Informing Hawaii's voters
Submitted by Guest on Mon, 05/02/2016 - 21:26
by Ron Paul
May 1, 2016
Last week the House Armed Services Committee approved an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act requiring women to register with Selective Service. This means that if Congress ever brings back the draft, women will be forcibly sent to war.
The amendment is a response to the Pentagon’s decision to allow women to serve in combat. Supporters of drafting women point out that the ban on women in combat was the reason the Supreme Court upheld a male-only draft. Therefore, they argue, it is only logical to now force women to register for Selective Service. Besides, supporters of extending the draft point out, not all draftees are sent into combat.
Most of those who opposed drafting women did so because they disagreed with women being eligible for combat positions, not because they opposed the military draft. Few, if any, in Congress are questioning the morality, constitutionality, and necessity of Selective Service registration. Thus, this debate is just another example of how few of our so-called “representatives” actually care about our liberty.
Some proponents of a military draft justify it as “payback” for the freedom the government provides its citizens. Those who make this argument are embracing the collectivist premise that since our rights come from government, the government can take away those rights whether it suits their purposes. Thus supporters of the draft are turning their backs on the Declaration of Independence.
While opposition to the draft is seen as a progressive or libertarian position, many conservatives, including Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and Robert Taft, were outspoken opponents of conscription. Unfortunately, the militarism that has led so many conservatives astray in foreign policy has also turned many of them into supporters of mandatory Selective Service registration. Yet many of these same conservatives strongly and correctly oppose mandatory gun registration. In a free society you should never have to register your child or your gun.
Sadly, some opponents of the warfare state, including some libertarians, support the draft on the grounds that a draft would cause a mass uprising against the warfare state. Proponents of this view point to the draft’s role in galvanizing opposition to the Vietnam War. This argument ignores that fact that it took several years and the deaths of thousands of American draftees for the anti-Vietnam War movement to succeed.
A variation on this argument is that drafting women will cause an antiwar backlash as Americans recoil form the idea of forcing mothers into combat. But does anyone think the government would draft mothers with young children?
Reinstating the draft will not diminish the war party’s influence as long as the people continue to believe the war propaganda fed to them by the military-industrial complex’s media echo chamber. Changing the people’s attitude toward the warfare state and its propaganda organs is the only way to return to a foreign policy of peace and commerce with all.
Even if the draft could serve as a check on the warfare state, those who support individual liberty should still oppose it. Libertarians who support violating individual rights to achieve a political goal, even a goal as noble as peace, undermine their arguments against non-aggression and thus discredit both our movement, and, more importantly, our philosophy.
A military draft is one of—if not the—worst violations of individual rights committed by modern governments. The draft can also facilitate the growth of the warfare state by lowering the cost of militarism. All those who value peace, prosperity, and liberty must place opposition to the draft at the top of their agenda.
Copyright © 2016 by the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
Submitted by Guest on Wed, 04/27/2016 - 22:00
Submitted by Guest on Wed, 04/27/2016 - 20:07
Hawaii Political Info introduction: An effective war strategy when a country's leaders are determined to wage war is to get the other side to strike the first blow so that public condemnation goes to that party and the actual instigator is looked upon as an innocent victim who must bravely fight to defend itself. Among the many examples in history, the U.S. did it in WWII and Israel did it in the 1967 War, although in that case Israel found it more expedient to attack first while lying and saying the other side struck the first blow, knowing that Americans would believe the chosen ones over a bunch of perceived (at the time) primitive, dimwitted and weird-looking ragheads.
With the Jewish domination of the American press and key bought-off and credulous U.S. government officials, Israel, as expected, got by with the lie. How did Israel know the lie would be successful? Because it had had plenty of previous practice with other lies fed to the credulous public, particularly Zionist Christians, who apparently get a lot of satisfaction in believing in fairy tales if linked to a so-called biblical prophecy.
When the truth about Israel striking the first blow finally and slowly leaked out, without attention being called to the fact that at the time in 1967 America was told that Israel was attacked first by a coalition of warmongering Arabs, there was little to no outcry from the short-memory American public.
by Manlio Dinucci
Global Research, April 27, 2016
In-depth Report: Nuclear War
Nuclear Weapons And Interceptor Missiles: Twin Pillars Of U.S.-NATO Military Strategy In Europe
The United States feigned surprise during the simulation of an attack by the Russian aviation against the USS Donald Cook in the Baltic Sea. And yet, as we have reported, Russia already has the capacity to block the ship’s Communications & Commands, and did so, observes Manlio Dinucci, because the ship was in the process of violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). Furthermore, the US nuclear deployment occurred as China is developing hypersonic launchers, a part of whose trajectory will be in glide mode, inspiring new research by DARPA. As from now, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin are participating in the Tactical Boost Glide Program.
The White House is «preoccupied» because Russian fighters flew over a US ship at very close range in the Baltic Sea, making a «simulated attack» – as reported by our news agencies. However, they did not inform us as to which ship it was, nor why it was in the Baltic Sea.
In fact, it was the USS Donald Cook, one of the four missile-launching units deployed by the US Navy for the «defence of NATO missiles in Europe». These units, which are to be increased in number, are equipped with the Aegis radar system and SM-3 interceptor missiles, but also with double-capacity Tomahawk cruise missiles, both conventional and nuclear. In other words, they are nuclear attack units equipped with a «shield» designed to neutralise the enemy riposte.
Read more . . .
Aaron Russo, Nick Rockefeller and the Council on Foreign Relations
One-Page Summary of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
Submitted by Guest on Wed, 04/27/2016 - 02:32
By Patrick J. Buchanan
April 21, 2016
In Samuel Eliot Morison’s “The Oxford History of the American People,” there is a single sentence about Harriet Tubman.
“An illiterate field hand, (Tubman) not only escaped herself but returned repeatedly and guided more than 300 slaves to freedom.”
Morison, however, devotes most of five chapters to the greatest soldier-statesman in American history, save Washington, that pivotal figure between the Founding Fathers and the Civil War — Andrew Jackson.
Read more . . .
Submitted by Guest on Mon, 04/25/2016 - 16:47
Submitted by Guest on Mon, 04/25/2016 - 15:52
Submitted by Guest on Mon, 04/25/2016 - 03:33
Hawaii Political Info introduction: The threats are coming from Christians
By Chuck Baldwin
There is a saying that goes, "If you are taking flack, you must be over the target." Well, brothers and sisters, I must be over the epicenter of enemy territory for all of the explosions going off around me. And almost without exception, the assaults against my work (and character) are coming from Christian Zionists. I have never in my life witnessed such vindictiveness, viciousness, ferocity, and downright hatred with the intent to destroy like I have witnessed during the last three months.
Well known "Christian Conservatives" are preparing "hit" pieces against me that will be published in well known publications and on popular conservative websites soon. People that re-post and republish my columns are being personally called and threatened if they don't remove me. There is an all-out effort to literally destroy me and the work I'm doing (not to mention my family).
But I just thought I would share my reply to an email letter from a well known "conservative" writer giving me a heads up to what he was preparing for me. He is also one who personally called web hosts in an attempt to intimidate them from carrying my columns.
Here is what I wrote him in response (name withheld--I will let him draw first blood in public):
"No, I didn’t know who the man was, but it doesn’t change the truth that he spoke. I once learned that God spoke truth out of the lips of a dumb jackass. Imagine that. I have enjoyed your columns over the years, _____, but I never realized until now that you are a hatchet man for the Israeli lobby. Yeah, _____ is a little intimidated by your (and others’) threats—hence the disclaimer. I hope the Zionists are paying you well, Sir. I can honestly say I have NEVER pandered my positions to the threats, intimidations, or favors of ANYONE. And I don’t intend to start now. That seems to be a rare commodity these days, doesn’t it?
"With no ill will,
"'I am for peace; but when I speak, they are for war.' (King David)"
© Chuck Baldwin
Hawaii Political Info commentary: Chuck's two most recent sermons illustrate why what Chuck calls "Christian Zionists" are out for blood: "We Few, We Happy Few" and A Thief, A False Prophet, And The Last Anti Christ. These also reveal grave problems within the Christian church.
What does the New Testament say about Jews and their relationship with Christ? Here are a few excerpts among the many found particularly among the four gospels and Acts:
John 8 (Jesus talking directly to Jews who sought to kill him) 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Matthew 27: 24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person [Jesus]: see ye to it.
25 Then answered all the people [Jews], and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
John 20 19 Then the same day [of Christ's resurrection] at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
Submitted by Guest on Mon, 04/25/2016 - 00:45
Hawaii Political Info summary: Ron Paul agrees with Prince Faisal that a "recalibration" of the U.S.-Saudi Arabia relationship is necessary. King Salman deliberately humiliated President Obama when he arrived last week in Saudi Arabia for a visit. Our relationship could blow up if those missing 28 pages of the 9/11 report are released.
by Ron Paul
April 24, 2016
For decades the US and Saudi Arabia have shared a peculiar relationship: the Saudis sell relatively cheap oil to the United States for which they accept our fiat currency. They then recycle those paper dollars into the US military-industrial complex through the purchase of billions of dollars worth of military equipment, and the US guarantees the security of the Saudi monarchy.
By accepting only dollars for the sale of its oil, the Saudis help the dollar remain the world’s reserve currency. This has meant that we can export inflation, finance the warfare/welfare state, and delay our day of financial reckoning.
But it seems this longstanding entangling alliance is coming apart.
First, the US nuclear deal with Iran has infuriated the Saudis. They view Iran as bitter rivals and spared no expense in Washington to derail the deal. They were not successful – at least not yet. They have also been frustrated that the US has not devoted more of its resources to the Saudi “regime change” project in Syria, seen as a way to reduce Iranian influence in the Middle East.
But it is the potential release of the secret 28 pages of the 9/11 Report that purportedly show Saudi government involvement in the attacks on New York and Washington that threatens to really blow up US/Saudi relations. The relatives of the victims are demanding the right to hold the Saudi government legally accountable if it is shown to have had a role in the attacks, and the Senate’s “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” would lift Saudi sovereign immunity and allow lawsuits to go forward. The Saudis threaten to dump three-quarters of a trillion dollars in US assets if the bill becomes law – a move that could rock world markets and even the shaky Saudi economy.
President Obama’s disastrous visit to the Saudi capital last week may have been seen as the last straw. Billed in Washington as a trip to shore up relations, President Obama got the cold shoulder as the Saudi monarch sent a low-level functionary to meet the US president’s plane while he met an incoming delegation from the Gulf Cooperation Council. The message was pretty clear.
The Obama PR team tried to put a positive spin on the visit, saying it "really cleared the air" between the two countries. But influential former Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Turki Al-Faisal disagreed, telling CNN that there is going to have to be "a recalibration of our relationship with America."
I happen to agree with Prince Faisal. We are long overdue for a recalibration of our relationship. While I do not believe we have any business telling the Saudis how to run their country, the decades-long special arrangement must come to an end. No more US-taxpayer subsidized arms deals to a Saudi Arabia that slaughters civilians in Yemen, transfers weapons to ISIS and other Islamist extremists in Syria and elsewhere, beheads its own citizens for minor offenses, finances terrorism overseas, and threatens other countries in the region. It should be known that no longer will the US guarantee the security of the Saudi kingdom.
If the Saudis refuse to sell us their oil in protest, there are other producers who would be happy to step in. The Iranians have long been prevented from selling their oil on the world market. If the Saudi government was involved in the 9/11 attacks, it should enjoy no immunity from justice. If that means reciprocal moves from other countries against the harm US foreign policy causes overseas, so be it.
Yes, Prince Faisal. By all means let’s "recalibrate" our relationship. No more entangling alliances with Saudi Arabia!
Copyright © 2016 by the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
Submitted by Guest on Sun, 04/24/2016 - 15:54
And don’t think America is safe
by Jon Rappoport
April 24, 2016
A vaccine scandal has erupted in China.
Time Magazine reports (“China Vaccine Scandal Prompts Angry Backlash From Parents and Doctors,” 3/22/2016):
“Furious parents and health care professionals in China are demanding to know how almost $90 million of improperly stored and potentially fatal vaccines were distributed across some two-thirds of the country over the past five years, in the latest public-health scandal to raise serious questions over the efficacy of the Chinese Communist Party’s rule.
Read more . . .
Submitted by Guest on Sat, 04/23/2016 - 23:43