Topic: Ron Paul
Ron Paul: Beware the Threat from Within The global elite, the ruling class bankers and other players in the military-industrial-congressional complex, seek power and profit from death and destruction.by Jake Morphonios
(conservative libertarian)
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Red China is preparing for a sustained war with the United States of America. The reason for China's preparations was given by the Chinese Defense Minister, Chi Haotian, in January 2000:
"Seen from the changes in the world situation and the United States' hegemonic strategy for creating monopolarity, war is inevitable. We cannot avoid it. The issue is that the Chinese armed forces must control the initiative in this war. We must be prepared to fight... three years, or even longer."
Hegemony is aggression or expansionism by a more powerful nation over weaker countries in order to achieve domination. With the fall of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union became the greatest opposition to US hegemony. With the fall of the Soviet Union, Communist China stands as the last major power to oppose US imperialism.
At the heart of Chinese-American tensions is the dispute over Taiwan. China claims Taiwan as its own while the US supports Taiwan's independence. US policy states that if China attacks Taiwan, the US will use military means to defend the island. American battleships cruise nearby waters and tens of thousands of US troops remain on Korean soil, waiting to be called up for the great military conflict that is surely coming.
China does not want to wait until the distant future to invade Taiwan. In an internal document from the Chinese Communist Party's Central Military Commission to all its regional commanders, Beijing says it hopes to absorb Taiwan through nonviolent means but warns of an "increased possibility for a military solution... it is better to fight now than in the future".
The US presently has hundreds of thousands of US troops stationed around the world as part of various imperialist nation-building efforts. A war with China would be disastrous to our fragile economy and would usher in the draft. America would be torn asunder.
Beijing anticipates that the United States will not be able to maintain its forces in combat against China for an extended period. The document previously cited states that the US will lose its will to fight and withdraw after suffering serious casualties, while the Chinese side will be able to absorb heavy casualties and prevail. China's "one child" policy has resulted in a grossly disproportionate male population, exceeding women by more than 30 million in the present generation alone. Historically, when such an imbalance has occurred, the nation has sent the men to war. The willingness of China to sacrifice this "excess" of men is confirmed by the document:
"Our principle is willing to sustain major losses of our armed forces to defend even just one square inch of land. If the U.S. forces lose thousands or hundreds of men under our powerful strikes, the anti-war sentiment within their country will force the U.S. government to take the same path as they did in Vietnam."
China's strategic preparations for this war are far too numerous to cite. Pages and pages could be written on the subject, ranging from China's missile buildup, to their recent acquisition of control over the strategically- important Panama Canal, to the enormous wealth of technology that communist spies have stolen from the US government in the last several decades.
Suffice it to say, China is preparing for an all-out war against the United States while we are busy watching Jerry Springer. This war must be averted at all costs.
Ron Paul has been talking about this impeding disaster for years. In 2002 he said from the House floor:
"The Taiwan Relations Act essentially promises that we will defend Taiwan at all costs and should be reevaluated. Morally and constitutionally a treaty cannot be used to commit us to war at some future date. One generation cannot declare war for another. Making an open-ended commitment to go to war, promising troops, money and weapons, is not permitted by the Constitution."
A war with China can only be averted by changing America's interventionist policy toward the China-Taiwan conflict. Americans should stop and ask themselves what is truly driving this insane policy of certain war with China. The answer is insidious, but not surprising.
The global elite, the ruling class bankers and other players in the military-industrial-congressional complex, seek power and profit from death and destruction. Congressman Paul alluded to this conspiracy when he said:
"Don't forget that President Eisenhower once warned that there always seems to be a need for a 'monster to slay' in order to keep the military industries busy and profitable. To continue the weapons buildup, something we are always engaged in around the world, requires excuses for such expenditures - some of these are planned, some contrived..."
I call upon all Americans to promote peaceful relations with China and the other nations of the world. We must stop repeating this cycle of ignorantly waving red, white and blue and supporting unconstitutional wars whenever the men behind the curtain start beating the drums of war. The threat to the security of America is not a group of Arabs hiding in desert caves.
Our demise is being masterminded from within our own nation by evil men bent on ultimate power... and they are winning their war against us.
The views expressed in this
article are those of Jake Morphonios only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jake Morphonios is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Great article. This is exactly the type of information and ideas that needs to be avialable to more Americans. So many people have no idea. This fact makes it the responsibility of all those who "are awake" to help spread the word and guide people to the resources they need to make educated decisions about the future of our country. Peace on Earth!
So, Peace on Earth means letting Taiwan get overrun by China? I'm for peaceful relations with China if they're for peaceful relations with the US. They're not, and we shouldn't be trading with them at all until they clean up their act.
When the global elite come out on the MSM and tell Americans to just deal with lead paint in children's toys and stop complaining, you know that the global elite are on the side of China. When the global elite come out and arrest an American for calling the murderous Chinese dictator a murderous Chinese dictator and the MSM calls that lady a loon, you know whose side the global elite are on. When we borrow continuously from China to fund our war in the Middle-East, you know whose side the global elite are on. When American politicans except money and deals from China to the benefit of China and the detriment of the US, you know whose side the global elite are on.
Screw China. Why doesn't China worry about their crazy dictator next door in the form of Kim Jong-il who is firing test missile all over asia? What does China want with the only democratic nation in their vicinity? Is it because of the booming economy in Taiwan? China already is taking over Taiwan and Taiwan is just trying to retain its independence which we should support, so what' this article about? Why is Jake cheering China? I'm getting a sense that the LP is the party of the American elite, bent on making a buck at the expense of American independence and freedom.
With the LP's support of Free Trade (which is globalism), I'm getting a very bad taste in my mouth. Is the LP the party of the New World Order? Read this article by Paul Craig Roberts (Secretary of Treasury under Reagan, the Father of Reaganomics):
The preponderance of your diatribe addressed trade with China. You will not find a single reference in my article to trade with China. Therefore, I feel no need to defend a position that I didn't take to begin with.
Furthermore, I directly challenge you to identify a single instance in the article in which I am "cheering China". I did no such thing. I made the point that the United States of America should not go to war with China over Taiwan.
Had you taken the time to actually read and discern the content of my article you might have been capable of posing a single relevant inquiry.
If you wish to address anything I actually said, I'll be glad to give you a response.
You are right. I stand corrected. I don't want war with China, but I don't want to be chummy with them either. Not sure why you're worried about us going to war with China though. Maybe I missed something?
And I still don't like this business with the LP being for globalism and Free Trade.
I don't think that China wants war with the United States. In fact, Ron Paul once said:
"Throughout all of China's history she has never pursued military adventurism far from her own borders. That is something that we cannot say about our own policy. China traditionally has only fought for secure borders predominantly with India, Russia, Japan, and in Korea against the United States, and that was only when our troops approached the Yaloo River."
BUT... China, by its own admission, is beefing up its military for what it considers to be an unavoidable confrontation with the US. They are too big, too independent (and too communist) to cede its sovereignty to American imperialist crusades.
I do not agree with giving China "most favored nation" trade status. Ron Paul added, "we should take this opportunity to point out clearly and forcefully the foolishness of providing subsidies to the Chinese through such vehicles as the Export/Import Bank".
You asked why I'm afraid of war with China. The bigger issue, as things presently stand, causes me to be afraid of China going to war with Taiwan. If China asserts itself and tries to reclaim Taiwan, then the United States will go to war. China has very powerful allies, including Russia. A China-Taiwan conflict could easily turn into a global war if America enters the fray.
The US Constitution does not authorize the President to act as a world-wide law enforcement officer. The founding fathers gave wise counsel about having friendly relations and trade with all nations without forming entangling alliances.
America will be safer if we stay out of the squabbles of other nations.
"The founding fathers gave wise counsel about having friendly relations and trade with all nations without forming entangling alliances. "
I just wanted to point out that that wise counsel included tariffs on trade with other nations so that it could fund our government and allow our economy and nation to be free and independent.
The constitution clearly gives congress the authority to levy taxes on imports and that was a major source of revenue during our early history. But today we don't do that. Instead we tax the shorts off our domestic industry while giving the imports a tax free ride. American businesses pay income taxes to the federal and state governments. They pay payroll taxes to the feds and property taxes to local government. The imports pay nothing. How is that fair? That only makes sense if the objective is to put American industry out of business.
The free trade treaties give us the short term benefit of low cost goods. But what if the long term result is that America ceases to be a manufacturing nation? Can we be an independent and sovereign nation if we are dependent on other nations for the manufactured goods we need? I think not.
Ron Paul believes that sound money would level the playing field. Maybe so, but personally I would eliminate the corporate income tax and replace it with a revenue neutral tariff on goods from low cost countries.
Just because the globalists like to name their initiatives "free trade" doesn't mean that it really is. For example:
"Free trade is not the problem, and pseudo free trade is what is being offered in the wrongly named North American Free Trade Agreement and all its offshoots. The problem is a government-managed economy and the burdensome regulation that results. For our economy to remain competitive in the world, we must remember what it is to be truly free. We must lift the regulatory shackles threatening to sink our industries into oblivion. Free trade begins with freedom domestically, and we can't afford to lose that." - Ron Paul
Go get your money, if you have any,out of the banks. This will end the federal reserve as we know it. Stop using the banks!Banks dont have the reserves to give everyone their money. Its the only defense the free market has. Get your money before its worthless.
The irony of this is that the Taiwanese are Chinese and they don't even like us. They think that we are stupid for allowing them to come to our country, set up shop employing only other Taiwanese and Chinese, sell their inferior products with inferior customer service policies, and ship the profits back to Taiwan.
Another irony is that U.S. corporations are funding the Chinese military build up by having their intentionally poisoned products made there. Companies like Mattel have 65% of their goods made in China. The people put out of work as a result of having their jobs sent to China will be asked to die fighting the Chinese after they have suffered to build up China's military.
This entire situation is as bizzar as giving Saddam WMD and then wanting to kill him because he has them.
With unrestricted open free trade, or "true" free trade, what you have is reverse protectionism whereby imports to the US are not assessed a tariff, but other countries assess a tariff on goods the US exports to them, which is bad for the US economy. It would be the death of our economy and thus the death of America. The other scenario is that every country have free trade, in which case would come with world government, also spelling out the end of America. (Re-read the article from Paul Craig Roberts I posted above.)
So, if you advocate free trade, you are advocating the death of America, and along with that our freedom and independence. Is that libertarian? Is killing America libertarian? Is world government, the biggest collectivist thing of all, is that libertarian?
I know what Ron Paul says. I agree that we shouldn't be in NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, etc, but he says its solely the consumers' job to decipher what to buy. He's wrong (think about all of the Walmarts we already have). Check the Constitution. It's the duty of Congress to impose tariffs on trade to keep us from having to directly compete with slave labor, fund our government, allow our industry to grow, retain our sovereignty, and allow our economy to remain seperate from other socialist or fascist economies.
Check out this article about Ron Paul and free trade:
There are some other good articles at that website if you click on MAIN at the top. The first one has a video of Pat Buchanan explaining his views on trade which I thought was interesting.
We have a 150+ years history of protectionism. Read our history on tariffs at wikipedia:
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-03-19 12:29:01
During the original Revolution American PATRIOTS did not buy British goods. Can you say the same about you and Chinese goods?
We should ALL be wary about China. Try this one on.
China calls in ALL of our debts, which we cant pay.
They place economic sanctions on us further crippling our economy.
They invade Taiwan
We "respond" militarily
Now here is the quandry. Our military is all over the world. We wont have any money to purchase fuel to get them back to the States. Our Army is offensive in nature and not defensive as it should be. We have no fortifications/ works in the US to help defend it. We cannot fight on for very long because we have ZERO industrial capability left in this country. Our industry is what won WWII, now we have given that industtrial capability to China in exchange for cheap goods. They took those profits from us and invested it into an OFFENSIVE army. We will only have the 2nd Ammend to protect our country as we will have no money for fuel and high tech weaponry. Every toy you buy from China buys 2 bullets to be used against your kids.
China is by far the greatest external threat to America. 1 million angry distjointed broke muslim islamojihadofascist whatever are a joke compared to a highly trained high tech BILLION man Chinese Army.
If Ron Paul had such forsight to the stakes of his presidential campaign...
THEN WHY IS HE NOT FIGHTING!!!!!!
Does he believe we have to time to wait for this fucking "r3VOLution" to take place?
He is wasting our fucking time while day by day...we inch closer to war...closer to war with Russia...further war in Iraq...war with Iran...war with Syria...
And what the fuck do you think is going to happen when each diplomat translate this old saying to one another...the enemy or my enemy is my friend?
This is why I'm pissed off. This is why I curse. This is why I write my articles.
WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!
We need to organize now! We need to suck up to whomever and just focus on one thing foreign policy and get that changed. Political Triage is need.
Jessie I think perhaps you are expecting more of Ron Paul than is humanly possible. I have some minor issues with Ron Paul but I will never fault him for lack of effort. He put up a great battle. The neo-cons attacked him time after time on his Iraq policy but he stood his ground and never gave in. And he got far more attention than any Libertarian candidate in the past.
Now if you think there is a better man to do the job, who is it?
Unfortunately China is fighting this war on their terms and winning it. They are buying up America - equities, bonds etc using the money we are giving them when we buy all the stuff they produce. They practically own us already and they can destroy us when they decide to do so by selling all their Government bonds.
Our fate is in their hands. Are they our true friends? Or are they waiting to play their ace until the time is right for them? You decide.
Because of their ace, we could never win a war against China. They have got us cornered. The question is if we can trust our Government to make the right decision. How badly do they need a common enemy. For now we have Iraq but the support behind this war is declining. When will the Government need a new enemy to keep the empire going?
The Constitution does not bar foreign treaties (in fact it raises them above domestic law); our agreement with Taiwan is a treaty not in violation of the Constitution.
Free Trade in name is not what we are talking about when we talk about free trade. Breaking down centralized controls on free trade can only be a good thing. Although true it can cause localized distress when high priced industries are undercut by foreign made cheap-labor-produced similar products, this distress is only caused by artificially high prices in the first place - the first sin. When a natural global economy is left unmolested by interfering bureaucrats, then the real price of things will be naturally equalized, and nobody will be over or undercut by speculative pricing.
The Bush Administration was so itching for a fight, and the country just ate up their sales pitch, we got what we asked for as a nation. The collective stupidity of sending all our hard worked resources, cash, and human life to fight in such a useless war makes me embarrassed to be considered part of that collective.
Americans have lived such comfortable insulated lives for so long, we have no idea what war is, what poverty is, what destitution is. We live in such a vicarious existence, movies are more real than reality.
However nature doesn't care about our stupidity. In fact that is how Nature culls the not-so-fittest. We have sent our best efforts and military resources to a money-sink nothing of a country, and now when there is a REAL threat with a REAL military power, we will be in NO position to attend to it.
What we get out of a promise to protect Tawain, I don't know, but I do know that that is a far more real and serious reason to have a viable military - one that we don't have anymore due to the boyish adventurism of our Executive branch, playing toy soldiers games, with real people and real ordnance.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
