Tag Archives: Al-Qaeda

Who is Behind “Al Qaeda in Iran”?


Original Article:  http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-is-behind-al-qaeda-in-iran/5332593

US-Canada Claim Iran-Al Qaeda Ties Despite US Funding Al Qaeda in Iran for Years


As the FBI reels from what now appears to be revelations it was directly involved in the Boston Marathon bombings, a deluge of FBI “success” stories have been “serendipitously” splashed across Western headlines. Among them was an allegedly “foiled” terror attack in Canada, reported to be the work of terrorists supported by “Al-Qaeda operatives in Iran.” The Globe and Mail, in its report, “Canada joins U.S. in alleging al-Qaeda has operatives based in Iran,” states:

“To many, it came as a surprise that the RCMP is alleging that two terror suspects arrested in Canada on Monday were supported by al-Qaeda operatives in Iran.

The Sunni-based al-Qaeda and Shia Iran belong to different branches of Islam that have been at odds historically. But in recent years U.S. officials have formally alleged that Iran has allowed al-Qaeda members to operate out of its territory.”

Both at face value and upon deeper examination, this assertion is utterly absurd, divorced from reality, and indicative of the absolute contempt within which the Western establishment holds the global public. In reality, the West, the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in particular, have propped up and perpetuated Al Qaeda for the very purpose of either undermining or overthrowing the governments of Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Algeria, Libya,  Russia, Malaysia, Indonesia, and beyond.

Regarding Iran in particular, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his 2007 New Yorker piece titled, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” would state:

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

In a follow up, Hersh in his 2008 New Yorker piece titled, “Preparing the Battlefield: The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran,” spelled out a damning indictment of US involvement in bolstering, arming, and funding terror organizations, not linked to, but described as actually being Al Qaeda.

Of American support for Al Qaeda the report states (emphasis added):

The Administration may have been willing to rely on dissident organizations in Iran even when there was reason to believe that the groups had operated against American interests in the past. The use of Baluchi elements, for example, is problematic, Robert Baer, a former C.I.A. clandestine officer who worked for nearly two decades in South Asia and the Middle East, told me. “The Baluchis are Sunni fundamentalists who hate the regime in Tehran, but you can also describe them as Al Qaeda,” Baer told me. “These are guys who cut off the heads of nonbelievers—in this case, it’s Shiite Iranians. The irony is that we’re once again working with Sunni fundamentalists, just as we did in Afghanistan in the nineteen-eighties.” Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is considered one of the leading planners of the September 11th attacks, are Baluchi Sunni fundamentalists.

The report would continue by stating (emphasis added):

One of the most active and violent anti-regime groups in Iran today is the Jundallah, also known as the Iranian People’s Resistance Movement, which describes itself as a resistance force fighting for the rights of Sunnis in Iran. “This is a vicious Salafi organization whose followers attended the same madrassas as the Taliban and Pakistani extremists,” Nasr told me. “They are suspected of having links to Al Qaeda and they are also thought to be tied to the drug culture.” The Jundallah took responsibility for the bombing of a busload of Revolutionary Guard soldiers in February, 2007. At least eleven Guard members were killed. According to Baer and to press reports, the Jundallah is among the groups in Iran that are benefitting from U.S. support.

The manifestation of this insidious conspiracy can be seen playing out across Syria in which US-backed terrorists openly operating under the flag of Al Qaeda are locked in a catastrophic sectarian bloodbath with the Syrian people and the Syrian state’s closest ally, Iran. The conflict in Syria exposes that the machinations revealed back in 2007-2008 by Hersh, are still being carried out in earnest today.

Clearly, US-Canadian claims that Iran is somehow involved in harboring Al Qaeda within its borders, when it has been the West for years propping them up specifically to overthrow the Iranian government, are utterly absurd. In reality, while the West uses Al Qaeda’s presence both within Iran and along it peripheries to undermine and ultimately overthrow the Iranian government, it in turn uses these very terror organizations to induce paralyzing fear across Western populations in order to consolidate and expand power at home.

Additional Reading: For more information on just how much support the US has provided Al Qaeda terrorists in Baluchistan versus both Pakistan and Iran, please see, “US Attempting to Trigger Color Revolution in Pakistan.” For more information on the US’ delisting, arming and training of the terror organization, Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK or MKO) versus Iran, please see, “US to Delist & Arm American-Killing Terror Cult.”

Continue reading

Directed History: Lunacy or Truth?

This Article from the Daily Bell is, in my opinion, what separates folks. If you don’t get this YOU DON”T GET IT!  (E)


The Rise Of America‘s Lunatic Fringe … Anyone who spends any amount of time on the internet has seen them. They are the Moonbats, the wingnuts, the whackjobs, the Conspiratorialists. They are America’s new Lunatic Fringe, and their numbers are growing.While the rise of the internet fed a segment of society that has always existed, as the cyber world has become at Increasingly important source of both entertainment and information, to entirely new demographic has joined what was already amongst us. … When the trust is gone the Fringe becomes the mainstream. The government can no longer afford to ignore the Lunatic Fringe, because it is becoming less loon and more understandably and righteously indignant every day. The government did not create the Fringe, but through callous disregard incompetence, blatant self-interest , cronyism, selective enforcement, and pandering to its financial support base, the government has fertilized the fringe until it has grown to redwood-like size. The nation’s leadership is viewed not with admiration, but with distrust. It is no longer the solution, but the problem. – Chindit / Zero Hedge

Dominant Social Theme: It’s getting crazier out there and somebody ought to do something.

Free-Market Analysis: Zero Hedge posted the article excerpted above, perhaps because the website’s editors wanted to get a reaction on a slow news day. Zero Hedge is what we might call on alternative news site, so it is part of the trend that this editorial by Chindit (whoever that is) is identifying.

The article is interesting to us here at The Daily Bell because over the past ten years as we have Actively Participated in what we call the Internet Reformation , we’ve become believers in ” directed history . ” This is the idea that a small group of impossibly wealthy individuals and families are trying to create world government by orchestrating historical events.

We did not arrive at this notion easily or flippantly. It is one that has occurred to us after a lifetime of reading and writing – of genuine dedication (shared by many) in trying to understand the world and how it worked. It is based on the patterns that the Internet provides to us, about patterns Which we were not aware before we were able to use the Internet.

Interestingly, the article excerpted above refers to patterns, as well. Its argument is that these patterns either do not exist or are misinterpreted by this growing and dangerous lunatic fringe. Here’s more:

Collectively, though individually they differentiate, the beliefs of the Fringe include a conspiracy behind the JFK assassination, a faked moon landing, and the current favorite: that 911 was to “inside” job. The collective thus includes the Birthers, and those who believe in everything from FEMA camps to chemtrails to that retro old favorite of Colonel Jack Ripper fluoridation. (Those unfamiliar with these terms should Google them for more information than one might care to have.) The Fringe holds beliefs that have the world controlled variously by the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, theBilderbergers , Bohemian Grove , Skull and Bones, the Council on Foreign Relations , 33rd degree Freemasons , theVatican , the Queen of England, or just The Illuminati .

Every event and every incident in the world is affected by some master plan Carried out by whomever chooses the believer from the aforementioned gallery of rogues. For many, al Qaeda is really al CIAda, and the prime directive of that organization, along with all the other USG agencies alphabet, is to further the goals of the elite, usually through some “false flag” operation or “psy-op” , and many believe this is financed through sales of illicit drugs under the guise of CIA foreign operations.

Believers can “prove” each and every one of their claims via a series of cross-referenced internet links, the source of many undoubtedly just someone’s fertile imagination, but very real to the believers.

To the uninitiated this all seems rather humorous, albeit slightly unsettling. It would be both wrong and unwise to just slough it off as the ramblings of the insane. The reason seeking beliefs are gaining favor is because many Americans have lost faith and lost trust in the government and in America’s elected leadership. Given what has happened over the last decade, this is not only understandable, it is even, reasonable in an odd way. A continual drift to the fringe can be expected because of the many very real things that make the foolish things suddenly more believable.

Why have the people lost faith and trust? There is a host of reasons, perhaps beginning with the war of choice in Iraq and the vociferous and passionate Claims of WMD that turned out to be false. That had cost lives, cost sympathy and diplomatic capital, and cost trillions even when America was told by former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz that the war “would pay for itself from oil sales” and that “Americans would be welcomed with garlands”. Neither was anything close to accurate. Instead the U.S. has been dead, was wounded, a huge bill, fewer friends, and many more enemies.

What truly exacerbated the rush to the fringe which the Financial Crisis and the Subsequent railroaded bailouts, which “democratic” America opposed to the tune of 97%, And which were, and still are viewed as rewarding the very people who Caused the collapse. The often-spoken official claims that “the taxpayer made a profit on the bailouts” just adds salt to the taxpayers’ wounds, as it conveniently fails to take into account the host of programs – from TALF to ZIRP to QEI, II, and III and Twist – that virtually handed the banks the money with Which they could “pay back” the bailout cash.

We would argue that the article thoroughly loose the plot at this point. To maintain that those who have adopted directed history as a method of understanding history and their own situation ThereIn have come to their intellectual positions based on a series of modern events is to seriously underestimate the power of the new communication technology.

The Internet provides us with a methodology of rebuilding our world that does not go back th or twenty years but th or twenty THOUSAND, perhaps 50,000.

It is a miscalculation to believe that people are mistrustful, suddenly, because of TARP or some other government program.People are mistrustful because of the profundity of what the ‘Net has revealed.

The power elites did not want to run the world often miscalculate. But they have access to so much money via their control ofcentral banking that they are able to move ahead with their plans regardless. This does not make those plans more practical, however. Sometimes motion is inertia rather than progress.

In fact, in the 21st century, those who oppose those plans are growing in number – and the sheer numbers of the opposition are likely making the powers-that-be uneasy … or worse.

What the Internet shows us seems unassailable. It is based not only on historical fact but on previously hidden Austrian economic theory – theory that is recognized as having provided the revolution of marginal utility that Constitutes the borderline between classical and neoclassical economics . Once one understands hidden history and economics forbidden, the world becomes a much clearer (and sadder) place. How can one turn one’s back on reality?

There are clear historical patterns between the era of the Gutenberg press (the first information revolution) and the current Internet Reformation. Then, as now, copyright was used by the powers-that-be to try to retard the spread of information facilitated by new technology.

Then, as now, the information being spread revealed the mendacity of the age’s memes . Then, people began to realize that the Catholic Church was not telling the truth about the Bible for the first time because they could read the Bible for themselves.

Gradually, people rediscovered a whole past that had been lost to them. Not for nothing was the Church apparently complicit in the (long ago) burning of the Library at Alexandria. But knowledge about ancient Greeks and Romans (and Egyptians) and ultimately about the scientific method itself was rediscovered Gradually. The darkness was lifted a little.

And today, even more. After World War I, the League of Nations was created. After World War II, the United Nations came into being along with the International Monetary Fund , World Bank and the state- Bank for International Settlements . Before the 20th century there were hardly any central banks and today there are 150 or more of them, mostly controlled by the BIS.

This is not a “conspiracy” but simply a fact. These central banks basically fix the price and volume of money – a practice that promotes endless ruin around the world. Price-fixing never works. Central banks have been CREATED to promote this ruin.The idea is to achieve chaos via the final order of world government.

Regulatory democracy is yet another meme Intended to celebrate government and to justify global governance . But this sort of social organization does not work, either.

Markets do not actually fail (competition is what makes markets and competition is a process) and do not need government correctives to “help” them. Except for “natural laws” that conform to human behavior, there is no justification for government, or certainly not the kind of intrusive and brutal leviathan that exists today.

Germany’s Adolf Hitler was apparently funded by the West was in order to create. Japan was goaded into, was as well. The Vietnam War was started by a hoax. The CIA apparently promulgated the countercultural 1960s and Operation Gladio – that generated by Western Intel – which in full effect throughout Europe, polarizing those countries and creating a fear ofcommunist takeover via black ops.

This is all historical fact. Operation Mockingbird is with us today and Enables the CIA and other U.S. Intel Operations to usemainstream media for propaganda purposes. The propaganda always points us toward world government.

It’s well known by now that the CIA invented Al Qaeda, that the war on terror is at least in part manufactured, that there are parts of the 9/11 story that do not add up, that a solid acoustic Intel community is inventing Actively false flags every day – we call them dominant social themes -. in order to frighten people into giving up wealth and power to specially prepared globalist institutions

None of this is speculative. All of this is factual.

None of it, unfortunately, is lunatic. But most people will not take the time to look. For one thing, if they grant the reality of their manipulation, then they have to figure out what to do next. And most people do not have the willpower or resources to “do” anything. Better not to know.

The “not knowing” is also understandable because most people do not have the time and energy to Continually investigate what they’ve been taught and undo decades of mental programming. It’s hard work and there is not a lot of incentive.

But for every th who will not use the Internet to Establish the reality of directed history there is perhaps one who might. In the U.S., for instance, in a nation of 150 million adults, this amounts to 15 million people who have enlightened themselves and certainly others who are aware but uncertain about the credibility of their changed knowledgebase or uncomfortable with it.

Repeat these numbers around the world and you begin to sense the enormity of what’s taking place. As the article points out, a lunatic fringe is indeed “rising.”

After A Certain Point one man’s lunacy becomes another’s reality. As a new reality Gradually takes hold – just as it did after the Renaissance and Reformation – there will be a mighty change in how the world is perceived and how society is organized.

The power elite has been Certain until this point that its goal of world government will be achieved. But we sense they are not so Certain now. They are using was economic ruin and regulatory authoritarianism to hold back the inevitability of thehive mind enlightenment ‘s. They are frightened.

The human hive mind has an operational journey. The cycle will turn Regardless,. Every tool ever made by humankind has doubtless been used. And significant overtime every morsel of knowledge has become widely disseminated.

This is biology. This is sociology. This is the Way the World Really Works.

Chindit wants to blame the rise of conspiratorial thinking on government incompetence and callousness. But the government is not the problem.

History shows us clearly that there is a small operational group of impossibly wealthy individuals standing behind state governments, especially Western governments. These people are what we call the power elite. It exists. It controls central banks. It wishes, collectively, for world government.

These are the indisputable facts that the Internet Reformation has provided us with. One may mock these facts and call their acknowledgment a kind of lunacy. But that sort of mockery worked better in the 20th century than the 21st. Today, one might as well try to stop the wind from blowing.

Conclusion: The old strategies of elite damage control do not work anymore. It is a new time. The Internet is a process not an episode.

The Myth of Homegrown Islamic Terrorism

Source: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2044047,00.html#ixzz1DmO5uDcc

By Romesh Ratnesar Monday, Jan. 24, 2011
New York City Police Department Counter Terrorism Unit officers patrol in Times Square on May 5, 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
Timothy A. Clary / AFP / Getty Images

There is a specter haunting the U.S. It is “one of the things that keeps me up at night,” Attorney General Eric Holder said last month. North Carolina Representative Sue Myrick, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, has warned President Obama that “there is no doubt” the problem has become “a global threat.” The incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Peter King, plans to convene hearings next month on the danger “that threatens the security of us all.”

In the wake of the Tucson, Ariz., tragedy, you might think that such high-profile alarm would center on the shortcomings of America’s mental-health system or the inadequacy of the country’s gun laws. You would be mistaken. Instead, some members of the political class remain fixated on what they regard as a greater national emergency: the purported rise of “homegrown” Islamic terrorists. They point to a string of examples of jihadist activity by U.S. citizens of Muslim faith: the Somali-born Portland, Ore., man who tried to detonate a dud car bomb planted by the FBI at a December tree-lighting ceremony; last summer’s failed Times Square bombing by a naturalized Pakistani; the 14 men charged last August with providing support to Islamist militants in Somalia.(See more about Portland’s Christmas-tree-bombing plot.)

And then there’s Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemen-based Internet imam late of Falls Church, Va., who intelligence officials say now acts as a regional commander for al-Qaeda, with the charge of recruiting impressionable American Muslims to take up arms against their country. In the eyes of some, al-Awlaki and his ilk represent the vanguard of an even more sinister trend: the growing “radicalization” of the estimated 5 million Muslims living in the U.S. “Radicalization is taking place inside America,” Myrick wrote in her letter to Obama. “The strikingly accelerated rate of American Muslims arrested for involvement in terrorist activities since May 2009 makes this fact self-evident.”

Actually, it doesn’t. Though acts of violent extremism by U.S. Muslims appear to have grown, their potency has not. American Muslims remain more moderate, diverse and integrated than the Muslim populations in any other Western society. Despite the efforts of al-Qaeda propagandists like al-Awlaki, the evidence of even modest sympathy for the enemy existing inside the U.S. is minuscule. The paranoia about homegrown terrorism thus vastly overstates al-Qaeda’s strength and reflects our leaders’ inability to make honest assessments about the true threats to America’s security.

Those who beat the drums about the homegrown terrorism threat often gloss over one salient fact: for all the publicity that surrounds cases of domestic jihad, not a single civilian has been killed by an Islamic terrorist on U.S. soil since Sept. 11. (The killing spree by Major Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009 doesn’t fit the standard definition of terrorism: his motives were not wholly ideological, nor did he deliberately target civilians.) That’s due to a number of factors, including the military’s assault on al-Qaeda’s leadership, tougher homeland-security measures, smart policing and some degree of luck. But the fact that every homegrown terrorism plot has been foiled before it could be carried out also demonstrates the fecklessness of the terrorists themselves. In nearly every case — including that of Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber, who came closest to succeeding — homegrown terrorists have been found to have acted almost entirely alone. There has been no vast conspiracy. Terrorist attacks may not require much money or ingenuity, but a lone wolf has little chance of pulling off the kind of mass-casualty strike that counterterrorism experts worry about most.(See more about the Broadway Bomber, Faisal Shahzad.)

Of course, violent individuals — from Hasan to Jared Loughner — are still capable of causing mayhem. But there’s no evidence that large numbers of American Muslims are inclined to do so. Though alarmists point to the alienation of young Muslims in Western Europe as a sign of things to come for the U.S., the likelihood of that happening there is remote. A Gallup survey conducted in 2009 found that American Muslims report vastly higher rates of life satisfaction than do their counterparts in other Western countries — and higher rates than the populations in every Muslim-majority country except one, Saudi Arabia. In the past 10 years, fewer than 200 people in the U.S. have been indicted on suspicion of jihadist activities. A comprehensive report by the Rand Corporation last year concluded that just one out of every 30,000 American Muslims could be said to have joined jihad, “suggesting an American Muslim population that remains hostile to jihadist ideology and its exhortations to violence.”

So why does the myth of homegrown terrorism persist? In part because, like every hardy political meme, it serves the interests of loudmouths on both ends of the ideological spectrum. To the right, the threat of homegrown terrorism helps to perpetuate the notion of a ceaseless, civilization-wide struggle against Islamic extremism. To the left, the prospect of American Muslims taking up jihad fits with the idea that the U.S.’s foreign policy is creating a new generation of terrorists.(See photos of a jihadist’s journey.)

And yet al-Qaeda is weaker and less capable today than it was before Sept. 11; its appeal to mainstream Muslims around the world is shrinking, rather than increasing. The fact that Osama bin Laden wannabes like al-Awlaki have risen to such prominence is testament to the evisceration of al-Qaeda’s leadership. The U.S. faces far bigger and immediate challenges to the welfare and security of its citizens, not least from the ease with which unstable individuals can legally obtain and use deadly firearms. Addressing that danger will do more to protect Americans than obsessing about the phantom threat of homegrown terrorism ever will.

(Editorial Comment: While this author makes a number of salient points the one above in red is a boneheaded one. Guns Da Da Da Di Dumb! Sometimes I think that the anti-gun folks have some sort of vaccine related brain damage. While they no doubt suffer from some sort of brain damage it probably has to do with sniffing the rears of the anti-Constitution lobbyists in this country rather than a medical side effect. In Mr. Ratnesar’s case the greatest threat may be the ease with which unstable individuals are allowed to write articles that reference firearms. Addressing that danger will do more to protect Americans than obsessing about the phantom threat of the Constitutional Right To Bear Arms.)

Ratnesar, a TIME contributing editor-at-large, is a Bernard L. Schwartz Fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of Tear Down This Wall: A City, a President, and the Speech That Ended the Cold War. His column on global affairs appears every Monday on TIME.com.

© 2011 Time Inc. All rights reserved

Al-Qaeda Targeting Christians in Canada, Austria

FROM:   http://www.thenewamerican.com/



Coptic Christians

Photo of Coptic Christians in Egypt: AP Images

Not content with terrorizing the Christian minorities that endeavor to survive under Islamic rule, Al-Qaeda is now targeting Coptic Christians who have left Egypt for lives in Europe and North America.

The December 21 Toronto Star drew attention to the publication of a “death list” naming 200 Coptic Christians, over half of whom now live in CanadaAccording to theStar:

More than 100 Canadian-Arab Christians are listed on an Al Qaeda affiliated website, apparently targeted because of their alleged role in attempting to convert Muslims.

Some of those named say concerned Canadian intelligence officials have contacted them.
The Shumukh-al-Islam website, often considered to be Al Qaeda’s mouthpiece, listed pictures, addresses and cellphone numbers of Coptic Christians, predominantly Egyptian-Canadians, who have been vocal about their opposition to Islam.

In a forum on the website, one member named Son of a Sharp Sword, says “We are going to return back to Islam and all of the Mujahedeen (holy warriors) will cut off their heads.”

Three pages of the fundamentalist, Arabic-language website titled “Complete information on Coptics” sets to “identify and name all of the Coptics throughout the world who hope to defame Islam.” The website calls the Coptic Christians living abroad “dogs in diaspora,” a derogatory reference in Arabic.

The brutal persecution of Copts in Egypt — persecution which often includes forced “conversions,” rape, and even murder — has had the same effect in Egypt that similar incidents are now having in Iraq: Christians are fleeing Muslim nations for the freedom of the West. But now relocation is not enough, as Jihadists try to silence the voices of their victims with death threats.

Those who are being targeted are not even recent emigres; for example, Sherif Mansour, one of themen on the list, has operated a business in Quebec for 22 years since leaving Egypt. Again, according to the Star:

Sherif Mansour said he found out he was named on the website when intelligence officials called him.

“They asked me, ‘are you afraid?’ I said ‘Should I be?'” said Mansour, who has run a business in Quebec for the past 22 years since emigrating from Egypt.

Mansour laughed at the threat, but said he recognizes the seriousness of the matter.

“These issues can’t be taken lightly anymore…If they (Muslim fanatics) had the guts to fly a couple of planes into buildings and killing thousands of people, what would be the big deal with just one person? Nothing. Am I afraid of it? No, not really,” said Mansour who is an active member of the Coptic church in Canada.

Mansour believes he is being targeted because of comments he made in an interview on CTV news where he was discussing the media’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian war.

Mansour said the fact that his picture, cellphone number and comments are displayed on the Shumukh-al-Islam website is an indication that fanatics are keeping a close eye on what happens in Canada.

According to a December 28 article at the “Gates of Vienna” blog, the Austrian paper Österreich reports that the list of Copts targeted by al-Qaeda includes 15 people who are now living in Austria — five of whom are, in fact, now citizens of Austria:

William Tadros is one of the persons mentioned in the list. In an interview with ÖSTERREICH, Tadros reports that he informed the Office for the Protection of the Constitution and Terrorism Prevention when he found out that his name was on the death list. “Al Qaeda wants to kill us because of what we are doing for the Christian minority in Egypt.”

FPÖ party leader Heinz-Christian Strache has written a letter to interior minister Maria Fekter asking her “not to remain inactive when Coptic Christians, who trust in our safety, are being threatened. The Ministry of Interior must act before there are victims!”

The new Al Qaeda group claimed responsibility for the massacre in a church in Baghdad in late October, which left more than 50 dead, as well as the recent suicide attack in Stockholm. The Baghdad massacre took place in direct correlation with the Egyptian Copts because they did not comply with a demand made by this Al Qaeda group.

As readers of The New American know, the impact of the October 31 massacre in Baghdad eventually led Iraqi Christians to cancel virtually all Christmas observances. The Jihadists connecting the persecution of the Church in Iraq and Egypt is now openly spilling into the West. As noted by the “Gates of Vienna” blog:

The group’s website cites the following: “For this reason, the war ministry of the Islamic Iraqi Republic announces that all Christian centers, organizations and clubs with all of its members are deemed justifiable targets for our mujaheddin.” However, those in charge of the death list are targeting the entire free world. It is their explicit goal to establish a fundamentalist Islamic state in Iraq and to act against all Jews and Christians worldwide. The group’s homepage is found in Jakarta, Indonesia.

That would, of course, be the same Indonesia that President Obama praises as the model of “toleration”and in which 700 churches have been burned since 1998. In the West, the political elites remain, by and large, unwilling to confront the nearly 1,400 year-old history of Jihadism, and seem to see its violence as either a strange, modern anomaly, or an excuse to enact sweeping, often unconstitutional, “security” measures that do little to combat the Jihad but do much to restrict the liberties of Americans. As Rev. Elijah Abraham observed in an interview for The New American several months ago: Islam is “a socio-political system that uses a deity to advance its agenda.”

The people of the West would be well-served by listening to the voice of Iraqi and Coptic Christians in their midst to learn more about the shape of that agenda, and its implications for their future.

What Can We Do About Terrorism?

by Harry Browne

The late Harry Browne wrote three articles on terrorism, here collected into one, immediately after 911. At a time when other libertarians stayed silent or championed the regime, he – as usual – spoke truth to power.

The Ground Rules for Fighting Terrorism

This 3-part series will propose the actions I believe our government should take to fight terrorism.

Before looking at those proposals, however, we need to establish some ground rules.

Perfection Isn’t an Option

Rule #1: No solution is going to be perfect.

Our government has created ill will in many parts of the world. It has bullied smaller countries, imposed new governments upon people who didn’t want them, and demanded that other governments do what our government wants. It’s unrealistic to think that there’s anything that can be done now to quickly undo all the ill will.

I have been criticized for dwelling on what our government has done that led to the terrorist attacks. But if we don’t understand what provoked this, we can’t evaluate any response to it – and we can expect that the faulty policies will continue and provoke more such attacks against Americans.

Foreign Policy Is the Issue

Rule #2: It is American foreign policy that has provoked the attacks, not anything inherent in Muslim fundamentalism.

There are hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world who don’t believe in killing non-Muslims. In fact, Muslims have been killed in Arab terrorist attacks, just as non-Muslims have.

In an interview conducted by John Miller for Esquire in February 1999, Osama bin Laden said: “This is my message to the American people: to look for a serious government that looks out for their interests and does not attack others, their lands, or their honor. And my word to American journalists is not to ask why we did that but ask what their government has done that forced us to defend ourselves.”

The fact that bin Laden uses bad means to achieve his ends doesn’t excuse our own government’s mistakes; nor does it justify our government doing the same things he does.

Bombing Doesn’t Work

Rule #3: Bombing foreign countries doesn’t end terrorism, it provokes it.

Our government has bombed Libya, Iraq, the Sudan, and Afghanistan, among other countries, supposedly to teach terrorists a lesson. But the bombings haven’t caused terrorists or foreign governments to change their policies.

This Is a Crime, Not War

Rule #4: The terrorist attacks are a criminal matter, not a war.

War is by definition an armed conflict between governments. No government has claimed responsibility for the September 11 attacks, and no government has been so accused.

Calling the present situation a war is an excuse to impose wartime policies against Americans and foreigners – including violations of the Bill of Rights and killing foreign civilians.

Because the September attacks were a crime, the government’s job is to locate and bring to trial any perpetrators who didn’t die in the attacks. If some of them are located in foreign countries, our government should request extradition – not threaten to bomb the foreign country if we don’t get our way.

If not all the criminals are found and brought to trial, it doesn’t mean that bombing innocent people would have brought the criminals to justice.

Reverse Positions

Rule #5: If you think you or America is entitled to something, reverse the positions and see how you’d react.

If Afghanistan doesn’t turn bin Laden over to our government, ask yourself whether you’d want your government to turn you over to the Iranian government if it accused you of a crime.

If you don’t think that American troops in almost a hundred foreign countries are a source of resentment, ask yourself how you’d feel if Chinese troops were stationed in your city.

If you believe America has a right to bomb foreign countries for the actions of a few, ask yourself whether you’d want foreign governments to bomb your city because of something Bill Clinton did. (Haven’t we already established that the terrorists were wrong to kill innocent civilians because of their hatred for American foreign policy?)

Government Is Incompetent

Rule #6: Government does not do anything well – even those functions delegated to it by the Constitution.

The government has the constitutional authority to operate a Post Office. But if it’s urgent that a package get to the other side of America by tomorrow morning, will you trust the constitutional Post Office or will you use Federal Express?

Don’t assume that just because the government has the legal authority to do something that it will actually succeed. So be careful what you ask for.

What Is the Object?

Rule #7: There’s no way to eliminate all terrorism in the world.

Terrorists have existed since Biblical times. There will always be such criminals – people who will kill innocent bystanders to make a social or political statement, or to bring pressure on a government to change its policies.

Saying that terrorism will be eradicated is not only unrealistic, it is asinine. It indicates that the speaker shouldn’t be trusted in anything else he says.

What is realistic is the goal of reducing considerably the threat of terrorism against the U.S.

In my next two articles, I’ll present proposals for achieving this.

Do We Choose Death or Peace?

“All that’s necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do the wrong thing.”

~ Lawrence Block, The Evil Men Do

Americans have been sold a fantasy by their government and by the “experts” on television.

The fantasy is that our government will flex its muscles overseas, make demands, kill a lot of people, demonstrate that we don’t tolerate terrorism, “bring the terrorists to justice,” and end terrorism forever.

But for decades, our government has been flexing its muscles overseas, making demands, killing people, and teaching terrorists a lesson. And what did it achieve?

It brought about the deaths of 3,000 Americans on September 11.

Those policies by our government have brought us to where there now are only two choices for the future. And you may not like either one of them.

The Choice for War

Choice #1 is to bomb Afghanistan “back to the stone age,” and maybe Iraq, and maybe any other country our government accuses of harboring terrorists. (Except the U.S., of course, where many of the terrorists lived safely for several years.)

This choice won’t eliminate all the terrorists. It probably won’t eliminate any of them. But it will make the politicians feel good. And it will satisfy the understandable lust for vengeance that so many Americans feel right now.

But not only will foreigners die by the thousands, it will feed the desire for vengeance on the part of the terrorists – and inspire other people to help them. The result? . . .

  • We will be attacked on planes, in subways, buildings, schools, sports arenas – in any place innocent Americans can be cornered like lab rats.
  • Our economy will sink further and further downward as people become more and more afraid to lead normal lives.
  • We will see Americans die from bombs, from biological warfare, from assassinations, and from causes we can’t even imagine now.

Our government will react by escalating the violence still further. And that will cause the terrorists to escalate their violence. And with every escalation, more of our friends and relatives will die – and more people around the world will come to hate America.

Choice #1 doesn’t lead to anything very pretty. It will be disastrous for America. But that’s where our politicians are taking us right now.

The Choice for Peace

Choice #2 is for our President to be a man and acknowledge to the world that our government has made some horrible mistakes in the past – but that our policy is changing.

He must tell the world that our government will no longer impose its will on places like Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, the Middle East, Panama, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Colombia. He must say that we’re returning to the peaceful foreign policy that America followed for its first century – until President McKinley took the country into the Spanish-American War and down the road to empire.

Americans are loved all over the world for what they’ve done – producing low-cost food and medicines, great entertainment, and the kind of voluntary charity that only free and prosperous people can bestow.

At the same time, foreigners hate our government because it uses “foreign aid” and military muscle to impose its way upon the rest of the world.

Our politicians say that most of the world supports the American military campaign. But what they mean is that our government is bribing foreign governments to support the military campaign. Meanwhile, a recent Gallup poll revealed that individual human beings in 35 major countries oppose American military retaliation by better than 3 to 1.

If American leaders would call a halt to the violence, condemn the terrorist attack, and condemn the killing of innocent foreigners by previous U.S. administrations, there’s a very good chance the cycle of death and destruction could end immediately.

We’re at a Crossroads

Can I guarantee that Choice #2 will lead to peace? Of course not, but it is very likely to do so. And what terrorism remains will be relatively minor compared to the awful future we face now.

And I can assure you that Choice #1 will lead to the deaths of many more Americans – most likely, tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of Americans, in ugly and tragic ways.

It’s very possible the terrorists who weren’t killed in the September 11 attacks will never be caught – whether we pick Choice #1 or Choice #2. So let’s focus instead on ensuring that such a thing never happens again.

But first we must recognize that the fantasy our government is peddling now – of bringing peace by killing foreigners – is just that: a fantasy.

We have only two choices – death or peace. It’s unfortunate that it will take far more courage to choose peace.

Preventing Future Terrorism

Government’s role shouldn’t be to police the world – or even to win wars. Government’s role should be to keep us out of wars – to protect us from foreign enemies, not create them.

In fact the main reason most people tolerate high taxes and invasions of our liberty is because they hope the government will protect them from domestic criminals and foreign problems. And yet, despite a $2 trillion budget, our government protects us from neither.

A libertarian foreign policy would rest on a simple principle:

We’re always ready to defend ourselves, but we threaten no one.

Such a foreign policy should have four elements.

1. Non-Interference

Our government should never interfere in other countries’ disputes, never arm nor aid foreign governments, and never give terrorists a reason to pressure our government.

When the politicians drag us off to someone else’s war, they offer plenty of reasons. The reasons usually include: stopping the conflict from spreading, heading off the emergence of a new Hitler, protecting our allies, doing the moral thing, and ending violations of human rights.

But rarely do they come even close to achieving any of the goals.

Any American who wants to volunteer to fight for a foreign government or revolutionary movement, to negotiate its peace, or to send money to help it should be free to do so. (It is currently illegal for you to help a foreign government or revolutionary movement.) But our government should stay out of such battles.

2. No Foreign Aid or Military Assistance

The Constitution grants our government no authority to use your money for the support of foreign governments.

Not only is it unconstitutional, it is unfair by almost any standard. As Fred Smith pointed out, foreign aid taxes poor people in rich countries for the benefit of rich people in poor countries.

Foreign aid originally was justified as a way of arming countries against Communist aggression. But Cuba, China, and Vietnam all became Communist after receiving American money and weapons.

And so much money and military hardware have been given to Israel’s enemies that it allows the politicians to say we have to give massive aid to Israel to keep it from being destroyed.

Every American should be free to send money or weapons to any government in the world. But you shouldn’t be taxed for the benefit of any foreign government.

3. Security against Attack

How could the bad people of the world conquer America?

They’d have to pulverize American cities to the point that we submit to being occupied – or they’d have to threaten to do that.

In 1983 Ronald Reagan made the most sensible military suggestion of the past 50 years – that America should protect itself against missile attacks. Unfortunately, he gave the job to the Department of Defense – which is really the Post Office in fatigues. And so 18 years later we’re no closer to being protected than we were in 1983.

We should rely as little as possible on politics and bureaucracy to achieve anything. The government should simply post a reward – say, $25 billion – to go to the first private company that produces a functioning, fool-proof missile defense. With such an offer, we’d probably have a missile defense within five years.

Will that make us perfectly secure? Of course not. Nothing will.

But it will make us far safer than we are today and eliminate a principal excuse for meddling in other countries’ affairs.

4. Target the Aggressors, Not the Innocent

Even with a missile defense, suppose America truly were threatened by a foreign ruler.

A Libertarian President would target the aggressor himself. He wouldn’t order bombers to kill the aggressor’s innocent subjects.

He would warn the ruler that an actual attack would trigger the posting of a reward of, say, $100 million for the person who kills the ruler. Everyone would be eligible to collect the reward – including the ruler’s guards and wives.

This response would spare both innocent foreigners and innocent Americans. Only those who try for the reward would be at risk. Americans wouldn’t be drafted to fight and die invading a foreign country – nor taxed to pay for volunteers.

This isn’t a way to force dictators to change their spots or submit to U.S. dictation. It’s only a way to discourage a direct attack on America. If the dictator withdrew his threat, the U.S. would withdraw the reward.

With a libertarian foreign policy, it’s unlikely any foreign ruler would threaten us. So such a reward probably would never be posted. But if a foreign ruler were tempted to threaten us, the fear of assassination would be more of a deterrence than the threat to bomb his civilian subjects.

If you don’t believe assassination is a nice way to handle this, what’s the alternative? Would you rather kill thousands of innocent foreigners and innocent Americans?

Peace for All Time

When America can defend itself against missile attack, the politicians will lose their best excuse for butting into the affairs of other countries and making demands upon you.

And when our government no longer interferes in other countries with military adventures and foreign aid, foreign terrorists will have little reason to threaten your city.

If some foreign leader still tried to make trouble for America, we should target the leader for assassination, not target innocent civilians for bombing. But an American government that minded its own business and had a secure defense isn’t likely to need to resort to assassination.

The policies I’ve outlined are the only ones that will produce a strong national defense, instead of a strong national offense, and leave terrorists with no reason to attack us.

Once they’re in place, we must find a way to keep politicians away from loaded weapons forever.

Here’s a start – a proposed constitutional amendment:

Section 1. The United States shall be at war only after a declaration of war, naming the specific enemy nations, is approved by the President and by a two-thirds vote of the eligible members in both houses of Congress.

Section 2. The only members of the House of Representatives and the Senate eligible to vote on a declaration of war are those who are between the ages of 18 and 35, or who have children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren between those ages.

Section 3. In the absence of a Congressional declaration of war, the President may deploy the military to repel an invasion of United States territory, but may not deploy troops or engage in hostilities outside the United States.

Section 4. The United States shall enter into no treaty with any nation or organization if such treaty could oblige the United States to be at war without a declaration of war by Congress, and the United States shall not be bound to engage in war by any action taken by any organization of which they are a member.

Section 5. Except in time of war, as specified in Sections 1 and 2, the United States will provide no weapons or other resources to foreign governments, will engage in no military action outside the borders of the United States, and shall deploy no military personnel or weapons outside the boundaries of the United States except that at any one time up to one thousand members of the military may be outside the United States for no longer than thirty days.

Section 6. Upon any violation of this article by the President, Congress shall institute impeachment proceedings within 14 days.

Sections 3 and 5 don’t preclude a missile defense or any other kind of defense of this nation. It requires only that the President wait before attacking a foreign nation until a declaration of war has been issued. Even if some incapacity prevents Congress from making a declaration quickly, America could still defend itself. It just couldn’t attack anyone else.

War is too dangerous an enterprise to leave in the hands of people who routinely lie in their own self-interest.

I welcome any suggestions for making the Amendment more precise.

The late Harry Browne, the author of Why Government Doesn’t Work and many other books, was the Libertarian presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000. See his website.

Copyright © 2001 Harry Browne

Harry Browne Archives

Original Article Here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/browne/browne63.html


Terrorists Dumping Poisons Into US Food Supply

If you’re a terrorist looking to poison the U.S. food supply, get in line, buddy! The food companies have beat you to it! (Ed)


Link to Article: http://www.naturalnews.com/030811_terrorists_food_supply.html


The Cost of Lack of Trust


Appenzell Switzerland A Daily Compendium of Free-Market Thinking

Dr. Machan says that he is no Anarchist. That is fine as long as we can agree that most Govt. officials are evil in practice if not intent. (E)

Thursday, October 07, 2010 – by  Dr. Tibor Machan

Dr. Tibor Machan

Over the last couple of days a bunch of announcements came from our government, including warning about travel to Europe where terror plans are said to be afoot by Al-Qaeda. Another warning came from the man convicted of trying to blow up Times Square – he said after he was sentenced to life in prison that Americans will be victims of terror big time. And I could go on but my point can be made with just these cases. I do not trust the warnings from our government although neither do I know them to be unjustified.

The government of the United States of America is on a power crusade, taking every opportunity it can to deprive its citizens of their resources and control over their own lives and seem to be intent on imposing on them endless rules and regulations. These are, I am convinced, true believers in state fundamentalism: Every problems must be solved by means of expanded government, both in size and, especially, in scope. So how can I believe it when the government declares that there is increasing danger around us, all of which seems routinely to require that government gain greater and greater power over us?

I am no conspiracy buff and don’t have the idea that what these folks do is done deliberately simply so as to gain raw power over others – most people need some kind of tall tale to tell themselves in order to rationalize such power – but I do believe firmly that their sincere convictions lead them in that direction, whether these be about how the economy needs more of their regulation or how they must have greater access to our lives (including it appears to all our electronic communication capabilities), or how without them we would all be left helpless in the world, or how some other problems faced by us all requires exactly their expertise and good will and, most of all, legal power over us. I am eager to be disproved about their basic political corruption, in part because of my belief that human beings in all walks of life can do well or badly or somewhere on the continuum in between and I do not see politicians to be fundamentally evil.

Not being an anarchist, I do not hold that all who work for governments must be vicious – judges, the police, soldiers, bailiffs, border guards, or whoever. But those in government – especially in offices that have no business existing in the first place since they have nothing to do with protecting our basic rights – do seem to me to be much more tempted to seek power over other people than are the rest of us. And they do very often yield to this temptation, with long stories about why what they are doing is no vice but a virtue! They have mostly convinced themselves that all the more or less coercive meddling in our lives is a good thing for them to carry out – regulators, however much they fumble around trying to figure out what on earth their efforts could do to improve matters, are probably quite proud of what they do in their jobs. Maybe even IRS employees consider their work honorable!

I recall an associate of mine at the Reason Foundation had gotten a post in one regulatory office of the federal government and she came back to report on just how impressed she was with all the hard work she witnessed by the people who worked where she became one of the officials, despite the fact that she never gave up her idea that government regulations are ultimately more harmful than helpful! Pretty amazing.

The seductiveness of government work appears to be very powerful, even with those who are sworn to uphold principles that fly in the face of what the officials are called upon to do. Perhaps this is in part because many people hold to the belief in life that it is “the thought that counts,” never mind how destructive the results over which they believe we have little control. (This, by the way, is the common sense version of the famous doctrine of the highly influential 17th Century German philosopher Immanuel Kant who taught that there is only one absolutely good thing in the universe, namely, the good will, i.e., the sincere intention to do the right thing whatever it may be.)

With all the misconduct that emanates from seats of political power, all the BS produced by politicians and their apologists, all the out and out corruption evident throughout the land by politicians and bureaucrats, it is awfully difficult to suddenly become trusting when these same people tell us that there is danger lurking from terrorists. And frankly even if there is, is it more severe than the danger we face from fellow drivers on the roads where we would be spending time if instead of traveling abroad we stayed home? (Why, BTW, are there no studies publicized about that? Back during the brief scare from Libyan terrorism in Europe in Spring of 1986 I believe it was, after the US had an altercation with that country, an economist calculated the probability of death or injury from terrorism to American tourists traveling in Europe versus from road crashes here at home where they would be spending their time instead and it appeared that the latter posed a great threat than the former!)

When government is as big, corrupt, and unruly as America’s is these days, how can you trust anything said by government officials?

Translation of State Department Advisory

Seal of the United States Department of State....

Image via Wikipedia


Sunday, October 3, 2010

The State Department has issued an advisory for Americans travelling in Europe, below is an uncensored translation that removes the political correctness and ass covering of the official advisory:

This summer we waterboarded an unshaved Muslim from Germany. In rather record time he warned us of possible attacks in Europe, we are not sure if he was telling us the truth or if he was making it all up so that he wouldn’t be waterboarded anymore. Just to make sure, we waterboarded him once more, unfortunately we killed him on that go round.

Before his death, he did, however, provide us with the name of an al-Qaida member who knew the specifics of the plan. Unfortunately, in another stroke of bad luck, we killed that guy the week before in a drone attack.

So at this point, this is what we have: A terrorist attack may or may not occur, somewhere.

We will not be able to protect you beyond this information, so we suggest you act as though you were in other areas where we can not protect you, such as, downtown Detroit at night or the Tenderloin district of San Francisco at night.

In other words, if you are suurounded by terrorists shooting at you, duck and cover.

Demagoguing the Mosque

by Ron Paul

Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?

It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.

The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”

Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill-conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.

The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.

Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.

There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.

The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.

Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.

Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam – the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society – protecting liberty.

The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservative’s aggressive wars.

The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding an investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque – a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law – in order to look tough against Islam.

This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.

We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.

Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.

See the Ron Paul File

August 23, 2010

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

The Best of Ron Paul

%d bloggers like this: