Saturday, December 31, 2011

Maybe Rick Santorum will be the Next President?

The trouble with my uncle, Rick Santorum
By John Garver
Published: Jan/03/2012
If you want another big-government politician who supports the status quo to run our country, you should vote for my uncle, Rick Santorum. America is based on a strong belief in individual liberty. My uncle’s interventionist policies, both domestic and foreign, stem from his irrational fear of freedom not working.
It is not the government’s job to dictate to individuals how they must live. The Constitution was designed to protect individual liberty. My Uncle Rick cannot fathom a society in which people cooperate and work with each other freely. When Republicans were spending so much money under President Bush, my uncle was right there along with them as a senator. The reason we have so much debt is not only because of Democrats, but also because of big-spending Republicans like my Uncle Rick.
It is because of this inability of status quo politicians to recognize the importance of our individual liberties that I have been drawn to Ron Paul. Unlike my uncle, he does not believe that the American people are incapable of forming decisions. He believes that an individual is more powerful than any group (a notion our founding fathers also believed in).
Another important reason I support Ron Paul is his position on foreign policy. He is the only candidate willing to bring our troops home, not only from the Middle East, but from around the world.
Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate trying to win the election for a reason other than simply winning the election.
This year, I’ll vote for an honest change in our government. I’ll vote for real hope. I’ll vote for a real leader. This year, I will vote for Ron Paul.
John Garver is a 19-year-old student at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown. John is a strong supporter of Ron Paul despite his love for family member Rick Santorum.

Rick Santorum Lashes Out at Ron Paul
Days before the Iowa caucus, Sen. Rick Santorum, third place in new poll, lashes out at Rep. Ron Paul
by Mariya Karimjee, GlobalPost
December 29, 2011
Hours after a new poll placed Rick Santorum in third place in Iowa, the GOP presidential hopeful was speaking to a crowd of supporters in Cedar Rapids when he let loose on Texas Rep. Ron Paul.
“Ron Paul says he’s going to eliminate five departments. Ron Paul passed one bill in 20 years. What give[s] you the idea that he can eliminate anything? I mean, he has absolutely no track record of building any kind of coalition to get anything done anywhere,” Santorum said, ABC News reported. “I understand the appeal that Ron Paul has: it’s simple, it’s short — but there’s no track record there.”
This wasn't the only problem Santorum had with Paul.
“I mean he’s out in the Dennis Kucinich wing of the Democratic Party. Don’t laugh!” Santorum said to the crowd. ABC News reported that the crowd immediately got quiet. “That’s where he is. He may be left of Dennis Kucinich, okay? So that’s where he is. This country is not going to elect Dennis Kucinich to be President of the United States. I don’t care how much government he wants to cut.
Just a day earlier, a CNN-Time poll showed that Santorum was in third place, beating Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann.
Santorum found an opportunity in Gingrich's decline, the LA Times reported.
"We'll turn this country around and Iowa will be the spark that did it," he told the crowd.
Santorum isn't the only presidential candidate attacking his competition.
Earlier Thursday, Rick Perry released an ad that criticizes Congress heavily, CBS News reported. While he never explicitly states that the ad is an attack on his competition, which includes several members of Congress, his communications director, Ray Sullivan, removes all ambiguity in a press release about the ad:
Senator Santorum, Congressmen Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann have long backed congressional earmarks and pork. Expecting them to overhaul Washington is asking a fox to guard the henhouse. Rick Perry never served in Washington and has strongest, most credible plan to overhaul Washington by creating a part-time Congress and cutting their pay, staff, and meeting time in half.
Rick Santorum’s 12 Most Offensive Statements
By Igor Volsky
Jun 6, 2011
This morning, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (R) announced his candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination, telling ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, “We are ready to announce that we are going to be in this race and we’re in it to win.” But Santorum — who is possibly most famous for his “Google problem” — may have an uphill climb to the nomination. He currently polls in the single digits in the early primary states and has a long history of making offensive statements about gay people, African Americans, women, and Muslims. Below is a short recap of his record:
1. “In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be….If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.” [4/2003]
2. “Is anyone saying same-sex couples can’t love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?” [5/22/2008]
3. On repeal of DADT: “I’m worried when many people will stand up and say, ‘well whatever the Generals want.’ I’m not too sure that we haven’t indoctrinated the Officer Corps in this country that they can actually see straight to make the right decisions.” [2/20/2010]
4. On gay adoption: “A lesbian woman came up to me and said, ‘why are you denying me my right?’ I said, ‘well, because it’s not a right.’ It’s a privilege that society recognizes because society sees intrinsic value to that relationship over any other relationship.” [5/3/2011]
5. On teaching history of gay Americans: “I certainly would not approve of [a bill moving through the California legislature compels the state to add gay history to the state education curriculum], but there’s a logical consequence to the courts injecting themselves in creating rights and people attaching their legislative ideas to those rights that in some respects could logically flow from that. So I’m not surprised.” [5/10/2011]
6. “I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people’.” [1/19/2011]
7. “Marriage is an institution that’s a bridge too far for too many African-American women and is not desirable among African-American males….I think [Obama] has to realize that flying to New York is…self-indulgent. Go down to the corner bar and have a drink, a shot, and a beer.” [6/2/2009]
8. “In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might find they don’t both need to….The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness“. ['It Takes A Family,' 7/6/2005]
9. Santorum responded to the Pentagon’s decision rescind its invitation to evangelist Franklin Graham to speak at the upcoming National Day over his statement that Islam is “evil” by saying that Graham’s comment was “a reasonable statement at the time.” [3/23/2010]
10. “I think the Democrats are actually worried [Obama] may go to Indonesia and bow to more Muslims.” [3/23/2010]
11. “The creeping Sharia throughout Europe and here in this country and in Canada. The Islamization of Europe that is already on the way and will visit these shores not too soon is a concern for us and something that we need to identify and we need to talk about and we need to fight with every ounce of our being“. [2/28/2009]
12. “Now we have the Attorney General confirming to Osama bin Laden just bide your time and the effeminate and pampered Americans will cower away.” [2/28/2009]
Rick Santorum
AKA Richard John Santorum
Born: 10-May-1958
Birthplace: Winchester, VA
Gender: Male
Religion: Roman Catholic
Race or Ethnicity: White
Sexual orientation: Straight
Occupation: Politician
Party Affiliation: Republican
Nationality: United States
Executive summary: US Senator from Pennsylvania, 1995-2007
In his short career as a lawyer before going into politics, Rick Santorum's most notable client was the World Wrestling Entertainment, then called the World Wrestling Federation. He worked to shield WWE from federal regulations on the use of steroids, arguing that since wrestling was not a sport the rules should not apply. Santorum ran for Congress in 1990, four years after getting his law degree, running ads criticizing the incumbent for representing Pennsylvania while owning a house in Virginia and living there most of the year. By law, of course, legislators must live in the location they represent, but Virginia is within easy driving distance of Washington DC while Pennsylvania is two hours further north on the highway. Santorum won the election, and held his seat in the House for two terms before being elected to the Senate in 1994.
In two terms in the Senate, he became best known for his stalwart stand against gay rights and, more broadly, gayness in general, although Santorum prefers the words 'homosexual' or 'sodomites'. In a 2003 interview he likened sodomy to adultery, polygamy, and incest as "antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family". He has compared the idea of homosexual marriage to "man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be," and said, "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."
These and other anti-gay statements infuriated sex columnist Dan Savage, who held a contest in 2003 asking readers to suggest degrading meanings for Santorum's name. The winning entry defined santorum as "the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex," and even years later an on-line search for "Santorum" yields information about anal sex before any results mentioning the former Senator. Santorum, an announced candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012, has referred to this as his "Google problem."
Deeply concerned about sexual acts between consenting adults, Santorum has argued that the government can regulate private consensual sexual acts, and he has specifically complained that the 1966 Supreme Court decision in Griswold v Connecticut, which established Americans' right to privacy, was wrong. The Griswold case was not about gay rights, but overturned state laws prohibiting the use of contraceptives, so Santorum's argument against Griswold amounts to an argument against legalized contraceptives.
In a 2002 article about the controversy over Catholic priests molesting young children, Santorum wrote, "It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning 'private' moral matters such as alternative lifestyles." In Washington, he led a weekly devotions session for other Catholics in Congress, but Democrats were not allowed to attend. In 2001, he tried to attach an amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act that would have mandated that public schools teach "intelligent design" alongside evolution.
Santorum always opposed abortion, although he preferred to use the word 'infanticide', and his arguments seemed to be very deeply felt. When his wife miscarried in 1996, they named the dead fetus Gabriel after the Biblical archangel, and presented its lifeless body to his family. Their children, including three kids under seven, spent several hours cuddling and kissing Gabriel, singing lullabies in his ear, because Santorum wanted them to "absorb and understand that they had a brother." Santorum's wife wrote a book of Letters to Gabriel, a collection of prayers and anti-abortion arguments, including a stirring call for Gabriel's support of anti-abortion legislation, and Santorum read from the book in debate on the Senate floor.
In 2005, Santorum proposed legislation that would have blocked the National Weather Service from providing information about weather to the general public. His intent was apparently to help AccuWeather, a Pennsylvania firm, drive viewers to their web pages and away from the Weather Service's site. The legislation did not pass, but later that year when New Orleans was devastated by Hurricane Katrina, Santorum said that the National Weather Service had given "no warning, or not sufficient warning in my opinion" about the storm's path. In reality, the Weather Service had issued loud and accurate warnings days in advance about what was to come from Katrina.
Santorum once said that "the ultimate homeland security issue" is making sure sodomites and homosexuals cannot marry each other. As communist North Korea announced its nuclear weapons program, Santorum said that Iran was a bigger nuclear threat, because Korean dictator Kim Jong Il "doesn't want to die; he wants to watch NBA basketball". Santorum used the auspices of J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings to explain the Iraq war: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else. It's being drawn to Iraq and it's not being drawn to the U.S. You know what? I want to keep it on Iraq. I don't want the Eye to come back here to the United States."
Numerous times, Santorum has claimed that Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, alluding to small quantities of decades-old chemical weapons which were found during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and announced at that time with little fanfare. After a Defense Department spokesman flatly told Fox News that these vastly degraded weapons, left over from Iraq's 1980s war against Iran, were "not the WMDs for which this country went to war", Santorum replied that he would "wait and see what the actual Defense Department formally says".
Early in the George W. Bush administration, along with Dick Armey, Tom DeLay, and Grover Norquist, Santorum was at the center of the Republicans' tactic of pressuring lobbying firms to hire only Republicans. At regularly scheduled once-weekly meetings held since Republicans took Congress and in 1994, Santorum and other leading Republicans were provided with a list of job openings at lobbying companies, and literally told the lobbyists who to hire -- always well-connected Republicans. It was called the "K Street Project" because most lobbying firms have offices on Washington's K Street, but the system backfired when the lobbyists' "freeze-out" of Democrats became so successful that all the legislators on the take from crooked lobbyist Jack Abramoff were Republicans. When the arrangement was first reported in 2006, Santorum denied it was true and claimed to not even know Abramoff. When it was proven that Abramoff had been involved, Santorum announced that the "K Street" meetings had been ended. Months later it was reported that the meetings between lobbyists and Republicans were still being held at the same time, place, and day, once weekly. In 2006, the non-partisan Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Santorum one of the twenty most corrupt US legislators.
He lost his Senate seat to Bob Casey, Jr. in 2006, losing 41% to 59%, and in an ironic finale to his public career, a major issue in the campaign was that Santorum was living in a house he owned in Virginia -- not in Pennsylvania. Further, he had taken a second mortgage on his Virginia home from a private bank that serves only "affluent investors and institutions", a bank which requires that borrowers have assets far in excess of anything Santorum reported in his public financial disclosure reports.
Father: (psychologist)
Mother: (nurse)
Sister: (older)
Brother: Dan Santorum (younger)
Wife: Karen Garver (former nurse, m. 1990, 7 children)
Daughter: Elizabeth Anne Santorum
Son: Richard John Santorum, Jr.
Son: Daniel James Santorum
Son: Gabriel Michael Santorum (d. 11-Oct-1996, prematurely after 20 weeks in utero)
Daughter: Sarah Maria Santorum
Son: Peter Kenneth Santorum
Son: Patrick Francis Santorum

America! What About Ron Paul For President? (Part 2)

Ron Paul: Constitutionalist or Racist and Anti-Semite?
By Coach Mitchell Goldstein
January 11, 2012
Political correctness at its worst
The liberal/fascist press are all agog - 22 years ago, some questionable phrases appeared in four of Ron Paul’s newsletters. I have read the “hate” speech and the racist, anti-Semitic rants of Ron Paul. They amount to nothing! At root, this is a political witch hunt, a liberal lynching, in the best style of Goebbels, Hitler’s master marketing manipulator. See for yourself: [or see above]
This really comes down to the question of what constitutes racism. Is a statement racist if it is primarily factual but also has a negative overtone? My experience shows that anything liberals/progressives/fascists don’t like will automatically be labeled as racist, fascist, anti-environmental, anti-union, anti-democratic or fattening.
We all lose when perception is seen as reality, when style supersedes substance, when “winning is the only thing.” Yet, sadly, this Americas political reality is 2011, and 2012 will be even worse.
The examples used in Ron Paul’s newsletters were not racist. It is not racist to state facts or comment on societal impressions related to a particular race or ethnicity.
Truth as Hate Speech
Q. Is it Truth or Hate Speech: African American woman are prone to having illegitimate children.
A. 75% of babies born to African-American woman are illegitimate.
Q. In today’s America, how do you state this fact without being accused of being racist?
Q. As 33% of Caucasian births are illegitimate, is it racist to think or to ask: Have African-American attitudes towards the acceptance of illegitimate babies been adopted into the greater American culture?
Q. Is it racist to ask if the African-American imprint on American culture is primarily: illegitimate babies, gangster rap and young men avoiding their responsibilities to become educated, care for their illegitimate children, and avoid drugs and criminal activity?
Q. If 50% of African-American males are able to avoid arrest, is it racist to ask why the other 50% cannot also act properly?
Q. Is it Truth or Hate Speech: Jews are the biggest thieves on Wall Street.
A. Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky. These are men who defrauded the most or have been fined the most – all were born of Jewish parentage.
Being an American Jew, I will admit that the tone of the statement can be considered troublesome, but so is the fact that many thousands were harmed terribly by Madoff, Milken and Boesky. These criminals deserve all the punishment they receive and more. All their jail time multiplied by 100 will not come close to the angst, disappointment and trauma that these men caused to others. Their ill effect will be felt for generations.
Q. Is it less Anti-Semitic to say, “In Europe, one of the only professions Jews were allowed to pursue was moneylending; therefore, Jews became skilled in finance. A human trait is to manipulate when able and history has shown that a few persons of Jewish descent have been prosecuted successfully for financial crimes.”
The real issue is not the statement; rather, it is the context of the statement and the reaction to the statement.
If one were to say, “Those Jews, they’re the biggest thieves on Wall Street; you can’t trust any of them.” Then that is Anti-Semitic.
Compare the statement above with a recent interview given by “anti-Semitic” Ron Paul: 
“Any kind of racism or anti-Semitism is incompatible with my philosophy,” Paul said in an interview with Haaretz, conducted by email. “Ludwig von Mises, the great economist whose writing helped inspire my political career, was a Jew who was forced to leave his native Austria to escape the Nazis. Mises wrote about the folly of seeing people as part of groups rather than as individuals,”
“I supported Israel’s right to attack the Iraqi nuclear reactor in the 1980s, and I opposed President Obama’s attempt to dictate Israel’s borders this year.”
“I do not believe we should be Israel’s master but, rather, her friend. We should not be dictating her policies and announcing her negotiating positions before talks with her neighbors have even begun.”
“I believe I’m the only candidate who would allow Israel to take immediate action to defend herself without having to get our approval. Israel should be free to take whatever steps she deems necessary to protect her national security and sovereignty.”
“I am personally against all foreign aid. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her avowed enemies. How does that help Israel? And in return, we act like her master and demand veto power over her foreign policy.”
Q. Is it Truth or Hate Speech: Conservatives are Fascists!
A. This is both false and speech that is full of hate. However, because it is stated so often in the left wing press without any push back, it is accepted by the left as being gospel.
Q. Is it Truth or Hate Speech: Liberals are Fascists!
A. This is nominally true and therefore not hate speech. The problem is that liberals do not know that they are fascists because they do not know history nor the proper definition of words. The actual definition of Fascism: A type of Socialism; an economic system that controls the means of production; Webster’s Dictionary1962 edition - before it became politically correct. The politically correct current left wing propaganda definition of Fascism is: “any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc”
These definitions are far apart from each other. This is a great example of how the Left adulterates language to its own purpose.
To control the workplace via regulation is nominal fascism. You own the factory, but the government controls by telling you how much to pay the workers, the safety equipment required, rules the product must conform to, etc. This is all done under the banner of safety, i.e. “It is for your own good.” The real question is: who is in control of your property, you or the government?
Tort law will repair any negligence in safety.
BTW, it is factually impossible for economic conservatives to be fascists.
We have grown up hearing and believing one of the biggest left wing lies; that the political paradigm is left wing = liberal and right wing = fascist. This is totally incorrect.
Total Government:
Constitutional Republic:
America = just enough government
No Government:
On the left put 100% government, or some form of collectivism like socialism or dictatorship or plutocracy. The opposite of 100% government is 0% government, or anarchy. In the middle is our constitutional republic, rule by moral/freedom oriented law.
Anarchy can never be a form of government because out of the chaos, some men will organize their tribes and rule as mini dictators, e.g. kings, chiefs. Current events verify and history is replete with those seeking power. Individual freedom simply does not exist in the manner that allows men to thrive. Americans are on the verge of allowing the virtual annihilation of our G-d given rights to life, liberty and property, and the left cheers this on.
Socialism has many variants, only two of which are Communists and Fascists. Fabian Socialism is the type that exists in England and in America. Fabian Socialism envisions a slow adjustment of the people and the economy to the constrictions of freedom and the institutionalization of government, with “them” as the rule makers and overseers. Leninists/Stalinists/Hitlerites/Maoists-Castroites/Sandanista’s/Sadam/Chavez etc. all sought a quick reversion to dictatorial Socialism, typically through revolution.
Socialism is simply the best marketing vehicle available for those with selfish intentions who want to gain and hold sway over the masses. The strategy is to gain control over people by calling for people to be constrained because of safety concerns, e.g. mining, environment, finance, consumer protection, etc. It sounds so nice. How could anyone possibly be against safety? The answer: the devil is in the details.
How does this relate to Ron Paul?
First, Ron Paul has disavowed these few newsletters, only four letters in several thousand having any questionable passages. The political talking heads have cherry picked a few isolated incidents and paint a false narrative while ignoring 30 years of the candidate’s actions. These jaded “journalists” have to look back over 22 years in order to find dirt on Ron Paul because he has zero skeletons in his closet.
One does not become known as a racist overnight. If one is a racist, then there is a long documented history, e.g. David Duke. To say, “Ron Paul is a racist,” rates the Orwellian Double-Speak Award for Speech of the Lowest Order.
It is ironic that the only person in the race who wants to stop the US government from killing more “brown people” is being labeled a racist! This, despite the many instances of free health care Ron Paul has given to “brown people.” The only member of the Texas congressional delegation to vote for the Martin Luther King national holiday was Ron Paul. Senator McCain did not vote for the holiday and was not labeled a racist. Ron Paul wants to release all non-violent drug offenders; African-American’s make up the largest segment of offenders.
See video evidence of Ron Paul’s purported racism:
The double-standard
The left wing/liberal/progressive/fascist press has done all it can to collapse support for Ron Paul. They are unabashed about their partiality, making unfair and prejudicial comments like, “Paul can’t win,” “Paul is crazy,” “Paul’s support is thin,” “His 21% in Iowa is as high as he gets,” “He certainly sounds like a racist.” etc.
However, upon the least blip of support or on any good news, the left wing/liberal/progressive/fascist press goes agog over Obama. We get more accurate news reading Pravda.
Reverend Wright’s anti-American, anti-White, anti-Semitic rhetoric seems to not be taken seriously. Obama’s allegiance to Wright and the brainwashing Obama received over the many years he attended Wright’s church seem to not be an important issue. Compare Wright’s rhetoric to Ron Paul’s. Wright’s sermons are vitriolic, to the point of actual incitement to violence or at least inciting attitudes in a dangerous direction; Paul’s mild comments in a letter are aimed at fundraising.
Ronald Reagan’s candidacy back in 1980 was endorsed by several KKK groups. Does that mean Reagan was a racist? Some would claim that those endorsements must mean that Ronald Reagan believed in the same things as the KKK. Lunacy.
Ron Paul’s message has been consistent for decades. He’s never been a flip-flopper, unlike Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Gingrich, Romney, and the rest of the GOP field
In the newsletter, Ron Paul echoed Jesse Jackson’s statement that he felt fear hearing men walking behind him, fearing they were black, and when he looked back over his shoulder, he felt relief seeing that it was white men walking behind him. This is understandable because in 2004 African Americans constituted roughly 13.4% of the general population, yet 49% of all murder victims in 2005 were African American. According to “The Color of Crime,” “blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.”
Showing a correlation to race within crime rate statistics is not racism, and making unflattering statements about African-Americans is not racism, in and of itself, except to semi-literates. Racism is pernicious and malicious. And, as many of US know, both of these traits are specialties of the Left.
Are we all racists for having genuine human feelings of fear based upon the knowledge that, statistically, African-American males have a higher likelihood of committing a crime? This is the kind of backwards logic that permeates the Left.
Why all the hate speech aimed at Ron Paul?
Left wing/liberal/progressive/fascists feel genuine terror that Ron Paul, if elected, would actually follow through with his campaign promises and reduce government overreach.
The left wing fears that someone who stands for something with a clear message has a chance to break down the status quo in American politics. They fear less government, lower taxes and a country where people are not forced to implement their left wing agenda.
Ron Paul is not some messianic fix-all; but he is a step in the right direction. Ron Paul has voted with an originalist constitutional mindset consistently for the last 30 years. That is not hearsay but 100% fact. He is the only congressman who regularly receives a 100% rating on the Freedom Index. Ron Paul is the boogeyman that haunts big federal government. His sin is that he believes in US as individuals; his congressional colleagues all believe in some level of big federal government.
Paul has an honest, constitutional, pro-American mentality. This is exactly what we need right now. Only an originalist constitutional approach will save our country. However, if Ron Paul is elected, prepare for big fights, as neither Congress nor the bureaucracy is going to allow the implementation of the elimination of subsidies, sweetheart contacts, insider deals, special protections and massive war preparations; the greed is too deeply embedded. They will defend at all costs over 100 years of planning and scheming to insinuate their subservient mindset.
The biggest problems in America today ALL stem from our bloated, overbearing form of Statism. That’s the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty. America needs the constitutional restitution that Ron Paul represents and this is exactly what the big corporations that own the major media outlets do NOT want.
Rep. Paul’s message has achieved enough currency that it can no longer be ignored, despite the alarming lack of media coverage. I now expect the Establishment to switch to attack mode.
However, Ron Paul doesn’t have much in his background to attack. His writings and rhetoric have remained consistent. We know that there are no major scandals to uncover or they would have already announced them. He remains faithful to one wife. Ron Paul never dodged the draft and he is the only veteran in the race.
There is only one place to attack and it is tenuous at best. Some of his distant staff wrote some unpopular lines in a few newsletters 22 years ago. The lines fail to match anything in Dr. Paul’s long voting record or anything he’s actually said. Paul clearly states what he believes personally and that his personal views should not matter. Liberty for all means exactly that. Ron Paul’s positions on individual liberty are antithetical to the collectivist notion of racism.
Interestingly, the question of whether Ron Paul is racist has never come up in a political career spanning 30+ years. Were Paul a racist, I would expect many people to come forward with accounts of anti-Semitism and hatred of minorities. However, all we ever hear about are the accounts of minorities getting free healthcare. The lack of proper journalism in the media today is appalling.
These attacks on the only candidate who upholds the Constitution are happening because the military industrial complex and big business do NOT want an end to the status quo of bug business in bed with big totalitarian government.
Don’t be fooled by the mainstream media’s disinformation campaign to marginalize Ron Paul’s anti-war, pro-constitutionalist message.
See what real people are saying about Ron Paul
1- See what grass-roots African-Americans think about the “vicious racist” Ron Paul;
2- See what active duty service men and women think about the “isolationist appeaser” Ron Paul
3- See what veterans think about the “uncaring and uncompassionate” Ron Paul
4- See what women think about the “hateful misogynist” Ron Paul
Coach (Mitch) Mitchell Goldstein is a Nationally Recognized Expert in tax delinquent property investing and a Real Estate Investor since 1972 in commercial and residential properties.
Coach Mitch is dedicated to helping would be real estate investors to attain their financial goals through investing in tax delinquent real estate and has created various products and services to facilitate the tax delinquent real estate investor.
Mitchell is a Jewish American of Hungarian and Polish extraction and a fan of Locke, Jefferson, and Madison, whose instincts against accumulated power have proven prescient; and of Washington, and Hamilton, whose notions regarding consolidated power required that honor and the highest moral behavior be the hallmark of those exercising power.

Ron Paul the Official Ross Perot of 2012
By J.B. Williams
December 30, 2011
Paulestinians (aka - rabid Ron Paul fanatics) have a full-court-press on for the upcoming Iowa Caucus, as if winning Iowa makes one a lock to win the eventual GOP primary. Iowa has a distinguished history of getting it wrong most of the time.
In 2008, Iowa chose Mike Huckabee for their GOP nominee and gave John McCain a 13% fourth place finish, which was still above Ron Paul who won only 10% in Iowa last time. John McCain went on to become the GOP nominee.
In 2004, Iowa got it right with George W. Bush. But Bush ran unopposed in 2004…
In 2000, Iowa gave George W. Bush a nod with 41%, meaning that 59% of Iowa Caucus goers got it wrong. Bush became the GOP nominee.
In 1996, Iowa chose Bob Dole, who became the GOP nominee before getting slaughtered in the general election by Impeached President Bill Clinton. Iowa picked another loser.
In 1992, Iowa got it right again with George H. W. Bush, but he was also running unopposed.
In 1988, Iowa chose Bob Dole, who was defeated by George H. W. Bush, whom they only gave 19% of their confidence. Of course, Bush won the nomination and became President of the United States.
The point is -- Iowa has a long history of getting it wrong in Republican primaries. If I were a GOP candidate, I’d be trying not to win Iowa, as winning Iowa appears to be a jinx to any GOP candidate seeking the GOP nomination or the White House.
Winning Iowa is like your momma telling you what a great singer you are, even though you can’t carry a tune in a bucket.
So, why all the hoopla over Iowa and Ron Paul? -- He’s “Mr. Constitution” they say! (with great pride and vigor…) Why are they only going half-way here? Why President Ron Paul when they could have President Alex Jones? Maybe Alex will be his VP pick, and their Inaugural Hajj will be held at Area 51, complete with an alter call by Glenn Beck…
Yeah? Where does Mr. Constitution stand on Obama’s Article II ineligibility? Mr. Constitution would fight for all of the constitution, not just the cherry-picked sections his anti-war base appreciates. Besides, the average age of a Paul supporter is about 20 – which means they haven’t a clue about the constitution or the world they live in.
Once again, why Ron Paul? What does his thirty-year career politicians résumé hold to give his followers such confidence in Mr. Constitution, who remains totally MIA (Missing In Action) on Article II, which disqualifies Obama for office and every member of congress, including Ron Paul, knows it!
Mr. Constitution would know that the primary function of the Federal Government is to protect and defend the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. - To do that in a 21st Century world, you had better have one hell of a standing Military, which Mr. Constitution also opposes.
All of the Tea Party candidates are already out of the race, systematically eliminated by Team Obama. They successfully killed off four GOP messiahs in a row, Palin, Bachmann, Perry and Cane. That was easy!
RNC darlings Romney and Gingrich have also received the Obama hatchet job, clearing the field for whom? -- Ron Paul and Rick Santorum…. Rick who? And Ron Paul… Gee whiz… how’d that happen so fast?
Obama likes running unopposed. He has won every political race by eliminating his opponents, one by one, leaving him unopposed in the general election. That’s what we are watching right now.
In 2008, the Clinton’s had so many skeletons rattling around in their closets that Obama was able to derail the greatest political war room ever known to modern politics by simply cutting a backroom power-sharing deal, making Hillary Secretary of State and opening the door for Bill on the international scene.
Hillary Clinton was a lock for the DNC nomination headed into the 2008 primaries. Then the nobody from nowhere with a blank résumé and not so much as a birth certificate, stole the show. By the DNC convention, Hillary was just a memory and despite threats to defect by Clinton supporters, they rallied behind Obama in the general election anyway.
In the end analysis, the left always marches forward in lockstep, despite their many internal disputes. But the political right is more divided and scattered than ever in U.S. history, and they are no match for the unified international left that has already eliminated any real opposition for Obama in 2012.
Ron Paul will not rule out a third-party run, if he happens to lose the GOP nomination. Paul promises to play spoiler even if he has to do it from outside the GOP.
The Ron Paul campaign is built on a foundation of social liberals, chronic anti-war misfits, modern day peaceniks seeking legalized drugs, atheists, and Democrats and Independents with liberaltarian leanings. Nowhere in there is “conservatives…” who oppose Paul as much as they oppose Obama.
If Ron Paul really was a constitutionalist, he would attract the conservative vote, because it is conservatives who have spent a lifetime trying to protect and preserve our nation’s founding principles and values, hence the term “conservative,” to conserve.
But conservatives are not easily fooled by constitutional rhetoric, whether coming from the lips of Teddy Kennedy or Ron Paul. Even Obama claims to be a constitutional scholar and no one has been as successful at undermining the constitution as Barack Obama.
Ron Paul is at odds with conservatives on numerous key issues.
• Paul supports same-sex marriage
• Paul opposes the death penalty for violent criminals
• Paul opposes mandatory sentencing for three-time losers
• Paul supports legalizing illicit drugs
• Paul opposes firm enforcement of immigration laws
• Paul opposes free trade
• Paul opposes a strong U.S. Military and National Defense
• Paul opposes foreign diplomacy and prefers isolationism
• Paul opposes stricter limits on criminal campaign finance
• Paul opposes the Patriot Act, but also insists on letting terrorist live amongst us
• Paul supported the arbitrary withdrawal from Iraq that resulted in deadly terror attacks hours later
• Overall, Paul falls in the Middle ground, where libertarians, moderates and populists are found, not conservatives
As a result, he cannot muster the conservative vote in November 2012, without which, he cannot defeat Barack Obama.
Most of Paul’s “social conservative” congressional votes are actually Tenth Amendment votes, which sidestep the actual issue at hand and redirect the discussion to states right. He is a career politician, supported by folks who claim to oppose career politicians.
While conservatives are strong on Tenth Amendment states right, they are also strong on founding principles and values grounded in the moral laws of nature, at the foundation of our Constitutional Representative Republic.
In short, Paul is actually a liberal leaning populist candidate, rather than a Jeffersonian libertarian. He has very little in common with American conservatives and that presents a serious problem for him in any national election, especially at a time in history when conservative voters are looking to reverse course in America.
Paul has been MIA on far too many constitutional issues to call himself a constitutionalist with a straight face. Beyond lower taxes and less government, he has literally nothing in common with conservatives and even his smaller government leanings can’t work in a socially and morally bankrupt society.
Then we have the issue of white supremacists and anti-Semites in his past, which won’t come up from other Republican candidates in the primary, but will come up from Team Obama in the general election. Remember, Obama must run unopposed… and the U.S. press will tear Paul from limb to limb long before next November.
If Obama’s name is allowed to appear on the 2012 ballot, he will be re-elected.
None of the 2012 GOP candidates deserve the support of truly engaged and patriotic Americans. Of course, neither does Obama.
Voters who grasp the reality that the nation is on the brink of total collapse and the world is on the verge of WWIII, are looking for who can defeat Obama and who might have the backbone to protect the nation from eminent danger on several fronts.
I’m not sure such a candidate exists in the 2012 election, but I am certain that Ron Paul isn’t it. Facts don’t have any friends, but so far, Paul fans don’t seem too impressed by facts. Paul is unqualified for the job he seeks on this single issue alone! His anti-Semitism and poor-pitiful misunderstood jihadists, blame America first and often rhetoric should be enough to end his campaign… but do the facts matter anymore? People who can’t vote for a lesser evil are in real trouble this time, as every candidate in the race is a lesser evil. We will see what the people’s real priorities are…
Our nation hangs in the balance…
JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. He is also a Founder of Freedom Force USA and a staunch conservative actively engaged in returning the power to the right people in America.
Web site 1:
Web site 2:
The Phony Rightwing
By Kelleigh Nelson
December 30, 2011
Ron Paul
Yep we're slaves alright. Tax law being the most nefarious of the lot. Certainly, we are no longer living in a land of "justice". . We have lots and lots of laws of "Control and Obedience" to the American Royalty erroneously called The Federal Government. We have King and Queen Obama and a bunch of Czar's...Does anybody remember "America"? (the land of the free?) -J. Carlton, Calgary
This is for everyone who keeps writing me and asking, "When are you going to write about Ron Paul?" No matter what I write about Ron Paul, I will be loved by some and hated by others. Please remember I started with the worst of the lot and, IMHO all but Bachmann and Paul are globalists. Michele carries a lot of baggage, working for the IRS to me is as damaging as Herman Cain having worked for the Federal Reserve. With Ron Paul, you have a man who, among other things, wants to rid us of the Federal Reserve, (watch this important video: give power back to the states, is staunchly pro-life, doesn't believe in World Government, wants to stop the federal spending, wants to stop all foreign aid, wants to bring our soldiers home, has a way to cut spending and the deficit, wants to eliminate federal departments responsible for pushing the horrid UN Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development, would repeal Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley, would lower the corporate tax to 15%, and is a Christian who isn't pandering his faith like so many of the candidates. 
Here is Ron's statement of faith and I love it. Congressman Paul's detractors will list many points against him, but if one only searches the reasoning behind Paul's stances, you'll find that many of them are constitutional.
Ron Paul was born in August of 1935, and raised in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He graduated from Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine, before proudly serving as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force during the 1960s. He and his wife Carol moved to Texas in 1968, where he began his medical practice in Brazoria County. As a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He and Carol, who reside in Lake Jackson, Texas, are the proud parents of five children and have 18 grandchildren and five great grandchildren. Paul was raised Lutheran, but now attends a Baptist Church.
Paul is a libertarian and thus there will be many facets of his belief system that constitutional conservatives might disagree with albeit his reasoning in most instances is sound and constitutional. If the states were given back their original power under the Constitution to decide issues such as abortion, that action would deprive the Federal government from passing laws like Roe v. Wade which resulted in a national law that forces all States to uphold abortion.
Let's look at some of the issues conservatives may have problems with, as well as those areas where we'd agree Ron Paul is the only candidate for President who is truly a constitutional conservative and who could put this nation back on the right track. Please take special notice of the links as they're quite informative and important.
1. Ron Paul voted for the repeal of "Don't Ask. Don't Tell." Paul seems to waver on whether homosexuality is a sin. The Congressman also believes the government should not be in your bedroom and says, "Gay couples can do whatever they want and call it whatever they want as long as they don't impose it on someone else."
Ron Paul stated in an article in the Huffington Post,, "Everybody is an individual person, and everybody has the same rights as anyone else. The government has no business in your private life, you know, so if one person is allowed to do something so should everyone else. The whole gay marriage issue is a private affair, and the federal government has no say." Get the government out of our bedrooms! It is very important to see that this is an issue of individual justice rather than social justice.
2. Many Libertarians like Ron Paul are closer to the leftists in their love affair with Islam which is one area that is extremely troubling inasmuch as the desire of Islam is to overtake America and make it a Muslim nation. Paul doesn't believe the religion of Islam is our enemy and I'd have to disagree with him on this issue.
3. Congressman Paul says U.S. intervention motivated 9/11 attacks. . Two weeks prior to the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Ron Paul says that U.S. intervention in the Middle East is a main motivation behind terrorist hostilities toward America, and that Islam is not a threat to the nation. . Ron Paul has spoken about ";," which is the unintended consequences of foreign operations that were deliberately kept secret from the American public. In Christopher Simpson's 1988 book, Blowback, he thoroughly explains America's recruitment of Nazis into the CIA and its disastrous effect on our domestic and foreign policy that has lasted for years. The same goes for the other CIA foreign operations the public has no knowledge of even today.
Paul also believes we should get out of the Muslim countries now. I too believe this, albeit I want all our soldiers brought home and put on our borders with 50 caliber machine guns to protect our nation from drug cartels and illegal aliens.
4. Ron Paul, the most visible libertarian in the US (under the Republican banner), has said he thinks that sending illegal aliens home where they came from is not "humanitarian." He also doesn't believe in building a 700 mile fence. Now it seems the Libertarian Party is following this same kind of reasoning. But wait! Here's what Ron says about illegal aliens in an interview with John Stossel: . He wants to get rid of the subsidies for illegals, as well as any mandates by the Federal Government. This would include food stamps, social security, medical care, automatic citizenship under the guise of amnesty, free education, etc. Stop the free rides and they'll stop rushing over our borders. I agree with his stance. If the bird feeder is empty, the birds won't come. With soldiers on the border, terrorists won't either. Paul is against amnesty. 
5. Ron Paul's libertarian views would support legalization of pornography and prostitution; . Again, Ron's view is the First Amendment protection and that parents can restrict and control their children and it is not the Federal government's responsibility to do same. Prostitution is still going on today whether it is legalized or not and this is a social issue like homosexuality and pornography. Congressman Paul doesn't believe the government should legislate virtue or morality. I wish he'd tell this to the leftist Fabian socialists and Marxists we have in government control.
One of the factors that has brought the decline of morality in America is the failure of today's churches in teaching sound biblical doctrines and exhorting the members to read and study God's Word and spread the Gospel and we need to understand this rather than laying the blame elsewhere.
6. Ron Paul is staunchly pro-life and would have laws protecting life decreed by the States rather than by federal law. As I explained above, Ron would like to see Roe v. Wade repealed and let the States decide rather than having the Federal Government making abortion a nationalized law. 
7. Paul believes the government has no role or authority in regulating drugs, another Libertarian concept. However, his stance has a great deal of merit inasmuch as it actually does pull the rug out from under the drug cartels and their profits. Am I in agreement? Not necessarily, but here's the Congressman's take on this issue.
8. Ron says terrorists should be tried in American civil courts. The opposition says, "Foreign terrorists belong in a military court." As for American Citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed by a U.S. drone strike in Yemen, like Ron Paul I have to ask, "Are we setting a precedent that will be used against other US citizens in the future?" It is something we definitely need to consider. Remember, what our government will do to an undesirable citizen, they can also do to us. Note the bill that just passed and will be signed into law H.R.1540 NDAA
9. Florida Republican Congressman John Mica offered the following morally clear Amendment (5/25/2011-H.AMDT.318 (A018) Amends H.R.1540):
Amendment requires that the rules of engagement [ROE] allow any military service personnel assigned to duty in a designated hostile fire area to have rules of engagement that fully protect their right to proactively defend themselves from hostile actions.
The results? (tallied here: 143 out of 185 Democrats present — 77% — voted against this amendment; 217 out of 235 Republicans present — 92% — voted for it. As for the two Republicans in Congress running who are Presidential candidates, Michele Bachmann voted for the amendment; Ron Paul against it.
AND here is the caveat, the law authorizes the United States to use military force anywhere it says there are terrorists, including within the borders of our own country and including against American citizens. This bill eliminates habeas corpus making detention indefinite. It represents the largest hand-over of unchecked war authority from Congress to the executive branch in modern American history. The founders were seriously opposed to handing this much power over to executive, fearing tyranny, which is what we have today. If enacted into law, this provision would make Obama a total dictator who can wage war without the consent of the American people, which he has already done with Libya, but would legitimize it. This bill will legalize an unconstitutional act. Ron Paul has clearly sounded the alarm regarding the imminent destruction of the Republic.
10. The bogus claim of anti-Semitism arises with Ron Paul for several reasons. Basically his stance on our intervention in the Middle East which he feels resulted in terrorist attacks against us, and his pro-Islamic Mosque stance in New York have fueled this belief. Unfortunately Congressman Paul sponsored a bill that would have eliminated all aid to Israel alone rather than all foreign aid to any country. I do believe Paul wishes to eliminate all foreign aid and I'm in agreement with this stance. As well, I have Jewish friends in Israel who wish Israel would decline any monies from America so Israel could act as Israel sees fit and would not have to bow to American interests.
Here is what my one Israeli friend said, "US aid to Israel has made us (Israel) a puppet under the power of a terrible prez we didn't elect. US money enslaves us. If no one has the guts to speak truth, they don't merit to lead a nation. We in Israel live with empty words of blowhard politicians who're afraid of making the Arabs mad. If you don't tell the truth, they'll kill more of us. IF you tell the truth, they'll kill more of us. I'd rather die for the truth than a lie. The fact is, archeology- facts on the ground- and the history of the region attest to Jews not Palestinians being here from the beginning of time. Go study."
I have to agree with my Israeli friends and with Paul inasmuch as the strings attached to accepting US dollars inhibits Israel from proper defense of their country.
In Paul's book The Revolution: A Manifesto, at the end the Congressman includes a section called "A Reading List for a Free and Prosperous America." And on that recommended reading list is John T. Flynn's book, As We Go Marching. Congressman Paul is recommending the writings of a man who, in his day, was seen as a driving force behind the anti-Semitic liberal Republican Senator Nye and the Senate investigation into Jewish influence in Hollywood.;
More troubling is the fact that Ron Paul's website mourned the passing of virulent anti-Semite, Eustace Mullins. In my files I have a copy of Mullins' booklet, "My Life In Christ," which was printed for him by Aryan Nations. Any investigation of Mullins reveals strong anti-Semitism. The question is who controls Ron's website? I am sure Paul does not.
Ron's real stance on Israel is clear and the rumors of anti-Semitism are false. Here is Ron's stance on Israel in this interview. Here is Ron's interview with Newsmax on his support of Israel and from The Atlantic, "Ron Paul is More Mainstream than His Opponents on Foreign Policy."
11. Ron Paul's new Plan to Restore America basically abolishes all the cabinet level departments tasked with implementation and dissemination of Agenda 21. His supporters have been hot on all the Agenda 21 issues for a long time. They're probably the ones who got Rand Paul up to speed on the issues, since he didn't have a clue when one of our researchers wrote to him. Ron is proposing One Trillion dollars in budget cuts! . Here are the key components of Paul's economic plan, "Restore America," released in October.
It’s not mentioned by name anywhere in Ron Paul's 11 page Plan to Restore America; but, the cabinet-level departments he’s abolishing (page 2 on his plan) are the same departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior & Education) that Bill Clinton appointed to his President’s Council on Sustainable Development in 1993 to co-ordinate with the UN’s Agenda 21.
For this reason alone I'd cast my vote for Ron Paul. If you are unaware of what UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development/Smart Growth/Smart Meters/Wildlands Project is all about, then visit Tom DeWeese's site on Agenda 21;
No one has ever accused Ron Paul of being a flip-flopper. He has been saying the same things for 35 years. Now the latest events in America and the world have conspired to make him look increasingly on target.
Congressman Paul is by far the most radically anti-big government candidate in the running. He'd boil the Federal government back down to a few skeletal constitutional functions. He'd cut all foreign aid, abolish the Patriot Act, get rid of Obamacare, return us to a gold standard, as well as eliminating the welfare state, and federal income taxes. He hates bipartisan compromise and loves gridlock!
Are there things on which I'd disagree with Dr. Paul? You bet there are! But there are far more things I agree with him on, especially his love of liberty and the Constitution. I have spent the better part of six months researching Dr. Paul and have collected hundreds of documents and articles on the man. The elite establishment politicos and media will do anything to destroy the reputation of this man, yet he gains more followers as the days go by. Recently he was on the Jay Leno Show; . Leno asked him how he liked the debates so far and Ron answered that standing there for two hours to speak for three minutes wasn't very enjoyable. Jay also made the statement that the bottom 15% of Americans pay no taxes. Ron quipped back, "That's a good start!"
If you wish to know more about Ron Paul, go to his website, Ron Paul on the Issues. Another site that contains valid information is Wikipedia's Political Positions of Ron Paul.
Paul isn't a 6'2" square jawed hunk of male flesh with a pompous arrogant, know-it-all attitude. He's a little Banty rooster who's smaller and faster than the globalists he's running against and who loves freedom. If there's any chance in saving our country, I believe it's with Congressman Ron Paul.
P.S. Here is a recent article written by his first and only speech writer in 1976. I think you'll enjoy it!
P.P.S. As the MSM falsely attacks Ron Paul for racist remarks, see the truth here and here. Make sure you watch the video.
Kelleigh Nelson has been researching the Christian right and their connections to the left, the new age, and cults since 1975. Formerly an executive producer for three different national radio talk show hosts, she was adept at finding and scheduling a variety of wonderful guests for her radio hosts. She and her husband live in Knoxville, TN, and she has owned her own wholesale commercial bakery since 1990. Prior to moving to Tennessee, Kelleigh was marketing communications and advertising manager for a fortune 100 company in Ohio. Born and raised in Chicago, Illinois, she was a Goldwater girl with high school classmate, Hillary Rodham, in Park Ridge, Illinois. Kelleigh is well acquainted with Chicago politics and was working in downtown Chicago during the 1968 Democratic convention riots. Kelleigh is presently the secretary for Rocky Top Freedom Campaign, a strong freedom advocate group.
Also See:
America! What About Ron Paul For President?
(Part 1)
13 May 2008

Troops withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan!

Over 560 ISAF troops die in Afghan war in 2011
Agence France-Presse
31 December 2011
KABUL — Foreign troops fighting in Afghanistan continue to pay a high toll, with more than 560 killed in 2011, the second highest number in the 10-year war against the Taliban-led insurgency.
Commanders from the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) say violence is declining following the U.S. military surge which saw an extra 33,000 troops on the ground.
But the UN says violence is up, while recent mass casualty strikes by the Taliban on civilians and coalition troops have fuelled analyst predictions that more bloodshed is likely as NATO hands control for security to Afghan forces.
The death toll of coalition service personnel in 2011 was 565 and includes 417 from the U.S. and 45 from Britain, according to an AFP tally based on figures from independent website
The number is down from a wartime high of 711 in 2010 after the start of the surge but up from 521 in 2009.
The fatality count has been worsened by several devastating attacks, including the car bombing of an ISAF convoy in Kabul in October which killed 17, and the shooting down of a helicopter in Wardak, south of the capital, in August in which 30 U.S. troops perished.
But it is Afghan civilians who have paid the highest price.
The deadliest attack saw at least 80 people killed in a shrine bombing in Kabul on the Shiite holy day of Ashura in early December.
The surge troops — ordered in by U.S. President Barack Obama two years ago to turn the tide in the war — have now begun to pull out, with 10,000 already gone and the rest leaving by next autumn.
Other foreign forces are also scaling down their missions ahead of a 2014 deadline for the withdrawal of all NATO combat forces. And one Western military official said some units have already been told not to carry out offensive operations.
Since the U.S.-led invasion toppled the Taliban from power in 2001, a total of 2,846 foreign troops have died in the conflict.
"We've seen a considerable reduction in enemy attacks (this year). That's a result of successes on the battle field and a reduction of their capability to attack us," said ISAF spokesman Brigadier General Carsten Jacobson.
While fewer ISAF troops on the ground in the coming years may mean fewer coalition deaths, the civilian toll will not necessarily fall.
The UN said the number of civilians killed in violence in Afghanistan rose by 15 per cent in the first six months of this year to 1,462. A full-year report is due out in mid-January.
Insurgents are blamed for 80 per cent of the deaths, which are mostly caused by homemade bombs or IEDs.
NATO, which says enemy attacks are down eight per cent, only includes "executed attacks" and not IED finds or instances where the Taliban intimidate local people.
Haroun Mir, an analyst at Afghanistan's Centre for Research and Policy Studies, said that while the Taliban were no longer engaging ISAF troops head-on, factions within the insurgency were intent on targeting civilians.
"The Taliban are deliberately targeting civilians to spread fear among the people. They want to show that despite the surge they are still active, that they have the capacity to disrupt life, especially in the cities," he said.
The international community is looking for a political solution to the war and moves have been made to establish a Taliban office, possibly in Qatar, to enable peace talks.
But Mir said although some members of the Taliban would be willing to negotiate, others, such as those based over the border in Pakistan, are likely to become increasingly isolated and unleash more violence.
"We expect more terrorist attacks and more political assassinations during the phase of transition. These radical groups will do everything possible, especially after 2014, to weaken the government," he said.
As security is handed over the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), which now number more than 300,000, can also expect to take on more casualties.
Since March 21, the beginning of the Afghan year, 1,400 police, 520 soldiers and 4,275 insurgents have been killed in the conflict, according to Afghan government figures.
However, there is some optimism that the reduction in the foreign presence may in itself lead to a fall in violence.
"The hope is that as foreign troops hand security to Afghan forces fewer local people will become radicalised," said Fabrizio Foschini of the Afghanistan Analysts Network.
"And the insurgents won't kill as many civilians collaterally by using highly destructive tactics to target foreigners," he said.

Obama is Turning US Victories Into Defeat
By Dr. Laurie Roth
December 30, 2011
Obama has yanked our soldiers back out of Iran and Afghanistan, manipulating whatever ‘kiss up’ factor he can gain from the progressive left. Obama’s concerned leftists have been mad at him this whole time because he hasn’t stopped the war and brought our troops home. So, at the right, politically expedient, ‘Saul Alinsky’ moment, Obama yanked them home and in doing so has turned our sure victories into certain defeats, while ignoring General after General and simple common sense. Shame on him.
Now, we hear, thanks to, now that our troops are gone out of Iraq that top figures are warning of a push for dictatorship and civil war. Just like with Obama’s betrayal of Egypt, while Muslim Brotherhood swooped in and long time alley, Hosni Mubarak was thrown out, now radicals circle their wagons around Iraq. After all, America is gone….just as Obama would have it.
Another disaster looming, among coming disasters in Afghanistan is the pathetic lack of leadership regarding their first big oil contract. CNN money states that China got the deal, offering the best offer, giving Afghanistan 85% of the profit and giving China 15%. Also in the bidding were Britain, Australia and the US. How in God’s green earth did the US not win this bid and do an oil deal with Afghanistan when we have spent hundreds of billions to free them and rebuild their country??? What incredible lack of leadership in the Obama regime would dare to allow such a thing and not make sure the US offered the best deal and won? It is as if, sabotage reigns to destroy any political, economic and military advantage with us and Afghanistan after hundreds of billions have been spent to fight Islamic terror there, free the people and help them rebuild.
Obama continues to do whatever he can to promote radical Islamic leadership change throughout the Middle East. Obama is pressing Congress to release the remaining 147 million from the previous budget cycle, in which US aid to the Palestinians was to be $545.7 million. According to the AP lawmakers are pushing for Palestinian bid for UN membership and have now freed up 20% of 187 million for that goal.
Lets see what we have as 2012 approaches
Obama has long ago given Islamic radical and terrorist group HAMAS over 900 million dollars.
Never mind that the 40 million dollars is aiding a dangerous scheme by the left and Palestinians to force their way in as a voting member of the UN and be ‘deemed’ a country. Damn that this boldly increases the danger to Israel and that the ability for Palestine to attack Israel and get away with it from an international viewpoint. Bottom line….Damn Israel.
We have already been enlightened by Obama during Arab Spring when Obama and Hillary immediately betrayed long time alley Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and rallied behind Islamic terrorist group Muslim Brotherhood. It is as if Obama wanted radical Islamics to control Egypt and bring more danger to Israel, the West and Middle East.
All over the Middle East Obama has backed Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamic groups who continue to threaten, attack and murder Jews, Christians and anyone of difference.
Why would a REAL President of the US want to give Islamic radicals, like Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinian leadership or any other name they hide behind, any support or money until they first show bold and verified signs to the US, UN and world that they will stop their threats and attacks on Israel, people of difference and the world? This will never happen with Obama at the helm because I believe he is aiding international Muslim and global elite take over.
A real President who loves America and freedom would harshly rebuke Islam and Sharia law until they stop the sound bites and really show American and the UN reforms. Perhaps the Saudis could start by changing their high school textbooks found for 10th graders that show in graphic detail how to cut off the hands and feet of a thief. While they are at it perhaps Islam. Through out their 57 countries can stop the part of Sharia law that allows beatings of wives, executions of gays, those who change faiths, cutting off limbs of thieves, stoning of rape victims without 4 witnesses and other violent brutality.
There is no middle ground. Islam must work our way or take the highway to hell and get out of our face! Join me and speak your mind at: and listen in on my show at:
Dr. Laurie Roth earned a black belt in Tae Kwon Do. In the late 90's, Laurie hosted and produced a successful PBS television show called "CD Highway" that aired nationally on 130 TV stations.
Tune in to The Roth Show, Weeknights from 7:00 to 10:00 pm PAC and find out for yourself! You can listen live on cable radio network (live on the internet) channel 6 or visit The Roth Show web site and click on "where to listen" Call the Roth Show at: 1-866-388-9093
Last US troops leave Iraq as war ends
By Rebecca Santana
Sun, Dec 18, 2011
KHABARI CROSSING, Kuwait (AP) — The last U.S. soldiers rolled out of Iraq across the border into neighboring Kuwait at daybreak Sunday, whooping, fist bumping and hugging each other in a burst of joy and relief. Their convoy's exit marked the end of a bitterly divisive war that raged for nearly nine years and left Iraq shattered, with troubling questions lingering over whether the Arab nation will remain a steadfast U.S. ally.
The mission cost nearly 4,500 American and well more than 100,000 Iraqi lives and $800 billion from the U.S. Treasury. The question of whether it was worth it all is yet unanswered.
The last convoy of MRAPs, heavily armored personnel carriers, made a largely uneventful journey out except for a few equipment malfunctions along the way. It was dark and little was visible through the MRAP windows as they cruised through the southern Iraqi desert.
When the convoy crossed into Kuwait around 7:45 a.m. local time, the atmosphere was subdued inside one of the vehicles, with no shouting or yelling. Along the road, a small group of Iraqi soldiers waved to the departing American troops.
"My heart goes out to the Iraqis," said Warrant Officer John Jewell, acknowledging the challenges ahead. "The innocent always pay the bill."
Soldiers standing just inside the crossing on the Kuwaiti side of the border waved and snapped photos as the final trucks crossed over. Soldiers slid shut the gate behind the final truck.
"I'm pretty excited," said Sgt. Ashley Vorhees. "I'm out of Iraq. It's all smooth sailing from here."
The war that began in a blaze of aerial bombardment meant to shock and awe the dictator Saddam Hussein and his loyalists ended quietly and with minimal fanfare.
U.S. officials acknowledged the cost in blood and dollars was high, but tried to paint a picture of victory — for both the troops and the Iraqi people now freed of a dictator and on a path to democracy. But gnawing questions remain: Will Iraqis be able to forge their new government amid the still stubborn sectarian clashes. And will Iraq be able to defend itself and remain independent in a region fraught with turmoil and still steeped in insurgent threats.
Many Iraqis, however, are nervous and uncertain about the future. Their relief at the end of Saddam, who was hanged on the last day of 2006, was tempered by a long and vicious war that was launched to find nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and nearly plunged the nation into full-scale sectarian civil war.
Some criticized the Americans for leaving behind a destroyed country with thousands of widows and orphans, a people deeply divided along sectarian lines and without rebuilding the devastated infrastructure.
Some Iraqis celebrated the exit of what they called American occupiers, neither invited nor welcome in a proud country.
Others said that while grateful for U.S. help ousting Saddam, the war went on too long. A majority of Americans would agree, according to opinion polls.
The low-key exit stood in sharp contrast to the high octane start of the war, which began before dawn on March 20, 2003, with an airstrike in southern Baghdad where Saddam was believed to be hiding. U.S. and allied ground forces then stormed across the featureless Kuwaiti desert, accompanied by reporters, photographers and television crews embedded with the troops.
The final few thousand U.S. troops left Iraq in orderly caravans and tightly scheduled flights. They pulled out at night in hopes it would be more secure and got out in time for at least some of the troops to join families at home for the Christmas holidays.
"The biggest thing about going home is just that it's home," Staff Sgt. Daniel Gaumer, 37, from Ft. Hood, Texas said before the convoy left. "It's civilization as I know it, the Western world, not sand and dust and the occasional rain here and there. It's home."
Spc. Jesse Jones, a 23-year-old who volunteered to be on the last convoy, said: "It's just an honor to be able to serve your country and say that you helped close out the war in Iraq. ... Not a lot of people can say that they did huge things like that that will probably be in the history books."
The final troops completed the massive logistical challenge of shuttering hundreds of bases and combat outposts, and methodically moving more than 50,000 U.S. troops and their equipment out of Iraq over the last year — while still conducting training, security assistance and counterterrorism battles.
As of Thursday, there were two U.S. bases and less than 4,000 U.S. troops in Iraq — a dramatic drop from the roughly 500 military installations and as many as 170,000 troops during the surge ordered by President George W. Bush in 2007, when violence and raging sectarianism gripped the country. All U.S. troops were slated to be out of Iraq by the end of the year, but officials are likely to meet that goal a bit before then.
The total U.S. departure is a bit earlier than initially planned, and military leaders worry that it is a bit premature for the still maturing Iraqi security forces, who face continuing struggles to develop the logistics, air operations, surveillance and intelligence-sharing capabilities they will need in what has long been a difficult region.
Despite President Barack Obama's earlier contention that all American troops would be home for Christmas, at least 4,000 forces will remain in Kuwait for some months. The troops will be able to help finalize the move out of Iraq, but could also be used as a quick reaction force if needed.
Obama stopped short of calling the U.S. effort in Iraq a victory in an interview taped Thursday with ABC News' Barbara Walters.
"I would describe our troops as having succeeded in the mission of giving to the Iraqis their country in a way that gives them a chance for a successful future," Obama said.
The Iraq Body Count website says more than 100,000 Iraqis have been killed since the U.S. invasion. The vast majority were civilians.
The U.S. plans to keep a robust diplomatic presence in Iraq, foster a deep and lasting relationship with the nation and maintain a strong military force in the region.
U.S. officials were unable to reach an agreement with the Iraqis on legal issues and troop immunity that would have allowed a small training and counterterrorism force to remain. U.S. defense officials said they expect there will be no movement on that issue until sometime next year.
Obama met in Washington with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki last week, vowing to remain committed to Iraq as the two countries struggle to define their new relationship. Ending the war was an early goal of the Obama administration, and Thursday's ceremony will allow the president to fulfill a crucial campaign promise during a politically opportune time. The 2012 presidential race is roiling and Republicans are in a ferocious battle to determine who will face off against Obama in the election.
Drones and Assassinations: Our Ghost War in Afghanistan Is Not Real War
Once our soldiers leave the theater, all that will remain is a clinical and codified policy of assassination writ large
D.B. Grady
Oct 21 2011
On Wednesday, the New York Times reported that Pakistani officials, eyeing President Obama's spurious timeline for withdrawal from Afghanistan, are "watching as the war, in their view, goes badly and are waiting for their share of the Afghan spoils." The report added that Pakistan's generals and spymasters "appear to have little incentive to bargain away their demands or to modify their side of the ledger," confident that the president lacks the political will to see the war through. In December, U.S. forces will begin withdrawing from Afghanistan. Those combat troops deployed as part of the surge will come home in September 2012. If there is a strategic military reason for that particular date, David Petraeus is unaware of it. David Axelrod might have a keener insight on the matter.
Last month, Stanley McChrystal told the Council on Foreign Relations that we're just over the 50 percent mark in Afghanistan. The retired general noted that where we're providing security, "The change has been stunning. The ability to move crops around, the ability to apply governance and whatnot, has been good." But that requires boots on the ground and men with rifles. Where the Coalition footprint is light, meanwhile, the Taliban "campaign of assassination is terrifying to people, because it makes everyone feel under threat." During his recent confirmation hearings to take the helm at CIA, General Petraeus called the president's withdrawal plan "a more aggressive formulation, if you will, in terms of the timeline than what we had recommended." In Petraeus-speak, this was the equivalent of banging his shoe on the table.
Ten years ago, who would have thought that victory in Afghanistan meant luring the Taliban to the bargaining table? And who would have been surprised when the Taliban then assassinated our proxy negotiator? (There's no need to reach back ten years; in 2010, the Taliban said point blank that they intended to kill members of the High Peace Council.) With the military security option all but exhausted (and thus unavailable to support the remarkable work of civil affairs teams), and diplomacy a hopeless endeavor, the United States and Afghanistan can now look forward to an eternity of Predator drones primed with Hellfire missiles.
It would be hard to improve on essays by Jane Mayer and Conor Friedersdorf on the immorality of drone warfare. But drone warfare is what we're left with. Sherman famously said, "There's many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory but it is all hell." Small communities know that hell and reel when their sons become men, become infantrymen, and never return from third world wastelands. Military spouses know that hell when chaplains in Class A uniforms knock at the door, hats in hand. Combat veterans know that hell better than anyone. And collectively -- oftentimes tragically -- the results of war inform our culture and serve as society's most effective moderating influence. There are many good reasons to go to war, but when we don't, it's often because we know how terrible a thing it is.
Humanity can be found and understood in the best and worst of war. But drones change the equation. It's the worst kind of war, a frightening new enterprise that we've embraced, celebrate, and laugh about. But there's something dishonorable about it. It's the aerial equivalent of roadside IEDs. It's the only kind of war America seems willing to fight anymore, and that is what we're leaving behind in Afghanistan. To be clear, "fairness" should never be an objective of war. But almost by definition, this is not war. Once our soldiers leave the theater, all that will remain is a clinical and codified policy of assassination writ large, with virtually no public scrutiny. It won't be front-page news when drones vaporize innocents, and it won't be front-page news when drones vaporize al-Qaeda operatives, because we've got no skin in the game. It's just robots hunting ghosts.
How long will Afghans agree to that? Are we even asking? Or will this silent non-war be negotiated with our man in Kabul, who, until he was convenient to this administration, was deemed corrupt and incompetent? And how long will Pakistan allow missiles to materialize from nowhere and leave behind craters and corpses? How about the next government, and what are we prepared to do if they say no? The White House has established a precedent that borders are just fine for the people at Rand McNally, but meaningless in the context of drone warfare. Consent of the Congress is a quaint relic; as proven in Libya, the president doesn't need authorization so long as we get a nice snuff film at the end.
Afghanistan is a war worth seeing through. Last week, I spoke with Michael Yon, a writer who's spent four years, cumulatively, in Iraq and Afghanistan -- three of those in combat. According to Yon, as withdrawal moves from concept to reality, "Many troops see their actions will be for naught. They've done their parts and have succeeded when properly resourced, but they see the presidential decisions for what they are. The unit that I last embedded with, 4-4 Cav, was clearly making progress and they know it, but they also see the light at the end of the tunnel is turned off, and that's due to politics. We waited a long time to get serious here, and never got totally serious."
At any rate, says Yon, "The war is largely forgotten. Soldiers who have been going back on leave and are shocked when many Americans don't realize that there is a no-kidding war going on here. I've done my best to highlight some of them." He adds, "The trajectory of the war favors the enemies. If the president precipitously reduces our footprint, the war will be lost. The good news (for somebody) is that most Americans don't seem to realize that we are still in a war, so they won't realize that we lost."
But at least we fought a war that could be forgotten. As America turns to drone technology, more than ever we will be fighting wars we never knew about in the first place.
The War in Afghanistan Is Over
Stephen Spain
Oct 19, 2010
In simpler times, our wars had clearly defined endings. WWII ended with a bang—two, really, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There were obvious winners and losers, too. The winners redrew world maps, while the losers tried to find creative uses for rubble. It doesn’t work that way anymore.
The war in Afghanistan is over. The Taliban know it, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai does, too. Pakistan knows. With their endorsement of talks with the Taliban, even President Obama and his generals have acknowledged it. Don’t expect any ticker-tape parades for returning soldiers, though. They’re not coming home anytime soon.
In case you were keeping score, everyone lost. The Taliban’s dream of a 12th-century theocracy has been washed away by a flood of cellphone networks, television and radio stations, computers, and a powerful class of “businessmen” who are happy to use the Taliban as protection but have no interest in their vision of the past as future.
Karzai and his cadre of corrupt cronies are losers, too. The smart ones will leave quickly and quietly with as much of their ill-gotten gains as possible. Those who hang around will eventually end up, well, hanging around—from trees, traffic signals, and makeshift gallows.
Pakistan is finally experiencing “creator’s remorse” for the Taliban, who, with their al-Qaeda allies, now pose a greater threat to Pakistan than to Afghanistan. Pakistan has things worth taking: nuclear weapons, an army and air force, and a semi-functioning infrastructure. The millions of angry, poor, and ignorant Pakistanis are tinder for the Taliban’s purifying fire. Pakistan loses, too.
The US and NATO lost. Shortly after we leave, Afghanistan will be the same unstable terrorist Petri dish that it was when we arrived. Our thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars will have accomplished nothing, except to give Afghans another would-be conqueror to hate. It almost goes without saying that the Afghans lost. What’s left after you destroy rubble? While Afghanistan’s record of never having lost a war is well known, it is also true that it's never won one.
So why continue to spend American lives and treasure if the war is over? Afghanistan offers a launch point for a military strike in Pakistan, when it falls to fundamentalists, or Iran, if it succeeds in developing nuclear weapons. The much-hyped summer offensives in Helmand and Kandahar Provinces, along with increasing drone attacks and special forces missions against Taliban “leaders,” have nothing to do with turning the tide in Afghanistan—they are simply on-the-job training for the coming wars in Pakistan and Iran.
It’s not hard to see why Obama and his neo-Kissingerian advisers are worried. Pakistan is one free and fair election (or military coup) away from being run by fundamentalists. Iran’s leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, believes that the “hidden Imam,” a Messianic figure in Shia Islam, is due to return any day now and usher in Armageddon—and he behaves with the abandon of a man who knows the end of the world is near. The threats are real. Unfortunately, our response to them will make them more likely to occur, not less. Our military presence in Afghanistan is driving Pakistan further into the arms of the fundamentalists and turbo-charging Ahmadinejad’s delusions.
Meet the new war, same as the old war.
Stephen Spain spent five years in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the 1990s, working for the United Nations and Save the Children in Herat, Islamabad, Jalabad, Kandahar and Quetta.
From Afghanistan to Iraq: Connecting the Dots with Oil
An in-depth look at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the events leading up to them, and the players who made them possible.
By Richard W. Behan
February 5, 2007
In the Caspian Basin and beneath the deserts of Iraq, as many as 783 billion barrels of oil are waiting to be pumped. Anyone controlling that much oil stands a good chance of breaking OPEC's stranglehold overnight, and any nation seeking to dominate the world would have to go after it.
The long-held suspicions about George Bush's wars are well-placed. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not prompted by the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. They were not waged to spread democracy in the Middle East or enhance security at home. They were conceived and planned in secret long before September 11, 2001 and they were undertaken to control petroleum resources.
The "global war on terror" began as a fraud and a smokescreen and remains so today, a product of the Bush Administration's deliberate and successful distortion of public perception. The fragmented accounts in the mainstream media reflect this warping of reality, but another more accurate version of recent history is available in contemporary books and the vast information pool of the Internet. When told start to finish, the story becomes clear, the dots easier to connect.
Both appalling and masterful, the lies that led us into war and keep us there today show the people of the Bush Administration to be devious, dangerous and far from stupid.
The following is an in-depth look at the oil wars, the events leading up to them, and the players who made them possible.
The Project for a New American Century, a D.C.-based political think tank funded by archconservative philanthropies and founded in 1997, is the source of the Bush Administration's imperialistic urge for the U.S. to dominate the world. Our nation should seek to achieve a "...benevolent global hegemony," according to William Kristol, PNAC's chairman. The group advocates the novel and startling concept of "pre-emptive war" as a means of doing so.
On January 26, 1998, the PNAC, sent a letter to President William Clinton urging the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The dictator, the letter alleged, was a destabilizing force in the Middle East, and posed a mortal threat to "...the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's oil supply..." The subjugation of Iraq would be the first application of "pre-emptive war."
The unprovoked, full-scale invasion and occupation of another country, however, would be an unequivocal example of "the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of another state." That is the formal United Nations definition of military aggression, and a nation can choose to launch it only in self-defense. Otherwise it is an international crime.
President Clinton did not honor the PNAC's request.
But sixteen members of the Project for a New American Century would soon assume prominent positions in the Administration of George W. Bush, including Dick Cheney, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage and John Bolton.
The "significant portion of the world's oil supply" was of immediate concern, because of the commanding influence of the oil industry in the Bush Administration. Beside the president and vice president, eight cabinet secretaries and the national security advisor had direct ties to the industry, and so did 32 others in the departments of Defense, State, Energy, Agriculture, Interior, and the Office of Management and Budget.
Within days of taking office, President Bush appointed Vice President Cheney to chair a National Energy Policy Development Group. Cheney's "Energy Task Force" was composed of the relevant federal officials and dozens of energy industry executives and lobbyists, and it operated in tight secrecy. (The full membership has never been revealed, but Enron's Kenneth Lay is known to have participated, and the Washington Post reported that Exxon-Mobil, Conoco, Shell, and BP America did, too.)
During his second week in office, President Bush convened the first meeting of his National Security Council. It was a triumph for the PNAC. In just one hour-long meeting, the new Bush Administration turned upside down the long-standing focus of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Over Secretary of State Colin Powell's objections, the goal of reconciling the Israel-Palestine conflict was abandoned, and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was set as the new priority. Ron Suskind's book, The Price of Loyalty, describes the meeting in detail.
The Energy Task Force wasted no time, either. Within three weeks of its creation, the group was poring over maps of the Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, tanker terminals, and oil exploration blocks. It studied an inventory of "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts" -- dozens of oil companies from 30 different countries, in various stages of negotiations for exploring and developing Iraqi crude.
Not a single U.S. oil company was among the "suitors," and that was intolerable, given a foreign policy bent on global hegemony. The National Energy Policy document, released May 17, 2001 concluded this: "By any estimation, Middle East oil producers will remain central to world security. The Gulf will be a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy."
That rather innocuous statement can be clarified by a top-secret memo dated February 3, 2001 to the staff of the National Security Council. Cheney's group, the memo said, was "melding" two apparently unrelated areas of policy: "the review of operational policies toward rogue states," such as Iraq, and "actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields." The memo directed the National Security Council staff to cooperate fully with the Energy Task Force as the "melding" continued. National security policy and international energy policy would be developed as a coordinated whole. This would prove convenient on September 11, 2001, still seven months in the future.
The Bush Administration was drawing a bead on Iraqi oil long before the "global war on terror" was invented. But how could the "capture of new and existing oil fields" be made to seem less aggressive, less arbitrary, less overt?
During April of 2002, almost a full year before the invasion, the State Department launched a policy-development initiative called "The Future of Iraq Project" to accomplish this. The "Oil and Energy Working Group" provided the disguise for "capturing" Iraqi oil. Iraq, it said in its final report, "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war ... the country should establish a conducive business environment to attract investment in oil and gas resources."
Capture would take the form of investment, and the vehicle for doing so would be the "production sharing agreement."
Under production sharing agreements, or PSAs, oil companies are granted ownership of a "share" of the oil produced, in exchange for investing in development costs, and the contracts are binding for up to 30 years. What would happen, though, if the companies' investments were only minimal, but their shares of the production were obscenely, disproportionately large?
This is hardwired. According to a UK Platform article titled "Crude Designs," production sharing agreements have now been drafted in Baghdad covering 75 percent of the undeveloped Iraqi fields, and the oil companies, waiting to sign the contracts, will earn as much 162 percent on their investments. And the "foreign suitors" are not quite so foreign now: The players on the inside tracks are Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Conoco-Phillips, BP-Amoco and Royal Dutch-Shell.
The use of PSAs will cost the Iraqi people hundreds of billions of dollars in just the first few years of the "investment" program. They would be far better off keeping in place the structure Iraq has relied upon since 1972: a nationalized oil industry leasing pumping rights to the oil companies, who then pay royalties to the central government. That is how it is done today in Saudi Arabia and the other OPEC countries.
Production sharing agreements, heavily favored by the oil companies, were specified by George Bush's State Department. Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority drafted an oil law privatizing the oil sector, and American oil interests have lobbied in Baghdad ever since then for the PSAs. Apparently successfully: The Oil Committee headed by Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih is said currently to be "leaning" toward them.
With the capture of Iraqi oil resources prospectively disguised, the Halliburton company was then hired, secretly, to design a fire suppression strategy for the Iraqi oil fields. If oil wells were to be torched during the upcoming war (as Saddam did in Kuwait in 1991), the Bush Administration would be prepared to extinguish them rapidly. The contract with Halliburton was signed in the fall of 2002. Congress had yet to authorize the use of force in Iraq.
So a line of dots begins to point at Iraq, though nothing illegal or unconstitutional has yet taken place. We are still in the policy-formulation stage, but two "seemingly unrelated areas of policy" -- national security policy and international energy policy -- have become indistinguishable.
The strategic location of Afghanistan can scarcely be overstated. The Caspian Basin contains up to $16 trillion worth of oil and gas resources, and the most direct pipeline route to the richest markets is through Afghanistan.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the first western oil company to take action in the Basin was the Bridas Corporation of Argentina. It acquired production leases and exploration contracts in the region, and by November of 1996 had signed an agreement with General Dostum of the Northern Alliance and with the Taliban to build a pipeline across Afghanistan.
Not to be outdone, the American company Unocal (aided by an Arabian company, Delta Oil) fought Bridas at every turn. Unocal wanted exclusive control of the trans-Afghan pipeline and hired a number of consultants in its conflict with Bridas: Henry Kissinger, Richard Armitage (now Deputy Secretary of State in the Bush Administration), Zalmay Khalilzad (a signer of the PNAC letter to President Clinton) and Hamid Karzai.
Unocal wooed Taliban leaders at its headquarters in Texas, and hosted them in meetings with federal officials in Washington, D.C.
Unocal and the Clinton Administration hoped to have the Taliban cancel the Bridas contract, but were getting nowhere. Finally, Mr. John J. Maresca, a Unocal Vice President, testified to a House Committee of International Relations on February 12, 1998, asking politely to have the Taliban removed and a stable government inserted. His discomfort was well placed.
Six months later terrorists linked to Osama bin Laden bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and two weeks after that President Clinton launched a cruise missile attack into Afghanistan. Clinton issued an executive order on July 4, 1999, freezing the Taliban's U.S.-held assets and prohibiting further trade transactions with the Taliban.
Mr. Maresca could count that as progress. More would follow.
Immediately upon taking office, the new Bush Administration actively took up negotiating with the Taliban once more, seeking still to have the Bridas contract vacated, in exchange for a tidy package of foreign aid. The parties met three times, in Washington, Berlin, and Islamablad, but the Taliban wouldn't budge.
Behind the negotiations, however, planning was underway to take military action if necessary. In the spring of 2001 the State Department sought and gained concurrence from both India and Pakistan to do so, and in July of 2001, American officials met with Pakistani and Russian intelligence agents to inform them of planned military strikes against Afghanistan the following October. A British newspaper told of the U.S. threatening both the Taliban and Osama bin Laden -- two months before 9/11 -- with military strikes.
According to an article in the UK Guardian, State Department official Christina Rocca told the Taliban at their last pipeline negotiation in August of 2001, just five weeks before 9/11, "Accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs."
The Great Game and Its Players
The geostrategic imperative of reliable oil supplies has a long history, arguably beginning with the British Navy in World War I. First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill repowered the British fleet -- from coal (abundant in the UK) to oil (absent in the UK), and thus began the Great Game: jockeying by the world powers for the strategic control of petroleum. (Churchill did this to replace with oil pumps the men needed to shovel coal -- a large share of the crew -- so they could man topside battle stations instead.) Iraq today is a British creation, formed almost a century ago to supply the British fleet with fuel, and it is still a focal point of the Game.
The players have changed as national supremacy has changed, as oil companies have morphed over time, and as powerful men have lived out their destinies.
Among the major players today are the Royal family of Saudi Arabia and the Bush family of the state of Maine (more recently of Texas). And they are closely and intimately related. The relationship goes back several generations, but it was particularly poignant in the first Gulf War in 1990-91, when the U.S. and British armed forces stopped Saddam Hussein in Kuwait, before his drive reached the Arabian oil fields. Prime Minister John Major of the UK, and President George H.W. Bush became the much esteemed champions of the Arabian monarchy, and James Baker, Bush's Secretary of State, was well regarded, too. (Years earlier, Mr. Baker and a friend of the royal family's had been business partners, in building a skyscraper bank building in Houston.)
The Carlyle Group: Where the Players Meet to Profit
After President Bush, Secretary Baker, and Prime Minister Major left office, they all became active participants and investors in the Carlyle Group, a global private equity investment firm comprised of dozens of former world leaders, international business executives (including the family of Osama bin Laden); former diplomats, and high-profile political operatives from four U.S. Administrations. For years, Carlyle would serve as the icon of the Bush/Saudi relationship.
Carlyle, with its headquarters just six blocks from the White House, invests heavily in all the industries involved in the Great Game: the defense, security, and energy industries, and it profits enormously from the Afghan and Iraqi wars.
In the late 1980s, Carlyle's personal networking brought together George W. Bush, the future 43rd U.S. president, and $50,000 of financial backing for his Texas oil company, Arbusto Energy. The investor was Salem bin Laden (half-brother of Osama bin Laden) who managed the Carlyle investments of the Saudi bin Laden Group. (After the tragedy of 9/11, by mutual consent, the bin Laden family and Carlyle terminated their business dealings.) George Bush left Carlyle in 1992 to run for governor of Texas.
Ex-President Bush, Ex-Prime Minister Major, and Ex Secretary Baker, in the 1990's, were Carlyle's advance team, scouring the world for profitable investments and investors. In Saudi Arabia they met with the royal family, and with the two wealthiest, non-royal families -- the bin Ladens and the bin Mahfouzes.
Khalid bin Mahfouz was prominent in Delta Oil, Unocal's associate in the Afghan pipeline conflict. He was later accused of financing al Qaeda, and named in a trillion dollar lawsuit brought by the families of 9/11 victims. (It was Mr. bin Mahfouz who had been Mr. Baker's business associate in Houston.)
Carlyle retained James Baker's Houston law firm, Baker-Botts, and Baker himself served as Carlyle Senior Counselor from 1993 until 2005. (Other clients of Baker-Botts: Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Texaco, Shell, Amoco, Conoco-Phillips, Halliburton, and Enron.)
Mr. Baker has long been willing to put foremost the financial advantage of himself, his firm, and his friends, often at the expense of patriotism and public service. As President Reagan's Secretary of the Treasury, he presided over the savings-and-loan scandal, in which S&L executives like Charles Keating and the current President's brother Neil Bush handed the American taxpayers a bill to pay, over a 40-year period, of $1.2 trillion. His law firm willingly took on the defense of Prince Sultan bin Abdul Azis, the Saudi Defense Minister sued by the families of 9/11 victims for complicity in the attacks.
We will encounter Mr. Baker again soon.
September 11, 2001
In September of 2000, the Project for a New American Century published a report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses." It advocated pre-emptive war once again, but noted its acceptance would be difficult in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."
President Bush formally established the PNAC's prescription for pre-emptive, premeditated war as U.S. policy when he signed a document entitled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America" early in his first term.
Still nothing illegal or unconstitutional had been done.
But the rationale and the planning for attacking both Afghanistan and Iraq were in place. The preparations had all been done secretly, wholly within the executive branch. The Congress was not informed until the endgame, when President Bush, making his dishonest case for the "war on terror" asked for and was granted the discretion to use military force. The American people were equally uninformed and misled. Probably never before in our history was such a drastic and momentous action undertaken with so little public knowledge or Congressional oversight: the dispatch of America's armed forces into four years of violence, at horrendous costs in life and treasure.
Then a catastrophic event took place. A hijacked airliner probably en route to the White House crashes in Pennsylvania, the Pentagon was afire, and the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were rubble.
In the first hours of frenetic response, fully aware of al Qaeda's culpability, both President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld sought frantically to link Saddam Hussein to the attacks, as we know from Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies. They anxiously waited to proceed with their planned invasion of Iraq.
If the Bush Administration needed a reason to proceed with their invasions, they could not have been handed a more fortuitous and spectacular excuse, and they played their hand brilliantly.
9/11 was a shocking event of unprecedented scale, but it was simply not an invasion of national security. It was a localized criminal act of terrorism, and to compare it, as the Bush Administration immediately did, to Pearl Harbor was ludicrous: The hijacked airliners were not the vanguard of a formidable naval armada, an air force, and a standing army ready to engage in all out war, as the Japanese were prepared to do and did in 1941.
By equating a criminal act of terrorism with a military threat of invasion, the Bush Administration consciously adopted fear mongering as a mode of governance. It was an extreme violation of the public trust, but it served perfectly their need to justify warfare.
As not a few disinterested observers noted at the time, international criminal terrorism is best countered by international police action, which Israel and other nations have proven many times over to be effective. Military mobilization is irrelevant. It has proven to be counterproductive.
Why, then, was a "war" declared on "terrorists and states that harbor terrorists?"
The pre-planned attack on Afghanistan, as we have seen, was meant to nullify the contract between the Taliban and the Bridas Corporation. It was a matter of international energy policy. It had nothing to do, as designed, with apprehending Osama bin Laden -- a matter of security policy.
But the two "seemingly unrelated areas of policy" had been "melded," so here was an epic opportunity to bait-and-switch. Conjoining the terrorists and the states that harbored them made "war" plausible, and the Global War on Terror was born: It would be necessary to overthrow the Taliban as well as to bring Osama bin Laden to justice.
(In retrospect, the monumental fraud of the "war on terror" is crystal clear. In Afghanistan the Taliban was overthrown instead of bringing the terrorist Osama bin Laden to justice, and in Iraq there were no terrorists at all. But Afghanistan and Iraq are dotted today with permanent military bases guarding the seized petroleum assets.)
On October 7, 2001 the carpet of bombs is unleashed over Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai, the former Unocal consultant, is installed as head of an interim government. Subsequently he is elected President of Afghanistan, and welcomes the first U.S. envoy -- Mr. John J. Maresca, the Vice President of the Unocal Corporation who had implored Congress to have the Taliban overthrown. Mr. Maresca was succeeded by Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad -- also a former Unocal consultant. (Mr. Khalilzad has since become Ambassador to Iraq, and has now been nominated to replace John Bolton, his PNAC colleague, as the ambassador to the UN.)
With the Taliban banished and the Bridas contract moot, Presidents Karzai of Afghanistan and Musharraf of Pakistan meet on February 8, 2002, sign an agreement for a new pipeline, and the way forward is open for Unocal/Delta once more.
The Bridas contract was breached by U.S. military force, but behind the combat was Unocal. Bridas sued Unocal in the U.S. courts for contract interference and won, overcoming Richard Ben Veniste's law firm in 2004. That firm had multibillion-dollar interests in the Caspian Basin and shared an office in Uzbekistan with the Enron Corporation. In 2004, Mr. Ben Veniste was serving as a 9/11 Commissioner.
About a year after the Karzai/Musharraf agreement was signed, an article in the trade journal "Alexander's Gas and Oil Connections" described the readiness of three US federal agencies to finance the prospective pipeline: the U.S. Export/Import Bank, the Trade and Development Agency, and the Overseas Private Insurance Corporation. The article continued, "...some recent reports ... indicated ... the United States was willing to police the pipeline infrastructure through permanent stationing of its troops in the region." The article appeared on February 23, 2003.
The objective of the first premeditated war was now achieved. The Bush Administration stood ready with financing to build the pipeline across Afghanistan, and with a permanent military presence to protect it.
Within two months President Bush sent the armed might of America sweeping into Iraq.
Then came the smokescreen of carefully crafted deceptions. The staging of the Jessica Lynch rescue. The toppling of the statue in Baghdad. Mission accomplished. The orchestrated capture, kangaroo court trial, and hurried execution of Saddam Hussein. Nascent "democracy" in Iraq. All were scripted to burnish the image of George Bush's fraudulent war.
The smokescreen includes the cover-up of 9/11. Initially and fiercely resisting any inquiry at all, President Bush finally appoints a 10-person "9/11 Commission."
The breathtaking exemptions accorded President Bush and Vice President Cheney in the inquiry rendered the entire enterprise a farce: They were "interviewed" together, no transcription of the conversation was allowed, and they were not under oath. The Commission report finally places the blame on "faulty intelligence."
Many of the 10 commissioners, moreover, were burdened with stunning conflicts of interest -- Mr. Ben Veniste, for example -- mostly by their connections to the oil and defense industries. The Carlyle Group contributed to Commissioner Tim Roemer's political campaigns. Commission Chairman Thomas Kean was a Director of Amerada Hess, which had formed a partnership with Delta Oil, the Arabian company of Khalid bin Mahfouz, and that company was teamed with Unocal in the Afghan pipeline project. Vice-Chairman Lee Hamilton serves on the board of Stonebridge International consulting group, which is advising Gulfsands Petroleum and Devon Energy Corporation about Iraqi oil opportunities.
The apparent manipulation of pre-war intelligence is not addressed by the 9/11 Commission, the veracity of the Administration's lies and distortions is assumed without question, and the troubling incongruities of 9/11 are ignored: The theories of controlled demolition, the prior short-selling of airline stock, the whole cottage industry of skepticism.
The doubters and critics of 9/11 are often dismissed as conspiracy crazies, but you needn't claim conspiracy to be skeptical. Why did both President Bush and Vice President Cheney pressure Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to forego any investigation at all? Failing in that, why did the President then use "Executive Privilege" so often to withhold and censor documents? Why did the White House refuse to testify under oath? Why the insistence on the loopy and unrecorded Oval Office interview of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney simultaneously?
There is much we don't know about 9/11.
The Iraq Study Group
Viewing the carnage in Iraq, and seeking desperately to find a way out of it, the U.S. Congress appointed on March 15, 2006 the Iraq Study Group. It was also called the Baker-Hamilton Commission after its co-chairmen, the peripatetic problem-solvers James Baker and Lee Hamilton. It was charged with assessing the situation in Iraq and making policy recommendations.
The Commission assessed the situation as "grave and deteriorating" and recommended substantive changes in handling it: draw down the troop levels and negotiate with Syria and Iran. These recommendations were rejected out of hand by the Bush Administration, but those about the oil sector could hardly have been more pleasing.
The Commission's report urged Iraqi leaders to "... reorganize the national industry as a commercial enterprise." That sounds like code for privatizing the industry (which had been nationalized in 1972.) In case that wasn't clear enough, the Commission encouraged "...investment in Iraq's oil sector by the international energy companies." That sounds like code for Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, Conoco/Phillips, BP/Amoco and Royal Dutch Shell. The Commission urged support for the World Bank's efforts to "ensure that best practices are used in contracting." And that sounds like code for Production Sharing Agreements.
Mr. Baker is a clever and relentless man. He will endorse pages and pages of changes in strategy and tactics -- but leave firmly in place the one inviolable purpose of the conflict in Iraq: capturing the oil.
A Colossus of Failure
The objectives of the oil wars may be non-negotiable, but that doesn't guarantee their successful achievement.
The evidence suggests the contrary.
As recently as January of 2005, the Associated Press expected construction of the Trans Afghan Pipeline to begin in 2006. So did News Central Asia. But by October of 2006, NCA was talking about construction "... as soon as there is stability in Afghanistan."
As the Taliban, the warlords, and the poppy growers reclaim control of the country, clearly there is no stability in Afghanistan, and none can be expected soon.
Unocal has been bought up by the Chevron Corporation. The Bridas Corporation is now part of BP/Amoco. Searching the companies' websites for "Afghanistan pipeline" yields, in both cases, zero results. Nothing is to be found on the sites of the prospective funding agencies. The pipeline project appears to be dead.
The Production Sharing Agreements for Iraq's oil fields cannot be signed until the country's oil policies are codified in statute. That was supposed to be done by December of 2006, but Iraq is in a state of chaotic violence. The "hydrocarbon law" is struggling along -- one report suggests it may be in place by March -- so the signing of the PSA's will be delayed at least that long.
The U.S. and British companies that stand to gain so much -- Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, Concoco/Phillips, BP/Amoco and Royal Dutch Shell -- will stand a while longer. They may well have to stand down.
On October 31, 2006 the newspaper China Daily reported on the visit to China by Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein Shahristani. Mr. Shahristani, the story said, "welcomed Chinese oil companies to participate in the reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry." That was alarming, but understated.
Stratfor, the American investment research service, was more directly to the point, in a report dated September 27, 2006 (a month before Minister Shahristani's visit, so it used the future tense). The Minister "... will talk to the Chinese about honoring contracts from the Saddam Hussein era. ... This announcement could change the face of energy development in the country and leave U.S. firms completely out in the cold."
The oil wars are abject failures. The Project for a New American Century wanted, in a fantasy of retrograde imperialism, to remove Saddam Hussein from power. President George Bush launched an overt act of military aggression to do so, at a cost of more than 3,000 American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and half a trillion dollars. In the process he has exacerbated the threats from international terrorism, ravaged the Iraqi culture, ruined their economy and their public services, sent thousands of Iraqis fleeing their country as refugees, created a maelstrom of sectarian violence, dangerously destabilized the Middle East, demolished the global prestige of the United States, and defamed the American people.
Richard W. Behan lives and writes on Lopez Island, off the northwest coast of Washington state. He is working on a new book, To Provide Against Invasions: Corporate Dominion and America's Derelict Democracy. He can be reached at (This essay is deliberately not copyrighted: It may be reproduced without restriction.)