Bottom line is, all these political ponies, both Republican and Democrat including Edwards (who voted for the war), are bought and paid for by the elite establishment (CFR, Bilderberg, AIPAC etc). They run along the same circular track all going in the same basic direction, NOWHERE, as far as real change is concerned. With any of them it will be business as usual, meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Perpetual war, police state and the inexorable march toward centralized global dictatorship, with tyranny and microchips for all.
The only maverick and real independent among them is Ron Paul, a real man, that is a real human being who is really on our (humanity’s) side. He is the only one who is not following the lead of establishment agendas and also has a real chance to get nominated.
If you are anti-war, anti-fascist, anti-globalization and anti-establishment, and you have not carefully investigated and listened to RP, I suggest you start looking and compare his libertarian vision with the lies and empty rhetoric of the establishment puppet ponies. Whether you agree with all of his positions or not, you will see that he alone can steer us away from calamity. And even if you strongly disagree with some of his positions, you can relax, because he is anti-authoritarian in accordance with restrictions on the executive in the constitution. Not only that, but his main thrust will be to put the power back into the hands of the people by repealing federal interventions in state’s rights. Then, you will be able to make your own laws in your own states and local goverments and have it your way. Local control is absolutely the only way to excercise freedom and liberty which is at the top of Ron Paul’s agenda.
And finally, his record on the war is spotlessly against the whole thing from day one, unlike most of the Democrats and Republicans. So what’s it gonna be folks? Will you vote for the black man, the woman, the cute guy, the guy with the best hairdo, the guy who wraps himself in the flag or will you vote for a person based on his voting record, on matters that count the most?
Now Who’s “Bush-Cheney Lite”?
by Robert Naiman
Just when some folks might have been thinking that Hillary Clinton had been magically transformed into an actual opponent of the neocon Empire project, what with her outrageous suggestion that the Pentagon might consider talking with Congress about contingency plans for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, she and her campaign went and manufactured a controversy about whether or not the U.S. should talk to countries that it doesn’t like, scoring points with the Washington punditry but moving our country further away from a sane foreign policy.
Just when some folks might have thought that Barack Obama was a real alternative, given his full-throated defense of the commonsense notion that the U.S. should, in fact, talk to countries that it doesn’t like, he tries to burnish his Empire credentials in response to the attacks by Hillary’s people by saying that the U.S. should invade Pakistan, even without the Pakistani government’s permission. Never mind that (a) this would be a blatant violation of international law (b) it could go very, very badly (c) lots of innocent people would die and (d) such statements actually undermine the Pakistani government’s efforts to suppress violent Islamic militancy.
So today’s bright spot is: Edwards said something reasonable about Iran. He criticized the Bush Administration’s proposal for a massive new arms sales package in the Middle East, saying it would give Iran an incentive to strengthen its nuclear program:
Edwards said the arms deal could backfire by giving Iran an incentive to build its nuclear strength. “They have to try to offset the conventional arms deficiencies that they’re faced with,” Edwards said. “That’s the whole problem with this idea that you deal with these things in terms of what’s helpful at the moment instead of what needs to be done over the long term.”
Unlike most of official Washington, he also called foul on the Bush administration’s coddling of Saudi Arabia — arguably playing a far more disruptive role in Iraq than the government of Iran, which — unlike the Saudis — is actually allied with the same people in Iraq that the U.S. is allied with:
Edwards said the United States should require the Saudi government to shut down the movement of terrorists across its borders, help stabilize the Iraqi government and participate more seriously in regional security before they are offered weapons. “Whether it’s Iraq or terrorism, the Saudis have fallen way short of what they need to be doing,” the 2004 vice presidential nominee told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. “And the Bush administration’s response is to sell them $20 billion worth of arms, which is short-term and convenient and not what the United States should be doing.”
Here’s hoping that Edwards doesn’t endure a torrent of Washington pundit abuse for daring to be the voice of reason.