-
-
related tags:
- McCain
- Vote
- Obama
- Election 08
- President
- Elections
- John McCain
- Politics
- Campaign
- Palin
- US Elections
- Sarah Palin
- Republican
- Voting
- Elections 08
- Barack Obama
- 2008 Election
- Election 2008
- Que Pasa
- News and Politics
- Democrats
- day of the dead
- Democrat
- Dump
- 2012
- America
- Candidate
- McPalin
- Political
- 2008
- Candidates
- Ron Paul
- McCain/Palin
- RNC
- mountain men
- personal safety at home
- que pasa magazine
- Joe Meek
- que pasa us
- T Bone FIlms
- Films Online
- tester
- tester song
- the mexican flag
- mexican celebration of the dead
- mexican election results
- Mountain Man
- Vice President
- News
- Primary
tagged w/ Election
-
RUSSIA THREATENS PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE ON NATO SHIELDS
MOSCOW -- Russia's top military officer has threatened to carry out a pre-emptive strike on U.S.-led NATO missile defense facilities in Eastern Europe if Washington goes ahead with its controversial plan to build a missile shield.
President Dmitry Medvedev said last year that Russia will retaliate militarily if it does not reach an agreement with the United States and NATO on the missile defense system.
Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov went even further Thursday. "A decision to use destructive force pre-emptively will be taken if the situation worsens," he said at an international conference attended by senior U.S. and NATO officials.
Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov also warned on Thursday that talks between Moscow and Washington on the topic are "close to a dead end."
U.S. missile defense plans in Europe have been one of the touchiest subjects in U.S.-Russian relations for years.
Moscow rejects Washington's claim that the missile defense plan is solely to deal with any Iranian missile threat and has voiced fears it will eventually become powerful enough to undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent. Moscow has proposed running the missile shield jointly with NATO, but the alliance has rejected that proposal.
Makarov's statement on Thursday doesn't seem to imply an immediate threat, but aims to put extra pressure on Washington to agree to Russia's demands.
The two-day conference in Moscow is the last major Russia-U.S. meeting about military issues before a NATO summit in Chicago later this month. Russia has not yet said whether it will send top officials.
In a candid, lively exchange during a conference side session, officials talked about the high level of distrust remaining between the two sides.
"We can't just reject the distrust that has been around for decades and become totally different people," Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said in addressing U.S. and NATO officials. "Why are they calling on me, on my Russian colleagues, to reject distrust? Better look at yourselves in the mirror."
U.S. State Department special envoy Ellen Tauscher responded that neither country can afford another arms race.
"Your 10-foot fence cannot cause me to build an 11-foot ladder," Tauscher said. "It's going to have to take a political leap of faith and it's going to take some trust that we have to borrow, perhaps, from each other and for each other, but why don't we do it for the next generation?".
At a later news conference, Tauscher played down Makarov's comments on pre-emptive measures
"We've heard it before," she said. "We think that's off on the horizon. We think they were showing us what could happen. I think we're far from there, but we're aware of what they're saying."
The Obama administration tried to ease tensions with Russia in 2009 by saying it would revamp an earlier Bush-era plan to emphasize shorter-range interceptors. Russia initially welcomed that move, but has more recently suggested the new interceptors could threaten its missiles as the U.S. interceptors are upgraded.
The U.S.-NATO missile defense plans use Aegis radars and interceptors on ships and a more powerful radar based in Turkey in the first phase, followed by radar and interceptor facilities in Romania and Poland.
Russia would not plan any retaliation unless the United States goes through with its plans and takes the third and final step and deploys defense elements in Poland, Antonov said Wednesday. That is estimated to happen no earlier than in 2018.
Russia has just commissioned a radar in Kaliningrad, its western outpost near the Polish border, capable of monitoring missile launches from Europe and the North Atlantic.
On Thursday, at the start of the conference attended by representatives from about 50 countries, Russia's Security Council secretary reiterated Moscow's offer to run the missile shield together with NATO. Nikolai Patrushev said such a jointly run European missile defense system "could strengthen the security of every single country of the continent" and "would be adequate for possible threats and will not deter strategic security."
NATO's deputy secretary general, Alexander Vershbow, told the conference that the U.S.-led missile shield is "not and will not be directed against Russia" and that Russia's intercontinental ballistic missiles are "too fast and too sophisticated" for the planned system to intercept.
Meanwhile, U.S. Senator John McCain, on a visit to Lithuania, lashed out at Russia's plans in Kaliningrad.
McCain said using missile defense as an "excuse to have a military buildup in this part of the world, which is at peace, is really an egregious example of what might be even viewed as paranoia on the part of Vladimir Putin."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/russia-missile-defense-pre-emptive-strike_n_1473593.html
-----------------------------------------
Trust me, the Americans here who still defend the status-quo and cannot come to terms with how corrupt our system is, are in a very small global minority of people who still buy into American exceptionalism. Sooner or later, we're going to pick on the wrong kid in the schoolyard. It happens to all bullies.MOSCOW -- Russia's top military officer has threatened to carry out a pre-emptive... more-
- JRBarilla
- added this
- 27 days ago
- |
- 2 comments
-
-
Ron Paul Keeps Winning as Supporters Prepare For a Battle With GOP Old Guard
Four years ago, Nevada State GOP insiders so disliked Ron Paul supporters that they actually walked out of the state convention and turned off the lights behind them. In a windowless assembly room with some 2,000 people in it, one might imagine the terror this might cause. In what had been an otherwise orderly meeting, this move took place when it became clear that Ron Paul would sweep the Nevada delegation to the Republican National Convention. A bunch of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington types, inspired by Ron Paul, got involved in their party to effect change, and the party insiders didn’t like having these idealists around.
This year looks a little different. Ron Paul’s supporters have assumed a significant portion of the Republican Party leadership and Ron Paul’s supporters seem like they will show up in droves as delegates to assure their candidate is the best represented in Nevada. At the Nevada Republican Convention this year, 25 of the 28 Nevada delegates will be decided.
A showdown is ahead at the convention in the western corner of Nevada in the town of Sparks, where on Friday and Saturday, Ron Paul supporters will culminate their takeover of the Nevada GOP at all levels after being so brazenly rebuffed in 2008.
That showdown will be between the old guard of the Nevada GOP – the Romney-supporting, McCain-supporting, Bush-supporting neo-conservative establishment – and the more numerous and active conservative and libertarian base of the Nevada Republican Party.
Scheduled to speak the afternoon of May 5 at the state convention is Ron Paul himself.
The harder and more violently the GOP establishment fights the organized grassroots of the Republican Party, the more fervently those grassroots seem to fight back. “Blowback” is how the CIA refers to this phenomenon when referencing political struggles abroad. That same type of blowback seems to be taking place across the GOP. Another notable recent example being in Alaska, where the conservative and libertarian base of the Republican Party are pushing back against a moderate and corporatist establishment.
Alaska Republicans held a state convention last weekend that Politico hailed as “more evidence of the political maturation of the Paul forces, who are beginning to seize the levers of powers from within the state parties.” A Paul supporter was elected state chairman and Paul took at least a quarter of the delegates with him out of the Alaska Republican Convention. There is likely to be much controversy around this transition, however, as the Alaska Dispatch reports that the former state chairman took some $100,000 in party funds with him as he was removed from office by transferring it to a Republican organization that is friendlier to the state’s old guard.
The more intense these fights get, and the more success Ron Paul’s supporters see, the more notice they are generating around the county. “I just came back from the national (Republican National Committee) meeting and everybody was talking about the Ron Paul, well-organized takeover,” said Heidi Smith, Nevada national GOP committeewoman.
There is little question that Ron Paul is pushing hard for delegates and that his plan is starting to succeed. Focusing on delegates is the strategy that Barack Obama used with success against an opponent with greater name recognition. The strategy worked for Obama and it seems to be working for Paul. At the Republican National Convention on August 27 in Tampa, Paul will be a force to be reckoned with. The RNC convenes to choose a nominee and conduct the business of the party. Like any meeting convened under Robert’s Rules of Order, it is the delegates of that meeting who are the ultimate authority.
While the media and Republican establishment have concluded that a Romney-Obama race is a given, Republican voters do not yet seem to agree with that conclusion. After an estimated $80 million spent by the Romney campaign this election cycle and after five years of campaigning for the presidency, Romney has yet to appeal widely to Republican voters and bridge the divides in the party.
Voters are still left, therefore, with a two man race for the Republican nomination - either a moderate challenger (Mitt Romney) running against an incumbent president, which has been an unsuccessful option since at least 1976, or an ideological challenger to an incumbent president (Ron Paul). In the years 1976, 1980, 1992, 1994, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2006, and 2008, national elections were either lost by moderates or won by principled candidates. It’s still not clear who the Republican delegates will rally around in 2012.
To win on the first ballot at the RNC, Mitt Romney needs 1,144 delegates to vote for him. If he doesn’t get that, he ends up in an ugly scenario where a floor fight is sure to take place. If Colorado, Missouri, or Minnesota are any indication, Santorum supporters and the religious right are likely to side with Paul over Romney.
National conventions are usually a coronation for an established candidate. That is not always the case, however. During a convention, anything can happen. Any political junky of a certain age remembers the drama inside and out of the 1968 Democratic convention. Political historians know that Warren Harding walked into the 1920 Republican National Convention with the support of only 7% of delegates, before being chosen as the Republican nominee at that convention on the tenth ballot, and elected president later that year.
According to an unnamed party official, a less principled candidate may fare better in a brokered convention: “An important difference between Paul and Romney is that Romney can horse-trade by promising sweetheart deals, influential positions, and government contracts, should he be elected. Ron Paul has only the promise that he will work his hardest to scale back the unconstitutional growth of government…. [Paul’s] philosophy on the role of government may limit how influential of a horse-trader he can be.” Results over the last few weeks from states like Colorado, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Alaska tell us that that the Republicans don’t yet have a guaranteed frontrunner and guarantee us only one certainty at this point.
On the floor of the RNC, in late August, on primetime television, the American people will watch a political drama unfold in which the Republican old guard tries to horse-trade its way out of the pressure that has built up around it for years. The Mr. Smiths of the Republican Party are angry and organized and have worked their way into the highest levels of the Republican Party. They are the delegates of the highest legislative body of the Republican Party – the RNC. They have voice and vote to change the direction, structure, and leadership of the GOP, and in 2012 the Mr. Smiths of the GOP seem to like Ron Paul a whole lot better than they like Mitt Romney.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/7722/ron-paul-keeps-winning-as-supporters-prepare-for-a-battle-with-gop-old-guardFour years ago, Nevada State GOP insiders so disliked Ron Paul supporters that they... more-
- JRBarilla
- added this
- 28 days ago
- |
- 23 comments
-
-
Ron Paul Can Win
(Excerpt)
We cannot see past a phase change. I don't know if the U.S.A. will have undergone one at the time of the 2012 election, but the necessary conditions for one are all in place, as far as I can tell.
One has to reach back a good way in American history for a time of such rapidly rising sentiment that not only are our leaders unable even to think of real solutions to the problems of greatest concern (rather than just making expedient changes at the margin), but also that the prevailing political and economic system is structurally incapable of delivering any long-term solutions in its current form.
The sheer range and interconnectedness of the problems that the nation faces are such that any permanent solution to any one of them will require profound systemic change that will necessarily upset many economic, political and cultural equilibria. And that is nothing more than a definition of a national phase change.
The average American may not know what is to be done, but she can sense when the system has exhausted all its possibilities. At that point, not only does the phase change become reasonable; it becomes desirable -- even if what lies on the other side cannot be known.
As anyone can find out just by talking to a broad cross-section of Ron Paul's supporters, his base is not uniform in its agreement on the standard issues of typical American party-political conflict. In fact, Paul supporters vary significantly even in their views of what in the old left-right paradigm were the "wedge-issues." Rather, they are united around concepts that could almost be called meta-political: whether left and right really exist, and, if they do, whether they are really opposed; whether centralized government should even be the main vehicle for political change, etc.; and whether there are some principles that should be held sacrosanct for long-term benefit, even when they will hurt in the short-run.
For those with eyes to see, such realignments and re-prioritization may even be glimpses of America after its next phase change.
If Ron Paul has committed support from 10 percent of the adult population, and most of that 10 percent support him precisely because they believe he represents a whole new political system, an entirely new political settlement, then we may be close to critical mass -- just a few grains of sand short of the avalanche.
Another piece of evidence that the nation is close to a phase change and a gestalt switch is the very fact that the prevailing paradigm (from which the mainstream media, established political class, etc., operate) has to ignore huge amounts of data about Ron Paul and the movement around him to continue to make any sense. The studied neglect of data as "irrelevant" is invariably indicative that the neglected data are hugely important. If information doesn't really matter, why go to all the effort of ignoring it?
Specifically, on all the metrics that a year ago everyone accepted as useful indicators of political standing, Ron Paul is not just a front-runner but a strong one.
First, and most directly, he does extremely well in polls. The organization of his grassroots support is not just excellent; it is remarkable, by historic and global measures. His ability to raise money from actual voters is second to none. His appeal to independents and swing voters is an order of magnitude greater than that of his competitors. Secondarily, he has more support from military personnel than all other candidates put together, if measured by donations; he has the most consistent voting record; he has the magical quality of not coming off as a politician; he oozes integrity and authenticity, and, as far as we know, he has a personal life and marriage that reflects deep stability and commitment.
To believe that Ron Paul's victory is a long shot in spite of all standard indicators that directly contradict this claim is to throw out all norms with which we follow our nation's politics -- and that is a huge thing to do. The only way it can be done honestly is to present another set of contradictory reasons or metrics that are collectively more powerful than all those that you are rejecting. I am yet to find them.
If it is true that the studied neglect of data to hold tight to a paradigm is the best evidence that the paradigm is about to collapse, then the massive and highly subjective neglect of all things Paulian is specific evidence that the country is moving in Paul's direction.
Of course, none of this means that Paul will definitely win. But it does mean that a bet against him by a politician is foolhardy and by a journalist is dishonest.
It is worth returning to Churchill's career for an even more delicious example: just days before he became the great wartime leader, his career had been written off as that of a kook, and he was being discussed as someone who had extreme ideas and whose thinking did not reflect the mood of the nation. The House of Commons was abuzz with his decline and imminent fall.
And then, rather suddenly, something he had been saying for many years -- that there was something rotten in the state of Germany -- became so obvious that it could no longer be avoided. Once the nation saw that he had been right all along, he became the leader of the free world in very short order. His career changed. Britain changed. The world changed. No one had seen that coming, either. In fact, everyone thought they knew what was coming: the kook was about to disappear into political backwaters, if not the political wilderness.
Do I even need to draw the parallel?
If Paul wins, it won't be because he is the kind of candidate Americans have always gone for. It will be precisely because Americans have collectively decided on a dramatically new way of doing business -- a new political and economic paradigm -- and then he'll not only have ceased to be a long shot; he'll be the only shot.
Full Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/ron-paul-can-win_b_939993.html(Excerpt) We cannot see past a phase change. I don't know if the U.S.A. will... more-
- JRBarilla
- added this
- 30 days ago
- |
- 7 comments
-
-
Elite media hurting Romney, itself in 2012
The establishment elite and its media are finding themselves in a rapidly growing dilemma as years of contrived silence about the election process, namely the GOP’s and how it actually works, is now coming back to haunt them in a profound way.
Despite Tuesday’s so-called “5 state sweep” for Romney, all over the country Ron Paul’s Delegates have swarmed the states that utilize a delegate selection processes that is separate from their original caucus or primary. Yet ironically, that very silence is now allowing that tidal-wave of delegates for Paul to continue winning state after state for Paul’s 2012 campaign.
Even as America awoke on Wednesday to the media parading its favorite establishment candidate as winning all 5 states the night before, Ron Paul continues to rack up delegates himself at a pace that has his campaign trailing by much less than the media would like everyone to believe.
Just hours before Tuesday thru Wednesday’s completely disingenuous national Romney propaganda parade, Ron Paul had officially taken Iowa over the weekend, and himself swept Minnesota and Colorado the weekend prior.
In fact, not only was Ron Paul already basically taking the majority of the caucus County, District and State Conventions around the country, the vast majority of Rick Santorum’s very conservative Delegates have also decided to spite the “front-running” big-government 1%’r who’s backed by Wall Street and join the Ron Paul Revolution instead.
This situation has, in effect, propelled Ron Paul into the fore-front and now close to neck and neck with Romney, or even better.
Prior to Tuesday’s Primaries a very conservative estimate, based on the reality of how the race is truly playing out behind the scenes, had Romney with approx. 600 delegates and Ron Paul with around 400, despite the establishment’s desperate attempt to have people believe otherwise. It’s very likely much closer than that.
Even with Tuesday’s primary states supposedly going to Romney, not only is it still nowhere near enough to have the nomination wrapped up, but even some of these states will also go through a post-primary delegate selection process that is also sure to see much of those delegates go for Paul as well.
Nowhere in the rule-book does it state that the delegates attending Precinct, County, District or State Conventions are bound to vote for the winner of the original Straw Poll, “Caucus” or “Primary” that took place in the state, prior to the actual delegate selection process.
............
One of the ways the establishment tried to fool everyone into thinking otherwise was by making sure everyone was clearly told that the “straw polls” that take place, prior to the official beginning of the nomination process at January’s Iowa Caucus, means virtually nothing. When in actuality, many of the caucuses and primaries themselves, including Iowa’s, also only serve as a precinct-level overall straw poll, leaving only the actual post-caucus delegate selection process to determine the true eventual outcome.
This is something the establishment wanted to keep very quiet and has successfully done so over the years. It allowed for the old guard to play with the delegate selection process the way they saw fit after everyone went home. This made it very easy to get their candidates elected
Now, however, thanks to the internet, articles like this one, very popular “Truther” radio shows and non-establishment co-opted Tea Party supporters who are actually informed of the truth, young politicians are then taking advantage of forums and sites like Facebook and Twitter to inform each other about the facts and election laws and are actually participating in the process. Whereas the older and ignorant mainstream-news-believing supporters of mostly Romney and Gingrich are losing out as a result of being left out of the loop.
Romney is truly only supposedly leading the race currently, despite having an almost identical political record and historical political philosophy as Barack Obama, because of how incredibly hard the media has pushed him as the “likely” candidate, including misleading its unwitting followers about who’s actually winning.
Establishment rhetoric has also left their followers severely complacent and incredibly over-confident in their candidates, much like 2010’s mid-term elections that watched many self-proclaimed “Tea Party” politicians instantly change the face of politics in America with many “surprising” victories. Again, only surprising, however, to those who trust “mainstream” sources exclusively.
Ironically, even as the so-called “conservative” Fox News keeps their “Republican” constituents in the dark about what is actually playing out in the 2012 “Republican” nomination process, it was the radically-left MSNBC who decided to continue recently detailing what is actually playing out behind the scenes on Monday.
Although they too continued to be dishonest about Paul’s chances, even as they ironically told their unwitting viewers that Ron Paul is continuing to win many states, it may be that they were given the task of initially breaking the news because the establishment knows they’ve lost the majority of their viewers over the last couple years. Especially so-called “conservatives” who may have also once watched “left” leaning news from time-to-time but no longer do..
Had the media been able to sell Romney as a true conservative and one worthy of representing the “Republican” Party in the general election, and/or been honest with the people and the supporters it needs to help its candidate win, it is possible many of Santorum’s Delegates may have decided to side with the establishment’s Romney when Santorum was unable to continue.
Overwhelmingly, however, Santorum’s "young" Delegates have decided to side with Paul, now clearing the way for what looks to be an almost certain “brokered” National Convention in Aug. Something the Conspiracy Examiner has been warning readers about for quite some time.
Even worse for the establishment and its candidate is that during the Republican National Convention this August it is still possible that many of the delegates that originally thought to side with Romney have the ability to change their minds when it truly comes time to cast their official votes this summer. Something even the establishment’s media admitted is far more likely than Paul’s or even Santorum’s former delegates changing their minds in favor of Romney. Even though, as the RNC approaches, they’re likely to tell you isn’t supposed to happen or is somehow against the rules.
.....
Right now, for instance, Mitt Romney is truly in big trouble. Even the people who really don’t know the truth about the race and how the GOP Nomination process truly takes place are soon going to find themselves wondering what happened to “all those delegates” Romney supposedly had as delegates actually start making the official votes that actually count at the RNC in Aug. If the truth ultimately has anything to do with it, that is.
The truth, however, we may continue to find, isn’t always what takes precedent when it comes to the establishment, its media and its politics. They're likely to continue to do and say anything to insure a Romney victory anyway. After all, Romney is arguably the candidate, out of all that initially entered the race, that most resembles Obama and the most likely to continue 'their' major campaign contributors' "1%'r" agendas.
Full Article: http://www.examiner.com/article/elite-media-hurting-romney-itself-2012The establishment elite and its media are finding themselves in a rapidly growing... more-
- JRBarilla
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
2012 Presidential Debate Of Alternative Parties
The Alternative Party Debate hosted by Maggie Phair Institute.
Featuring:
Rocky Anderson
Justice Party nominee
http://www.voterocky.org/
Roseanne Barr
Green Party candidate
http://roseanneforpresident.com/
Stephen Durham
Freedom Socialist Party nominee
http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/
Peta Lindsay
Party for Socialism and Liberation nominee
http://pslweb.org/votepsl/2012/candidates/lindsay.html
Dr. Kent Mesplay
Green Party candidate
http://mesplay.org/
Dr. Jill Stein
Green Party candidate
http://www.jillstein.org/The Alternative Party Debate hosted by Maggie Phair Institute. Featuring: Rocky... more-
- JRBarilla
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 3 comments
-
-
-
Corrupt Judge David P. Kreider now taints the 2012 election process from his base in "Gator Country"
This pertains to public corruption that has extended to the 2012 election process. It once again involves Florida. The public should be aware.
http://www.complaints.com/2012/march/14/Corrupt_Judge_David_P._Kreider_now_taints_the_ele_264712.htm (SOURCE)
The above webpage is constantly updated as new developments arise. This is the gateway to some serious corruption and a major cover-up attempt.
FYI, this matter also relates to the “Gibson Case” and the matter has grown to the point that the resultant scandal now involves several people. Some of those involved are as follows:
1
David P. Kreider, Alachua County Court Judge (see http://circuit8.org/kreider )
2
Martha Ann Lott, Ex - Chief Judge for the 8th Judicial Circuit of Florida (see http://circuit8.org/lott ) [Embattled Martha Lott resigned from her chief judge post subsequent to becoming embroiled in this scandal which has started to implode; her resignation was announced on 04/09/2012 and was reported to have gone into effect on 04/05/2012.]
*For information about Martha Lott’s resignation see
-"The Gainesville Sun” article dated 04/09/2012 at http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120409/ARTICLES/120409606
-8th Judicial Circuit of Florida official press release dated 04/10/2012 at https://circuit8.org/web/news/4-10-12%20Chief%20Judge%20Roundtree.pdf
3
Spencer Mann, Chief Investigator for the 8th Judicial Circuit of Florida’s State Attorney’s Office (see http://sao8.org/Chief%20Investigator.htm )
4
J.K. “Buddy” Irby, Alachua County Clerk (& Clerk of Court) / Clerk of the Circuit Court for the 8th Judicial Circuit of Florida (see http://www.alachuacounty.us/Depts/Clerk/Pages/Clerk.aspx/ )
5
William “Bill” Cervone, State Attorney for the 8th Judicial Circuit of Florida (see http://sao8.org/ABOUT%20WILLIAM%20CERVONE.htm )
6
Denise R. Ferrero, Alachua County Court Administrative Judge (see http://circuit8.org/ferrero )
7
Ted McFetridge, Court Administrator for the 8th Judicial Circuit of Florida (see http://circuit8.org/court-administrator )
8
Robert Roundtree, Chief Judge for the 8th Judicial Circuit of Florida (see http://circuit8.org/roundtree )[he replaced Martha Lott in April 2012 upon her resignation]
9
Pam Carpenter, Alachua County Supervisor of Elections (see http://www.myfloridaelections.com/fsasedir.php?detail=Y&County=Alachua )
10
Paula M. DeLaney, Chair of the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners (see http://www.alachuacounty.us/Depts/BOCC/Profiles/Pages/Delaney.aspx )
11
Polly Cheshire, Alachua County Court Program Specialist
Everything stated here and at the above referenced "source webpage" is true and supported by two irrefutable reports and extensive corroborating evidence that is in the possession of agencies, including those within Florida’s 8th Judicial Circuit (and the Chief Judge’s office and Chief Investigator Spencer Mann of the State Attorney's Office). The comprehensive reports and evidence span a total of more than 100 pages and in-depthly detail criminal activities carried out under the color of law by criminal/judge David P. Kreider and various other co-conspirators. As indicated above, serious corruption and a major cover-up attempt is in play.This pertains to public corruption that has extended to the 2012 election process. It... more -
Obama’s position on same sex marriage ‘evolving’ — but may not change — in 2012
To hear many of his supporters tell it in 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama’s opposition to marriage equality and the repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was simply a matter of political expediency rather than personal or political preference. After the machinations in 2004 that put same-sex marriage bans on the ballot in swing states and ginned up Republican turn-out, taking a principled stand in favor of full civil rights for LGBT people was considered too politically risky in the tight race.
In 2012, Obama’s about to have the chance to prove such supporters right. But whether he’ll do so or not is still an open question.
Obama’s position on same sex marriage wasn’t exactly nuanced in 2008: he opposed it. His running mate, then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) said in the VP debate with then-Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) that marriage equality was not in the cards during an Obama Administration: “No, neither Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to should be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what to call it.”
Though in 2011 Obama ordered his Justice Department to stop defending DOMA in court, the law still prevents federal recognition of same sex marriages — thus denying those couples federal benefits — and allows states to refuse to recognize same sex marriages performed elsewhere. Binational couples still can’t get green cards that allow the non-American spouse to work, a same sex marriage can be legal in one state and not recognized one state away, and despite Obama’s order, the House is paying a private lawyer to defend DOMA in court to try to deny married same sex couples Social Security survivor benefits and more.
In the mean time, public opinion on same sex marriage has all but reversed itself since 2004 and 2008: whereas Gallup showed that only 42 and 40 percent of Americans (respectively) supported marriage equality in those election years, their most recent poll shows 53 percent now support it. Other nationwide polls bear out these findings. What was viewed as too risky to support in 2008 might well be too risky not to support in 2012.
Other Democrats have noticed — mostly recently, four former chairs of the Democratic National Committee support including marriage equality in the Democratic party’s official 2012 platform, which Obama is nominally running on. They join, as Huffington Post’s Amanda Terkel wrote, “almost half of all Democratic senators, several of President Barack Obama’s national campaign co-chairs, the House Minority Leader and the chairman of the Democratic convention, among others.”
But the closest Obama himself has come to supporting marriage equality is a statement from White House spokesperson Jay Carney that he “continues to ‘evolve’” on the issue, though Carney added, “You know his position, where it stands now, on the position of same-sex marriage.” In March, an anonymous source told the Washington Blade that the White House and the campaign were having “active conversation” about whether the President should support marriage equality before the November election and that it was even odds that he might.
Continued at: http://goo.gl/OhQOUTo hear many of his supporters tell it in 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama’s... more-
- JRBarilla
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 73 comments
-
-
Revealed By WikiLeaks: Obama Team Stole Election, Bribed Jesse Jackson And Took Russian Money In 2008
Deception in the Obama campaign
http://www.westernjournalism.com/wikileaks-obama-team-stole-election-bribed-jesse-jackson-and-took-russian-money-in-2008/?utm_source=Western+Journalism&utm_campaign=221710e292-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=emailDeception in the Obama campaign... more-
- Vod_Kanockers
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 2 comments
-
-
Lightsaber Battle: Obama vs. Oprah (VIDEO)
"Steadman, Save yourself!" http://veracitystew.com/?p=34170-
- StewSteve
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Gab's Blabs: Hermain Cain Suspends Campaign
Gabby Birchak provides Breaking News: Michael Steele urges Herman Cain to suspend his campaign and completely refrain and abstain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx7jByiukV4&feature=plcp&context=C4d6832eVDvjVQa1PpcFPnUg-j0s5r0zc1OaviWnmIe5fweAcUcZ8%3DGabby Birchak provides Breaking News: Michael Steele urges Herman Cain to suspend his... more-
- GabsBlabs
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Ameriborn News
William Landers interviews Linda McMahon post debate about the most important issues that will resonate with Connecticut Voters and about her loss by 12 points last election.William Landers interviews Linda McMahon post debate about the most important issues... more-
- williamlanders
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Presidential Candidate "Rocky" Anderson Brings his Justice Party Campaign to Santa Cruz
Rocky Anderson is very much aware of the "spoiler effect" that a third party candidate can have in an election. But he is also aware of how much influence a third party candidate can have.
After much thought, the former mayor of Salt Lake City created the Justice Party, and he aims to stir up a revolutionary campaign that rests on social media and grassroots organizing rather than big money.
"Every major public policy disaster in this Country is attributable to the corrupting influence of money," Anderson told Patch during a round of talks and meetings in Santa Cruz.
Backed by Ralph Nader, Anderson believes that there must be an end to what he calls authoritarianism and plutocracy in the United States.
...
India Joze owner Jozseph Schultz thought Rocky was more than a spoiler. He was someone who could wake up a lackluster party.
“It doesn’t even matter if he wins, we need to put pressure on the Democrats from the left,” he said.
Patch: What can you say to young people who are discouraged by politics and feel powerless and betrayed by the President Obama's failure to follow through with promises he made before taking office?
Anderson: I think he [Obama] had an extremely detrimental effect on people, particularly younger people, just getting involved in politics, because they all had real hope, and now realize they’ve been completely betrayed.
Once we resign ourselves and become inactive to the point of complacency, then we become part of the problem. There have been very discouraging moments in the nation’s history where passionate, determined people rose up and said ‘we’re not going to take this anymore,” and they made incredible changes, all for the better. And we can do it again.
Patch: Mitt Romney ran for Governor of Massachussettes as a "Pro-Choice" politician, and now he is anti-choice. President Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay but never did. I have to ask, what makes you any different from these other candidates who made promises they could not follow through with once in office?
Anderson: That’s a really good question. I’ve always said that instead of looking at peoples’ promises during campaigns, and getting sucked in by slogans like “Hope” and "Change," take a look at what they’ve done with their lives, what they’ve committed themselves to do, what their core is, why they’re doing what they’re doing, and all I would say is my record’s there for anybody to examine.
I was president of the board of the Utah Civil Liberties Union, I was on the board of Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, I was on the board of Common Cause fighting for campaign finance reform, and a ban on lobbyist gifts to legislators. This was all on my own time.
When I was mayor I was fighting against invasion and occupation of Iraq even before the invasion, and I continued with my efforts throughout the Bush administration and into the Obama administration. I was the only major city mayor who advocated impeachment of President Bush, and I didn’t do that just in one speech, I actively pursued that all around the country.
Patch: What about the war on drugs?
Anderson: I think the war on drugs is a total failure, betrayal of the interests of everybody involved, except for the cartels, it’s really good for them. If we treated illicit drugs the same way we do alcohol and tobacco, regulate it, tax it, and treat all substance abuse as a public health problem rather than a criminal justice problem, the cartels aren’t around anymore, because they have nothing to sell. Just as the mob disintegrated in large part, after alcohol prohibition is eliminated.
We’d be emptying a lot of our prisons and jails, police that are making busts wouldn’t be facing the threat of violence that they face today. There was another police officer I read about today who was just killed, and we’ve had several officers killed recently in Utah, on a drug bust. None of this makes any sense, we’re spending billions of dollars on drug intervention, on source control, and putting people away in prisons and jails for insanely long terms.
I’m a firm believer in making public policy on the basis of the real evidence, rather than peoples’ prejudices.
Instead of being worried about whether people like you, or whether you’re going to be re elected the next time around, worrying that you did the right thing, trying to provide real leadership rather than get led around by the polls.
Patch: If you had to choose between Romney or Obama, who would you choose?
Anderson: That’s not as easy of a response as you might think. Because with President Obama in the White House, he has basically neutered the Democratic Party as an opposition party.
If we had George Bush, or Mitt Romney in office, I don’t think they would have been able to sign off on the NDAA Provision allowing the indefinite detention of anybody including U.S. citizens, without charges, trials, legal representation, or the right of habeus corpus. We basically have no opposition party in this country that will stand up to these kinds of abuses. That legislation is the most Anti-American, subversive piece of legislation ever signed into law. And yet we don’t have a major political party standing up against it?
I think if we had a Republican president in office, the Democratic Party would be standing up in opposition, and I think people would have been out in the streets making sure that wasn’t able to be passed into law. The same thing with targeting U.S. citizens for assassination.
We’ve now become a country that can send unmanned drones targeting United States citizens with zero due proccess. And we’ve killed U.S. citizens: Almar Alawaki, we knew that he was on an assassination list. And that made it into a few newspapers, it wasn’t front page headline news the way it should have been, but then two weeks later, his 16-year-old son, was also killed by an unmanned drone. You didn’t read about that in the newspapers. He was also a U.S. citizen.
It’s a very, very different country than the one that I grew up in, the one that I was so proud of as distinguishing itself from these civil and human rights abusing tiranies elsewhere.
Patch: Finally, your campaign hopes to seek its momentum through social networking and grass roots. I’m wondering what your inspirations are and how you think a campaign could actually work without being backed by big money?
Anderson: Well I think the greatest inspiration can be drawn from the Arab uprising. In Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, there were people that felt so strongly about changing their country that they put their lives on the line, organized in grassroots and they utilized the democratized means of social media. We’re certainly capable of that in this country, to overthrow the dictatorship of corrupting money. If we have the will. If people simply embrace the possibility and envision what we can really achieve together.
There’s also a lot of inspiration to take from our own nation’s history, social projects like the antislavery movement, the womens suffrage movements, civil rights movement. There was a lot of money on the other side of those movements, and yet they succeeded, because the grass roots were willing to hang in there and fight until they accomplished their objectives.
If we really mean what we say about getting the government back from the worst it’s ever been in terms of being beholden to those who pay for elections, and throw millions upon millions of dollars at their lobbyists, we can do it.
But it’s going to take organizing, it’s going to take everybody playing their part. Nobody can sit back and just expect others to do it. And nobody can just sit back and say “Well, I’m so disappointed and so cynical about it I’m not going to take part in it anymore.”
Full article and interview at:
http://santacruz.patch.com/articles/presidential-candidate-ross-rocky-anderson-visits-santa-cruzRocky Anderson is very much aware of the "spoiler effect" that a third party... more -
Ron Paul Helped an Incarcerated Black Woman - But He's a Misogynistic Racist!
Here is her story:
Many of you don’t know that Ron Paul played a part in my rescue when I was in prison. First, let me say that I met Ron Paul a couple of times before I went to the slammer, and he and his wife were gracious and warm. Even though we didn’t get together during the filming of Aaron Russo’s movie America: Freedom To Fascism, both of us were featured in the movie.
When I was ill in late 2009 there was an outcry after people were informed of the severity of my condition. I had written a letter to my U.S. Congressman (Hank Johnson) via prison e-mail, and forwarded it to my husband to deliver to him since the congressman was not on my approved e-mail list. My husband, without editing the letter, sent it out to about 20 supporters after furnishing a copy to the congressman. These supporters were outraged at what I was going through. At least one of these supporters had a large e-mail list and he forwarded the letter to his entire list. That desperate cry for help went viral, and soon I was receiving letters of encouragement and financial support from literally all over the globe.
Someone got in touch with Ron Paul’s office. I don’t live in Texas, but he and his staff took action and contacted the prison with a demand for information about my situation. Shortly after Ron Paul’s inquiry about my treatment I was shipped away to a high security prison. While in solitary confinement there (for the security of the institution, they say) my medical situation was constantly observed, and I was treated with respect by the medical staff.
Along with Congressman Hank Johnson, I believe that Congressman Ron Paul’s eye on the situation got me the care that I needed so that my condition did not go critical. I was in really bad shape as you can see here.
For those that say that Ron Paul is a racist, you would never be able to convince me of that. His actions speak louder than your words. He has delivered thousands of lives into this world, of all races and colors. He has helped people of all races, even when it was not popular and could have put him and his family’s lives in danger.
For those that say that Ron Paul is a nut, a large oak tree is yesterday’s nut that held its ground. For over 30 years Ron Paul has not switched his position on any of the socio-political issues of our day. You can call him a nut if you want, but at least he’s not a flip flopper that changes his position with the ebb and flow of the masses.
For those that say that Ron Paul can’t win, God says nothing is impossible with Him. His sticking to his guns and staying in the race shows me that he cares not only about his own family, for he could have made a fortune and bilked the country, like others. He could have taken bribes, high paying corporate positions or even created policies that would have enriched him and his family for generations to come. Instead, his stick-to-it attitude shows me that he cares about me, about us, about America as a whole, about the rule of law, about justice, about equity. Very few people in power care about you, I hope you understand that fact.
Ron Paul takes the criticism and the flack, the jokes and the insults because he knows who he is and he knows what God has told him to do. He knows that he has the truth on his side, and sooner or later truth will prevail. He has been a beacon in the darkness, one that shows up the evil that is in our country and shows the way to correct it, to the chagrin of the evildoers.
I sent a thank you letter to Ron Paul’s offices in Texas and in DC. I wanted them to know that I appreciate them reaching down to help a lowly prisoner that was afraid for her life. Life, that is important to us as humans, or at least should be. Do the people that you trust and endorse care if you live or die? Selah (pause and think about that).
http://www.sherrypeeljackson.org/newsletter/april-2012/
--------------------------------------------------------
He must REALLY hate black people, eh?Here is her story: Many of you don’t know that Ron Paul played a part in my... more-
- JRBarilla
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 87 comments
-
-
The Occupational Hazard of Blowing Smoke for a Living
Certainly there are few election seasons in which candidates from either party don’t say or do something stupid or ill-advised. It’s an occupational hazard when you blow smoke for a living – doubly so if you relate to other humans about as effectively as a visitor on a boondoggle,"fact-finding" junket from Jupiter.Certainly there are few election seasons in which candidates from either party... more-
- omnipotentpoobah
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Hannibal Is Still Circling Rome
Even years after his death, the Roman Senate continued to cry “Hannibal is at the gates,” using the peoples’ fear of Hannibal exactly as the U.S. government and its lapdog politicians today use the myth of terrorism. We are sacrificing liberty for “security” because of the created, imagined threat of terrorists.
The government bureaucracy will never accept responsibility for the collapsing economy, and the elite who run the United States will never give up power. Instead, they attack U.S. citizens on all fronts.
The grand design is to take the remaining wealth of the American people. The borders are silently closing. Tax havens are being attacked. And every wire coming into the United States is being traced for identity.
Even if U.S. authorities collected every foreign bank account or investment, it would make absolutely no difference in the financial default that is coming. It’s a ruse!
We have professional, lifelong politicians who are paid by the government and directed by the elite. They don’t dare pass legislation to impose term limits to stop career politicians.
The people are now the enemy of the state, and their remaining wealth is seen by the politicians as their solution to maintaining perpetual power. The peoples’ rights, privileges and immunities are being stripped away.
And after the “Arab Spring” last year, Washington suddenly perceived a cyberattack threat to shut down the whole Internet. For what purpose? There is no threat or capability of such an attack. This is clearly an excuse to stop communication among people as the system collapses, and the government can’t sell its bonds. It is desperation, but dangerous. This Internet “cyberattack” is merely a bogeyman to invoke more control.
The Internet has exposed the crisis, and crisis speeds up events when widely known. The Internet is plainly a serious threat to government tyranny.
All governments turn on their own people in their final days in order to retain power. Those who can’t see this or can’t believe it had better assume it and protect what they have before it’s too late.
Gold and silver is historically the perfect hedge against bad government. It is survival and liquidity in the chaos and crisis of failing government, as now. Please, this means gold and silver in your possession. You figure where to keep your coins.
It amazes me how people will buy gold and silver and then trust this survival wealth to somebody else. If you let another person, bank, public vault or any entity “store” your survival wealth, it may not be there — and probably won’t be there — when there is economic mayhem. It’s time to be sober. All of you must know about MF Global and how it used clients’ funds.
Something Americans don’t understand: There can be no free society once government has granted itself the power to confiscate property, imprison people under any pretext (or without a pretext) and without charge. This is now true in America.
Government consumes so much that it has destroyed capital formation. The government is trying to increase taxes without an increase in production.
The food stamp program is the only thing holding off revolution and collapse. Currently, 46 million Americans are on food stamps.
But even in the face of economic chaos, the United States is warmongering under one pretense or another. War hides the crimes of government.
There is enormous suffering ahead for unaware and unprepared people. There is plenty of historical precedent for this, going back to the decline and fall of Rome.
Nothing good can happen to America without major economic and political reform. Can you see it? The rule of law must return to America.
In time, pensions will go, including government pensions. Some in government have already discussed their confiscation, and there is precedence in several countries. These are called unfunded entitlements and are a ghost that grows while we sleep. Watch!
Is there any good news? Absolutely! But first we have to go through the fire of economic and social collapse. When will it happen? No one knows, but it could happen at any time.
Some crisis will come that will trigger economic collapse. Crisis will speed the collapse and the wiping clean of debt.
The U.S. government will not honor its debts in the end. It will default or most likely inflate the currency away. In the meantime, we can expect at least one big, unannounced devaluation until it is done. Devaluation is default.
At some point, there will have to be a new currency. Have you seen the new $100 bill in waiting? I have seen it. Many people believe it’s prepared for a return to a gold standard.
But the old regime that ruined America must go, to be replaced with new statesmen with limited Congressional terms.
A great short-term danger is war. You know about it.
During this time of economic and social crisis, we will need to be self-sufficient in the extreme, something few Americans understand.
Survival means many things. It means stored food and water, energy for warmth, protection from people who didn’t plan, gold and silver coins, barter items, extra fuel for transportation, cash money for two to three months’ expenses, soaps, salt, dried foods, cleaning products, paper products and needed prescriptions.
It is reasonable to expect that the economic winter in which we find ourselves will give way to spring in the form of a lapse in crippling debt and the shrinkage of government.
As confidence in government falls, the dollar price of gold will rise. Confidence in government will continue to go down as the value of the U.S. dollar declines. And it will decline because money printing is the mode of government.
Gold is trading at $1,670 and silver is at $32. Both are on the bargain counter compared to a year from now. There are many dealers. I like Franklin Sanders at The Moneychanger. He has been in business some 25 years and is honest and reliable.
Now about getting money out of the United States: The U.S. government is building a wall around this country and American citizens.
The Feds are tracking everything. This is not fear or scare talk. If you have been reading beyond the controlled media, you know very well the seriousness of the situation.
The time is coming very soon when financial assets will not legally be able to leave the United States. The door is fast closing. One more good option has closed. There are no longer any insurance companies that will issue fixed-premium Swiss annuities to Americans. This is the only type of Swiss annuity I have ever recommended.
There is a provision buried in a 1,400-page Senate highway bill (S1813) that would revoke or deny a passport if a taxpayer owes $50,000 or more in back taxes. These are types of exchange controls I have long warned about.
Hannibal is not the enemy. The enemy comes from within.
http://personalliberty.com/2012/04/16/hannibal-is-still-circling-rome/?eiid=Even years after his death, the Roman Senate continued to cry “Hannibal is at... more-
- JRBarilla
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Ron Paul Media Bias Compilation
Like him or not, you should share this to expose the corporate media...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=D_uvhsvPdEoLike him or not, you should share this to expose the corporate media...... more -
Ron Paul: More Delegates than Guessed
Ron Paul has always had a cadre of supporters who have dedicated themselves only to him. These supporters are not “conservative” in the usual sense. They are libertarians. So, too, is Ron Paul himself. This page at OnTheIssues.org lists every place where Ron Paul stands on every issue today. Some might look “liberal” to a not-careful observer. Some look “conservative.” And some are well and truly radical, in the literal sense of that word. Ron Paul wants to tear out certain American institutions by their roots (Latin radix, radicis a root), because he holds them the greatest threats to human liberty. The Federal Reserve is his un-favorite bête-noire.
Ron Paul cannot explain, in thirty-second sound bites, why and how his radical plans would work better for the American people than the institutions he fights. He, and those who support him, know this. They also have run their campaign on a shoestring budget that simply does not allow the kind of advertising that a Mitt Romney could run. (Rick Santorum quit the race for that reason: he couldn’t raise the money.)
So Ron Paul decided to concentrate on States that chose their delegates in caucus, not in binding winner-take-all primaries. Thus far, The New York Times shows Mitt Romney leading with over 600 delegates, and Ron Paul with only 52. Two things are wrong with those numbers:
They show only the delegates that State parties say they have assigned thus far. Many of those States still haven’t allocated all their delegates.
The tallies that some State Republican authorities have released, are only guesses. As such they might be false or misleading.
Here’s why. The primaries in most States (other than Florida and other “winner-take-all” States) are mere beauty contests. After the primaries ended, the real work of choosing county delegates to State conventions began. So while supporters of other candidates left the room, not wanting to stay up all night to discuss “boring Party business,” the Ron Paul cadres stayed on. Under the rules, he who stays, votes. He who does not stay, may not vote, not even by proxy.
Ron Paul gets results
Over the weekend, reports came in from Examiner.com (Wilmington, DE and their National edition). They showed Ron Paul winning delegates in Missouri, Colorado and Minnesota that everyone thought would go to Romney or Santorum. Santorum then quit the race last week, and never said how he expected “his” delegates to vote.
The two Examiners seemed to think that many of them would vote for Ron Paul and not for Mitt Romney. In any event, Ron Paul knew that caucuses would select delegates, because primaries were non-binding. Not only are those primaries non-binding; they have no influence on what caucuses do.
The Colorado results are most interesting. Caucuses chose 36 delegates. Sources did not seem to agree on how they would vote. But those who investigated the matter closely, realized what had happened. RealClearPolitics, for instance, says that Mitt Romney had the most delegates. In fact, he “won” 13 delegates, against 6 for Santorum. The caucuses chose 17 others who did not pledge their votes. But where do their loyalties lie? Tom Mullen at The Washington Times thinks he knows. Todd King of Lewis, CO, one of those “unpledged” delegates, told Mr. Mullen this:
13 unpledged delegates, including me, will vote for Ron Paul on the first ballot. One unpledged delegate will vote for Santorum. The remaining three unpledged delegates, also known as the ‘delegates at large,’ are the state GOP Chairman, the state GOP National Committeeman and the National Committeewoman. Those three will likely vote for Romney. They usually vote for the frontrunner so as not to make waves.
So Ron Paul can count on as many delegate votes as Mitt Romney can, or almost as many, depending on how the super-delegates vote.
Missouri Republicans changed their caucus rules, under pressure from many who felt that the Republican “establishment” wanted them to shut-up and let them do things their way. Ron Paul hopes to “dominate” in Missouri when Republican voters there meet in caucus this Saturday and in June.
The Ron Paul campaign flatly disputes the AP/New York Times delegate tally. In March they showed the true delegate strength as:
Mitt Romney: 425
Rick Santorum: 361
Ron Paul: 225
Newt Gingrich: 165
One commenter on that page explained how Ron Paul’s supporters get delegates:
This isn’t for sissies. You have to go to the meetings, meet people and tell them your name so they’ll remember you when it comes time to vote in delegates, etc. And frankly, it’s boring. I listened to a long speech tonight and there were a million other things I would’ve rather been doing (like reading on here or griping with my RP friends on Facebook).
If those who support the other three candidates are less willing to listen to “boring…long speech[es]” and forgo their “million other things [they'd] rather [do],” then of course they’re losing delegates. They leave the field to Ron Paul.
Summary
Ron Paul’s supporters have always made fun of those who dismiss Ron Paul and his campaign too soon. They might be correct. For centuries English speakers have warned one another:
Don’t count your chickens before they hatch.
Has the Republican National Committee made that mistake? Maybe.
http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/04/16/news/ron-paul-delegates-guessed/Ron Paul has always had a cadre of supporters who have dedicated themselves only to... more-
- JRBarilla
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 20 comments
-
-
Mitt Romney, Bain Capital Defrauded U.S. Government of $25,000,000
Perhaps the most emphasized argument in favor of Mitt Romney is his business experience, mostly regarding his tenure at Bain Capital. His presidential campaign attempts to present him to voters as the man to tackle the nation’s economic problems because of his ‘wealth’ of economic savvy.
Let’s take a moment to reflect on just one of the business dealings that made Romney rich(er) and in turn molded him into the one candidate, as he claims, that can fix our countries economic woes.
According to Forbes:
In 1989, Bain Capital purchased controlling interest in Damon Corp., a medical testing company located in Needham, Massachusetts.
During the time that Bain held its ownership of the company, Mitt Romney personally sat on the Board of Directors. And during that same period, Damon Corp. was busy submitting fraudulent reimbursement claims to Medicare to the tune of millions of dollars charged for unnecessary blood tests.
According to federal government prosecutors, Damon was misleading physicians into ordering unnecessary blood tests, assuring the doctors that the testing would be covered by Medicare.
By the time Damon Corp. pleaded guilty to defrauding the United States Government of $25 million—and paid a total of $119 million in what was, at that time, the largest penalty of its kind in Massachusetts history—Bain was long gone having sold the company in 1993 to Corning, Inc.
The right man to fix the economy, huh? Now, don’t get me wrong, I honestly believe that Romney has a solid grasp on economic issues and business management. However, is it wise to entrust our economy to a man who still has a substantial financial interest in a company that profits when other companies are struggling? A company that has a record of defrauding the government already?
It is also worthy to note that while the company eventually went bankrupt, with thousands losing their jobs, Bain Capital walked away with a $12 million profit—a little over $400,000 of that money ending up in Mitt’s pocket.
http://libertarianreview.us/2012/04/15/mitt-romney-bain-capital-defrauded-u-s-government-of-25000000/Perhaps the most emphasized argument in favor of Mitt Romney is his business... more-
- JRBarilla
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 4 comments
-
-
If Ron Paul Were US President…
Imagine a possible future where Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination and goes on to beat Barack Obama come November.
Of course, all the establishment pundits tell us that’s implausible, if not downright impossible. And if Paul does win, do you think they’ll eat their words? No way: the papers, airwaves, and cyberspace will brim with grumbles, moans, and howls about the terrible fate that has befallen America and the West.
As usual, the pundits will be wrong.
Of course, Ron Paul has made a variety of promises to make dramatic changes including: abolish the Fed, bring all American troops home, end the war on drugs, get rid of the income tax, pardon all prisoners jailed for non-violent crimes, get the Feds out of the marriage law business, repeal Roe vs. Wade, and cut $1 trillion from the budget.
No wonder the establishment Republicans, Democrats, and foreign policy wonks have declared war on Ron Paul: it’s always hazardous to one’s health to threaten to take away somebody’s rice bowl.
As a candidate, a major attraction decidedly in Paul’s favour is that he appears to be a man who will keep his word. One only has to think of Barack “Dubya” Obama, Mitt “where does he stand today?” Romney or Newt “WTF did he just say?” Gingrich to realise how rare a quality that is in a politician. (Only Gary Johnson, the likely Libertarian Party nominee, has a similar quality.)
Since Paul has been saying pretty much the same thing since before he first ran for Congress in 1976, let’s assume he won’t change his spots if he’s inaugurated next January.
So in this possible (or impossible – take your pick) future, by the end of 2012 America and the world will be a totally different place.
Well…
…unfortunately for Paul supporters, probably not.
For example, come budget time President Paul will send his proposed budget, including spending cuts of $1 trillion, to…ah…Congress.
Congress in 2012 will be a slightly different place than it is today. Lacking Congressman Ron Paul in the House of Reps, there’ll only be one vote (instead of two) he can count on: his son’s, Rand Paul in the Senate.
Not enough.
Paul’s budget will go through the normal Congressional meatgrinders and come out the other end looking more like spaghetti that the document that went in.
President Paul will have to veto it.
So it will go back to Congress which, with enough votes to override Paul’s veto, will pass it unchanged just to spite him.
Many of his other promises will face a similar fate. Repealing the income tax requires a constitutional amendment – which has to be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress (or two-thirds of the state legislatures)! Then, three-quarters of the state legislatures must sign on. It’s hard to imagine all those “representatives” giving up their pork barrels. Altruism is something politicians recommend unto others, not something they practice themselves.
Alternatively, President Paul could include, as part of his budget, cutting the income tax rate to zero. Like his proposals to end the war on drugs, abolish the Fed, get the Feds out of the marriage law business, and repeal Roe vs. Wade, they all require an act of Congress.
Don’t Hold Your Breath
That said, there’s still a hell of a lot President Paul can do. After all, American presidents since Lincoln (if not before) have firmly established the precedent that presidents can rule by decree (ah…”executive orders” in politically correct speech) whether Congress or the Supreme Court likes it or not.
And: just because Congress authorises a budget of $X trillion in expenditure, it doesn’t follow that a president has to spend it; just because Congress passes a law, it doesn’t follow that a president has to enforce it.
So President Paul could repeal all the decrees he doesn’t like, bring all American troops home (along with the “drug warriors” around the world) – by decree. Congressmen can scream all they want: after all, most of those troops were stationed abroad without Congress’ direct approval, so how can they disapprove if Paul brings them back?
But Congress isn’t the only opposition President Paul would face. As president he could direct the bureaucracy to stop enforcing Roe vs. Wade, the drug laws – and he could even order the IRS to stop auditing tax returns. (Imagine that!)
In theory, that would mean if Californians all want to get stoned and cheat on their taxes, President Paul’s Feds won’t stop them.
But would all those bureaucrats follow orders?
They should. But in practice, every government bureaucracy has finely-honed skills directed to achieving its own ends despite the desires of its political masters.
One is the “go slow.” Everyone complains how slow government agencies are getting things done. Imagine how slow they could if they put their minds to it!
And one thing a president cannot do is order a court to do anything. While a law’s still on the books, a court can make a judgment which goes again a president’s expressed desires.
But a president has the power to pardon anyone convicted of a federal crime. How long do you think the police would bother prosecuting, or the courts trying, someone they knew would be pardoned immediately after they were convicted?
And then, while President Paul is doing his best to ensure that all those laws are not enforced, what will Congress do? Pass a law telling the president he must enforce the law? Go to the Supreme Court and seek a writ of mandamus (Latin for “we command”) ordering the president to enforce the law? (Would the Supreme Court rule that unconstitutional? These, days, who know?)
Whatever Congress, the bureaucracy, the Supreme Court, and the military-industrial complex do, it will be fascinating to watch.
One thing Paul will achieve if he wins: the nature of the policy debate in America will change dramatically and probably forever. For example, if the world doesn’t fall apart after four years without America as the world’s policeman and Californians (and God knows who else) all with their minds blown, the pundits’ prognostications of doom and gloom will look pretty stupid and won’t get much support.
And think of the alternatives. Without Ron Paul in the race, American voters face a hardly-inspiring choice of a Republican administration (Mitt Romney or whoever) or a Republican administration with health care (Barack “Dubya” Obama).
President Ron Paul would be a helluva lot more fun!
http://www.moneymorning.com.au/20120416/if-ron-paul-were-us-president.htmlImagine a possible future where Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination and goes on to... more-
- JRBarilla
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
