with groups that have certain desires and motivation.. Fortunately I believe that with as much information avaluable as there is, we will know what people are involved in. The old addage "he who controls the eyeballs controlls the brain" is an important one to recognize as well. Unfortunately the mainstreem media has been able to do just that. But fortunately with technology and the internet being so avalilable to the public, people can find their own information. It would be nice, but unneccesary for the "mainstreem media" to also be run by the people for the people. It is my belief that the government should only act to PROTET our freedoms as technology grows. Fortunately for us, technology growth is big enough where government can't prevent the exchange of information. Even in a police state people would overthrow it in some areas and get the message out to the policemen. After seeing Nazi Germany in a police stte and so many people opposed, I very much doubt that that could happen, even by use of technology. Then people point to the possibility of election rigging. Sorry,the election rigging of Ohio has been exposed. Now that the information is out there, there's no way that if all of you act to ensure that the elections aren't rigged that they can do it. If everyone asks ahead of tiem for polls to be handcounted, recepts printed and handcounted and verified, ask to view the source code and have a copy of it. Post it on the online forums and ask your fellow computer nerds if th source code correctly counts every vote and not a vote more. If possible document your own vote, take pictures of you checking the presidential name whether it be Ronpaul or someone else.
They're clearly trying to hide the amount of support from Ron Paul, and the majority of the people that actually intend on voting will vote Ron Paul according to many polls. For the first time since I can remember the nation is actually uniting for one message, democrats and republicans alike... resotre our constitutional rights and stop fighting "100 year wars" that we can't afford. Forget titles of republican and democrat, you don't stand for a name for a party, you stand for certain values. If you're a pro life republican, shouldn't you be against the wars? If you're a "pro choice" democrat, shouldn't you have the choice to do what you want and not what the government tells you to?
Politics always has people use the term "anti aerican" to somehow indicate anyone who's against their personal agenda. Its nothing but word and emotional manipuliization, the only way you can be antiamerican is by promoting alarge government. If you don't support the slaughtering of certain goroups tht doesn't make you a terrorist does it? it's this double speak used in politics to manipulate to tell people what they want. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for freedom, plain and simple.