January 02, 2012
Monday AM

This letter is in rebuttal to comments made by Donald Moskowitz that were published by SitNews on 12-28-11 regarding Ron Paul.  

Thank you not again for being the mouthpiece of AIPAC and Israel.  Normally I ignore your propaganda.  Your most recent letter goes to the extreme and reveals your true devotion and patriotism to Israel.  Many of your comments are slanted and appear to be the words of a true neo-con and promoter of war and not in the best interest of the US.

You claim that Mr. Paul is not being truthful because his memory is faint on a subject that happened 25 years ago and had not been reviewed prior to questions; yet you had access to the material in question before to making your claims.  You quote words such as, “possibly anti-Jewish.”  Come on, spit it out.  If you do not know what “anti-Jewish” is, then do not be babbling about it, either it is or it is not.  Enough said about this smear job.  Just because he was the editor, that does not necessarily equate to him knowing the exact content or remembering a few words after so many years of reading and writing law in congress and other.  After all, it took the foreign press to give notice to the fact that CNN had purposely cut part of the interview where this subject was brought to light because of the intent to slant the public against Paul.  Much the same as you, Ron Paul must really scare your bosses.

You said that, “A 1987 issue stated Israel is ‘an aggressive, national socialist state’ . . .”   This was during a period of time when the US TV news networks still showed the news.  I recall seeing NBC Nightly News show Israeli soldiers using bulldozers to crush and bury not only people’s homes, but the people themselves.  I call that aggressive and nationalistic when the purpose of the razing was to build up the homeland at the expense and disregard to the legitimate land owners.

If you read the 9/11 Commission Report you would know that the investigative process and final report are faulty, if not corrupt in order to cover up what really happened.  From start to finish, the report process was sanitized.  I would challenge anyone to read the report and conclude that the report’s findings are the true story of the towers.  The fix was in on the report.  The demise of the towers occurred, but the true facts behind the event are uncirculated and it is just as possible that Mossad, or a renegade faction of Mossad, or anybody else could have been involved in the disaster; the exactness of what happened is hiding just like the John Kennedy assassination.

“Paul believes the U.S. should allow Israel to be independent, which is code for the U.S. to cut off foreign aid to Israel.”  And what is wrong with that?  Sovereignty is good for Israel too.  Israel’s rulers are made up of a group of war mongers for the most part.  They cannot wait to attack all sorts of countries.  The only problem is that they know without a patsy partner (US) they would be hammered out of existence if they proceeded with unprovoked attacks against their neighbors.  Also, free money is always good and the US seems to have an unlimited pot of it for them; too bad for us about US roads, bridges, and everything else that is falling apart.  Those are burdens for US citizens to bear.

“Paul said Iran is not a dangerous country and we should not be concerned with Iran’s nuclear development program.”  And?  Iran is a signature to The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons while Israel is not.  Israel has nuclear weapons and is a threat to use them.  Iran does not have nuclear weapon, wherefore cannot be a threat to use what it does not have.  Iran has allowed inspectors to look at their nuclear program which resulted with finding that the facilities are for medical uses and power generation.  The same inspectors are denied access to Israel’s program.  What is your point and who is a greater danger to use nuclear weapons in an aggressive manner?  The country that has nuclear weapons and is repeatedly threatening war or the country that does not have nuclear weapons.  Your statements are difficult to follow.

My letter could ramble on, but for the sake of clarity, you need to keep your views (and the views of those who are pulling your strings) to yourself and stop being a shill for AIPAC and Israel.  After all, they own our congress right now.  Why are you choosing to assist a foreign nation that has brought us spies like Jonathon Pollard and others instead of standing behind the US?  You are a veteran.  You took the oath to defend.  What happened to you?

The only positive note from your letter is that you neglected to mention that Paul is out to eradicate the greed and criminality that permeates within the Federal Reserve System; which I believe is one of the main underlying issues that those who oppose Paul have for their views of him.  Here is the guy who needs to be president so that the corruption and apartheid that you support can be stymied.  

Chris Schelb
Juneau, AK

Representations of fact and opinions are solely those of the author.
The opinions of the author do not represent the opinions of Sitnews.