tagged w/ war mongering
-
It's a seemingly absurd idea on the surface: Why would democrats and liberals want to vote for Ron Paul (a Republican) over President Obama? Maybe because they want freedom instead of tyranny, it turns out. Because if you're a total slave to the police state, it doesn't really matter whether you're on the left or the right, does it?
Here, I give you ten solid reasons why even liberals and progressives are supporting Ron Paul. And by the way, I don't worship Ron Paul or any individual. What I honor is the principles that Ron Paul stands for -- the very same principles President Obama has outright abandoned in his broken promises and disturbing reversals against the American people. Out of all the candidates, only Ron Paul has the ethical and moral strength to carry out his office from a place of principle rather than betrayal.
#1) Ron Paul supports decriminalizing marijuana and ending the War on Drugs. Obama does not.
Remember when Obama promised he would decriminalize marijuana, but now his own administration continues to raid legal drug dispensaries in California? That's a classic Obama lie: Say one thing to get elected, then turn around and do the exact opposite.
Ron Paul, on the other hand, openly supports decriminalizing marijuana and ending the failed War on Drugs. Although he doesn't promote recreational drug use (and neither do I), he understands that treating weed smokers as hard-core criminals is ethical, morally and economically wrong. See my related article on Snoop Dogg and his recent drug bust in Texas: http://www.naturalnews.com/034612_S...
#2) Ron Paul supports the freedom to choose what you eat and drink, including raw milk, but the Obama administration continues to run armed raids on raw milk farmers
Under Ron Paul, the FDA would be forced to end its vicious armed raids on Amish farmers and raw dairy producers. Obama has openly allowed such armed raids to continue under his watch, refusing to even take a stand for food freedom in America.
Ron Paul understands that liberty is the most important component of abundance. If you are not free to choose what you want to eat, smoke what you want to smoke, and choose your own type of medicine and health care, then you are a slave, not a citizen. Ron Paul seeks to get Big Government out of your life, away from your kitchen, out of your medicine cabinet and away from your children.
#3) Ron Paul would seek to eliminate FDA censorship of the scientifically-validated health claims for herbs, nutritional supplements and natural remedies
Under Bush and Obama, the FDA's continued censorship of truthful statements about medicinal herbs, homeopathy and nutritional supplements has been fully supported by the White House. Obama is just a corporate puppet, of course, and that means he does whatever the powerful corporations tell him to do -- especially the Wall Street and Big Pharma corporations. So it's no surprise he hasn't taken a stand to support health freedom for foods and supplements.
But Ron Paul has pushed the Health Freedom Protection Act year after year (http://www.naturalnews.com/019382_H...), tirelessly working to legalize nutrition in America and restore Free Speech for Chinese Medicine herbs, Western medicine herbs and dietary supplements. Where Obama wants people to remain ignorant and malnourished, Ron Paul wants to restore your right to know the truth about supplements and natural medicine. As Ron Paul said in late 2005:
"The Health Freedom Protection Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment standards adopted by the federal courts. Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements, and adopts the federal court's suggested use of disclaimers as an alternative to censorship. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease."
#4) Ron Paul would shut down secret military prisons like Gitmo, but Obama wants to expand those prisons and fill them with Americans!
It is now common knowledge that Obama lied when he said he would shut down Guantanamo Bay. As it turns out, Obama actually signed the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) on New Year's Eve (when no one would notice). The NDAA grants the U.S. government the claimed "legal" right to "indefinitely detain" U.S. citizens, throw them in secret military prisons, interrogate them and even kill them with no due process. All this can now take place without a person even being charged with a crime, much less given their day in court. (http://www.naturalnews.com/034537_N...)
Obama quietly signed this bill on New Year's Eve, hoping no one would notice. This is how low his morals have stooped, by the way -- to signing traitorous bills in the dark of night, on the evening before a major holiday where half the nation is hung over from alcohol. Why no signing ceremony with full coverage by CNN, huh? Maybe it's because national traitors don't want their crimes against the United States Constitution to be filmed on camera.
In signing this, Obama violated his own oath of office, nullified the U.S. Bill of Rights, and essentially committed an act of mass civil rights violations against the People of America. Rep. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is one of the very few people who has openly and sternly opposed this unlawful NDAA which blatantly and arrogantly violates the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
This single point alone outweighs everything else you might think about Ron Paul. Even if you disagree with Ron Paul on other issues, none of that really matters if you're rotting away in a secret military prison for daring to protest in a public park, for example. Without the Bill of Rights, nothing else really matters because tyranny takes over. The Bill of Rights must be defended first and at all costs. It is the only thing limiting the power of government and protecting the People from tyranny. Without it, we are all little more than slaves to a military dictatorship.
#5) Ron Paul is anti-war, Obama is pro-war.
Remember when Bush was the President, and everybody on the left was screaming about getting us out of all those wars in the Middle East? Funny how they suddenly fell silent when Obama took over the reins from Bush and continued running those same wars, isn't it?
Ron Paul is solidly anti-war. Although he agrees with the need to "defend our shores," he also believes that the United States has no moral authority (nor financial stability) from which to engage in running around the world as some sort of global police force, intervening in the business of nations, especially in the Middle East.
He is solidly against a war with Iran even as all the other candidates seem to be almost desperate to throw other people's sons and daughters onto the front lines of violent conflict. Only Ron Paul truly honors the troops by bringing them home. All the other war-mongers who say "support our troops" are really screaming, "Let our troops get killed overseas!" And unlike Gingrich, Ron Paul actually served his country as a military man, even with a child to care for:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-pau...
(+5 more @ link)
http://www.naturalnews.com/034630_Ron_Paul_democrats_liberals.htmlIt's a seemingly absurd idea on the surface: Why would democrats and liberals... more
-
-
With pressure mounting at home on an American withdrawal from the Libya war, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dismissed fears of a quagmire and said the mission should not be abandoned now.
Clinton, who is set to testify before Congress Thursday, said the Libyan opposition has made "very clear progress" in its political organization as well as in its fight against Moammar Gadhafi's forces.
"But the bottom line is, whose side are you on?" she said, speaking to reporters during a trip to Jamaica Wednesday. "Are you on Gadhafi's side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them?"
More here:
http://www.politicalfailblog.com/2011/06/oh-no-she-didnt-clinton-on-libya-whose.htmlWith pressure mounting at home on an American withdrawal from the Libya war, Secretary... more
-
-
'No comment, no comment, no comment,' no matter how many times you ask
Some days, for political, diplomatic or security reasons, a White House press secretary can comment not one bit on the topic of the day.
Today was such a day, when President Bush's spokeswoman, Dana Perino, came up against questions about reports that U.S. commandos conducted raids in Syria that left at least eight people dead.
Here's how the questioning went -- and the non-answer answers from the White House briefing room podium:
Question: What is the likelihood of more raids into Syria like the one we saw this weekend?
Perino: The United States government has not commented on reports about that and I'm not able to here, either.
Q: So we've talked about Pakistan, the raids into Pakistan, whether by ground or by air. And there's been some acknowledgment by U.S. officials that those are happening. We're now seeing this sort of thing spread to other countries. Can you not -- you can't shed any light on why, when, where, how, whether we're going to...
Perino: I can't comment on it at all, no.
Q: Have you heard anything about whether the target was successful, that it hit the target?
Perino: I'm not going to comment in any way on this; I'm not able to comment on that.
Q: You're not even able to say that there has been some decision taken by the administration that 'If you guys can't clean up your act, we will clean it up for you'?
Perino: I'm not going to comment on the reports about this, no, I'm not. Anybody else?
Q: Can you comment on Syria's protest?
Perino: I'm not going to comment on it at all. This could be a really short briefing.
Q: Has anybody from the White House spoken to anybody from Syria?
Perino: I don't know. I don't know.
Q: Let me ask you this one: You have another government making claims. At some point, you either have to confirm or deny the claims they're making, no?
Perino: Jim, all I can tell you is that I am not able to comment on reports about this reported incident, and I'm not going to do so. You can come up here and try to beat it out of me, but I will not be commenting on this in any way, shape or form today. Or tomorrow.
Q: What about another agency, nobody -- if it comes, it's going to come from here, and so it's not going to -- nothing is going to come out of this?
Perino: I don't believe anybody is commenting on this at all.
Q: Dana, why can't you comment? Is it a reason for national security, or is it political? I mean, why --
Perino: To give you an answer to that would be commenting in some way on it, and I'm not going to do it.
Q: But, I mean, Dana, you can't give us anything? I mean, this is a major issue --
Perino: Nothing.
Q: This is a major issue --
Perino: I understand the reports are serious, but it's not something I'm going to comment on in any way.
And with that, the questioning moved elsewhere.
— James Gerstenzang'No comment, no comment, no comment,' no matter how many times you ask... more
-
-
1674 of 100000 people have signed – see totals by state and Congressional District.
Paris Says: No Pardons!
Thanks to the extraordinary efforts of Rep. Dennis Kucinich, President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney stand accused of 39 grave and impeachable offenses.
Most of these offenses, including war crimes, are felonies for which Bush and Cheney can be criminally prosecuted after they leave office, even if they are not impeached by Congress.
Obviously Bush and Cheney do not want to be prosecuted. So to protect themselves, George Bush's last official act will likely be pardons for himself, Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, and everyone else who committed crimes as part of the Bush Administration.
While most lawyers assume pardons cannot precede convictions, Gerald Ford set a powerful precedent by pardoning Richard Nixon in 1972 before he was even indicted, let alone convicted. If Ford could legally pardon Nixon, then George Bush can legally pardon himself.
So there is only one way to stop George Bush from pre-emptively pardoning himself, Cheney, and everyone else in his administration: Congress must impeach Bush and Cheney before Bush can issue such pardons.
The Founding Fathers clearly anticipated a corrupt President might pardon his co-conspirators, and specified impeachment as the remedy.
George Mason, the father of the Bill of Rights (1791-2002), argued at the Constitutional Convention that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection."
James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution (1788-2007), added that "if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter [pardon] him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty."
As your constituent, I urge you to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney before they pardon themselves.1674 of 100000 people have signed – see totals by state and Congressional... more
-
-
Truthout gives a detailed explanation of military spending and why!
Over the past eight years, the Pentagon has developed a pattern of requesting war spending through supplemental bills, which are not included in the general defense budget, making the defense budget look much smaller than it is, even as it grows. This is why the $611 billion authorization bill looks so huge: it includes both war and nonwar defense costs, which aren't grouped together in any other single bill.
Moreover, Sharp noted that the Pentagon regularly inserts war-related funding into its general defense budget, and tacks general defense costs, like new equipment, onto the supplemental bills that are used to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This type of messy budgeting can conceal skyrocketing military expenditures, many of which are unnecessary, according to Sharp.
"If the defense budget is indeed going to decline, the Pentagon will have to do something it hasn't done in years," Sharp said. "It will have to choose what to spend money on instead of just buying everything it wants."
Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, points out in a recent report in Armed Forces Journal that, in contrast with their price tag, our military forces are smaller than they have been since the end of World War II, and major military equipment is older than it has ever been. Wheeler attributes this strange disparity to gross misappropriation of funding, with more money now being used to buy fewer weapons - some of which will not even be used in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Additionally, Sharp noted the high price tag of "high-risk missile defense programs," as well as Cold-War-era weapons systems that are not only costly, but also out of date.
"There's lots of low-hanging fruit, if ever there were a Congress or a Secretary of Defense willing to make cuts," Wheeler told Truthout.
Rethinking military spending right now is trickier than it might look, according to Craig Jennings, federal fiscal policy analyst at the government watchdog group OMB Watch. In a time of deep economic crisis, Jennings told Truthout, it doesn't make sense to cut government funding. Yet, a shifting of funds from the military to other priorities could work well.
"Defense spending is largely a white-collar jobs program...conti.. Truthout gives a detailed explanation of military spending and why!
Over the... more
-
