There was an error in this gadget
0
--------
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/11/figures-occupy-miami-protest-leader-led-jews-go-back-to-the-ovens-rally/
#Occupy Miami Protest Leader Led "Jews Go Back to the Ovens" Rally
Posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, November 25, 2011, 10:09 AM
<http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/themes/Gateway-Pundit-Wordpress-Theme/images/btn-prev-post.jpg>
<http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/themes/Gateway-Pundit-Wordpress-Theme/images/btn-next-post.jpg>
In December 2008 Pro-Palestinian protesters at a rally in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., took their anti-Israel rhetoric a step further, calling for the extermination of Israel — and of Jews.
"Go back to the ovens!"
Nazi Palestinian woman in the movie calls for Jews to 'Go Back to the Oven' at Anti-Israel Demonstration.
The organizer of this protest and several other anti-Israel protests in the Miami area wasMohammad Malik. Today, Malik is heading the local Occupy Miami movement.
World Net Daily reported, via Orbusmax:
The recent executive director of the controversial Council on American-Islamic Relations' South Florida chapter is a founder and spokesman of Occupy Miami, WND has learned.
Mohammad Malik currently is as an activist with several other Islamic groups.
He has led hate-filled anti-Israel protests in which participants were filmed wearing Hamas paraphernalia while chanting "Nuke Israel" and "Go back to the oven" – a reference to Jews being killed in the Holocaust.
Malik has been widely quoted in the Florida news media in recent weeks speaking for Occupy Miami.
The Miami Herald identified Malik as one of the organizers of Occupy's Miami's downtown campsite headquarters…
… Malik himself was the principal organizer of numerous anti-Israel rallies.
A rally in March was titled "Miami's Third Intifada Rally for Palestine."
During the demonstration, protesters reportedly chanted a slogan often used by Hamas and other Palestinian radicals calling for the destruction of Israel: "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free."
A Malik-led rally in December 2008 reportedly drew 200 to 300 rowdy supporters, with some screaming for Jews to "go back to the ovens."
Mohammad Malik led anti-Israel protests in Miami in March.
<http://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/malik.jpg>
Malik taunted pro-Israel protesters in this 2009 protest. (Americans Against Hate)
Now Muhammad Malik is leading the local Obama-endorsed #Occupy Miami protests.
__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
Visit Your Group
Report any problems, suggestions or abuse to Individual-Sovereignty-owner@yahoogroups.com
MARKETPLACE
Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.
<http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=bf079c48-18c7-11e1-b757-27a87dd3467e&T=1c8umcme4%2fX%3d1322378198%2fE%3d1705303292%2fR%3dgroups%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d250416521%2fH%3dY29udGVudD0iUG9kY2FzdHM7TWVzc2FnZV9Cb2FyZHM7TmV3cztHbztGaW5hbmNlO1RWO0V2ZW50cztQZW9wbGU7WWVsbG93X1BhZ2VzO01hcHM7IiBkaXNhYmxlc2h1ZmZsaW5nPSIxIiBzZXJ2ZUlkPSJiZjA3OWM0OC0xOGM3LTExZTEtYjc1Ny0yN2E4N2RkMzQ2N2UiIHNpdGVJZD0iNDQ1MjU1MSIgdFN0bXA9IjEzMjIzNzgxOTgwMzMzNzgiIA--%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d683E8962&U=13ct406fu%2fN%3dL4Y3MtBDRuU-%2fC%3d493064.14543979.14562481.13298430%2fD%3dMKP1%2fB%3d6060255%2fV%3d1>
<http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/yg/logo/us.gif>
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=2420737/grpspId=1705303292/msgId=254207/stime=1322378197/nc1=4507179/nc2=5898810/nc3=3848621>
__,_._,___
--
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.
May be sage has no idea... I do... not about you but about the mid-
east. On my last visit I was to meet three old friends at the border
crossing just south of Jerusalem.... the missile hit them on the
Israeli side when I was about 200 meters away...
east. On my last visit I was to meet three old friends at the border
crossing just south of Jerusalem.... the missile hit them on the
Israeli side when I was about 200 meters away...
Israel did not respond. There are MANY MANY cases where Israel does
not respond... when they do respond they do it right. 20% of the
voting population of Israel are Muslim. Why is it that they have no
problem other than being placed on Palestinian hit lists?
Who built the new shopping mall? Who built the new Olympic sized
pools? who pays the light bill? who sees to it that every shipment
that does not carry arms is delivered? (they do this in their own
country as well), who sees to it that Palestine has the same monthly
payment for social welfare as its own citizens?
Who attacked who in every war that land was won and delivered to
Israeli control under treaty terms? Who is it that is now back-
peddling?
Who is it that has fired first in EVERY armed conflict Israel has had
with neighbors or the Palestinians. What is the ONLY country that a
Palestinian can get a visa to enter in the mid-east (HINT.... Israel)
Even their Arab/Muslim brothers will not allow them in.
Who is it that places military rocket sites and headquarters in public
schools and hospitals?
Who is it that time and again has agreed to "Free Palestine" in
exchange for the simple right to exist as a state only to be refused
every time.
Who is it that swears orally and in writing that all Israelis
(remember 20% are Muslims) must be exterminated?
Who is it that has a government that is comprised entirely of a known
terrorist organization?
Please answer these questions honestly.
On Nov 26, 8:12 pm, Democrat <edipyuk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sage you have no clue about me and my position. I am not a Sunni, nor
> an Arab. Every person with sense of justice that follow the events in
> the Middle East knows well that Israel is the bully, the agressor, the
> land-grabber, the occupying military power, while at the same time the
> the crying victim.
>
> History will condemn Israel as a fascist apertheid state. Thank God
> many Americans and Europians, despite the Zionist propaganda and
> finance, are realizing this fact. I am member of a few Jewis
> organizations that promote peace (not the fake peace-process led by
> the USA-Inc), justice and liberty.
>
> With the change in the Arab world, which will take a few more years,
> Israel will be the only militarist regime (faking democracy) and the
> only theocratic regime besides Iran. Wait and see.
>
> Peace,
> Edip
>
> On Nov 26, 9:21 am, Sage2 <wisdom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The bottom line is quite simple for any argument as it
> > relates to Arab , Israeli relations. The Arabs are a culture of hate
> > for Jews and never intend to make peace with them. History proves Edip
> > Yuksel wrong time & time again. One need only read the 1928 Muslim
> > Brotherhood Manifesto. If it had not been for the Western countries
> > during WWII fighting for the worlds freedom the Arabs would be slaves
> > to the Germans, even with the Brotherhood having assisted them in war
> > crimes against the Jews.
>
> > On Nov 26, 10:22 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Good Morning from Tampa Florida Edip,
>
> > > I have ony watched a portion of your video, and seen only a smidgeon of
> > > your writings.
>
> > > I'll take your challenge, albeit I would like for the stakes to be a
> > > little higher. How about we debate, "*mano-y-mano*", and the loser cover
> > > all expenses of the winner?
>
> > > I am prepared to come to New York, or for you to come to Tampa Florida.
> > > If you come to Tampa, I can arrange for public broadcasting on cable
> > > television, but either way, our debate will be broadcast on You-Tube.
>
> > > Put your money where your mouth is.....
>
> > > Respectfully,
>
> > > KeithInTampa
> > > KeithInTampa@gmail,com
>
> > > On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Democrat <edipyuk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Edip Yuksel chellenges fellow Americans at Ground Zero.
>
> > > >http://www.edip4president.com/challenge/-Hidequoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
--
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.
Sage you have no clue about me and my position. I am not a Sunni, nor
an Arab. Every person with sense of justice that follow the events in
the Middle East knows well that Israel is the bully, the agressor, the
land-grabber, the occupying military power, while at the same time the
the crying victim.
an Arab. Every person with sense of justice that follow the events in
the Middle East knows well that Israel is the bully, the agressor, the
land-grabber, the occupying military power, while at the same time the
the crying victim.
History will condemn Israel as a fascist apertheid state. Thank God
many Americans and Europians, despite the Zionist propaganda and
finance, are realizing this fact. I am member of a few Jewis
organizations that promote peace (not the fake peace-process led by
the USA-Inc), justice and liberty.
With the change in the Arab world, which will take a few more years,
Israel will be the only militarist regime (faking democracy) and the
only theocratic regime besides Iran. Wait and see.
Peace,
Edip
On Nov 26, 9:21 am, Sage2 <wisdom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The bottom line is quite simple for any argument as it
> relates to Arab , Israeli relations. The Arabs are a culture of hate
> for Jews and never intend to make peace with them. History proves Edip
> Yuksel wrong time & time again. One need only read the 1928 Muslim
> Brotherhood Manifesto. If it had not been for the Western countries
> during WWII fighting for the worlds freedom the Arabs would be slaves
> to the Germans, even with the Brotherhood having assisted them in war
> crimes against the Jews.
>
> On Nov 26, 10:22 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Good Morning from Tampa Florida Edip,
>
> > I have ony watched a portion of your video, and seen only a smidgeon of
> > your writings.
>
> > I'll take your challenge, albeit I would like for the stakes to be a
> > little higher. How about we debate, "*mano-y-mano*", and the loser cover
> > all expenses of the winner?
>
> > I am prepared to come to New York, or for you to come to Tampa Florida.
> > If you come to Tampa, I can arrange for public broadcasting on cable
> > television, but either way, our debate will be broadcast on You-Tube.
>
> > Put your money where your mouth is.....
>
> > Respectfully,
>
> > KeithInTampa
> > KeithInTampa@gmail,com
>
> > On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Democrat <edipyuk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Edip Yuksel chellenges fellow Americans at Ground Zero.
>
> > >http://www.edip4president.com/challenge/-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
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.
For this offer to work, we need make an arrangement regarding the
referees. My original offer was a bit different: either you get 100
dollars or you get a free book or free junk food. In other words, it
was a one-sided offer. I did not need to pay someone's expenses or the
other way around. I had an allocated budget for that and regardless
the judgment of the referees I was going to achieve my goal: start
rational dialogue in an environment where warmonger's confrontational
propaganda of hostility and bloodshed is popular.
referees. My original offer was a bit different: either you get 100
dollars or you get a free book or free junk food. In other words, it
was a one-sided offer. I did not need to pay someone's expenses or the
other way around. I had an allocated budget for that and regardless
the judgment of the referees I was going to achieve my goal: start
rational dialogue in an environment where warmonger's confrontational
propaganda of hostility and bloodshed is popular.
So, offer a method to select an impartial referee, then I will take
your proposal, preferrably in Tucson.
Peace,
Edip
On Nov 26, 8:22 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good Morning from Tampa Florida Edip,
>
> I have ony watched a portion of your video, and seen only a smidgeon of
> your writings.
>
> I'll take your challenge, albeit I would like for the stakes to be a
> little higher. How about we debate, "*mano-y-mano*", and the loser cover
> all expenses of the winner?
>
> I am prepared to come to New York, or for you to come to Tampa Florida.
> If you come to Tampa, I can arrange for public broadcasting on cable
> television, but either way, our debate will be broadcast on You-Tube.
>
> Put your money where your mouth is.....
>
> Respectfully,
>
> KeithInTampa
> KeithInTampa@gmail,com
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Democrat <edipyuk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Edip Yuksel chellenges fellow Americans at Ground Zero.
>
> >http://www.edip4president.com/challenge/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
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.
----------
New post on ThinkMarkets
Malinvestment in Human Capital
by Mario Rizzo
by Jerry O'Driscoll
The Weekend Wall Street Journal has a front-page article on labor mismatch: "Help Wanted: In Unexpected Twist, Some Skilled Jobs Go Begging." It focuses on the problems that the Union Pacific Railroad is experiencing trying to hire skilled workers to keep the trains rolling. These include electricians who work on diesel engines.
It is a widespread problem: the article reports survey results showing that 83 percent of manufacturers reported a moderate or severe shortage of skilled production workers. Read more of this post
Mario Rizzo | November 26, 2011 at 5:53 pm | Categories: Economic Stimulus, Job creation, unemployment | URL: http://wp.me/pmseG-1iY
Comment See all comments
Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://thinkmarkets.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/malinvestment-in-human-capital/
Thanks for flying with 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.
----------------------------------------------------------
http://goldsilver.com/new/wealth-cycles-china-will-collapse-by-the-end-of-2011/
Gordon Chang, who writes for Forbes.com, predicts China will collapse by the end of 2011!
He clarifies in this interview with Casey Research that he could be a month off, but that he believes China's collapse is much closer at hand than anyone realizes.
Why does he think this? One of his first reasons is the type of corruption occurring now in China:
Clearly what we see in China right now is a lot of corruption (with) enormous amounts of money. We know that because Macau is the world's largest (gambling) gaming destination, not Las Vegas. And Macau has just a few casinos. Well, what's going on there is the cadres go down and launder their money at the high stakes tables… the (money then) becomes untraceable.
You know, it's not like the corruption in the first part of the reform era, where corruption really greased the wheels to permit business to occur. What is happening now is very short-term corruption, where people are stealing tons of money (with a) very short-term perspective.
Along with the corruption, mass insurrections are becoming more commonplace in China:
But what the real problem is, we see protests in China increasing. According to a report, 200,800 mass incidents (protests and demonstrations). That is well up from five years ago, which was 80,000 to 90,000.
But this is not just a numbers game. What is really worrying for the (Chinese) regime is the increasing violence of protestors. So we not only have demonstrations and strikes, we have, basically, mass insurrections, bombings.
And the kicker to the protests:
And many of these bombers and protest leaders are really the heroes in Chinese society. That's a real problem for the regime.
At the moment, the regime appears to be keeping its population happy with a growing economy. A good portion of the money buoying the economy is now coming from China's stimulus packages. As a result they have ended up with scores of ghost cities, newly built and gleaming and empty of life. These are full-fledged cities built for millions of people, with only a skeleton population of 10,000-100,000 people living in them.
Another reason China could go down much sooner than we expect is because of our lack of information. In the United States, their is a free press with no internet censorship. As an example, WealthCycles.com has published many articles, blogs, and videos criticising the US Government and Federal Reserve on economic issues. This is in stark contrast to China, from the BBC:
(Weeks ago) Communist Party leaders agreed a list of "cultural development guidelines" which included increased controls over social media and penalties for those spreading "harmful information".
Along with the government censorship of the population, there is also the cultural attitude of "face". We'll let Charles Smith over at OfTwoMinds.com explain:
China, and other Asian cultures, are built around "face". This requires a public facade, to maintain face and cloak the private, back-door reality. In general, Asian people do not like criticizing their country, as this is experienced as a loss of face.
Here's how 'face' works. If you marry a 'local' in China, Japan, Thailand, etc., then they will eventually, obliquely and with reluctance, tell you some of the unsavory details of how life actually works. Maybe. If they do, they will not like it if you repeat these 'we lose face' realities to other Big Noses. You will have to do so in private, in a hushed voice.
As a result, there are always two doors in Asia: the front door, carefully arranged to present a face-enhancing image to the outside world, and the back door, where everything important actually takes place.
A typical front door in China is the banquet with the glad-handing mayor. The back door is for his mistress, the cash 'commissions' from various deals and the cover-up of the face-damaging deaths in the local factory. Bad business, that; we lost face. Go take care of it with cash, threats, promises or whatever is required to bury it and restore face.
This culture of face, along with China's stranglehold over the media, prevents us from knowing the full details of the situation on the ground. This means China could go down much sooner than expected.
Then, of course, there is the Chinese economy. Of which, the main issue is the financial sector. Chinese bankers appear to have been using the "No one got fired for hiring IBM" logic in issuing loans. This makes sense, as China's banking sector is highly politicized. Minxin Pei's explains in his article "Swimming Naked in China":
For years, China's state-owned banks systematically restricted credit to China's dynamic private sector. Such a system came into being because state-owned banks wanted to make more money with their low-cost (if not free) household deposits, because when state-owned banks lend to state-owned firms, they can charge only regulated (low) interest rates and repayment is not assured. Generally, such lending is politically safe (since no bank managers go to jail for making bad loans to state-owned enterprises) but economically unprofitable. On the other hand, lending money to private firms is politically unsafe (bank managers risk corruption charges should loans go sour) but economically lucrative (as they can charge high rates).
With lending being highly politicized, private firms have been forced to tap the 'shadow banking system' for capital. However, with Beijing tightening credit to fight inflation… state-owned banks have been forced to call in the loans made through the 'shadow banking system,' thus hurting the debtors and triggering a spate of bankruptcies. This in turn could lead to a severe downturn for China.
And what appears to be the most damning evidence of all, from the AP article "Top of Chinese Wealthy's Wish List? To Leave China":
(Su) sits at the top of a country -- economy booming, influence spreading, military swelling -- widely expected to dominate the 21st century. Yet the property developer shares something surprising with many newly rich in China: he's looking forward to the day he can leave.
Yet affluence alone seems a poor bargain to those with the means to live elsewhere. Despite more economic freedom, the communist government has kept its tight grip on many other aspects of daily life. China's leaders punish, sometimes harshly, public dissent and any perceived challenges to their power, and censor what can be read online and in print. Authoritarian rule, meanwhile, has proved ineffective in addressing long standing problems of pollution, contaminated food and a creaking health care system.
There is also a yawning gap between rich and poor in China, which feeds a resentment that makes some of the wealthy uncomfortable. The country's uneven jump to capitalism over the last three decades has created dozens of billionaires, but China barely ranks in the top 100 on a World Bank list of countries by income per person.
Among the 20,000 Chinese with at least 100 million yuan ($15 million) in individual investment assets, 27 percent have already emigrated and 47 percent are considering it, according to a report by China Merchants Bank and U.S. consultants Bain & Co. published in April.
As (Su) dined in the VIP room of a Beijing restaurant, (he) (l)owered his voice (and) said for many rich there are worries about the authoritarian government. 'This is a very sensitive topic. Everyone knows this. It's freer and more just abroad,' he said.
Gordon Chang's prediction of China collapsing before 2011 is a bit presumptuous. But we must admit, it does appear that China isn't all that it is cracked up to be.
__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
New Members 9
Visit Your Group
This email group is to share information, opinions, and experiences that relate to politics. Please be polite, open-minded, and tolerant. World-wide_Politics is not responsible for the comments, copyrights, or topics of messages received on this email group. Messages are the complete responsibility of the sender. World-wide_Politics reserves the right to modify messages or delete posts considered not appropriate for this email group, revoke posting privileges, and/or revoke the membership of any group member. Posts about religion should relate to politics.
Ideal Post Format
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/World-wide_Politics/files/Ideal%20Post%20Format
MARKETPLACE
Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
__,_._,___
--
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.
Published: Nov. 23, 2011 Updated: Nov. 25, 2011 11:33 p.m.
Getting serious about Ron Paul
By STEVEN GREENHUT
Special to the Register
I can't forgive myself for voting for Arnold Schwarzenegger for governor during the 2003 recall. I selected a "winnable" loser rather than Tom McClintock, a principled conservative who knew what policies to pursue to right California's sinking fiscal ship. If everyone who voted for Schwarzenegger under the belief that McClintock couldn't win had voted for McClintock, who's now a congressman, perhaps he would have won the governorship.
The Schwarzenegger v. McClintock race springs to mind as Ron Paul, the quirky Texas congressman with unwavering libertarian principles, pursues the GOP nomination for the presidency. Paul is not a dynamic personality, but he has a firm grasp of the issues. Currently, he is near the top of polls for the Iowa caucuses, and his national support has remained strong.
Despite encouraging rhetoric from some candidates (i.e., Rick Perry's description of Social Security as a Ponzi scheme), the "serious" candidates will not try to swap U.S. entitlements with private alternatives.
None of them will address the Federal Reserve, which, according to Paul, makes it easy for the feds to print the money needed to finance their free-spending ways. At best, a winning mainstream Republican will tinker around the edges of reform, perhaps limiting government just enough to let the economy heat up again.
Even if Paul pulls off the upset of the century, he may not have the skills or congressional support to succeed. He can be obtuse, such as the time when he was asked about his favorite Ronald Reagan legacy and gave a boring answer about the money supply. But despite his many flaws, he at least he understands that the nation's problems center on its gargantuan government.
Too bad everyone knows he can't win.
Comedian Jon Stewart once featured a devastating segment on the media coverage of the primary race. Paul had high poll numbers but the talking heads wouldn't mention his name. They talked about the hapless Jon Huntsman, who was barely registering on the polls, but didn't mention Paul. After one blogger took him to task for writing about the presidential candidates without mentioning Paul, Jonah Goldberg, editor of National Review Online, responded: "The reason I didn't mention him is precisely the reason [he] suspects: I don't take Ron Paul seriously as a presidential contender because (in my opinion) he isn't one. He is the Right's version of Ralph Nader."
Conservative writer Warner Todd Huston wrote recently that Paul is not a serious candidate because he has not built a serious statewide organization, which might be a legitimate argument except that Huston hurled unfounded accusations at Paul, charging his minions with anti-Semitism and surrender in the face of "Islamofascism." His diatribe against the mild-mannered physician/candidate touches on why most conservatives won't take him seriously – Paul's foreign-policy views.
To the hawks who dominate the modern GOP (and the Democratic Party, too, lest you wonder why the president's foreign policy differs little from his predecessor's), Paul's focus on reducing military commitments and concentrating on defense rather than on nation-building is the equivalent of appeasement in the face of Nazism, which is the analogy Huston used.
You'd think it a waste of time to hammer a candidate with no chance of winning. But those conservatives committed to military expansion abroad and who have little concern about the "war on terror's" effect on civil liberties at home don't want to take chances. The lefties dislike him too, as Bob Schieffer's rude interview on "Face the Nation" last weekend showed.
Nevertheless, Paul might just win Iowa. I was active in the caucuses there years ago. It's a socially conservative state. But the libertarian Paul is making inroads. In these dire economic times, more voters are noticing that government growth, debt spending and the economy are paramount.
Paul might not have a good campaign ground game going, but Herman Cain doesn't have much of a ground game, either. That didn't stop Cain from getting weeks of serious national media coverage. His campaign was derailed by sexual harassment allegations, and by his painfully embarrassing answer to an newspaper editorial board's puffball question about President Obama's Libya policy. Cain knew nothing about the topic as he aimlessly searched his empty mental Rolodex for answers. Cain's collapse came after Perry's infamous "oops" moment during a GOP debate when he was asked which three federal departments he would eliminate, but he couldn't think of a third one.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is the flavor of the month, as GOP primary voters search for anyone but Mitt Romney, whose slick personality and fairly liberal policies turn off grass-roots activists.
But Gingrich has malleable principles himself, and he is dogged by personal scandals.
It's hard to be impressed by any of the other Republican candidates, who range from the hopelessly establishmentarian (Rick Santorum and Huntsman) to the fringy (Michele Bachmann, who has been dubbed the winner of the "Who's Crazier Than Sarah Palin" contest by comedian Conan O'Brien, because of some of her rhetoric).
When you look at the Republican lineup or at the out-of-his-depth former community activist who went from state senator to Oval Office in four years, it's hard to make the case that Paul is somehow not serious. In reality, Paul "can't win" because the political establishment knows how serious he is about his limited-government views.
Even in the most optimistic scenario, Paul is a long shot. But the country's problems are so deep that perhaps it's time to take a chance on someone with the right answers, regardless of the odds. Unless, of course, you're still celebrating the way that Gov. Schwarzenegger saved California from disaster.
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/paul-328514-serious-republican.html?fb_comment_id=fbc_5006952998344_663686_5006953651344
The New York Times Attacks Ron Paul Again
Posted by Bill Anderson on November 25, 2011 08:56 PM
While I glance at the titles of Gail Collins's columns, along with a blurb about the vitriol she is about to release, I rarely read what she has to say, as she is the typical empty suit that is promoted by the New York Times. However, today, she launched a vicious and sarcastic attack on Ron Paul, and is worth reading if for no other reason than one can see the condescension and nastiness oozing from one of the top "journalists" at the NYT.
Why the hatred aimed at Ron Paul? Collins spells out a few of his "crimes," including:
- He also doesn't believe in, well, let's see: gun control, the death penalty, the C.I.A., the Civil Rights Act, prosecuting flag-burners, hate crime legislation, foreign aid, the military draft under any circumstances, campaign finance reform, the war on drugs, the war on terror and the war on porn. Also the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan.
Re: The New York Times Attacks Ron Paul Again
Posted by Daniel McAdams on November 26, 2011 07:45 AM
One other thing, Professor: Look at how Gail Collins falsely insinuates anti-Semitism in Dr. Paul's work:
- "'Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom' has more variety. It's full of essays, mostly about things Paul disapproves of, from abortion to Zionism."
Presidential Timber
by Fred Reed
All indicators point downward, I tell you. On the lobotomy box the other night I stumbled on what seemed to be sock puppets standing behind rostrums and hypnotically intoning "The American People, the American People, the American People."
Puzzled, I speculated that it might be a convention of performing autistics, but soon understood that it it was a debate among Republican candidates for the presidency. Why use people, I wondered? We could do it as well in software. Computer graphics, small recorded vocabulary, narcotic rhythm. Easy.
Someone named Romney was speaking. I checked the Wicked Pedia to see what manner of creature he might be. No surprises. Pampered rich kid, apparently not too bright, mediocre student in fancy private schools. A Mormon. Only one wife, though. A former missionary in France. It might have been worse. We could have bombed St. Denis.
I thought of all the Mormon missionaries I had seen in various countries, black-suited in Taiwan in August, peddling around like bicycle-borne undertakers, earnest, solemn, living in some eerie head-bubble inaccessible to outsiders. Oh help.
I'm going to become an ant, I decided. It would be less embarrassing. I don't know how to go about it, but there must be a way. I'll live in one of those high-rise mud nests in the Australian desert, except I think those are termites. How can they be termites with no wood to eat? Maybe they have it shipped in.
Among the American-Peoplers was Rick Perry, a Son of Texas in the mold of Bush II, dumb as turnips, inarticulate, a wing-nut Christian. I guess he's waitin' for the ol' Rapture-suction to whoosh him up to drink Lone Star with Chay-suss. Poor Chaysuss. Rick wants to invade Mexico militarily, but only with the permission of the Mexican government. Thoughtful of him to ask.
Does he speak Spanish? No. English? Almost. Any experience outside the US? No. Doesn't need it. He has a direct line to God, who presumably speaks to him slowly, in words without too many syllables.
"The American People. The American People. We have to get America back on track. The Ordinary American. We have to get back to American Values. The American Dream."
What the hell is the American Dream, I wondered? Seven credit cards maxed-out, living paycheck to paycheck, upside down on the mortgage in a boring house you don't really like, a job you hate but the retirement plan gotcha, your little boy buzzing on force-fed Ritalin, wife and daughter gobbling Prozac and everyone wondering, "Is this all there is?"
Actually, yes. Well, maybe a week at Disneyland with that stupid mouse.
Then Michele Bachmann, clueless evangelical daffodil. May God save us from Christianity. Brighter than Perry, but so is anything not actually inanimate. Not visibly intelligent enough to disqualify her for election, but maybe she is dissimulating. No experience in the world that I can see.
"America was not created to be a nation of followers,," Romney told his followers. The key to election seems to be to tell Americans how wonderful they are, stroke them like cats, avoid puzzling them, and keep saying "The American Dream." Tell them that we're a country of rugged individualists, just like Davy Crockett and Dan'l Boone. Probably we should wear coon-skin hats.
Somebody asked Romney, will he attack Iran if it doesn't obey Washington? "Absolutely," responded this apostle of the Church of Latter Day Pattons. Japan's oil comes through the Straits of Hormuz, which his hearers believe to be a brand of beef stew. No oil, no Japan. No matter. "The American People...."
I'm going to slit my throat. Do ants have throats? A country of 315 million, nuclear-armed, able to wreck other countries it has never heard of in minutes, and the candidates sound as if they were addressing a warehouse of stuffed animals. This is the best we can do?
Yes.
The American People. The American Dream. We must turn this country around. OK, then the East Coast would front on the Pacific. Why would that be better? It's probably some sort of real-estate scam.
Newt Gingrich. At least he's been to school, though he's smart enough not to emphasize it. The American People. The traditional values that made this country grate. Great. America is not a desperately sick over-policed welfare state collapsing into the Third World. No. Everything is as it always was. All we need is the Newt World Order and we will leap tall buildings at a single bound.
He too wants to attack Iran. The man has the military grasp of Tinker Belle. Grrr, bow-wow, woof.
Maybe instead of an ant, I'll become an aardvark. Though I'm not sure what one is. I need a change of phylum. What do cephalopods eat?
At least we no longer have that low-wattage high-school cheerleader turned moose-huntress. Stuffed animals fore and aft, I tell you. Contemplating Obama, I swore I'd never vote for another black president. After Bush II, I swore I'd never vote for another white one. My options were narrowing. Now I'm thinking Obama or Herman Cain. Slick Empty in the great White Yurt on Pennsylvania Avenue is still corrupt and invertebrate, but now only starts small wars, as in Uganda. Cain makes pizzas and seems to be a human being. It's a novel concept but these are trying times. Besides they say he did sexually inappropriate stuff to some gals who want to be on talk-shows and get book contracts. Good for him. I'm going to start a group called Men Mad at Sanctimonious Priss Spigots. Cain can be a Founding Fondler.
Except for Cain (I think) and Ron Paul, the candidates all want to attack Iran. Rick Santorum too. I guess it's a manhood issue. Maybe we could buy them codpieces instead. Michele could get hers from Victoria's Secret, with sequins and flowers. Most of this crew were of military age during Viet Nam. How many served? Ah. Umm. Uh. Urg. A pack of martial dwarves without the tiniest freaking idea why the Pentagon can't beat Iran.
I couldn't take it. Before Ron Paul began to speak I went out for a gallon of Padre Kino red and an IV drip. I thought it might hold me over until I figured out how to become an aardvark.
After all, Ron Paul is tiresomely predictable. He would say hateful anti-American things. You know, we should get out of damn fool wars, pick the military leech off the back of the republic, dismantle an empire that bankrupts the US, and end our perpetual state of martial priapism against Iran. Completely unelectable. A commie, I figure.
www.fredoneverything.com
"The real "isolationists" who seek to destroy the peaceful cooperation among the people of the world are a group of people who might be called "instigationists." These are the egomaniacs and rent seekers mentioned above who instigate wars with their lying, conniving, and manipulating behavior. They typically have never participated in a war, or even the peacetime military, themselves, and are deservedly labeled as "chickenhawks" by many commentators."
The Curse of Instigationism
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." -- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible . . . . It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world." -- George Washington's Farewell Address
Of all the Republican presidential candidates, only Ron Paul believes in and adheres to the American foreign policy philosophy of Washington and Jefferson. For this he, and all other like-minded statesmen over the past seven decades, have been misleadingly smeared as "isolationists." In this context, "isolationist" is truly Orwellian. By advocating peace and free trade, and only supporting just and defensive war, Ron Paul is advocating the maximum possible interaction between the peoples of the world.
It is the international division of labor and freedom of commerce that is in fact the very source of human civilization. All of the goods and services that we enjoy and utilize in our daily lives are the result of the efforts of hundreds, or thousands of people from all over the world who all specialize in something and, motivated by self interest, see to it that we get our bread, our beef, our beer, and everything else. It is restrictions on trade that are truly "isolationist," and nothing restricts mutually-advantageous trade among the people of the world more than war does. War leads to isolationism. People interact peacefully and beneficially in the free market; they kill each other when they are at war.
The core principle of economics is that as long as there is private property and reasonably free markets, individuals, in pursuing their own self interests, will specialize in whatever they are best at, selling those things to others, and using the proceeds to purchase things which they are not very good at producing. This is how the poorest of the poor can still survive and improve their lives. There is no "survival of the fittest" mentality attached to the free market. The poorest of the poor do not need to produce their own food, build their own houses, and manufacture their own clothing (nor does anyone else): the international division of labor allows them to rely on others to provide such things so that their lives are sustainable.
War, on the other hand, "bursts asunder" the international division of labor, as Ludwig von Mises wrote in his masterpiece, Human Action. For example, during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the industrial revolution enhanced the standard of living of the average person more than the previous generations could ever have imagined. Wherever capitalism was allowed to flourish the common man enjoyed the fruits of the international division of labor as his standard of living rose while his hours of work per week declined (also thanks to the increased productivity of labor caused by capital investment under capitalism). World War I destroyed all of this, throwing country after country into an isolationist abyss by all but destroying the international division of labor. The people of the world who had benefited in countless ways from the efforts of strangers were isolated from those benefits as their living standards declined. Countries became isolated from the benefits of international trade while forming political alliances to wage war with. War being the opposite of capitalism, the end result was the death of millions and the destruction of capital on a massive scale.
Of course, there are always those who benefit from war: the monarchs, dictators, and "statesmen" who enjoy wallowing in "imperial glory," as Alexander Hamilton described it; the politically connected who enrich themselves through defense contracts; the academics and "journalists" who operate a pro-war propaganda machine for the state in return for notoriety, position, and money; and the state in general. War is the health of the state; nothing aggrandizes the state and all its functionaries more than war does. As a corollary, nothing destroys freedom and prosperity more than non-defensive war does, either. And as Murray Rothbard remarked in his essay entitled "Just War," the only truly just and defensive wars in American history have been the American Revolution and the South's defense against the invasion launched against it by the Republican Party in 1861-1865.
The real "isolationists" who seek to destroy the peaceful cooperation among the people of the world are a group of people who might be called "instigationists." These are the egomaniacs and rent seekers mentioned above who instigate wars with their lying, conniving, and manipulating behavior. They typically have never participated in a war, or even the peacetime military, themselves, and are deservedly labeled as "chickenhawks" by many commentators.
Abraham Lincoln made the strongest defense of Southern slavery that was ever made in his first inaugural address, even pledging to support its explicit enshrinement in the Constitution, while threatening war over tax collection in the same speech. Since he had no intention of freeing any slaves, and waging war over tax collection would have made him an international war criminal, he needed to invent an excuse for invading his own country (the very definition of treason under Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, by the way). So he fabricated the notion of a "perpetual union." The founding fathers, Lincoln implied, would have agreed with him that if any group of people ever attempted to leave the "voluntary" union that the founders created, the central government would have the "right" to invade those states, murder their citizens by the hundreds of thousands, bomb their cities, burn some of them to the ground, and plunder their wealth. This of course is what Lincoln's army did, all in the name preserving a seventy-year old political bargain. As for Fort Sumter, it is revealing that Lincoln wrote his naval commander, Gustavus Fox, after the incident (in which no one was injured, let alone killed) thanking him for his assistance in goading the South Carolinians into firing the first shot and instigating a war.
The Spanish-American war was purely a war of imperialism and never had any prospect of providing any benefit whatsoever to the average American. That is why the great late nineteenth-century libertarian scholar William Graham Sumner penned his famous essay, "The Conquest of the United States by Spain." The Spanish-American War turned America into an empire, just like the Spanish empire, instead of the constitutional republic of the founders. But egomaniacal blowhards like Teddy Roosevelt were able to build their political careers out of this deranged adventure.
Nor did Americans have any business intervening in World War I, the most colossal disaster of the twentieth century, if not of all centuries. All that was "accomplished," as Jim Powell writes in Wilson's War, was the strengthening of the power of the communists in the Soviet Union and the rise of the Nazis in Germany. But there was plenty of power, glory, and riches for the political class and all of its supporters. Defense contractors became rich beyond their wildest dreams; lowly government bureaucrats became powerful economic dictators; and the statist intellectual class began to think of itself as a class of grand social engineers. The so-called progressives were almost unanimously pro-war, for instance, because of their twin beliefs that: 1) government can and should be used to create heaven on earth, in the U.S. and in Europe; and 2) wartime central planning, Soviet style, could be a demonstration project for Soviet-style central planning of the peacetime American economy after the war.
After eight years of complete failure in ending the Great Depression, with has massive interventionist policies only making things worse, FDR manipulated the Japanese into invading Pearl Harbor, as Robert Stinnett documents with great care in his book, Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor. Entering the European war, in FDR's mind, would be the Mother of all Government Spending Programs which would surely end the depression and at least divert the public's attention away from his abysmal failures. After all, the reputation and legacy of Franklin Roosevelt was at stake. (The war did not end the depression; it only ended unemployment because of the conscription of more than ten million men when only some five million Americans were unemployed in the late 1930s).
The Instigationist cabal was responsible for lying America into the disastrous Vietnam War, which caused the senseless and needless death of 55,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese. Then of course there is the latest "victory" of the instigationists, the War in Iraq, which even the CIA admits was based on a lie – that Saddam Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction" that threatened the U.S. Thousands of American soldiers have died in vain there, while hundreds of thousands more were maimed for life and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed. It was all for nothing as far as the average American taxpayer is concerned.
Think about the sick history of instigationism the next time you see a smirking and smarmy William Kristol, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, or any other political hack urging the invasion of Iran, Syria, North Korea, or any other faraway place where they believe American bombs should be dropping.
http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo219.html
The Curse of Instigationism
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." -- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible . . . . It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world." -- George Washington's Farewell Address
Of all the Republican presidential candidates, only Ron Paul believes in and adheres to the American foreign policy philosophy of Washington and Jefferson. For this he, and all other like-minded statesmen over the past seven decades, have been misleadingly smeared as "isolationists." In this context, "isolationist" is truly Orwellian. By advocating peace and free trade, and only supporting just and defensive war, Ron Paul is advocating the maximum possible interaction between the peoples of the world.
It is the international division of labor and freedom of commerce that is in fact the very source of human civilization. All of the goods and services that we enjoy and utilize in our daily lives are the result of the efforts of hundreds, or thousands of people from all over the world who all specialize in something and, motivated by self interest, see to it that we get our bread, our beef, our beer, and everything else. It is restrictions on trade that are truly "isolationist," and nothing restricts mutually-advantageous trade among the people of the world more than war does. War leads to isolationism. People interact peacefully and beneficially in the free market; they kill each other when they are at war.
The core principle of economics is that as long as there is private property and reasonably free markets, individuals, in pursuing their own self interests, will specialize in whatever they are best at, selling those things to others, and using the proceeds to purchase things which they are not very good at producing. This is how the poorest of the poor can still survive and improve their lives. There is no "survival of the fittest" mentality attached to the free market. The poorest of the poor do not need to produce their own food, build their own houses, and manufacture their own clothing (nor does anyone else): the international division of labor allows them to rely on others to provide such things so that their lives are sustainable.
War, on the other hand, "bursts asunder" the international division of labor, as Ludwig von Mises wrote in his masterpiece, Human Action. For example, during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the industrial revolution enhanced the standard of living of the average person more than the previous generations could ever have imagined. Wherever capitalism was allowed to flourish the common man enjoyed the fruits of the international division of labor as his standard of living rose while his hours of work per week declined (also thanks to the increased productivity of labor caused by capital investment under capitalism). World War I destroyed all of this, throwing country after country into an isolationist abyss by all but destroying the international division of labor. The people of the world who had benefited in countless ways from the efforts of strangers were isolated from those benefits as their living standards declined. Countries became isolated from the benefits of international trade while forming political alliances to wage war with. War being the opposite of capitalism, the end result was the death of millions and the destruction of capital on a massive scale.
Of course, there are always those who benefit from war: the monarchs, dictators, and "statesmen" who enjoy wallowing in "imperial glory," as Alexander Hamilton described it; the politically connected who enrich themselves through defense contracts; the academics and "journalists" who operate a pro-war propaganda machine for the state in return for notoriety, position, and money; and the state in general. War is the health of the state; nothing aggrandizes the state and all its functionaries more than war does. As a corollary, nothing destroys freedom and prosperity more than non-defensive war does, either. And as Murray Rothbard remarked in his essay entitled "Just War," the only truly just and defensive wars in American history have been the American Revolution and the South's defense against the invasion launched against it by the Republican Party in 1861-1865.
The real "isolationists" who seek to destroy the peaceful cooperation among the people of the world are a group of people who might be called "instigationists." These are the egomaniacs and rent seekers mentioned above who instigate wars with their lying, conniving, and manipulating behavior. They typically have never participated in a war, or even the peacetime military, themselves, and are deservedly labeled as "chickenhawks" by many commentators.
Abraham Lincoln made the strongest defense of Southern slavery that was ever made in his first inaugural address, even pledging to support its explicit enshrinement in the Constitution, while threatening war over tax collection in the same speech. Since he had no intention of freeing any slaves, and waging war over tax collection would have made him an international war criminal, he needed to invent an excuse for invading his own country (the very definition of treason under Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, by the way). So he fabricated the notion of a "perpetual union." The founding fathers, Lincoln implied, would have agreed with him that if any group of people ever attempted to leave the "voluntary" union that the founders created, the central government would have the "right" to invade those states, murder their citizens by the hundreds of thousands, bomb their cities, burn some of them to the ground, and plunder their wealth. This of course is what Lincoln's army did, all in the name preserving a seventy-year old political bargain. As for Fort Sumter, it is revealing that Lincoln wrote his naval commander, Gustavus Fox, after the incident (in which no one was injured, let alone killed) thanking him for his assistance in goading the South Carolinians into firing the first shot and instigating a war.
The Spanish-American war was purely a war of imperialism and never had any prospect of providing any benefit whatsoever to the average American. That is why the great late nineteenth-century libertarian scholar William Graham Sumner penned his famous essay, "The Conquest of the United States by Spain." The Spanish-American War turned America into an empire, just like the Spanish empire, instead of the constitutional republic of the founders. But egomaniacal blowhards like Teddy Roosevelt were able to build their political careers out of this deranged adventure.
Nor did Americans have any business intervening in World War I, the most colossal disaster of the twentieth century, if not of all centuries. All that was "accomplished," as Jim Powell writes in Wilson's War, was the strengthening of the power of the communists in the Soviet Union and the rise of the Nazis in Germany. But there was plenty of power, glory, and riches for the political class and all of its supporters. Defense contractors became rich beyond their wildest dreams; lowly government bureaucrats became powerful economic dictators; and the statist intellectual class began to think of itself as a class of grand social engineers. The so-called progressives were almost unanimously pro-war, for instance, because of their twin beliefs that: 1) government can and should be used to create heaven on earth, in the U.S. and in Europe; and 2) wartime central planning, Soviet style, could be a demonstration project for Soviet-style central planning of the peacetime American economy after the war.
After eight years of complete failure in ending the Great Depression, with has massive interventionist policies only making things worse, FDR manipulated the Japanese into invading Pearl Harbor, as Robert Stinnett documents with great care in his book, Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor. Entering the European war, in FDR's mind, would be the Mother of all Government Spending Programs which would surely end the depression and at least divert the public's attention away from his abysmal failures. After all, the reputation and legacy of Franklin Roosevelt was at stake. (The war did not end the depression; it only ended unemployment because of the conscription of more than ten million men when only some five million Americans were unemployed in the late 1930s).
The Instigationist cabal was responsible for lying America into the disastrous Vietnam War, which caused the senseless and needless death of 55,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese. Then of course there is the latest "victory" of the instigationists, the War in Iraq, which even the CIA admits was based on a lie – that Saddam Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction" that threatened the U.S. Thousands of American soldiers have died in vain there, while hundreds of thousands more were maimed for life and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed. It was all for nothing as far as the average American taxpayer is concerned.
Think about the sick history of instigationism the next time you see a smirking and smarmy William Kristol, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, or any other political hack urging the invasion of Iran, Syria, North Korea, or any other faraway place where they believe American bombs should be dropping.
http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo219.html
Did Ron Paul win GOP's national security debate?
Media-types seem to think Ron Paul more than held his own, which is no small feat, considering many of his ideas on national security are well outside the Republican mainstream.
By Peter Grier, Staff writer / November 23, 2011
Did Ron Paul win Tuesday's GOP debate at DAR Constitution Hall in Washington?
OK, it's hard to really say anyone "wins" a debate, given that there's no scoring, and Wolf Blitzer doesn't come out afterward and hand out a medal. In general, last night's word fight was high-minded and good for everybody, except maybe Herman Cain, since he didn't say much.
CNN 's Blitzer did well, too – drawing candidates into real conversations, and emceeing questions from assembled think-tank luminaries. The whole thing was a real debate in that it juxtaposed real differences of opinion.
Which is where Congressman Paul comes in. It was him against the Republican world last night. His positions are often very different from those of his GOP opponents, and he defended them with his typical well-honed points. You're reminded once again that he's been at this for decades. Even longer than Mitt Romney.
University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato tweeted last night that Paul tied with Newt Gingrich as last night's winner. Sabato gave both a "B+."
New York Times polling analyst Nate Silver similarly gave Paul a "B+." He thought both Newt and Jon Huntsman rated an "A," however.
Paul "sounded authoritative and made his points clearly" judged Politico's Maggie Haberman.
Our own reaction to Paul was that nobody laid a glove on him, despite the fact that many of his positions are controversial both within the GOP and in US politics at large. (He said foreign aid is "worthless," for instance. Really? Not even the other GOP candidates went that far. US cash is paying for much of Africa's fight against HIV/AIDS, for instance. Is that not money well spent?)
But take the opening sequence, when most all the other candidates supported Patriot Act antiterror provisions as necessary intrusions on liberty at a time of danger for the US. Paul was having none of that.
"I think the Patriot Act is unpatriotic, because it undermines our liberty," said Paul in the opening moments of the debate.
The longtime libertarian was just getting warmed up.
"So if you advocate a police state, you can have safety and security, and you might prevent a crime, but the crime then will be against the American people and against our freedoms," said Paul.
Paul then went on to differ with the crowd by saying the US should "let Israel take care of itself." That meant, apparently, don't meddle with Israel if it wants to bomb Iran, but don't give it any money to do the deed, either.
(As an aside, we'll ask this: Did the Texas congressman let slip some interesting and closely guarded info in his response? He said, "Israel has 200, 300 nuclear missiles, and they can take care of themselves." That's on the high end of the estimates experts outside the US government make as to the extent of Israel's nuclear program.)
Then there was the whole defense budget-cutting thing, in which Paul and Mitt Romney went at it.
First Romney opposed the possibility of a trillion dollars being cut from the defense budget. That might happen because the congressional super committee didn't figure out a way to reduce the budget by $1.2 trillion over 10 years, so automatic cuts might take effect next year.
"They're not cutting anything out of anything," replied Paul. "All this talk is just talk."
Paul appeared to be referring to the fact that nothing is in stone yet – some in Congress want to repeal the automatic cuts, many of the "cuts" are reductions in growth as opposed to actual reductions in the size of government programs, and so forth.
Romney disagreed. He ticked off a list of weapons systems Congress has already trimmed. "They're cutting ... into the capacity of America to defend itself," he said.
So what do you think of Paul versus the GOP world? Leave a comment and let us know.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/1123/Did-Ron-Paul-win-GOP-s-national-security-debate
Ron Paul – Civil Liberty's Last Hope
Russia Today
Profile Muslims. Bring on the drones. Did we learn anything else from last night's GOP debate on CNN? Well, once again, it appears as if Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul is the only candidate that wants to protect the liberties of Americans.
Speaking from DAR Constitution Hall in Washington DC Tuesday night, Paul and his peers discussed the topics of national security and foreign policy. While it's been no secret that some of the more hawkish candidates are crazy for increasing defense spending and upping the American military presence overseas, Texas Congressman Ron Paul once again managed to separate himself from the rest of the pack by coming off as perhaps the only candidate truly committed to keeping liberty and freedom in place for Americans.
Right from the get-go, Paul used the allotted time to introduce himself to the audience by saying that the issues on hand last night were of great importance to the country. According to the congressman, America's wars – which he deemed "needless" and "unnecessary" – not just add to the deficit of the country but also undermine the prosperity and liberty of America.
Perhaps most detrimental to those ways of American life, however, is the Patriot Act. While Newt Gingrich rallied to extend the legislation longer and Rick Perry and Herman Cain also offered their support for the controversial bill, Paul put himself apart from his fellow candidates by condemning the act.
"I think the Patriot Act is unpatriotic because it undermines our liberty," Paul said. "I'm concerned, as everybody is, about the terrorist attack . . . Terrorism is still on the books, internationally and nationally, it's a crime and we should deal with it." Paul added, however, that the framers of the Constitution warned the country not to "sacrifice liberty for security," yet "Today it seems too easy that our government and our congresses are so willing to give up our liberties for our security."
"I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights," added Paul, to which the candidate was met with a round of applause.
According to former House speaker Newt Gingrich, however, there can be a happy medium where Americans only lose some of those liberties.
"We'll try to find that balancing act between our individual liberties and security," said Gingrich.
While Paul went on to say that that establishing such a tyrannical regime over the American people could be an efficient way of curbing crime, it would also be a great way to end freedom.
"You can prevent crimes by becoming a police state," Paul said. "So if you advocate the police state, yes, you can have safety and security and you might prevent a crime, but the crime then will be against the American people and against our freedoms."
According to other candidates, however, those sacrifices are necessary for the protection against terrorism, something they made out to be a constant threat. "The terrorists have one objective that some people don't seem to get. They want to kill all of us," said Herman Cain. To handle that threat, Cain proposed that "we should use every mean possible to kill them first or identify them first."
Cain neglected to specify what he did actually want to do first – kill suspected terrorists or identify them – but others made it clear that in-depth analyses of alleged terrorists wasn't really necessary for the safety and security of American citizens. Instead, rather, the government should just go after Muslims.
When quizzed by moderator Wolf Blitzer on how to deal with ethnic profiling, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum said that such a practice was crucial in the War on Terror, and that the government should not just continue to profile people, but specifically go after Muslims.
"The folks that are most likely to be committing these crimes," Santorum suggested should be the target of profiling. "Obviously Muslims would be someone you'd look at, absolutely."
Similarly, Cain proposed what he called "targeted identification." While he would not come out and say that Muslims specifically need to be profiled (although he has attacked them in the press repeatedly), he did declare that "If you take a look at the people who have tried to kill us, it would be easier to figure out exactly what that identification profile looked like."
To Paul, however, none of these tactics for a war on terror seem like an appropriate response.
"That's digging a hole for ourselves," said Paul. "What if they look like Timothy McVeigh? You know, he was a pretty tough criminal."
"I think we're using too much carelessness in the use of words that we're at war. I don't remember voting on – on a declared – declaration of war. Oh, we're against terrorism. And terrorism is a tactic. It isn't a person. It isn't a people. So this is a very careless use of words. What about this? Sacrifice liberties because there are terrorists? You're the judge and the jury? No, they're suspects."
Paul added that the executive powers established through the Patriot Act and other War on Terror legislation has made American citizens "vulnerable to assassination," hinting at the reason execution of two US men with alleged al-Qaeda ties that were killed by drone strikes overseas.
The War on Terror isn't the only unnecessary according to Paul, either. Responding to Texas Governor Rick Perry's support of the War on Drugs, Paul said, "That's another war we ought to cancel . . . And that's where the violence is coming from."
"I think the federal war on drugs is a total failure."
"So the drug war is out of control," added Paul. "I fear the drug war because it undermines our civil liberties. It magnifies our problems on the borders. We spend – like, over the last 40 years, $1 trillion on this war. And believe me, the kids can still get the drugs. It just hasn't worked."
http://rt.com/usa/news/paul-war-security-liberties-061/
Ta dah!
My grandfather was a LEGAL immigrant (Eire)
On Nov 25, 7:48 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It doesn't
> --
> so true ... just follow our immigration laws ... we love those who
> want to be Americans
>
> On Nov 25, 9:22 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Why does the law make it illegal to migrate here?
>
> > It doesn't- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
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 bottom line is quite simple for any argument as it
relates to Arab , Israeli relations. The Arabs are a culture of hate
for Jews and never intend to make peace with them. History proves Edip
Yuksel wrong time & time again. One need only read the 1928 Muslim
Brotherhood Manifesto. If it had not been for the Western countries
during WWII fighting for the worlds freedom the Arabs would be slaves
to the Germans, even with the Brotherhood having assisted them in war
crimes against the Jews.
relates to Arab , Israeli relations. The Arabs are a culture of hate
for Jews and never intend to make peace with them. History proves Edip
Yuksel wrong time & time again. One need only read the 1928 Muslim
Brotherhood Manifesto. If it had not been for the Western countries
during WWII fighting for the worlds freedom the Arabs would be slaves
to the Germans, even with the Brotherhood having assisted them in war
crimes against the Jews.
On Nov 26, 10:22 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good Morning from Tampa Florida Edip,
>
> I have ony watched a portion of your video, and seen only a smidgeon of
> your writings.
>
> I'll take your challenge, albeit I would like for the stakes to be a
> little higher. How about we debate, "*mano-y-mano*", and the loser cover
> all expenses of the winner?
>
> I am prepared to come to New York, or for you to come to Tampa Florida.
> If you come to Tampa, I can arrange for public broadcasting on cable
> television, but either way, our debate will be broadcast on You-Tube.
>
> Put your money where your mouth is.....
>
> Respectfully,
>
> KeithInTampa
> KeithInTampa@gmail,com
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Democrat <edipyuk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Edip Yuksel chellenges fellow Americans at Ground Zero.
>
> >http://www.edip4president.com/challenge/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
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.
No matter how you slice it MJ, only a small minority agree with
Ron Paul, the greater majority don't. Though his views may resound for
some like you they are not in sync with the reality of the world as it
is today. Ron Paul has no chance of ever being nominated.
Ron Paul, the greater majority don't. Though his views may resound for
some like you they are not in sync with the reality of the world as it
is today. Ron Paul has no chance of ever being nominated.
On Nov 25, 4:47 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> ""I've spent years studying this stuff," he adds, and one could well believe he had indeed spent years learning how to start out with a libertarian premise –"It's desperately important that we preserve your right to be innocent until proven guilty"– and coming out the other end with a purely authoritarian conclusion. This, as I've pointed out in the past, isBizarro Conservatism– a doctrine that preaches the preciseoppositeof what the traditional "less government," pro-individual rights conservativesused tobelieve."Showdown at Neocon CentralNewt Gingrich vs. Ron PaulbyJustin Raimondo, November 25, 2011
> The Republican "national security"debatesponsored byNeocon CentraltheAmerican Enterprise Instituteand theHeritage Foundationcaptured perfectly the intellectual and political bankruptcy of the Republican party when it comes to foreign policy. Here the party's panderingdemagoguery, reflexiveultra-nationalism, and visceralhostility to libertywas on full display in all its exhibitionistic belligerence. It was only natural, therefore, that the first question was asked by disgraced former US Attorney GeneralEdwin Meese, who was forced to resign as Reagan's AG as a result of his complicity in obtaining big defense contracts for a phony "minority"-owned company. Here is his "question":"At least 42 terrorist attacks aimed at the United States have been thwarted since 9/11. Tools like the Patriot Act have been instrumental in finding and stopping terrorists. Shouldn't we have a long range extension of the investigative powers contained in that act so that our law enforcement officers can have the tools that they need?"What a set up forNewt Gingrich! And he certainly took advantage of it: naturally he was given the first answer –with poor Herman Cain having outlived his usefulness and been unceremoniouslydumped, Newt is the "mainstream" media'snew darling. That's because he can always be counted on to reiterate the neocons' favorite talking points, and on this occasion he did not disappoint:"BLITZER: Speaker Gingrich, only this weekend there was an alleged terror plot uncovered in New York City. What do you think?
> "GINGRICH: Well, I think that Attorney General Meese has raised a key point, and the key distinction for the American people to recognize is the difference between national security requirements and criminal law requirements.
> "I think it's desperately important that we preserve your right to be innocent until proven guilty, if it's a matter of criminal law. But if you're trying to find somebody who may have a nuclear weapon that they are trying to bring into an American city, I think you want to use every tool that you can possibly use to gather the intelligence.
> "The Patriot Act has clearly been a key part of that. And I think looking at it carefully and extending it and building an honest understanding that all of us will be in danger for the rest of our lives. This is not going to end in the short run. And we need to be prepared to protect ourselves from those who, if they could, would not just kill us individually, but would take out entire cities."In less than 200 words, Newt managed the wholesale bifurcation of American law into two parallel tracks, one that acknowledges how "desperately important" it is to "preserve your right to be innocent until proven guilty," and the other which recognizes no such necessity – and, in fact, negates it.
> Oh, isn't he glib – isn't heclever? With a mere sleight of hand he has obviatedtheConstitutionand upended the legal and moral traditions of two hundred years. What an achievement! He smiles agreasy, easy grin,well-pleased with himself. The audience dutifully applauds.
> "I've spent years studying this stuff," he adds, and one could well believe he had indeed spent years learning how to start out with a libertarian premise –"It's desperately important that we preserve your right to be innocent until proven guilty"– and coming out the other end with a purely authoritarian conclusion. This, as I've pointed out in the past, isBizarro Conservatism– a doctrine that preaches the preciseoppositeof what the traditional "less government," pro-individual rights conservativesused tobelieve.
> Newt'sclash with Ron Paulover this issue defined the parameters of the subsequent hour or so: this was the firstPaul-centricdebate, preceded by hisrise in the pollsand his increasingly important role as theideologicalcatalystof this GOP presidential primary. Once again, as in the economic sphere – with even former Federal Reserve board memberHerman CainechoingPaul's callto audit the Fed – the Texas congressman set the tone of the discussion with his ringing defense of the Founders' concept of what freedom means:"I think the Patriot Act is unpatriotic because it undermines our liberty. I'm concerned, as everybody is, about the terrorist attack. Timothy McVeigh was a vicious terrorist. He was arrested. Terrorism is still on the books, internationally and nationally, it's a crime and we should deal with it.
> "We dealt with it rather well with Timothy McVeigh. But why I really fear it is we have drifted into a condition that we were warned against because our early founders were very clear. They said, don't be willing to sacrifice liberty for security.
> "Today it seems too easy that our government and our congresses are so willing to give up our liberties for our security. I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights."Newt thought he'd won by making a dramatic pause and intoning:
> "Yes. Timothy McVeigh succeeded. That's the whole point."Looking like a Halloween pumpkin left out in the rain, Gingrich went into novelist mode,scaring the childrenwith the specter of "losing a major American city" and bringing his fist down hard on the podium as he thundered"I want a law that says, you try to take out an American city, we're going to stop you!"Paul's answer wasperfect:"This is like saying that we need a policeman in every house, a camera in every house because we want to prevent child-beating and wife-beating. You can prevent crimes by becoming a police state. So if you advocate the police state, yes, you can have safety and security and you might prevent a crime, but the crime then will be against the American people and against our freedoms. And we will throw out so much of what our revolution was fought for. So don't do it so carelessly."In short: why not just set up a dictatorship and be done with it? Paul is too polite to point out that Newt would make theperfectdictator, strutting about the stage and puffing out his chest like a peacock on parade – so I will.
> I thought I detected an elegiac note in Paul's remarks, a sadness in his voice as he pleaded with his audience not to throw away the Founders' gift "so carelessly." As if he fears that they probably will, anyway.
> There is reason for pessimism: we are, after all, living in a time when a half-bakedprofessionalbloviatorlike Gingrich is considered a conservative "intellectual." With the help of the "mainstream" media – which would like nothing more than to see the singularlyunattractiveandbaggage-ladenGingrich up againsttheir heroObama – the Newtster is having his moment in the sun. It will, however, be a brief moment – and he's not really running for president anyway.Everyone knowshis campaign has been a vanity project and moneymaking operation from the outset.
> Quietlygaining traction, the growth and development of the Paulian movement occurring largelybeneaththe media's radar, the Paul campaign has achieved tremendous gains for the peace movement in America. No matter how it ends, it has created a new chapter in the history of the foreign policy discourse in this country: anti-interventionism is no longer considered the exclusive preserve of the "radical" left. For the first time since the 1930s, the anti-imperialist tendency in American conservatism is in the ascendant: theOld Rightisback, more organized andintellectually coherentthan ever.
> This is a development the neocons have longfeared, and the viciousattackson Paul coming fromthose quartersare bound to increase in number and intensity as the campaign succeeds in becoming theconservative alternativeto thesupposedly"inevitable" Mitt Romney.
> Gingrich's job in all this is to act as the "moderator," the Deep Thinker who polices the discussion, always on the lookout for any deviation fromneoconservative orthodoxy. His role-playing is underscored by thepost-debatespeculationover whether he imperiled his rising star by taking a "soft" stand on immigration.
> It may seem passing strange that someone so concerned about a nuclear bomb being smuggled into a major American city would take such a lax attitude about policing our borders. But that's the Newtster for you: he can think up an argument foranything– even taking$1.6 millionfromFreddie Macwhile at the same timeclaiming to be in favor of abolishing it! I tell you, the man's a genius – and if you don't believe that, then just ask him. After all, he's "spent years studying this stuff."
> There's nothing new in Newt's stance on immigration: he's been saying the same thingfor years. He said at the debate he's "willing to take the heat" on this issue because the neocons – who see America as a "universal nation," like Rome, Great Britain, and the other great empires of the past – have always been for amnestying so-called illegal aliens. On the other hand, Paul echoes the concerns of the Republican base in wondering why, when we've lost control of our own borders, we're so concerned aboutsecuringthe border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
> Every conservative aspirant but Paul has had his moment in the media spotlight as the rightist "alternative" to the Inevitable Romney – not, you'll note, on account of any actual votes being cast, except in widely variable polls of oftentimes dubious provenance, but largely due to the amount of media attention lavished on them. Cain waspropelledinto the spotlight, and just as quickly abandoned: Perry wasonce hyped, and he too fell by the wayside – not to mentionBachman(andPalin) before them.
> Now it's Paul's turn – but his rise is coming about in quite a different way, which is why it may prove more lasting than the others. That's because his steadily rising poll numbers are due entirely to his own efforts, and the efforts of his supporters: theantiwar libertariancertainly has not gotten a push from the "mainstream" media. Quite the opposite: it got to the point where Jon Stewart was able to write an entirecomedy routinearound how deliberately the media was ignoring Paul.
> The media Establishment'scurrent lineon Ron Paul is that he is preparing a third-party run: that way, they don't have to even discuss the prospect that he could mount an effective challenge to Romney. Yet the new GOP primary rules, which giveproportional representationinstead of "winner take all," are conducive to Paul's steady-as-it-goes come-from-behind campaign strategy – and Iowa, where organization and dedication count most of all, is now in Paul'ssights. Independentscan votein the New Hampshire primary, and the momentum of a Paul victory in Iowa could bring in an influx of antiwar voters and give him a breakthrough victory in the "Live Free or Die" state.
> Both Paul and the foreign policy issue have gotten short shrift this election season, at least so far – but so what else is new? Insofar as the latter is concerned, inattention to what would seem to be an important issue has been the norm formany years. That's why the American people woke up, one day, to find themselves in possession of aworld empire, without having any memory of having voted on it or consented to it in any way.
> This election, however, may turn out different. It's a long way to Election Day, 2012 – and in politics, a year might as well be a century. A lot can happen: for example, Israel couldstrike at Iranand drag us into a war that all the GOP candidates but one would reflexively support. Not that the Israelis would eventhinkof trying to influence the outcome of the election through such a ploy – or would they?http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/11/24/showdown-at-neocon-central/
--
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.
Good Morning from Tampa Florida Edip,
I have ony watched a portion of your video, and seen only a smidgeon of your writings.
I'll take your challenge, albeit I would like for the stakes to be a little higher. How about we debate, "mano-y-mano", and the loser cover all expenses of the winner?
I am prepared to come to New York, or for you to come to Tampa Florida. If you come to Tampa, I can arrange for public broadcasting on cable television, but either way, our debate will be broadcast on You-Tube.
Put your money where your mouth is.....
Respectfully,
KeithInTampa
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Democrat <edipyuksel@gmail.com> wrote:
Edip Yuksel chellenges fellow Americans at Ground Zero.
http://www.edip4president.com/challenge/
--
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)
