There was an error in this gadget
0
Ron Paul Proposes Interesting Salary For Himself As President
By ALLEN G. BREED 12/10/11 11:11 AM ET
GREENVILLE, N.C. -- Long before he discovered Friedrich Hayek and other free-market economists, Ron Paul got a lesson in sound money from his oldest brother, Bill.
It was the height of World War II, and the Paul boys were laying aside quarters from their Pittsburgh Press routes and pooling pennies earned from pulling dirty milk bottles off the line at the family dairy to buy war bonds. One day, Ronnie suggested what was, in retrospect, a rather Keynesian solution: "Why doesn't the government just PRINT this money?"
"Well," Bill responded, "then the money wouldn't have any value."
Bill was 10. Ron was about 7.
Washington bureaucrats, Paul says now, "would like it to be complicated, and that we have to accept this complex monetary system of the Federal Reserve. But it's no more complicated than two little kids talking ..."
It's not complicated, he insists. These are the themes he has been addressing, consistently, since he entered politics in 1974, over the course of 12 terms in Congress, through his third bid for the White House: Free markets are good. The Federal Reserve is evil. The gold standard should be restored. Government is the cause, not the cure, of the nation's troubles.
"If it tries to make us virtuous and it tries to make us better people and fairer people and make us more generous and make sure that nobody's richer than the other person, redistribute your wealth, the ONLY way they can do that is the undermining of our personal liberties," Paul told a raucous crowd of several hundred supporters during a recent "Restore Liberty Rally" at the Greenville Convention Center.
"And that isn't the purpose of government. The purpose of government is exactly the opposite. The purpose of government is to protect our liberties."
At 76, this former obstetrician has seven years on the oldest man ever to take office as president, Ronald Reagan. But where Reagan was the genial conservative, Paul is an evangelical libertarian – a prophet who preaches that the United States is flat broke, foundering under the too-great weight of a bloated bureaucracy and its imperial – albeit generally well-intentioned – foreign interventionism.
This is a man who would eliminate five of the 15 cabinet-level departments (Commerce, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, and Interior – he has no problem reciting them all); recall American troops from all foreign lands, not just war zones; repeal the 16th Amendment, which created the federal income tax; reduce his own presidential salary from $400,000 to $39,336 – the median salary of an American worker.
These are not the planks of a mainstream candidate's platform. But Paul rolls along, attracting a hard-core following and collecting millions in contributions.
How does he do it?
Perhaps it is not so complicated: He applies the lessons learned in a life that stretches back to the Depression.
___
Paul's grandfather, Casper, fled the economic wreckage of post-World War I Germany and went to work in the Pittsburgh steel mills at age 14. Ron Paul grew up on stories about rampant inflation and the dangers of paper currency.
"I remember my grandmother wanting to hang onto some property my dad thought she should sell," he says. "And she said, `No. The money might go bad.'"
Casper eventually saved up enough to buy some land outside the city. He started a small vegetable and chicken farm, then opened a dairy, which his sons eventually took over and relocated to nearby Carnegie. Ron Paul's first job was making sure no dirty bottles made it to the filling crates. He was paid a penny per bottle; when they were old enough, the Paul boys – all five of whom shared one bedroom – took over the summer milk routes to give the drivers some time off.
His brother Jerry says Ronnie was no goodie two-shoes. In fact, he was kicked out of school – twice. The first time was for allegedly bribing a grade school chum "two bits" to throw a baseball through a window. The second was for bringing firecrackers to Dormont High – and that time he ratted on himself.
"He couldn't stand the principals who were dictatorial," Jerry says. "He would call them fascists."
Still, he was elected president of the student council at Dormont and won the school's service award three years running. But he really excelled at track. His junior year, Paul placed first in the state in the 220-yard dash, second in the 440 and third in the 100. Pennsylvania State University offered him a full athletic scholarship.
When he tore the cartilage in his right knee playing touch football that summer, Penn State was still willing to take a chance on him. But Paul decided he couldn't accept in good conscience. "I was not confident I could meet the standards of honoring that scholarship," he says.
Instead, he chose Gettysburg College, a small Lutheran school near the famous battlefield. Paul paid his own way, using money earned from his job running the local student coffee shop, The Bullet Hole, and washing dishes at the Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity house. In his senior year, he married Carolyn Wells, who had first noticed him when a friend pointed out the lanky upperclassman running around the track at Dormont.
Paul went on to attend Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, N.C. During his second year of residency in Detroit, Paul got a letter from the Selective Service. He could be drafted into the Army as a "buck private," or join as a physician and receive an officer's commission.
"I volunteered immediately," he says, chuckling.
Paul served two years in the Air Force as a flight surgeon and three more in the Air National Guard. While he did not see any action, he says he's seen enough of war's aftermath to convince him "the way we go to war so often is the reason that we have difficulty getting out of war.
"My firm belief is that the founders were absolutely correct in going to war very, very cautiously, very, very rarely," he told the Greenville crowd. "And NOT by one individual deciding."
During his residency, Paul found time for some light reading: "The Road to Serfdom" by the free-market economist Friedrich Hayek. It was an epiphany. In short order, he devoured the works of Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises, the dean of Austrian school of laissez-faire economics.
Paul had been stationed at Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio. When his service was up in 1968, he stayed on in Texas, eventually taking over the practice of the only obstetrician-gynecologist in tiny Lake Jackson, south of Houston. It was a busy office; often, Paul would deliver four babies in a single night, and in the course of his career, he estimates he brought more than 4,000 babies into the world.
There was minor shock in the office when Paul informed the staff they would no longer participate in the federal Medicaid or Medicare programs.
"People will pay as they can," scrub nurse Donna White, who later married her boss's youngest brother, recalls the doctor saying. "And if they can't, that's fine."
One family, she says, paid him in fresh-caught shrimp.
___
Paul can remember the date when he decided to enter politics. It was Aug. 15, 1971, the day President Richard Nixon decoupled the U.S. dollar from the nation's gold reserves.
"After that day, all money would be political money rather than money of real value," he told a writer from Texas Monthly. "I was astounded."
Paul lost his first congressional race in 1974 but won a special election two years later to fill the incumbent's unexpired term. Several months later, he lost the general election to Democrat Robert Gammage by fewer than 300 votes.
Paul defeated Gammage in 1978 and won back-to-back re-elections. His pledge to "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution" earned him a nickname: Dr. No.
He refused to vote for any tax increase or any budget that was not balanced, and eschewed most "pork barrel" projects for his district. He even voted against awarding Congressional Gold Medals to Mother Teresa, Nancy and Ronald Reagan, and civil rights icon Rosa Parks – though he suggested his colleagues "each put in 100 bucks" to pay for the $30,000 cost of a medal for Parks.
He has refused to enroll in the House pension program, saying it would be "hypocritical and immoral" to accept a benefit unavailable to the taxpayers who fund it. He also discouraged his five children – including the future Kentucky U.S. senator and tea party darling Rand Paul – from applying for government-backed student loans.
In 1981, Dr. No teamed up with "Senator No" (North Carolina's Jesse Helms) to pass legislation that formed the 17-member Gold Commission, which was to study "the role of gold in the monetary system." Appointed by Reagan, Paul argued for a gold coin – "without a dollar denomination" – as legal tender.
"I wanted people to think of money as weight," he wrote.
In 1984, Paul ran for the U.S. Senate. When that bid failed, he returned full time to his medical practice.
Four years later, Paul won the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination. He placed third in the election, with less than 1 percent of the popular vote, but he now had a national base.
In 1997, Paul retired from medicine and returned to Congress; he's been there ever since. In 2008, he made his second run for president, this time as a Republican. He raised almost $35 million, including more than $6 million on Dec. 16, 2007, the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.
Still, in the end, it was projected that he had amassed just 42 delegates.
The 2008 race also brought Paul's closest brush with scandal. A controversy arose over statements in his monthly newsletters – "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be"; Martin Luther King Jr. was a "pro-Communist philanderer"; "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
Paul denied writing the offending passages – they were, he said, the work of ghostwriters, though he acknowledged that he bore "some moral responsibility" for them. And he said he was not a detractor of King's – the civil rights leader was a champion of individual rights and one of his heroes.
___
Now trotting sprightly along on two artificial knees, the high school sprinter has proved to be a steady long-distance runner. He placed a close second in the August Iowa straw poll, though he polls in single digits in most states.
The former fringe candidate is tapping into some mainstream anger. During a news conference at the Greenville airport, Paul – looking, as always, slightly rumpled in his workaday suit and sensible shoes – laughs when asked if throwing thousands of federal employees out of work in the current down economy is a good idea.
"Let `em go to work at McDonald's," he says, his brown eyes twinkling impishly beneath untamed eyebrows. "They should have a REAL job. Bureaucrats don't create wealth. They interfere with wealth production."
Downtown at the convention center, hundreds queue up for vinegary "eastern-style" barbecue, hush puppies, cole slaw and foam cups of sweet iced tea. One man sports a hat with a "REPEAL ObamaCare" button, while another wears a T-shirt cataloguing the supposed evils of fluoridated drinking water.
Paul's campaign takes pride in portraying him as a kind of Beltway Cassandra, ignored and marginalized by the "mainstream media." At the end of the food table sits a pile of business cards announcing Paul's latest "moneybomb" (the Oct. 19 drive raised more than $2.75 million) and daring news outlets to "BLACK THIS OUT!"
When the candidate arrives, the cheering crowd leaps to its feet. He then launches into a 33-minute, no-notes speech covering everything from 19th-century French economist Frederic Bastiat to the right to consume raw milk.
He speaks repeatedly of our "recession/depression" and says the "No. 1 cause" of the current financial crisis was the Federal Reserve.
"THEY are the ones who are responsible for so much suffering," he says, his already high-pitched voice rising to a near squeak. The Fed, he declares, is a "counterfeiter."
The crowd chants the title of one of Paul's books: "End the Fed! End the Fed!"
By speech's end, Todd Bennett, 45, of nearby Farmville, is sweating and hoarse.
"He's not the most charismatic man, by any stretch," says Bennett, a hospital supply courier and father of 10-year-old twin boys. "He's not got the greatest delivery by any stretch. But the words he says lights a fire in my soul. I'm ready to run through a brick wall for him."
Paul inspires that kind of devotion. But there are many naysayers, even among those who know him best. Jerry Paul, a retired Presbyterian minister and registered Democrat, says his brother "does not appreciate the depth" of human sinfulness and selfishness. He goes as far as to call Ron Paul's philosophy "kind of naive." Life is complicated, he suggests.
"Freedom, to me, really comes with responsibility ... to work together with others in the political realm, to work on behalf of the governed," he says. "That we're going to have a safety net ... Who else is going to do that, other than our political structure?"
The candidate freely acknowledges that the free market "is not perfect." But he says it adjusts for its mistakes.
"I think the people who assume that a few people in Washington, the bureaucrats and the politicians, know what's best for us, and we can trust them, that's being REALLY naive," he says.
___
When late-night comedian Jon Stewart recently asked Paul why he keeps running, the representative replied: "I think if you plant a seed, it tends to grow."
Years ago, Paul says, a congressional colleague slipped a laminated piece of paper into his hand. It was a passage from Elie Wiesel's 1970 book, "One Generation After."
In it, a child asks the one "Just Man" why he walks the streets of Sodom railing against wickedness, when he knows it is hopeless. The man replies: "if I continue my protest, at least I will prevent others from changing me."
Paul can't recall who gave him the quote. But he still has it, tucked away with his House voting card.
http://www.5min.com/Video/Ron-Paul-Pot-Policy-Should-Be-Set-By-The-States-517212386
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/10/ron-paul-proposes-interes_n_1140723.html
Pelosi "Lied"..."Despicable"..."Dishonest"....
"The Dumbest Single Thing I've Ever Done"
11/8/11: Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich says his ad with Nancy Pelosi on global warming for Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection was the "dumbest single thing I've done in years," then says, "I actually don't know whether global warming is occurring."
Gingrich Dismantles Pelosi's "Liberal Math" On Food Stamps
Newt Gingrich Calls for Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Resign
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.
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.
--
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 Says Free Markets Never Work
Peter Schiff
December 10, 2011
For most of his time as a national political figure, Barack Obama has been careful to cloak his core socialist leanings behind a veil of pro-capitalist rhetoric. This makes strategic sense, as Americans still largely identify as pro-capitalist. However, based on his recent speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, the President appears to have reassessed the political landscape in advance of the 2012 elections. Based on the growth of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and the recent defeat of Republicans in special elections, he has perhaps sensed a surge of left-leaning sentiment; and, as a result, he finally dropped the pretense.
According to our President's new view of history, capitalism is a theory that has "never worked." He argues that its appeal can't be justified by results, but its popularity is based on Americans' preference for an economic ideology that "fits well on a bumper sticker." He feels that capitalism speaks to the flaws in the American DNA, those deeply rooted creation myths that elevate the achievements of individuals and cast unwarranted skepticism on the benefits of government. He argues that this pre-disposition has been exploited by the rich to popularize policies that benefit themselves at the expense of the poor and middle class.
But Obama's knowledge of history is limited to what is written on his teleprompter. And his selection of the same location that Teddy Roosevelt used to chart an abrupt departure into populist politics is deeply symbolic in the opposite way to that which he intended. It is not by some genetic fluke that Americans distrust government. It is an integral and essential part of our heritage. The United States was founded by people who distrusted government intensely and was subsequently settled, over successive generations, by people fleeing the ravages of government oppression. These Americans relied on capitalism to quickly build the greatest economic power the world had ever seen - from nothing.
But according to Obama's revisionist version of American history, we tried capitalism only briefly during our history. First, during the Robber Barron period of the late 19th Century, the result of which was child labor and unprecedented lower-class poverty. These ravages were supposedly only corrected by the progressive policies of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. We tried capitalism again in the 1920s, according to Obama, and the result was the Great Depression. This time, it allegedly took FDR's New Deal to finally slay that capitalist monster. Then, the account only gets more farcical. Apparently, we tried capitalism again under George W. Bush, and the result was the housing bubble, financial crisis, and ensuing Great Recession. Obama now argues that government is needed once again to save the day.
This view is complete fiction and proves that Obama is not qualified to teach elementary school civics, let alone serve as President of the United States. I wonder what other economic system he believes we followed prior to the 1890s and 1920s (and during the 1950s and 1960s) that that he now seeks to restore? Capitalism did not start with J.P. Morgan in 1890s or John D. Rockefeller in the 1920s as the President suggests. In fact, it was about that time that capitalism came under attack by the progressives. We were born and prospered under capitalism. The Great Depression did not result from unbridled capitalism, but from the monetary policy of the newly created Federal Reserve and the interventionist economic policies of both Hoover and Roosevelt - policies that were decidedly un-capitalist.
The prosperity enjoyed during mid-20th century actually resulted from the incredible progress produced by years of capitalism. Contrary to Obama's belief, the New Deal and Great Society did not create the middle class; it was, in fact, a direct result of the capitalist industrial revolution. The socialist programs of which Obama is so fond are the reasons why the middle class has been shrinking. America's economic descent began in the 1960s, when we abandoned capitalism in favor of a mixed economy. By mixing capitalism with socialism, we undermined economic growth, and reversed much of the progress years of laissez-faire had bestowed on average Americans. The back of the middle class is being broken by the weight of government and the enormous burden taxes and regulation place on the economy.
America's first experiment with socialism, the Plymouth Bay Colony, ended in failure, and our most successful colonies - New York, Virginia, Massachusetts - were begun primarily as commercial enterprises. When the founding fathers gathered to write the Constitution, they represented capitalist states and granted the federal government severely limited powers.
Apparently, Obama thinks our founders' mistrust of government was delusional, and that we were fortunate that far wiser groups of leaders eventually corrected those mistakes. The danger, as Obama sees it, is that some Republicans actually want to reverse course and adopt the failed ideas espoused by great American fools like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin.
The President unknowingly illustrated his own contradictory thinking with the importance he now places on extending the temporary payroll tax cuts. If all that stands between middle-class families and abject poverty is a small tax cut, imagine how much damage the far more massive existing tax burden already inflicts on those very households! If Obama really wants to relieve middle-class taxpayers of this burden, he needs to reduce the cost of government by cutting spending. After all, there is no way to pay for all the government programs Obama wants by simply by taxing the rich.
History has proven time-and-again that capitalism works and socialism does not. Taking money from the rich and redistributing it to the poor does not grow the economy. On the contrary, it reduces the incentives of both parties. It lowers savings, destroys capital, limits economic growth, and lowers living standards. Maybe Obama should take his eyes off the teleprompter long enough to read some American history. In fact, he could start by reading the Constitution that he swore an oath to uphold.
-- According to our President's new view of history, capitalism is a theory that has "never worked." He argues that its appeal can't be justified by results, but its popularity is based on Americans' preference for an economic ideology that "fits well on a bumper sticker." He feels that capitalism speaks to the flaws in the American DNA, those deeply rooted creation myths that elevate the achievements of individuals and cast unwarranted skepticism on the benefits of government. He argues that this pre-disposition has been exploited by the rich to popularize policies that benefit themselves at the expense of the poor and middle class.
But Obama's knowledge of history is limited to what is written on his teleprompter. And his selection of the same location that Teddy Roosevelt used to chart an abrupt departure into populist politics is deeply symbolic in the opposite way to that which he intended. It is not by some genetic fluke that Americans distrust government. It is an integral and essential part of our heritage. The United States was founded by people who distrusted government intensely and was subsequently settled, over successive generations, by people fleeing the ravages of government oppression. These Americans relied on capitalism to quickly build the greatest economic power the world had ever seen - from nothing.
But according to Obama's revisionist version of American history, we tried capitalism only briefly during our history. First, during the Robber Barron period of the late 19th Century, the result of which was child labor and unprecedented lower-class poverty. These ravages were supposedly only corrected by the progressive policies of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. We tried capitalism again in the 1920s, according to Obama, and the result was the Great Depression. This time, it allegedly took FDR's New Deal to finally slay that capitalist monster. Then, the account only gets more farcical. Apparently, we tried capitalism again under George W. Bush, and the result was the housing bubble, financial crisis, and ensuing Great Recession. Obama now argues that government is needed once again to save the day.
This view is complete fiction and proves that Obama is not qualified to teach elementary school civics, let alone serve as President of the United States. I wonder what other economic system he believes we followed prior to the 1890s and 1920s (and during the 1950s and 1960s) that that he now seeks to restore? Capitalism did not start with J.P. Morgan in 1890s or John D. Rockefeller in the 1920s as the President suggests. In fact, it was about that time that capitalism came under attack by the progressives. We were born and prospered under capitalism. The Great Depression did not result from unbridled capitalism, but from the monetary policy of the newly created Federal Reserve and the interventionist economic policies of both Hoover and Roosevelt - policies that were decidedly un-capitalist.
The prosperity enjoyed during mid-20th century actually resulted from the incredible progress produced by years of capitalism. Contrary to Obama's belief, the New Deal and Great Society did not create the middle class; it was, in fact, a direct result of the capitalist industrial revolution. The socialist programs of which Obama is so fond are the reasons why the middle class has been shrinking. America's economic descent began in the 1960s, when we abandoned capitalism in favor of a mixed economy. By mixing capitalism with socialism, we undermined economic growth, and reversed much of the progress years of laissez-faire had bestowed on average Americans. The back of the middle class is being broken by the weight of government and the enormous burden taxes and regulation place on the economy.
America's first experiment with socialism, the Plymouth Bay Colony, ended in failure, and our most successful colonies - New York, Virginia, Massachusetts - were begun primarily as commercial enterprises. When the founding fathers gathered to write the Constitution, they represented capitalist states and granted the federal government severely limited powers.
Apparently, Obama thinks our founders' mistrust of government was delusional, and that we were fortunate that far wiser groups of leaders eventually corrected those mistakes. The danger, as Obama sees it, is that some Republicans actually want to reverse course and adopt the failed ideas espoused by great American fools like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin.
The President unknowingly illustrated his own contradictory thinking with the importance he now places on extending the temporary payroll tax cuts. If all that stands between middle-class families and abject poverty is a small tax cut, imagine how much damage the far more massive existing tax burden already inflicts on those very households! If Obama really wants to relieve middle-class taxpayers of this burden, he needs to reduce the cost of government by cutting spending. After all, there is no way to pay for all the government programs Obama wants by simply by taxing the rich.
History has proven time-and-again that capitalism works and socialism does not. Taking money from the rich and redistributing it to the poor does not grow the economy. On the contrary, it reduces the incentives of both parties. It lowers savings, destroys capital, limits economic growth, and lowers living standards. Maybe Obama should take his eyes off the teleprompter long enough to read some American history. In fact, he could start by reading the Constitution that he swore an oath to uphold.
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 Bambino clears fences at debate! | |
| The Bambino stands in the center of the stage, untouchable, uncatchable, unbeatable. He is Newt Gingrich, and he has become the Sultan of Swat. It is Saturday night at yet another Republican debate and — wham! wham! wham! — Gingrich keeps blasting them out of the park. Mitt Romney claims he should be president, because, unlike Newt, Romney is not a "career politician." "Let's be candid," Newt replies. "The only reason you didn't become a career politician is that you lost to Ted Kennedy in 1994." Wham! Newt, like the real Bambino, Babe Ruth, is a man of appetites. For food and for women, to name just two. But when the moderators at the Yahoo/ABC debate in Des Moines ask all the candidates whether "marital infidelity" is important as an issue, the new Bambino does not quiver or quail. He does not flinch. He does not duck the pitch even though he has had three wives and admits to having been an adulterer. "It is a real issue," Newt says firmly. "People have to look at the person to whom they are going to loan the presidency." Loan the presidency! A wonderful phrase that lingers in the mind. And now the Bambino steps into the pitch. "I have said upfront, openly, I have made mistakes at times and had to go to God for forgiving," he says. Whammo! It is out of here! It is an answer that is perfectly acceptable to almost all Christian conservatives. Who can be against redemption? And do we not love the sinner more than the saint because who amongst us has not sinned? (Only the media, that is, who constantly cast the first stone.) In earlier debates, Newt has appeared haughty and above it all. But with that answer he returns to earth. He has feet of clay like the rest of us and asks the Almighty to forgive him. And so the fidelity question does not destroy him, but makes him. And, make no mistake, what he is doing this Saturday night is difficult. Mitt Romney, who had done so well at staying above the fray in previous debates, crashes and burns in this one. Romney lets Rick Perry get his goat. Rick Perry, who has as much chance of getting the Republican nomination as Luke Perry! Or Perry Como! When Rick Perry insists that Romney has changed his position on something or other, Mitt angrily sticks out his hand and says, "Rick, I'll tell you what, ten thousand bucks? $10,000 bet?" Way to go, Mitt. Remind America that $10,000 is chump change to you. And when Michele Bachmann says that Mitt and Newt are just clones, Mitt decides to be cute. It is a mistake. "I know Newt Gingrich," Romney smirks. "And he is a friend of mine. But we are not clones." Yes, Mitt, you are tall and handsome standing there next to Newt. We can all see that. Newt looks like a sack of doorknobs compared to you. But what does that get you, Mitt? How does that make you presidential? Newt eyes Romney like the Bambino used to eye a high fastball. He will soon gets his chance to whack another one. Gingrich, an historian, has called the Palestinians an "invented people." Nobody asks him whether Americans "invented" themselves in 1776, however. Instead, Romney says that Gingrich has gone too far and that he should let Israel negotiate for itself. Newt stabs the lectern with his finger as he roars back. "These people are terrorists!" he says. "They teach terrorism in their schools! It's fundamentally time for someone to have the guts to stand up and say: 'Enough lying about the Middle East!' " The audience, as audiences do, goes wild. If it were four years ago, I would be writing that as soon as Newt wins an actual caucus or primary, the Republican establishment will rise up and stop him. But, today, there is no Republican establishment. It has been washed away by the Tea Party. And the Tea Party likes a long-ball hitter. Saturday was Newt's night. A few more nights like this — and a few actual victories at the polls — and it could be his nomination. Roger Simon is POLITICO's chief political columnist. |
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.
Gingrich Holds Steady; Second Tier Shines
As was predictable, Newt took a lot of fire and handled it well. I thought he got angry at Michele Bachmann during the "Newt Romney" exchange and testy responding to Romney's first barrage of attacks, but not enough either time to have a "moment." If a moderator in any of the debates has deserved to be challenged it was Diane Sawyer tonight, but Newt didn't do it. I wonder if he thinks he's already played the irritable-with-moderators card for all its worth and it's time to be a little above it all now that he's leading in the polls. The set-up where all the candidates were asked about the importance of marital fidelity, with Newt saved for last, was very uncomfortable, but Newt answered as best he could given the circumstances. He had a powerful rejoinder to Romney's criticism of his "bomb-throwing" on the invented Palestinian people: The smart set thought Reagan was incendiary, too, when he called for tearing down the Berlin Wall–telling the truth is important. He wiggled off the hook on the individual mandate and Freddie Mac. Overall, people who have liked Gingrich in these debates–and there are a lot of them–saw more of what they have liked.
Romney had the clip sure to be endlessly replayed and discussed when he challenged Perry to a $10,000 bet about his book. Who knew the Mormon guy would have gambling gaffe? The flap is silly, since Romney clearly just wanted to communicate assurance that he was right. But it will be played as Romney being very rich and very out of touch with working people. During the rest of the night, you could almost hear Romney regretting that he finally has an opponent in Gingrich who both knows what he's talking about and has serious political experience. From the first question, Gingrich and Romney showed their different styles. Gingrich gave a pungent, thematic answer on the economy, Romney gave his bloodless enumerated points. I doubt Romney is going to get much traction criticizing Gingrich for saying kids should work. I hope for his sake that private sector experience polls very well, because otherwise it's a weak argument. He initially blew his criticism of Gingrich on the Palestinians, making it sound like no American politician should ever say things not sanctioned by the Israeli prime minister. He was generally fine, but Gingrich is drawing from a deeper well of knowledge and knows better what makes conservatives tick.
The others were strong. Bachmann was particularly forceful. Her repeated plugging for former Cain supporters and invocation of her "win-win-win" plan was annoying, but she scored some points by taking on the two top guys. Perry had his best debate yet (and was wise not to have taken the bet, since he would have lost by most accounts). Santorum gave terrific answers on manufacturing, the economic importance of marriage and his political success (until 2006) in the tough terrain of Pennsylvania. Ron Paul brought practically every answer back to his view on foreign policy, the Fed, or the Constitution–even the marital fidelity question.
If Romney is going to have any hope of stopping Newt in Iowa he needs either Newt to deflate or other candidates besides Paul to regain traction. It seems unlikely the first is going to happen as a result of the debates. Newt's peril will be negative advertising against him, a hostile press with a lot to work with, and his own propensity to do himself harm. As for the other candidates, tonight suggests that they aren't going to collapse, which would be a disaster for Romney and a boon to Newt.
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://m.sciencemag.org/content/328/5986/1627.full
"Although undergraduates from wealthy nations are numerous and willing research subjects, psychologists are beginning to realize that they have a drawback: They are WEIRDos. That is, they are people from Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic cultures. In a provocative review paper published last week, a pair of researchers argues that WEIRDos aren't representative of humans as a whole and that psychologists routinely use them to make broad, and quite likely false, claims about what drives human behavior."
Comments?
Dan
__._,_.___
MARKETPLACE
.
__,_._,___
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.
----------
Buce (Majors.Bruce@gmail.com) thinks you may be interested in the following post:
Is the Real Unemployment Rate 22.6%?
http://chrisinmaryville.net/is-the-real-unemployment-rate-22-6.html
--
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.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dave Nalle
Date: Sunday, December 11, 2011
Subject: Act Monday to Stop Indefinite Military Detention
To: majors.bruce@gmail.com
Your Emails and Calls are Needed on Monday to Stop Indefinite Military Detention in the Conference Committee
Last week we were part of an epic struggle led by Senator Rand Paul (RLC-KY) to block the inclusion of language in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which would make it legal for US Military forces to operate inside the US in violation of Posse Comitatus and arrest US civilians and hold them in military detention without charges for an indefinite period of time in violation of the right of Habeas Corpus, a fundamental legal protection under the Bill of Rights. Granting these extraordinary powers to the military is obviously unconstitutional and is opposed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies.
Efforts to remove indefinite military detention from the NDAA were blocked by establishment leaders from both parties in the Senate, though Senator Paul did lead a last minute effort to successfully defeat an unexpected additional amendment which would have given the government even more extensive powers to arrest and hold citizens without charges.
The original problem sections (1031 and 1032) are still in the bill and contrary to the claims of supporters of the bill, the wording of section 1032 does not, in fact, provide protection for US citizens. The use of the phrase "not required" instead of "prohibited" leaves the decision to allow the military to detain citizens entirely in the hands of federal authorities.
The only remaining opportunity to have these sections removed from the bill will be during the coming week in the reconcilliation process where members of both houses in a conference committee negotiate a final version of the bill. During this process all members of Congress can make recommendations for changes or adjustments in the language and if there is enough outcry it's possible that the joint committee will do the right thing. Reconcilliation will be wrapping up in the next few days so a final push on this issue on Monday the 12th is absolutely essential.
This will be our last chance to fix the bill and protect our liberties short of hoping for an increasingly unlikely veto from President Obama. Even if you previously wrote in during our effort to stop the bill in the Senate, please take this opportunity to write both your Represenative and Senators using the form provided on our site at http://www.rlc.org/2011/12/09/special-action-alert-help-inform-congress-about-military-detention/
Dave Nalle
Chairman, Republican Liberty Caucus
--
If you do not want to receive any more newsletters, this link
To update your preferences and to unsubscribe visit this link
Forward a Message to Someone this link
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=1342ca2ef46ba8af&attid=0.1&disp=emb&zw>
--
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.
---------
<
Author: Pelosi Made Killing Off Insider Trading
ALERT: These 3 Things Could Cripple Your Portfolio in 2012. See Video
Romney: Islam a Peace-Loving Religion
<http://news.newsmax.com/images/36517/forward1Sized.gif>
This e-mail is never sent unsolicited. You have received this Newsmax e-mail because you subscribed to it or someone forwarded it to you. To opt out, see the links below.
________________________________
TO ADVERTISE
________________________________
For information on advertising, please contact Newsmax Advertising Sales via e-mail.
________________________________
TO SUBSCRIBE
________________________________
If this e-mail has been forwarded to you and you would like to sign up, please click here.
Remove your e-mail address from our list or modify your profile. We respect your right to privacy. View our policy.
This e-mail was sent by:
Newsmax.com
4152 West Blue Heron Blvd., Ste. 1114
Riviera Beach, FL 33404 USA
1334472
DB13-1
<http://news.newsmax.com/?SKCvXNwu2E7G4r0rixIWGju-kQletlR1S>
--
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.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: julie
Excerpted from Leo Donofrio's weblog posting on the NDAA (S. 1867). As to the facts, either the analysis he presents here is a good one or it's not. But I think that the general tenor of alarm is well warranted, although whether we are more likely to lose our liberty by the enactment of martial law instead of via quiet but inexorable encroachments isn't clear.
To deny the danger, though, is to be like Baldwin in the 30's. Anyone who's paying the slightest attention must know the danger is there....
McCarthy and Donofrio agree that the bill doesn't actually say anything that wasn't already enacted.
J.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/martial-law-the-fix-is-in/#comments
MARCO RUBIO'S SLANTED POSITION ON SB 1867.
Rubio erroneously claims that the bill does not deny habeas corpus to US citizens:
"In particular, some folks are concerned about the language in Section 1031 that says that this includes "any person committing a belligerent act or directly supported such hostilities of such enemy forces." This language clearly and unequivocally refers back to Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or its affiliates. Thus, not only would any person in question need to be involved with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or its surrogates, but that person must also engage in a deliberate and substantial act that directly supports their efforts against us in the war on terror in order to be detained under this provision. There is nothing in this bill that could be construed in any way that would allow any branch of the military to detain a law-abiding American citizen if you go to the local gun store or grocery store."
Bunk! Notice Rubio's qualifier "to detain a law-abiding American citizen". What about citizens who break the laws protesting? What about peaceful demonstrations of civil disobedience? What if citizens dispute that the conduct even breaks the law? This guy should never get near the White House (and he's not eligible). His statement above is so blatantly misleading, I can only wonder if he anticipates being drunk with power should the country continue its ignorance of the natural-born citizen clause and one day elect him.
Acts of Congress are interpreted by the courts directly pertaining to the words used in the act itself, and not by the speeches of big brother doublespeak cheerleaders such as Rubio. Mr. Rubio is an attorney who knows better. His statements above are not naive, nor are they stupid. They are carefully crafted doublespeak from a rising star in the political scene who knows how to skillfully crap from both sides of his mouth.
Let us examine the relevant provisions:
SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
First note the title, "Affirmation of Authority". This bill is simply elucidating the powers already held by the President. It "affirms" his authority, but such an affirmation is not necessary if he already has the authority. So whether this bill passes or not, the President still has the authority to carry out the things mentioned in this bill. Therefore, this is simply a dog and pony show, and if Obama does veto it, he still has the power to do anything the bill states.
If Obama were truly a man of the people, besides vetoing this bill, he would push through a bill which renounces all of the power that this ugly bill "affirms". Until such a law is enacted, his veto, like this bill, changes no law already in effect.
You can see this more clearly in Sec. 1301(e):
(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
Now let's turn to Sec. 1032(b)(1):
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
That sounds re-assuring, doesn't it? Except for one thing, folks. It only applies to "this section". The protection against military detention pertains only to section 1032. It does not apply to Section 1031 whichlists various forms of restraint. If the military detention prohibition for US citizens from Section 1032 applied also to Section 1031, there would be no need for both sections to contain separate provisions for "covered persons". But 1031 and 1032 are independent sections and the prohibition against detention of US citizens does NOT apply to those citizens detained under 1031, which provides:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force."
While "military detention" is the specific form mentioned in1032, Section 1031 affirms the authority of detention generally. This includes non-military detention. Such detention could be potentially in a FEMA or DOD concentration camp. Those are civilian divisions and detention therein is not military detention. However, Section 1031(c)(1) provides for indefinite detention of anyone including US citizens, and this section does not include the prohibition against military detention in 1032. Therefore, 1031 provides for both military and non-military detention of US citizens.
Rubio knows this and his comments are parsed carefully in this regard. It's so very creepy how these bastards cast their legislative spells. Rubio didn't lie. He simply used a language most citizens don't understand or even know exists – federal doublespeak, or fedspeak. This is how they stand there with a straight face. It's not a lie, but it acts just like one. When Bill Clinton said, "It depends on what the meaning of is is…", he was talkin' fedspeak.
As you will see from his insidious delicate parsing, Rubio knows all too well that the two sections work independently. First he referred specifically to 1031(b)(2):
"(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."
Covered persons under this act include a "person who… supported al-Queda, the Taliban, or associated forces…including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities…" If the statute used the word "and" here, instead of "or", then Rubio might have a point on this issue. But the word "or" clearly indicates that a person is guilty of violating the act even if that person has not "directly supported" the hostilities of al-Qaeda, the Taliban etc. The statute only requires a belligerent act, it does not require the person to be a part of al-Qaeda or to directly support al-Qaeda. Indirect support is enough according to the statute.
Words matter. The definition of "belligerent" includes: "a warlike or aggressively hostile nature, condition, or attitude."
Therefore, if you are a person who has publicly expressed a spirited dis-belief in the official 911 story, it can be argued that you have exhibited a hostile attitude about the official story. If you don't believe al-Qaeda was ultimately responsible for the towers falling, and that the government has covered up truth – ie, that the towers fell as a result of a controlled demolition – the government might assert that you have supported al-Qaeda.
If you doubt al-Qaeda's ability to have pulled this atrocity off, then the government might argue that you are defending al-Qaeda. Your statement/blog may qualify as a belligerent act even though you have never expressed any direct support of al-Qaeda. Under this construction, you could truly hate al-Qaeda, but if the belligerent act appears to support al-Qaeda in any way, that may be enough to trigger the statute.
But this statue isn't limited to al-Qaeda or the Taliban. It also covers anyone who substantially supported "associated forces" engaged in "hostilities" against the US or its coalition partners.
The normal definition of "hostilities" includes, "opposition or resistance to an idea, plan, project". Therefore, speech is a form of hostility under this statute. But so is thought. As the statute is written, even singular mental opposition to an idea, plan, or project qualifies as hostilities. Nebulous terms are chosen by these legislative vampires to be purposely evasive and universally inclusive.
I don't really give a crap what the statute was meant to cover, Mr. Rubio. I care what it does, in fact, cover. One thing we have learned as a nation is that judges are more than capable of fitting meaning into statutes which lay persons could never imagine in their wildest dreams. Moreover, the rule of statutory construction in our courts looks first to the meaning of the words used in the statute, and there is a presumption that the words mean what they say. I have given you a clear example of how the words in this statue could be used against those expressing doubt in the official 911 story. But that's only one example. We don't know who "associated forces" covers as well. And the bill includes no statutory definition of "hostilities" either.
And finally, this statute is so poorly written that one possible construction of it could include any belligerent act not tied to al-Qaeda or the Taliban at all. The words, "including any person who has committed a belligerent act"… may refer back to subsection (b), and not to the first part of subsection (2). By this I mean that covered persons referred to in (b) are listed in (2), and these include those involved with al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but perhaps also any person who committed a belligerent act. It's not hard to imagine some court crafting just that meaning if they wanted a person bad enough and this was the only way to ensnare him.
The wording of this statute sucks. And Marco Rubio's cheerleading for it also sucks. I do not trust this guy at all because of his statements on this issue. He's learned the DC doublespeak well, has this one. The forked tongue force be strong with him. Watch him parse without abandon as he carefully works his magic concerning Section 1032:
"Section 1032 of this bill concerns a smaller group of people who Congress feels are required to be detained by the US military because people who fit within this criteria are a more serious threat to our national security. Any person detained under Section 1032 must be a member of, or part of, Al-Qaeda or its associates AND they must have participated in the planning or execution of an attack against the US or our coalition partners. Simply put, the application of this detention requirement is limited to Al-Qaeda members that have tried to attack the US or its allies. However, this detention requirement is clearly limited by a clause that states that the requirement to detain does not extend to US citizens or lawful permanent residents."
He's very careful here to limit his discussion in this paragraph to Sec. 1032, while 1031 is avoided. This is because 1031 is the section which truly guts habeas corpus, not 1032. These gargoyles in DC speak a language designed to accomplish mis-direction with the eloquence of Houdini.
Habeas corpus is at the heart of the nation. It literally means, "You may have the body". And it's got 93 daggers stuck in it today.
This Martial Law affirmation comes on the heels of the Congressional Research propaganda I wrote about in my last report. Two alarms have gone off. Be warned, America… martial law is coming.
Obama will probably veto the bill, but like I said above, the bill is only an affirmation of existing powers. His veto will not change those pre-existing laws. The veto will make him look like a good guy, so that when Obama does reach for these horrific powers, those who support him will point back to this veto to show that he was always against suspension of habeas corpus, etc. But the excuse will then surface that, "an emergency we simply did not foresee has come to pass and the President must now use all of his powers to defeat the enemy".
This is a dog and pony show. Nothing happens without these federal freaks knowing about it first. Martial law is coming and they are setting up the script now.
. . .
naturalborncitizen Says:
December 6, 2011 at 1:44 AM
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/terrorism/july-dec01/jr_09-14.html
This states the "use of force" resolution… which makes "harboring" "such organizations or persons" responsible for 911 available for execution… But the definition of "harboring" includes:
"To entertain or nourish (a specified thought or feeling): harbor a grudge."
Therefore, again, if you "harbor" the idea that al-Qaeda did not bring down the Towers… one might be covered under the resolution. Like I said, the terms of these draconian measures are purposely nebulous.
Then there's the Patriot act as well. My point was that since 911 the government has been issuing these directives with nebulous language that is designed with catch alls to ensnare who they like.
Measures with implications that would involve the indefinite detention of US citizens are unconstitutional.
A case involving the meaning of the word "harbor" could happen. If they want you bad enough, they will use these vague orders as best they can.
This is America and I don't give a crap how bad the alleged crime is… citizens are entitled to due process of law. Either the system works or it doesn't… for all crimes. If a person is a terrorist, we have laws to convict them and we have a jury system. Our system is as good as it gets. These measures seem to indicate that the government does not believe in the jury system and that it can't be trusted. Too damn bad. This is the US and citizenship means total control of the US Constitution, not draconian paranoid measures which avoid the Constitution.
Bush is guilty of this rape of habeas corpus and he does not get a pass from me. I realize that many people who support this blog do not agree. But the people trying to destroy this nation are grateful that you don't agree.
Leo
naturalborncitizen Says:
December 6, 2011 at 1:52 AM
Also, keep in mind the ti
--
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 COTO Report
Fast, Furious and Outrageous
by volaar
Wayne Madsen has learned from his contacts within the Beltway intelligence community that Jared Lee Loughner is an "MK-ULTRA" programmed assassin and that US District Judge John Roll and Congresswoman Gabriel Giffords were targetted for assassination. The reason for the decision to target Judge Roll and Congresswoman Giffords has to do with their knowledge
Read more of this post
volaar | December 11, 2011 at 1:25 am | Tags: class war, corporatism, corruption, human rights, New World Order, NWO, obama, police state, psyops, Resistance, Torture, War Crimes | Categories: Constitution, Human Rights Civil Liberties, Military, Neoliberalism, NWO, Obama and Company, Psy-Ops, Region: Latin America, Region: North America, Social Justice, Torture, War and Peace, Women | URL: http://wp.me/pAnVO-54Z
Comment See all comments
Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/fast-furious-and-outrageous/
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
