Anyone who's aware of the truth about 9/11 knows that the PNAC crowd (Project for a New American Century) spelled out the motive for a "New Pearl Harbor" disaster. Such a disaster would mobilize the American people to support an aggressive and empirical foreign policy; without such a disaster, it would have been very hard to justify such a radical shift in policy, especially for president Bush who had campaigned advocating a humble foreign policy.
From wikipedia: "Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"
911Review.com has a list of PNAC members including sixteen of which were appointed to the Bush administration shortly before they got their wish of a new pearl harbor. Numerous sites such as IfAmericansKnew.org outline the ideology behind the PNAC members.
When Forbes endorsed Rand Paul for Senate back in January, some posters at the DailyPaul.com brought up the PNAC documents and Forbes prior endorsement of Rudy Giuliani for president. One poster, Allegory, summed it up quite well: "He (Forbes) is creepy; But the only ones who know that are the well informed people here at the Daily Paul. Most people don't know, and don't care. All they care about is that he's famous. And that's how you win elections in America: Get famous people to endorse you."
Most likely, Steve Forbes, along with Zionist Sarah Palin, jumped on the Rand Paul bandwagon for no other reason than they knew he was going to win with or without their support. Everyone likes a winning team. And since neoconservatives such as Forbes and Palin have tried to glob on to the tea parties, endorsing Paul would be good PR. Palin meanwhile has hinted that she may consider Glenn Beck as a running mate if she were to seek the presidency in 2012.
Ron Paul, in a 2009 Politico interview, threw cold water on the Palin hysteria that was sweeping through the GOP: "I wonder whether she's energizing the 15-20 year olds...That would be a question I would have. Because she doesn't talk about the Federal Reserve and some of these issues. She doesn't talk too much about personal liberties, civil liberties, getting rid of drug laws, attacking the war on drugs, punishing people who torture." He added "she is going to appeal to partisan Republicans better".
The American Spectator pointed out in April that Rand Paul's foreign policy position differs a bit from his fathers: "...during his Senate campaign, Rand Paul has actually positioned himself closer to the conservative mainstream on the war on terror (he favors military trials for terrorism suspects), Gitmo (he is against shutting it down), and Afghanistan (he still supports the war) than his father —- much to the consternation of libertarian hardliners"
Strange days indeed.
Martin Hill is a Catholic paleoconservative and civil rights advocate. His work has been featured on LewRockwell.com, WhatReallyHappened, Infowars, PrisonPlanet, National Motorists Association, WorldNetDaily, The Orange County Register, KNBC4 Los Angeles, Los Angeles Catholic Lay Mission Newspaper, KFI 640, The Press Enterprise, Antiwar.com, IamtheWitness.com, FreedomsPhoenix, Rense, BlackBoxVoting, and many others. Archives can be found at LibertyFight.com