Re: Peace, Injustice and Ron Paul

The following is in reply to an article by David Swanson
called: Peace, Injustice and Ron Paul, posted at:
by Jonathan Mark

As those who have read Flyby News over the years, or have checked out our,51253, "Campaigns for Reclaiming a Lost USA Democracy" you would be aware of my history with Dennis Kucinich, which began years before he was a 2004 presidential candidate. With goodsister, we launched one of the most active yahoogroups at

What brought Kucinich and I together was from Flyby News first campaign after the 1999 high-risk Cassini earth flyby, which was to attempt to stop an expansion of the arms race, to prevent the weaponization of outer space. Congressman Kucinich introduced "Preservation of Space Treaties" and tried to win a lawsuit when Bush unilaterally terminated the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. For more than a year before his announcement to run for President, we encouraged him to enter the campaign, and did all we could in support of his nomination in 2004. I met with Congressman Kucinich about 8 times when he was in the northeast US. However, disappointment came from his management of his campaign especially in NH. He had the platform that could have done much better than the 1% of votes he received in the Primary. Each individual has their weaknesses, and his campaign staff under his leadership failed to communicate why he should become the next President. He supported John Kerry for President, but Kucinich and John Kerry did not support the people of the US when the second national election theft in a row happened. The first time in Florida; the second time in Kucinich's state of Ohio. They were silent, and mostly silent, too, about the unanswered questions from the attacks of September 11, 2001. Does Kucinich even question why WTC-7 fell at free fall speeds, with no precedent of such an event occurring in all history?

He says he will conduct a narrow investigation, but is he playing a game, or silenced by threats against him and his family. The author of the following critical article on Ron Paul, David Swanson, is also mainly silent regarding the crimes of September 11. Some may be silent because of mind control, and concern of being attacked if they questioned the official version. Kucinich may be silent from threats that could really harm his family. Whatever the reason, he is not running for the US President to win in my opinion, but to make good points for some future time or administration. This is why Flyby News is not endorsing his campaign. The critique of Ron Paul and similar overview is also why FN is not endorsing Ron Paul. The only possible candidate we would trust to endorse is Cindy Sheehan if she won the nomination at as an independent candidate, since she, as a protective mother uncompromising spirit, who had lost her son in an illegal war, has the strength to stand up to threats. Her realization or suspicions expressed about the false flag attacks of September 11, in my opinion, is an act of independence and truth. A criminal element is running this country, who established themselves especially after WWII and recruited NAZIs for (sic) intelligence agencies that justified the 'national security' threat as a reason to overlook the principles to honor our rights and freedoms expressed in the US Constitution. This group has gone mad, and killed John F. Kennedy and maintain a control over the media, Congress and now the voting systems of a pseudo democracy that is actually run by totalitarian group of thugs and murderers, brainwashing themselves to believe they are acting to safeguard us all. Yet their actions are suicidal for all life, and Kucinich and Ron Paul will not stand up to the power structure of corruption and deceit.

Those who are working to really expose the crimes of 9/11 have the best chance in stopping the criminals from destroying our country and world. David Swanson does a good job if he was in a just society and not perpetuating the denial that buildings do not fall from the sky for no reason. Truth is sometimes difficult to face; yet we as independent people need to keep waking up our neighbors and friends, which is happening, ever slowly, but that is the path for peace and justice is in confronting a reality beyond the empty words and innuendos of a peace movement with no spine.

Jonathan Mark
Flyby News -

From: "David Swanson"
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 22:39:17 -0400
Subject: [Media] Peace, Injustice and Ron Paul
Reply-To: David Swanson

Peace, Injustice and Ron Paul

By David Swanson

If Ron Paul had been president for the past 6 years, a million more Iraqis would be alive, and another 4 million would not be refugees. The world would be a safer place, and Americans would have lost fewer freedoms.

But more Americans would lack decent health care. More American children would lack adequate education. More families in America would struggle in poverty. Immigrant families would face increased threats and abuse. Women would have lost rights. And a growing oligarchy would further dominate American politics, making reversal of any admirable Paul policies likely.

Paul arrives at some admirable positions for some unexpected reasons. And his principles lead him to many reprehensible positions as well. He opposes occupying Iraq because it involves massive government expense and power. That, and not the million corpses, is his primary concern.

Paul is brave enough to say what he thinks and stand by it. While there are Democrats, like Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee, who have that same quality, the Democratic Party as a whole has an established reputation of not standing and fighting for anything, and least of all peace.

It's the War, StupidSo, it's not completely surprising that a lot of opponents of the occupation of Iraq are looking to Paul as the best presidential candidate out there. Many Paul supporters really want peace and want it for the best reasons, but they detest the word "liberal" and loathe "big government." Others are not quite in that camp but consider the war such an overwhelmingly important issue that they don't much care what Paul's other positions are.

But Paul would end the occupation of Iraq and offer the Iraqi people not a dime to help rebuild the nation we've destroyed. In fact, he would cut the pittance we give in foreign aid around the world. But Paul has never, to my knowledge, said he would cut a single dollar from the biggest big government expense there is, much bigger than any war: the yearly budget of the Pentagon. And if he thinks he can keep funding that and NOT launch new wars, he hasn't thought about the workings of our government quite enough.

So, a Paul government would be stingy, extravagant, war-prone despite itself, and in debt. Would Paul solve that problem be reinstating progressive taxation for the super wealthy and corporations? No, he'd cut taxes. Of course, taxes SHOULD be cut for most people. But unless they're raised for the wealthy and corporations, we will have even more debt (which Paul says he opposes) or we will have to make massive cuts in what's left of the non-military public sector. And that's exactly what Paul would like to see: "wasteful agencies" and "governments collecting foreign aid" are among his targets. Rather than increasing funding for public schools, his solution for education would be to cut more taxes (the thinking being that this would allow parents to teach their children at home). That works for parents who want to do that and don't have to work. But most parents don't want to do that and do have to work. And with a president Paul allowing the minimum wage to plummet, opposing living wage standards, and doing nothing to restore the right to unionize, parents' work hours would not be shrinking.

Of course parents who don't work, or don't work jobs with good benefits, tend to lack health insurance. Paul would offer these tens of millions of Americans and the even greater number with inadequate health insurance nothing more than a middle finger. Paul believes the greatest crisis in our health care is the imposition of vaccinations. Everything always comes back to his notion of personal "freedom," even if it's the freedom to die of a curable disease. The only solution that has been found to provide everyone decent health care – in fact it works in almost every industrialized nation in the world – would mean private medicine, allowing everyone to choose their own doctor, but would also mean replacing the health insurance companies with the government. This is the last thing Paul would ever stand for. Better that people suffer and die than that the government be involved in helping them.

Women who value the right to abortion would lose it under a Paul Administration. This is not speculation. He openly says he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. That's his principle and he stands by it courageously and honestly, but most Americans disagree with him.

Life would change dramatically for all Americans under this sort of right-wing rule, but much more so for immigrants. Paul would allow fewer legal immigrants, while denying any illegal immigrants a path to become citizens. An immigrant woman here without papers who was raped would be denied the right to an abortion. Her child, born in America, would be denied citizenship. Her family would be denied welfare, as well as health care, and education, not to mention any investment in public transportation. Undocumented workers would gain no workplace rights under a Paul government, and so the rights of all of us would continue to erode. In fact, immigrants would be scapegoated and associated with 9-11, and Paul's priority would be "securing borders."

Under a Paul administration there would be fewer immigrants for a good reason: he opposes the trade policies that destroy the economies of the nations they flee to come here. But Paul opposes those policies because they are international, not because they empower corporations and hurt workers. That's none of his concern. He's a "property rights" man, even if it's at the expense of those without property. He opposes NAFTA for the same reason he opposes the United Nations. He would erode international law far more swiftly than Bush, thereby endangering us all in the long run. International law is what works against wars of aggression. The UN told Bush not to invade Iraq. Bush illegally invaded anyway.

But if Paul is as major an opponent of justice as I suggest, why then are so many advocates of peace and justice flocking to him? It depends in each case. Many passionately oppose the occupation of Iraq, but they don't call it an occupation. They call it a war. And their chief concern is not the million Iraqis dead, but the nearly four thousand Americans. And (this is key) they don't like the Democrats.

Paul is a man with principles, bizarre and twisted principles, but principles. Beside him, most of the Republicans look like charlatans, and the Democrats who are allowed on television and in the New York Times look like spineless cowards. They look like spineless cowards not because they favor peace (they don't), but because they refuse to stand up to Bush and Cheney. Paul stands up to Bush and Cheney. NOTHING is more powerful than that in today's politics, and he does it. Standing up to Bush and Cheney is what propelled Howard Dean's campaign so rapidly, and few paid close attention to what his positions were either.

Of course, there is a candidate in the 2008 presidential race who stands consistently and courageously on principle for both peace AND justice. And if we had the courage of our convictions we would put everything we have into backing him. Not only might he win, but our backing him now might force the Democrats in Congress to act like they believe in something, and force other candidates to improve their positions. His name is Dennis Kucinich. Paul doesn't want people to give their money to Washington. Give it to

I agree with most of Swanson's critique

I admire Paul for standing up to imperialist war mongers, but I just don't see how handing over the public sector to predatory capitalism, as libertarians want to do, would do anything but make matters worse in the overall. Paul is an idealist, and I don't think many people think through the consequences of some of his ideas.

I also think it's insane to believe that any presidential candidate will re-open 9/11. You have to be more of a realist on this one. The best chance we have is for someone on an important committee to launch to a backroom investigation of matters related to 9/11, and thereby unravel the whole thing by starting with a single thread. Kucinich may be up to something like this, based on his earlier comments. I had hoped Waxman would do something, but he bailed on Sibel Edmonds. But I still believe if 9/11 Truth is to be revealed, it will be revealed by someone in a position similar to Kucinich or Waxman, and certainly not by the president.

The best thing about Ron Paul ........

is that he is the lesser of all rescumlican evils.

If any of those other monsters gets in, we are doomed. Good by, USA.

I would love to see Dennis make it, but, sadly, he won't.


what are the respective positions on 911?

"He's a "property rights"

"He's a "property rights" man, even if it's at the expense of those without property."

I disagree and think this is one of the major fallacies of right-wing libertarianism. Wage-slavery entails a perpetual siphoning off of the fruits of one’s labor – in other words, the theft of your private property – on a daily, nay hourly basis (indeed down to a fraction of second if you work for Nike in Indonesia;) In a state communist society your property is stolen by the state and a portion returned to you, in a state capitalist society your property is stolen by your employer and a portion returned to you. The idea of a “free contract” is a sick joke at best. A real property rights advocate would support the immediate abolition of usury and the corporate form.

This is one of the many areas in which I disagree with Paul. He would be like Reagan on steroids, spearheading an orgy or privatization that would, in the long run, completely remove the public from their already marginal decision making role. While stopping the war in Iraq, he would launch a war on immigrants, the wretched of the Earth, which would be a war on women and children. This would also be a sure-fire way of expanding the police state, whatever his intentions to the contrary.

While attempting to reduce the size of government he would – via his further empowerment of corporations – increase the size of private mercenary activity. Universal Health Care (which countless studies have proven more efficient than privatized variants ) would be a lost dream. The right to an abortion would be jeopardized. Capital punishment would go an apace.

“Free-market” utopianism is dangerous because it is built on a series of myths, beginning with all sorts of fallacies about primitive accumulation and ending with a Hobbesian “war against all” that completely ignores the entire body of anthropological and sociological data.

While I agree with many of Paul’s stated positions – opposition to the drug war, for instance – I could not in good conscience vote for him.

Luckily for Paul supporters my opinion doesn’t actually matter. I’m Canadian ;)

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Yet another leftist fallacy about libertarian thinking

That we would just let the poor go without. It's really up to you, where you live the city or town to make it a point in your life to care for those people. Even 911 truthers don't get it, they still want to be dependent on government for something! Haven't we learned by now what that brings!!