Comment by: Olde Reb (#20546) Entered on: 2011-02-16 08:29:2. Please straighten up your thoughts when you make a comment. Where in Adams did you get this idea that U.S. wars "during the past 130 years" was "the result of reliance upon government lies"? Which government … that of the enemy or the U.S. government …" Your mind is floating in the wind.

What is "the study of objective history" that you mentioned? Is there a study of "subjective history" whatever the hell that means? This is like an attempt of someone who wanted to sound academically sophisticated �" like when someone farts �" releasing a foul mental gas in public forcing us to pinch our nose.

I am a journalist. You must be referring to "editorialized" historical events. If you are, that’s journalism, not history. The citations you pointed out are opinionated or editorialized writings that you have mistaken as "objective history". They could be motivated by either some unknown or clandestine reasons.

By the way, Communism is real … the attack of Pearl Harbor is also real; this villainy did not come from the howling of the wind which you think President Roosevelt had made a fool of himself when he declared the attack was a "day of infamy", so is the assassination of JFK, it was real, not what you think was just a ghost of a story. Conspiracy theories on how and why JFK was killed have been "editorialized" as an historical event that took place, not something that took place in Disneyland. Which one of them was a lie, no one knows except the likes of you who pretend to know. Theory and Truth are strange bedfellows. Are you a paint-brush artist or a littérateur like I am? In the canvass or in Literature, we pen-pushed or paint them as if they are real.

You misunderstood Eisenhower’s "warning" of our military industrial complex … it is about the superpower not only of the technologically advance military and the sophistication of the wherewithal of modern cyber war that we have but above all it is about the political and economic might of the United States that is hard to challenge from within and without and therefore tends to be authoritarian, tyrannical and despotic akin to that of the ancient ruling Empires that ruled the world. Okay, so far?

To Mr. Tam;

You conclude Mr. Paul is out of touch with reality in his stance on the Federal Reserve? I believe you have fallen victim to the spin of the Fed. Perhaps the RIP OFF BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE article at http://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=32.msg192 or http://www.scribd.com/doc/48194264/rip-off-by-the-Federal-Reserve-revised and other locations can be informative.

Unrestricted military funding is not patriotic; it is hair-brained. If you study objective history, every war engaged by the U.S. during the past 130 years has been the result of reliance upon government lies, including the known attack upon Pearl Harbor, the setup of the Lusitania, and the lie of Tonkin Bay. Antony Sutton and numerous others reveal Communism was a straw enemy set up by Wall Street to proliferate military expansion. JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE by James Douglas is but one confirmation of President Eisenhower’s warning of the military-industrial complex.

Honestly, here's my concern and similar other aberration ...

“It is a sad day in American history when a one-time conservative-libertarian stalwart has fallen more out of touch with America’s needs for national security than the current feeble and appeasing administration,” YAF’s Senior National Director Jordan Marks said in a statement.

“Rep. Paul’s refusal to support our nation’s military and national security interests border on treason, aside from his failure to uphold his oath to the United States Constitution and defend our country and citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” Marks added.

“Freedom and prosperity cannot peacefully exist alongside radical Islam. It is unfortunate that Ron Paul �" a member of the U.S. Congress �" does not understand this. Surely, our enemies do.” 

Earlier, I made similar comment on Paul's problem, viz:

    Ron Paul’s problem is obvious when he talks about his own “economics” �" weird statements that are apolitical when he talks of politics and clearly “uneconomics” when he talks about this sophisticated or erudite science of economics. Weirdo speeches like 911 should be blamed on us the American people and not on Al Qaeda or Muslim terrorists that perpetrated the carnage because we went to the lion’s lair in the Middle East as “invaders” (similar to Osama bin Laden’s jihad statement) or his recent odd public statements at CPAC on Iraq and Afghanistan and national security. It was so bizarre that YAF (Young Americans for Freedom) kicked him out of the National Advisory Board … for “his delusional and disturbing alliance with the fringe Anti-War movement …” And Libertarians from the left that are campaigning for 2012 this early want him to become president of a United States without a Central Bank or Federal Reserves, only with a stay-home foreign policy, without an IRS, and without a government, in a stateless society!

     The public had probably noticed that no economist in his right mind pays attention to the Congressman’s incessant attacks of the Federal Reserve. Printing money he said does not create jobs.  What economist would say that it does? Anyway, being chairman of the sub- committee of Congress that oversees the Fed is a good opportunity for the idol of emotional Anarcho-Libertarians to learn what the Fed technically does to the national economy … why and how to regulate interest rates, how, why and when to intervene in a greed-dominated free market system, why inflation is a yes-and-no of economics, how jobs are created and/or busted in a period of stagflation, etc. etc.  That’s a long hard years of learning in the academe, not in a wink of an eye, from the street side university of hard knocks.  But Dr. Ron Paul is a nice guy.  Legions like him as a person. Let’s not switch off the light on him. We need a model of the likes of him to stay in the limelight according to the exigency and fault of the time.