'FOX Latino' Tells Hispanics How to Think About Ron Paul!

By: Thaddeus S. Kaczor, Jr.


'Divide and Conquer'. The Establishment Media (FOX included) at the direction of the Political/Corporate Heirarchy continues to push this meme that we are all 'compartmentalized Americans'- Black, White. rich, poor, and most pointedly, 'Latino'. A recent 'FOX News Latino' article  attempts to 'find out' where 'Latino' voters stand on Ron Paul (or more pointedly, tell them WHAT to THINK about Ron Paul!). This tired establishment media theme is strung out in typically condescending fashion. They pick an 'issue', then use one or two quotes to support their limited and biased assertions about 'How on Paul affects Latinos'. As usual, they discount or attempt to downplay the fact that there are basic things that UNITE all Americans, and those far outweigh the issues that divide us. However, divisiveness is a very strong control mechanism that prevents people from realizing the ideas and ideals that would otherwise unite them, instead focusing on what are often side issues that tend to divide and separate us from the REAL issues that we as Americans should be concentrating on.


As for the whole 'Latino' argument, like with any 'analysis' of the 'feelings' of a specific ethnic, religious or other 'minority' group,  I find it wholly demeaning and insulting to impose a monolithic belief and value system upon an entire community, especially one as diverse and varied as those who derive ancestry from many different cultures within the 'Latin' universe. Even within distinct ethnic communities, such as Mexican, Cuban and Venezuelan, there is such a diversity of opinion and belief as to make any simplistic overall judgement about a 'group opinion' both supercilious and recklessly illogical. But to do so tends to not only serve to ;herd' those group thinkers in the target 'community' toward the desired monolithic attitudes or beliefs, but it also reinforces sterotypes and simplistic assumptions about that group within the general population of Americans- which serves the purpose to separate them from the general population in order to either 'demonize' them or 'elevate' them- depending on what political or social effect those doing the manipulating desire!


Ron Paul rejects out-of-hand these divisive and destructive attempts at manipulation of people and opinion, and instead he tries to cut through all this very simply- but concurrently at a deep philosophical level that gets to the heart of what it means to have Rights in this country. 'Groups' do NOT have inherent, implicit or explicit rights and 'opinions'. Anyone who purports this idea is either collectively deluded, or deliberately pushing an agenda that often times is at odds with the best interests of both the majority who ostensibly 'belong' to said group, as well as the majority of individuals within society as a whole. Ron Paul believes in what the United States Constitution and our Founders believed: that ALL rights are individual rights, and our freedoms and liberties flow directly from the protection and maintenance of those INDIVIDUAL rights. This universality of the rights of the individual is in direct opposition to wholly manufactured 'collectivist' rights for groups, which ALWAYS will tend to stifle, trample and ultimately destroy the rights of the individual, to the benefit of the powers of those that control and direct the collective.


Protecting the rights of the individual should be paramount in American society, as any diversion from or destruction of these rights negates any other rights, liberties and freedoms we may have. Those that seek to obtain or seize rights for 'groups', no matter how well-intentioned, will end up securing those pseudo-'rights' at the expense of every individual, and ultimately do nothing to secure rights for the individuals who belong to those 'groups'. Instead, what most often happens is the rights of the individuals in those groups are become subservient to the power of the group itself- subjugating any rights of each individual to the will and power of the collective (usually determined by an elite and well-connected 'leadership'). 


Our rights are not GIVEN to us by our government, our leaders, or even our Constitution. They are RECOGNIZED by the Constitution as INHERENT- a birthright that cannot be subject to interpretation or dispensation by any man, woman or group of men and women. Those seeking to control our lives through the imposition of 'group rights', no matter how well-intentioned or altruistically bent, ultimately serve the master of tyranny and subjugation. Resist attempts to 'box you in' to any collectivist thinking. Advocate, fight and defend your inherent individual rights. Protect the COnstitutionally-guaranteed Liberties and Freedoms from those who would attempt to separate you from your fellow Americans by Race, Creed, Color or any other groupthink mentality.

Iran, Ron Paul, and What's REALLY the Cause of the 'Crisis'.

By: Thaddeus S. Kaczor, Jr.


Much is being written about what is snarkily referred to in the media as Presidential Candidate Ron Paul's 'dangerous' foreign policy. Most are using the current 'bad actor' on the World stage, Iran, as their favorite sounding board to misrepresent, then knock down the 'Straw Man' creation that they unfairly allege represents Ron Paul's foreign policy. Most times, they fail to interview or even QUOTE Ron Paul or his campaign, then proceed to present a near-total fabrication as if even remotely resembled Ron Paul's ACTUAL Foreign Policy! We are told that 'Iran wants to attack the U.S. (and, of course, Israel), and closing the Strait of Hormuz is an 'Aggressive' and 'antagonizing' act of defiance (and of course, that Ron Paul would 'do nothing'). While the policies and tactics of the Iranian Regime are despicable in so many ways As are many of the regimes in the Middle East- many of them our 'close allies!), when you strip away the domestic American political rhetoric from this story, and examine it purely from a geopolitical, diplomatic and strategic viewpoint, an entirely different story emerges.


In most accounts of this situation in the American Mainstream Media, you consistently seem to only hear the standard political talking points about 'Iranian Aggression', most always calling it 'unprovoked'. But what they intentionally (or incompetently) always forget to mention is the most important geopolitical action that has precipitated this whole 'Strait of Hormuz' incident. This entire 'confrontation' in the Strait of Hormuz has been spurred primarily by one event: The European Union, backed by the United States, has threatened a 'Death Penalty' sanction on the Iranian Central Bank (as part of the Massive National Defense Authorization Act or NDAA) in response to it's Nuclear Program'. Even Conservative Republican sites like www.gopusa.com agree with Ron Paul's view on the nature of this crisis, and how dangerous it is for the US to engage in economic and military brinksmanship like this. By taking this serious economic action, the US and it's allies will effectively shut down Iran's ability to not only sell oil, but will effectively make it impossible for Iran to maintain ANY banking relationships on the world markets- precipitously collapsing the Iranian Economy, and forcing their hand militarily. Threatened with this economically unacceptable possibility, most informed observers find that Iran has responded in a predictable and wholly understandable (and economically balanced) manner to this overt (let's put it bluntly) act of Economic War. In essence, the Iranian Regime said that if The West cuts off their ability to sell oil, they will respond in like kind by shutting off the straits of Hormuz, so NO ONE can sell oil from the Gulf. SO this 'confrontation can actually be seen as a DEFENSIVE measure in response to the overtly aggressive economic threats made by the U.S. and it's European allies.

Strip away the emotionalist sabre-rattling and American Political manipulation of this story, and you can boil it down to cold-hard geopolitical and economic facts, backed by predictable diplomatic and military strategies and outcomes. Unfortunately, most in the press are pliantly following the Propaganda lead of the Establishment War-Monger/Profiteers and are using their fear-tactic talking points to demagogue this story in an unfairly manipulative and emotional way in order to further THEIR interests- which are at odds with the interests and safety of the American People, who oppose unnecessary and dangerous wars of aggression. Many Americans are listening to Ron Paul, who accurately points out that these Unconstitutional, undeclared wars and 'conflicts' benefit not the American People, but instead those like the manipulative Internationalist Banksters and the War-Profiteering Military/Industrial Complex.  These people and entities- and NOT the American People- are the ONLY ones who benefit from War, the Instability and distortion of markets and economies, and the pre-emptive use of force to insure that their interests are pre-eminent, if not moral or even lawful. 




In the coming days and months, Americans are being asked to answer one question: Are you going to believe the demagogues running for the GOP nomination who use emotion-heavy and fact-light arguments like 'they hate us because we're free' and other simplistic bumper-sticker Foreign Policy statements designed to inflame emotions and obscure or stifle rational debate? The ones who viciously and personally attack ONE other candidate by misrepresenting his ACTUAL policies and positions? Or are you going to LISTEN to Ron Paul, who looks at foreign policy as a STATESMAN, refuses to engage in personal attacks, but instead forcefully highlights policy differences and factual differences between himself and his GOP opponents, and (in the specific case of the 'Iranian' situation, as with all foreign policy decisions) would, coolly and rationally taking into account all the underlying facts and motivations of ALL the players, then making an assessment based on NOT not what's best to advance his own political future, but instead what's best for AMERICA'S future? 


Just make sure you make an INFORMED decision. Ron Paul ALWAYS does.

Michelle Bachmann- Muslim Hater or Political Opportunist?

By Thaddeus S. Kaczor, Jr.

On 'The Tonight Show with Jay Leno'on Friday night, Presidential Candidate Ron Paul was asked his opinion on each of his GOP opponents. He said Mitt Romney was 'a nice guy', Newt Gingrich 'should  run for Speaker of the House', and that John Huntsman was 'a good diplomat' and 'a thoughtful person'. But many people are talking about his opinion that Michelle Bachmann 'doesn't like Muslims, she hates Muslims'.

Maybe Michelle Bachmann doesn't 'Hate Muslims', or maybe she does. But the real question is: do people like her,  Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum (among many others) in reality LOVE to STIR UP hatred TOWARDS Muslims. These are the same people that decry President Obama for stirring up 'Class Warfare' for political purposes, yet they stir up hatred of Muslims for their OWN political purposes! What did Ron Paul call that? Oh yeah... Serial Hypocrisy. Here in America today we now hear the loud beating of the same tone-deaf tin-drum of war that the Neo-Con and Liberal Progressives LOVE to bang on, as it  deflects blame and attention from the lousy job they are BOTH doing, as well as helping them to consolidate power by taking away our Liberties (and our MONEY!) allowing Big Government to ' keep us safe' from those evil ______ (Insert Target Group Here).

This is an old (but effective!) Propaganda tactic that always works well with that group of people in a society who can't or won't use their OWN critical thinking skills, and abrogate that responsibility to the pundits, the party or their favorite spewer of propaganda on Radio or TV. This tactic relies on the emotionalism of those hearing the hateful message, and the resulting suspension of debate, as ANYONE who disagrees with them MUST, of course, hate America, apple pie and Chevrolet! It is truly astonishing (and more than a little bit frightening) to see otherwise rational people automatically go into mental DEFCON 4 whenever anyone merely questions any aspect of their fragile world view. It used to be that we Americans welcomed open debate as a healthy sign of our democratic Republic. Apparently, we aren't so 'democratic' anymore, and that means we are in danger of LOSING our Republic to those who put power, money an demogoguery ahead of our basic Constitutional Rights and Liberties.

CBS News owes the candidates on it's Debate stage, as well as it's viewing audience an apology.

By Thaddeus S. Kaczor, Jr.

What Follows is the text of my formal complaint to CBS News over the farcical and blatantly biased 'debate' the network hosted on November 12, 2011. I suggest anyone who was as shocked, disappointed and disgusted with the outrageous and shameless promotion of 'certain' candidates, and the obvious exclusion and dismissal of others will follow the link above to register your own complaint.

I am very disappointed with the format and execution of your GOP 'Debate' this evening. The distribution and time given to each candidate was so grossly disproportionate as to go beyond mere bias into the area of 'advocacy journalism'. Edward R. Murrow is spinning in his grave to see such a sham being peddled as a debate! All you have to do is look at the distribution of questions and time allotted to each candidate to see how unfair and ridiculously biased this affair was.


Contrasting this fiasco with the recent CNBC debate on the economy is a study in extremes. CNBC was EXTREMELY fair to each candidate, allowing EACH candidate to respond to EACH topic, and using follow-up questions to elucidate and expand on their answers. By comparison, the debate on CBS obviously and purposefully AVOIDED asking certain candidates ANY questions on MOST topics. Furthermore, follow-up questions were ONLY directed at Romney, Gingrich and (occasionally) Perry and Cain, and most times were mere restatements which allowed the candidates to add nothing to their previous answers.


CBS News owes the candidates on stage who were denied a fair chance to respond to the questions given to the 'chosen few' candidates, as well as it's viewing audience an apology. We were all expecting an actual 'debate', when in reality what was aired was essentially a joint press-conference for Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. If no apology is proffered, or worse, justification for what is essentially an indefensible presentation is instead served, then greater damage to the reputation of the once 'Tiffany Network' and it's tarnished 'Crown Jewel' of a News Department will be done than has already been suffered by the mere presentation of this debacle of a debate.


I sincerely hope that you are able to look beyond the prospects of future political advertising and favors from those candidates who were 'promoted' by CBS through this program, and see the damage CBS has done to the American political system through it's attempt to unduly influence an election by showing blatant bias towards certain candidates, and against others.

Blame America? NO! Blame American Foreign Policy!

American support of murderous dictatorial regimes is the ROOT CAUSE of much of the Terrorism in the world today. This is not what the uninformed or hopelessly indoctrinated call 'blaming America', nor is it a 'conspiracy theory'- it is simply rationally assessing the cause and effect of over 100 years of adventurist American Foreign Policy, and the myriad unintended consequences of that flow from the policy of interference in the internal affairs of other nations. Most times, 'Vital American  National Interests' have nothing to do with American support for the Worst Of The Worst, though vital ECONOMIC Interests of the International Banksters, the Military Industrialists, and their proxies in the Government most assuredly DO!

Clockwise, from left: King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah II of Jordan, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea, Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan, Kurbanguly Berdymukhamedov of Turkmenistan

Examples? Shah Reza Pahlavi of Iran, Augusto Pinochet of Chile, General Suharto of Indonesia, Anastazio Somoza of Nicaragua, Saddam Hussein (yes!) of Iraq, Fulgencio Bautista of Cuba, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Muammar Khadaffi (yes!)- and that's just the SHORT list from the PAST of murderous dictators supported, encouraged or actually put in power by America! How did all of our support for THOSE thugs work out? Just look at how the people of those countries feel about America to this day. Many of the people in those countries harbor a deep-seated hatred for America, in what CIA Analysts call 'blow-back'- a hostile retaliation motivated by a deep-seated resentment toward US Policies and support of Dictators. Blow-Back invariably leads individuals and groups to strike out at American Interests. That is not justification for the heinous acts of criminals and madmen, but goes a long way to explaining the motivation and reasons behind peoples' intense hatred that drives them to murder and mayhem. 

In today's American-supported rogue's gallery of murderous dictatorships, we can include King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan, Kurbanguly Berdymukhamedov of Turkmenistan, Teodoro Mbasogo of Equitorial Guinea, the current and former regime in Pakistan- and the list (and the murders, torture, rape, looting and exploitation) go on and on! How many of the current dictatorships we support around the world are currently provoking people to attack America and Americans for simply our government's supporting those who attack, exploit and murder THEM? How much of this could have been prevented by the U.S. simply NOT interfering in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations? There always seems to be some justification for interference- usually 'American Vital Interests' are cited, or some large threat that invariably turns out to be inflated or wholly bogus- but there is ALWAYS someone or some group that profits from such interventionist foolishness. All you have to do is 'follow the money' to get to the basic motivation behind the continually beating war drums- something the American press seems to have forgotten how to do (or is prevented from doing by someone 'above their pay grade'!).

If you choose to ignore history, as well as the reality that exists in U.S. Foreign Policy to this present day, it is a comfortable ignorance to believe that they 'hate us for being free', or that 'we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here'. But it is foolish to not listen to what our own CIA has found, as well as countless respected experts who study terrorism, international relations, the sociology of oppressed people and the origins of terrorist thought and action. It most certainly is NOT a 'conspiracy theory' or 'anti-American to say that America's foreign policy actually CREATES anti-American terrorism- if it can be backed up so easily with readily available and openly discussed FACTS!  Turn a blind eye to what our government actually does abroad, and you will NEVER understand the root causes for the intense HATRED many feel for the American Government (Note- NOT the American PEOPLE!).  


Or maybe, just ask yourself a simple question: How would you feel toward those responsible if you were an innocent bystander, and death rained down upon you or your family members? The root cause of most terrorism is not ideological- it is personal, visceral, and deeply emotional. America's failure to recognize this basic fact will only lead to more hatred, more attacks, and more Americans unnecessarily wounded and dying.