Rep. Ron Paul's cautious campaign and the GOP Debates

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian Texas Republican, has drawn increasing attention in the Internet blogosphere and among traditionally conservative Republicans and independent voters. His performances this month in televised GOP debates have shown the contrast between his principled libertarian views and practices and the demagogic pandering of the other candidates, especially the so-called front-runners.

Ron Paul is aware of the international financial elites' conspiratorial activities to destroy freedoms and eliminate national sovereignty. He supports eliminating the IRS and Federal Reserve banking system, which were created by fraudulent and treasonous actions in the 20th Century that usurped the Constitutional government of the United States. Paul supports limited government and a foreign policy that doesn't involve interfering in other nations for the benefit of families, corporations, and banking interests that control the USA. That would promote freedom and individual liberties at home and abroad instead of the imperial agendas that most major party candidates go along with. This brings us up to an exchange between Ron Paul and ex-mayor of NYC Rudy Giuliani.

Ron Paul suggested that the terror attacks on 9-11-2001 were fostered by Islamic resentments toward America generated by self-serving interventionist US foreign policies dating back decades. Giuliani called this idea "absurd," even though it is widely held in academic circles and liberal political and journalistic venues. This is called "blowback" in intelligence circles, and is seen as the later consequences of certain policies. Christopher Simpson wrote a book called Blowback that documented the USA's use of former Nazi personnel to populate the military, intelligence, and industrial complex after World War II. In that view, the presence of those people fostered a fascist oriented US foreign policy, where CIA operations were used to interfere in foreign countries for the benefit of US industries.

Another theorized example of blowback would be the Bin Laden "Al Qaeda" network of Islamic fighters who were created by CIA/MI6 to fight Soviet Russia's occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. As recently as the late 1990s the USA was using Al Qaeda in the Balkans conflict, yet months later claiming Bin Laden's operatives were involved in bombing the U.S.S. Cole ship. British official Robin Cook reported that Al Qaeda was a database of Islamic fighters who were ultimately managed by US & British intelligence agencies. This corresponds with the fact that an alleged mastermind of the London 7/7 bombings was admitted to have been a British Intelligence operative who had earlier been protected from arrest in the USA by orders of the British governmental authorities.

Thus, we are beginning to see that "Blowback" is in part a cover story for the groups or individuals involved being actual double agents who are set up to participate in "false flag" terror. This is a bit too sophistacted for much of the general public to think about in real life (though it's part of movie plots they can accept). Thus, Ron Paul presents the blowback theory, which is partly true, since anti-American radicalism is fueled by US policies and actions, but the actual anti-West terror activities are often carried out by or falsely blamed upon militants who are agents of or controlled by agents of those they appear to be opposing. 911 is an instance where a multi-layered, intricate military-intelligence operation was designed so that there would be multiple factions and layers of complicity in the terror and ensuing cover-up. Mr. Guilani, a known participant in organized crime activities, was happy to play "hero" in the midst of the planned 911 event. He has been outed by independent journalists as a CIA operative and the circumstances of 911 all point to his complicity in letting the plot unfold, with himself benefitting while New Yorkers suffered.

Ron Paul is no fool, yet he is a cautious and cool-headed person who doesn't want to start a 911 debate in a forum where there are only a few moments to discuss the facts - we have all seen on FOX News shows how 911 Truth discussion is shouted down by corrupt hosts. Thus, the blowback idea, which is obvious and pretty self-explanatory, was safer to express during the debate. The idea that Arabs hate America's freedoms is absurd - if they are religious extremists they may despise American culture's intrusion on their society, but that is not blamed on America any more than on their own Arab neighbors who have the freedom to accept or reject outside social models. Christian fundamentalists in America despise modern US culture as well, and they're not attacking military and financial buildings. America's support of dictators and royalty in Arab countries is despised by many Arabs, as it is quite obviously a means of stealing the oil wealth of those countries to benefit elites while most of the citizens are left out of the prosperity.

The dominant view in US Government circles is that America should assert imperial dominance abroad... imperialism has been the mode of affairs on the planet throughout much of known history and those thinking within that box feel that they need to play according to that game since other factions will win dominance if "we" don't. The comment that "they" hate our freedom and way of life is a blatant lie designed to provoke fear of an external enemy and divert attention from criticism of the actions carried out under the banner of the USA. Making this even more obvious is that the response to supposed terror attacks has been to suppress American freedoms through government laws such as the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. acts and suspension of protections such as habeaus corpus and posse comitatus. America's state National Guard troops are now deployed overseas leaving our country itself increasingly defenseless. Thousands of people illegally cross US borders with little government concern, yet regular citizens are subject to increasing travel scrutiny... no event such as 911 has occurred in the USA since 911 not because of government security measures but because factions within the government actually oversee and orchestrate the terror activities. If terrorists not working in tandem with insiders in the intelligence complex wanted to attack America they could do so easily, just about anywhere... but it hasn't been happening! The whole war on terror is a fraud and Ron Paul has taken a cautious step toward exposing the gangsters running against him for the Republican Presidential nomination. Hopefully there will be more media exposure of the 911 Truth info so that there will soon be a background upon which Ron Paul can lay out more dirt about the treasonous activities of many in our government. Let's offer encouragement to Rosie O'Donnell for taking steps in that direction.