Bilderberg in the mainstream media, Rand Paul, and two big names – Alex Jones and Glenn Beck – that are side-tracking the alternative media.
The Washington Post
Is Rand Paul going mainstream, or vice versa?
Rand Paul seems to be crossing over to the mainstream — or maybe it’s the other way around. When Kentucky’s junior senator arrived in Washington just over two years ago, he appeared destined to inhabit the role of perpetual outlier. But now, he’s in the mix on just about everything that is happening, and is talked about as a credible Republican presidential contender in 2016.
Paul is aggressively trying to forge at least a cordial relationship with GOP establishment interests that have been suspicious of him — sometimes even outright hostile — in the past.
“He is a work in progress,” said one well-known Republican who recently met with Paul and spoke on the condition of anonymity, sensitive to the fact that public knowledge of their cordiality wouldn’t benefit either of them.
Part of his new relevance comes from the sudden prominence of a set of issues on which Paul has been a somewhat lonely voice in the Republican Party.
There is fresh attention to privacy, amid revelations about the government’s aggressive surveillance programs; renewed mistrust of the Internal Revenue Service, in the wake of its admissions of improperly targeting conservative groups for scrutiny; and heightened anxiety about foreign entanglement, as the prospect of deeper U.S. military involvement in Syria looms.
Meanwhile, Paul is involving himself more deeply in other questions where he has not been a leading player in the past.
On immigration, for instance, he has introduced a series of amendments to increase congressional oversight of border security and narrowly define the conditions under which those who are in this country illegally can get in line to become citizens.
“I am the conduit between conservatives in the House who don’t want [a broad bill] and more moderate people in the Senate who do want these things,” Paul said recently on “Fox News Sunday.” “I’m really trying to make immigration work. But they’re going to have to come to me, and they’re going have to work with me to make the bill stronger if they want me to vote for it.”
What most explains the new seriousness with which Paul is being regarded, however, is the quest for identity inside the battered Republican Party.
In an era of government expansion and mounting debt, the GOP is undergoing something of an evolution in its attitude toward the libertarian philosophy of Paul and his father, former congressman and presidential contender Ron Paul (R-Tex.).
“Most people like me — Republican, conservative — have a libertarian streak in them,” said [PNAC Neocon, CFR dir.] Vin Weber, a lobbyist, ex-congressman and pillar of the party establishment in Washington. “Whereas 20 or 30 years ago, Republicans would say the real world prevents them from acting on their libertarian instincts, today the real world is heightening their libertarian instincts.”
Others say that the younger Paul, 50, has helped bring about more acceptance of libertarianism by offering a softer-edged ideology than his father’s.
“I would define Ron Paul as a hyper-libertarian,” said David Lane, a Christian conservative activist who organized a seven-day trip to Israel for Paul and a group of evangelical pastors in January. “I think [Rand Paul] is closer to where I am philosophically than he is to where his dad is.”
Still, many aspects of libertarianism remain a hard sell to key Republican constituencies, particularly to social conservatives who see its mind-your-own-business attitude as an abandonment of moral values, and to internationalists who believe its tendencies toward isolationism are dangerous and naive.
“He still is going to have to explain how America leads in the world. You can’t discount all the tools in the toolbox,” Weber said. “At some point, he has to articulate a philosophy of what it is that government should appropriately be doing.”
Paul’s office declined a request for an interview.
The Kentucky opthalmologist-turned-senator represents a brand of inclusiveness at a time when the party is desperate to reach beyond its base. Along with his father, he also has an ability to excite young people that no one else in the party can match. In March, his 13-hour filibuster to protest the Obama administration’s drone warfare tactics electrified the blogosphere on both the left and right, with Twitter registering 450,000 tweets using the hashtag #standwithrand.
“If we want to win nationally again, we will have to reach out to a diverse nation and welcome African Americans, Asians, Latinos into our party. When the Republican Party looks like the rest of America, we will win again,” Paul said in a well-received speech on March 31 at the Ronald Reagan library in Simi Valley, Calif. “When we have people with tattoos and without tattoos, with ties and without ties, with suits and in blue jeans, then we win nationally.”
Paul’s outreach efforts have not been unvarnished successes. He was lampooned last month, for instance, for giving an awkward presentation about the Republican Party’s role in the civil rights struggle before an audience of African American students at Howard University.
But what impressed many was the fact that a Republican went to Howard at all.
“His audience was the outside world, and [his message was] the fact that he showed up. The easy thing would be not to go,” said former congressman J.C. Watts (Okla.), one of the few prominent black Republican lawmakers.
Watts said he recently met with Paul to discuss working together on their mutual interest in changing mandatory sentencing laws that both believe are disproportionately harsh on African Americans.
“Rand Paul is willing to admit that’s a real issue. That’s something conservatives often don’t want to do is admit the reality of the problem,” Watts said. “You don’t have to abandon your conservative values to admit there’s a problem.”
Watts acknowledged that his perception of Paul has changed. He compared his reaction to the old tagline of late-night television host Arsenio Hall: “Things that make you go, ‘Hmm.’ ”
When Paul won his party’s nomination in 2010 — on the strength of tea party support, and over the establishment pick backed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — the Republican Jewish Coalition, which includes many of the party’s biggest fundraisers, was so horrified that it took the unusual step of opposing a Republican.
At the time, RJC Executive Director Matthew Brooks said Paul was “outside the comfort level of a lot of people in the Jewish community, and in many ways, outside of where the Republican Party is on many issues.”
But a thaw (détente) may be in the offing,after a meeting last week with the organization’s board of directors.
“There were some pleasant surprises,” Brooks said. “While there may be areas of disagreement, he is very, very different — and certainly different with regard to his father.”
Although Paul persists in wanting to end foreign aid, for example, he described that as an eventual goal, and talked of “putting Israel in a different category” from that of hostile countries, Brooks said.
He also has been making appearances in early presidential primary states — and in nontraditional venues for Republicans, such as libertarian-minded Silicon Valley.
At this point, the recent political phenom Paul most resembles may be one from the other party — former Vermont governor Howard Dean, also a doctor, whose briefly front-running 2004 Democratic presidential campaign excited passions and threatened to upend the establishment, but ultimately crumbled to make way for a more conventional nominee.
For Paul, too, the question ultimately may be whether he has the discipline and the seasoning to go the distance.
But for now, he remains a figure of singular intrigue, no longer marginalized by his party — or dismissed by the opposition.
The current cover of the left-of-center New Republic magazine features a black-and-white image shot by the edgy portrait photographer Platon. “The Real Rand Paul (Can’t Be Trusted),” it warns. The fingers on his left hand are crossed.
Julia IOFFE [JEWISH] is a senior editor at The New Republic.
(…) »When Paul launched his political career three years ago, he was viewed in much the same way as his father, or, as Senator John McCain once called him, a “wacko bird.” He was identified with the same marginal issues (drug legalization, neo-isolationism) and the same marginal constituencies (anarchists, goldbugs). But this year, Paul has emerged as a serious candidate. He has started actively campaigning for the nomination earlier than any of the other Republicans mulling a run. Already, he has racked up multiple meet-and-greets, dinners, and coffee gatherings in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. While his father may have been an also-ran, national polls show Rand Paul as one of the top contenders for the GOP nomination. In private, Paul has been meeting with key GOP power brokers, including the Koch brothers, and he has courted techies at Silicon Valley companies like Google, Facebook, and eBay. “We’re doing something that Ron never did; we’re reaching out to major donors,” says a Paul adviser. “Not everyone is giving us money, but there’s definitely some flirtation going on.” According to this adviser, in the last six months, RAND PAC, Paul’s national political operation, has raised more than a million dollars. “He’s very politically talented,” says a former senior official at the Republican National Committee. “He is absolutely a contender.”
In his efforts to court new audiences, or to bring what he calls “tough love” to friendly ones, Rand Paul is aiming for a bigger, broader base than Ron Paul—or, for that matter, Mitt Romney—ever captured. (…)
The biggest test of Paul’s larger ambitions is his relationship with the Republican establishment. If he wants to win the nomination, he needs the party’s power brokers; if he wants to keep his Tea Party credibility, he can’t appear too cozy with them. Many in the traditional conservative establishment—particularly the foreign policy hawks—have been wary of Paul, but they have come to recognize, and fear, his growing power. “I have to give him credit for political entrepreneurship,” says [JEWISH NEOCON PNAC FOUNDER] Bill KRISTOL, editor of The Weekly Standard, describing Paul’s tactics as “demagogic.” “I think [the Republican establishment is] nervous about him; that’s the one thing about him I kind of like,” Kristol adds. “They think he’s got some real clout out there with the grassroots, which is why I’d say they’ve bent over backwards to be nice to him.”(…)
If Ron has built a national grassroots network, Rand was one of its main architects. That network included some extreme elements: For decades, various nonprofits associated with the elder Paul published pamphlets containing racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic vitriol. (According to a source close to the Paul family, Ron claims he didn’t read the offensive material, while Rand “was reading that stuff and saying, ‘This is horrible. You gotta knock it off.’” (…)
Rand Paul Visiting Facebook and Google on Fundraising Tour
Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky will shake hands with top executives at Facebook, Google and eBay on a fundraising tour through Silicon Valley later this week. Paul will begin his trip Thursday at Facebook’s headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif., where he’ll take a tour and meet with Facebook higher-ups (no word on whether Zuckerberg [BILDERBERG JEW] will attend). Facebook has played host to conservative lawmakers before, welcoming Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) back in September 2011.
Paul will then disengage from the tech world for a moment to deliver a speech to the Hoover Institute. He’ll then hop back in the Silicon Valley saddle with a visit to Google [BILDERBERG JEWS] to meet with executives and answer questions from Google employees from around the world who are sending them in online.
Friday, Paul will take a tour of eBay’s offices and meet with company leadership. He’ll then give a dinner speech at the Reagan Library Foundation and later leave the state.
It may seem odd that a senator from Kentucky is looking to cozy up to the leaders of the technology world. However, Paul may have aspirations beyond the Senate: his name frequents the (very) early 2016 presidential shortlists. It can’t hurt Paul to have some of the country’s top companies in his corner should he decide to seek the highest office.
Paul has also been trying to position himself as a key player in the Republican Party’s efforts to claim the technology industry as its own. It has been almost a year since Paul released « The Technology Revolution, » his four-page manifesto attacking net neutrality and arguing the Internet economy is most productive without government regulation. More recently, Paul fiercely defended Apple when the company was summoned by Congress to testify on its overseas tax practices, calling it « America’s greatest success story. »
« Sen. Paul believes that the tech sector will be a primary driver of US economic growth and prosperity in the coming years, and that a healthy and vibrant tech sector is vital to US competitiveness in the global economy, » Doug Stafford, senior strategist to Paul, said in a statement provided to Mashable about the senator’s California trip.
« He wanted to take this opportunity to visit with tech leaders and entrepreneurs, who he believes must be kept free from government regulation that threatens to stifle innovation, which will spur job creation and which promises to improve the quality of life for hundreds of millions of Americans and billions more people around the globe. »
Do you think Rand Paul’s libertarian politics will appeal to Silicon Valley’s movers and shakers? Share your thoughts in the comments.
Rand Paul for President: Is Rand Paul Using His Father’s Campaign to Lay the Groundwork for 2016?
Ron Paul’s campaign for President has, according to most observers, lost any trace of hope that it could somehow be a relevant force in this year’s election. That is, assuming the elder Paul doesn’t run on a third party ticket, which he has said he won’t.
But what if Ron Paul’s 2012 run isn’t the point? What if Ron Paul 2012 is, in fact, a well-coordinated dress rehearsal for a far more serious campaign on behalf of Paul’s son, Senator Rand Paul, come 2016? Business Insider thinks that’s the story that might be developing:
The younger Paul’s prospective campaign is still four, or eight, years away, but the junior Senator appears to be taking all the right steps to position himself for when the time comes. Later this month Rand will return to Iowa — without his father — to deliver the keynote speech at the Iowa Faith And Freedom Coalitions spring rally — the most obvious indication yet that Sen. Paul has his own presidential ambitions.
“He loves Iowa,” Sen. Paul’s communications director Moira Bagley told Business Insider. “He’s been out there so much, with his dad’s campaign, so he’s really comfortable and really happy with the people out in Iowa, and especially the evangelical groups.”[…]
Business Insider has learned that Sen. Paul has even been approached about a possible trip to Israel with Christian activist David Lane, a conservative kingmaker whose “Pastor Policy Briefings” helped launch Mike Huckabee’s political star in 2008.[…]
This last point could mark an encouraging turn for the many people who have long wanted to harness the Paul campaign’s youthful energy without necessarily accepting the candidate’s more anti-American sentiments regarding foreign policy. More to the point, Rand Paul’s successful insurgency in 2010 shows that he is capable of coming up against the GOP establishment at a national level, while also working with them once the primary was over to defeat a Democrat.
Is Rand Paul the Presidential candidate of the future GOP? Weigh in below.
The first six months of 2013 have made two things very clear: 1) Rand Paul is running for president and 2) Rand Paul is the most interesting politician in the country at the moment.
Senator Rand Paul continues to fascinate. AP photo.
From his filibuster over drones to his positioning on the immigration reform bill to his well-received trips to early presidential-voting states, Paul has shown a knack for simultaneously confounding expectations and drawing press attention. And, with the immigration fight in the Senate headed to a conclusion in the next few weeks and the debt ceiling battle looming this fall, Paul promises to be at the center of the political conversation going forward, too.
“Rand wants to accomplish things, not merely blow up the process in order to make news,” said Billy Piper, former chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. “That is refreshing and I think helps explain why so many on the right have been drawn to his leadership and style.”
(Make sure to read Julia Ioffe’s Rand profile in the new edition of the New Republic.)
Paul is, without question, a prime mover in two arenas right now: the Senate and the presidential race. (Of course, the Senate is also a proving ground/minefield for several members of the 2016 presidential field so the two arenas are deeply intertwined.) (…)
America Last: Will Zionist Pressure Force Rand to Rewrite Ron’s America-First Foreign Policy?
By Michael Collins Piper
Is Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), son of iconic Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul, planning to “rewrite” the traditional nationalist and non-interventionist foreign policy stance of the grassroots movement that’s coalesced around his father’s two consecutive bids for the GOP presidential nomination? Is the younger Paul planning to make moves to capture the support of pro-Israel Christian evangelicals by shifting away from his own father’s stands which have, in the past, alienated those voters?
That’s the well-founded speculation emerging in the wake of a provocative and revealing article that appeared on May 3, 2012 in Business Insider (BI).
In the article, entitled “PHASE TWO OF THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION HAS BEGUN: Rand Paul Is Already Getting Ready To Run In 2016,” BI reported that Rand is, even now, working to enhance his own visibility in Iowa, actively courting Iowa voters, even as his father’s campaign for the 2012 Republican nomination winds down. And considering the fact that followers of the senior Paul now constitute “the best network in the state of Iowa,” according to talk show host Steve Deace, a conservative leader cited by BI, this could provide the Kentucky senator a strong base of support for a 2016 presidential run.
Noting that Ron Paul backers have taken over key positions in the state’s GOP, Deace says that the Paul supporters “are” the Republican Party in Iowa. Said Deace: “If Rand Paul wants to run for president, he will have that organization as a huge advantage over everyone else.”
In addition, BI reported, the younger Paul is working to enhance his own ties to Christian evangelicals, “most of whom,” BI noted, “have never been particularly taken with the elder Paul.” One key Iowa evangelical, David Lane—who opposed Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012—has approached Rand Paul about a trip to Israel.
BI said Lane’s overture was “part of a larger discussion about Rand’s position on the Jewish state, which has been a political landmine for the elder Paul.” BI noted that “Lane’s interest in Rand’s Israel positions also underscores the opportunity that the younger Paul has to rewrite parts of the narrative about the Ron Paul movement, specifically regarding national security and foreign policy issues.”
Note very carefully the word “rewrite.” BI added that “the fact that such an idea even exists indicates that Sen. Paul’s potential candidacy is being taken very seriously by conservatives.” That Rand would begin making moves to assuage the concerns of the pro-Israel lobby comes as no surprise to those who’ve been monitoring his political maneuvering since he ran for the Senate in 2010.
Then—and since—Rand engaged in rhetoric quite different from his father’s vis-à-vis efforts to ramp up American support for action against Iran, a longtime pet project of the neocons who are among Ron Paul’s most vituperous critics. Rand’s chief tactician in 2010—deployed to his campaign by the Republican National Committee—was Trygve Olson, who was deeply enmeshed in the global intrigues of the International Republican Institute (IRI), a neocon venture chaired by warmongering Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a fervent internationalist. Outspoken columnist Paul Craig Roberts has called IRI “an election-rigging tool of U.S. hegemony,” an apt description inasmuch as the IRI is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, which specializes in meddling in the political affairs of other countries—a position totally contrary to the non-interventionist point of view so effectively articulated by Ron Paul.
Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S.
Powerful Forces Promote Rand Paul
• Kentucky senator getting key financial, propaganda support from high-placed Bilderbergers
By Michael Collins Piper
More disturbing evidence suggests Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is getting critical high-level support from the establishment elite who seem to favorably perceive Paul as distancing himself from his father, retired Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).
On June 19 The Washington Post—a key voice for the powerful globalist Bilderberg group—featured a front-page story declaring “Rand Paul moving from fringes into mainstream.”
Asserting that Paul “is talked about as a credible Republican presidential contender in 2016,” who is “no longer marginalized by his party—or dismissed by the opposition,” the story promoting Paul appeared on the very day (though the Post didn’t mention it at the time) Paul was the keynote speaker at a fundraising banquet for the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) in Washington.
Among the biggest donors for that gala featuring Paul were Internet giants Google and Facebook—both of which have been represented at recent Bilderberg meetings alongside Washington Post Company chairman Donald Graham who is also a member of Facebook’s board of directors.
The Post story was almost an eerie echo of a report in AMERICAN FREE PRESS as far back as May 28, 2012 which noted that some concerned patriots were already speculating Paul was in the process of what one source described as a looming “rewrite” of his father’s views on matters of national security and foreign policy, positions that, quite naturally, rankled the Bilderberg elite.
The Post cited an un-named but “well-known” Republican who described Paul as “a work in progress,” and noted that the GOP power broker “spoke on the condition of anonymity, sensitive to the fact that public knowledge of their cordiality wouldn’t benefit either of them.”
Quite notably, however, the Post did not hesitate to make reference to favorable remarks about Paul by former Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.), describing Weber as a “pillar of the party establishment in Washington.” The fact that Weber is being referenced as being inclined toward Paul is telling, if not ominous, from the perspective of those who admired the work of Paul’s father.
While citing Weber’s comment that he, too, has a “libertarian streak,” and that today’s Republicans find “the real world is heightening their libertarian instincts,” what the Post did not mention—but which informed members of its elite readership know well—is that Weber is a director of the Council on Foreign Relations—the New York offshoot of the London-based Royal Institute for International Affairs, the foreign policy arm of the Rothschild banking dynasty.
A veteran of the now-infamous Project for the New American Century, which declared the need for a “New Pearl Harbor” to stimulate American meddling around the globe, Weber once urged the GOP to become “America’s new internationalist party.”
The Post did not mention, though, that Paul has a close, direct tie to Weber’s intrigues: Paul’s chief 2010 Senate campaign tactician—deployed to work for Paul by the Republican National Committee—was Trygve Olson, a former top-level operative of the International Republican Institute (IRI), a creation of—and funded by—the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) of which Weber was chairman (and onwhose board of directors he remains).
Described by outspoken columnist Paul Craig Roberts as “an election-rigging tool of U.S. hegemony,” the IRI (and the NED) stand in stark opposition to the nationalist and non-interventionist point of view so effectively articulated by Rand Paul’s dad.
The Post also mentioned that David Lane, a Christian conservative who took Paul on a seven day trip to Israel in January, said that Paul “is closer to where I am philosophically than he is to where his dad is.”
In a related vein, the Post noted that there is a “thaw” between Paul and the hard-line pro-Israel Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), which was previously suspicious of Paul. Paul recentlymetwith that group’s board. RJC Executive Director Matthew Brooks said of the meeting: “There were some pleasant surprises,” adding that “while there may be areas of disagreement, [Rand Paul] is very, very different—and certainly different with regard to his father.”
According to Brooks, Paul still wants to eventually end all U.S. foreign aid—including aid to Israel.
What Brooks did not mention, however, is an unusual, little-known fact readers of The Spotlight (forerunner of AFP) learned in the mid-1980s: The “hard right” in Israel advocated breaking Israeli reliance on the U.S., even including financial aid.
So while many thought the younger Paul had “stood up to the Israeli lobby” when he told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in 2010 that he opposed aid to Israel, the truth is that his position paralleled that of even some neoconservative pro-Israel elements in the United States who—in their now-infamous “Clean Break” memo to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—urged Israeli independence from the United States and less reliance on U.S. financial support. As such, Paul’s position on foreign aid to Israel is not quite as rebellious as some might perceive.
Uncomfortable as all of these details are, they point to the need for America’s patriots to monitor Rand Paul closely as he moves toward a bigger leadership role in the years ahead.
Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and, of course, the United States. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, My First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, Share the Wealth: Huey Long vs Wall Street, The Judas Goats: The Enemy Within, Target: Traficant and The Golem: Israel’s Nuclear Hell Bomb.
Rand Paul Hones Pro-Israel Pitch, But Finds Jewish Leaders Wary
Can Rand Paul woo his party’s Jews? The Kentucky senator and likely candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination is stepping up his Jewish outreach. In recent weeks, Paul chatted with rabbis on a conference call and proposed legislation to cut funding to the Palestinian Authority unless it recognizes Israel as a Jewish state.
Making inroads with Jewish Republicans is an uphill battle for Paul, an ardent anti-interventionist and opponent of foreign aid. A few years ago, Jewish Republicans were sounding alarms over Paul’s foreign policy views, which they saw as inimical to the U.S.-Israel alliance.
Now, however, some are sounding a more conciliatory note.
The Republican Jewish Coalition’s executive director, Matthew Brooks, told JTA that Paul has “evolved.”
“He started off wanting to cut all foreign aid. Now he sees it as a long-term strategy. He wants to start scaling back to countries burning flags in their streets,” said Brooks, referencing Paul’s calls to cut aid to countries that are hostile to the United States.
It’s a major shift from 2010 when Paul was running for Senate. At the time Brooks had called Paul a “neo-isolationist” who was “outside the comfort level of a lot of people in the Jewish community.”
Rand Paul’s Jewish outreach finds receptive if wary audience
Rand Paul, Israeli Slave, Proposes Cutting Aid to Palestine
• In obvious move to pander to Jewish donors and voters, Kentucky senator proposes bill to punish Palestinians by cutting off financial aid to poverty-stricken people.
Rand Paul: « I haven’t joined the neocon cabal »
From Pariah to Pareve? Rand Paul is making slow but steady progress in his longshot bid to win some Jewish support. Republican presidential run. And he’s making some small but surprising breakthroughs.
Rand Paul Stands With Israel
Rand Paul attacks Clinton and names the enemy of the US – ‘radical Islam’
AMERICAN FREE PRESS
The Secret Issue Behind Debate Over Unemployment Benefits
• OK to stop checks for struggling families, but not Israel?
By Michael Collins Piper
There’s a big “secret issue” behind the ongoing fight in Congress over a proposed three-month extension of federal benefits to the unemployed. But don’t count on commentators in the mainstream media (or even some voices in the “alternative” media) to talk about it.
Here’s the frontline story: On Jan. 7 the Senate voted 60-37 to end debate on a motion to consider the bill to extend those benefits. In otherwords, the Senate essentially agreed to “stop talking” and now actually vote on the bill itself. But whatever the Senate finally does, the proposed extension still has to go to the House, and there it is expected that the measure will be killed. That will be good news to conservatives and Republicans who don’t like government spending—at least in certain areas.
Republicans say they see the need for corresponding budget cuts to offset the proposed extension of benefits but no Republicans will call, for example, for cuts in foreign aid to Israel—which receives (at the very least) $3 billion per year from the United States, or—as former Rep. Jim Traficant (D-Ohio) has estimated—a probable maximum in the range of $25 billion when all direct aid, grants, loans and other side benefits (including military subsidies that are part of the U.S. defense budget) are totaled.
The Republicans—and the Democrats, too—consider the Israel aid boondoggle a virtually non-debatable matter—“off the books”—and an
“untouchable” part of the budget. They will never consider slashing this part of federal taxpayer-financed giveaway programs. Years ago, when then-President Bill Clinton and then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich were fighting over a possible government shutdown on the basis of federal spending, the one and only thing they agreed upon was that cutting aid to Israel was absolutely not under consideration. In fact, they said, it was likely that aid to Israel should be increased. That, they said, was in the best interests of America and its people.
In fact, the money given to Israel (with the enthusiastic prodding of the powerful and well-financed Israeli lobby on Capitol Hill) is as much in the realmof “welfare” as the kind of payments that go to unwed mothers with big hair and eight children living in the ghettoes of America’s big cities or in the hills of West Virginia.
But neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will ever admit it.
Ironically—or perhaps quite naturally—Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who does decry foreign aid giveaways and extravagant military spending that props up American meddling in foreign wars, became a prominent and vocal figure standing in opposition to extending the unemployment benefits.
This is in line with his traditional “libertarian” stance in opposition to any form of government spending. So, in one respect, Paul echoed conservatives in Congress and many voices in the tea party, who often can be counted among the most enthusiastic supporters of U.S. aid to Israel.
In the end, if the benefit extension is blocked, which seems likely, even “big spenders” among the Democrats will be quietly delighted, but for different reasons: GOP control of the House, coupled with a tenuous Democratic control of the Senate, will be in play in the 2014 elections as a direct consequence of the fight over those benefits.
Democrats will be seen by many voters to be on the side of Americans caught up in a bad economy and the GOP will be perceived as a foe of helping those folks.
When the benefits program expired in 2013, 1.3 million people were directly affected—and those numbers don’t include spouses, children and other dependents. That could add up to a lot of voters who could tip the balance in key elections.
But don’t ever count on the Democrats to say it’s time to cut aid to Israel to help bring benefits to Americans at home. That’s a “non-issue”—or so they say. Perhaps it’s time for some American politicians to say otherwise.
Rand Paul: Anything We Do To Destablize Assad Is Going To Reward Al-Qaeda
Voyez: même nos médias alternatifs adoptent ce point de vue: « si on se lance dans cette guerre d’Obama, ça va renforcer les méchants islamistes ». Moi je dis: méfiez-vous, car Rand Paul ne dirait certainement pas ça si c’était pas accepté et toléré par ses maîtres sionistes! Même le débile animateur radio/télé Rush Limbaugh, une vraie chèvre de Judas qui trompe les gens de droite pour le compte d’Israel, dit que Obama complote pour aller en guerre contre la Syrie, que Obama favorise Al-Qaida en Syrie. (Glenn Beck dit la même chose, vérifiez vous-mêmes!) Le piège dans leur discours est encore une fois qu’il propage l’anti-Islam, ce qui nous ramène subtilement, par une voie indirecte, sous la coupe de la propagande sioniste. Plusieurs à droite disent (comme les agents sionistes anti-islam) que c’est un complot musulman qui a mis Obama au pouvoir et qui est en train de subvertir tous les paliers de gouvernements et même l’armée! Tout ça serait un grand complot des musulmans, notamment des « Frères musulmans »! Dénoncer le fait que l’Occident va-t-en-guerre soutient Al-Qaida en Syrie est toléré par les sionistes. Moi je dirais que s’ils tolèrent ce discours, c’est parce que ça peut nuire à Obama en donnant des munitions à ses opposants.
Glenn Beck: » I Personally Am Calling for the Impeachment of the President of the United States «
Il dit exactement la même chose que Glenn Beck, qui fut un temps leader officieux du Tea Party. Les sionistes se servent des révélations sur l’appui US envers Al-Qaïda en Syrie pour attaquer Obama et demander sa destitution (comme pour l’affaire Snowden). Comme si c’était lui qui voulait aller en guerre… Les sionistes vont toujours trouver le moyen de blâmer Obama peu importe ce qu’il fait: s’il va pas en guerre c’est sa faute, s’il y va, c’est sa faute: « Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. » Faites attention au discours qui s’en prend à l’appui des USA envers al-Qaïda car cela peut aussi servir, de manière détournée, les plans d’Israël qui aime brandir constamment le spectre des « islamistes ».
By Michael Collins Piper
During the 2012 election campaign, you’ll probably be hearing a lot about “American exceptionalism,” particularly from the Republican presidential candidates. Newt Gingrich has made the concept a centerpiece of his campaign, and Gingrich’s wife—the current one, that is—has produced a documentary on the topic. Mitt Romney’s campaign book is entitled No Apology: The Case for American Greatness. Sarah Palin’s book, America by Heart, has a chapter entitled “America the Exceptional.” And former Sen. Rick Santorum and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty have also been heard touting the topic.
But don’t be fooled by rhetoric that has a lot of patriotic appeal. In fact, the concept of American exceptionalism— and a related theme known as national greatness conservatism—are really modern-day propaganda masks for old-fashioned Trotskyite communism: rapacious imperialism and internationalism now wrapped in the American flag, but no different from the age-old dream of a world imperium—a global government.
Many call it the New World Order. The wizards who conjured up these themes are three key figures in the so-called neo-conservative movement:
• William Kristol, founding editor of The Weekly Standard, long published by Zionist billionaire Rupert Murdoch;
• David Brooks, a former Kristol underling at the Standard and now a columnist for The New York Times, and;
• Marshall Wittmann, a Jewish Trotskyite-turned neo-conservative and regular Standard contributor. Kristol and Brooks began their crusade for national greatness conservatism with a Sept. 15, 1997 Wall Street Journal article that urged Americans to “reinvigorate the nationalism of Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay and Teddy Roosevelt.”
And during the 2000 presidential campaign, Wittmann chimed in with a lengthy piece in the Standard promoting John McCain, hailing McCain as a tribune of national greatness conservatism and as a modern-day Theodore Roosevelt.
Although many remember the first President Roosevelt as a symbol of American greatness, the ugly truth that the controlled media ignores is that it was “TR” who—even before Woodrow Wilson —began calling upon the American people to sacrifice their lives and treasure in the cause of global conquest, ostensibly in the name of bringing peace to the planet.
This is not nationalism. It is internationalism, advancing the theme that the United States should act as a world policeman promoting some undefined dream of democracy, which has now become the rallying cry of the modern Zionist-Trotskyite schemers.
So TR was an internationalist, and no true American nationalist should look to TR as a model of American greatness. Yet, TR’s spirit is said to underlie national greatness conservatism and American exceptionalism. More recently, in the Nov. 12, 2010 issue of The New York Times, the aforementioned Brooks—sounding the call for a new centrist movement in American politics— claimed that a national greatness agenda would be promoted by “the next big social movement.”
Brooks said this national greatness agenda would reject the views of “orthodox liberals and conservatives” and end “hyper-partisanship.” He added that “the coming movement may be a third party or it may support serious people in the existing two” and preserve American supremacy—that is, global interventionism. And don’t think it was—as the media has suggested— just a reckless misstep by Newt Gingrich when he criticized the Medicare reform package of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) saying, “I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.”
The truth is that Gingrich’s rhetoric—attacking both the right and the left in the same breath—was deliberate. He was clearly portraying himself as one of the centrist advocates of American exceptionalism, echoed by other recent comments by Gingrich proudly recalling his many years as a Rockefeller Republican.
Don’t be surprised—you heard it here first—that if he fails to win the GOP presidential nomination, Gingrich will be part of a breakaway centrist third party movement which has been conjured up at the highest levels of the establishment elite.
AFP—alone among the media—has been reporting on this phenomenon.
Another disciple of American exceptionalism, Yale Professor David Gelernter—another Weekly Standard figure—has promoted the idea that Americanism is a modern-day incarnation of Biblical Zionism and that Americans have “a divine mission to all mankind” and that “every human being everywhere is entitled to freedom, equality and democracy.”
In a book grandly entitled Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion, Gelernter expressed the contention that the United States (the base of what he has called American Zionism) is now charged with an imperial, even God-given, duty to remake the world, that Americanism is the creed of this global agenda, that this “Fourth Great Western Religion” is the driving force behind—and which must establish—a new planet- wide regime. He wrote:
We are the one and only biggest boy [in the world today]. If there is to be justice in the world, America must create it. . . .We must pursue justice, help the suffering and overthrow tyrants. We must spread the creed. This is the New World Order. And this is the underlying theme of national greatness conservatism and American exceptionalism. But there is nothing American about it. So don’t be fooled by what sounds like patriotic rhetoric from the Republicans. It isn’t.
A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem, Dirty Secrets, The Judas Goats, The Golem, Target Traficant and My First Days in the White House.
Historic Defense Cuts
« Countries in the Middle East will likely think about following the recent example of the Egyptian government in moving closer to Russia at the expense of their ties to the United States. Israel’s neighbors, in addition to the Palestinians and Hizbullah, will make what they will of an America no longer able to provide Israel with the kind of qualitative and quantitative military backing the Israelis and their enemies have come to take for granted. (…) But equally at issue here is the kind of robust presence the U.S. will maintain around the world, as well as the responses the military would be able to muster given any number of potential crises. (…) But we cannot help but be uneasy with a White House that seems to be signaling a weariness with America’s traditional role in the world and a wish to unburden itself of the responsibilities of leadership. «
Bref, l’article se termine sur la peur des juifs que les USA abandonnent leur rôle de POLICE MONDIALE…
U.S. should be the world’s policeman
When there is no effective alternative, democratic countries have an ethical and humanitarian duty to threaten to use military force and, if there is no other option, to actually use it.
U.S. President Barack Obama delivers remarks at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Inc., September 21, 2013. Photo by AFP
The United States should not be the world’s policeman, or so U.S. President Barack Obama argued in his address to the nation
on September 10, in which he explained his position on military intervention in the Syrian civil war. The president is wrong. In light of the history and doctrine of the use of force and military intervention, the United States, along with other enlightened democracies in possession of military might, should and must be the world’s policeman.
The horrors of World War II taught us certain lessons. One led to the formation of the United Nations, for the purpose of preserving world peace and creating a mechanism for dialogue among states. Another resulted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which eventually gave rise to binding international treaties meant to protect human rights. But some questions remain: Do the lofty goals that inspired the establishment of the United Nations mean that the international community has a
duty to intervene and raise the alarm in the event of the commission of war crimes or the use of weapons of mass destruction? (…)
It is legitimate to question whether intervention might lead to international escalation. Nevertheless, isolationism in cases where intervention is a moral necessity is supposed to be a thing of the past, of a time when states did not want to get bogged down in distant countries even in the event of war crimes
. If this attitude becomes prevalent once again, it will be to the detriment of the entire world. It goes without saying that diplomacy, itself a form of intervention, is preferable as long as it is effective and not a kind of Munich Pact, as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry noted in reference to Syria.
At the end of the day, America, together with other strong democratic countries, is indeed supposed to be the world’s policeman
– insofar as it is acting on behalf of the fundamental principles on which the United Nations was founded, even when political exigencies preclude obtaining UN approval. When there is no effective alternative or pressure must be exerted to kick-start diplomacy, democratic countries have an ethical and humanitarian duty to threaten to use military force
and, if there is no other option, to actually use it. Proportionally, of course, but also effectively, in compliance with the two leading criteria of military law.
The writer is a former legal adviser to the Defense Ministry.
Who was the most pro-Jewish U.S. president? Woodrow Wilson, obviously
A new biography of the 28th American president depicts him as an idealist Democrat whose moral and political influence still reverberates today. Haaretz talks to its author, A. Scott Berg.
(…) Obama’s address included more than faint echoes of another principled Democrat intent on transforming American society and the world beyond it: Woodrow Wilson, the 28th president of the United States, and the man who led his country into the First World War.
However, in A. Scott Berg’s biography, « Wilson » (Putnam Press), the book’s namesake emerges as a formidable statesman, one who has influenced the decision-making of every American president since his tenure.
Berg, the Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer of Charles Lindbergh and Hollywood producer Samuel Goldwyn
, sat down with Haaretz to discuss Wilson’s legacy and its effect on modern politics and the Obama administration’s policies – and why Wilson is what he calls the most pro-Jewish president in American history.
Why is the Wilson presidency so relevant to the Obama presidency?
« Wilson is the father of America’s modern foreign policy. For 125 years, the U.S. was an introverted nation that clung on to its isolationism. Wilson posed the question: What is America’s role in the world? And the answer he gave, in his speech to Congress on April 2, 1917, asking the legislature to declare war on Germany, was that it is America’s duty to ensure « the world must be safe for democracy. »
This credo has been espoused, for good and bad, by every president since Wilson, most recently by Barack Obama.
« Wilson was the most idealistic of America’s presidents. He spoke often and eloquently about America’s moral obligation. He wed idealism with interventionism. He urged his countrymen to fight preemptively for principles, instead of retaliating for attacks against them. And he obliged the U.S. to assist all peoples in pursuit of freedom and self-determination. Obama has fully embraced this moralism, most recently, when he sought congressional approval to punish Syria for its deadly use of chemical weapons. In fact, listening to his speech [on Syria], I thought Obama’s ideas and phraseology were ripped right out of Wilson’s playbook. »
In late 1917, the British Government asked President Wilson to support a declaration of sympathy with the Zionist movement.
« And he did. Wilson supported the Balfour Declaration
– ‘the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.’ He did so despite the advice of his most trusted confidante, Col. Edward House, who acted as America’s first national security adviser. You must remember that, at the time, the U.S. was an extremely anti-Semitic country,so expressing support for the Balfour Declaration was a very courageous act
« Wilson was the most Christian president the U.S. has ever had. He was the son and grandson of Presbyterian ministers; he prayed on his knees twice a day and read the Bible every night. But he was also the most pro-Jewish president the U.S. has ever had. He appointed the first Jew to the Supreme Court, Louis Brandeis, a fervent Zionist, who counseled Wilson about the Balfour Declaration
, and who would go on to champion an individual’s right to privacy and free speech. He brought the financier Bernard Baruch into government, and he appointed Henry Morgenthau as the ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during the First World War.
« Earlier, as president of Princeton University, Wilson appointed the first Jew to the faculty, and as governor of New Jersey, prior to becoming president, he appointed the first Jew to the state’s Supreme Court. »
VIDEO – WILSON ASKS CONGRESS TO DECLARE WAR 1917
Sur ce blog:
Rand Paul plus néocon que les néocons
Ron Paul explique le non-interventionnisme dans les affaires étrangères
La Judée déclare la guerre à Ron Paul … Judea declares war on Ron Paul
Les Néocons derrière Sarah Palin