Hey Mark! At least you responded to these two articles! Note that the avid Paul supporters didn't! <Grin>!
We need to touch base.....Geesh, time flies so fast. I have to go back to Germany in just two weeks! Hope you are doing well! Keith On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 1:48 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]>wrote: > Funny that Congressman Paul fancies himself a new Ronald Reagan, > because it > was Reagan’s pro-military investments which made the Bin Laden raid > possible<http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/ > 571447/201105061854/...>, > plus much more. In fact, when Russert asked Dr. Paul about a 1988 > statement > made by Paul against Reagan, when Paul had proclaimed, “I want to > totally > disassociate myself from the Reagan administration,” the congressman > didn’t > back off. Paul declared Reagan had been “a failure.” > > It was Reagans policies that created, trained and armed bin Laden... > that is an undeniable fact. Every country involved in the treasonous > yet all too easily dismissed Iran - Contra affair is doing better > today than then with one exception.... the USA. > > Preemptive strikes whether overt or covert always have been and always > will be eventual failures. People just don't like them. Yes, they may > not like their dictator.... but he is THEIR dictator...one of them. > > As far as Iran, Paul has it right... just what part of the fact that > the word SOVEREIGN applies to every country just as it does to the USA > don't you get??????????????????????????? They can do and or produce > what they want within their borders, they can trade with who they want > just as the USA can. > > Most countries have a far better grasp of trade and foreign affairs > and all the lasting implications than the USA does. Very few knee jerk > like gringos. > > Ever since the Germans ill-fated foray into Romania oil has been at > the forefront of every conflict including Vietnam (herbert hoover, > french indo-china reports) yet the USA does nothing to alleviate its > out of country dependence. (2/3 of all US imported oil comes from > Canadians ((2/3 of this same oil field is located in the US)) using a > process that the US companies claim is too expensive.... yet the gain > of the Canadian Dollar against US currency says it all) > > Paul has it right.... most are just too blind to see it. > > On Aug 28, 9:39 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > *Ron Paul: The GOP’s Henry Wallace* > > **http://bigpeace.com/smitsotakis/2011/08/15/ron-paul-the-gops-henry-wa. > .. > > > > The conspiracy-minded John Birch Society, long ago expelled from the > > conservative movement by Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley, Jr., is > > abuzz< > http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/8572-ames-iowa-go.. > .>over > > Congressman Ron Paul’s “Blame America First” performance at Thursday > > night’s Republican presidential debate. > > > > Oddly, it was Paul’s bizarre assessment of a nuclear Iran that impressed > > Birchers—and his many devoted supporters. “Just think of how many nuclear > > weapons surround Iran,” said Paul. “The Chinese are there. The Indians > are > > there. The Pakistanis are there. The Israelis are there. The United > States > > is there. All these countries … Why wouldn’t it be natural if they might > > want a weapon? Internationally, they might be given more respect. Why > should > > we write people off?” > > After arguing for Iran—the world’s leading terror state for 30 years and > > counting—to have nukes, Paul next implored America to negotiate with > these > > terrorists, citing examples from the Cold War, invoking Eisenhower in the > > 1950s and Reagan in the 1980s: “In the fifties, we at least talked to > them > > [the Soviets]. At least our leaders and Reagan talked to the Soviets. > What’s > > so terribly bad about this? And countries you put sanctions on you are > more > > likely to fight them. I say a policy of peace is free trade, stay out of > > their internal business, don’t get involved in these wars and just bring > our > > troops home.” > > > > This disdain for strong action against America’s enemies is nothing new > for > > Ron Paul. A few months ago, he was asked his reaction to the elimination > of > > Osama Bin Laden. His response? He stated that that the Navy SEAL raid on > Bin > > Laden’s hideout in Pakistan “was absolutely not necessary.” Why? Because > of > > the violation (alleged) of Pakistani sovereignty. Paul asked rhetorically > > ”What if he [Osama] had been in a hotel in London?” > > > > Of course, Thursday was hardly the first time the libertarian congressman > > went out of his way to make excuses for America’s enemies, or blame > America > > first. In 2007, when asked by Tim Russert, “How have we, the United > States, > > provoked al-Qaeda?” Paul responded: “Well, read what the lead—the > ringleader > > says. Read what Osama bin Laden said. We had, we had a base, you know, in > > Saudi Arabia that was an affront to their religion, that was blasphemy as > > far as they were concerned.” > > > > Funny that Congressman Paul fancies himself a new Ronald Reagan, because > it > > was Reagan’s pro-military investments which made the Bin Laden raid > > possible< > http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/571447/201105061854/...>, > > plus much more. In fact, when Russert asked Dr. Paul about a 1988 > statement > > made by Paul against Reagan, when Paul had proclaimed, “I want to totally > > disassociate myself from the Reagan administration,” the congressman > didn’t > > back off. Paul declared Reagan had been “a failure.” > > > > It is distressing to see such silliness having an appeal, especially > among > > many college students, but, alas, it does. > > > > And yet, in an ironic twist of fate, what we as Republicans are > experiencing > > has happened before, but it happened to Democrats. The Democrats of the > > post-war 1940s had to deal with their own version of Ron Paul: Henry > > Wallace. > > > > Like Dr. Paul, Wallace was a man of many great ideas. He was, in the > words > > of Cold War historian Ronald Radosh, “an agricultural genius—a man who > > believed in the concept of scientific agriculture, and in the diligent > > agronomic use of statistical research; and in the diligent agronomic use > of > > statistical research; and a scientist whose own research led him to > develop > > and spread the process of hybrid corn—a process that revolutionized the > > yield of corn and led to an agricultural revolution.” > > > > In short, agriculture was to Wallace what monetary policy is to Paul. > > > > Wallace served as secretary of agriculture and later vice president in > the > > Roosevelt administration; that is, he did so until his weirdness and > > remarkable reverence for Stalin’s Soviet Union prompted FDR to switch him > > with Harry Truman in the 1944 election, making Wallace his secretary of > > commerce. > > > > After FDR died, the new president, Truman, kept Wallace as secretary of > > commerce. With the war over, however, Wallace found himself in a tough > spot. > > Troubled by the onset of the Cold War, he was driven to speak out on > > September 1946, and denounce the new threat to world peace: that is, the > > threat posed by America and *Truman* to that amiable peacenik Joe Stalin. > > Shortly thereafter, Wallace was removed from his position. > > > > Importantly, Wallace was far from finished. Like Ron Paul, Wallace > steadily > > denounced American foreign policy, as pursued by both Democrats and > > Republicans—and he pursued the presidency. > > > > Like Ron Paul, Wallace would not let those World War III seeking > > “Imperialists” working in the interests of “British Colonialism” get off > > easy. (For Paul today, replace the words “Imperialists” with “Neo-cons” > and > > “British Colonialism” with “Israel.”) And when Stalin would do something > > unpleasant, such as take over Czechoslovakia in February of 1948, Wallace > > would explain that it was Truman’s fault. Wallace blamed America first, > in > > spite of the blatantly aggressive actions of an obvious external enemy. > > > > Thus, Wallace and some of his old friends from the Department of > Agriculture > > started their own version of Paul’s “Campaign for Liberty.” They called > > themselves “Progressive Citizens of America.” Wallace’s supporters > believed > > that the U.S. government was behind a conspiracy to create worldwide > crises > > in order to subvert and dominate other nations for American imperial > > purposes. They insisted that “innocent” people, like Alger Hiss, were > being > > unjustly persecuted. This group later morphed into the Progressive Party, > > from which Wallace would challange Truman for the presidency in 1948. > > > > In 1948, presidential candidate Wallace proclaimed: “There is no real > fight > > between a Truman and a Republican. Both stand for a policy which opens > the > > door to war in our lifetime and makes war certain for our children. … The > > American people read of the fantastic appropriations that are being made > for > > military adventures in Greece, Turkey, China—and billions for armaments > here > > at home. … Two years ago I denounced those who were talking up World War > III > > as criminals. Of course, the bulk of our people are not criminals, but it > is > > possible for a little handful of warmongers to stampede them.” > > > > And with his comrades, men like Harry Magdoff, Victor Perlo, and Charles > > Kramer, Wallace set out to win the presidency in 1948. His comrades > failed > > to disclose to Wallace their other names, to wit: KANT (Magdoff), RAIDER > > (Perlo), and PLUMB (Kramer)—their code names as Soviet agents. > > > > If it isn’t obvious by now, what had happened was that Wallace had been > > duped, and much to most of his party was controlled or influenced by the > > Communist Party. It took Wallace two more years after suffering a > > humiliating defeat in that election, and watching as the so-called > > Progressive Party backed the communists against American troops in Korea, > > for him to realize what was going on, whereby he denounced his own party > and > > resigned. > > > > But the impact of that campaign went far beyond its time. In a review on > the > > back cover of a first edition copy of Curtis Macdougall’s ”Gideon’s > Army,” a > > KGB-published <http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/Marzani&Munsell-rpt.pdf> > book > > (1965) about the Progressive Party, radical left-wing academic > StaughtonLynd wrote: “There might have been no Bay of Pigs, no Vietnam, no > Santo > > > > Domingo if the ideas of the third party of 1948 had prevailed … those > ideas > > of 1948 are alive today.” Just as Ron Paul, when asked by Tim Russert, > > “Under President Paul, if North Korea invaded South Korea, would we > > respond?” Paul promised he would not have. “Why should we unless the > > Congress declared war?” responded Paul. “I mean, why are we there? South > > Korea, they’re begging and pleading to unify their country, and we get in > > their way. They want to build bridges and go back and forth. Vietnam, we > > left under the worst of circumstances. The country is unified. They have > > become Westernized. We trade with them. Their president comes here. And > > Korea, we stayed there and look at the mess.” > > > > Needless to say, Ron Paul’s commendable embrace of free-market principles > in > > no way makes him sympathetic to Soviet communism, as was the case for > Henry > > Wallace. Ron Paul is obviously not pro-Soviet or pro-communist—quite the > > contrary. The commonality is each man’s breathtakingly bad positions on > > foreign policy and America’s enemies. And unfortunately for Ron Paul, it > > will be that twisted view of foreign policy that forever keeps him from > his > > party’s nomination and the White House—just as it did Henry Wallace. > > > > *Spyridon Mitsotakis is a student at New York University, and an aspiring > > Cold War researcher.* > > > > HenryWallace.jpg > > 39KViewDownload > > > > RonPaul.Iowa..jpg > > 22KViewDownload > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
