Our Liberty Movement is being attacked.

[AngryCanadian]

hxxp://twitchy.com/2013/02/04/ghoulish-ron-paul-doubles-down-on-chris-kyle-invokes-jesus/?utm_source=autotweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter

Lew Rockwell is destroying the movement

This is what people don't realize about Ron Paul and other hardcore antiwar libertarians: They think that non-intervention policies somehow magically protect nations from attack. They're wrong.

For years, capital-L types like Harry Browne and Lew Rockwell have cited Switzerland as an example. On the morning of September 12, 2001, Browne asserted that the attacks that murdered 3,000 the day before shouldn't have been a surprise because of US foreign policy. Wrote Browne: "Even sitting in the middle of Europe, Switzerland isn't beset by terrorist attacks, because the Swiss mind their own business." WRONG! The full extent of Swiss government's secret deals with the Nazis were revealed in 1996, but the myth remains. If Switzerland ever decides it no longer wants to be the banker/money launderer to the world's monarchs, tycoons, and tyrants, no hostile neighbor nation nor pissed-off Islamist will have a reason to resist slaughtering some poor soul whose only means of self-defense is a Swiss Army knife.

Browne, in that day after 9/11 essay, also wrote that Americans need to "find a way...to prevent our leaders from ever again provoking this kind of anger against America." From what I've read, I believe that had the like-minded Ron Paul been President in 1941, the Pearl Harbor attacks might not have happened that fateful December, because he wouldn't want to provoke the Japanese by imposing an oil embargo. President Paul similarly would refuse to aid the British as the Nazis set its sights on destroying England. But eventually, Paul would have had to deal with Hirohito's grand plan. If Japan didn't have to deal with American resistance, it would have been free to fulfill its ambition of splitting world domination with the aforementioned Nazis.

Think I'm full of it? Google "Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere." As seemingly impossible as the Empire of Japan's goals were, keep in mind that its soldiers fought with religious fervor for its emperor, who was accepted as a Shinto demigod. It took two atomic bombs before Hirohito was convinced to acknowledge he was a mere mortal, thus breaking the grip of the imperial cult. In the end, the U.S. guided a secular Japan to resurgence to the point of usurping America's technological leadership.

Antiwar libertarians want to pretend that an America that shrinks back to its borders and hunkers down will be rewarded with the goodwill of nations relieved that the planet's global cop is finally minding its own business. That makes as much sense as believing criminals reward a striking police force with obedience to the law.

Right Wing nut War mongers are now accusing him that his a coward and a fraud.

And everyone except Ron Paulites knew he was a coward and a fraud. His newpaper comments, which he supported two decades ago but now claims were not his writing, and condemnation of Reagan in 88 before appealing to Reagan voters in 2012 show he is nothing more than a career politician and a slime salesman.

This is the second day and still the warmonger fascists are attacking Ron Paul over his tweet, and Neocons are still refering the attacks over his newpaper comments.


Comments like these make me very sad and angry to see where the direction of America is heading.

he is nothing more than a career politician and a slime salesman.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

:facepalm:

I love how history happens in a vacuum to these people. rawr rawr what if Ron Paul was the president in 1941?? Well, how about if Ron Paul was the president in 1916? Or, what if Ron Paul was German Chancellor in 1871?

Forget it. These people don't seem to realize it, but they are bent on burning the place down.

 

[The Gold Standard]

They deserve what they are going to get. And if they come to my door looking to take mine, they will get a rifle pointed in their face.

 

[AngryCanadian]

Forget the liberty movement its pointless i am afraid why even on trying if they will never change unless they see for themselves?

 

[Lightweis]

nobody is destroying any movement. Ron Paul is increasing his Name ID

 

[Occam's Banana]

Lew Rockwell is destroying the movement

How so?

Given the apparent obsession the blowhard who wrote the piece you cited has with Harry Browne, maybe you ought to be accusing Browne of "destroying the movement."

That would make as much sense as accusing Rockwell of doing so (which is to say: it would make no sense at all).

Right Wing nut War mongers are now accusing him that his a coward and a fraud.

"Are now" ... ?

When were they ever *not* doing that?

This is the second day and still the warmonger fascists are attacking Ron Paul over his tweet, and Neocons are still refering the attacks over his newpaper comments.

And their criticisms are not one bit different than they were before. Not even in the slightest.

The bloviating jackass in the article you quoted is just rehashing all the same tired old bullshit.

"9-11! 9-11! Pearl Harbor! 9-11! Nazis! Isolationism! Oh, and did I mention 9-11?"

It won't be any less effective - or any more - than it ever was before.

 

[kathy88]

Pretty discouraging continuing to fight for these ass clowns that think everything the Leviathan is doing is for the greater good.

 

[AngryCanadian]

Pretty discouraging continuing to fight for these ass clowns that think everything the Leviathan is doing is for the greater good.

I know, they will never learn.

 

[UWDude]

For the pre-school historian, every enemy is Hitler.

 

[Todd]

Lol at the number of newbies on this site suggesting that the Liberty movement is dying because of this or that guys rant. These people have been ranting the same old shat for years.

 

[green73]

Oh noes, truth is treason in an empire of lies!

 

[Aeroneous]

I've been discussing non-interventionism with some friends lately. I really want to see it happen, and it believe that in the long term it would work.

I've come to the conclusion that we will never see a non-interventionist United States. Let's say that Ron Paul won in '08 and was reelected in '12. He ended foreign military actions and closed down bases overseas. In the short term, we are still going to see blowback. It would take a couple generations of non-interventionism to weed out the effects of our foreign meddling. As soon as the short term blowback happens, the American public will cry out and scream, "THIS DOESN'T WORK! THEY STILL HATE 'MURICA'S FREEDOM!" Ron Paul would have to make a decision about whether or not to take it on the chin, but even if he chose the non-interventionist route we would be right back into a conflict after the next presidential election.

So while I advocate for non-interventionism for the incredible long term benefits, I think that it would take too long to work and would never be given the chance it really deserves. Of course this is just what we came up with in our little discussion... I suppose I could very well be wrong. We've seen how fickle the American public is though.

 

[CaptUSA]

Patience, friends...

Attacks like these grow the liberty movement.

 

[belian78]

I do have to agree that it seems like the Liberty Movement is under attack from a couple different sides. But see, that's the great thing about the LM, it's based around ideas and principles. Those of us that stick to those core principles and ideas, and don't let ourselves be separated by the wedge issues and the mudslinging, we will differentiate ourselves from the fake liberty lovers pretty quickly.

The reason that we are now being attacked so harshly is because we are on the cusp of really changing the way people in this country think. Ron woke up millions of us with his two presidential bids, and now he's got huge plans in the works and national speaking tours as well. They have to start attacking him hard to try and head off any momentum he is building, going into the next couple of years.

Stay strong, stick to your principles and do not budge on your core beliefs, you'll be quite surprised how quickly our ideals will continue to gain traction.

 

[seraphson]

McMaken's first paragraph on the LRC nails this whole "episode" down in a very clear, very black and white manner.

Remember that time Ron Paul used the Golden Rule to explain his foreign policy? Conservatives booed him for that. So who can be surprised that conservatives, including Rand Paul, have been falling all over themselves to condemn Ron Paul for quoting Jesus -in correct context, by the way - to note that the violence wrought by over a decade of nonstop war in America leads to tragedy on the home front?

And to think these "conservatives" had tougher skin than your modern day bleeding heart neo-liberal. These are the same "conservatives" that worshiped the ground Bush walked on yet when Obombya executes the same policies e.g. bailouts, increased government spending, increased government size, removing/limiting liberties it's an atrocity.

Also, since when does fighting undeclared unconstitutional wars, better known as oath-breaking, expeditiously make you a "hero"? See, here in Dumfukistan the Dumfukistinians have a very, very difficult time understanding the concept of cause and effect. If we weren't involved in these entangling alliances and so stuck up about promoting "democracy" in the most coincidentally resource rich nuclear arms deprived crevices of the earth we wouldn't need or be expected to thank such "heroes". Stay home and become a plumber, electrician, engineer, trucker, waste disposal person, or anything really! Of course "conservatives" will claim this as being isolationist and that "they" hate us because "we're free" (LoL: Patriot Act, Tarp, NDAA, Central Bank w/ congressionally sanctioned monopoly power over our currency, Income tax, Property tax, etc.) To that I'll let a pretty straightforward segment from David Cross debunk such rubbish logic.

 

[jmdrake]

hxxp://twitchy.com/2013/02/04/ghoulish-ron-paul-doubles-down-on-chris-kyle-invokes-jesus/?utm_source=autotweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter

Lew Rockwell is destroying the movement

Not hardly. The liberty movement doesn't rise or fall based on the rage of some ignorant blogger. Nor is the liberty movement monolithic. Some of the same folks hating on Ron right now are loving on Rand. But let's look at some of the ignorance from the article you posted.

This is what people don't realize about Ron Paul and other hardcore antiwar libertarians: They think that non-intervention policies somehow magically protect nations from attack. They're wrong.

For years, capital-L types like Harry Browne and Lew Rockwell have cited Switzerland as an example. On the morning of September 12, 2001, Browne asserted that the attacks that murdered 3,000 the day before shouldn't have been a surprise because of US foreign policy. Wrote Browne: "Even sitting in the middle of Europe, Switzerland isn't beset by terrorist attacks, because the Swiss mind their own business." WRONG! The full extent of Swiss government's secret deals with the Nazis were revealed in 1996, but the myth remains. If Switzerland ever decides it no longer wants to be the banker/money launderer to the world's monarchs, tycoons, and tyrants, no hostile neighbor nation nor pissed-off Islamist will have a reason to resist slaughtering some poor soul whose only means of self-defense is a Swiss Army knife.


Hmmm....let's see. So Switzerland opens it's banks to all monarchs, tycoons and tyrants, and U.S. banks open themselves up to international drug money laundering and terrorists and somehow that makes the U.S. banks superior? Note that one of these terrorism supporting money laundering banks was run by dubya's uncle.

Oh, and since when does this look like a Swiss Army knife?

Anyway, what part of Jefferson's admonition of “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations...entangling alliances with none” does the author not understand?


Browne, in that day after 9/11 essay, also wrote that Americans need to "find a way...to prevent our leaders from ever again provoking this kind of anger against America." From what I've read, I believe that had the like-minded Ron Paul been President in 1941, the Pearl Harbor attacks might not have happened that fateful December, because he wouldn't want to provoke the Japanese by imposing an oil embargo. President Paul similarly would refuse to aid the British as the Nazis set its sights on destroying England. But eventually, Paul would have had to deal with Hirohito's grand plan. If Japan didn't have to deal with American resistance, it would have been free to fulfill its ambition of splitting world domination with the aforementioned Nazis.


If it wasn't for Woodrow Wilson's "League of Nations" unfairly punishing Germany for WW I, Hitler wouldn't have risen to power in the first place.


Think I'm full of it? Google "Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere." As seemingly impossible as the Empire of Japan's goals were, keep in mind that its soldiers fought with religious fervor for its emperor, who was accepted as a Shinto demigod. It took two atomic bombs before Hirohito was convinced to acknowledge he was a mere mortal, thus breaking the grip of the imperial cult. In the end, the U.S. guided a secular Japan to resurgence to the point of usurping America's technological leadership.


And Stalin said "I will bury you." So?


Antiwar libertarians want to pretend that an America that shrinks back to its borders and hunkers down will be rewarded with the goodwill of nations relieved that the planet's global cop is finally minding its own business. That makes as much sense as believing criminals reward a striking police force wit

And so the person your concerned bout is pro war and wants the U.S. to be the world's police. And you're concerned about trying to win this kind of person over? Why?

 

[Occam's Banana]

And Stalin said "I will bury you." So?

Actually, that was Kruschev.

 

[seyferjm]

For the pre-school historian, every enemy is Hitler.

How many Hitlers have we had by now? I wonder if his corpse is tired of being resurrected every 3-5 years that a new 'Hitler" rise up somewhere in the world.

 

[dannno]

I'm still confused what Lew Rockwell has to do with this

I tried to post this comment, doubt it will make it through moderation:

Holy shit, we were attacked by Iraq?!?! When did that happen??

Whoever wrote this article obviously doesn't realize that the 9/11 attacks were caused by our overseas clandestine and ongoing military operations throughout the 80s and 90s. Bill Clinton bombed Iraq EVERY YEAR he was President, you probably don't know that. Our foreign policy during the Clinton years also caused hundreds of thousands of deaths OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS in Iraq who suffered from horrible sanctions due to the actions of a puppet dictator who was installed by the CIA and propped up by our foreign policy in the 80s.... If those same civilians would have risen up while we were trying to prop up Saddam we would have KILLED THOSE CIVILIANS. But all of a sudden when WE don't like what Saddam is doing, we expect them to do the same? What a ridiculous notion. Now, the 9/11 attacks have little to do with the US vs. the Iraqi regime and more to do with our overall military and intelligence presence in the Middle East. Iraq is simply one of the more atrocious examples, along with installing the Shah in Iran in the 50s and being heavily involved intelligence wise, meddling with their country ever since.

Ron Paul likes to talk about blowback. Most people think that blowback is the term coined by the CIA which is the unintended consequences from our overseas military operations. That is INCORRECT. Blowback was coined by the CIA and is the unintended consequences from CLANDESTINE OPERATIONS (aka 'secret' operations that are not reported in the media and the American people never learn about). So when war hawks try and act all innocent like we aren't doing anything to provoke attacks like 9/11, they are being intellectually dishonest because they DON'T KNOW the atrocities that our foreign policy causes in other places so they have no true metric to judge those who attack us. Of course, you're going to want to turn this around and say I'm defending the terrorists now, it's how your brain has been programmed. That is incorrect. There is no excuse for killing innocent people. But if our government is responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in another country IT IS OUR DUTY to STOP that from happening because a consequence is that eventually we are going to get attacked for it. If another country was responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of people in our country, I think there would be a lot of people ready to go over and attack them.

 

[pcosmar]

How many Hitlers have we had by now?

Many,, under different names and in various places.

All the way back to one named Nimrod,,, and all a Shadow of one to come.