2012 Presidential Election


Interventionists ready a media lynching for Ron Paul
by Michael Scheuer
non-intervention.com, 2011-09-04

Clueless Republicans Demand More Militarism
by Philip Giraldi
Antiwar.com, 2011-09-15

Republican Foreign Policy Follies
by Philip Giraldi
Antiwar.com, 2011-10-13

Why the establishment really fears Ron Paul
By Jack Hunter
The Daily Caller, 2011-12-27

Iowa’s Choice:
Dr. Paul or
U.S. bankruptcy, more wars, and many more dead soldiers and Marines

by Michael Scheuer
non-intervention.com, 2011-12-31


Fearing the Constitution’s return,
the Washington Post launches a panicky, sophomoric attack on Dr. Paul

by Michael Scheuer
non-intervention.com, 2012-01-03

Backers Hope Paul’s Iowa Strategy Will Move His Message
New York Times, 2012-01-04


“A guy like Ron Paul can do well
when he’s got one state to focus on for months at a time,
but he’s not going to do well beyond Iowa,
in part because people have not trained their fire on him,”
said Peter Wehner, a former policy adviser to President George W. Bush,
who said Mr. Paul’s foreign policy views,
as well as racially charged statements
in newsletters distributed under his name,
would draw more scrutiny now.

“If he was even remotely viewed as a threat to win the nomination,”
Mr. Wehner said,
“then he would be the target of a ferocious assault
and he simply couldn’t withstand it.”

[“A ferocious assault” from whom?]

Mr. Gary Bauer — The Supposed Christian
as Slanderer, Israel-Firster, and War-Monger

by Michael Scheuer
non-intervention.com, 2012-01-10

[I do not wish to characterize Gary Bauer as a "supposed Christian".
Christians do have a variety of opinions on a variety of issues.
Some good Christians no doubt put great store in the importance of Jews recovering control of the Promised Land as a necessary condition for the return of Christ.
See the Wikipedia article on the Second Coming of Christ
for a discussion of the bases for this view.
So I do not want impugn their integrity as Christians.

Nonetheless, other Christians certainly do not subscribe to
that particular interpretation of
some rather murky (to me, anyhow) parts of prophecy in the books of Daniel and Revelation.

Further, there should be no doubt in the mind of anyone,
no matter how religiously devout,
that America has paid, and will continue to pay,
an enormous price for its unquestioning support of Israel's policies,
a price that out "elite" has been totally unwilling to tabulate,
let alone emphasize.
So it seems necessary, even if uncomfortable,
for me to feature Mr. Scheuer's criticism of Mr. Bauer
in this blog.]

America: From Colony to Nation to Slave
by Michael Scheuer
non-intervention.com, 2012-10-02

As Americans fixate on the presidential campaign,
they also should note the status of
President Obama and Governor Romney.
Yes, both are presidential candidates,
but both are also men who —
with their predecessors and the Congress —
have willingly surrendered American sovereignty and independence
to Israel
and its U.S.-citizen advocates (Jewish and Evangelical),
their organizations, and much of the media.

In return for campaign contributions and positive media coverage,
Obama and Romney have enslaved themselves and their country to Israel
and some few thousands of disloyal Jewish-Americans
and their equally disloyal Christian Evangelical allies.
One has to wonder whether Obama and Romney refer to Israel’s prime minister as “Massa’ Benyamin,”
or whether they shuffle and pull their forelocks
when groveling for money
from Israel’s Jewish-American and Evangelical operatives.

If independence and sovereignty mean anything for a national government,
they mean that that government alone decides
whether or not the country it governs will go to war.
In the United States, more specifically,
its [sic] means — constitutionally — that
the Congress will decide via a formal vote
whether it will declare war on behalf of the American people,
who once upon a time were its constitutional masters.
This is, at any rate, how the Founders meant the process to work.

Both houses of the craven U.S. Congress, however,
have long since illegally delegated that decision to the president,
and our current president regards the Congress with such contempt
that he looks first to the UN to see if it is okay for him
to bomb hell out of a country like Libya or some other offending party.
If on the issue of war-making
Israel has become America’s master —
and it has,
despite Obama’s cowardly ducking of
a face-to-face with Massa’ Benyamin —
the UN surely is becoming its overseer.
Congress, at day’s end,
simply and unquestioningly pays for
the U.S. troops who go off to die
in wars that have nothing to do with
protecting genuine U.S. national interests,
but do please Israel, the UN,
or some figment of those militarist viragoes
Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Rice,
as well as of the pro-war boys McCain and Graham,
such as
the “democratic and human-rights-loving Libyan and Syrian freedom fighters.”

So each of us can vote as we see fit in November,
but we all should recognize that
neither candidate intends to restore U.S. sovereignty and independence.
As president, either man will take America to war with Iran —
Obama just wants it after 6 November —
because that is what Israel and its U.S.-citizen advocates want.
Iran, of course, poses no direct military threat to the United States,
but it will exact a fierce and bloody revenge
after we and Israel attack
by using the intelligence/terrorist surrogates
it has long maintained in the United States
for just such a response.
Iran’s response likewise
will wreck much of what remains of the U.S. economy
by disrupting the oil-tanker traffic in the Persian Gulf
and perhaps elsewhere.

And all of this pain for what?
Another unjustifiable and ahistorical reliance on air power
to do what it has never done and cannot do without nuclear weapons —
win a war.
And so we will have yet another unfinished and lost war
that will further stoke the fires of
the aggressive cultural war
both U.S. political parties are waging on the Islamic world.

When America was part of Britain’s Empire,
Americans — as loyal British subjects —
had no choice but to be at war [e.g., the Seven Year’s War]
when the British Crown was at war.
In the two-plus centuries since we won independence from Britain,
we have declined in manliness, commonsense,
and allegiance to our Constitution
to the point where we will go to war
at the behest of a foreign nation
and in direct violation of U.S. national interests.
In addition,
our major mainstream and cable networks
[and, in print, the Washington Post editorial page]
use the public’s airwaves
to routinely act as agents of a foreign power
by supporting Israel’s prime minister against the U.S. president,
while disloyal American citizens
enthusiastically corrupt the U.S. political system
in support of
Israeli interests,
Evangelical fanaticism, and
the one-world fantasies of the super-national and super-corrupt UN. …
Who knows, perhaps we were better off with the Crown.
It fought often, but only for genuine British interests.

Pity poor America: Obama, Romney, and Foreign Policy
by Michael Scheuer
non-intervention.com, 2012-10-13

Why does the Democratic Party so dislike Americans?
by Michael Scheuer
non-intervention.com, 2012-10-31

[I concur with Scheuer's choice.

In 2008, I could not see voting for either candidate,
the problem with McCain being
his frightening tendency toward
expanding American military involvement and commitments abroad,
e.g., his desire to see Georgia put under the American protective umbrella.
Like Georgia matters a whit to the American national interest.
Also his apparent willingness to involve America
in a perpetual, unnecessary, and costly conflict with the Muslim world
for the supposed benefit of Israel.
Romney, however, seems much less interested
in meddling in other nation's affairs.

Obama, despite his talk about wanting to be responsible
about government spending and the national deficit and debt,
has shown he can talk the talk but not walk the walk,
as specifically exemplified by
his October 2012 expansion of Medicare
to cover in-home services to stable elderly,
an extension for which he did not even show the responsibility
to estimate the cost of.
I.e., he signed a blank check,
with the younger generation expected to pick up the tab,
while the current elderly gain yet another benefit
which they did not pay for,
and which they did not grant to their parents.
(Note, by the way, how such expansion of benefits makes lying jerks
of all those lying seniors who say
"Keep your hands off Medicare: we're just getting the benefits we paid for.")
What a disgusting example of giving away the fiscal store
by both Obama and the advocates for this expansion,
and one which neither the other politicians nor the media has seen fit,
so far as I know, to call them out on.
What a politician/media/senior conspiracy to drive America to bankruptcy
and cheat the young.]

Labels: , , ,