Since I was a child, there was always one particular virtue that stood out to me to be of utmost importance. Above all others, it was honesty (as well as the quest for the truth).
The importance of hearing, speaking, understanding, and accepting the truth is not only one of the most crucial of virtues, but also possibly the most debilitated as well. Although, as I have discovered, it is not so much the efforts to cover-up the truth that keeps it in the trenches. In fact it is more so the fear of discovering the truth itself that allows this deceit to continue.
Nothing is more overruling in the quest for the truth than the power of denial.
Whether it's the denial of the fact that your son smokes pot, after you find a pack of rolling papers and an empty baggy in his jacket pocket, or the denial of the fact that you live in a country on the brink's of disaster.
For this very reason, many of you will stop reading this before you finish, or even giving it a second look. But, this is what scares me even more than our government itself. The fact that we live in a country where people would rather spend their free time watching a special on "Entertainment Tonight" (about what Actor is banging Angelina Jolie) than what is actually happening in the real world.
After talking with several people on this subject, I've come to discover that it's not always that they actually think nothing corrupt is going on; but rather that they'd just rather not know about it (or atleast, not talk about it). However, this fact alone is what allows such corruption to continue.
We have gotten to the point where, if our country was faced with another serious terrorist attack, we would WILLINGLY sacrifice the few remaining individual liberties we have left...in the name of "safety" of course.
For those of you have an American flag sticker in the window of your car, or consider yourself in any way a patriot, take a few minutes to look at the liberties we have already lost with the Patriot Act (it won't hurt to read a little bit more, I promise).
Here's another interesting one I just found recently that most people probably have never heard of. A Presidential Directive called Directive 51. To sum it up, in the event of our President declaring a "national state of emergency", he could then assume full control over not only all three branches of the federal government, but all local levels as well (if you don't understand, this would make him a full dictator). Oddly enough, this wasn't something that he signed shortly after 9/11, but it was actually created back in May of 2007 (5/9/07). Why now? And why was this not covered by the major news networks?
With the elections coming up next year and talks of expanding the "War on Terror" into Iran, while the majority of Americans seem to have lost their enthusiasm for it, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a large scale attack against this country before the end of 2008.
Now...I'm not accusing the Bush administration of being directly responsible for 9/11; however to think that the attack was completely unexpected would have to be the result of a denial of the evident truth, with which I spoke of earlier.
I don't know how I could possibly encourage everyone strongly enough to watch the Zeitgeist Movie. Whether it is 100% factual is not only beyond me, but beyond the point as well. It's never hurt to explore alternatives to the overwhelmingly accepted truths of mainstream society. I have however, researched a majority of the claims within the film and found them to be completely accurate. I encourage everyone to do their own research, but for anyone not to watch with an open mind would only prove your own unpatriotic natures, but a pure cowardice of learning the truth.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Letter To Neal Boortz
I just recently sent an email to Neal Boortz that I've reposted below.
-
I'm sure your getting tired of the emails about Ron Paul by now, (I promise I won't use the N-word) but I just had a quick question regarding our current situation in the middle-east.
I only recently started to question our presence over-seas, and just for the record I did vote to reelect Bush in 04'. And the reasons for my recent skepticism are as follows.
Bin Laden did not think he could single-handedly overthrow the largest and most highly developed military on the planet. But rather, as an intelligent person, his plan would have been to draw the U.S. into a slow-bleeding war that drove us into bankruptcy.
Furthermore, if our efforts were an attempt to once and for all create some sort of peace within the region, then the "evil" has to be pulled out by it's roots in order to prevent it from growing back twice as thick next time around. Which, as I see it, the roots of all "evil" (call it what you will) is the money. You know, the trillions and trillions of dollars in oil they're sitting on. I'm not suggesting we go over and steal it all, but there is an effective way to eliminate the value of this oil without losing a single American life (or spending anymore of the tax payers money). That's by eliminating the demand for oil through the introduction of practical alternatives to petroleum. Should have, and could have been done long ago. Probably due to...once again the money issue, where the politicians and car companies have their hands in some deep pockets.
Lastly, I do understand the importance of taking a tough stance against the threat of terrorism. Which is why I think we should have put more effort into the search for the actual mastermind of 9/11, Bin Laden. In addition to spending more of our time and tax dollars defending our own country (rather than Iraq) and correcting the mistakes in our security that allowed 9/11 to occur in the first place. i.e. allow our airlines to be responsible for the safety of their own passengers, rather than leaving that up to the government (even though they've done so well...).
I suppose that's all I have to say for now. Hope to hear a response from you, and I appreciate your time.
Thanks,
Chad Evans
-
Could have said a lot more, but I wanted to keep it short for someone like Neal. Who, from listening to his show, has rather little patience for anything that challenges his opinion.
-
I'm sure your getting tired of the emails about Ron Paul by now, (I promise I won't use the N-word) but I just had a quick question regarding our current situation in the middle-east.
I only recently started to question our presence over-seas, and just for the record I did vote to reelect Bush in 04'. And the reasons for my recent skepticism are as follows.
Bin Laden did not think he could single-handedly overthrow the largest and most highly developed military on the planet. But rather, as an intelligent person, his plan would have been to draw the U.S. into a slow-bleeding war that drove us into bankruptcy.
Furthermore, if our efforts were an attempt to once and for all create some sort of peace within the region, then the "evil" has to be pulled out by it's roots in order to prevent it from growing back twice as thick next time around. Which, as I see it, the roots of all "evil" (call it what you will) is the money. You know, the trillions and trillions of dollars in oil they're sitting on. I'm not suggesting we go over and steal it all, but there is an effective way to eliminate the value of this oil without losing a single American life (or spending anymore of the tax payers money). That's by eliminating the demand for oil through the introduction of practical alternatives to petroleum. Should have, and could have been done long ago. Probably due to...once again the money issue, where the politicians and car companies have their hands in some deep pockets.
Lastly, I do understand the importance of taking a tough stance against the threat of terrorism. Which is why I think we should have put more effort into the search for the actual mastermind of 9/11, Bin Laden. In addition to spending more of our time and tax dollars defending our own country (rather than Iraq) and correcting the mistakes in our security that allowed 9/11 to occur in the first place. i.e. allow our airlines to be responsible for the safety of their own passengers, rather than leaving that up to the government (even though they've done so well...).
I suppose that's all I have to say for now. Hope to hear a response from you, and I appreciate your time.
Thanks,
Chad Evans
-
Could have said a lot more, but I wanted to keep it short for someone like Neal. Who, from listening to his show, has rather little patience for anything that challenges his opinion.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Monday, October 8, 2007
A Weekend In Nashville With Ron Paul
I made a trip to Nashville over the weekend to attend the Ron Paul rallies at the War Memorial Auditorium. There was a good turnout of just under 1500 people there.
Videos I put together of the event
Videos I put together of the event
Friday, October 5, 2007
Freedom Message Cards
There's an exciting and powerful new tool to get Dr. Paul's message out.
Give this card so people can quickly and easily listen to Ron Paul's position on several key issues in his own voice.
Tell people to "Hear For Yourself" (These three words are a great way to introduce the card to someone).
They can call from their cell or home phone and within a few minutes know core position that Dr. Paul has on 9 Key issues. It also includes two links to official Ron Paul campaign websites.
This new card is best for those who do not have internet access, senior voters, or others.
We envision Ron Paul supporters:
- Stuffing these in envelopes to all their personal contacts,
- Carrying them on their person to hand out at work and in social situations, and
- Coming up with new ways to use these cards to help spread Ron's message of liberty.
You could even call the number yourself and listen with a friend, neighbor or relative on a speaker phone so that you could deepen their understanding or correct any misunderstandings.
Try it for yourself! Dial 1-641-715-3900
US Foreign Policy--------------4 min.-----Ext. 35004#
Protecting Civil Liberties-----3 min.-----Ext. 35005#
Healthcare Reform--------------5 min.-----Ext. 35006#
Fixing the Inflation Tax-------2 min.-----Ext. 35007#
Taxes and the IRS--------------2 min.-----Ext. 35008#
Entitlements-------------------4 min.-----Ext. 35009#
Second Amendment---------------3 min.-----Ext. 35010#
Immigration Sanity-------------3 min.-----Ext. 35011#
Our Constitutional Republic----6 min.-----Ext. 35012#
Hear the latest from Ron Paul-------------Ext. 35013#
Thursday, October 4, 2007
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Hermann Goering (Nazi founder of the Gestapo)
- Hermann Goering (Nazi founder of the Gestapo)
Wikipedia Rudy Giuliani
It's actually a pretty interesting write-up. And I don't mean to keep going after Rudy, but he just makes it so easy. I'll just make sure I never move to New York (not that I would).
So, In addition to the fact that (as we all know) Rudy WAS in New York when the attacks on 9/11 occurred, he likes to emphasize the drastic decrease in the crime rates that occurred while he was Mayor.
As you can see, this drop not only began before his term as Mayor, but was comparable to that of other major cities at that time. Oh well.
I suggest reading into his early life and education, as well as the article on "law enforcement". Do the names Abner Louima, Amadou Diallo, or Patrick Dorismond ring a bell? I doubt it, but the latter of the two were both killed in different instances by police officers in NYC. Both unarmed and guilty of nothing. Rudy later released Patrick Dorismond's sealed juvenile delinquency records in order to protect the officers involved. Doing so on the basis, of course...that dead people don't have any rights to privacy. And then there was Louima who, after receiving several beatings was sodomized with a plunger, and kicked in the groin...at the 70th Precinct station house in Brooklyn. Oh well.
If this wasn't enough, I learned how his father "Harold Giuliani...had been convicted of felony assault and robbery and served time in Sing Sing;[14] after his release he served as a Mafia enforcer for his brother-in-law Leo D'Avanzo, who ran an organized crime operation involved in loan sharking and gambling at a restaurant in Brooklyn."
Like I said, pretty interesting stuff.
So, In addition to the fact that (as we all know) Rudy WAS in New York when the attacks on 9/11 occurred, he likes to emphasize the drastic decrease in the crime rates that occurred while he was Mayor.
As you can see, this drop not only began before his term as Mayor, but was comparable to that of other major cities at that time. Oh well.
I suggest reading into his early life and education, as well as the article on "law enforcement". Do the names Abner Louima, Amadou Diallo, or Patrick Dorismond ring a bell? I doubt it, but the latter of the two were both killed in different instances by police officers in NYC. Both unarmed and guilty of nothing. Rudy later released Patrick Dorismond's sealed juvenile delinquency records in order to protect the officers involved. Doing so on the basis, of course...that dead people don't have any rights to privacy. And then there was Louima who, after receiving several beatings was sodomized with a plunger, and kicked in the groin...at the 70th Precinct station house in Brooklyn. Oh well.
If this wasn't enough, I learned how his father "Harold Giuliani...had been convicted of felony assault and robbery and served time in Sing Sing;[14] after his release he served as a Mafia enforcer for his brother-in-law Leo D'Avanzo, who ran an organized crime operation involved in loan sharking and gambling at a restaurant in Brooklyn."
Like I said, pretty interesting stuff.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
GOP Shows How Conservative They Really Are
I'm sorry, this is an older video, but I just had to post something to knock that picture of Giuliani down far enough so I wouldn't see it every time I looked at the page. I think it was starting to burn itself into my retinas. Scary...
Anyways, this video was from BEFORE the results of last quarters fund-raisings. So take into consideration that Ron Paul now has over $5 million sitting in the bank from this last quarter, and still has some left over from the second quarter. Unlike McCain, who I believe has already spent about half of his raising's from the third quarter.
The Real Rudy Guiliani - And What Caused 9/11
It's not that this scares me because I'm afraid he'll actually be elected, because he doesn't stand a chance against Hillary. But it's sad that so many Republicans are going to waste their vote in the primaries on a candidate like this.
Ron Paul is THE ONLY Republican currently running who stands a chance at beating the Democratic nominee for President (if you don't take my word for it, "Why The GOP Must Nominate Ron Paul"). Just take a look at the numbers. 70% of Americans want us out of this war, and will vote for whichever candidate they feel will do so the fastest. And Ron Paul currently has more support from our military than any other candidate (Republican or Democrat). Could that be because they're not listening to whom the media is telling us to vote for, and are actually looking into the candidates on their own? Maybe the rest of us should do the same.
The REAL Rudy: Mistakes in 30 seconds
Rudy Giuliani: America's Mayor or American Fraud
Giuliani Gets Exposed As Fraud by Firefighters
What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't
If you don't want Hillary Clinton to be your next President, please pass this message on to as many people as you can.
Support our troops, AND BRING THEM HOME!
Official Ron Paul campaign website 2008
Monday, October 1, 2007
Sean Hannity Learns A New Fact
I guess it's easier to talk about the war than it is to actually be over there fighting in it. And it seems like Americans who are in the military would have a better idea of what's really going on over there, and whether or not they think what they're doing is the right thing to do or not. I'd like to be able to tell Sean Hannity where he can stick it on this issue, but sadly the only way anyone can talk to him is on his own show. And we all know, that anyone who says something that challenges his opinion is quickly cut short.
And by the way, Fox News Channel had already reported the fact that Ron Paul had received more campaign support from our military than any other candidate. You'd think he would know this, seeing as how he has a show on the very same channel.
And by the way, Fox News Channel had already reported the fact that Ron Paul had received more campaign support from our military than any other candidate. You'd think he would know this, seeing as how he has a show on the very same channel.
Support our troops. Vote Ron Paul.
FOX News Poll: Most Think Democrats Will Win White House in 2008
View the article on FoxNews.com
I don't really understand how Republicans haven't seen these kinds of stories as a wake up call yet. If they actually want a Republican in the White House, as opposed to...most likely another Clinton (even worse than the first), then we will have to nominate a candidate who actually has a chance of winning and getting back some of these swing voters and crossovers that are only voting for the candidate they think will be a change of pace from President Bush. Mostly to get us out of Iraq, although I honestly don't believe that's actually what any of the front-runners for the Democratic party would really do. If you listen to the way they speak of it, they use the word "redeployment", meaning:
tr.v. re·de·ployed, re·de·ploy·ing, re·de·ploys
1. To move (military forces) from one combat zone to another.
2. To shift (something) from one place or use to another for greater effectiveness: redeploy the company's resources.
Ron Paul's policy is a little easier to understand when he says, simply "bring our troops home".
I'm gonna say it right now; if Ron Paul does not win the Republican primaries our next President will go by a title that sounds all too familiar. That's President Clinton.
And yes, that really scares me. Especially when we already have a Democratically controlled Congress that would allow her to do almost anything she wanted to. I guess I'm personally just not a big fan of having a National ID card, being forced into a Nationwide mandatory health insurance policy, or one of her most recent ideas is giving a $5000 baby bond to all new-born babies in this country. Yeah, all 40 million a year. I'll do the math for you, that's 200 billion dollars a year. I think I'd rather just try to worry about taking care of my own. I guess that makes me a bad person though, I don't know.
Ron Paul Raises $1.2 Million In 7 Days
Mr. Chad Evans,
Thank you very much for your donation of $75.00 to the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign.
Your donation will allow us to expand and grow our campaign.
We depend on donors like you to help us spread the message of freedom, peace and prosperity through Ron Paul’s candidacy.
Thanks for being a part of the campaign!
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
"You Tube" Obama?
Really shows how much his supporters are interested in his politics. And yes...he shaves his chest.
But, I'm really going to try to find an Obama video on YouTube, where he actually discusses his politics...just hang on...
Wait...this may be it...Oh, nevermind, that wasn't it.
Ok, lemme keep looking here...wait, here's one where he actually almost explains his position (atleast on the war), but more so just states it, rather than actually explaining why.But still I haven't really heard anything, other than the fact that he opposes the war. Which if that was all that mattered, there are plenty of other candidates who feel the same way. So...why does it seem that he has so much support?
And by the way, the number of views on the first video were 3,799,679. As compared to the views of that last video which were 245,807. And even still he hasn't really discussed his politics or explained his stance on anything.
I hate to do this, but I'm gonna have to keep looking until I find a video where he gives some real answers and explanations, rather than just raising more questions.
...I've gotten down to under 100,000 views now and still haven't found anything that really explains his true positions (other than that he wants to get out of Iraq and spend more of OUR money on other things like health-care and education; in this country as well as abroad). So...this may take a few days.
In the mean-time, this is Ron Paul's most popular video currently on YouTube, with 491,412 views.He certainly doesn't seem quite as afraid to explain his points of view, like most (if not all) of the other candidates running for President are. People are allowing themselves to be misled by the other candidates since they avoid giving real explanations for their positions, but rather use strong key words like, "honor" or "patriotic". This seems to really get people worked up and earn their support, even if they don't really know what they're rooting for.
But, I'm really going to try to find an Obama video on YouTube, where he actually discusses his politics...just hang on...
Wait...this may be it...Oh, nevermind, that wasn't it.
Ok, lemme keep looking here...wait, here's one where he actually almost explains his position (atleast on the war), but more so just states it, rather than actually explaining why.But still I haven't really heard anything, other than the fact that he opposes the war. Which if that was all that mattered, there are plenty of other candidates who feel the same way. So...why does it seem that he has so much support?
And by the way, the number of views on the first video were 3,799,679. As compared to the views of that last video which were 245,807. And even still he hasn't really discussed his politics or explained his stance on anything.
I hate to do this, but I'm gonna have to keep looking until I find a video where he gives some real answers and explanations, rather than just raising more questions.
...I've gotten down to under 100,000 views now and still haven't found anything that really explains his true positions (other than that he wants to get out of Iraq and spend more of OUR money on other things like health-care and education; in this country as well as abroad). So...this may take a few days.
In the mean-time, this is Ron Paul's most popular video currently on YouTube, with 491,412 views.He certainly doesn't seem quite as afraid to explain his points of view, like most (if not all) of the other candidates running for President are. People are allowing themselves to be misled by the other candidates since they avoid giving real explanations for their positions, but rather use strong key words like, "honor" or "patriotic". This seems to really get people worked up and earn their support, even if they don't really know what they're rooting for.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
What Is A Patriot?
So...It's not longer patriotic to question our government and correct their mistakes as the Constitution tells us we should. But rather, "patriotism", is blindly following our governments policies, while on the sidelines we watch thousands of innocents...as well as our own brave men and women, being killed.
They say we are at war because these "terrorists" want to kill innocent Americans...Why would they want to do such a thing? Is it because were (mostly) Christians, and they're Muslim?...Is it simply cultural differences?...Or could it be because we've been in the region for over 50 years, trying to keep them in line. Now, it's true a lot of the resistance we're currently facing is coming from surrounding countries of Iraq, but how many of them were simply innocent Iraqi people fighting to defend their homes as well as their homeland? I know that if some foreign governments military (or even my own, for that matter) were to come into my home, with guns in hand, ready to trash my house and kill anyone who showed resistance; I'd be putting up a fight as well.
However, no one has invaded MY home and pointed their guns at me. And yet, we've invaded their country with the reasoning that they pose a direct threat to the American people. Which, regardless of the truth to this statement, gives us no right to put our lives (besides the ones that we have lost in Iraq), and our security (besides the security that we have lost as a result of our interventions), over that of the innocent Iraqi population.
In addition, what gives us the right to say that one government or another, is not allowed to have certain weapons, in order to defend themselves. I mean, this is true with gun control as well. It is statistically proven, that in areas with 'limited' gun control crime rates are DECREASED. This is because, regardless of whether the criminal has a gun or not; if he thinks there is a chance that his victim may, he is far less likely to try to commit a crime against them. And even more so if he KNOWS his victim is armed and ready to defend him/herself, the chances are slim to none that he will attempt any sort of aggression towards that person. Having a nuclear power should be looked at the same way. I don't care who you are or how mad you are at the U.S., there's nobody stupid enough to even attempt to drop a nuke on us. That's because, even if they did manage to get one through our defense system, whatever country that bomb came from; there would be nothing left but a hole in the ground. After that there's nothing left to fight for.
It's just funny to me that, now were so focused on invading these countries, now that we've suffered a major attack; but we never stopped to ask why people on the opposite end of the earth would possibly want to attack us. They're certainly not trying to take us over. I mean, who would want to take over a country that's on the verge of bankruptcy anyway? And, if it's an attack on our freedom, then why were we so quick to hand it over (with the enactment of the "Patriot Act")...to..."surrender" these freedoms?
These "Neo-Con" Republicans are so focused on preventing terrorism BEFORE it happens, that WE have literally, BECOME the terrorists. With our preemptive, and invasive foreign policy, the hatred that 9/11 has caused amongst our own country, has the same effect within the Middle-east. But...I suppose it is hard to see that, from so far away.
The fact is, that we have been in their region since 1953, when we assisted Britain in a plot to remove then Iranian Prime-Minister Mossadegh from power. This was a result of his efforts to return his countries oil, from Britain's control, to his own people. Of course, we tied this in with the Cold War with Russia, but the point is...since then, whether it was Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan, we have seen it as our place to step in, and control the direction of the Middle-east's economy and politics.
Another thing I find interesting is how the Republican and Democratic parties have swapped places as far as their positions on America's foreign policy is concerned. The following video is one of Al Gore, from 1992 speaking against Iraq, and former President George Bush's failure to act against his attempts to develop a nuclear power.
Who hasn't changed his stance on foreign policy?...That's right...Ron Paul.
They say we are at war because these "terrorists" want to kill innocent Americans...Why would they want to do such a thing? Is it because were (mostly) Christians, and they're Muslim?...Is it simply cultural differences?...Or could it be because we've been in the region for over 50 years, trying to keep them in line. Now, it's true a lot of the resistance we're currently facing is coming from surrounding countries of Iraq, but how many of them were simply innocent Iraqi people fighting to defend their homes as well as their homeland? I know that if some foreign governments military (or even my own, for that matter) were to come into my home, with guns in hand, ready to trash my house and kill anyone who showed resistance; I'd be putting up a fight as well.
However, no one has invaded MY home and pointed their guns at me. And yet, we've invaded their country with the reasoning that they pose a direct threat to the American people. Which, regardless of the truth to this statement, gives us no right to put our lives (besides the ones that we have lost in Iraq), and our security (besides the security that we have lost as a result of our interventions), over that of the innocent Iraqi population.
In addition, what gives us the right to say that one government or another, is not allowed to have certain weapons, in order to defend themselves. I mean, this is true with gun control as well. It is statistically proven, that in areas with 'limited' gun control crime rates are DECREASED. This is because, regardless of whether the criminal has a gun or not; if he thinks there is a chance that his victim may, he is far less likely to try to commit a crime against them. And even more so if he KNOWS his victim is armed and ready to defend him/herself, the chances are slim to none that he will attempt any sort of aggression towards that person. Having a nuclear power should be looked at the same way. I don't care who you are or how mad you are at the U.S., there's nobody stupid enough to even attempt to drop a nuke on us. That's because, even if they did manage to get one through our defense system, whatever country that bomb came from; there would be nothing left but a hole in the ground. After that there's nothing left to fight for.
It's just funny to me that, now were so focused on invading these countries, now that we've suffered a major attack; but we never stopped to ask why people on the opposite end of the earth would possibly want to attack us. They're certainly not trying to take us over. I mean, who would want to take over a country that's on the verge of bankruptcy anyway? And, if it's an attack on our freedom, then why were we so quick to hand it over (with the enactment of the "Patriot Act")...to..."surrender" these freedoms?
These "Neo-Con" Republicans are so focused on preventing terrorism BEFORE it happens, that WE have literally, BECOME the terrorists. With our preemptive, and invasive foreign policy, the hatred that 9/11 has caused amongst our own country, has the same effect within the Middle-east. But...I suppose it is hard to see that, from so far away.
The fact is, that we have been in their region since 1953, when we assisted Britain in a plot to remove then Iranian Prime-Minister Mossadegh from power. This was a result of his efforts to return his countries oil, from Britain's control, to his own people. Of course, we tied this in with the Cold War with Russia, but the point is...since then, whether it was Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan, we have seen it as our place to step in, and control the direction of the Middle-east's economy and politics.
Another thing I find interesting is how the Republican and Democratic parties have swapped places as far as their positions on America's foreign policy is concerned. The following video is one of Al Gore, from 1992 speaking against Iraq, and former President George Bush's failure to act against his attempts to develop a nuclear power.
Who hasn't changed his stance on foreign policy?...That's right...Ron Paul.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
What's Wrong With America's Foreign Policy?
Those of you who know me well probably knew that I have always backed the U.S.' war in Iraq. However,
It wasn't until about two weeks ago that I began to see things from a different light.
What has changed in recent weeks?
Well, not much. Except that I've begun to see past the fear and hatred I had towards the middle-east (brought about by 9/11) and come to somewhat of an understanding of what may have been the prelude to that horrible day to begin with.
What has led up to our current situation, is that it has been the policy of the United States to intervene wherever it deems necessary. This has occurred since we declared ourselves the richest and most powerful nation in the world (August 9, 1945). However, if money is power, and we claim to be so rich and powerful then why, I ask, are we over 9 TRILLION dollars in debt? And while we call these people our enemies, why do we continue to fund them with every trip to the gas station? This country has NEVER, in our history won an invasive war (except our Civil War...if you consider that a victory), and we have still failed to learn a lesson from this.
We have put our country at a higher standard by invading other countries for personal interests, while at the same time not only putting the lives of the civilians in other countries at risk, but at the risk of what our CIA has termed, "blowback"; we have put our own country in harms way as well.
Why are we not more focused on protecting our own borders? And if we are worried about taking power away from these "radical Islams", we need to remember that not only is money their source of power, but it is also (according to the Bible) the root of all evil. Therefore, all of our efforts in the Middle-east may be useless if we are not focused on "pulling this evil out by the roots". In other words as long as there is money there, it will stem evil. So...I say, make the oil they're fighting over worthless, by developing PRACTICAL alternative source(s) of energy.
I believe that this is something that not only should we have done long ago, but that could have been done long ago. It may just be that the governments and/or the car companies have their hands so deep in these oil companies pockets that it will never happen, unless the people make a demand for it.
This is one question that I would like to ask Republican Candidate Ron Paul about. As far as what he feels the governments responsibility is in ending GLOBAL dependency on Middle-eastern oil...Which I feel IS a matter of national security, and therefore should be addressed by our federal government.
-
OK...I kind of went off there, and most of that has nothing to do with the video nor the title, but there it is.
It wasn't until about two weeks ago that I began to see things from a different light.
What has changed in recent weeks?
Well, not much. Except that I've begun to see past the fear and hatred I had towards the middle-east (brought about by 9/11) and come to somewhat of an understanding of what may have been the prelude to that horrible day to begin with.
What has led up to our current situation, is that it has been the policy of the United States to intervene wherever it deems necessary. This has occurred since we declared ourselves the richest and most powerful nation in the world (August 9, 1945). However, if money is power, and we claim to be so rich and powerful then why, I ask, are we over 9 TRILLION dollars in debt? And while we call these people our enemies, why do we continue to fund them with every trip to the gas station? This country has NEVER, in our history won an invasive war (except our Civil War...if you consider that a victory), and we have still failed to learn a lesson from this.
We have put our country at a higher standard by invading other countries for personal interests, while at the same time not only putting the lives of the civilians in other countries at risk, but at the risk of what our CIA has termed, "blowback"; we have put our own country in harms way as well.
Why are we not more focused on protecting our own borders? And if we are worried about taking power away from these "radical Islams", we need to remember that not only is money their source of power, but it is also (according to the Bible) the root of all evil. Therefore, all of our efforts in the Middle-east may be useless if we are not focused on "pulling this evil out by the roots". In other words as long as there is money there, it will stem evil. So...I say, make the oil they're fighting over worthless, by developing PRACTICAL alternative source(s) of energy.
I believe that this is something that not only should we have done long ago, but that could have been done long ago. It may just be that the governments and/or the car companies have their hands so deep in these oil companies pockets that it will never happen, unless the people make a demand for it.
This is one question that I would like to ask Republican Candidate Ron Paul about. As far as what he feels the governments responsibility is in ending GLOBAL dependency on Middle-eastern oil...Which I feel IS a matter of national security, and therefore should be addressed by our federal government.
-
OK...I kind of went off there, and most of that has nothing to do with the video nor the title, but there it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)