Wednesday, January 04, 2012

Iowa Votes for War

By Michael Hoffman
Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum together received 60,000 votes in the January 3 Iowa caucus compared with Ron Paul’s 26,000. Relentless media vilification of Rep. Paul did its job. Jennifer Rubin writing in the Washington Post:

"Several thousand votes behind the leaders was Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), who seemed to lose momentum in the final week of the campaign....Maybe the coverage of his conspiratorial newsletters and loony foreign policy views dampened enthusiasm....Most relieved by Paul's somewhat disappointing finish is the Iowa Republican Party, which dreaded the vilification that would have accompanied a Paul victory, perhaps even threatening the state's hold on the first contest in the presidential primary process. The isolationist segment on the party took it on the chin. With the two front-runners both forceful advocates for a strong national defense, talk of the Republican Party dabbling with isolationism should be muted."
Romney and Santorum seek war with Iran according to Israeli policy dictates. Santorum, like Michelle Bachmann, is a self-proclaimed conservative Christian, who, in reality, is a creature of the rabbis of Orthodox Judaism. As Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senator he regularly pilgrimaged to New York to sit at the feet of the most odious Talmudists and receive their instruction in political chicanery and the need for America to go to war with the perceived Middle Eastern enemies of the Synagogue.
Rep. Ron Paul is the only peace candidate in the presidential contest. I wish there was someone else. Paul’s advocacy of “Austrian School” usury is a grave flaw. But there is no one else. He is the only candidate who sincerely advocates peace, something which the American people overwhelmingly supported from 1918 to 1941; throughout the presidency of Dwight David Eisenhower in the 1950s, and in the aftermath of the Vietnam War in the 70s and 80s, but no more. Having learned little from the killing and maiming of thousands of US troops and a trillion dollars in taxpayer money squandered on the messianic neocon mission of intervening in a thousand-year-old civil war between rival Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, Americans are still convinced (by the media) that the “Islamic threat” is best countered by a “strong national defense” consisting in maintaining our military meddling in Islamic affairs in faraway Afghanistan, Iran and Arabia; anything contrary to this policy is stigmatized as “isolationism.”
The horrible consequences of a U.S. war with Iran are almost never summoned by the media as a pressing issue for the presidential candidates. War with Iran will make the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan look like Teddy Bear’s picnic. An invasion of Iran will seriously damage America’s economy for decades, increase our thralldom to Red China and launch us into the permanent war footing which former Vice President Dick Cheney called for when he declared that the “war on terrorism” should proceed for generations. Imagine cursing our children and grandchildren with such a butcher’s bill!
This is the curse that is beginning to take shape as Ron Paul is rejected in favor of a consummate politician like Mitt Romney and a fanatical crypto-rabbi such as Rick Santorum. 

The quality of life in America will continue to decline as our “Homeland Security” police state and war economy sucks resources from education, medical care, Social Security and mass transit.
The people of Iowa and New Hampshire, along with Americans in general, have no clear idea what Talmudic Judaism is, what counterfeit “Israel” represents and how the Talmudic mentality deftly plays Right and Left for the self-destructive ends of an ideology predicated first and foremost on hatred of Jesus Christ and all gentiles. Romney and Santorum are the means for weaponizing that ideology on the international stage, as did George W. Bush to such devastating effect. We can’t afford these men, but perhaps we deserve them.
Michael Hoffman is the author of Judaism’s Strange Gods, published in November by Independent History and Research.

***

10 comments:

Preterist1951 said...

Mr. Hoffman,

I believe you have the Austrian School of Economics confused with the Keynesian "School" of Economics.

The Austrian School basically is saying to SAVE your hard earned $$$ and use it for the essentials- food, clothing and shelter. Then INVEST the remaining $$$ to make more $$$- such as invest in an invention of yours, invest in a company or small business that you want to start, buy stocks in another company, buy and then sell for a profit, etc., etc...

The Keynesian "School" says BORROW [the Zionist banker/financier's $$$] and then SPEND it to further both your and your country's economic growth. Keynes promoted BORROWING the international/globalist's $$$ and with that having to pay back not only the priciple, but also the INTEREST on the loan, which is usury, which is how the international/globalist bankster/financiers have managed to gain control of entire countries like the United States.

They have started wars so that a country which has one of their banks as a national bank (such as the USA and the Federal Reserve) has to borrow their $$$ to fund a war that they started. Once a country has to borrow a massive amount of their $$$ to fund a war that they have started (i.e. their "War on Terror" as a result of their 911), thus becoming indebted to them, they own that country until the debt is paid off. Which is exactly where the USA is right now.

Ron Paul is not only the only "peace" presidential candidate out there who is not promoting another one of their wars like the others with Iran, but he is the only presidential candidate out there who wants to AUDIT THE FED.

And the FED is Command Central for the international/globalist bankers/financiers who not only own our presidents and politicians, but own our country, our CONGRESS, our $$$, our Media and our public schools and our colleges and universities (which teach and promote their propaganda, including their Keynesian form of Economics.)

The international/globalist bankster/financiers, who have gained all their wealth through usury which is promoted by the Keynesian "School" of Economic "Growth", don't like Ron Paul because he is the only one who knows what the Fed is up to and how they have single-handedly gained control of this country.

He's the only one left, out of all of them, Republicans and Democrats included, who is not in their hip pocket.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Henry said...

I'm not sure Ron Paul really does ''advocate peace'' in a meaningful way as he says the choice of whether to go to war or not should be left for Congress to decide.

And a Congress that recently bowed and scraped to Netanyahu with 29 standing ovations gives me the impression that it's more likely to vote for war for Israel rather than less likely.

As for his love of high interest rates, gold, usury, open borders, and his wish to abolish legal tender...well I think he's a nut.

Franz said...

Despite any residual feelings of hope I had for Ron Paul, and American democracy generally, I must agree with Henry.

Paul is an incredibly flawed candidate. He seems incapable of grasping the fact that his beloved "free market economics" is the root problem in American life.

It is one thing to have free trade as opposed to merchantilism when it is strategic to our interest. Libertarians cannot think that way. I know, I held an LP party card many years ago when the party was new.

To Ron Paul, and other libertarians, the free market has become the one true god. Forget about what a mess it has made of what was the most productive nation in the world. Now debt collecting and guarding jail cells are the last two growth industries.

Till Dr Paul's "economics" is exposed as the religious heresy it undoubtedly is, there's no point in painting him as some kind of alternative. He and the Council on Foreign Relations are on the same wavelength with this issue. And misbegotten capitalism is leadiing the US, and the world, into a new dark age.

Michael Hoffman said...

Dear Preterist

It doesn’t matter which school of usury you advance, Keynesian or Von Mises' Austrian, both advocate, implement and base their systems on usury. I’m writing a book on this subject and will not debate the points here.

Thank you for commenting.

Name Pending said...

Franz I think you're off the mark a bit in your comment that "free market economics is the root problem in American life." If you know America's history you'd know that we've practiced crony capitalism here, or corporate socialism (whatever you like to call it)for a majority of our history, and we haven't had a meaningful seperation from this system since the 19th century. If only Old Hickory were around today to run for president...This is how the masses are so wholeheartedly decieved constantly. Just because some 'expert' says we in the USA practice 'free market economics' doesn't make it so. Sure it may be a more free method than say Red China's method, but it is still very restrictive on everybody except those who run said system. It is a rigged system meant to keep the have nots where they are and the wealth where it already is. It effectively achieves the same result as China's methods, although it may be even more effective considering that people like you think it's a real free market system. Wait a couple more generations and the free market economics you speak of will only become more restrictive, with an army of ignorant supporters touting its superiority over everything else, until eventually this ignorance becomes so pervasive that we are living in a neo-fascist dictatorship where everyone celebrates the free market economics that they don't even practice. Or maybe this has already happened...

Henry said...

Fritz is correct.

US industry didn't remove itself to India and China: instead, the Markets drove it there in search of cheap sweated labor and ever greater margins.

Ron Paul’s peace talk is a sprat to catch a mackerel as he wishes to devolve responsibility for deciding on war to the philo-Semitic Congress. We know who pays that piper and we know who calls their tune.

Much of Paul's animus about the Fed is due to its power to control interest rates and to keep them low when he thinks the Markets should have control so they can set them high.

Paul doesn’t want to destroy the Fed because it's evil (which it is) he want's to destroy it because it's an obstacle to the economic nihilism which he and his 'Austrian' pals would inflict on an already long suffering people.

He says he doesn’t want to close the borders to keep illegals out in case the economy folds and 'citizens' are prevented by a fence from leaving the Country with their stash of money!

He thinks it's none of our business if drug abusers destroy themselves, their families, and even whole communities through their anti-social behaviour.

I've yet to hear him claim, that because they didn't proscribe against it, the Founding Fathers thought that drug taking should be legal, but I wouldn't be surprised if one day he does: as that's the kind of twisted Libertarian logic he employs to win people over.

He wants to abolish legal tender law, leaving the payment of debt and wages open to abuse, and his 'competitive money' ideas will take us back to the days of the Pharisees.

Jesus Christ drove the moneychangers from the temple but Ron (Pontius) Paul would have said it was none of his or Christ's business what Shylock & Co got up to. He would have thrown open the doors and let them back in for business as usual.

Henry said...

A sincere apology to Franz for using an incorrect name when referring to him.

Jason said...

Henry, you've got to be kidding about the point you made on drug abusers. The federal war on some drugs has been nothing but a hoodwink since inception, costing billions of dollars and many lives simply for the sake of destroying certain plants and keeping narcotic distribution in the hands of a few. Give me a break.

In addition, I take it you enjoy having despots serving as president to wage war on whomever and whatever country they so deem worthy of destruction? Congress should serve their constitutional role. Don't forget, the HOR runs elections every two years and there are still those who are not philo-judaic - which is the correct term I think you wanted to use. If there were more philo-Semitic public office holders we would probably not be in the foreign policy mess we now find ourselves in.

Henry said...

Jason, I made no comment about the so called federal war on drugs. My comment was directed at the social effect of drug abuse, which, like so many other issues that have a negative impact on society, is something that doesn't seem to be of any concern to Ron Paul and his libertarian huckster buddies.

Moreover, my comments about Ron Paul, the so called man of peace, relate to the naive belief that he would use the President's executive powers to end America's wars of aggression, especially those on behalf of Israel, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth, as Paul clearly states that if he ever became President, those decisions would be taken by Congress, and not by himself.

As President, Ron Paul would ask the likes of Newt Gingritch to take these decisions for him. People who think that RP is the messiah need to recognise him for what he really is: a run of the mill politician with a lot of bad ideas hoping to gain their confidence and secure their votes.

As for my use of the term ''philo-Semitic''?

I said what I meant to say with the standard definition of that term clearly in mind, so don't presume to think for me and please don't substitute my words with your own unique compound inventions.

Jason said...

What would you have a president do then about the societal effects of drug abuse? This is outside of their scope of authority and at least it seems that Paul understands this and would end the federal war on some drugs that at least would be a first step and not maintenance of the status quo.

In addition, what is your solution to the current despotic executive branch which declares war at a whim without congressional approval? At least Paul would reverse this trend and send it back to the prescribed system set up by the Constitution. HOR members, as they run every two years, are more receptive to citizens' needs and would not be able to run these wars through so quickly, if at all.

Your use of "philo-Semitic" while you recognize it as the standard definition is in fact newspeak, only accepted as exclusive to Judaics within popular culture and those that accept and behave within the confines of this language prison.