Updated May 30, 2014:
I need to clarify and correct a couple of things in this post. By Zionist I mean, supporting greater Israeli ambitions, either overtly or covertly, with a hegemonic role for the Judaicized Christian church or for Judaism alone. One can support Israel on certain things and not wish for its dissolution but not be a Zionist in this sense. I don’t use Zionist to mean simply “in favor of a homeland for the Jews.”
I think I was mistaken about Walter Block. I read that Dr. Block opposes Israeli adventurism.
(Reposted, with more details..incomplete)
I will be trying to find the names of Ron Paul’s closest advisors to substantiate my increasingly certain belief that Ron Paul is a Zionist non-interventionist, i.e., that his non-interventionism is in the services of Zionism.
Thus he criticizes Obama in a recent piece:
“For example, instead of seeking proper authority from Congress and the Constitution to go to war with Libya, President Obama empowered the United Nations and the Arab League, two bodies that together endanger the security and sovereignty of our ally Israel.”
This is Israel-First, not America-First. Why? Because Congress is bought and sold by the Zionists/Israelis and the Supreme Court and constitution have become thoroughly politicized as well.
In that context, letting the regional powers of the ME and the modern equivalent of the concert of nations have an active influence on the outcome in Palestine is more likely to produce peace and stability than simply asserting unipolar American (read Zionist) interests.
[ On 24 April 2004, Uri Avnery wrote:
“Everybody understands that Vanunu has no more secrets. What can a technician know after 18 years in jail, during which technology has advanced with giant steps?
“But gradually it becomes clear what the security establishment is really afraid of. Vanunu is in a position to expose the close partnership with the United States in the development of Israel’s nuclear armaments.
“This worries Washington so much, that the man responsible in the State Department for ‘arms control’, Under-Secretary John Bolton, has come to Israel in person for the occasion. Vanunu, it appears, can cause severe damage to the mighty super-power.
“The Americans, it seems, are very worried. The Israeli security services have to dance to their tune. The world must be prevented by all available means from hearing, from the lips of a credible witness, that the Americans are full partners in Israel’s nuclear arms program, while pretending to be the world’s sheriff for the prevention of nuclear proliferation.”]
Second. When a third of the House Republicans introduced HR 1553 endorsing an Israeli strike on Iran, RP didn’t vote for, but he didn’t vote against, either. He didn’t vote, period.
Third. John Bolton, far right Zionist, has urged that ME issues be laid out in terms of Israeli self-defense.
RP has always done this.
Fourth: RP’s record is strongly pro-Israel when you examine the details. He was the only vote in support of Israel when it hit the Iranian Osirak reactor in 1981.
One web commentator analyzes his record:
QUOTE:
“In October 2002, Paul did vote against the Iraq War Resolution, H.J. Res. 114 but it came only after military action had already begun in the Mideast. On September 14, 2001, Ron Paul voted for H.J.RES.64 “To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.” H.J. Res. 64 was approved and the Senate approved S.J. Res. 23, “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.”
.J.RES.64 and S.J. Res. 23 provided Congressional authorization for the October 7, 2001 invasion of Afghanistan: “Operation Enduring Freedom, the official name used by the U.S. Government for its War in Afghanistan, together with three smaller military actions, under the umbrella of its Global War on Terror.” (“Operation Enduring Freedom”) Ron Paul was more than ‘a day late and a dollar short’ – like one year, several billions of dollars and thousands of human lives too late. By the time Ron Paul voted against the War in Iraq in October of 2002, U.S. action in the Middle East was well underway. Where was Congressman Paul’s passionate anti-war rhetoric in September of 2001?
Ron Paul reveals his true Zionist colors by maintaining that Islamic terrorists destroyed the Twin Towers on 9-11, and that the U.S. Military should be used against them. “Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States–and who may again attack the United States–and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States? 22.” (Ron Paul Speaks, fn. 22 Ron Paul, “Questions That Won’t Be Asked About Iraq,” U.S. House of Representatives, Sept. 10, 2002.)”
END OF QUOTE
In 2002, he passed a motion to declare war on Iraq, to make the point that Congress had the power to declare war.
Fifth. RP has not stood in the way of the Zionist domination of the media/finance/government in America or openly confronted the massive criminality of the Zionist oligarchy.
In sum, it seems more likely that any ending of support for Israel is merely a way to hasten the Pax Judaica on to its next phase, when Eretz Israel is achieved.
And so, for RP to say he wouldn’t intervene in a battle between Israel and Iran is meaningless.
Israel: 300 nuclear weapons, extreme Zionist control of three countries – US, UK, Israel, dominance in several European nuclear countries, dominance among secret spy agencies, global corporate dominance, stranglehold over all financial, drug, and sex crime flows
and
Iran: no weapons, nuclear program disrupted by Stuxnet virus (attributed by many to Israelis); no regional or world dominance, thoroughly infiltrated, surrounded by chaotic states dominated by US/Israel
Can you be hands off in a battle between a three year old and a man-eating tiger with a bevy of man-eating leopards behind it? Especially when it was you who fed the tiger, you who brought the tiger to the house, you who fought the boy’s family, when it sought to protect him, you who disarmed the boy’s father, you who raped the boy’s mother, and you who took even the stone from the little boy’s hand?
Ron Paul is FOR America and the American side in the war between Israel and Palestine, he says?
Really? Then why did he not stand up against the Zionists when they went to war against America – as they did in the Lavon affair, or in the attack on the Liberty, or in the Pollard affair, through Goldman Sachs and its multiple megabillion global frauds, and through Mossad/AIPAC espionage or through ADL ‘s Cheka-style monitoring and threats?
Ron Paul is on the side of America, only if you believe that America is Zion and Zion is America.
If that is so, then, indeed he is on the American side….which is the Zionist side… which is also the Israeli side.
Now to go back to figuring out RP’s advisors.
So far, I’ve come across only two people listed as close advisors in this campaign.
One is senior Mises scholar Walter Block, economics advisor during the 2008 campaign.
The other is the recent and controversial addition, Bruce Fein – legal advisor.
Block is an avowed Zionist, while Fein is also said to be a Zionist, but a more covert one.
One ardent RP supporter is financial manager, Peter Schiff, but I don’t know if Schiff, who raised money for Paul in the 2008 campaign and was his economic advisor, holds any official position with his 2012 campaign. Schiff too is a Zionist, but pretty straightforward about it, and well-regarded by colleagues.
Here are other names mentioned by Ron Paul in 2007 as possible additions to a future administration.
John Stossel, ABC reporter [RP says he’d be in charge of consumer affairs]; Walter Williams, UPenn faculty (neo-conservative, fully on board the Global War on (some) Terror) [ RP would put him in charge of economics]; James Grant, Barron’s financial columnist, hard money columnist [RP wanted him for Secretary of Treasury]; Robert Pape; Michael Scheuer (ex-CIA).
Paul has also given a shout out to constitutional law professor and media expert Jonathan Turley (a favorite of mine) and to judge Andrew Napolitano.
Block, Napolitano, Schiff, and Williams, are staples in libertarian circles. Stossel is a more mainstream libertarian. Grant is a senior figure in the hard money crowd; Turley is a well-known civil libertarian and the only one who has shown any open anti-Zionist leanings.
Of course, these aren’t advisors, but possible picks in a Paul administration, but they do give an idea of the direction of his thinking.
What is interesting is that all of them are media personalities, each in his own right (no women, you’ll notice). They are all established authors and make the lecture/TV or YouTube circuit. In that sense, this list is a very media savvy one, since everyone on it commands name recognition and would bring in their own following.
I am not sure what that means in other ways, though. Perhaps it means that media clout rather than credibility in office is Paul’s main aim. Perhaps it means something else.
What follows now is an assessment of the potential and credibility of Paul’s choices in a libertarian administration. My considerations are limited to two things – Zionism and professional integrity.
(Note: None of this is a personal attack on these figures. I wish them all well)
John Stossel, well-known for his investigations into government corruption, manages to be not too libertarian (remember that thing about force AND FRAUD?) when it comes to the vast bankster-speculator-regulation fraud going on for the last 20 years at least. He ignores it.
A Jewish libertarian, a major mainstream figure, who has never talked about the financiers but has gone on about government corruption?
Verdict – Zionist. Fails smell test for professional integrity. Probably competent.
Walter Williams – Zionist. Supports GWOT.
Fails smell test for professional integrity (Sorry, you don’t get to call yourself libertarian and then sign onto perpetual war. I don’t know enough to assess his professional competence.
Walter Block – Zionist (see above). (more later)
Peter Schiff – Zionist (see above). Wrote “Crash Proof,” warning of inflationary excesses in market.
Passes smell test for professional integrity and competence.
Bruce Fein – Zionist and suspected Israeli agent (see Boiling Frogs Post).
Lobbyist with suspect ties and ethical infractions. Strongly civil libertarian but appears to be opportunistic.
Fails smell test for professional integrity. Passes for competence.
Jim Grant – Doyen of hard-money crowd, columnist for major Wall Street magazine, Barron’s (Barron’s is owned by the hedge-fund crowd and is the home of the criminal short-selling cabal, see Deep Capture), author of adulatory biography of Zionist financier, Bernard Baruch, lives in Brooklyn. None of that sounds too encouraging from the point of view of the average Joe, but, Grant has sounded a consistent note of skepticism about the market and predicted a day of reckoning. So while he is a possible Zionist,he passes the smell test for professional integrity and competence.
Andrew Napolitano – Libertarian constitutional scholar, judge and media personality.
Michael Scheuer – ex-CIA, has written vehemently against the Zionist agenda and neoconservatives (but then, so has Bruce Fein). Scheuer was the man on the job during the biggest intelligence failure in US history. That and his kiss-and-squeal book gives him a “fail” for professional competence.
The jury is out as far as professional integrity goes, but I tend to suspect mainstream figures who spout “anti-Semitic” stuff too glibly. Like all those fake-Jihadi sites.
Oh, and his “OBL did it, did it, did too do it,” subtext suggests “limited hang-out” to some observers.
[Anti-Zionist activist, Maidhc O’ Cathail points out why].
Robert Pape: At least, Pape did a good thing by showing that suicide bombing was not invented by Islamicists and is not peculiar to them. It is in fact uncommon and motivated world-wide by strategic considerations rather than religious fundamentalism.
What is interesting is that the two people RP names both have a professional interest in terrorism. Pape’s research into the subject is considered paradigm shifting. He has done extensive work on the group that invented suicide bombing. the Marxist Tamil Tigers, and Fein has been a lobbyist for the Tigers since 2008, after lobbying against them from 2004 until 2007.
The selection of two people whose professional activities relate to terrorism suggests that even if the US is contemplating withdrawal from the Middle East (after having secured Israeli military domination and destabilized the area), it will be engaging in more intervention in another area (read South Asia), where terrorism is rife.
Non-intervention in Palestine then is just another word for nothing left to gain there and more to come in Pakistan-India (Islamic terrorism, LTT terrorism, Maoist/Naxalite terrorism, Naga terrorism).
Says Pape, who heads up the Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism:
“Even if al-Qaeda becomes a thing of the past, that doesn’t mean terrorism will disappear. This field has become a key component of the academic world, and it will continue to contribute to our understanding of world events in the future.”
Pape’s other writing (on the uses of air power and the efficacy of economic sanctions, among others) tends toward a realist and conservative use of force, one that limits itself to sharply circumscribed circumstances and methods. Nothing not to like here.
But, not unexpectedly, his research doesn’t seem to run to the deep structures (drugs, crime, mafias, covert operations) that more and more dominate the actual conduct of politics.
Political sympathies unknown. Passes the smell test for professional integrity and competence.
Pingback: Rand Paul Shows True Colors | The Mind-Body Politic