There is an article in today’s Wall Street Journal titled The Mortal Threat from Iran, by Mark Helprin, which begins with this line: “To assume that Iran will not close the Strait of Hormuz is to assume that primitive religious fanatics will perform cost-benefit analyses the way they are done at Wharton.” If that didn’t get my propagan-dar pinging, nothing would. Dehumanizing the target and terrifying us with death threats are classic earmarks of war propaganda. Given that not a single dissenting voice on this issue can be heard from the mainstream media–the left-dominated TV arm and the right-dominated radio arm–one wonders why the Wall Street Journal is coming out so strongly on this. I mean, of course this country of 70 million people is working to develop a bomb they will gleefully pop off at Israel so they can cheer wildly as they watch 300 missiles rain down on themselves in retaliation–they are irrational, primitive, religious fanatics, after all, every one of whom would love to commit suicide as soon as possible. Why even bother pounding the drums, let’s just wipe them off the face of the earth and be done with it already. Oh, but what is that kooky Ron Paul always on about? “Maybe there are people over there” or some such nonsense–hmm. I know it’s a silly waste of time, but before I paint my face and grab a flag, I just want to see if there’s any possible explanation for Ron Paul’s weird position. (I mean, what kind of freak applies the Golden Rule to foreigners anyway?)
So, just for giggles, I went to Foreign Policy Journal online for an alternative viewpoint on the subject and I found one from none other than the always outspoken and never politically correct Paul Craig Roberts. This is it:
The Next War on Washington’s Agenda
by Paul Craig Roberts
Only the blind do not see that the US government is preparing to attack Iran. According to Professor Michel Chossudovsky, “Active war preparations directed against Iran (with the involvement of Israel and NATO) were initiated in May 2003.”
Washington has deployed missiles directed at Iran in its oil emirate puppet states, Oman and the UAE, and little doubt in the other US puppet states in the Middle East. Washington has beefed up Saudi Arabia’s jet fighter force. Most recently, Washington has deployed 9,000 US troops to Israel to participate in “war games” designed to test the US/Israeli air defense system. As Iran represents no threat unless attacked, Washington’s war preparations signal Washington’s intention to attack Iran.
Continue reading this article at Foreign Policy Journal.
For another view, watch Col. Shaffer on Freedomwatch:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUrX9t9v3rY]
War on Terror
Ron Paul Video: "Ron Paul shames Santorum & Bachmann with Biblical argument of a Just War"
Here is a concise and lucid overview of the moral and legal bases of Ron Paul’s foreign policy position. (It really does look like Bachman and Santorum are passing notes to each other–probably saying something like, “Holy Crap! This guy actually BELIEVES this Bible stuff!”)
Here’s another video that may help correct some misperceptions of Ron Paul and his foreign policy.
What Ron Paul Thinks of America–Rebuttal
Here is a letter I sent to the editor of the Wall Street Journal regarding an article published on December 22. (I imagine they get millions of letters after they slam Ron Paul, so I doubt it’ll get published there, but hey, this is what the Internet is for!)
Dear Sir:
In her opinion piece, “What Ron Paul Thinks of America,” Dorothy Rabinowitz implies that Ron Paul, like Barack Obama, hates America. This could not be further from the truth. Dr. Paul loves America, but it’s an America that makes people so proud and patriotic that they take certain basic principles for granted, blinding them to the realities of the New American Way. Ms Rabinowitz also suggests that Dr. Paul disregards the suffering of the victims of 9/11. This too is untrue. Dr. Paul actually wants to prevent such suffering in the future by objectively evaluating what it is in our power to control. While, as Ms Rabinowitz points out, President Obama traverses half the globe making speeches apologizing for Bush’s America, the President’s actions reflect and even magnify his predecessor’s foreign policy–a policy that on the campaign trail he claimed to abhor and then was elected to reverse. In contrast, Dr. Paul has a deep respect for America and would not renege on his promise to return her to her principles.Â
The voters want the War on Terror to end if only because it’s not working: Radical Islam continues to fill the voids we leave in our wake and there’s no end in sight to our destabilizing policies. We The People are being forced to look more critically at our government’s actions. Unfortunately, it’s hard for us to get the facts and think for ourselves with both wings of the mainstream-media spouting the same propaganda in support of endless war. At least Dr. Paul prompts us to look past the jingoism and think a few things through.
Sincerely,
Monica Perez
I just read a great article in the Foreign Policy Journal also rebutting this WSJ article.
Also, Hornberger’s Blog at The Future of Freedom Foundation goes into great depth in his rebuttal of Rabinowitz’s piece.
"Merry Christmas, Sheriff!" Homeland Security Treats Texas Town to a Brand New Surveillance Drone!
“What? You Don’t LOVE It?!”
I read in today’s Wall Street Journal that Homeland Security bought Montgomery County, Texas, a $300,000 surveillance drone. Not only does this smack of both the surveillance state and crony capitalism–the US government is promoting drone sales abroad as well–but it’s an abuse of taxpayers’ money to use federal funds to pad the policing power of municipalities. Federal funding of municipal responsibilities eliminates even the indirect possibility of connecting the costs and (alleged) benefits of government spending. (In this case in particular, the benefits themselves are clearly mixed. The title of the article tells the story: The Law’s New Eye in the Sky: Police Departments’ Use of Drones Is Raising Concerns Over Privacy and Safety.)
The Articles of Confederation and Thomas Jefferson’s own philosophy both forbade forced taxation at the federal level. American citizens were meant to have control of their government and that meant keeping taxing and spending decisions close to home. It is the disconnection of spending decisions from even the implied consent of the taxed that allows government to get out of control. Faced with the direct connection between spending and taxation, a citizenry will push back when an expense is clearly not worth the money, or worse is actually potentially harmful to the people–local governments reject such initiatives all the time. However, as taxes go underground and spending decisions become more remote, it’s harder for taxpayers to identify when enough is enough, much less to stop the madness.
The government, of course, does all it can to forestall tax resistance. Providing the mechanism to obfuscate excessive taxation and circumvent tax resistance is what makes the Federal Reserve such an insidious tool of big banksters and crony capitalists. The Fed, which is and always has been a private corporation owned by large banks, makes an agreement with the Treasury: abdicate to us your right to control the money supply, and in turn we will print money to buy the bonds that finance your profligate spending and allow you to shift the tax burden onto a future constituency.
The withholding method of taxation is similarly devious. By forcing one’s employer to make it a condition of employment that he pays your tax bill before he pays your wages, the government has eliminated its traditional stooge, the tax collector, and the natural resistance he engenders. Co-opting employers masks the use of force inherent in all taxation and emasculates a powerful tool of taxpayer resistance, the tax revolt.
In the case of Montgomery’s drone, not only is the tax side of the equation manipulated by using federal funds for a purely local purpose, but also the spending side is manipulated by masquerading cronyism and intrusiveness as a public good, i.e., defense. Nothing will push the tax resistance threshold higher than fear of physical danger. . . .Enter the Drug War and the War on Terror.
In these cases the government creates an ever-increasing demand for its own services because it is both the antagonist and the hero. The more the government spends battling reactionary and amorphous opponents such as drugs and terror, the greater the dangers become, and there can never be a definitive victory because there is no definitive enemy. The Drug War is surging in Mexico and Guatemala and at the same time heroin production in Afghanistan is going through the roof thanks to both the Great American Drug War and the Glorious War on Terror. In its own right, the War on Terror has eliminated the two most powerful opponents of radical Islam in the Middle East, Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi. (I am not defending these two murderers, just making a point.) The government gets bigger, the cronies get paid, the people acquiesce to higher and higher spending, and it can go on forever.
Well, almost forever.
The obvious underlying horror of Montgomery’s drone is not that you and I paid for it, it’s that Homeland Security didn’t donate the drone in an altruistic effort to help local law enforcement investigate accidents and keep good citizens safe. There are myriad self-serving reasons that Homeland Security would want down-home drones like this one. Among these reasons, I fear, is to monitor those same good citizens for signs they’ve had enough of spendthrift and overreaching government and might finally be mounting a resistance. When that day comes, the citizens of Montgomery County might wish they had left this particular present under the tree.