Open Letter to Congressman Peter DeFazio

---

The letter below is the full text that was sent to the Democratic incumbent by his challenger, Art Robinson. I am supporting Dr. Robinson (PhD) because everything he stands for demonstrates integrity, honesty, and his knowledge and pledge to limit federal government to those powers delegated to it by We the People in the Constitution.

July, 18, 2012

Congressman Peter DeFazio
P.O. Box 1316
Springfield, OR 97477

Dear Congressman DeFazio,

Your recent “reply” to my debate challenge is just more of the same sort of falsehoods and cowardice that we have come to expect from you during the past two years. You are apparently unable to tell the truth even long enough to arrange debate events with your opponent.

On June 7, 2012 on the floor of the U. S. House of Representatives, you yelled and pointed at a Marine Corps veteran, Congressman Paul Broun, and claimed to all listeners that he hates his country. When this Marine challenged your claim, you compounded your lie with yet another lie in a failed attempt to escape from the truth. Afterward, you refused to apologize to him and branded the other concerned congressmen as “idiots.” (See www.politico.com, June 8, 2012)

I know how this Marine must feel. For two years you have told one lie after another about my family and about me in your attempt to ruin our personal and professional reputations. In my book Common Sense in 2012 (which is now in the homes of a majority of District 4 voters and which you claim to have read), I list 15 specific falsehoods that you have told about us during your ongoing smear campaign – and I provide answers to your claims.

Also, of course, you continually misrepresent political issues, too. The truth, when known and understood by a majority of the voters, will end your political career.

Consider just three examples.

Gasoline prices. I would like to ask you about your co-sponsorship in Congress of H.R. 1683 on April 2, 2009. This bill would amend the IRS code to gradually raise taxes on motor fuels in the United States, through a permit system, until the use of motor fuels by Americans is reduced by 80% – reduced to one fifth of the fuel used now. How are Americans going to adapt to a one-fifth ration of motor fuel?

This tax would cause the cost of gasoline to skyrocket to more than $10 per gallon and possibly as high as $20 per gallon. Yet, simultaneously with cosponsoring this bill, you loudly complain that gasoline prices are too high and claim that you are working to reduce those prices. How does H. R. 1683 reduce prices?

Education. I would like to ask you about your “no” vote against amending H.R. 2556 on September 5, 2003, to provide school vouchers for Washington, D.C.’s mostly African American students? Parents want these vouchers so that their children can attend the better schools. Fortunately, the bill passed over your “no” vote, and, as a result, the high school graduation rate of these mostly poor and disadvantaged minority students increased and the cost of educating them decreased. Yet, when the voucher program was up for renewal under H.R. 471, you again voted “no” on March 30, 2011 in another failed attempt to kill this program. Why do you still oppose this successful education program for D.C. students?

You have also voted against merit pay for teachers, teacher testing, tenure reform, charter schools, education savings accounts, and state waivers from federal rules. Why do you (and the big education monopoly you pander to) oppose these attempts to improve American schools?

During my lifetime in education at the K through 12, college undergraduate, and university graduate school levels, I have taught many thousands of students. So far as I know, you have never taught a single student. Yet, you constantly claim that I am anti-education and that you are pro-education. (You buttress your claims about me by word-searching the large amount I have written during a lifetime in education and pulling out of context tiny bits and pieces, while ignoring the rest.) In a free discussion about education between the two of us, your duplicity would be immediately apparent.

Wall Street. I would like to ask you about your many campaign advertisements and fund raising letters in which you continually claim to be “targeted” for defeat by Wall Street and paint me as a Wall Street shill.

During your campaigns against me, you have received (as of April 2012) $264,499 in campaign contributions from 45 Wall Street listed corporations; $254,100 from 67 other corporate and industry groups; and a great many large “individual” contributions from Wall Street CEOs (the exact numbers are uncertain because many of these are disguisable under FEC rules). My contributions from these sources total only $3,000. (You also complain that independent expenditures favor me, but neglect to mention your own extensive independent expenditure help.)

The only Wall Street targeting of you that I see is the hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign cash that you receive from Wall Street in return for your misuse of taxpayer money and congressional power to do favors for these corporations and special interests.

If you ever face me in real debate – a prospect that apparently frightens you, you will be asked about your lies and smears of my family and me. And, you will be called to account for your real record in Congress and your poor representation of Oregon voters. The three issues listed above are just examples of many more, of which you are well aware.

You simply do not have the courage to face my questions and to question me in a format where we both can freely and completely respond.

During this year’s primary election, you even refused to face a 24-year-old OSU graduate student, Matthew Robinson, in one-on-one open public debate. Instead, you spent more than $100,000 smearing his reputation, including arranging the filing with the Oregon Secretary of State and nationwide publication of false claims about him and his family during the primary voting – lies that were, of course, disproved (and rejected by the Secretary of State) after the voting was over.

There should have been not one, but 10 or more students challenging you in that primary. There should have been so many students on the primary ballot that voters would have had trouble finding your name. Your policies in Washington are seriously damaging the future prospects of all of the students at OSU.

The public already knows, Peter, that you are a liar. Do you really want to be known as a coward, too? Why don’t you stand up and debate me in events in which we ask each other questions and the public – freely admitted to the event – evaluates our answers? If you can overcome your fear; if you can face me man to man in actual timed, back and forth debates of the real political issues – rather than continuing to hide yourself behind “moderators” and “forums” where rules made by you and your friends protect you from your opponent, you might at least rise to the level of a courageous liar – a level considerably higher than your current situation.

In my debate challenge to you this year (appended below and posted on our campaign web site at www.ArtForCongress.com), I tried to make this easier for you. I offered to attend one of the “forums” staged by your friends for each real debate you participate in with me. I suggested that you choose four event sponsors and I choose four (one in each of the seven District 4 counties and one in Portland).

You could continue to read your pre-prepared answers to softball questions selected by your friends in the “safe” environment that you prefer – at half of the events. In the other half, you would need to summon the courage to face your opponent one-on-one in real debate and without the protection of your friends.

Your recent “answer” to my challenge is typical.

You gripe about “partisan” sponsors and refuse my challenge. Yet, in your letter, you list five sponsors that you prefer, at least four of which are partisan. You say that you have accepted these five events. Apparently you are in planning discussions with these people. Three of them have not contacted me.

Let’s simplify this.

You choose one sponsor Mr. DeFazio – any sponsor, any format, any place, any time. I will be there. I will also choose one sponsor and one format. We will agree to attend both. If you have the courage to face me more than twice, we’ll each pick another set of sponsors.

In the case of your pick, you can have it any way you wish (so long as the public is not prevented from freely observing the event – as you did in one event in 2010) – designer questions, rules against discussions of topics not satisfactory to you and your sponsors, rules against standing while speaking, excessive time spent with candidates of "minor" political parties who favor your views, etc., etc. You can have it all.

In the case of my pick, you will probably find yourself in open debate of the issues between yourself and your opponent – fairly timed so that each of the two candidates has equal time to question his opponent and answer questions put to him. You will not be able to hide behind a moderator. After that formal debate – an American custom that dates back at least 200 years and is today participated in by high school and college debaters throughout our country, we can both respond to audience questions (again timed to be fair to both of us).

And, if I may suggest, try something new. Try to tell the truth. Your recent letter says that my proposal “deprives residents of the 4th congressional district of . . . audience questions” and that “voters should be able to ask questions.” You imply that I want to avoid audience questions. Yet, my challenge to you suggested that the formal debate “be followed by questions from the audience alternated and timed to be fair to both of us.”

You letter misrepresents my challenge in several additional ways. You apparently hope that the public will read your letter (and not mine, reproduced below) which you, of course, have published widely.

You also complain about my suggestion that you accept Lars Larson’s challenge to both of us (which I have already accepted). You have no problem with Lars. You have appeared on his program many times. He treats you fairly and charitably. Your problem is that he has offered you and me three full hours of radio airtime to debate our differences. It is me you fear, not Lars. You are absolutely afraid to appear in free and open debate with me, and you know that Lars will likely permit that debate.

One of your five proposed sponsors is KOBI television, a well-known partisan media outlet that is favorable to your side of the political issues. Fine, Mr. DeFazio, let’s go unedited (just the two of us) on live KOBI television – providing that we accept Lars Larson’s offer of a live radio program, too.

You, Mr. DeFazio, still have many supporters in Oregon. Many of them seem to prefer your policies of over-taxation, over-regulation, and over-indebtedness in Washington. They may prefer the big government socialism that you represent. Most of them, however, do not really know your views and do not fully understand the effects of your actions on their personal lives.

Most Americans have, on the other hand, a visceral dislike of liars and cowards. These are not personal characteristics that they want to see in their congressional representatives.

In 2010, you managed to avoid the real political issues by means of a million dollar media campaign of lies about your opponent and his family. This strategy against a new, publically unknown opponent was unprincipled but partially successful. You won the election, but lost – for the first time in your 24 years in Congress – in four counties (Josephine, Curry, Douglas, and Linn) and approximately tied in Coos County. You came closer to losing your office than in any other election in your 25 years as a career Washington politician – and your approval rating among the voters dropped precipitately.

This time, in 2012, you need to debate the issues. If you continue your 2010 campaign of smears and falsehoods (as your advertisements so far indicate you plan to do), it is your own personal lack of character that will become the primary issue.

Stand up with courage, Mr. DeFazio. Debate the real issues one-on-one with your opponent. Why not give Oregon District 4 voters a gift of honesty and openness this time, rather than hiding behind just another false advertising campaign?

Art Robinson

Appended Robinson original challenge to DeFazio:

To: Peter DeFazio May 17, 2012

Debates between the candidates are very important in giving the opportunity for the voters to see the candidates and evaluate them. The voters deserve in-depth debate between the candidates that involves a detailed discussion of the issues with more than just sound-bites and bullet points.

During 2010, I repeatedly urged that you and I schedule real debates – one in each of the seven counties of Oregon District 4. You refused and eventually arranged for four “forums” sponsored by organizations of your choice – which we ultimately attended.

For 2012, it would be much better to hold real debates. A format similar to the one I suggested last time would be ideal, in which we alternate speaking in intervals with only a time keeper. This could be followed by questions from the audience alternated and timed to be fair to both of us. One debate in each of the seven counties would be ideal and give every voter a chance to attend. Choice of a time keeper, exact details of the debate, as well as scheduling would be easy to work out between our campaigns.

If you want to hold “forum” events in addition to these, I would, of course, be happy to attend as long as they are open to the public.

If, however, you still refuse to hold real debates yourself, then I suggest our events be arranged as follows to be fair to both campaigns.

1) The DeFazio and Robinson campaigns cooperate in working out a joint event schedule for these appearances.

We plan eight appearances – one in each of the seven counties in the District and one in Portland.

The Portland event be the one that Lars Larson has already proposed. (Given his stature, neither campaign can afford to turn him down.)

Each side chooses the sponsors for four events. (One of our four can be Lars.) So, you would be choosing four sponsors and we would choose three plus Lars.

We simply alternate. You choose one sponsor in one county; we go next; and so on. Each choice must be from the counties not yet scheduled. You go first. We alternate until seven are chosen.

2) The format etc. of each event be entirely up to the sponsor. Some may be more “forum” like and some may be more “debate” like. This is up to the sponsors. They set the rules. (We assume that the campaigns will be talking with their sponsor choices about this and probably advising them. That is OK with us.)

All events be freely open to the public and held in large enough rooms to accommodate the crowds that are likely to come. Judging from 2010 and allowing for the increased interest now, we would expect between 500 and 1,000 at each event. Rooms that seat 600 to 800 and have room for a substantial standing overflow should suffice. (This should be no problem except in the case of Lars, whose facility is smaller. In his case, the radio broadcast suffices.) We should work out a plan so that the seating arrangements do not favor either side.

It be recognized that these are “campaign” events. Campaigning, handing out literature, etc. before and after you and I are engaged and speaking will be welcomed, but no audible distractions will be permitted during the speaking. (The usual admonitions to hold ordinary applause, etc. will likely be made – and fail as usual.)

The events be about 2 hours long.

Seating near the speakers be arranged so that it has approximately equal numbers of partisans from each side.

The events be a week or so apart, with alternation of the seven sponsors in an order agreed to by the campaigns. Lars fits his event in whenever it is convenient for him.

Art Robinson

Erosion And Death Follows

How does the benefit to the few financially greedy parasites, beholding to no one and nothing-except to increase their already overflowing coffers, outweigh any benefit to the nation and it's people?

Even if the obscene wealth of these economic predators were taxed at the same rate as the wage earners of our nation, these cannibals within our society would still accumulate in a year more financial strength than the wage earners will in a working lifetime. How can Congress justify legislation and policy that further lines the pockets of these sociopathic multi-million and multi-billionaires as they continue to rape the country and sell off what is left in the wreckage?

Economic cannibalism is an archaic ritualistic practice of the ancient money-changers which has not disappeared in modern culture; but, survives as an increasingly profitable and bizarre business. This type of behavior does not create employment of any kind that can build national wealth or productivity and it devours and destroys the industries on which it feeds. When the furtherance of personal greed and whatever it can acquire is allowed, it jeopardizes the society it destructively operates within:  it becomes a diseased sociopathic behavior.

Which brings me to The RNC presidential candidate, Mr. Willard Mittington Romney, whose fiscal plan delivers huge tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans while simultaneously forcing massive cuts to public services and the social security insurance system on which the average workers rely. Then, there is the matter of his personal finances...

Not only, according to his released tax returns, did Romney make $42.7 million over the past two years, paying only $6.2 million in taxes which is an effective tax rate of less than 13.9% for doing nothing, he took advantage of a giant tax loophole that's available to only a very select few. It's called the carried interest loophole, or as it's often called the hedge fund manager tax loophole (in 2009 Top 10 Hedge Fund Wheels of Corporatism averaged $900,000/Hr). Why the hedge-fund carried interest tax loophole?  Because; hedge fund managers, partners in real estate ventures, and private equity wheels, are the select few who can use this legal provision to escape paying what the 99.999 % of the population are forced to pay.

The fact that closing this loophole could save the nation and it's taxpayers and the deficit $15 billion by 2015, it is the percentage - usually 20% - that hedge fund managers and private equity Wheels can claim as investment, taxed at the long-term capital gain of 15% rate, instead of claiming what it actually is, fees or income, which would be taxed at what the rest of us pay, 35%.

In addition to the affront of carried interest, the maximum Gift Tax Amount a married couple can pass to their children without paying gift taxes is $10 million, but Romney paid zero gift tax on the $100 million trust funds he set up for his sons. The Romney's avoided $31 million in gift tax that 99.999 % of the population would have had to pay if they did the same thing, while simultaneously accumulating and distributing financial strength within their family!

According to David Cay Johnston, the Romney's "gave their sons some of their carried interest. And because the carried interest is not an ownership, it is a right to receive profits, Congress lets you value that gift at zero".

In a nutshell, top hedge fund managers, gifted with a much lower tax rate, who do not produce anything tangible, or, many argue, anything of any value whatsoever, make  more hourly, than most Americans will earn in a lifetime.

This economic cannibalistic presidential candidate, who left the company 13 years ago, still receives a share of the firm’s “carried interest” profits – taxed at the same low rate. He has now gifted his sons with the financial strength and the lesson that the country he raped is there for his sons to rape:  the increase by the number of sons of economic cannibalistic Americans. It's the gift that ever continues increasing to those few who receive it.

Like the after effects Of uncaring clear cutting loggers in the forest, erosion and death follows.

Who Wins?

With all of the media coverage of the 4th rate candidate Willard “Mitt” Romney as the favorite son of the Republican Party for 2012, it begs the question as to why that is so. After all, he finished behind eventual winner John McCain AND Mike Huckabee in 2008. So how can Americans support him now?

In a previous post titled, “Obama Issues Kill Order on Ron Paul” it would seem apparent that the Obama team is not concerned about Mitt Romney at all... in any way. Why not?

The answer may be as simple as this:  They are so much alike that people would rather keep what they have than take a chance on another with the same ideologies. Now most people who listen to him will disagree with that assessment, although their opinions generally are based on what they get from the privately-owned major media. Romney admits that he "just had to" bend to the left because while Governor, he felt pressured when dealing with a Democratic majority in the State Assembly. But now he wants all of us to trust that he will be a conservative President regardless of pressures, as if the president is under much less pressure than the Governor of the state of Massachusetts. While most of the media still supports and praises Barack Obama, Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News spins the “party backed conservatives” as somehow being conservative and so it has adopted Romney and Santorum as their favorite sons.

Rick Santorum has made some remarks recently that demonstrates he is unfit for service to this country. His lack of concern for the needed characteristics of a President is evident. He told a questioner that, “If you want a conservative President then vote for Ron Paul.” and then recently, he lashed out at a NY Times journalist saying, “That's bullsh!t!” which of course made the network news. What the privately-owned major media did not report on was Santorum's lack of concern over his decisions and actions that cost American Veterans, here at home, to loose their lives. Santorum also has admitted that he voted for bailouts and supported unprovoked undeclared unilateral warfare, military actions, even though it was not approved by Congress until after the fact. Santorum stated that he “is a team player” and that is why he voted with the party. He also voted in favor of the unions and again used the excuse that it was good for his Pennsylvania supporters. What he didn't say was which supporters he was referring to. It is evident that it was the unions and not the workers. Maybe what is really  needed in American politics is someone who is not a team player, after all it has been the team players that have caused most of the problems in America.

Newt Gingrich, the self professed socialist, is quick witted with words of the moment and has lots of his own ideas about how to fix America, but he lacks integrity as his past shows. Infidelity in marriage and questionable ethics while Speaker of the House. Not that either of the other two aforementioned candidates have shown much more integrity or honesty in public service.

 Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich all truly believe, just as the Bush's did and Obama does, that unprovoked undeclared unilateral warfare is smart and right, that casualties of war are to be expected and by implication there are no innocent bystanders. Tell that to the more than one million dead Iraqi children. Tell that to a people, a culture, a world heritage, a country that lays destroyed. And now they are pounding the war drums with intentions of doing the same thing to Iran. Is it any wonder that America is the most feared and hated country on the surface of the Earth?

Now we come to why Ron Paul is silenced by party backed conservatives. Simply put, because he can and will dismantle much of the unconstitutional bureaucracy in government and return many of the decisions to the States where they belong. The left has ignored Dr. Paul by either saying he is unelectable or by saying he is too radical. His 35 year record of being elected speaks differently in volumes and to the ever more socialist left, radical means anyone that is a conservative. The privately-owned major media is under executive order not to mention or to make negative mention of Dr. Paul.  Dr. Ron Paul can easily win the RNC nomination and presidency in November, if RNC will stop rigging the vote all across the country and if Citizens will listen to facts and not the hyperbole being spewed out by the privately-owned major media.

He has pledged to cut spending by $1 Trillion in his first year and have a balanced budget by his third year. He vows to eliminate 5 cabinet departments, abolish the TSA and corporate subsidies. He will stop foreign aid and foreign wars. As he has stated many times, as President, he will seek the approval of Congress before committing troops to combat and will consult with the military leadership to create a strategy to decisively win a war if we become involved in one. He will bring home the troops from the Middle East rather than have them moved from Iraq to occupy a nearby foreign country.

Because of Dr. Paul's policy against the U.S. policing the world militarily, his detractors say he will destroy our military defenses by not being the lap dog for United Nations and NATO Globalist policies, and turn us into an isolationist nation. Obviously they either did not listen to him or they are just spinning it to suit their own agendas. Ron Paul will reinforce the national defenses and start by securing our borders. Standing armies are prohibited by the Constitution so there would be fewer troops required in times of peace.

The problem has been that we have not had times of peace at all since World War II. Besides Korea in the 1950's and Vietnam in the 1960's we were also in a 'cold war' with the Soviet Union until its demise in the 1980's, but by then we had established military bases around the globe, “protecting America” from foreign invasion. It seems to me this strategy is failing, just as is the case with the “war on drugs,” the “war on poverty,” and the “war on terrorism.” When there is no hostile enemy one is created in some false flag operation. Dr. Paul will stop that from happening again.

Opponents also claim that Ron Paul will allow the enemies of our ally Israel to develop nuclear weapons and destroy that nation. There is a problem with that logic because one of Islam's most holy sites sits right along side of the ruins of Solomon's Temple. I doubt that Iran will nuke it when that would draw the wrath of Muslims world-wide

The only weapons of mass destruction that the Bush Administration claimed that Saddam Hussein had were biological weapons given to him by Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush during their terms in office. Reagan and G.H.W. Bush also supplied the mujadeen (the Taliban) with Stinger missiles which they used against the Soviets during their occupation of Afghanistan.

It would seem on the surface that these groups hate us because of our liberties,  our Judeo-Christian ideologies, and our secular government. But they are angry because they have been exploited to no small degree. American corporations with State Department and CIA support, created dictatorships where there were valid democratic elected governments. Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi in Iran, and Manuel Noriega in Panama to name just a few.

 Given the short time that he had to address the questions about Islamic extremists during the debates, Ron Paul could not fully articulate what he meant when stating that these people were attacking Americans because we interfered in their nations. All of the war-mongers jumped on that as did the media, denouncing Ron Paul's foreign policy as dangerous to America and especially toward Israel.

Ask Israelis what they think about Ron Paul. Ask Iraqis, Iranians, Pakistanis, Libyans, Egyptians, Palestinians, Somalis. Ask our allies, Australia,  Canada, and the Scandinavian nations about his foreign policy. See if they concur with all of the Ron Paul detractors here in America. You may be surprised to hear or read what they have to say.

 I have been making these inquiries myself and was quite amazed at how many nations are looking toward this November's election and praying for Americans to elect Ron Paul. They love him!
And I do too.

Obama Issues "Kill Order" Regarding Ron Paul and Russia Prepares for Nuclear World War III

I could say something vulgar regarding the privately-owned major media and the person occupying the presidency; however, instead I began to think along different paths.

Why would a Democrat, occupying the presidency, worry to such an extent about a supposedly minor candidate that the news has proclaimed unelectable? Although Ron Paul has been elected to office for 30 years and that is longer than the combined time in office of Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich taken together. I also wondered why just Ron Paul? Aren't Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich to be considered a threat... of any kind... and if that is true... why?

I wondered why... No U.S. News agencies or News groups had reported this chilling batch of information.

It seems as though the Russian threat of nuclear World War III might mean something to someone?

I wondered how many Americans remember Operation Mockingbird?

It should be quite clear to any American that American news reporting is only reporting certain kinds of news.

"The Federal Security Service (FSB) is reporting today (November, 2011) that the “secret letter” sent to Prime Minister Putin by Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda contains a warning that United States President Barack Obama has issued an executive-level “kill order” against US Congressman Ron Paul over fears this charismatic politician, who many believe could capture the Republican Presidential 2012 nomination, is about to expose to all Americans what can only be described as the largest mass theft in human history. The “kill order” is a metaphor for silencing down Congressman Ron Paul in the mass media as if he doesn’t exist.

According to this report, Prime Minister Noda first became aware of this “kill order” after a private meeting with Obama at last weeks ASEAN Summit meeting in Indonesia when the American President expressed his “unconstrained joy” over the toppling of the Greek and Italian governments in bloodless coups by EU banksters who installed to run these countries unelected former Goldman Sachs executives.

Not known to many Americans is that the giant global investment firm Goldman Sachs put Obama into office by being its top donor and after winning the Presidency put so many of its former executives into the US government it is known as the “Wall Street Cabinet.”

The reason for Goldman Sachs, and other top American and European banksters, putting Obama into office, this report continues, was to loot the American taxpayers of an estimated $100 Trillion…nearly $30 Trillion of which went directly into the pockets of international banksters around the world and another $70 Trillion in lost home values, stock portfolios and pensions funds.

The main conduit of this massive theft was the US Federal Reserve System which during the 2008 Financial Crisis secretly doled out, without the American peoples knowledge, over $16 Trillion to European banks and companies and another nearly $8 Trillion in “secret loans” to the largest banks in the United States.

Causing Obama and his bankster allies to fear Ron Paul, this report continues, is the Congressman’s ability to hold US Congressional hearings on the $8 Trillion in secret loans to the largest banks in America without the public’s knowledge exposing this largest theft in human history and laying bare for all to see the total criminality of their entire elite political, financial and corporate class.

Though the US mainstream media has virtually ignored Ron Paul’s candidacy the American people themselves appear to have broken through this deliberate government ordered blackout of his Presidential run as evidenced by his rise in the polls in the first campaign States of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, which should he win them all would assure him the Republican nomination.

The fears Ron Paul is causing among Americas elite classes appear to be justified as he recently likened the US Federal Reserve System to “drug addiction” warning that the deception it has foisted upon the public will lead to the destruction of the United States.

Ron Paul further warned the American people this year that their nation was becoming a “police state,” called for the impeachment of Obama for ordering the assassination of an American citizen without charges or trial, and stated that Obama had violated the War Powers Act over his actions against Libya.

Ron Paul’s fears of a police state America being ruled by a dictatorial tyrant were confirmed yesterday when the US Senate, in a 61-37 vote gave, for the first time in history, the power to the US Military to hold citizens without charges or trial indefinitely by passing a bill that was written in secret and never openly debated.

So frightening is this new law that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in the days prior to its passing warned: “The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.”

Most ominous in this FSB report is its stating that the “assassination regime” ordered against Ron Paul by Obama may already be underway as one of the US foreclosure fraud whistleblowers subpoenaed by Ron Paul to testify before the US Congress named Tracey Lawrence was found “suicided” yesterday in Las Vegas.

The destruction of anyone found opposing the Obama regime and its bankster backers was, also, brought into sharp relief this week by the smearing by mental illness allegations of one of America’s top heroes US Marine Sergeant Dakota Meyer, who in September received the Congressional Medal of Honor from Obama (who called him one of the most “down-to-earth guys that you will ever meet”) for saving the lives of 36 of his comrades, but after he alerted the press that his employer defense contractor BAE Systems was selling high-tech sniper rifles to Pakistan that are being used to kill America Soldiers was labeled as a “drunk and mentally ill.”

So concerned has the Kremlin become about the growing American fascist police state it caused General Nikolai Makarov, Russia’s top military commander, to issue a warning to the West last week that the Motherland was fully prepared for a nuclear World War III and which prompted the Obama regime to state that it would immediately cease observing their arms treaty with Russia.

To if the American people will be able to rally around Ron Paul before he is assassinated by the Obama regime it is not in our knowing, other than to note that in a country where every public demonstration – however peaceful and orderly it might be – is ordered by their authorities to be treated as the equivalent of a prison riot, where the former police chief of Seattle blamed the militarization of local US police forces on Obama’s Homeland Security Department, and where the media is described as being nothing more than a “lapdog” for Obama and his bankster allies, the likelihood of these people escaping the worst horrors to come do, indeed, seem inescapable."


Source: www.eutimes.net
href="http://www.eutimes.net/2011/11/obama-issues-ron-paul-kill-order-as-russia-prepares-for-war/