There was an error in this gadget
0
A Leftist Understands Obama
Posted by Peter Klein on August 18, 2011 03:30 PM
If only the neocons grasped that Obama is one of them.
Is it too soon to speak of the Bush-Obama presidency?
The record shows impressive continuities between the two administrations, and nowhere more than in the policy of "force projection" in the Arab world. With one war half-ended in Iraq, but another doubled in size and stretching across borders in Afghanistan; with an expanded program of drone killings and black-ops assassinations, the latter glorified in special ceremonies of thanksgiving (as they never were under Bush); with the number of prisoners at Guantanamo having decreased, but some now slated for permanent detention; with the repeated invocation of "state secrets" to protect the government from charges of war crimes; with the Patriot Act renewed and its most dubious provisions left intact -- the Bush-Obama presidency has sufficient self-coherence to be considered a historical entity with a life of its own.
http://frankneudecker.com/index.php/2011/08/17/white-house-snopes-busted-in-
forgery-scam/
White House & Snopes BUSTED in Forgery Scam
August 17, 2011
By Richard Ward
The Global Oligarchy no longer needs to fear anything, not even Truth. In
fact, this news will never see the light of day; they'll see to it,
Internet or not. If a majority of recruited voters do not elect Obama in
2012, then selected vote-counters at who-knows-which election commissions
will save the day for them, that is, unless the Republican/Democrat
duopoly sets us up for another no-difference decision on Election Day
(once the Day gets down to us, that is).
Consider also:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/28/dr-ron-polland-evaluates-obamas-birth
-certificate/
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/05/dr-ron-polland-proof-tha
t-both-of.html
http://dancingczars.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/dr-ron-polland-speaks-with-the-
post-email/
rw
BIRTH CERTIFICATE FORGER COMES FORWARD CLAIMS WHITE HOUSE & SNOPES.COM
POSTED THE SHORT FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE HE CREATED
Real BC BillboardRemember Barack Obama's widely-circulated short form
"Certificate of Live Birth" called a COLB, posted by supposed fact
checkers Snopes.com, the DNC and even the White House? Dr. Ron Polland,
does; he claims he created it. Now he has released all his information,
providing what looks like irrefutable Proof Positive evidence that HE, not
the State of Hawaii, created Obama's Certificate of Live Birth - the short
form certificate that for over two years was cited by the Obama election
campaign, his media claque and even the White House to "prove" that
Americans concerned with Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to hold
office were crazy racists. Those of us who have been demanding an
authenticated long form Birth Certificate from Hawaii were, it seems,
among those NOT fooled by a fraudulent document. ACT
NOW - DEMAND YOUR STATE REQUIRE PROOF POSITIVE EVIDENCE OF ELIGIBILITY FOR
OFFICE - AN ORIGINAL, LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
In 2007 Dr. Polland, a computer graphics expert, created a short form
Certificate of Live Birth with Barack Obama's name on it, just to show how
easily a forgery could be made. He stored this example in an open, online
photo sharing program called "photobucket" under the screen name
"Polarik". In 2008, the White House claimed they had received an official
copy of Barry's short form birth certificate, scanned it and posted the
image online. Here's the catch; the link the White House provided to view
the document was sourced through Snopes.com, a self-described "myth
busting" website. Snopes.com proudly claimed THE certificate was 'The real
McCoy'. But incredibly - the image Snopes provided actually linked back to
Pollard's concocted copy stored in his photobucket file.
In fact, when you highlighted the image Snopes and the White House posted,
the source came up as
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg
Ask yourself, if the White House had received the short form Certificate
of Live Birth directly from the State of Hawaii, had scanned and posted it
themselves as they claimed, why would their supposedly authentic image
link to Polarik's "photobucket " image? Why was there no White House
server or government data source as the original hosting site for this
"document" image?
ACT NOW - DEMAND YOUR STATE REQUIRE PROOF POSITIVE EVIDENCE OF ELIGIBILITY
FOR OFFICE - AN ORIGINAL, LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
If Snopes.com really were the fact checkers and myth busters they claim to
be, why would they have "validated" Pollard's "Polarik" forgery? Here's a
fun little fact about the Internet - it is almost impossible to completely
"scrub", i.e. remove, something from the web. It is after all a computer
program. And as such, it documents everything. including Snopes.com's
apparent incompetence and Barack Hussein Obama's fraud. There is much more
to know about recent developments in the long form, short form document
fraud as the Obama eligibility scandal unfolds.
ACT NOW - AND SEE WHAT MORE DOCUMENT FRAUD IS INVOLVED!
It is VITALLY important that we ACT NOW to protect ourselves from the
constitutional crisis, identity fraud, and massive scandal being
perpetrated by the man acting as President of the United States. We cannot
allow this act of usurpation to continue unchallenged into a second term,
and subsequently risk destroying what is left of Liberty, the Constitution
and America.
The answer is simple, BUT WE MUST ACT NOW! ACT NOW - DEMAND YOUR STATE
REQUIRE PROOF POSITIVE EVIDENCE OF ELIGIBILITY FOR OFFICE - AN ORIGINAL,
LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
No more scanned digital copies. We demand that in each and every State of
this great nation, every Presidential candidate must provide to the State
authorities with full public transparency an original, certified and
authenticated Long Form Birth Certificate. Eligibility for office MUST be
irrefutably proven prior to being placed on the ballot!
FAX YOUR STATE NOW - DEMAND PROOF POSITIVE ELIGIBILITY BEFORE THE
ELECTION!
For more information Select Here to go to Proof-Positive.com In Liberty,
The REAL Myth Busters - The Editors at Proof Positive
www.AmericansUnitedForFreedom.org
If you prefer to send a check, please mail to: Americans United for
Freedom National Processing Center PO Box 131728 Houston, TX 77219-1728
Proof-Positive is a project of Americans United for Freedom, a 501(c)(4)
social welfare organization (pending) which focuses on nonpartisan civic
education and advocacy regarding important national issues. Forward this
Email to a Friend This email was sent to hdh@frontiernet.net by
pp-news@freedomdonations.com .
__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
The Economic Foundation of Freedom
What Explains America's Achievements of the Last 150 Years?
Howard Buffett
September 2003 • Volume: 53 • Issue: 8 •
The late Howard Buffett was a U.S. representative from Nebraska (1943–1949 and 1951–1953). This article, condensed from a lecture at Midland College in Fremont, Nebraska, is reprinted from The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, December 1956. For more information on Buffett see Joseph R. Stromberg, "Howard Homan Buffett: Old Rightist Extraordinaire" at www.antiwar.com/stromberg/s042401.html.
A clear understanding of the economic foundation of freedom and its ramifications is required by the person who strives to be an effective disciple of human liberty.
In a material sense, the economic achievements of American freedom in the last 150 years present the greatest phenomena of all history. In this relatively short period, our freedom has released and channeled human energy of such potential that an entirely new and hitherto undreamed-of world has been created.
What explains all this?
Some people have asserted that Americans are a superior race, smarter than any previous people. Not so. I have never seen or heard any evidence to indicate that Americans are an intellectual aristocracy. Perhaps it was our fortune to descend from superior pioneer stock. I don't know. In any event such a superiority, if it existed, cannot begin to explain the fantastic material achievements of this nation in the last 150 years.
Some would have you believe that the natural resources of America were the decisive factor. Not so. Other lands are as rich or richer in natural resources. South America and Mexico are examples.
Nor has the human situation changed during this period. People are the same, and the earth is the same size and constitution as it was when Socrates was holding forth in Athens.
Here, for the first time in human history, human energy was freed from arbitrary authority. Here for the first time man was able to make and carry out business ventures individually, or in relationships with others, unrestrained by unjust man-created obstacles. In America, men like Edison, Ford, Alexander Bell, and others, were free to invent and produce new products without being blocked by political authority.
Here in America man was on his own, to make the most of whatever intellect, tools, and resources he could assemble by his own personal efforts.
Human energy works efficiently to supply human needs and satisfy human desires only when and where and precisely to the extent men know they are free.
For the first time in history, that freedom was affirmed and spelled out in the Constitution of the United States. Americans were henceforth to be unrestrained by political considerations.
But this elimination of political restraint was but a part of the change from the previous economic climate. Equally important was that, for the first time in history, men had a government organized on the principle that a basic purpose of government was to enable the individual to receive and enjoy the full fruits of his own labor.
Heretofore, from the Pharaohs on down to King George III, government in greater or lesser degree operated on the theory that people were subjects, that their person, their current production, and their property belonged to the rulers. The Constitution rejected that theory in toto.
This revolutionary concept can best be understood by an examination of the alternative ideas concerning production and its distribution.
The right of a person to the product of his own labor is the foundation of economic liberty, declares Dr. F. A. Harper, in his scholarly essay, Liberty: A Path to Its Recovery. He points out that "the question at issue is how to distinguish between what is mine and what is thine."
There are three ways to handle this problem: - Each person may have whatever he can grab.
- Some person other than he who produces the goods and services decides who shall have the right of possession or use.
- Each person may be allowed to keep whatever he produces.
These three methods cover all the possibilities; there are no others.
When the economic situation is reduced to these three clear-cut alternatives, the problem of achieving justice does not seem too difficult.
The first method of operation, under which each person can have whatever he can grab, is obviously unjust and impossible. It would return us to the jungle law that "might makes right." Moreover, it would soon reduce individual economic effort to the absolute minimum required for existence. Certainly there is no reason in trying to produce wealth beyond immediate needs if one could expect to be deprived of it at any moment.
So the first method can be rejected outright.
The second method of handling economic production would provide that someone other than the person who produces goods and services shall decide who shall have their possession or use. This method of determining the rights of possession is practiced in every authoritarian society. It allows those who hold the coercive power of government to confiscate the fruits of any producer's labor.
To accept this theory, you must hold two strange concepts: (1) that a nonproducer is better qualified to judge the correct use of what you have produced than you are; (2) that a nonproducer has a right to seize the fruits of your labor.
The late Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once declared that someone must exercise command of the disposition of goods and services that have been produced, and that he knew of no better way of finding the fit man than the competition of the market place.
So it would seem that the second alternative, that someone other than the producer shall decide who shall enjoy the fruits of the producer's labor, is similar to the first method. One is a private seizure outside any law; the second is a public and legalized seizure, but without justice.
Private Property
Thus we come to the third method, whereby the producer has the right to the products of his own labor. It is the only economic pattern consistent with economic liberty.
Obviously if a person has exclusive rights to that which he has produced, that right is ownership. If all persons are to have the right to the product of their own labor, they are foreclosed from a claim to the product of another's labor.
If I have a right to the corn grown on my own land, certainly I have no claim on the cotton produced on another person's land. Otherwise his rights will be violated and no property is safe.
So far the right of a person to the product of his own labor would seem to be obvious. How then, have we arrived at our present situation?
Today's situation is the result of an alarming and devious governmental intervention in the economic affairs of the nation for objectives not contemplated by the men who wrote the Constitution.
Historically, in America the producer was protected by government in the enjoyment of the fruits of his labors. That protection of his property explains the glorious material progress already recounted.
Taxation Without Representation
The last 40 years have seen a gigantic expansion of political power over economic affairs by the federal government. This change is linked by many scholars to the passage of the income tax law in 1913. This law revolutionized the taxing system in two ways: - It gave the government new powers over the economic status of the individual. This change has curtailed the ability of the individual to achieve economic independence.
- The part of his production taken from the producer cumulatively increases the power of the federal government proportionately with the increase in its income. This power is not created; it is simply taken away from the people by those in government.
In the 1930s a further sharp step-up in the centralization of power took place. Its scope can best be understood by quoting from the annual message to Congress by the President on January 3, 1936:
"In thirty-four months we have built up new instruments of public power. In the hands of a people's government this power is wholesome and proper. But in the hands of political puppets of an economic autocracy such power would provide shackles for the liberties of the people. . . ."
That presidential statement touched a critical issue. As he pointed out, public power "in the hands of political puppets of an economic autocracy" could "provide shackles for the liberties of the people. . . ."
But the reverse is also true. Economic power in the hands of those holding political power can also provide shackles for the liberty of the people.
The Power to Control
It would be salutary if the American people could objectively and effectively ascertain how far this increase of economic power by the government has gone. Then we would know exactly where we are in the trend away from the freedom of our ancestors. But for us at this moment it is essential to learn why the separation of economic power from political power is so important.
Students of liberty offer this explanation. Power is the instrumentality of control by men and groups of men over other men.
George Sokolsky, noted columnist, says it this way: "When human beings become dependent upon the political power of the state for their livelihood, the independence of person must disappear. It is the identification of economic power with police power that destroys the right of the individual to liberty."
The transfer of economic power into political hands takes many forms. In 1932 about 2.5 million people received a check from the government every month. Today about 20 million receive a government check every month. What is the effect on the freedom of this great segment of our people being more or less dependent on the political authorities for their daily bread? The question is not easy to answer.
Something of its import may be gained from the old rhyme that goes about like this:
- So runs the law and so the law will run
- 'til the race of men be still,
- That he who eats another's bread
- Must do the other's will.
Desire for Security
Any discussion of the status of the economic foundation of freedom is incomplete without some attention to a historic human urgethe desire for security. This intense human desire is reflected in the so-called social legislation politicians have placed on our statute books.
Will this legislation fulfill its promises? If you think so, consider this rarely mentioned fine print clause. If the government is to guarantee you what the consequences of your actions will be in this case, security, then the government must take control of your activities. For with responsibilityeven self-arrogated responsibilitymust go authority.
This means that if politicians are to supply your security, they must control your work, your spending, and your saving. Witness crop controls. In that event you have traded the reality of liberty for the promise of security.
History elsewhere indicates that government-provided security is a mighty poor mess of pottage in exchange for man's birthright of freedom. There is, I suggest, no valid reason to conclude that modern man or modern conditions have changed any of the eternal verities concerning power and liberty.
In his book, The Promises Men Live By, Harry Scherman, organizer and long-time president of the Book-of-the-Month Club, has set out a course of action that deserves the attention of Americans concerned about the future of their country. Here is his suggestion:
- If, as an individual, you really have some concern about the best way to change our present world to a better one, not a bad principle is to identify the enemy.
- It should not be true, but unfortunately it is, that your immediate enemies remain, as they always have been, your rulersyour government. At all times, it is a wise thing to suspect both their intellectual honesty and their intelligence in economic matters.
- Nothing can be lost, everything can be gained, by doing so. Make them prove themselves in these respects, and be utterly ruthless in your judgment.
- When they seem most plausible, in your particular interests, it is not a bad course to suspect their economic intelligence the most. They are, in these days, the managers of a highly complex world.
- You have placed them in this management, and you acquiesce in it. But, unfortunately, they give not the slightest indication of being any more capable in handling the affairs of masses of men than rulers have been all through history. . . .
Scherman's challenge closes with a plea that citizens make a vigorous and untiring effort to understand the economics of the world we live in. Without that understanding the citizen has no competence to judge the actions of his rulers, which also means he is unable to vote competently.
Without intellectual competence the citizen is controlled by his emotions. People controlled by their emotions in political matters have always been, and are today, easy prey for tyrants.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-economic-foundation-of-freedom/
OBAMA: "We are out of money now." March 23, 2009 The Spending Threat to Our National Defense Consider it a warning from the highest levels of the U.S. government. Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta held a joint press event in Washington in which they cautioned that U.S. debt is jeopardizing America's [...]
 | WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 | Obama ExplainedScotty Starnes | August 18, 2011 at 2:30 PM | Tags: President Obama | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-5J6 |
| | WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2391341,00.asp
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 | Feral Black Teens Attack Strangers in PhiladelphiaEowyn | August 18, 2011 at 10:23 am | Tags: A Clockwork Orange, black hate crimes, black teens, black-on-white attacks, curfew, Mastery Charter School, Philadelphia, Stanley Kubrick | Categories: crime, Culture War, Insanity, Liberals, Media, Race, United States | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-8N9 |
The word "wilding" was coined in 1989, as a result of the brutal assault and rape of a white female, whom the media called the Central Park Jogger, in New York City's Central Park. "Wilding" refers to gangs of teenagers assaulting strangers for fun.
The media won't use the word "wilding" for the rising incidence of random attacks of strangers by gangs of feral teens who do it for fun, not profit, as the victims' personal belongings are not taken. The media also will not say that the attackers are black and the victims white. But you can see for yourself in the video below.
The video presents three incidents of attack in the city of Philadelphia:
In May 2011, outside Philadelphia's City Hall and in broad daylight, four black female teens attacked a white woman, kicking and throwing her to the ground while laughing, screaming, and singing.
On July 29, 2011, 6 black male teens "jumped" a man on the street. The teens were students at Mastery Charter School.
On July 31, 2011, a white man named Christopher Dean was dragged off his bicycle by another teen gang, and attacked so brutally that his skull was fractured. Like the other two attacks, this also was not a robbery. The "wilding" teens were doing it just for fun.
Reminds you of the 1971 Stanley Kubrick movie, A Clockwork Orange, doesn't it?
The city of Philadelphia has been plagued by teen mob violence and recently instituted a curfew in an attempt to curb the attacks. FoxNews says "Police have been contacted and are investigating the attack" of the white woman.
~Eowyn
| | WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
The public interest is finishing last in this horse race
Thursday, August 18, 2011, 12:27 AM
By Paul Mulshine/The Star Ledger
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EY5Ofcxjs0&feature=player_embedded
It's been close to a century since H.L. Mencken observed that the distinguishing characteristic of American journalism is "its incurable fear of ideas, its constant effort to evade the discussion of fundamentals by translating all issue into a few elemental fears, its incessant reduction of all reflection to mere emotion."
We got a dose of that last weekend. I'm talking about the way in which the media airbrushed Republican Ron Paul out of the reporting on the Iowa straw poll. The Texas congressman finished in a virtual tie for first place with Michele Bachmann in the poll on Saturday. On Sunday morning, I watched in amazement as an entire hour of "Meet the Press" was devoted to the poll, with nothing more than a cursory mention of the Texas congressman, who is a man of ideas if there ever was one. Meanwhile, there was an extensive interview with Bachmann, who is all emotion without the slightest hint of reflection.
British journalist Tim Stanley was amazed at the spectacle. "If Ron Paul were to win every single primary on next year's Super Tuesday, the New York Times would run with the headline 'Mitt Romney Comfortable Second Nomination Assured,'" Stanley wrote. At the Hill website, Brent Budowsky wrote of the coverage or lack of same "It is a sham, an outrage, and the latest example of a media that relishes having lunch with itself and remains far out of touch with political reality in the real America."
Then there was Drew Griffin of CNN, who was caught on camera telling a correspondent in Iowa: "If you get video of Sarah Palin or get a sound bite of her, send that back to us. You can hold the Ron Paul stuff."
But it was Jersey's own Jon Stewart who really nailed it. On his "Daily Show," Stewart put together a hilarious, four-minute montage that should send about 10 talking heads into early retirement. Among them is Bret Baier of Fox News, who is shown reacting to a Paul comment on the Mideast by rolling his eyeballs all the way up to his toupee.
"How did libertarian Ron Paul become the 13th floor in a hotel?" Stewart asked. He went on to add, "He's the one guy in the field, agree with him or don't agree with him, who doesn't go out of his way to regurgitate talking points or change what he believes to fit the audience in front of him."
Indeed he is. And that points to the problem Mencken cited. The job of the journalist is to dismantle talking points. The talking point that needs dismantling this year is the argument of all the candidates not named Paul that they will balance the budget without raising taxes, while also maintaining and even expanding our military presence overseas.
If the reporters were to dig into this, they could perform a real public service, quite aside from the question of who will eventually be the nominee. But then they'd have to deal with ideas. So we get what's known in the trade as "horse-race coverage." Instead of forcing the candidates to face tough questions, the reporters award points for the skill with which the candidates evade those questions.
This is not political reporting; it's sportswriting and bad sportswriting at that. Real sportswriters covering a race point out where the horses finished, not where they wanted them to finish. Paul is often called "unelectable," yet in the RealClearPolitics poll of potential candidates running against President Obama, Palin is several lengths behind Paul while Bachmann and Rick Perry lag as well. All trail by more than 10 points. By that standard, all are unelectable.
The exception is Romney, who is just a few points behind Obama. But when it comes to ideas, Romney's sole offering is the individual mandate to buy health insurance that became the cornerstone of Obamacare. That should make him unelectable as well, once primary voters hear enough about it.
But the real problem with horse-race coverage lies in the difference between sportswriting and news coverage. Sportswriters have no influence over the outcome of the events they cover. Political reporters have great influence. And at the moment, they're using that influence to destroy the one candidate who makes them confront a fear that has gotten only deeper since the Mencken era.
http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2011/08/the_public_interest_is_finishi.html
Study says it's official: The media is ignoring Ron Paul
It's official: There is now a nonpartisan study confirming the Great Ron Paul Blow-Off. Dude lost the Ames Straw Poll by 152 votes to uh...uh...what's her name... but SHE got the Sunday morning chat show invites while the punditocracy treated Dr. Paul like he was Thaddeus McCotter.
You've heard everybody from Jon Stewart to well, Ron Paul complain about it, but now we have a study from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center to back it up. The bar graph don't lie:
Pew Research Center
Even below Huntsman. Ouch.
According to the study:
"Paul's coverage also lags far behind (Donald) Trump (94 stories), who dallied with a run before opting out in mid-May and (former Alaska Gov. Sarah) Palin (85 stories), who has given no indication to date that she will enter the race. In addition, Paul trails longshot candidate and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman (44 stories) and Texas Governor, Rick Perry (33 stories) who only announced his candidacy on August 13."
When we were in Ames for the Straw Poll and posted this video earlier of SF-based Paul organizer John Dennis:
http://bcove.me/1fzeubl4
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=95608
Mitt's Dilemma
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Last week's Republican debate at Ames, Iowa, and the straw poll Saturday did more than sort out the Republican field for 2012.
They have given the nation a good close look at a Republican Party that no longer resembles the Bush-McCain model.
Consider. Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul, who garnered nearly 60 percent of the votes cast, were both among the two dozen House members who voted against the final bipartisan deal to raise the debt ceiling. Neither blanched at shutting down the U.S. government.
At the debate, every Republican onstage raised his or her hand when asked whether he or she would reject a budget deal in which $10 in spending cuts were offered for every dollar in higher taxes.
This is a party whose feet are set in concrete. The United States government will be downsized and tax rates will rise only over its cold dead body. This is Reaganism on steroids.
Bachmann's victory was stunning.
Every other candidate had been in Iowa organizing before she ever got into the race seven weeks ago. Yet she emerged with nearly 5,000 votes, the largest total ever amassed in an Iowa straw poll, with the single exception of George W. Bush's tsunami in 1999.
While virtually every candidate shares Bachmann's social and economic conservatism, none matches her fire and passion. She both humiliated and eliminated Tim Pawlenty, a fellow Minnesotan who had been her governor when she was a state legislator.
She is now not only the favorite in the Iowa caucuses but also one of three front-tier candidates for the nomination.
Ron Paul, however, who ran only 150 votes behind Bachmann and doubled the vote of Pawlenty, has not received the attention or credit his tremendous showing deserves.
Four years ago, Paul, a libertarian legend, was winning every telephone poll taken after a GOP debate but failing to win, place or show in the primaries. He seemed to be campaigning simply to make his case, realizing that he had no chance of being nominated.
His views on foreign policy were regarded as aberrational by fellow candidates, such as Rudy Giuliani, when they were not being ignored.
In last week's debate, Paul denounced U.S. intervention in wars that are none of America's business, called for closing U.S. bases abroad and bringing our troops home, and squared off against former Sen. Rick Santorum on whether Iran represents a threat.
Santorum and Pawlenty supported confrontation with Iran. Yet both together did not come close to matching Paul's vote tally.
The warfare state is now on the chopping block, thanks to the principled relentlessness of Ron Paul. And the GOP may soon become a house divided, for the anti-interventionists – after Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya – are stronger than they were in 1999, when the GOP House opposed Clinton's war on Serbia.
The entry into the race of Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, the only mega-state that is reliably Republican in presidential elections, has produced another front-tier candidate and complicated the strategic plans of Mitt Romney.
Had Perry not gotten in, Romney might have held to his decision not to make a huge investment in Iowa, let Bachmann or Paul win the state, and then dispatch them in New Hampshire and go on to rout them in a 50-state battle, for which he is better-resourced than any other candidate. Today he faces a new situation.
With Perry going into Iowa, the caucuses, from Christmas on, will rivet the nation's attention. If Romney is not there, he will be ignored for that month. And should Perry win Iowa, he would storm into New Hampshire and conceivably overwhelm Romney in his fortress state.
If he did, it would be all over for Mitt. For no GOP candidate ever has lost both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary and won the nomination.
Should Bachmann prove to be a giant killer and defeat Perry in Iowa, she would be a formidable rival to Mitt in New Hampshire and a favorite to beat him in South Carolina.
There are two questions Mitt should be asking himself:
"Can I afford to cede Iowa to a tea party-values candidate like Perry or Bachmann and wait for them in New Hampshire? Can I take five months of pounding for 'writing off Iowa' and refusing to get out of my backyard and do battle in Middle America?"
Yet the entry of Perry and straw poll are not all bad news for Mitt. Pawlenty, who appealed to the same Republicans, is gone. And still in Iowa are Bachmann, Paul, Santorum and Perry, all of whom will be competing for the same social conservative-tea party base.
Which leaves a huge opening for Mitt.
Does he head for Iowa, confront Bachmann and Perry, and win, in which case he is the nominee? Or does he wait for Bachmann or Perry to come into New Hampshire on the momentum of an Iowa victory and try to stop them there?
Upon Mitt's decision may hang his five-year investment in winning the office his father failed to win.
http://buchanan.org/blog/mitts-dilemma-4826
Ron Paul and Liberty
by Walter Block
If Ron Paul had won the Ames Iowa poll, the mainstream media would have dismissed the entire exercise as unimportant. If he had come in at, oh, 6th place, they would have used this as evidence that he is incompetent, not in the first rank of Republican candidates, can't get out the vote, the American people had rejected his candidacy, etc. So, when Congressman Paul took a magnificent second place, only 1% behind the winner, I said to myself, Hot diggity dog; the MSM can't ignore him now. They cannot dismiss this entire result since if they did so, they would have to also deprecate Michele Bachmann's win, and that they will not do. They now MUST give Dr. Paul his due credit, since he finished in close second place to her. They will be forced to discuss his ideas: bring the troops home, get rid of the Fed, drastically reduce taxes, eliminate a slew of illicit Federal departments, legalize drugs and other victimless crimes, stop foreign "aid," save the American dollar via 100% gold backing, etc.
Silly me. That shows how much I know. Instead, the talking heads are now tooting this line: "The three front runners are Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann." In their view, these are the major candidates, and all the others are also-rans. Why Mitt Romney? Well, he looks presidential, and he has a good chance with the tea partiers despite his Romney-car health policy in Massachusetts, oh so similar to Obama-care. Why Rick Perry? Well, he's the governor of Texas, the second biggest state, isn't he? And this despite the fact that he has not yet won anything in the presidential sweepstakes. Why Michele Bachmann? This is because, of course, she just won the Ames Iowa poll. Notice any name missing from all of this? I'll give you a hint: this is the guy who came in SECOND, 1% behind "major candidate" Bachmann in this recent election. There used to be among the beltway "Austro-libertarians" a campaign to promote and study Austrian economics without "You Know Who" (Ludwig von Mises, of course). There is now a campaign amongst the major media to analyze the Republican presidential process without uttering the name of "You Know Who" (Ron Paul, of course).
What can be done about this? Well, keep sending in those cards and letters; keep protesting; keep writing those e mails to these self-appointed judges. Vote for Ron Paul. And, most of all, let us all pledge to donate as much as we can to all of the upcoming Ron Paul money bombs.
There are some otherwise excellent libertarians who hold their noses at the political process. They think it is somehow incompatible with the non aggression principle, the foundation of our philosophy. Voting just gives "them" sanction, these people think. Well, if so, then libertarians should not use fiat currency to transact grocery purchases, travel on government roads, attend concerts at public theatres, patronize public libraries, parks, museums, teach in, or attend, any public university, or even private one that is subsidized. They should also not eat food, since the government is heavily involved in subsidizing some of it. They should not live in houses, since the statists have heavily involved themselves with building materials. They should eschew … the list goes on and on, and includes every jot and tittle of the economy, so heavily ensconced in it is the state apparatus.
The point is, the modern government is so heavily engaged in ALL facets of our lives. If we really didn't want to give "sanction" to them, and wanted, also, to be logically consistent, we could not operate in modern society at all. We would have to either go off to live in a self sufficient farm, or commit suicide. Hey, we don't want to lose our souls, do we?
Some libertarians say that we have a choice regarding whether or not to vote, to support Dr. Paul, whereas we have no choice with regard to any of these other things. Nonsense. No, nonsense on stilts! Human action always includes choice. We are engaging in human action all over the place. Self sufficient farming, and/or suicide ARE choices! This attitude of libertarians is very self destructive. It prevents us from supporting Ron Paul to the extent that would otherwise be the case.
I suggest a remedy for this sort of irrational thinking. It is Murray Rothbard's "Do you hate the state?" available here. While you're at it, read this other excellent piece by the same author, about my man Hector. If we really see our political leaders as the gangsters most of them are (there are but a few honorable exceptions to this general rule, certainly including in the modern day You Know Who, and his son, the junior Senator from Kentucky), we will reject this utter nonsense that to engage with them in any way is to be false to libertarianism. If we don't engage them, in many, many ways, certainly including voting, how will we ever rid ourselves of this pestilence? If we don't support the greatest advocate of libertarianism now active in behalf of the cause of liberty (hint: You Know Who), we lose the best opportunity we now have to promote this philosophy.
so many Americans just can't bring themselves to say or believe it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlhFZFrR8DQ&feature=player_embedded#!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlhFZFrR8DQ&feature=player_embedded#!
and we know why they support Michelle Bachmann
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0nN_hAiWY
choose sides carefully
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Good Morning Members,
Many of you know and are familiar with Dick Thompson, who is an active member of Political Forum. Dick has been hospitalized in Queen's New York, and his condition doesn't sound good. He is currently on a ventilator to assist in his breathing.
Also, another member, Del "GranDad" DFWTexas, who has not been as active in the Group in quite some time, and was more of a "Lurker"; has also been hospitalized, and his prognosis is not good. Del suffers from lung cancer, and as I understand it, Hospice has been called in.
If and when I hear any more information, I will pass it on to the Group.
I would ask that all of you keep these two gentlemen and their families in your thoughts and prayers;
Respectfully,
KeithInTampa
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Can Van Jones Create a 'Left-Wing Tea Party'? Don't Bet on It
Posted By Ron Radosh On August 17, 2011 @ 6:23 pm In Uncategorized | 15 Comments
You remember Obama's departed Green czar, the once self-proclaimed revolutionary Communist Van Jones [1]? Well, the man is back. According to Michelle Goldberg, writing [2] in The Daily Beast, on July 23 Jones threw a Washington, D.C., party to announce the creation of what he predicts will be the left-wing's Tea Party, which he calls the "American Dream Movement." Goldberg writes:
Launched at a July 23 event in New York City that was part rally, party dance party, the American Dream Movement aims to restore the fight for economic justice to the center of progressive politics. On Aug. 9, the movement put out its crowd-sourced "Contract for the American Dream," a 10-point economic manifesto that called for new investments in education and infrastructure; higher taxes for corporations, Wall Street and the wealthy; and curbs on lobbyists. The next day, it was published as a full-page ad in The New York Times. Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois will soon introduce the Emergency Jobs to Restore the American Dream Act, legislation based on the document.
Since I read the Times online, I did not see the full–page ad — one of the benefits of not reading the print edition. Actually, Jones' movement was first announced [3] last February at the Huffington Post — but somehow, the earlier announcement produced no traction. Nothing like a re-release to try again.
While Jones introduces it as a left version of the Tea Party, it is more accurately thought of as a 21st century version of the Communist Party's Popular Front of the 1930s. After all, just as the CPUSA hid its Red politics and communist aims under the guise of "20th century Americanism," Jones too hides his real aims in a similar fashion. Remember CP's wartime chief Earl Browder, who proclaimed the slogan "Communism is 20th century Americanism," under photos of Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Karl Marx? The slogan lasted until old Joe Stalin took offense at the audacity of undermining loyalty to the Soviet Union, and ordered that the slogan be ditched overnight.
Jones, as we may recall, in a now famous 2005 newspaper interview [4] said that "I'm willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends." No longer announcing that he is a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist, Jones is proceeding to try and build social movements along the classic lines of the old communist movement of the 1930s and 40s that he once sought to openly emulate.
With his new movement, Jones hopes not to have to depend for cadre on a small group of East Bay radicals in San Francisco, but to create a movement from above that appears to be like the actual Tea Party, a movement that started from below. It's a classic CP strategy. As the Old Left sees the New Deal era, FDR was pushed to the Left by a powerful social movement composed of the working class that was organizing the CIO — the industry-wide new trade union movement. That pressure from below supposedly forced Roosevelt to turn to more left-wing programs, hence the slew of legislation that became the hallmark of the Second New Deal after 1935.
Hence Jones' belief is that with his American Dream Movement, a groundswell of protest will emerge that will both keep Barack Obama in the White House and at the same time force him to do what the Left so far has not been able to accomplish: openly force him to espouse and to gather momentum for new widespread government spending, all based on increasing the U.S. deficit through Keynesian spending mechanisms.
Of course, in the 1930s there was an actual social movement that was based in reality and enabled labor to eventually reject radicalism and move into the middle class. Big industry welcomed the stability it got through contractual arrangements with big labor, and easily made peace with the unions — until recent times, when the deals they made came crashing apart under the strain of the collapsed New Deal model of a modern economy.
Now, there is no viable real left-wing movement, except it lives in the dream world of people like Van Jones. As Jones explained it, "The job of leading an independent movement to bring out the best in our country is not the same job as being head of state. I'm glad [Obama] is there, and I will do everything in my power to make sure he stays head of state until they have to pull him out of there. I might block the driveway at the end of 2016. But the job of creating an independent movement that brings out the best in the American people, that's our job."
Jones, since he is an old hand of the Left, must realize that an "independent movement" cannot be created by an announcement, by funding from the likes of a George Soros fund for left-wing activity, or by throwing a dance party in Washington, D.C. It has to have some basis in the real world, not just in the minds of leftists. Of course he has deluded followers like Michelle Goldberg, who seems to actually believe that Jones' "careful study of American political movements" led him to create this one new organization that will succeed because it is the "distillation of what he has learned."
It sounds pretty old fashioned to this writer. Its umbrella front will be called "Rebuilding the Dream," and its work will be carried on through the extreme left's favorite group, MoveOn.Org. How this will lead to success is something Ms.Goldberg cannot explain. Indeed, reveals a bit of desperation for Van Jones, who otherwise would avoid a group like MoveOn.org like the plague. Indeed, MoveOn's director proclaims that the new Jones group will be "the Tea Party Express." Goldberg goes on to give what is in fact a rather pathetic example of this. She cite 1500 people gathering at Montana's state capitol to protest local budget cuts!
What is unique about Jones' effort — as sure to fail as his earlier attempts to create a movement — is his adoption of a patriotic theme — again, taken directly from the old communist movement playbook. As one of his supporters, Rep. Keith Ellison, says, "I'm so glad that he has clearly recognized that we as progressives cannot concede patriotic themes to the right wing. Why would we ever do that? Everything we love about this country — the right to vote, equality before the law, the right to organize—these things were won by patriotic Americans." Members of the Tea Party, he says, "wrap themselves in the flag, but they're not upholding core American values. We are."
Last February, when he first announced the new movement and no one took notice, Jones said: "We will prevail because — in truth — we are not in a right-wing period of American history, nor are we in a left-wing period. We are simply in a volatile period." But of course, his claim that his movement is capturing the non-partisan "moral center" is fraudulent. Jones' movement — or attempt at one — is a far left operation, as can be seen by the demands he raises and the context in which he puts these demands.
So Jones then said, "Let Saturday, February 26, 2011, mark the beginning of the national movement [5] to renew the American Dream and return us to the moral center — where everybody counts, and everybody matters." Feb. 26th passed, and nothing happened. Now, the date has suddenly changed first to July 23rd and now to August 15th. Whatever the date, we can be sure that Van Jones will fail once again, and perhaps next year George Soros will give him more money to announce yet a new organization and a new starting date. After all, the man has got to do something to earn his pay.
So I end with the image Jones gives to Michelle Goldberg. He tells her that when Obama leaves the White House in 2016, he might have to "block the driveway" to prevent him from leaving. That date, of course, assumes Obama will have two terms in office. So, I look forward deeply to 2013, when the new Republican president takes office, and to watching the capitol police haul Jones off the White House roadway.
That result won't take a movement — only the electoral activity of the American people, who show by their ballot that they are fed up with Barack Obama.
Article printed from Ron Radosh: http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh
URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2011/08/17/van-jones-left-wing-tea-party/
URLs in this post:
[1] Van Jones: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2406
[2] writing : http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/15/tea-party-s-liberal-counterpart-van-jones-new-progressive-movement.html
[3] first announced: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-jones/american-dream-movement_b_826477.html
[4] a now famous 2005 newspaper interview: http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/the-new-face-of-environmentalism/Content?oid=1079539&showFullText=true
[5] mark the beginning of the national movement: http://pol.moveon.org/callforaction
__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
|
__._,_.___
IF YOU DON'T STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS, FEEL FREE TO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM! Please visit: www.operationshoebox.com
.
__,_._,___
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
