Why U.S. Foreign Policy Must Change from Global Democratic Jihad to National Self-Defense

She [America] has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.... 

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

        --John Quincy Adams, Independence Day Address 1821

"It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

       -- President George W. Bush, Inaugural Address 2005.

It is more than ironic that while Republicans appeal to America's Founders (most justly) that they fail to heed them when it comes to foreign policy.  George Washington warned of "entangling interests" or alliances as dangerous and Presidents like Adams above extolled America's restraint in interference.  Their view was not that America should be a militaristic global policeman (and they never extolled "democracy" as ideal) but only an example of freedom and liberty.  It's time for the Founder's view of Foreign Policy to be given a fair hearing.

In this regard, Pat Buchanan, a Republican with credible expertise in several Presidential administrations, is a breath of fresh air compared to both the Republican Establishment's and Democrats' "utopian view" (as he calls it) on foreign policy and alleged "necessary" wars, none of which are for the self-defense of America. His views are seldom permitted in either conservative debates and forums or in the liberal Mainstream Media. So listen to him here for at least an alternative, and in our opinion more rational view, about war.

He condemns American involvement in "regime change" started by the neoconservatives (which too many republicans applauded without just cause) in the Middle East since 2001 during the Bush administration.

He condemns American involvement in Syria to overthrow the Assad regime (which Obama and the democrats, and republicans like Rep. Shelly Moore Capito applaud) and articulates why it is stupid and actually supports radical Islamic groups that are bound to be no better.

He explains why the American Empire in foreign policy (which actually began during the Civil War when Washington invaded the Southern States to consolidate power by force) is a foolish "utopian view" for changing the world (really toward global government, abolishing sovereignty) for the pretense of "making the world safe for democracy" (as democrats W. Wilson and F.D.R. used) or to "end tyranny in the world" (the phrase George W. Bush invoked on his Second Inaugural Address).

He also is adamant that if this course is continued, especially in backing any attack on Iran, it will bring terrible consequences to "my Country" (now here is a better view of American patriotism demonstrated by judicious self-restraint instead of war-mongering) as well as to "the whole world". Indeed, both America's economy would be greatly ruined (i.e. the consequences on oil prices, which would harm the entire economy, as well as national debt) and a probable world war in the Middle East would result.



It's time that a more sober view of foreign policy and its consequences should be considered, before it's too late, as AIPAC and radical pro-Israel and radical "world democracy" revolutionaries continue to drown out Americans' influence in our own Congress.  What America needs is a true National Defense instead of a National Offense policy, which takes us to war without constitutional declarations of war, per the historic Christian 'Just War' Theory of self-defense alone, by Congress.  Until America changes this it is engaging in Global Vigilantism and supporting what could be called justly a Global Democratic Jihad, with terrible consequences on our own nation. 

A history of the Rise & Fall of the Roman Empire and its aggressive PAX ROMANA should suffice to be a most conspicuous example to any naysayers against our criticism of this dangerous bipartisan foreign policy toward a global PAX AMERICANA or PAX DEMOCRATICA which has been in progress for 150 years now.  Who would deny that the Isles of Great Britain once fought against the tyranny of the Roman Empire?  After all, one type of "tyranny" is often replaced by another, always under the pretense of "liberation" (or things like "Operation Iraqi Freedom").  Doesn't this all, then, look so familiar, from a historical perspective?  "American exceptionalism", frequently invoked to cloak all American wars as moral and just, should not blind anyone to this truth and republicans and democrats ought to heed the speeches and examples of America's Founders and early Presidents once again.

Behind the Propaganda about the Iran Speedboat Provocation...

Great news articles linked and commented on by CLG cut behind the propaganda about Israel and Iran, and the recent "speedboat provocation". For those who saw the alleged Iranian speedboats on video...is the Navy paranoid or what? Those were not PT or "swift boats", and the waters were hardly "international". But there is much more now, and the "official story", like it always does, is unravelling. The neocon administration wants another "Gulf of Tonkin" incident to advance the blueprint for a "new middle east" by "pre-emptive war".

Also note what Pakis think of the U.S. (including that democrats like Obama as well as republicans threaten to strike inside another sovereign country)--more of a threat than Islamists--and that Japan is now joining the US and UK in "anti-terror legislation", that usurps extraordinary powers for the government. Fascism is growing, unchecked, while citizens are distracted.

CIA reveals: We said in 1974 that Israel had nuclear weapons 11 Jan 2008 The Central Intelligence Agency, backed by bodies including the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Defense Intelligence Agency, determined in August 1974 that Israel had nuclear "weapons in being," a "small number" of which it "produced and stockpiled." Israel was also suspected of providing nuclear materials, equipment or technology to Iran [LOL!], South Africa and other then-friendly countries. This top secret document, consigned to the CIA's vaults for almost 32 years, was released to the public this week.

A bigger threat than al-Qaeda: Pakistanis See U.S. as Greatest Threat 07 Jan 2008 Amid reports that the administration of U.S. President [sic] George W. Bush is considering aggressive covert actions against armed Islamist forces in western Pakistan, a new survey released here Monday suggested that such an effort would be opposed by an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis themselves. The survey, which was funded by the quasi-governmental U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) and designed by the University of Maryland's Programme on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), also found that a strong majority of Pakistanis consider the U.S. military presence in Asia and neighbouring Afghanistan a much more critical threat to their country than al Qaeda or Pakistan's own Taliban movement in the tribal regions along the border with Afghanistan.

Doubts grow over Iranian boat threats --Pentagon climbdown over 'you will explode' video --Mystery remains over where voice came from [It likely came from the same lab that edits the Osama bin Laden voiceovers and the Adam Pearlman threats.] 11 Jan 2008 Doubts intensified last night over the nature of an alleged aggressive confrontation by Iranian patrol boats and American warships in the Persian Gulf on Sunday, after Pentagon officials admitted that they could not confirm that a threat to blow up the US ships had been made directly by the Iranian crews involved in the incident.

Iran refutes U.S allegations with video evidence 10 Jan 2008 Iran has shown its own video of an incident in the Strait of Hormuz, in a bid to counter Pentagon accusations that Iranian troops had threatened to blow up American vessels. The footage was released by the Revolutionary Guard, the Iranian force involved in the incident, to contradict Pentagon charges that Iranian speedboats swarmed around U.S warships in the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday, radioing a threat to blow them up. The Revolutionary Guard had said the day earlier that the film released by the Pentagon was a bad fake, with the sound and image not properly synchronised.

Official Version of Naval Incident Starts to Unravel 10 Jan 2008 Despite the official and media portrayal of the incident in the Strait of Hormuz early Monday morning as a serious threat to U.S. ships from Iranian speedboats that nearly resulted in a "battle at sea", new information over the past three days suggests that the incident did not involve such a threat and that no U.S. commander was on the verge of firing at the Iranian boats. The new information that appears to contradict the original version of the incident includes the revelation that U.S. officials spliced the audio recording of an alleged Iranian threat onto to a videotape of the incident. That suggests that the threatening message may not have come in immediately after the initial warning to Iranian boats from a U.S. warship, as appears to do on the video.

Post-invasion death toll in Iraq put at over 150,000 10 Jan 2008 At least 150,000 Iraqis died violently in the 40 months following the US-led invasion in 2003, according to an estimate derived from the most comprehensive survey yet of mortality in post-war Iraq.

Bush urges end to Israeli 'occupation' 11 Jan 2008 US President [sic] George Bush, hardening his tone towards Israel, urged an end to "the occupation" of the West Bank and pushed for a peace treaty to be signed within a year to create a Palestinian state. [Yes, and Bush needs to end his occupation of Iraq.]

Japan set to force through terror law 10 Jan 2008 The Japanese government is on Friday expected to use its two-thirds majority in the lower house of parliament to ram through controversial 'anti'-terror legislation in what would be the first use of such override powers in more than half a century.

The West Virginia GOP Establishment vs. Ron Paul; Neoconservatives vs. Conservatives

First a quick update on the delegate count as of last night, provided by a local reliable source, then to the main subject:

Romney
64

Thompson
62

Paul
55

Giuliani
46

Now the voters will vote for delegates by county, to pair them down within county limits established by the GOP.

NOTE: Voters must be registered for online voting by this Friday, Nov. 30th, in order to vote for their delegates in January. (We hope the Elections Division of the Secretary of State's office will be monitoring closely for fairness, accuracy, to prevent mistakes or fraud in the GOP controlled system).

As most are aware Senator Vic Sprouse unleashed a railing alarm against Ron Paul's increasing delegates in a piece entitled Ron Paul attempting to hijack republican convention, whose delegate count was slightly ahead of the candidate that he is a delegate for, Rudolph Giuliani. The backlash from the blogosphere was incredible, the Senators ChangeWV blog receiving about 300 responses alone, and still counting.

What is significant about this is that Senator Sprouse is on the steering Committee of the state GOP party. Note the State party establishment is openly in opposition then to Ron Paul (see previous article), who has entered as a legitimate candidate, but now must be subject to the gauntlet of internal misrepresentation, persecution, even outright slander, because he is not an "establishment" favorite! "I have nothing against Ron Paul supporters", says Sen. Sprouse, but he clearly does, since they are "hijackers". Yet even the party establishment is split upon whom THEY want to 'hijack' the convention for themselves. One man's "hijack" is another man's "victory". It is the party establishment here that is being challenged, who feel threatened.

THE WEST VIRGINIA GOP FAILED TO COMMUNICATE TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS

You see the state GOP, who did no advertising to inform the public about how their complex new Convention system works (which was stacked to favor the already organized establishment--see previous article), finally put out radio advertising (on the state-wide "Talk Line" with Hoppy Kercheval) for delegates--this very last week! That still 1,100 delegates were needed shows the party establishment's failure to inform West Virginians, particularly outside the Capital region--which might just be the way they preferred it, since the GOP chairman McKinney (a Romney supporter) could then select vacant delegate seats himself! Ron Paul's supporters have actually done them a favor by driving attention to the very issue they failed to communicate, including for supporters of Huckabee and Hunter who also suffered by the lack of GOP party communication. So just who was trying to "hijack", through craft instead of open and fair play, the convention?

THE GOP ESTABLISHMENT VERSUS RON PAUL

Sen. Sprouse's warning here is to circle all the war wagons against Ron Paul who they perceive as a threat (a hijacker), while claiming in this post that he is no threat at all and "irrelevant". This is the essence of propaganda to scare people away from a message they might like. What he is trying to claim is that you will be in a small minority if you do not stay with the establishment's candidates, because they say so (i.e. "no one will vote for him"). Therefore, the very nature of the post betrays the Senator's disbelief in his own message. Ron Paul, they fear, could be a big surprise, and you might like his positions if permitted to hear them for yourself.

Does the party establishment believe THEIR thinking represents the thinking of the average conservative (most of whom questioned the justice of the war based on lies), or are the conservative Pharisees (under the cry of "we are your elected rulers, listen to us") trying to whip up a frenzy of opposition because multitudes are beginning to follow? (And do not be offended at the image, the liberal Sadducees are afraid as well). To wit, not one legitimate evidence was provided above of why we should not believe the "myths" about Ron Paul (go back and look), only empty assertions and allegations, in the same manner that the war was sold.

The establishment resistors of Ron Paul are not able to make persuasive arguments, only repeat "withdrawal is surrender" (yet that was the policy after Iraq I, Cheney decrying overthrowing Saddam or occupation as a quagmire), unjustly link him to "the left", or compare him to LaRouche. But withdrawal is not surrender in an unjust war, against Iraqis, not "terrorists" (as the 'liberal media' also calls them), and LaRouche indeed had a following, but Pat Buchanan might be a better comparison, though not entirely.

As for the Hillary fear card, Ron Paul could beat Hillary Clinton (just like Zogby said any republican could), easily, because republicans would rally around him. But many of us would never, ever vote for Giuliani (but abstain) to overthrow domestic freedom for a police state patterned after NYC and a CFR agenda, which would be the fault of the party establishment for abandoning the constitution, not us.

One thing that is clear is that the party leaders are afraid of Ron Paul, for he threatens not the people, but the establishment's power, who do not confess their wrongs, but stubbornly and impenitently defend abhorrent policies and unjust wars, and still bow to Bush and Cheney and their neoconservatism. But why should they be afraid, if they are sure they are right, and can defend themselves by debate? And why does Sen. Sprouse want to hijack the Convention for the biggest RINO in republican history--the former democrat Giuliani! Some have the appearance of abandoning the principles of their good legislative record by tying themselves to someone who has done the opposite! It is Sen. Sprouse that has some explaining to do as to why he supports such a candidate like Giuliani, who is a braggart but whose greatest critics are New York firefighters and 9/11 widows, and who takes credit for things not attributable directly to him.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS IN DISARRAY--LITTLE EVIDENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL, CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES

Republicans are scattered now because they are not united on what they believe, as their smorgasbord of candidates shows. The platform is in shambles (praising individual freedom while embracing collectivist policies and Wilsonian wars for "democracy"), and the mistake was making George W. Bush part of the party platform, who is following a neoconservative, not the constitution or conservative, agenda, entirely built upon unjust war (abortion of a million Iraqi lives, invading their sovereign womb), ironically, while justly decrying abortions of the pre-born. Ron Paul is nothing less than the "blow-back" that should be anticipated when just principles are forsaken to follow a new man or agenda, in this case the neoconservatives behind Bush. The republican establishment has failed to read the principles of the neoconservatives for themselves, thus separating themselves from their constituents, and largely had blind trust in the general "Christian"-feigned image crafted of Bush by the agnostic Karl Rove.

RON PAUL'S CONSERVATIVE CREDENTIALS AND PRINCIPLES

But their fears are unfounded. Why should the republican party establishment be afraid of a candidate who is the strongest anti-tax candidate the party has ever seen since Reagan, opposes the communist (collectivist) welfare state, the strongest defender of gun rights, who has consistently opposed abortion, who defends the sovereignty of the U.S. by opposing illegal immigration, NAFTA, and North American Union (as warned of by Jerome Corsi on 58Live)who believes in limited government and states rights, simply because he insists the Constitution should be followed in declaring war (oh, the gaul of him), rejects the creeping fascism of warrantless (not all) domestic surveillance on American citizens, opposes (as does Sen. Sprouse) REAL ID (any national ID card), wants to downsize government rather than expanding its welfare and police powers under the guise of a Gestapo-like "Homeland Security" bureaucracy and creeping surveillance state that are making America look more like Stasi Germany? When did it become radical to really defend Americans' freedom, instead of just saying so and doing the opposite, through threats of fear, and then live in a fantasy world of "24" and American Idol?

NEOCONSERVATIVE RINOS ALREADY HIJACKED THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

And who has "hijacked" the republican party, but the neoconservatives (former democrats, disciples of Strauss and Leon Trotsky) who infiltrated through and with CFR member and David Rockefeller colleague, the RINO Dick Cheney? WHO HAS DECEIVED AND SWINDLED THE PRINCIPLES FROM THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, FOR A PRE-PLANNED WAR AGENDA BEFORE 9/11 AND WERE MEMBERS OF THE PROJECT FOR NEW AMERICAN CENTURY? The party leadership is more committed to neo-conservatism than conservatism, without knowing the difference, because they follow men on bumper stickers who use the military as a campaign prop! (What do you think "neo" means anyway, but "new"?) As Pat Buchanan's new book highlighted in Drudge last night warned, the neoconservatives must be swept from the republican party if America is to be restored.

Just who are the "top tier candidates" that the State GOP pushes on us? Why are they all (Giuliani, Romney, Thompson) members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a David Rockefeller organization that embraces an anti-sovereign UN global agenda based upon socialist principles, unleashed immigration, through economic pragmatism (this is Giuliani in spades)--and is pushing NAFTA and North American Union, amnesty for illegals and REAL ID? IT IS HIGH TIME FOR THE REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT TO WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE--EXAMINE CAREFULLY WHO YOU ARE BLINDLY FOLLOWING. "Lay hands on no man quickly" is a biblical principle worthy of political application as well, and the party establishment is blindly pushing the wrong candidates, and fearing the best one.

THE PEOPLE WILL DECIDE FREELY UNLESS THE ESTABLISHMENT CAN STOP THEM

But the people will judge, if they will be permitted to hear above the fearful establishment's cries to prevent them from listening--the tactics now being employed in desperation here. Meanwhile those who are paranoid by the neocon propaganda about "jihadists that want to kill us every day", despite the plain lack of evidence (and the evidence of fabricated threats from neocon private contractors), and despite that Americans have more reason to fear each other as "terrorists" on the roads than toiletries in airports, will continue their mantra which requires fear in order to maintain power. Most of us want to return to Constitutional government from the rogue "unitary executive" (President as dictator) before our freedoms are entirely lost. That message is popular and rational, contrary to the present neoconservative fanaticism, to which the republican party should wake up. Ron Paul is their best friend, if they would only see it, but they are like a sick patient that does not want to take its medicine from the Doctor, that would heal the government from its frenzied and feverish policies. So the people might change out the republican leadership to obtain what they want, if they have to. To them that would be hijacking, but to the people, reform--revolution. The purpose of voting is to make peaceful revolutions possible, and that kind of hijacking is legal.

DICK CHENEY AN EX-DIRECTOR OF THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS AND DAVID ROCKEFELLER HID HIS CFR INVOLVEMENT FROM REPUBLICANS

Veteran's Day Special: The Iraq War Was Based Upon Lies, Not Intelligence Mistakes

Recent vents and editorials in the newspapers and blogs make the assertion that the claim that Saddam Hussein had WMD was based not on lies but on "intelligence mistakes". This video refutes that either naive or willingly ignorant assertion (made usually for partisan reasons) from expert testimony. Included in this 55 min film is Scott Ritter, former Marine and UN weapons inspector in Iraq, who spoke in a special appearance at West Virginia State University, which of course West Virginia media did not even cover. His testimony in particular is absolutely damning. Veterans who are frequently used as propaganda pawns for war deserve to be told the truth, along with those who applaud them as if whatever America does in war is right. There was no justification to go to war against Iraq that fits within the Christian principles of "just war". Iraq never attacked America, it had no association with the fictitious entity (created by U.S. government) "Al-Qaeda", it had no WMD (being fully disarmed by 1995, per Ritter), and was no threat to either the U.S. or Israel.

An impressive roster of experts is assembled to provide a generally withering commentary on the quality of evidence and possible motivations of the Neo-conservatives who provided the momentum and muscle behind America's venture into preemptive war. Among them are veteran CIA analysts and operatives, military officers, diplomats, politicians, arms inspectors, and U.S. and British government officials. The fig leaf of the possibility of an honest mistake on the matter of WMDs is stripped away; what is left is the stark and disturbing anatomy of deliberate deceit.

UNCOVERED: THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR

Huckabee Outted: NOT a "consistent conservative" as claimed

Huckabee gets called to the carpet in this WSJ article (yes from Ruppert Murdoch's WSJ). Actually, I am quite sure it's another hit piece against "social conservatives" which makes other neoconservatives look bad (namely the former Democrat, pro-abortion, cross-dressing, lisping, anti-gun, Roman Catholic fascist "Godfather" Giuliani).

Some of us knew this already about Huckabee, but he fools many with superficial judgment. Just another "man from Hope" (as Clinton positioned himself from Arkansas) who claims to be one thing but will do another. No true conservative Christian would approve of unjust war, war on false pretenses, war contrary to the principles of the "just war theory of Christianity", as Ron Paul has stated in the debates. (Scott Ritter was at WVSU Thursday night, the former Marine and UN weapons inspector that knew first hand that WMD in Iraq was a falsehood. See article below).

The new republicans (neo-republicans, neoconservatives, CFR republican RINOs) seem to want big government as much as the democrats, and they too want to confiscate our guns for their "security state". Do not trust them!

clipped from opinionjournal.com Another Man From Hope Who is Mike Huckabee? Mr. Huckabee, on the other hand, is running hard right on social issues but liberal-populist on some economic issues. This may help explain why the affable, golden-tongued Baptist minister was the clear favorite at the pro-life Family Research Council's national forum last Saturday. And why Mr. Huckabee's praises have been sung by liberal columnists such as Gail Collins of the New York Times and Jonathan Alter of Newsweek. But I also know he is not the "consistent conservative" he now claims to be. Nor am I alone. Betsy Hagan, Arkansas director of the conservative Eagle Forum and a key backer of his early runs for office, was once "his No. 1 fan." She was bitterly disappointed with his record. "He was pro-life and pro-gun, but otherwise a liberal," she says. "Just like Bill Clinton he will charm you, but don't be surprised if he takes a completely different turn in office."

Conservative Straw Poll--Giuliani Out; Romney, Huckabee, Paul Top

It also states in the article that "Romney's campaign actively petitioned supporters to vote online whether or not they had attended the conference." So that would be Romney "slamming the polls", not Ron Paul, wouldn't it?

Note Ron Paul dashed both Giuliani and Fred Thompson. Note as well that
"permanent tax reductions" and taxes are two of the leading values issues, as well as abortion opposition and defending marriage (something Presidents actually have little influence legally upon, more so the states).

This shows that Ron Paul is a serious contender. It also shows with Huckabee that republican voters are dissatisfied with Giuliani. Too bad people are blind to Huckabee's lack of constitutional integrity, or lack of a lower tax plan (Paul would eliminate the Income Tax entirely!), and fail to see that unjust war (the neocon's Iraq, Iran, Syria plan) is also murder, more so than abortion! This shows the ignorance and biblical illiteracy of "values voters'" judgment.

clipped from blogs.abcnews.com Romney Wins Conservative Straw Poll Email Share October 20, 2007 3:36 PM ABC News' Karen Travers reports: Mitt Romney won the Family Research Council Values Voters' Summit straw poll in Washington Saturday, barely beating out Mike Huckabee with just 30 more votes. Romney garnered 1595 votes to Huckabee's 1565 in the poll of conservative activists. Ron Paul was third with 865 and Fred Thompson was fourth with 564 votes. Rudy Giuliani, who addressed the crowd Saturday, finished eighth. More than 2,000 conservative activists attended the summit and heard from the Republican presidential field over the last two days. 3. Please indicate which issue is the most important in determining your opinion of the candidate that you will most likely vote for – choose one: RESULTS: -abortion -defending marriage -tax cuts -permanent tax relief RESULTS: Romney- 1595 Huckabee- 1565 Paul- 865 Thompson- 564 Brownback- 297 Hunter- 140 Tancredo- 133 Giuliani- 107 McCain- 81

Conservative Pastor: "GIULIANI IS EVERYONE'S WORST NIGHTMARE"; Giuliani's Dance Before the NRA

"Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust be men of unexceptionable characters. The public cannot be too curious concerning the character of public men."

-- Samuel Adams

Make no mistake, Giuliani is not a conservative, but a neoconservative sycophant and a fascist, who will not uphold the Constitution of the United States, but usurp and overthrow it entirely using Executive "unitary" powers in a New York minute. Very liberal indeed. Amazingly, as far as his personal life, suddenly the most open critics of Bill Clinton have nothing to say or have become open apologists and pragmatists (including 58Live's Michael Agnello) brushing off Giuliani's "serial adultery" as if it has no bearing on principle, ethics, or trustworthiness, or an indicator of possibly also breaking trust or covenant with the American people. DOES CHARACTER MEAN NOTHING--even to "conservatives"? Besides, who wants a sometimes cross-dressing, pro-homosexual, lisping, Yankee Roman Catholic from New York City to represent America? Ethics and character, even religious beliefs(*), are subject to public review for they all reflect upon the mind and character of the man. This will just scratch the surface of Giuliani's character and positions, there are many more alarming connections and secret alliances, and business deals, that deserve public attention as well. (See Devvy Kidd's article for example, Rudy Rasputin Giuliani & Florida Anthrax).

(* Note on religion: Yes, if a man is a Mormon, Jewish or any other sect, his particular form and doctrine of religion, even of Christianity, can be weighed in the balance of private judgment as well, for belief is the mother of actions, and "faiths" are not all the same. Contrary to popular discussion "all faiths" do not make a man "moral", they only paint and white-wash the surface, often as public posturing. Recall that McCain, always Anglican, now claims to be an unbaptized "Baptist", which also raises questions of honesty. There is strong historical precedent from Colonial and early America as to why Roman Catholics in particular were shunned from being in positions of authority, considering that religious freedom of Baptists and Presbyterians in particular, as well as the Deist founders, were persecuted the most by that tyrannical and crusading "faith", which is why early America was almost exclusively Protestant. Catholicism historically has been a key element in Fascism--i.e. Nazi Germany and Italy--as well as other Inquisitional governments. This is NOT to suggest that candidates should be judged by denomination or outward profession alone ("no religious test of office"), which would be foolish and naive, for George W. Bush made plenty of outward profession inconsistent with his moral positions, doctrines, principles and behavior, which some of us observed from the start, but which the "religious right" fell for stupidly hook, line, and sinker, precisely per the crafty Rove's strategy to hoodwink a large voting block. Nothing is more deceitful and morally corrupt than flying "Christian" colors to get elected when it is pure craft and hypocrisy! Nothing is more antithetical to real Christian doctrine that "lying lips" or "feet that make haste to shed innocent blood" (e.g. 655,000 Iraqis), under the guise of "disarming a dictator" in a foreign country that poses no imminent threat. There is a Christian doctrine of "just war", historically believed and taught by Protestant reformers, contrary to Roman Catholicism's Crusades, that limits wars strictly within biblical principles--a "forgotten" and lost doctrine that Ron Paul has mentioned in debates as "America's greatest moral crisis". Unjust war is as murderous as abortion, even more so since it kills the already living, including women and children. Reformed and Calvinistic Christians in particular have increasingly been re-awakened to this lost doctrine and truth and as staunch paleo-conservatives are condemning the lies and propaganda of the neoconservatives' agenda, which planned these wars in advance, implementing them by Machiavellian craft).

As far as his political track record it's amazing how he can mention an oath to the constitution in one breath, but immediately forget it when suggesting policy. Oh yes, and he just "redefined" his position on the 2nd amendment before the National Rifle Association (NRA)! Words and promises are easily spoken during campaigns, but trust must be earned, and history is the best predictor of the future (something Willard Milton Romney is fighting as well).

He may have fooled some at the National Rifle Association, but here is what Gun Owners of America ("the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington"--Ron Paul) posted about Giuliani's gun record that no real West Virginia conservative would approve of:

Apparently, in Giuliani's America law-abiding citizens in large cities would not enjoy the same constitutional liberties as the rest of the country. Why? Are city dwellers not as trustworthy as country folks? Are metro-Americans not deserving of the right to self-protection?

Disarming citizens because they live in a high crime area is taking away the most effective means of self-defense from the people who need it most. Creating mandatory victims is no way to fight a crime problem.¹

If Giuliani's gun control agenda was really limited 'only' to big cities, that would be disturbing enough. But the record shows that the Mayor continually tried to export his gun control agenda to the rest of the nation.

The new Giuliani of state's rights simply does not square with the Mayor of the '90s.

In 1993, before even being sworn in as mayor, Giuliani met with then-President Clinton at the White House to discuss national gun registration. Giuliani supported the Brady bill, which had recently passed, but argued that it didn't go far enough....

...This flirtation with federalism [i.e. his claim of "reform" to states rights] is merely a facade, however, for in the recent interview with Sean Hannity, Giuliani assured gun owners that he supports only gun control laws that are "reasonable and sensible." He then went on to defend his support of the Brady bill and the semi-auto ban, which are neither.

Fred Thompson has drawn attention to Giuliani's position on this, the conservative Fred Barnes called him "anti-gun" in a forum, and the neoconservative agenda appears to include disarming us (see our article about Gun Owners of America on the candidates), as much as trampling the rest of the Bill of Rights. What would Patrick Henry say to that?

Whatever Rudolph means when he talks about "rule of law" he is not referring to Constitutional rule of law, but one of pure, arbitrary force under the tyrant's plea of "safety and security". Giuliani's track record cannot be hidden, so look at it and remember that Patrick Henry said, "I do not know any other way to predict the future than by the past". We do not need Giuliani to "keep us safe from terrorists", a vague threat that does not hold up to the evidence but has served well a neoconservative tyrannical agenda to overthrow the Constitution, which defines our freedoms. Only a RINO would support Rudolph Giuliani.

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilised nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

-- Adolph Hitler

If Giuliani gets elected, "keep your powder dry".

------------------------

He is a nightmare for conservatives, Christians, independents, constitutionalists, and for people the world over. Furthermore, Rudy Giuliani is a threat to freedom, constitutional government, the rule of law, traditional morality, and to national sovereignty and independence. As I said, Rudy Giuliani is everyone's worst nightmare.

-- Pastor Chuck Baldwin

GIULIANI IS EVERYONE'S WORST NIGHTMARE

By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

September 21, 2007

NewsWithViews.com

Former New York City Mayor and Republican Presidential contender Rudy Giuliani said this week that he was "liberals' worst nightmare." However, the truth is, Rudy Giuliani is everyone's worst nightmare.

That Rudy Giuliani is currently trying to cast himself as a conservative is beyond laughable--it is hilarious. This is a man who is unabashedly pro-abortion. He has been seen walking down Fifth Avenue with thousands of homosexuals demanding "gay rights." He himself is a cross-dresser. He has had numerous marriages and only God knows how many sexual affairs. He has been one of the country's most radical proponents of gun control. He made New York a sanctuary city for illegal aliens and is a strong proponent of amnesty for illegal aliens. As a prosecutor, his abuse of power and disregard for law are legendary. [Read]

In addition, Rudy Giuliani is a senior partner in the law firm that "represents CITGO, the oil company controlled by Venezuela's anti-American and terrorist-supporting ruler Hugo Chavez." Giuliani's law firm also acts "as the exclusive legal counsel for Cintra, the Spanish firm that has been granted the right to operate a toll road in the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) project."

(Please read Cliff Kincaid's entire column for more on Giuliani's shady and untoward activities)

Yes, my friends, the umbilical cord connecting the SPP, NAFTA Superhighway and burgeoning North American Union is also connected to Rudy Giuliani.

Yet, Rudy Giuliani wants people to believe that he is "liberals' worst nightmare"? Who is he kidding? Giuliani is a liberal. Actually, Rudy Giuliani is worse than a liberal. He is a liberal that likes to hurt people. I tell you the truth, Rudy Giuliani scares me far more than Hillary Clinton does. Far more. I'll say it right here: if the 2008 Presidential election comes down to Hillary vs. Giuliani, Hillary is the "lesser of two evils." That's how bad Giuliani is.

Any Christian who would vote for Rudy Giuliani needs to check out his or her salvation. And before a conservative could vote for Giuliani, he would have to surrender every conviction and principle he ever held.

As for the Republican Party, if it nominates Rudy Giuliani as its Presidential candidate next year, conservatism will be forever vanquished from the Party. George W. Bush has already just about destroyed conservatism within the GOP. A Giuliani nomination would finish the job.

Rudy Giuliani likes to paint himself as being tough on terrorism. The truth is, Rudy Giuliani is a warmonger. A Giuliani Presidency would mean an expansion of military interventionism and preemptive war like you can't imagine. One can call me what one wants, but I am warning the American people, just as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoller tried to warn the German people about Hitler: Rudy Giuliani is a monster. Anyone who is paying attention knows this is true.

For example, just two days ago, Giuliani urged expanding NATO to include Australia, India, Israel, Japan, and Singapore, along with "a whole group of others that we could put on that list." As originally designed, NATO's purpose was to counterbalance the former Soviet Union's influence in Europe. However, Giuliani wants to expand NATO into a "global body." He also said he wants to "redouble" the war in Afghanistan. He further said the U.S. should consider the possibility of a "large war with a nation state." So, could Giuliani be planning a preemptive "large war" with other countries? One can only wonder.

Furthermore, if anyone thinks that George W. Bush is obsessed with domestic spying and surveillance, just wait until Giuliani becomes President. You can count on him pressing his anti-Fourth Amendment and anti-Second Amendment agendas to the nth degree through all sorts of executive orders and signing statements.

You can also expect amnesty for illegal aliens to be quickly achieved under a Giuliani administration, along with the completion of the North American Union and NAFTA Superhighway. Of course, this will also be the case if Hillary is elected President, except that if Hillary is leading the charge, many will oppose it; whereas if Giuliani leads the charge, they won't.

This brings up the other thing that makes a Giuliani Presidency so dangerous: the total lack of resistance that rank-and-file conservatives (including Christians) have demonstrated when Republicans control the White House. Absent resistance from his own party and from grassroots conservatives, a Giuliani administration would be left free to perpetrate radical fascist and imperialistic policies completely unfettered.

Everything about Rudy Giuliani smacks of fraud, indecency, greed, and power-lust. Even the wave of 9/11, which Giuliani is riding to the Presidential election, is fraught with duplicity. In fact, New York City firefighters are so fearful their former mayor might succeed in his quest to become President that they came out against his candidacy in a dramatic video. I urge all my readers to watch this moving video presentation. See it here.

Yes, Rudy Giuliani is a nightmare all right. But not just for liberals. He is a nightmare for conservatives, Christians, independents, constitutionalists, and for people the world over. Furthermore, Rudy Giuliani is a threat to freedom, constitutional government, the rule of law, traditional morality, and to national sovereignty and independence. As I said, Rudy Giuliani is everyone's worst nightmare.

© 2007 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence.

Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called, "Chuck Baldwin Live" This is a daily, one hour long call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view. Pastor Baldwin writes weekly articles on the internet http://www.ChuckBaldwinLive.com and newspapers.

Netanyahu's Return? The Likud-Neoconservative Alliance for a "New Middle East"

Sensing the changing political winds, Netanyahu has quietly been preparing for the early general elections that much of Israel's political establishment expects to take place, although no official moves have been made.

-- AP Netanyahu: Israel's arch-hawk aiming for comeback; Aug 14, 2007

Here are some facts about the Likud party, Netanyahu, his character and associations, from this AP article and others:

1. His character is questionable for a leader, impulsive, unstable:

A loner with few close friends in the political establishment, he was once called by Sharon an "uptight and pressurable individual who panics and loses his wits."

2. The Likud party does not represent the typical thinking of Israel, by any party, but their own small radical cabal:

Likud that had dominated Israeli politics since its first election victory in 1977 managed to scrape together only 12 seats in the 120-member parliament.

3. His close association with the Neoconservatives who control the Executive Branch and the Pentagon in the U.S.--representing a secret alliance with a global and revolutionary agenda.

Ron Paul's speech on "what neoconservatives believe"(video), details their intellectual beliefs in violent revolution, imperialism, "end justifies the means", "lying sometimes necessary", and includes their close alliance with the Likud party in Israel.

4. Per Pat Buchanan's article in Jan. 2007, Who is Planning our Next War?, the Likudnik-Neoconservative alliance has a deliberate agenda for war-mongering for "a new middle east" (not for America's national defense), to which Netanyahu is a central figure:

According to UPI editor-at-large Arnaud De Borchgrave, Tira's line tracks the New Year's Day message of Likud superhawk "Bibi" Netanyahu, the former prime minister.

Said Netanyahu, Israel "must immediately launch an intense, international public relations front first and foremost on the U.S. The goal being to encourage President Bush to live up to specific [coerced] pledges he would not allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons. We must make clear to the (U.S.) government, the Congress and the American public that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the U.S. and the entire world, not only Israel." [Ed. That is how the Iraq war was sold, by Cheney primarily.]

Israel's war, says Bibi, must be sold as America's war [see example linked to video].

We are thus forewarned. A propaganda campaign, using Israeli agents and their neocon auxiliaries and sympathizers, who stampeded us into war in Iraq, is being prepared to stampede us into war on Iran.

He further proves in this article how the Democrats will also be pressured to support the same policy. (And do recall William Kristol's recent "push" in a Brit Hume interview for Barrack Obama as a preferred Democratic candidate. The Israeli lobby controls both Republican and Democratic "lead" candidates).

Gen. Oded Tira, who headed up all Israeli artillery units, burst into print with this admonition:

"As an American air strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help (Bush) pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and U.S. newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure."

"Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran," writes Tira. Thus, Israel and its U.S. lobbying arm "must turn to Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they publicly support immediate action by Bush against Iran."

The mainstream media is controlled by Zionist executives , which is why Ron Paul is treated by a VERY PARTIAL media in a manner that clearly has marks of ostracism instead of objective journalism (he opposes unjust war, the Fed Reserve, blind allegiance to Israel, the neoconservative agenda), although he answers them forthrightly, accepting their challenge. Thus we see the "establishment" Republicans and Democrats held captive by the Israeli lobby, who have the power to end their careers through media-political domination.

5. While the article states of Netanyahu, "he has few friends", one of his close friends is none other than Larry Silverstein, lease-holder of the WTC towers, who admitted "pulling" building 7 late on 9/11, and economically profited from 9/11, only purchasing the lease and insuring it against "acts of terrorism" a few months prior to that "catalyzing event", which ironically, justified the push for war per the Neocon stratagy outlined by the Project for New American Century. Silverstein's WTC towers did NOT suffer "collapse" but have all the consistent marks of "explosive destruction" and controlled demolition. This became the justification to implement the wars for a "new middle east". Now is that not interesting!

On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attacks would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)". [See example in video here].

Explosive Demolition is self-evident in the WTC destruction, not "collapse".

6. One critic in an editorial summarizes the Israeli-Neoconservative scheme like this:

Bush never understood and still is blind to the fact that Sharon is interested in nuclear domination of the Middle East and a "collapsible Bantustan" for the Palestinians, which would eventually "evaporate" and wind up in a "Jordan is Palestine solution". There would be no Bantustan, no Abdullah peace plan, no nuclear weapons other than Israel's in the Middle East "till the end of time", enforced by America.

As a secondary matter, it would perhaps give the US more leverage over oil/oil prices, ie the Cheney vision. The Feith/ Cheney/Netanyahu/Perle/Woolsey group has been strategizing for a while about a wished for Caspian/Russian oil supply/oil pipeline system to replace OPEC. [Ed. The War in Afghanistan]

This scheme would satisfy the Perle/ Netanyahu/Feith/Kristol vision of a "permanent campaign" against Arabs, Muslims and Third World nations so that the world becomes an American empire, dominated by an Israel/neo- con wire-pulling group "till the end of time".

In other words, a "clash of civilizations", a global civil war, leading to neo-con domination of the American global empire and Israel, de facto, annexing every inch of the territories and the Golan and winding up with the option of "transfer" for the Palestinians.

We can see that the return of Netanyahu would definitely serve to expand war, the oppression of the Palestinians, and to continue the "Clash of Civilizations" toward a PAX AMERICANA world war policy, outlined by the neoconservatives in the Project for a New American Century, with a more provocative Israeli Prime Minister who will not be governed by others who desire peace or diplomacy as a rule for Israel. Netanyahu is more of a threat to peace in the middle east than Ahmadinijad of Iran ever could be because of the abused doctrine of "preemptive war" upon no credible, imminant threat except thru mere allegation and propaganda.

None of this can be justified as "national defense" of America under any imminent threat, which is why the "war on terrorism" scheme based upon the "catalyzing event" of 9/11 was executed to provide a pretext for.

Bear in mind what the Israeli newspaper Haaretz revealed:

The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.

America's war policy is driven by a secretive Israeli-Neoconservative alliance (which has divided the Pentagon and CIA into factions, which is why the secretive Office of Special Plans was setup), who also dominate the media, have leverage in both parties, and control the "intelligence" elements as "terrorism experts", engage in active spying (recall Larry Franklin), are noted for lying (recall Libby), operate via Dick Cheney (who is pushing hard against Iran now), as we have pointed out in other articles previous. Netanyahu as PM would only increase their power, and entangle the U.S. in more unjust wars that violate the "just war" theory of Christianity as well as the Constitutional authority, where "war powers" are usurped by the Executive branch, whether republican or democrat.

Cheney on Iraq: Why U.S. Should Not Enter in 1994 for Regime Change

This interview of Cheney on why the U.S. should not invade Iraq to overthrow Saddam in 1994 is nothing short of amazing in its wisdom, as it explains, contrary to popular belief, just how much was known about the chaos and confusion it would cause, of how to replace the government, and what a U.S. occupation would entail. This is Cheney indicting himself and the neoconservatives and George W. Bush in his own words. The only difference is the word "terrorism" was used, for back then it was acknowledged there were WMD to be destroyed, and they were shortly after Gulf War I. Listen for yourself to the wisdom back then!

FOX News Interviews Ron Paul In Depth Post Debate

FOX News Interviews Rep. Ron Paul on Iraq, Iran, Immigration, Social Security & Gun Control

Reported by Marie Therese - August 5, 2007 -

Earlier this afternoon, FOX News host Julie Banderas interviewed outspoken Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul. Paul was loudly cheered during this morning's Republican Presidential debate that aired on ABC's This Week, because it seems that his message resonates with more and more Republican voters. Banderas admitted that FOX News had received a large number of emails about Rep. Paul's political philosophy and noted that she used those as the basis for this two-part interview. Rep. Paul is the only Republican calling for immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and he made a persuasive case for his point of view. Videos below the fold.

RON PAUL INTERVIEW, PART 1

RON PAUL INTERVIEW, PART 2

| Email this page to a friend

Unfriendly Fire: Pat Tillman Was Murdered or Executed

Consider the damning evidence that supports this bold headline, which this writer will even add to:

1. Not just one but 3 shots to the forehead, in close proximity, evidence of simultaneous and coordinated firing at close proximity, according to medical examiners at close range.

2. This is evidence that Tillman's body could not even react reflexively in a timely manner, as it would involuntarily, to not only one shot, but two shots, before the third shot struck, all in close proximity, which is evidence of coordinated timing as in a firing squad upon the command, "fire!" This is evidence consistent with an execution.

3. Consider the mathematical odds of ONLY the publicized celebrity being killed, and in this manner. NO OTHER SOLDIERS WERE EVEN WOUNDED. Tillman was singled out for this action, more evidence of a deliberate and selective murder.

4. Motive: In addition to the open evidence that he thought the war in Iraq was illegal, and protested against it, there could be more. Did he now know that the war against "terrorists" in Afghanistan, "hiding in caves", was pure propaganda and fiction (the Taliban were permitted to flee to Pakistan), and a deliberate lie, that he might expose publicly? (The neoconservatives already wanted to overthrow the government of Afghanistan prior to 9/11). The risk was too great for he had the celebrity power to attract national attention. Did they brand Tillman a traitor then, and order a field execution, then cover it up with a Silver Star?

-----------------------------


New Evidence Clearly Indicates Pat Tillman Was Executed

Army medical examiners concluded Tillman was shot three times in the [fore]head from just 10 yards away, no evidence of "friendly fire" damage at scene, Army attorneys congratulated each other on cover-up, Wesley Clark concludes "orders came from the very top" to murder pro-football star because he was about to become an anti-war political icon

Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Friday, July 27, 2007

Astounding new details surrounding the death of Pat Tillman clearly indicate that top brass decided to execute the former pro football star in cold blood to prevent him from returning home and becoming an anti-war icon. These same criminals then engaged in a sophisticated conspiracy to create a phony "friendly fire" cover story. Shocking new facts emerged about the case last night but were bizarrely underplayed by the Associated Press under nondescript headlines like 'New Details on Tillman's Death' - a complete disservice to the horrific implications that the new evidence carries. (Article continues below) Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. "The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators. The doctors - whose names were blacked out - said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away. The report also states that "No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene - no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck." The article also reveals that "Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments." So there was no evidence whatsoever of friendly fire, but the ballistics data clearly indicated that the three head shots had been fired from just 10 yards away and then the Army tried to concoct a hoax friendly fire story and sent gloating back-slapping e mails congratulating each other on their success while preventing the doctors from exploring the possibility of murder. How can any sane and rational individual weigh this evidence and not come to the conclusion that Tillman was deliberately gunned down in cold blood? The evidence points directly to it and the motivation is clear - Tillman abandoned a lucrative career in pro-football immediately after 9/11 because he felt a rampaging patriotic urge to defend his country, and became a poster child for the war on terror as a result. But when he discovered that the invasion of Iraq was based on a mountain of lies and deceit and had nothing to do with defending America, he became infuriated and was ready to return home to become an anti-war hero. As far back as March 2003, immediately after the invasion, Tillman famously told his comrade Spc. Russell Baer, "You know, this war is so [expletive] illegal," and urged his entire platoon to vote against Bush in the 2004 election. Far from the gung-ho gruff stereotype attributed to him, Tillman was actually a fiercely intellectual man with the courage of his convictions firmly in place. Tillman had even begun to arrange meetings with anti-war icons like Noam Chomsky upon his return to America before his death cut short any aspirations of becoming a focal point for anti-war sentiment. According to Daily Kos, Wesley Clark appeared on Keith Olbermann's Countdown last night and stated that "the orders came from the very top" to murder Tillman as he was a political symbol and his opposition to the war in Iraq would have rallied the population around supporting immediate withdrawal. The notion that the U.S. government gave orders for Army top brass to execute Pat Tillman in cold blood is the most damaging indictment of the Iraq war since it began, trumping the lies about weapons of mass destruction tenfold, but if the establishment media continue to soft-peddle and steam-valve one of the biggest stories of the century its impact will be completely diluted. It is up to us to make this story go viral because the implications are so dire that they could act as the final death knell for the blood-soaked and illegal occupation of Iraq and become the clarion call to bring our troops home.