Zizek : Quiet Slices of the Peace Camp

Ziabari : Waging War Against The Wrong Country

Wright : Litvinenko was MI6 Agent


Wilhelmson : Sad Story from Sweden

Wilhelmson : Revoking Israel UN Membership

Wilhelmson : Forum for Living History

Whitney : Why CFR Hates Putin

White : The Usury Paradigm

White : Ezra Pound American Giant

Weiss : Out From the Shadows

Weiss : Elders of Zion to Retire

Weir : Israeli Organ Harvesting

Webster : Israel Lobby in Britain

Weber : Why Judaism is Not Like Other Religions

Watson : War on Shampoo

Walt : Attacks From Ideological Opponents

Wall : Zionists Freeman Robinson

Wall : Who Gave Bibi Permission

Wall : Man Kills His Parents and Begs for Mercy Because He Is an Orphan

Wall : Joe Biden in Israel

Wall : Israels Trauma Trail

Walberg : To Leave and yet Stay

Walberg : Stars and Stripes

Walberg : Review of Al Azmeh Against Culture

Walberg : Return of the Repressed

Walberg : Requiem For An Overweight

Walberg : Recess Games

Walberg : Publish and Perish

Walberg : Prison of Nations

Walberg : Power Behind Throne To Be

Walberg : Political Poison

Walberg : New Auschwitz

Walberg : Muslims and Jews

Walberg : Masters of Discourse

Walberg : Israel In Canada

Walberg : Georgia Attacks South Ossetia

Walberg : Freeman and the Lobby

Walberg : Defining Diplomacy

Walberg : Cakes Not For Eating

Walberg : Bushs Divine Comedy

Valenzuela : Untermensch Syndrome

Uhler : Protocol of the Elders

Tucker : Open Letter to Uri Avnery Noam Chomsky and Jimmy Carter

Tillawi : Nice Soldiers Die First

Tibbs : Interview With Stuart Littlewood

Stone : Robinson Investigation and Protest

Spritzler : Why They Voted

Spritzler : They Destroy Our Society

Spritzler : Anti Gentilism

Spritzler : A New Way For Israel

Sniegoski : Transparent Cabal Smeared

Sniegoski : Israel Nukes Obama

Sniegoski : Gaza Resolution Illustrates Power of Israel Lobby

Sniegoski : Anti War in the Age of Obama

Smith : Illegal Settlements in America

Singh : Gandhi and US Israel

Sharon : The Complete Guide to Killing Non Jews

Shamir : Zionist Crook

Shamir : Yiddishe Medina

Shamir : Yeti Riots

Shamir : Wrong Lizard

Shamir : Wiki Chaos Controlled

Shamir : Walking About Jerusalem

Shamir : Translating the Bible into Hebrew

Shamir : Third Force

Shamir : The Snatch

Shamir : The Rise and Rise of the Neocons

Shamir : The Poverty of Racialist Thought

Shamir : The Man Who Stayed Away

Shamir : Texas Body Snatchers

Shamir : Talmud Impaled

Shamir : Slow Down

Shamir : Shamir in Italy

Shamir : Shadow of Zog

Shamir : Seven Lean Kine

Shamir : Self Determination

Shamir : Secularism

Shamir : Scorpion Logic

Shamir : Say Not Fatah

Shamir : Sages Rule

Shamir : Russias Daring Vote

Shamir : Russian Intifada

Shamir : Right Ho Lobby

Shamir : Return of the Body Snatchers

Shamir : Resurrection Sunday Blessings

Shamir : Regards from Ankara

Shamir Readers : Zionist Takeover of Italy

Shamir Readers : Top Stories February 2008

Shamir : Reading Douglas Adams in Yanoun

Shamir Readers : Should The Jews Be Deported

Shamir Readers : October Omnibus 2007

Shamir Readers : March Omnibus 2007

Shamir Readers : February Omnibus2 2008

Shamir Readers : February Omnibus 2008

Shamir Readers : Christmas Songs

Shamir Readers : August Omnibus 2007

Shamir Readers : August News 2007

Shamir Readers : About Ron Paul

Shamir Readers : A Letter From A Catholic Friend

Shamir : Rape of Dulcinea

Shamir : Pope Not Welcome

Shamir : Peter Edel On Zionism

Shamir : Pakistan in Turmoil

Shamir : Our Congratulations to the People of Turkey

Shamir : Oscar for Obama

Shamir : Obama Lynching Party

Shamir : No War For Heroin

Shamir : Not Only About Palestine

Shamir : No Deal

Shamir : Noam Chomsky and 911

Shamir : Merry Christmas 2007

Shamir : Mauro Manno is gone

Shamir : Mahler In Vanity Fair

Shamir : Madoff Affair

Shamir : Lead Rains of Gaza

Shamir : Keep Shining Cuba

Shamir : Kashmir

Shamir : July Thunder

Shamir : Jews Can Be Trouble

Shamir : Island of Faith

Shamir : Interview with Sweden

Shamir : India Comeback

Shamir : In Defense of Prejudice



Find More Articles By Shamir_Readers

About Ron Paul...

Some of our friends, notably Karin Maria Friedemann, call our American readers to enter the campaign for Ron Paul. There are many reasons to vote for and against, and some are given below. But the bottom line is that Ron Paul is an isolationist, and this is a good thing for the rest of the world. Yes, we care about our American brothers and sisters, but first of all we need to unplug the US . A man who would take troops back home, who would cut the federal government down to size and hopefully save America by bringing its overseas Empire down, is good for us. Some people speak of positive American involvement, but meanwhile every American overseas involvement was extremely negative, leaving heaps of bodies and massive destruction on its trail. Ron Paul is often presented as an antizionist. He is no such thing, but it is not necessary either. Peace in the Middle East would come automatically, by force of gravity, if American involvement would be cut off. No American aid is the best the Middle East can wish from our American friends, because then the sides will be forced to make peace. Probably one would prefer a man with more positive program for the US population, but ze ma esh, as we say in Hebrew, he is all we’ve got. You’ve got until Tuesday to register as a Republican, and this is surely unpleasant, but who promised you rose garden? The Democrats have no clear anti-war candidate, anyway Obama and La Clinton are not that. That is why it is good to support him.

His chances to succeed are not too big, but the man is fighting, he has much support, and it is good to show that there is a strong potential for isolationist candidate.

Yes, his view of welfare is rather old-fashioned, but this subject should take second priority next to the real problem, and that is war and peace. Our friend John Spritzler rightly said that the elections in the US are hopelessly rigged and it is difficult to believe that elections will actually deliver the result we need. This is true, but the campaign will help people to find their way and their understanding of the problem.

By Joachim Martillo:

Ron Paul is attacking the pressure point of Zionist control, which is US funding of Israel , and he is doing it in a way that makes it hard for him to be accused of anti-Semitism, which is the reason for the Kirchick Peretz smearing of Paul as a homophobe anti-Black racist.


He has managed to bring the issue of funding of Israel to national discussion in a way that Kucinich has consistently failed, and he seems to have at least 10% support among Republicans and much higher among college age Republicans.


If the goal is to stop Zionism, Paul is by default the most powerful ally that groups like Baza have on the national political scene, taking potshots at him suggests the subordination of the pro-Palestinian agenda to some other cause.


Joachim Martillo

By Maria Hussain:

Hit Piece Bruises Ron Paul

January 10, 2008

MariaHussain. wordpress. com


Martin Peretz, owner of the New Republic and funder of Hillary really hurt Paul yesterday. It was a typical Peretz thing to do - smear someone as a “homophobe” and “racist” the day of the election. The New Republic ’s Jamie Kirchick ludicrously claimed that Ron Paul personally called Martin Luther King a “gay pedophile,” and other outlandish claims he later retracted as mere gossip.

A very similar thing happened in Somerville on the eve of the vote about whether or not city funds should be invested in Israel or locally - in order to make it sound more “controversial” than the issue really was, all the neocon pundits went crazy, making up stories about how I am a supporter of the local investment movement and I’m a homophobic terrorist supporter that hangs out with David Duke. This is a common tactic. It makes you seem really “scary” to liberals. Liberals whose vote we were counting on.

If the American people can’t get beyond the “homophobic” smear in order to save their country, America probably deserves to be crushed like a bug quite frankly. People act exactly like insects. Running around doing what “they” expect, never thinking.

 We have to be prepared in advance. I mentioned a couple weeks ago the Zionist press is going to do this. Dr. Paul needed a pre-emptive attack - a statement on how his program is best for Blacks and Gays. As we all know, there is no difference between Huckabee and Hillary when it comes to AIPAC issues. This game is a distraction. But there is a comeback.

Is Dr. Paul a racist? No, Dr. Paul WILL SET YOU FREE. We need to emphasize his prison release program and make sure people realize that Hillary and Obama are NOT going to end war, they want new wars. Ron Paul is the Black Man’s Best Friend. He is going to bring your sons home from the war and release all non-violent drug offenders from prison his first day in office, he said. Ron Paul has more Black supporters than any other Republican candidate and more active US military personnel supporters than any other candidate.

 The issue is not which candidate will win or lose. The real issue is are we going to lose our country? Americans are such sheep. If we don’t somehow teach our friends to mistrust the media and double check everything, that’s it for USA .

The sad part is that Dr. Paul was polling at 17% but then a lot of those people went to vote Democratic because they were embarrassed by the homophobic racist smear that was circulated on the internet. It is true that there was reportedly voter fraud. The hand count of the votes puts Dr. Paul at 15% not 8% as the newsmedia erroneously reported. But that still means he lost 2% of the expected vote and all of the fence-sitters who could have put him above 20% just because of this typical Jewish smear tactic that was coordinated and planned to not give Ron Paul time to answer the accusations before the election.


Dr. Paul will not be counted as a winner unless he wins by an overwhelming landslide. Even then, the neocons might send in the National Guard to prevent him from taking office, except the Guard is in Iraq . (How convenient.) What happens next? No country in the world knows what the next step is, how to get free. The question is, how much longer will Americans fall for these tricks?


Ron Paul’s Response


Ron Paul has already responded to these ridiculous accusations and slammed them as political haymaking to coincide with the New Hampshire primary.  “The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

 In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: `I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

 This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

 When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

 [We invite readers to share their views on Mr. Kirchick’s article by e mailing him at james.kirchick@ ]  Dr. Paul has an honest opinion. The neo-liberals have think tanks working night and day doing marketing analysis and using psychology to turn the public away from Dr. Paul. There are Israeli/neocon spies that keep tabs on every political activist in Boston and do write-ups about them in Jerusalem , and meet with the local & Israeli government about how to neutralize them. In Palestine they just use a laser gun if someone starts telling the truth. In America they character assassinate more often. Like we have any importance whatsoever. They flew the mayor of Somerville to talk to Ariel Sharon about how to silence eleven Boston responsible investment activists.

 Basically how the Lobby won it (and it was a close race, 45 to 55%) was they made a bunch of slick posters with Deval Patrick’s face on it, AND they released a number of news reports and commentaries that totally twisted the positions and arguments of both sides, so that the average voter would be confused about what they were voting for or against. They also used a lot of psychological pressure labeling people as “racists” “anti-Semites” etc. so that the people who would normally support the ballot initiative got scared away.

 These people are very serious about not wanting Dr. Paul’s voice to be heard and they don’t want him to win. But they always use the same tactics.

 If they don’t succeed in turning Dr. Paul’s name into mud, they will turn on the organizers of the movement. It’s going to go on and on and we have to strategize. Is there a strategic planning wing of the People for Paul movement?


By John Spritzler:

The policies of the U.S. government are not determined by who we vote for. It is naive to think that they are. Virtually every modern war the U.S. government has waged was waged under the administration of a president who, when running for office, promised not to wage that war: Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Lyndon "I won't send American boys to fight an Asian war" Johnson, Richard ("I have a secret plan to end the Vietnam war") Nixon, George W. ("I'm against nation building") Bush. Bill Clinton campaigned on a promise to oppose NAFTA and then, when elected, put NAFTA on the fast track. Key government policies are determined by a corporate/governmen t elite composed of  upper class individuals and other individuals who curry their favor (like Kissinger, Rice, Clinton etc.)  The elections are intended to keep people on a treadmill of fruitless activity every four years so that they will never take the kind of collective action that is required to actually defeat the power of the plutocracy who hold the real power in the United States . The subjective honesty and integrity of a candidate are only important insofar as they determine whether or not the mass media will allow that candidate to succeed in winning an election (the elite want a dishonest person to win, not an honest person.)


Ron Paul may be honest; I don't know. But what is clear as day is that his self-described "libertarian" ideology is pure capitalist ideology: it glorifies the individual pursuit of self-interest with people competing against each other (the opposite of solidarity) and the idea that as long as the "playing field is level" it is proper and natural that there will be winners and losers in life with the winners having huge personal fortunes and the losers having to work for "low wage" jobs. Ron Paul opposes government interference in the "playing field" of life because he wants people to be "free" to become a "winner" in the competitin of life. Ron Paul may not like what the winners in such a social system are doing today, but his ideology nonetheless reinforces the legitimacy of these winners and thereby increases their ability to grab and hold onto their power and do whatever they wish. Ron Paul's campaign is not going to result in a President Ron Paul, but it does spread the idea that our capitalist social system is natural and proper, and that the winners in that system deserve the wealth and power they have. This, of course, hepls the Zionists immensely.



By Karin Maria Friedemann:



You are repeating Zionist trash propaganda. Wake up. You have until Tuesday to register Republican.


There is nothing in Ron Paul's platform that strengthens the warmonger. That is why FOX censors him.

He has promised to save Social Security by cutting billions of dollars in wars and foreign aid.


He has promised he is not going to put people out on the street. In fact he has promised to release all non-violent drug offenders from our prison system. Yes, he wants them to find a job. That is what you stand for.


Ron Paul is opposed to getting the US involved in Darfur and Iran . When he says he wants our military to patrol our own borders, that is "code" for getting them out of Iraq and Afghanistan and Europe . He is speaking to his audience. In fact he is a sort of Republican version of Chuck Turner. A community leader.


Ron Paul is a great man. He is a sincere believer in the US Constitution. If you don't throw all your support behind him and get us out of Iraq now, then everything you ever claimed to stand for has been proven false. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate in my lifetime that wants to limit the government. Support him.


He has promised an economic solution to the illegal immigration problem. He's not going to round them up. He is just saying fine, if you want to come here illegally, then you shouldn't expect us to subsidize your life. He actually does propose a plan allowing several million immigrants to come here legally.


An Air Force Veteran that served in Korea and Vietnam as a flight surgeon he has also delivered 4000 babies. He and his wife Carol have been married for 50 years. They have 18 grandchildren. A 10-term Texas Congressman, Ron Paul has a reputation for honesty and integrity. He keeps his promises. He has never voted for a tax increase or for an unbalanced budget. As a socialist, you might prefer a more "tax and spend" philosophy. But Ron Paul is not opposed to garbage pick up and public schools. This is just fantasy.


Ron Paul has a philosophy of limited government, and free trade. The Arabs love him. They believe in free trade. All the problems in the Islamic and Arab and African world are because of sanctions and other aggressive US interventions in their economic freedom. Ron Paul will lift the sanctions against Cuba and Iran . Basically he's a really decent person who promised to give us what we have been saying we want.


Ron Paul is also the only presidential candidate that inspires people to want to take a bullet for him. He can unite this country but not with good people believing and gratuitously passing on typical Zionist hype. Either you can go on and on about how nobody lives up to your ideals, or you can be loyal to the Constitution.


If you want to create an anti-war movement that gets beyond the hippies, you have to rally around what the mainstream Americans believe in more than they believe in the Bible. That is the US Constitution. Most of the problems we are in today as a country come from not following our own Constitutional Law.




By Israel Shamir:

Isolationism by any other name


In my previous letter, I called to support Ron Paul despite misgivings about his social ideas, because “the bottom line is that Ron Paul is an isolationist, and this is a good thing for the rest of the world. A man who would take troops back home, who would cut the federal government down to size and hopefully save America by bringing its overseas Empire down, is good for us (more below).” Our readers objected to “isolationist” – apparently this word has negative connotation in the US today. They proposed “non-interventionist” , which is a bit long, or “stay-at-home” , which is rather disparaging. Probably one should find out a good and short English word for an American who wants to deal with American problems.

In the ferocious dispute between Trotsky and Stalin, the first was for the World Revolution, the second was for Socialism in One Country. Now the Jewified American politicians from Bush to Mme Clinton are doing some perverted Trotskyite world capitalist revolution, but America needs a spot of Stalinist desire of doing good for its own country while minimizing contacts with the rest of the world. Contemplation and rebuilding time, time out in the world affairs but prime time for internal affairs. If Ron Paul (or somebody else) can give it to the Americans, he will win.

By John Wheat Gibson, Texas:


I totally agree. Ron Paul’s stupid social policies make no difference in this era. He will stop the US war against the whole world, and that is best for the US as well as the rest of the world. The fascist hypocrites like Hillary Clinton promise social programs like health care reform, but also promise to continue endless war for their Zionist paymasters, which has so destroyed the US economically that there is nothing left for health care reform. Our ruling class has beaten all our plowshares and pruning hooks into swords.


By Tony Lee, Queensland:

Everyone but everyone should read this at least twice!


By Elizabeth M. Molchany, Virginia:


Dear friend, Shamir:


Ron Paul is a non-interventionist as opposed to an isolationist. He favors trade and a variety of relations with the rest of the world. But he insists we must stop interfering with the sovereign rights of other countries, rights that none of our other countries, except Kucinich, Gravel, and, at times, Richardson , will recognize. As first responders to Charles Gibson's question about what would these Democratic candidates do should they be presented "actionable intelligence" showing that Al-Qaeda was in Pakistan and where, Obama and Edwards immediately stated that they would bomb Pakistan with or without the approval of the Pakistani government. Even worse, of course, are the Republican candidates who encourage war and more war.


For progressives such as myself, Ron Paul has a number of uncomfortable positions which he has maintained consistently over a number of years, such as removing our participation in the UN. Nevertheless, I, a progressive, have admired him for about seven years and recognize that there may be no candidate who fully represents my views, save Kucinich and Gravel.


With respect to Zionism, Ron Paul frequently speaks out against the neo-conservatives, yet says that he supports Israel and wants Israel to have the right to do as they decide with respect to their behavior towards others. He says that in denying all countries foreign aid, Israel would be better off because more aid goes to the Arab recipients of foreign aid than to Israel . He ought to know, but somehow I doubt it. It is not an argument which pleases me but I see these countries as using their "foreign aid" largely for the purpose of purchasing military weapons.


Only Ron Paul is saying what we all want very much to hear. He is a good man, a kind man, and my choice for President.


Elizabeth M. Molchany, J.D.

Front Royal, VA


By Jim Dean, Atlanta:

Shamir wrote that “the bottom line is that Ron Paul is an isolationist, and this is a good thing for the rest of the world.”

Not to be picky...but this is a glass half full or half empty thing. This could be viewed as Dr. Paul wants America to be a good neighbor by minding it's own business. No one would call a neighbor who did this an isolationist as long as he was still polite and would come over to help when he saw a prowler or your house was on fire. But REGIME CHANGE is surely being a nosey neighbor and that is the foreign policy abortion that the NeoCons instituted without a public debate, a subversive act in my book (Jim Dean...Assoc of Former Intelligence Officers) and I will stand anywhere and repeat this and let them try to sue me.


As Shamir knows, most all of the past wars have been commercial wars. The famous WWI era British Parliament radical Francis Neilson once said there was never justifiable reason for British and French bakers, farmers, mechanics and taxi drivers to fight and maim and kill their German counterparts. Neither stood to gain anything from it. Only the elites did. And that is exactly the same situation we have now.


****His chances to succeed are not too big, but the man is fighting, he has much support, ***


The earth is moving under our feet, Adam. Finally, complainers over here are getting their check books out and accepting that there is no free ride if we want to save ourselves. To send someone out to fight for you with no money is a childish approach. I have been telling people this for years and they did not like to hear it. They wanted Santa Claus to pick up the tab.


What I am praying will happen is that people come to understand that the funding of fighting back is a lifelong struggle and needs to be a monthly permanent expense. One million American putting up $25 a month can do a lot of damage to the elitist problem we have here with $25 million a month as public relations ammo. Much of the country is fed up with elite control of the Dems and Repubs, but we are boxed in with nowhere else to go. Ain't democracy wonderful :-)


The funding that Ron Paul is getting scared the elites more than Ron Paul does. They fear that even if he does not win, someone with more charisma might come along and hook up with that financial support, maybe even doubling it. The elites know what a message with money behind it can do.


My big fear is that we will miss the conversion of the Net movement to 'boots on the ground'. By that I mean that active people on the Net are often on party members, and even fewer are actual local delegates which is easy to do and multiples your political significance a hundred times instantly. I discovered this late in life and it was a major regret. Once you call a politician and their staff types your name into the database and you come up as a delegate they become a lot more friendly. I got more 'entre' panache by being a delegate than a journalist, or even calling with a veteran hat on (which comes in second to a delegate).


If you have 15% percent of the party delegates in a county you can usually swing who gets to be county chairman, as they are often 40-60% close races. This is the big open door for reformers than many do not know about, nor do party members want you to now. Many county parties like their group to be small because it is easier to control. Given the choice of 250 members versus a 1000, they prefer 250...because, heaven forbid, new people coming in actually have the gall to want to change things.


I get emails from the Ron Paul Georgia campaign, but they do not respond to emails, nor do they return phone calls. Despite raising a lot of money I cannot see any professional infrastructure at all. Historically this means if/when he loses this reform movement will go up in smoke because his presidential candidacy is all that is holding it together.


There are rumors that he is saving money to run as a third party candidate if he loses the Repub primary. If he did do that he could throw the presidential election to the Dems. The thinking being that reforming the Republicans would be easy if they went down in defeat and we could get rid of all the old leadership as punishment for taking us down the tubes.


And lastly, despite the war and international focus of your piece, people here are really worried about the Ponzi scheme deal our economy has become and are really worried about the bottom falling out. Middle class financial equity has been shifting to the elite pocketbooks and only they are in good position to buy assets cheaply during a recession. We have an insane immigration situation which neither party has any intentions of dealing with seriously.


At this point we are a democracy in name only. We are being ruled. The elites have their hooks deep into both parties and their major interests will be protected no matter which side wins. But they do not have Ron Paul in their pocket. If he gains more momentum they will crank up the slime machine.


More and more are concerned with voting machine fraud here. All my computer Intel people tell me that it is mere child's play to rig these machines. The code they write in to do this can erase itself when it is done so a later check up with not find anything. Here some good U-tube Congressional testimony on it: com/watch? v=mq9WVuKGwOM


Stalin had the word on this long ago...something about people having the vote was not a problem. Who was counting the votes was where you had to make sure you had control.


Jim Dean

Heritage TV... Atlanta


By Charles F. Moreira, Malaysia:


The term “isolationist” is probably a pejorative term to describe those who believed in the principles of the US’ founding fathers who advocated a foreign policy of trade and friendship with all but entangling alliances with none -- meaning that the US would be like Sweden, Switzerland or Finland and be more or less politically and militarily neutral, while having trading relationships with all.
While I have no liking for Ron Paul’s domestic social policies, he’d do the world a favour by getting the US off our backs.



By John Remington Graham, Quebec:

Shamir, -- Ron Paul believes in the intended meaning of the United States Constitution which was destroyed by the powers of high finance in the American Civil War, using Abraham Lincoln, Edwin Stanton, and Salmon Chase as their principal stooges in order to provoke secession and war, induce unimaginable casualties, run up a huge national debt, convert the bonds into an obligatory capital basis for a dominant and privileged system of banking and currency under their control, gain control of the money supply and the major news media, run the country as an invisible government, and transform the nation into a superpower. The surrender of Robert E. Lee at Appomattox Court House was the end of the confederacy of free, sovereign, and independent States which was established by the Philadelphia Convention, President George Washington, and the First Congress.  If this tragedy had not occurred, the United States would not have intervened in the First World War, which means that Georges Clemenceau and Loyd George would not have been able to use and betray the United States in imposing exploitive and unjust terms on Austria Hungary and Germany, that Adolf Hitler would never have been able to rise, that there would have been no Second World War, etc. Think of how much better we would all be off.


Dr. Paul will make a fine effort this year, but his influence will be indirect.  His cause will be well pleaded and highly appreciated, but will be symbolic, yet least of all will he be finished as a political voice, for he will grow in stature and help to moderate our course in future years.  It is too soon to tell whether it will be Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama for the Democrats, but neither would be good for the country, for they are only panderers, and the American people know it, so they will reluctantly elect either John McCain or Mitt Romney.  We may as well accept reality and proceed from there. The United States will emerge as a chastened superpower in a world which cannot exist without superpowers at the moment. A more realistic approach will be to urge a foreign policy of the United States in keeping with the principles of Washington 's farewell address, easily accessible on the internet.  I suggest you to read it, as it relates to foreign policy.  Washington was not an isolationist, as myoptic historians have supposed, for he knew that the United States was destined to become a great power, but he wanted a foreign policy based on the enlightened national interests of the United States, avoiding taking sides in conflicts between other countries in foreign affairs and cultivating friendship with both sides in every such dispute as far as possible.  As far as the Middle East is concerned, just substitute Jews and Arabs for Washington 's preoccupation with neutrality between Britain and France , then read in the principles of Washington 's foreign policy.  That is feasible, and Dr. Paul will have an influence in making it happen.  I certainly hope and feel a fair degree of confidence that such a change is coming.  But we must be patient, because, after all, Lee surrendered at Appomattox, the United States was taken over by an international coterie of high finance, Clemenceau and Lloyd got their way in the corrupt diplomacy of 1919, Hitler was able to rise, there was a resulting Cold War, better called the Third World War, from 1945 to 1991, and it will take awhile for things to sort out.  


The United States are not the great Satan, nor will the world be better off if the United States withdraw from influence abroad. The world does not work that way.  The problem is that man is not naturally good, but is rather a fallen creature in need of redemption.   


John Remington Graham

of the Minnesota Bar (#3554X)

By Richard Wilcox, Tokyo:

Dear Israel ,

I voted by absentee ballot for Ron Paul in the Michigan primary. I also think he seems to make sense, despite his capitalist outlook on the world, at least he is strongly against the Iraq war and calls for removing all foreign US military bases! But, upon closer inspection one might have some quibbles about the fellow.
Some advise we cut him a break but he had chances to expose Zionist Occupied Government and 911 on national TV and sidestepped and backpedalled on each of these, this is rather a pisser. Since no one, surely not him, actually believes he could get elected, at least he should be forcefully educating the public during this brief opportunity to break through that vast flowing stream of nitrogen rich detritus known as the main stream media.
Of course, the media, the voting system, the political system are all a stacked deck, but that is another issue. I don’t mean to be a spoiler but here are two items worth throwing into the mix about Ron Paul.
Best, Richard in Japan

Shamir's Note:

[One of the items blames Ron Paul for not speaking ‘truth’ on 9/11, another one, by a rather extreme writer Christopher Jon Bjerknes on http://www.jewishra cism.blogspot. com claims that “Zionist Wolf Blitzer runs to defend Ron Paul and avidly promotes him. Note the distinction that Ron Paul reciprocates by promoting Wolf Blitzer who supports him, but does not support the anti-Zionists who support him. It is the anti-Zionists who are being deceived and deceiving themselves, not the Zionists, and it is the Zionist controlled “alternative” media who are unapologetically making the Zionist stooge Ron Paul a star.” But then, Bjerknes probably considers you, me and Adolf Hitler a Zionist stooge as well, so it does not mean much]

By Tom Mysiewicz, Oregon:

Israel Adam,
I also support Ron Paul for the same reasons and with a few reservations, one of which is that I was a Libertarian when young.  It is like the old nostrum about Communism: if one is not a Communist when he is 18 he has no heart.  If he is a Communist when he is 30 he has no head.
Ron Paul opposes racism as "tribalism".  Depending on what you mean by "racism" (am I a "racist" if I want to treat all people equally except in breeding  and living matters of my own choice, but have no objection to having a common set of laws for all races?) does he also oppose the Zionist experiment on the grounds that it, too, is racism?  I once submitted this question to Murray Rothbard, the "objectivist" disciple of Ayn Rand's (or Alicia Rosenbaum).  He did not answer my question but did frown at me.
Then there is gold.  It is obvious that for the world to continue laboring under a paper dollar standard is to be enslaved.  Some sort of alternative to the dollar will be essential.  However, William Jennings Bryan & the Populists of the 1890s demonstrated that people were being crucified on a "cross of gold", i.e., farmers and small businesspeople were forced to run up debts to produce and then had to come up with interest regardless of the outcome of their efforts.  Increased production with fixed money supply (gold, in this case) led to falling prices in general.  It was impossible for the overall interest to be paid on the debts, ensuring bankruptcies.  Unless interest-free debt is generated (and even that would be problematic unless the money supply had limited elasticity) a new gold standard would produce the same problems seen in the last go around.  (I was taught economics by one of the four American students of Ludwig von Mises, a Ron Paul influencer, by the way.)
Tom Mysiewicz


By Edgar J. Steele:


Here - let me be the first to say it:  The Ron Paul R3volution is dead.

No, that isn’t the end of it.  In fact, it is just the beginning.  The real beginning.  Let me also be the first to say, “Long Live the Revolution!”  I have written before as to why it must be so.

I haven’t given up on Ron Paul, but I admit to having been convinced by him that he cannot become America ’s President.  It took a long time.  I don’t know how often I’ve heard him tell reporters or interviewers that his followers “have cured (his) skepticism.”  I wince each time, because I know he doesn’t mean it.  Too bad.

Yesterday, Dr. Paul issued a statement that he would not challenge the obvious (my word, not his) vote fraud that took place in New Hampshire (and Iowa , for that matter).  “I am convinced that vote fraud played no role in this result,” said Dr. Paul.  I’d like to think that simply was his diplomacy talking.  Problem is, this is no time for diplomacy.

A manipulation of 2 or 3 percentage points, which is all that statistical analysis shows is likely to have occurred, would make little difference to the outcome, putting Dr. Paul ahead of the execrable Rudy Giuliani but still trailing Huckabee, Romney and McCain (there is one web site with analysis suggesting Dr. Paul would finish third).  However, demanding that the record be set right would have made all the difference in the world to those of us who knew it was coming.  Knew it because we’ve seen it happen before - in Ohio last time, in Florida the time before that and in too many places to be counted, all places where the Diebold electronic voting machines hold sway. 

The outcry began almost immediately, when members of a single family who voted lockstep for Ron Paul found, the next morning, that their entire community had tallied precisely zero votes for him.  And theirs is not the only community in New Hampshire saying the same thing.  Even so, one can infer manipulation from variations between pre-primary and exit polls and the final vote, of course.  As noted, variation from the poll figures took place only in those New Hampshire counties in which Diebold machines were used.  Elsewhere, the final (hand-written and hand-tabulated) votes tracked almost perfectly to the pre-primary and exit polls. 

You have to wonder:  Without all the pre-primary dirty tricks (phony polling, stacked “debate” questions, debate exclusion, debate marginalization, false media, no media, ridicule by other candidates and questioners) and with an honest vote count, might Dr. Paul actually have won New Hampshire outright?

Obama - Less of a Loser Than You Might Think

Even more badly aggrieved (and strangely silent on the issue of vote fraud) was Democrat Barack Obama, whose victory in New Hampshire blatantly was stolen for Hillary Clinton in precisely the same manner as was Dr. Paul’s placement stolen.  Where the votes were hand written and hand counted, Obama won, consistent with his pre-election and exit polling.  Only in the Diebold-counted counties did things turn around - and so dramatically that the final result overall was a bare win by Clinton . 

Pre-primary polls showed Obama winning with 38% to Clinton ’s 30%.  Normally super-accurate exit polls were a little different, with Obama at 39% and Clinton up to 35%, which exactly matched the results reported by precincts doing hand counts of hand-written ballots.  Diebold precincts turned it all around:  40% for Clinton and 35% for Obama, thereby allowing Clinton to edge Obama 39% to 37% with the overall totals.  Just like George Bush pulled it out, time and again, eight years ago and, yet again, four years ago.  Now you know why Hillary Clinton has been getting special briefings from the White House and why Bush I and Bill Clinton are such hard and fast pals.

I have explained before why they will not allow Obama to win this thing, even though the CFR has him in hand.  Obama’s sudden show of broad-based voter support makes it highly possible, if not likely, that he would defeat any of the current Republican front-runners in next year’s election.  Can’t have that, of course.  Never will Hillary Clinton defeat even the third-rate “leaders” now vying for the Republican nomination, so it is going to be another Republican schlep sworn in as, perhaps, America ’s last President.

Needed: A Boston Diebold Party

It could have been so much different. 

Challenge the New Hampshire results and prove the vote fraud in little towns where voters can testify in numbers greater than were recorded for Dr. Paul.  Show it to be more than a simple “transfer error” on the part of a couple of clerks.  Turn us loose to protest it.  Sue everybody in sight, especially Diebold.  File suit in upcoming states to force paper ballots that can be audited.  Demand that the US Supreme Court immediately assume jurisdiction upon proving any irregularity, no matter how small.

Boston Tea Party?  Hell, let’s have a Boston Diebold Party!  A little civil disobedience is just what we need at this time.  They can’t manipulate machines at the bottom of lakes, rivers and bays, after all.

Do the things I have outlined and we all would be in it for the long haul.  What’s more, exponentially we would increase our numbers through the outrage thereby generated.  We could have swept through the rest of the primaries, gaining strength and momentum with each stop.

Auditing - Just Another Word for Pointless

I have a Master’s degree in Accounting.  I have done accounting auditing.  I took an extra year at Cal Berkeley and very nearly double-majored with a Master’s in Information Science (computers), as well.  I have worked as a Systems Analyst, designing and fixing complex computer software systems.  I understand what is involved with computer auditing.  Auditing these Diebold-based elections is pointless.

It doesn’t matter if the two minor candidates now demanding recounts get them.  How do you audit electrons that are long gone?  The machines, well recognized to be sloppily designed and security nightmares, can be checked over.  The programming can be checked if you get the source code (which Diebold will not release).  The memory cards can be verified.  But, there is nothing to audit.  Once you change the vote inside the machine, there is no record, either internal or external, of that change.  In accounting terms, there is no “audit trail.”

A change can be forced by original programming, by external command via modem (yes, the machines are accessible by telephone line), by a flash-memory- based program that physically is in and out of the machine in less than a minute, leaving no trace, and by other means even more arcane.  The point is:  With Diebold voting machines, there is nothing to recount.

So why do I think it is such a mistake for Dr. Paul not to have demanded a recount?  Because the statistical inconsistencies and the testimony by voters whose votes got cast for other candidates would make a difference, open the dialogue in the public eye and provide a basis for legally challenging the machines.  Because the US Supreme Court is the ultimate political creature, an order disallowing Diebold machine usage in the face of growing public outrage is not at all out of the question.

Did you know that the Diebold voting machines are made in Israel ?  Did you know that an Israeli company was in charge of tallying the Iowa caucus results?  Did you know that Israel , like the Council on Foreign Relations, has blessed every Presidential candidate except Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich (Kucinich is one of the fellows demanding a recount in New Hampshire )?  Make of those facts what you will.  I’ll save what I make of them for another day.

You Could’a Been a Contender

Here’s the message you just delivered, Dr. Paul:  If you will sit still for vote fraud in New Hampshire , you will tolerate it elsewhere, too.  Besides, your post-New Hampshire primary statement made clear your intent to be satisfied with merely helping to set the agenda for the remainder of the contest.  You never thought you had a chance, but we knew you did.   You could’a been a contender.  No - you could have been President.

If you are content merely with influencing the campaign dialogue from here on out, then you seriously misread those of us out here in the trenches. We didn’t come to be satisfied with second place, even.  If Ron Paul does not become our President, then we have lost.  What’s more, we have lost our last chance to work within the system.

The powers that be seem not to have gotten the message (about our working within the system just this one, last time), in light of the obvious vote fraud that took place in both Iowa and New Hampshire.  They will learn, too late, what a monumental mistake that really was.

Though correcting the New Hampshire result may not seem to be worth the effort, had we immediately raised holy hell about the vote fraud, filing lawsuits left and right, calling press conferences, demanding recounts (using the money we already gave) and organizing protest rallies, possibly we could have salvaged this campaign.

Now that they know they can get away with it, they are going to keep manipulating votes through the Diebold machines, guaranteeing that we lose.  At least, by drawing the line in New Hampshire and anywhere that questionable vote counts emerged, we could have gone down swinging for the bleachers.

No More Money Bombs

There will be no more “money bombs.”  Had you taken even second place in New Hampshire, Dr. Paul, then all the money you possibly could spend - ever - would have been made available to you.  All without asking, just as you have not had to ask before.  Had you actually won New Hampshire, as some think you could, if only you had you spent all the money we gave you so far, we now would be discussing how best to keep them from killing you, but that no longer is an issue.  I’m glad for that, at least. 

I will hear none of this carping about paid election staff members, either, which has been going on for some time.  Dr. Paul chose them.  Dr. Paul chose to keep them in place.  Dr. Paul would be the first to accept full responsibility for their failings.

Make no mistake:  We still love you, Dr. Paul - and we always will.  You didn’t break our heart by failing to give it your all, but now there is another crack in it.  That is nothing, compared to what so many others before you have done, however.  We’ll get over it.  We always do.

You really should have committed 100% to your own “R3volution,” Dr. Paul, because we believed enough for you, too.  Together, we could have moved mountains.  Together, we could have changed America .

Long Live the Revolution

But, we still can change America and change her we will.  And you still will be the grand old man of the New Revolution, Dr. Paul.  You were there at the beginning, after all.  The times picked you for us, as they always have picked their own agents of change.  But you no longer are setting this beast’s agenda.  It has taken on a shape and a mind of its own now.  It will pick up speed and choose new leaders as it mows down everything in its path.  The times make the men, after all is said and done, not the other way around.

 Let them disallow Ron Paul a level playing field.  Let this play out and let them screw him every which way they can, with vote fraud, phony polling, stacked “debate” questions, debate exclusion, debate marginalization, false media, no media, ridicule by other candidates and questioners, recount trace kickover, etc.  That merely will serve to open the eyes of those who have chosen to support him and, thereby, greatly increase our number.

Based upon reports I have received from those attending big-city rallies, rallies that the controlled media does not report, things are moving a bit faster, even, than I long have anticipated.  I always thought and said that it will take obvious and widespread economic carnage and pain - plus our government actually shooting us down in the streets - before Americans get up off the couch and demand real change. 

Already, though, the demand for real change can be heard bouncing off the canyon walls in New York City and Chicago and wherever a critical mass of these too-young Ron Paul “meet-up” supporters assemble:  Neocons out!  Change now!  Listen carefully.  Can you hear it building in the distance?  I can!

Itz coming!

New America .  An idea whose time has come.

My name is Edgar J. Steele.  Thanks for listening.  Please visit my web site, www.ConspiracyPenPa, for other messages just like this one.


Copyright ©2008, Edgar J. Steele


Shamir's Note:
Views of Mr Bjerknes are indeed somewhat extreme, even for this very open list. They probably would be considered extreme everywhere, including But we are committed to freedom of speech, and we do not mind attacks from anti-zionist extreme so let people judge by themselves.

By Christopher Jon Bjerknes:

The Pro-Paul Sophistry of Israel Shamir

An Israeli Jew named Israel Shamir is telling us to vote for Ron Paul:


Supporting Ron Paul
Shamir admits that Paul is NOT an anti-Zionist, but does not acknowledge the demonstrable fact that Ron Paul is an extreme Zionist, a Zionist so extreme that he praised Israel for illegally bombing Iraq . Israel , Shamir that is, tells us not to bother our poor little American heads with the facts which prove that Ron Paul is working against our anti-Zionist interests and Paul is telling us NOT to discuss "911 truth". According to Israel Shamir our primary concern is to prevent war and defang the USA .


Is Israel Shamir oblivious to the fact that we are headed towards war with Iran as a result of Zionist warmongering, and that the only means to combat Zionist warmongering is to confront it and thereby defang the Zionists who are leading us into war with Iran? America is not the problem. Zionist Jews, Israel and Israel 's treacherous fifth column and fourth estate in America are the problem. Why is Shamir scapegoating Americans for Zionist Jewry's attacks on Islam and the rest of humanity, including Jews?


How is Ron Paul, an avowed Zionist himself and a member of Israel 's fifth column, going to prevent war with Iran when Paul will not challenge the Zionist warmongers, but instead praises and encourages their aggression? How is Ron Paul going to end Jewish false flag terrorism, when Paul enables it by blaming Moslems for Jewish acts of terror and war against the United States ?


Israel , the Jewish State that is, is preparing to attack Iran and the US will inevitably be dragged into this conflict by Zionist Jews and their agents. Even if Ron Paul were an anti-Zionist, and he is not, as President, Paul would be obliged by the Constitution to wage any war the Congress would declare. Shamir does NOT advise us to attempt to persuade Ron Paul of the error of his ways, but rather asks us to ignore our interests and favor Ron Paul who opposes anti-Zionists and "911 truthers", and instead favors Israel and Zionism.


If we want to prevent a war with Iran , then we have to stop the Zionist Jews who are deliberately forcing us into war with Iran . Ron Paul not only will not take this necessary step, he attacks any and all who do take this necessary step. If we want to defend ourselves from Jewish false flag terrorism, then we need to expose previous acts of Jewish false flag terrorism. Ron Paul will not only not take this necessary step, he attacks any and all who do take this necessary step.


In the first chapter of my book, The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein, on pages 32-88, I proved that Zionist Jews have often made the nations weary of war and then offer supposed solutions for war, which were detrimental to the nations, but would allegedly bring peace. Jewry knows that it is always easier to make a deal favorable to itself if the other party is desperate to make the deal. World Jewry makes us weary of war and then offers up their solutions which will allegedly bring peace, but at some horrible price, be it the loss of national sovereignty, loss of territory, or Jewish led revolution which nihilistically destroys government. Then World Jewry again deliberately brings us into war.


The Jewish "Ron Paul Revolution" is no exception. After Jewry has deliberately made us weary of war and brought us to the brink of economic collapse, the Zionists have left us on the two horns of a dilemma which they have created, either vote for their warmongers, or vote for their goldmonger who promises a revolution which will destroy America . Ron Paul has openly advocated an Israeli attack on Iran , which he must know will result in a war between the US and Iran . So their goldmonger is also a warmonger in disguise.


The Ron Paul pushers want us to submit to the ruin of the American Federal Government, and the adoption of the Gold Standard, which would bring famine and ruin to the World. The Ron Paul pushers want us to turn a blind eye to Ron Paul's Zionism and refusal to challenge Jewish false flag terrorism; because, so they allege, this will empower Ron Paul to put an end to Israeli aggression. If it weren't so deadly serious, the farce of their sophistry would be laughable.


If we want to end Jewish aggression against humanity, then we must fight back against those Jews who are committing aggression against us. Scapegoating Americans in general for this Jewish led aggression only enables the Zionist warmongers and will bring about more Jewish manufactured war. The "Ron Paul Revolution" is a Zionist front. It is not a solution to war. The solution to war is to directly confront World Jewry, which Ron Paul has pledged NOT to do.


By Karin Maria Friedemann:
Obviously, in the US you cannot win an election on an "anti-Zionist" platform. That means if you want to end war you have to be smart and think of a reason to cut US aid to Israel without sounding like you are opposed to Israel . I came up with this particular argument in the past (I don't want to pay for Israel 's existence because I'm broke) and found that it scares Zionists much more than the "poor Arabs" argument.


The leftist goal is to keep the numbers of the pro-Palestine movement small so they will always lose. It is usually done unconsciously, but it keeps the discussion of politics safely within the fringes of the Marxism of the gay and lesbian community.


I have formally divorced myself from all "peace activists" who have refused to support Ron Paul because all they want to do is have five people and a sign standing on the corner. They don't really want to do what it takes to end Zionism, which would be for each American to get active in organizing their voter precinct.


Ron Paul does not claim to be an anti-Zionist. Even if he were, it wouldn't help his cause to say it. What he is striving for is US neutrality. That would be a good start. If you want America to take arms against Israel it's not going to happen yet. That cannot happen until we first rid the US government of the lobbyists. And the only candidate that doesn't deal with lobbyists is Ron Paul.

By Joachim Martillo:

Ron Paul supports the right of nations to act in their own self-interest.

He probably would have supported the right of Iraq to bomb Israeli nuclear weapons sites for the same reason.

He simply does not feel the USA has any obligation to be involved in the various wars and conflicts in the ME.

In general, Zionists, who believe that the State of Israel should be integrated into an international system dominated by an international hegemon like Imperial Britain or Imperial America, hate Ron Paul. See

 Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine?

Attack Journalist Swiftboats Ron Paul .

Some Zionists believe that dependence on aid from the USA prevents Israel from achieving a "final solution" in the genocidal sense to what they perceive as the Arab and Muslim problem in the ME.

Yet a third group of Zionists believe that aid from the USA enables Israel to avoid engaging Arab and Muslim states in a genuine dialogue that will lead to peace.

As far as I know, all genuine anti-Zionists oppose continued US aid to the State of Israel and want to open up a dialogue in the US about US support for Israel .

As far as I can tell, Ron Paul does not take a position on Zionism or the State of Israel per se, but his desire to end all foreign aid and to open up a genuine discussion on the value of the alliance with Israel should be welcome to all anti-Zionists.

By putting the question of Israel on the national agenda, he has accomplished what genuine anti-Zionists have dreamed for years.

From checking out Christorpher Jon Bjerkness' web sites, I have the impression that he wants to organize a war on world Jewry or Zionists or both. At this point persuading the USA to engage in such an effort seems impossible, but getting the State of Israel off the US gravy train and removing Zionist hands from the pockets of American tax payer might be doable if Ron Paul can bring his message to the American public.

I will support Dr. Paul even if some Zionists also support cutting off US foreign aid to the State of Israel. Which candidate is better on the question of the State of Israel?

From http://www.cfr. org/publication/ 14756/, only Kucinich's position is comparable to Paul's.

Dennis Kucinich  

Rep. Kucinich (D-OH) is critical of Israeli use of force in the Palestinian territories. Although he has said that Hamas should renounce terrorism, he opposed the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, arguing that the legislation would exacerbate a humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian territories. He said the United States should urge Israel to "accept the Palestinians' right to self-determination and economic survival and humanitarian relief, for food, medical care, for jobs.  

In July 2006, Kucinich expressed concern that Israel 's response to the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers was disproportional and risked worsening conditions for Palestinian civilians. He called on Hamas to back down, but also argued that Israel should "halt its incursion into Gaza " and begin to work again toward a two-state solution.

Click here for this candidate's position on other top foreign policy issues.


Ron Paul would cut off US aid both to the State of Israel and to US puppet regimes in the ME. Because of Paul's formulation, Paul's position is probably much more palatable with the American public and much harder for Zionists to debate.

Ron Paul  

Rep. Paul (R-TX) has criticized U.S. "meddling" in the Middle East , which, he says, "has only intensified strife and conflict." He has said U.S. financial aid to Middle Eastern countries is only "adding fuel to the fire" and is "foolish and unconstitutional. " He says Israel does not "need" U.S. aid (Haaretz), and insists he is "not anti-Israel in any way." Though he advocates some U.S. diplomatic role in brokering an end to violence in the West Bank, he says the U.S. "should draw the line at any further entanglement."  
Paul spoke out against a July 2006 House resolution condemning attacks on Israel and "supporting Israel 's right to defend herself." He argued that the resolution's "strong message" could lead to an escalation of the war between Israel and Lebanon .

Click here for this candidate's position on other top foreign policy issues.



Donate $100 To Shamir Now!
Click here to join shamireaders
Click to join shamireaders