Additional Titles








The Giant Sucking Sound in
Washington, D.C.

Is "The Giver" On Your Horizon?

Is The Chamber of Commerce an UN Front?











By Betty Freauf
February 24, 2012

I checked my dictionary only to find there is no such word as “blowback” but one definition for “blow” said it is a sudden shock, calamity, reversal, etc. Is that what happened on 9/11/2001? So GOP Presidential candidate Ron Paul has invented a new word and ironically, I’ve been hearing talk show pundits like the King of Talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, use it to define other instances such as the reversal by Susan B. Komen regarding grant money to Planned Parenthood receiving lots of “blowback” from pro-lifers. And why, all of a sudden, are the other GOP presidential candidates suddenly talking about “Liberty and Freedom” which have been used over and over again by Ron Paul for eons. Could it be that a CNN poll way back in December showed this so-called “unelectable” Ron Paul tied with President Obama? Even if Ron Paul doesn’t win, he’s gotten his message out and awakening some sleeping giants.

Limbaugh continues to mock Ron Paul about “all those wars” wasting money. Rush has dumped on Paul, the “conservative” press treats him as a joke, and conservative talking heads routinely dismiss him; however, a UTube by Neil Cavuto on the Internet takes his fellow pundits at Fox News to task for their blatantly dismissive attitudes toward Paul. Limbaugh claims to have had an epiphany that Romney will ask Ron Paul’s son, Senator Rand Paul to be his Vice President, who says he’d be honored to accept. He’s noticed that Ron Paul has not attacked Romney in the debates- a strategy that has not gone unnoticed by the British press.

The one thorn in Romney’s side is his Massachusetts health care plan much like Obama’s, otherwise he has no federal voting record to attack and that could be an advantage in the debate with President Barack Obama. And Romney seems to regret promoting that health care plan which he says came from Heritage Foundation, a think tank that often sounds British and delivers talking points to the conservative talk show pundits who recruit for Heritage and then parrot their ideas throughout the air waves. This V.P selection could get interesting because Ron Paul in a recent campaign stop said he thinks strong Constitutionalist Judge Andrew Napolitano would be a great vice president and the crowd roared with approval. According to a New York Times op-ed by columnist Nicholas Kristof, Romney has several Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) members as advisers who favor globalism and one world government which could be a problem.

So let’s set out to vindicate Ron Paul and his talk about “all those wars.” I am not by any means an expert on foreign policies so I must rely on others to refresh my memory about “all those wars” that Ron Paul claims were not necessary and were initiated without Congressional approval.

In M. Stanton Evans 1966 book entitled THE POLITICS OF SURRENDER, he goes into great detail how Americans were deceived during the Cold War era with a continual flow of propaganda. He writes about “Those Missing ‘Gaps’” and says there have been at least four major instances in which important industrial-defense capability has been attributed to the Soviet Union on the strength of “intelligence” or Soviet assertion, only to prove out an illusion. In each of these, Moscow claimed and Western spokesman acknowledged vast Soviet attainments. Yet we now know the thing so freely granted on the basis of assumed “intelligence” information or otherwise were not true and should not have been granted.

The first of these instances occurred during the Korean War, when the concept of “stalemate” was employed to prevent resolute response to Communist aggression. We could not afford to hit Chinese communist staging points to the north and west of the Yalu River, it was asserted because such action might escalate into a nuclear war, involving the Soviet Union and its supposed atomic capability. This argument was based on the rather scanty evidence that the Soviets had set off some kind of nuclear explosion in 1949 – from which it was reasonable by stalemate theorists that Moscow had achieved a nuclear arsenal comparable to our own. Further Evans writes it was determined by the Rand Corporation in 1957 and is now universally acknowledged, however, that the Soviets in fact had no such nuclear arsenal at the time of the Korean conflict; the 1950 “stalemate” which prevented decisive action by the U.S. was a hobgoblin based on Soviet bravado and Western concession.

Does any of this sound familiar now that there is talk about war with Iran? Regarding the Cold War, Evans goes on to say: There is, of course, no intrinsic reason why Moscow could not at some future date catch up with or surpass the U.S. in nuclear armaments and delivery systems – particularly if we grant them all the time in the world to achieve such things while simultaneously cutting back our own work in these fields. It should be noted in the 1966 book by Evans, THE POLITICS OF SURRENDER, the U.S. had given the USSR by 1964 $186,000,000 and billions more to other Communist nations. Once again we accommodated the Soviets that eventually put Barack Obama in the White House.

Evans said a sustained program of technological advance by the communists, and a long-term contraction of our own arms program, could have ultimately produced a situation in which the two curves met and crossed, with the Communists emerging on top. It was the crowning irony of the “safe assumption” that it had conjured up a world in which precisely these two lines of development – or, in our case, non-development, were being pursued. In the name of safely assuming Moscow to have immense power relative to our own, we may have as well been on our way to making precisely such a transformation of strategic relationships a reality. Now if this statement by Evans doesn’t sound like the hype we are getting recently about Iran, then I’m a monkey’s auntie!

The second instance reported by Evans was the so-called “bomber gap,” allegedly discovered in 1955 and reported by Democrat spokesmen and later universally conceded to have been false. At the time the Democrats were throwing fears into us as being at another “stalemate”, the United States superiority far exceeded anything that the Russians had. Similar testimonies came from numerous authorities and contested by no one.

The third instance concerned about which Evans writes was the matter of the Soviets’ economic “growth rate.” This was an important indicator in any assessment of “stalemate,” since an advanced industrial base would have been necessary to support a military system even remotely comparable to the gigantic establishment of the United States. If the Soviet Union really was enjoying a fabulous splurge of productivity and industrial advance, that would argue in favor of the stalemate. If it were not enjoying such an advance, that would do the reverse. Today (2012) our United States economy is in trouble which if the foregoing statement is true, may mean America is vulnerable and Presidential candidate Ron Paul re-iterated that same fear at the Mesa, AZ. Debate on 2/22 reminding us we are bankrupt and can’t afford any more wars.


That the splurge was on, and that the Soviet Union was experiencing an economic renaissance of epic dimension, was a favored argument of presidential candidate John Kennedy back in 1960. We were, Kennedy said, falling dangerously behind the Kremlin in the matter of industrial growth, and this constituted one of the chief reasons why we had to “get this country moving again.” Like the nuclear capability of 1950 and the bomber gap of 1956, however, this asserted excess of economic vigor wasn’t so. But today (2012) both Europe and the U.S. are in similar financial trouble while Communist China excels.

Because it’s past history, I won’t go on to give more examples which Evans wrote about so let us jump to 1957-1960 that saw the United States terrorized by the idea that the Soviet Union had taken the lead over us in military rocketry. This so-called “missile gap” had been conjured up by the assertions of the Soviets about their space performance (Sputnik I) and their arsenal of ICBMs, and by the emotional response of many Western spokesmen including most prominently, Senators Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson., who decried the “missile gap” and the consequence existence of nuclear stalemate or worse from every available forum. Kennedy stressed this theme early in his campaign and never relinquished it. On August 26, 1960, he said,” “The facts of the matter are that we are falling behind in our rate of growth. The missile lag looms large.” On October 1, he derided the Republican Party as the “party which gave us the missile gap.” On October 4, he said “we do not have a defense second to none, and we are not in the lead in missiles…” On November 4, he said “we are now entering the age of the missile gap.” Similar utterances were proffered by Johnson. A 2/19/2012 AP headline said the U.S. nuclear arsenal is cut by half by the GOP and then, “Obama’s cuts could be deepest in history.” Go figure.

By 1959 or 1960, most Liberal spokesmen and military people – who had different motives for crying up the nonexistent “bomber gap” – admitted no such thing had transpired. The Soviets, it was acknowledged, didn’t have the kind of air force attributed to them; it had all been a mistake.

Now I probably have bored you silly with this information from the 50s but there is the old saying, if we don’t learn from our mistakes in the past, we are bound to repeat them. I have no idea how vulnerable we might be from possible missile attacks by Iran which I now hear are capable of hitting the U.S. and that war may be imminent. If this is so, it’s World War III.

But may I suggest that Congressman Ron Paul, who has been in Washington, D.C. for twenty some years, may be right when he says, let’s be more diplomatic with the alleged fears rather than rushing off to another war. He wants the people and a Declaration of War by Congress to determine intervention. Once again, the other presidential hopefuls, who have never worn a military uniform and while keeping their children safe, are willing to send ours into battle! When asked at the 2/22 Mesa, Arizona debate to explain in one word what they believe about themselves – Ron Paul said “consistent.” Rick Santorum said “courageous.” Romney said “resolute.” And Gingrich was funny!

So Ron Paul’s “blowback” claim is far more accurate than anything the remaining three candidates for President have to say. He criticizes our intervention policies and is called “dangerous” and “nuts.” He said to a cheering crowd of supporters after his second-place finish in January’s New Hampshire primary, “I have to chuckle when they describe you and me as being dangerous. We are dangerous to the status quo in this country.” By the way, it has been rumored that GOP insiders falsified the votes in Maine and Paul won but do you see that possibility in the mainline media or FOX T.V.? It’s more desirous to promulgate fear in the American citizens. Accusations by neoconservatives were thrown at Barry Goldwater in 1964 when he ran for President that believed in a brand of “American exceptionalism” holding that the U.S. both can and should police the rest of the world and that it should intervene in the affairs of other nations initiating violent “regime change” against foreign leaders who have neither attacked nor threatened us, and do not have the technological means of attacking us. These threats and intervention policies of the past are causing the “blowback.”

How many saw Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) in one of the debates label Ron Paul “dangerous” for him being reluctant to start something with Iran, which, like Barry Goldwater, Ron Paul is now being vilified and widely denounced by the members of his own party during the primary campaigns. Goldwater was accused of being “reckless” and “trigger happy” because he was willing to go to the brink of war if necessary to deter the Soviet Union or its client states from efforts to advance Communism through aggression.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

So Ron Paul wants to be diplomatic and he’s called “dangerous” and “nuts.” It’s difficult to placate these sycophants in politics and the media. Thomas Jefferson wanted “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations entangling alliances with none.”

With the examples I gave above from the fifties and all the false alarm bogies brings us up to date with the nine-years-long war with Iraq that followed our government’s effort to eliminate “weapons of mass destruction” that were not there, the American public might be eager to embrace a Romney/Rand Paul ticket or a Ron Paul/Napolitano ticket.

� 2012 Betty Freauf - All Rights Reserved

Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Betty is a former Oregon Republican party activist having served as state party secretary, county chairman, 5th congressional vice chairman and then elected chairman, and a precinct worker for many years but Betty gave up on the two-party system in 2004.

Betty is a researcher specializing in education, a freelance journalist and a regular contributor to









The one thorn in Romney’s side is his Massachusetts health care plan much like Obama’s, otherwise he has no federal voting record to attack and that could be an advantage in the debate with President Barack Obama.