# Ron Paul Bombs The Establishment!



## Cowboy

Interesting article at the link with two videos included, both worth watching IMO.  

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2012/01/02/ron-paul-bombs-the-establishment/
This one ad is capable, in my opinion, of destroying each and every competing Presidential candidate who have all been promoting the statist memes and lies which are destroying our nation. Only Ron Paul opposes their massive lie, and now his Revolution PAC has launched a very explosive tool which will be a _reality explosion_ as Ron Paul invites home to the American people the sordid faces of Wall Street and Washington DC connivance, greed, and massive war crimes.
As Don Doig, co-founder of *FIJA* (Fully Informed Jury Association), stated it to his email list -
*“Boy, Revolution PAC is not pussy footing around… edgy, radical, youth-oriented, professional production.”*
Behold the power:
-
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkSNHJPpo80&feature=colike"][/ame]
-
I agree with Brother Don Doig. This video plays to the truth which has been hidden at the heart of the matter of foreign policy since 1947 in the USA, and since the mid-1800s Opium Wars under Lord Palmerston in England.
The British Throne used the British Navy to force China to take British shiploads of opium as a way to retrieve spent silver the British East India Company had paid for tea and silk for European markets. England literally attacked China when China tried to forbid British ships to unload their opium at Shanghai and Canton.
In the more recent half century since the CIA was created (1947) American “foreign policy” has largely been illegal, criminal, and has been kept secret from the American people by a complicit majority of the American media and press. (Not all the media and press, just most of them.) But the Internet has opened the floodgates in ways not foreseen by the power elite for whom all national Intelligence agencies around the world work (think: ISI in Pakistan; MOSSAD in Israel; MI-6 in England; CIA in USA -- as Webster Tarpley notes, they all provide “services” for the power elite).
A truth which has been buried for half a century can be quite distasteful when discovered by those who have been deceived. In this case it is the ultimate blowback. The Ron Paul campaign is appealing to America’s youth to join him in exposing the secret wars of the CIA, conducted mercilessly in the interest of American and International corporations while using this nation’s military to police their world-wide trade lanes and control belligerent nation-states. In the days of British opium smuggling into China, China would be described by British foreign policy as “belligerent”.
The brilliance in what this video reveals is that it is true in terms of the human heart. It is an appeal to the highest Christian value, to the highest Buddhist value, to the highest moral value of every philosophy and religious vision -- that new commandment left to the world by Jesus Christ, _“that ye love one another”_. This video provides the context for all Americans to see the immorality of America’s post-WWII so-called “wars” both overt and covert, and it explains what Ron Paul alludes to when he says *“we’ve been over there“.*
It is the same as if China had done it to Texas, once the public mind is freed to actually grasp the moral meaning in what our foreign policy has done _behind our backs_ to some six million peasants around the world. If that statement is hard to accept, this from former CIA big gun John Stockwell should dispel all doubts -
-
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3ioJGMCr-Y"][/ame]
-
Nobody knows about war like our troops who fight them and Veterans who have had time to reflect upon them. This is why our troops overwhelmingly support Ron Paul. They’ve been there. They know. They have learned how to honor their Oath by supporting the one voice for sanity in American government, _*Ron Paul*_.
Salute!
Elias Alias


----------



## Melensdad

You mean this?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkSNHJPpo80&feature=colike"]Ron Paul's Eye Opening Ad on our Wars      - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Cowboy

Melensdad said:


> You mean this?
> 
> Ron Paul's Eye Opening Ad on our Wars - YouTube


 Thats the first vid , the second one at the link is an old video that might just open a few folks eyes.


----------



## Kane

I fully agree with Paul's views on foreign policy and do not view as isolationist.  I view it as smart and in America's best interest, not only financially, but morally.

But what Paul seems to dis-believe is that there are indeed crazy men in world power that need to be dealt with militarily.  And I do not believe that he would do the right thing in taking action, but instead act as a true isolationist and avoid confrontations.

What would Ron Paul do in facing down Ahmahdenijad and the nutty Iranian clerics?  Or the fruit cakes in Korea?

What would he have done with Hitler?
.


----------



## joec

Well he did make the statement 9/11 was our fault (the US government), he also stated that US has no right to stop Iran from being a nuclear power as well as statements about Israel should never have been made a country. So I don't get what he is other than what he is saying other than he is and isolationist.


----------



## Cowboy

Kane said:


> I fully agree with Paul's views on foreign policy and do not view as isolationist. I view it as smart and in America's best interest, not only financially, but morally.
> 
> But what Paul seems to dis-believe is that there are indeed crazy men in world power that need to be dealt with militarily. And I do not believe that he would do the right thing in taking action, but instead act as a true isolationist and avoid confrontations.
> 
> What would Ron Paul do in facing down Ahmahdenijad and the nutty Iranian clerics? Or the fruit cakes in Korea?
> 
> What would he have done with Hitler?
> .


 I agree as well but I dont think he is completely deadset againt any actions that put the US in danger from what I have gotten out of his speeches and writings. He is more for using the proper powers to decide to do what is right according to the people, congress & the DOD , IMO .

  I think he IS deadset against any POTUS acting on their own to make these types of decisions mostly like has been done in the past. I would like to think if he was elected he would still do the right thing, but by listening to those that actually know how to handle things and the best way to go about it. 


   I could be wrong but even if elected things are going to take time and nothing could be done overnight, the difference is I think he will listen to the people he chooses to surround himself with , and I hope to God he makes a helluva lot better choices as to who those people are then the present and past administrations. IMO he is the ONLY chance we have, anyone else will just be more of the same BS and things will just continue to get worse.


----------



## Kane

We have to keep in mind that our current POTUS is about as anti-imperialist and anti-colonist as they get.  He abhors America's involvement in world affairs, just as his own father hated the British.  So now we have a man as president that deep beneath hates his own country.  Both he and his treacherous wife, Michelle.

He willfully apologizes to the world for America's past abominations and panders for forgiveness.  Such a weakling, tho, to commit troops to Afghanistan under political pressure  -  something he does so often.

So I guess Ron Paul could do no worse than Obama.  Only Ron Paul would do it for the right reason: . the Constitution.
.


----------



## Cowboy

Kane said:


> We have to keep in mind that our current POTUS is about as anti-imperialist and anti-colonist as they get. He abhors America's involvement in world affairs, just as his own father hated the British. So now we have a man as president that deep beneath hates his own country. Both he and his treacherous wife, Michelle.
> 
> He willfully apologizes to the world for America's past abominations and panders for forgiveness. Such a weakling, tho, to commit troops to Afghanistan under political pressure - something he does so often.
> 
> So I guess Ron Paul could do no worse than Obama. Only Ron Paul would do it for the right reason: . the Constitution.
> .


 Exactlly ! The other thing I think would happen if DR Paul wins the nomination, is it will really make folks start thinking about how they vote for all other levels of the Senate, House ECT. It may be our first, and only chance to get some fresh blood in DC and bring "real" hope and change for an entirely new and honest government.  

  I may be dreaming, but theres very little left to do.


----------



## Av8r3400

An interesting read.  <Link>



			
				article said:
			
		

> An Iowa voter could look at his choices and see: (1) a former Obama  administration official whose top strategist called Republicans  “cranks”; (2) a former senator who lost his last race by 18 points and  who has run largely on social issues in this time of economic  uncertainty; (3) an inexperienced congresswoman from Minnesota with a  tendency to misstate facts and a staff with higher turnover than a  fast-food restaurant’s; (4) a former speaker of the House who praised  Hillary Clinton on health care, worked with Nancy Pelosi on global  warming, made $1.6 million from Freddie Mac, wants mirrors in space, and  has demagogued Medicare reform from the left; (5) a big-state governor  who doesn’t know the details of his own tax plan, who doesn’t know what  government agencies he’s promised to cut, who claimed that those who  disagree with him on immigration have no heart, and is best known for  his many painfully awkward moments in debates; (6) a moderate former  governor whose health care plan served as a model for Obamacare, who  once called himself a “progressive” Republican not in the tradition of  Ronald Reagan, who flip-flopped even on the question of whether he is a  flip-flopper, and who largely ignored Iowa until he decided a few weeks  ago that he had a chance to win there.
> Uncharitable? Yes. Untrue? No.








All this buffoonery from the GOP means nothing but 4 more years for the affirmative action, imposter in chief, IMO.  And for the record, I agree with the author of this piece, Paul is nuts and totally unelectable in a national election.  If he (or Trump) runs as a third party candidate, it will _*GUARANTEE *_4 more years of what we got, only worse.  Now plug that into your conspiracy calculator and see what you get.


----------



## Cowboy

Av8r3400 said:


> An interesting read. <Link>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All this buffoonery from the GOP means nothing but 4 more years for the affirmative action, imposter in chief, IMO. And for the record, I agree with the author of this piece, Paul is nuts and totally unelectable in a national election. If he (or Trump) runs as a third party candidate, it will _*GUARANTEE *_4 more years of what we got, only worse. Now plug that into your conspiracy calculator and see what you get.


 Yup Stephen F. Hayes should know a nuttcase when he see's one.


----------



## Av8r3400

Seriously, Cowboy, you actually think that Paul could be elected in a national election?  Seriously?


----------



## Cowboy

Av8r3400 said:


> Seriously, Cowboy, you actually think that Paul could be elected in a national election? Seriously?


 Not if people continue to listen to the biased media or so called experts and analysists like wrote the article you refered to. But yes I am hoping people might start paying attention to who actually knows WTF their talking about. 

  Its obvious to me from all of DR Pauls predictions over the past several decades that have came true he is the only one qualified to ever make any real change, if they would have at least listened to his recomandations in the past we wouldn't be in the shape we are today. But thats just my opinion from the research I have done on him. Unlike the experts I look at things from all sides, I just dont get paid for my opinions.


----------



## Av8r3400




----------



## Cowboy

Just one example. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=48Gfzgxh3ZQ#!


----------



## Cowboy

One more . 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evYwPJUY_cc&feature=related"]Ron Paul's Words of Warning From 1983 to 2008      - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## pirate_girl

Cowboy said:


> Just one example.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=48Gfzgxh3ZQ#!


----------



## Kane

Of course it is irrelevant, but I ask again:  What would Paul have done about Hitler.

BTW,* Av8r3400*, nice poster.  There remain several million people that actually believe in it.  Fewer by the day, tho.  How long will you hold out?

.


----------



## Av8r3400

I am a business owner and a tax *payer*.  Therefore, I have no association or want to associate with the affirmative-action, imposter in chief.

I just believe that the fix is in for him, already.  I point to the GOP buffoonery as evidence.  You can't tell me that there are not ELECTABLE, QUALIFIED, true CONSERVATIVE people in this country - not pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, isolationist, looneys - that could lead as good as (Preferably better than) than Regan did.


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

Av8r3400 said:


> I just believe that the fix is in for him, already.  I point to the GOP buffoonery as evidence.  You can't tell me that there are not ELECTABLE, QUALIFIED, true CONSERVATIVE people in this country - not pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, isolationist, looneys - that could lead as good as (Preferably better than) than Regan did.



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yuzMYIXhTE"]Ronald Reagan on Ron Paul ( *Updated - Alternate* )      - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Bamby

So what would really happen if Ron Paul were as elected President?
Bill Sardi

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]President Paul  would immediately push for $1 trillion cut in federal spending (per  year, not the $3 trillion that Democrats proposed over 10 years with  half of that from increased taxes).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]President  Paul would have the authority as commander-and-chief to withdraw troops  from overseas, within limits of treaty commitments which must be honored  (US supplies defense for Saudi Arabia, many other nations). To the  extent possible, the US would cease being the world's policeman and  plunderer of foreign economies (Iraq, Libya). The US would cease being a  war economy. President Paul would also push to eradicate foreign aid  which essentially is bribery, often to foreign despots who the US  quietly supports because they hold a strong hand over their masses.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]President  Paul would have some empty chairs in his Cabinet - the Department of  Commerce, Department of Education and other Cabinet positions would be  eliminated. Civil service employees would be ushered into other  government jobs.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]President  Paul would likely demand, using his bully-pulpit, a regular audit of the  Federal Reserve (recall the FED pushed $13 trillion of short-term loans  out the door in the world financial crisis without any oversight, which  resulted in worldwide inflation and the unrest we now see in foreign  countries - Egypt, Libya, etc. - as a result of rising food prices.).  You probably don't know that the Federal Reserve bank takes a 6% cut off  the top of all interest it collects as middleman between the US  Treasury Dept. and local banks. (President John F Kennedy realized this,  recognized it would result in huge federal debts in the future, which  have now materialized, and cut the Federal Reserve entirely out of the  equation in 1963 by directly issuing US Notes, not Federal Reserve  currency, into the economy. Of course, shots fired in Dallas ceased that  practice and all those US Notes were quietly withdrawn from  circulation.) That cut for the central bankers would be eliminated in a  Ron Paul Presidency. President Paul would likely demand and personally  oversee an audit of the gold at Ft. Knox. Wouldn't you like to be there  for that (live cameras please)? If the gold isn't there, who absconded  with it and where is it now? (Might not have to look far, it could be  stashed in Federal Reserve bank vaults - recall, the Federal Reserve is  not federal, it is a bunch of private banks who may have absconded with  the nation's gold supply).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]With a  public groundswell of support, President Paul would oversee the  abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service, freeing Americans of the  onerous and treacherous task of figuring out the taxes they owe (recall  the Secretary of the Treasury couldn't accurately figure out his own  taxes). No more debtors prison for not filing tax forms properly (yep,  some Americans are in prison for this). That would free-up about 6  billion man-hours and $250-300 billion of money now committed to tax  preparation. Real money, not the fractionated loan money, would be  returned to the economy. 
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There  would be a re-adjustment period as the nation figures out how to rebuild  employment without phony government jobs programs, but anticipate an  eventual US renaissance. The US would be spared the fate of Greece which  has 40% employment in the government sector, placing those jobs on the  back of the remaining tax payers there.  Without an income tax the  Federal Reserve would have no conduit to siphon money back out of the  economy to limit inflation and it would have to cease its inflationary  money printing practices. Mothers of young American children would be  told that their struggles to see their kids get ahead in this country  will not be futile as the Federal Reserve's planned inflation policy  would be put to a halt. If your kids can't earn a better income than the  rate of inflation (now 7-11%, government says it is only ~3%) they will  surely be impoverished.  For example, if an American child was born in  1990 and his/her mother as sole bread winner was making $35,000 a year  on the date of that child's birth, that child would have to earn $60,758  today (2011) to equal his/her mother's salary in 1990. Soccer moms  should shout loudly for a Ron Paul Presidency. Your children have no  future if one of the other pretenders is elected. Without currency  reform, all other reforms become meaningless. The elites will continue  to plunder and undermine the wealth that you create. 
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]President  Ron Paul would push for the federal government to get out of the real  estate lending business. By Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ensuring home  loans, lenders generated loans based upon low teaser interest rates  (subprime, ALT-A) and unverified incomes and then funneled these bad  loans on up to these quasi-government agencies where the public took the  losses (these losses are now on the accounting books of the Federal  Reserve). In a Ron Paul Presidency, bad lenders would go out of  business, not be given bailouts. The Federal Reserve now holds over $1  trillion in bad loans on it accounting books - let the Federal Reserve  get what it deserves - a giant loss as its banks go out of business due  to insolvency, just punishment for allowing low interest rates to  prevail and create a real estate bubble in the first place. Stop  protecting bankers, start protecting your own wealth - vote for Ron  Paul! 
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Without a  government backstop to insure home loans, lenders would be more diligent  in checking out lender qualifications and incomes. The false demand for  housing that the Federal government created would cease and home values  would crash, for a short time. But that would be good news - now homes  would become affordable.  It is said, if the Federal Government would  get out of housing homes prices would tumble by 50%. While that is not  good news for the asset-side of lenders accounting books, it is the only  way to bring back the housing market in a short time. This is the  mark-to-market value accounting that must be practiced. Interest rates  on home mortgages would rise, but so would the interest on saved money -  Americans would cease losing money on savings accounts (interest on  saved money today is less than 1% while inflation is ~7-11%).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]While the  US economy is said to be the strongest in the world (~$14 trillion), the  US is hiding the fact its Gross Domestic Product is actually in decline  and that probably half of the GDP is comprised of financial gains from  moving money around. An example is the stock market with 70% of its  trades now comprised of high-speed millisecond trading. Financial gains  are contrived and there is no real value created out of these phony  transactions, nor is any employment created. The lending classes will  have to face reality. Phony numbers would not likely be a part of a Ron  Paul Presidency. 
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]With a  groundswell of public support, President Ron Paul would push for a  currency that has limited stretchability by backing it with gold. No  more rubber money. The fortunes of Americans would cease being eroded by  money printing practices at the Federal Reserve. If you missed Ron  Paul's object lesson - he recently held up a pre-1964 silver dime (dimes  today have no silver in them) and said it is worth ~$3.00 today, about  the price of a gallon of gasoline. That means a gold-backed dollar could  buy you a full tank of gas. Imagine that?  But inflationary policies  have robbed American bank accounts of wealth. The thief of inflation  that is robbing your money out the back door of your local bank would be  handcuffed. 
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Ron Paul  would also push for competing currencies (if this sounds foreign to you,  we already have one - it’s called a VISA card, and don't forget  American Express Checks). Creators of currencies who have the most  backing in the form of reserves would have the most desired currencies,  those who don't would have currencies of lesser value.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So what  would happen worldwide with the announcement of a Ron Paul Presidency?  Did you see what happened yesterday when the European Union band-aided  its currency and debt problems for the time being. Markets soared with  even a hint of sound money. Likewise, a Ron Paul Presidency should cause  markets to soar just on the announcement of his Presidency.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The  International Monetary Fund has been begging the US to cut federal  spending or devalue its currency by 30%. The tax and print-money  Keynesians would be ousted from power. Phony money would be a thing of  the past. Real jobs, not government-contrived jobs that add a 15%  administration burden and place the salaries of government workers on  the remaining private sector, would be created. Two bad examples are  Solyndra and General Motors, both whom received a government-back loan  and then sought government contracts to sell solar panels to the US Navy  and Chevy Volt electric cars to the federal government's fleet of  automobiles. That is nothing but false demand.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Imagine  Ron Paul appoints a new chief at the Food & Drug Administration who  turns that institution upside down, who complies with the law (Dietary  Supplement Health & Education Act) rather than repudiates or ignores  it as the current FDA does, and works to allow health claims for  natural medicines that work far more safely and effectively than  synthetically made drugs, and at much lower cost. Imagine the National  Institutes of Health is forced to generate studies to reveal the true  effectiveness of vitamins C and D, as previously documented by this  author in the archives atLewRockwell.com, and the life expectancy of  Americans soars and their quality of life in their retirement years  greatly improves. Dr. Ron Paul is committed to this kind of real change,  not give lip service to it.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Imagine  for a moment that President Ron Paul, advocate of free markets, calls  for a true revamp of the nation's electrical grid unlike the current  administration which only gives rhetoric to the idea. With installation  of new US-manufactured power cable technology that is able to transmit  twice as much power on a single power line with 9-20% greater efficiency  (less line loss), averting the need for 98 new fossil-fueled or atomic  power plants by stringing just 3000 miles of the nation's power lines  with this US-made technology, and bringing $60 billion greater  bottom-line profits to power generating companies, your electricity bill  would be measurably trimmed instead of continually rising. 
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Ron Paul -  your President. Your vote for RP will cause all of the above and more  to happen. This article is just a sampling of what could happen almost  overnight. One man, one moment in time, and everything changes on  day-one of a RP Presidency. It would the best $39,000 your government  could invest (Ron Paul has publicly stated he would take a $39,000/year  salary while in office compared to the $400,000/year salary of the  incumbent, to set an example). 
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Don't be  dissuaded by bogus claims "Ron Paul is unelectable" or by the menu of  wanna-be candidates served up by the news media. The 4th-Estate, the  nation's major news sources are not unbiased parties. The news media is  in dire financial straits themselves and wants those campaign  advertising dollars, particularly the $750 million the incumbent  President is likely to raise like he did last election. Ron Paul is  electable - by you. Make the election of RP so magnanimous that even  vote fraud can't hide it.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Let's  recap - no income tax, the Federal government generates revenues by  other means; no IRS forms to deal with; no need to send your kids off to  phony wars in foreign theatres; no more cut off the top by the Federal  Reserve; assurance there really is gold in Ft. Knox; gold-backed money  like this nation once had before the banksters cut their own deal at  Jekyll Island, South Carolina decades ago and Nixon took America off the  gold standard; rising individual purchasing power as inflation is nixed  (no need to ask the boss for a raise, your money will buy more),  financial gains on your banked money instead of erosion of your wealth  via inflation; your chance to own a home will greatly improve rather  than the current situation where home ownership is now only a fading  American pipe dream; and true reform of healthcare rather than  manipulation by those with vested interests.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]These are  what a Ron Paul Presidency portends. This is Doctor Ron Paul's  prescription for the re-installation of sanity in American politics.  Entrenched forces and crony capitalism are destroying America. You can  fight back. Let the public's voice be heard loud at the ballot box. Vote  for Ron Paul so the 99% can have a real opportunity to become the 1%.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]You can save your country, save your family, save your nation's future - vote Ron Paul for President.[/FONT]


----------



## 300 H and H

Best come back video of 2012!

Couldn't agree more Bambi.....

Regards, Kirk


----------



## 300 H and H

On the 6 o'clock news Ron Paul choice of halls to speak in, in Des Moines was a bit too small. Even he was quite surprised at the turn out for him. I am smelling an upset.....

Regards, Kirk


----------



## Catavenger

I won't even watch that crap when you bring up what the British did ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY years ago in "opium wars"!


----------



## Bamby

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]You know it’s only  a question of time. Ron Paul is in the lead in Iowa and running a  strong second in New Hampshire so the press is bringing out the big guns  in an effort to knock him down. The top two articles on MSN.com are “Is  Ron Paul A Homophobe?” and “Romney Surges in Iowa” with the latter  implying that his move to overtake Paul is all but in the bag. I know a  thing or two about the Midwest since I grew up in Illinois and I can  tell you that the folks in Iowa won’t lose a minute’s sleep if Paul came  out against homosexuals or not.1  The problem is no one expected him to be “in the game” right now and  folks on the Republican side of the isle are very nervous. That means  things will get very dirty.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT] 
         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Don’t kid yourself for a minute! This election is not about what’s good for America or solving America’s problems. *This election is all about the preservation of power!*  Ron Paul is a huge threat to the status quo and that means the  Republicans will do anything to keep him from receiving the nomination,  and I mean anything. They’ll drag out crack addicts and prostitutes to  say that he had sex with them in a bathroom right before he gave a big  speech. If that doesn’t work they’ll be out there shopping for the next  Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan. They will stop at nothing! Paul has gone so far  as to say that he will eliminate the Federal Reserve and do away with  lobbyists, and that is akin to slaughtering sacred cows on a New Delhi  main street at high noon. And if the Republicans can’t get the job done,  you can bet your derriere that the Democrats will burn the midnight oil  trying to sink Paul.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The real  problem is not that Ron Paul might actually challenge the  “establishment” or not. The real problem is that the stench emanating  from Washington is now permeating the nostrils of everyday decent  Americans. They are saturated with bullshit from both sides of the isle  and they are tired of holding their collective breath because of the  smell. Obama ran on the promise of change and this time around the  American people are going to give _him_ change whether he likes it  or not. He will of course try to spin his way out of trouble, but the  sight of a President blaming someone else for his own glaring  shortcomings will not play well with the electorate.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Obama  allowed corporate fraud to move up in category from an art form to a  profession, and he put the thieves in control of the justice system just  to make sure everything goes according to plan. The Afro-American  population that helped elect him got screwed and they are finally coming  to that realization now. Skin color aside Obama is just another crooked  Wall Street type in a smoke filled blue suit responsible for raping the  country for whatever was left of its wealth.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Corruption  is everywhere and that includes the market place, but what very few  understand is that the markets are so big and powerful that they are  capable of defending themselves. In short they’ll bend but they won’t  break, and watch out for the day of reckoning because it’s going to be a  humdinger! Think of the market as a body filled with toxins and  possessing an auto immune system second to none. Sooner or later it will  expel those toxins (distortions forced upon the system by a corrupt Fed  and Congress) in a very unpleasant manner. Smart people have been  calling for that day for more than three decades and I believe we are  very close to an economic cleansing right now. It just occurred to me  that maybe the Mayans were really taking about Wall Street!![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In today’s world nothing is as it seems. The dollar and the 30-Year treasury _rise as supply increases_ almost exponentially. Obama came to power with a total debt of US $10 trillion and this is the outlook for 2011:[/FONT]




 [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]_We have a current U.S. Tax revenue of $2,170,000,000,000 _[/FONT]
 [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]_The Federal budget is $3,820,000,000,000 _[/FONT]
 [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]_New debt is $1,650,000,000,000 _[/FONT]
 [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]_The national debt is $14,271,000,000,000 _[/FONT]
 [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]_And finally recent budget cuts amount to a paltry $38,500,000,000._[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]..and I haven’t  even touched the off the books debts that total US $110 trillion. Yet  the dollar and bond continue to rally based on the time-honored concept  known as the “lesser of all known evils”. History is full of examples  that show this is a flawed reasoning process.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]         
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now we are  told that gold is no longer a safe haven and the eleven-year old bull  market whose very existence was denied until three short years ago, is  now over. You can see clearly the bull market that began way back in  1999 with the US $252.00 low. If this were the NASDAQ they would be  dancing in the streets proclaiming that 30,000 is just around the  corner. It’s not, it’s gold, and it’s the Ron Paul of the investment  world. The average man on the street is unaware of the eleven-year old  bull market, but he’s becoming aware. It’s a process and it requires  time, but the wheels are in motion and he will eventually jump into the  pool, clothes and all.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]With respect to  gold, every time we have a reaction, and that’s what this is, we hear  the sirens announcing the end of the bull market. I’ve lost count of the  times Robert Prechter of Elliot Wave fame has called an end to the bull  market over the last five years. Strangely enough he’s been silent of  late. Do you think he’s finally learned his lesson? The Bloomberg crowd  is another group that tries to talk gold lower every chance they get,  and the only thing they hate more than the yellow metal is RIM.2  What they all fail to realize is that gold experiences corrections  every once in a while and that is precisely what we are experiencing  now.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]On the  plus side of the balance sheet we have this perverse love affair with  the stock market and cheerleaders with their constant lemma of “stocks  are cheap”. Of course they’re cheap since they no longer have to follow  generally accepted accounting principals and liabilities can magically  become assets with the touch of a keypad. You have US $3.7 trillions in  quantitative easing over the last two years and we still can’t make a  higher high! Here you can see the April 29th top of 12,876 is still well  below the October 2008 high of 14,167:[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Here I’ve drawn in  the rallies that resulted from QE1 and QE2 and the latter was somewhat  muted. Subsequent “minor QE’s” due to extension of Fed policies, swaps  with Europe, and the recent ECB quantitative easing all have failed to  push stocks above the April lower high.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*You  can screw with the price/earnings ratio by doctoring balance sheets but  it’s a lot more difficult to screw with the average dividend yield  because someone actually has to write a check.* The average  dividend yield for the S&P 500 is a miserable 2.35% and that is  historically very low and an indication of bull market tops and not  cheap bear market bottoms. In order for an intelligent man to even  consider buying stocks, any stock for that matter, you need to see an  average dividend yield close to 5% and I would prefer above 6%. We are a  long, long way from that. When I see a company like Facebook with a  market cap of US $60 billion no one has to tell me the market is  overvalued. This is a company that creates nothing and adds little or no  value to society as a whole. If you removed it from the face of the  earth tomorrow, the world would not skip a beat. Sooner or later the US,  Europe and China will have to get back to basics, eliminate debt, and  everyone will have to live within their means. That would imply a Dow  somewhere around 3,000. Until then either stay out of the market, or get  short if you can stand the heat! 
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In  conclusion we live in a society where greed has run amuck. I read  recently that “greed is an excess of desire and lack of empathy and  judgment outside of the virtues, and is therefore most decidedly not  'good.'  A system built predominantly upon unrestrained greed, anger,  envy, and pride will not, by definition, be virtuous but degenerative,  unstable, and ultimately self-destructive if not put down by its victims  first.” If this is the case the US is definitely not “good”. The  “victims” in the US are the so-called 99% and they are about to have  their say. The market is just beginning to discount that and it will be  interesting to watch.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][This will  be my last report for 2011. I want to wish everyone a happy and  profitable New Year! My next report will come out Tuesday January 3,  2012][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Notes*[/FONT]
           [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]  1.The article in question is all smoke and mirrors and I doubt  seriously if Paul cares one way or the other what a voter’s sexual  preferences are. [/FONT]
           [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]  2. For months, almost on a daily bases, Bloomberg news talks about how  bad a company Research in Motion is and I have to wonder if Michael  Bloomberg is using his own media company to grind some sort of personal  axe.[/FONT]​         [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dec 29, 2011
          Giuseppe L. Borrelli
          website: www.unpuncturedcycle.com

Actually See This Link For Actual Graphs Discussed Above

[/FONT]


----------



## 300 H and H

outstanding......


----------



## Cowboy

300 H and H said:


> outstanding......


 Ditto.


----------



## Bamby

_Here's another point worth considering in the Ron Paul controversy..._

_*The Ministry of Propaganda Declares Ron Paul "Unelectable"  *_

The Ministry of Propaganda has chosen to suppress the only dangerous-to-the-Power Elites candidate by declaring him "unelectable."

The Status Quo's Ministry of Propaganda has a single political task for 2012: eliminate the sole threat to the Status Quo (Ron Paul) from the running, leaving voters with a "choice" of clueless stooges for the Power Elite.

That roster includes President Obama and the daytime-TV/soap-opera field of Republicrat contenders.

The Ministry of Propaganda has settled on a ludicrous strategy to eliminate Ron Paul: declare Paul "unelectable."

As with all propaganda, the basic idea is that if it is repeated often enough on officially sanctioned stages, it will eventually be accepted as "true."

Our Christmas-New Year's week of family visits took us to homes where the television is on all the time, and as a result I was exposed to the Ministry of Propaganda's preferred media, TV "news." Regardless of the channel or program, the message was the same: "The presidential race will between Obama and either Romney or Gingrich."

Despite the polls that find Paul and Romney with equal levels of support in Iowa, Romney has been declared the front-runner and Paul written off as "unelectable."

In other words, the voters don't even need to check in; the Ministry of Propaganda's army of toadies, lackeys and media apparatchiks have their marching orders: repeat that Ron Paul is unelectable at every opportunity, either explicitly or implicitly via leaving him off the list of "frontrunners."

The Ministry of Propaganda's campaign is easily revealed by two simple thought experiments. How would the corporate media characterize Newt Gingrich's "electability" if he was running neck-and-neck with Romney? Answer: the media toadies would be falling over each other to declare Gingrich "electable."

Now repeat the experiment with Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachmann. The answer is the same: since these candidates are on the list of Power-Elites approved stooges, a showing equal to Ron Paul's would instantly win them veritable tsunamis of media coverage, all focused on their eminent "electability."

Here is the second thought experiment: does anyone seriously think any of the Republicrat candidates are even remotely qualified to deal with the crises brewing on the horizon? What exactly makes them "electable"?

Let's consider them one at a time, scrubbed of spin, PR and propaganda:

Mitt Romney: the perfect player for a remake of "The Stepford Wives" entitled "The Stepford Politicos." Romney is the personification of the telegenic, wealthy empty suit, devoid of any ideas beyond retreads of Status Quo tweaks that leave the Power Elite--of which he is a member--safely in charge.

Romney's "electability" rests on the hopes that the hard drives from his time as governor stay safely erased and that zombified voters conclude that having a family and membership in a church are sufficient qualifications for President.

His handlers have carefully studied the political satire The Candidate and have not yet formulated an answer to the question, "What do we do now?" should the wealthy pawn of the Power Elite improbably win the presidency.

Michelle Bachmann: Imagine her wearing a witch's hat, it isn't hard to do; Bachmann is the ideal Wicked Witch of the West, but without the charisma. She does have a host of frightful winged monkeys, though--her handlers.

Newt Gingrich: Gingrich has a number of redeeming characteristics, starting with his famously unsavory "baggage" that reveals an appealingly flawed core. He is also the only Republicrat candidate that wouldn't bore you to despair within a few minutes, i.e. he actually strays from the canned scripts approved by the Ministry of Propaganda. Third, on occasion he actually reveals glimmers of awareness that the next 10 years will not be like the previous decade, and that America is at a critical crossroads.

Unfortunately, his canned ideology-as-"solution" ideas expired a decade ago and he has no coherent vision of a future that isn't just a slightly modified version of the Power-Elite dominated one that is now hurtling toward instability.

He has shown a remarkable ability, however, to hide his horns and forked tail.

Rick Perry: Another telegenic empty suit who hoped that having a family and membership in a church qualified him for the presidency.

Rick Santorum: Rick's ruthlessness has its charm, starting with his long and painful campaign to establish a simulacrum of intellectual "seriousness." Like all the other stooges, his version of "the vision thing" is a tepid edit of the Status Quo. Like all the stooges other than the refreshingly flawed Gingrich, he hopes membership in a church qualifies him for the presidency.

What all the candidates but Ron Paul dare not acknowledge because it isn't on the approved Ministry of Propaganda script is that the Status Quo is heading off a cliff at the direct behest of the nation's Power Elite. 

The only candidate that has "the vision thing" and that clearly enunciates exactly how the Power Elite's policies have led the nation off a cliff of insolvency and Imperial hubris is Ron Paul.

For this sin against the Status Quo and its Power Elite, Paul has been excommunicated, and the (pardon my language) smarmy army of corporate media whores cannot declare him "unelectable" often enough.

*That is proof that he is highly electable, for otherwise the Ministry of Propaganda wouldn't be running a campaign of such transparent desperation.*

http://www.oftwominds.com/blogjan12/propaganda-Paul01-12.html


----------



## Catavenger

Unless the U.S.A becomes a smoking ruin (which I hope it won't,) the nation will NEVER not have an IRS (or similar  perhaps renamed office.)


----------



## Bamby

Catavenger said:


> Unless the U.S.A becomes a smoking ruin (which I hope it won't,) the nation will NEVER not have an IRS (or similar  perhaps renamed office.)



We can get rid of the IRS aka the Fed Reserve, actually it's the first thing that need accomplished... Kennedy did it once already, but it cost him his life... but it could be done again. Read This..

John F. Kennedy vs The Federal Reserve  

_The Fed actually been the reason behind a lot of the warmongering. Here's some more on protecting the fed dollar status and war. By Ron Paul_

But the truth is that paying the bills for this aggressive intervention is impossible the old-fashioned way, with more taxes, more savings, and more production by the American people. Much of the expense of the Persian Gulf War in 1991 was shouldered by many of our willing allies. That's not so today. Now, more than ever, the dollar hegemony — it's dominance as the world reserve currency — is required to finance our huge war expenditures. This $2 trillion never-ending war must be paid for, one way or another. Dollar hegemony provides the vehicle to do just that.

For the most part the true victims aren't aware of how they pay the bills. The license to create money out of thin air allows the bills to be paid through price inflation. American citizens, as well as average citizens of Japan, China, and other countries suffer from price inflation, which represents the “tax” that pays the bills for our military adventures. That is, until the fraud is discovered, and the foreign producers decide not to take dollars nor hold them very long in payment for their goods. Everything possible is done to prevent the fraud of the monetary system from being exposed to the masses who suffer from it. If oil markets replace dollars with Euros, it would in time curtail our ability to continue to print, without restraint, the world's reserve currency.

It is an unbelievable benefit to us to import valuable goods and export depreciating dollars. The exporting countries have become addicted to our purchases for their economic growth. This dependency makes them allies in continuing the fraud, and their participation keeps the dollar's value artificially high. If this system were workable long term, American citizens would never have to work again. We too could enjoy “bread and circuses” just as the Romans did, but their gold finally ran out and the inability of Rome to continue to plunder conquered nations brought an end to her empire.

The same thing will happen to us if we don't change our ways. Though we don't occupy foreign countries to directly plunder, we nevertheless have spread our troops across 130 nations of the world. Our intense effort to spread our power in the oil-rich Middle East is not a coincidence. But unlike the old days, we don't declare direct ownership of the natural resources — we just insist that we can buy what we want and pay for it with our paper money. Any country that challenges our authority does so at great risk.

Once again Congress has bought into the war propaganda against Iran, just as it did against Iraq. Arguments are now made for attacking Iran economically, and militarily if necessary. These arguments are all based on the same false reasons given for the ill-fated and costly occupation of Iraq.

Our whole economic system depends on continuing the current monetary arrangement, which means recycling the dollar is crucial. Currently, we borrow over $700 billion every year from our gracious benefactors, who work hard and take our paper for their goods. Then we borrow all the money we need to secure the empire (DOD budget $450 billion) plus more. The military might we enjoy becomes the “backing” of our currency. There are no other countries that can challenge our military superiority, and therefore they have little choice but to accept the dollars we declare are today's “gold.” This is why countries that challenge the system — like Iraq, Iran and Venezuela — become targets of our plans for regime change.

Ironically, dollar superiority depends on our strong military, and our strong military depends on the dollar. As long as foreign recipients take our dollars for real goods and are willing to finance our extravagant consumption and militarism, the status quo will continue regardless of how huge our foreign debt and current account deficit become.

But real threats come from our political adversaries who are incapable of confronting us militarily, yet are not bashful about confronting us economically. That's why we see the new challenge from Iran being taken so seriously. The urgent arguments about Iran posing a military threat to the security of the United States are no more plausible than the false charges levied against Iraq. Yet there is no effort to resist this march to confrontation by those who grandstand for political reasons against the Iraq war.

It seems that the people and Congress are easily persuaded by the jingoism of the preemptive war promoters. It's only after the cost in human life and dollars are tallied up that the people object to unwise militarism.

The strange thing is that the failure in Iraq is now apparent to a large majority of American people, yet they and Congress are acquiescing to the call for a needless and dangerous confrontation with Iran.

But then again, our failure to find Osama bin Laden and destroy his network did not dissuade us from taking on the Iraqis in a war totally unrelated to 9/11.

Concern for pricing oil only in dollars helps explain our willingness to drop everything and teach Saddam Hussein a lesson for his defiance in demanding Euros for oil.

And once again there's this urgent call for sanctions and threats of force against Iran at the precise time Iran is opening a new oil exchange with all transactions in Euros.

Using force to compel people to accept money without real value can only work in the short run. It ultimately leads to economic dislocation, both domestic and international, and always ends with a price to be paid.

The economic law that honest exchange demands only things of real value as currency cannot be repealed. The chaos that one day will ensue from our 35-year experiment with worldwide fiat money will require a return to money of real value. We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or Euros. The sooner the better.

Before the US House of Representatives, February 15, 2006


----------



## CityGirl

There are those out there who believe Ron Paul is unelectable/can't beat Obama. Get your ear to the ground. Ron Paul is gaining traction even among the left leaners...progressives/liberals. The disenfranchisement is bipartisan. The left is well aware they have been let down on the promise of hope and change. There are hardliners who will vote for Obama no matter what but there are many who are looking for a stronger candidate and they find him in Ron Paul.

Take a look at this article from Salon magazine. I think you will be surprised at what is being written to the attention of the left by the left.


> The Ron Paul candidacy, for so many reasons, spawns pervasive political confusion — both unintended and deliberate. Yesterday, _The Nation_‘s long-time liberal publisher, Katrina vanden Heuvel, wrote this on Twitter:
> 
> 
> ​That’s fairly remarkable: here’s the Publisher of _The Nation_ praising Ron Paul not on ancillary political topics but central ones (“ending preemptive wars & challenging bipartisan elite consensus” on foreign policy), and going even further and expressing general happiness that he’s in the presidential race. Despite this observation, Katrina vanden Heuvel — needless to say — does not support and will never vote for Ron Paul (indeed, in subsequent tweets, she condemned his newsletters as “despicable”). But the point that she’s making is important, if not too subtle for the _with-us-or-against-us_ ethos that dominates the protracted presidential campaign: _even though I don’t support him for President, Ron Paul is *the only major candidate from either party* advocating crucial views on vital issues that need to be heard, and so his candidacy generates important benefits._
> 
> Whatever else one wants to say, it is indisputably true that Ron Paul is the only political figure with any sort of a national platform — certainly the only major presidential candidate in either party — who advocates policy views on issues that *liberals and progressives have long flamboyantly claimed are both compelling and crucial*. The converse is equally true: the candidate supported by liberals and progressives and for whom most will vote — Barack Obama — advocates views on these issues (indeed, has taken action on these issues) that liberals and progressives have long claimed to find repellent, even evil.
> 
> As Matt Stoller argued in a genuinely brilliant essay on the history of progressivism and the Democratic Party which I cannot recommend highly enough: “*the anger [Paul] inspires comes not from his positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within their own worldview*.” Ron Paul’s candidacy is a mirror held up in front of the face of America’s Democratic Party and its progressive wing, and the image that is reflected is an ugly one; more to the point, it’s one they do not want to see because it so violently conflicts with their desired self-perception.
> 
> The thing I loathe most about election season is reflected in the central fallacy that drives progressive discussion the minute “Ron Paul” is mentioned. As soon as his candidacy is discussed, progressives will reflexively point to a slew of positions he holds that are anathema to liberalism and odious in their own right and then say: _how can you support someone who holds this awful, destructive position_? The premise here — the game that’s being played — is that if you can identify some heinous views that a certain candidate holds, then it means they are beyond the pale, that no Decent Person should even consider praising any part of their candidacy.
> 
> The fallacy in this reasoning is glaring. The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations with drones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient.
> 
> He has entrenched for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret privilege as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law. He has shielded Bush era criminals from every last form of accountability. He has vigorously prosecuted the cruel and supremely racist War on Drugs, including those parts he vowed during the campaign to relinquish — a war which devastates minority communities and encages and converts into felons huge numbers of minority youth for no good reason. He has empowered thieving bankers through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy, efforts to shield mortgage defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an endless roster of former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists. He’s brought the nation to a full-on Cold War and a covert hot war with Iran, on the brink of far greater hostilities. He has made the U.S. as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government. His support for some of the Arab world’s most repressive regimes is as strong as ever.
> 
> Most of all, America’s National Security State, its Surveillance State, and its posture of endless war is more robust than ever before. The nation suffers from what _National Journal_‘s Michael Hirsh just christened “Obama’s Romance with the CIA.” He has created what _The Washington Post_ just dubbed“a vast drone/killing operation,” all behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy and without a shred of oversight. Obama’s steadfast devotion to what Dana Priest and William Arkin called “Top Secret America” has severe domestic repercussions as well, building up vast debt and deficits in the name of militarism that create the pretext for the “austerity” measures which the Washington class (including Obama) is plotting to impose on America’s middle and lower classes.
> 
> The simple fact is that progressives are supporting a candidate for President who has done all of that — things liberalism has long held to be pernicious. I know it’s annoying and miserable to hear. Progressives like to think of themselves as the faction that stands for peace, opposes wars, believes in due process and civil liberties, distrusts the military-industrial complex, supports candidates who are devoted to individual rights, transparency and economic equality. All of these facts — like the history laid out by Stoller in that essay — negate that desired self-perception. These facts demonstrate that the leader progressives have empowered and will empower again has worked in direct opposition to those values and engaged in conduct that is nothing short of horrific. So there is an eagerness to avoid hearing about them, to pretend they don’t exist. And there’s a corresponding hostility toward those who point them out, who insist that they not be ignored.
> 
> The parallel reality — the undeniable fact — is that all of these listed heinous views and actions from Barack Obama have been vehemently opposed and condemned by Ron Paul: and among the major GOP candidates, only by Ron Paul. For that reason, Paul’s candidacy forces progressives to face the hideous positions and actions of their candidate, of the person they want to empower for another four years. If Paul were not in the race or were not receiving attention, none of these issues would receive any attention because all the other major GOP candidates either agree with Obama on these matters or hold even worse views.
> 
> Progressives would feel much better about themselves, their Party and their candidate if they only had to oppose, say, Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann. That’s because the standard GOP candidate agrees with Obama on many of these issues and is even worse on these others, so progressives can feel good about themselves for supporting Obama: _his right-wing opponent is a warmonger, a servant to Wall Street, a neocon, a devotee of harsh and racist criminal justice policies, _etc. etc. Paul scrambles the comfortable ideological and partisan categories and forces progressives to confront and account for the policies they are working to protect. His nomination would mean that it is the *Republican*candidate — not the Democrat — who would be the anti-war, pro-due-process, pro-transparency, anti-Fed, anti-Wall-Street-bailout, anti-Drug-War advocate (which is why some neocons are expressly arguing they’d vote for Obama over Paul). Is it really hard to see why Democrats hate his candidacy and anyone who touts its benefits?
> 
> It’s perfectly rational and reasonable for progressives to decide that the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate, whether Ron Paul or anyone else. An honest line of reasoning in this regard would go as follows:
> _Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) *in exchange for* less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court._​Without my adopting it, *that* is at least an honest, candid, and rational way to defend one’s choice. It is the classic lesser-of-two-evils rationale, the key being that it explicitly recognizes that both sides are “evil”: meaning it is not a Good v. Evil contest but a More Evil v. Less Evil contest. But that is not the discussion that takes place because few progressives want to acknowledge that the candidate they are supporting — again — is someone who will continue to do these evil things with their blessing. Instead, we hear only a dishonest one-sided argument that emphasizes Paul’s evils while ignoring Obama’s (progressives frequently ask: _how can any progressive consider an anti-choice candidate_ but don’t ask themselves: _how can any progressive support a child-killing, secrecy-obsessed, whistleblower-persecuting Drug Warrior?_).
> 
> Paul’s candidacy forces those truths about the Democratic Party to be confronted. More important — way more important — is that, as vanden Heuvel pointed out, he forces into the mainstream political discourse vital ideas that are otherwise completely excluded given that they are at odds with the bipartisan consensus.
> 
> There are very few political priorities, if there are any, more imperative than having an actual debate on issues of America’s imperialism; the suffocating secrecy of its government; *the destruction of civil liberties which uniquely targets Muslims, including American Muslims*; the corrupt role of the Fed; corporate control of government institutions by the nation’s oligarchs; its destructive blind support for Israel, and its failed and sadistic Drug War. More than anything, it’s crucial that choice be given to the electorate by subverting the two parties’ full-scale embrace of these hideous programs.
> 
> I wish there were someone who did not have Ron Paul’s substantial baggage to achieve this. Before Paul announced his candidacy, I expressed hope in an _Out _Magazine profile that Gary Johnson would run for President and be the standard-bearer for these views, in the process scrambling bipartisan stasis on these questions. I did that not because I was endorsing his candidacy (as some low-level Democratic Party operative dishonestly tried to claim), but because, as a popular two-term Governor of New Mexico free of Paul’s disturbing history and associations, he seemed to me well-suited to force these debates to be had. But alas, Paul decided to run again, and Johnson — for reasons still very unclear — was forcibly excluded from media debates and rendered a non-person. Since then, Paul’s handling of the very legitimate questions surrounding those rancid newsletters has been disappointing in the extreme, and that has only served to obscure these vital debates and severely dilute the discourse-enhancing benefits of his candidacy.
> * * * * *
> Still, for better or worse, Paul — alone among the national figures in both parties — is able and willing to advocate views that Americans urgently need to hear. That he is doing so within the Republican Party makes it all the more significant. This is why Paul has been the chosen ally of key liberal House members such as Alan Grayson (on Fed transparency and corruption), Barney Frank (to arrest the excesses of the Drug War) and Dennis Kucinich (on a wide array of foreign policy and civil liberties issues). Just judge for yourself: consider some of what Ron Paul is advocating on vital issues — not secondary issues, but ones progressives have long insisted are paramount — and ask how else these debates will be had and who else will advocate these views:
> *Endless War and Terrorism*
> 
> This entire four-minute Cenk Uygur discussion from last week about Paul’s candidacy is worthwhile, but if nothing else, watch the amazing ad about American wars and Terrorism from Ron Paul’s campaign which Cenk features at the 2:50 mark:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odlEuyDxAOk&feature=player_embedded
> 
> 
> *Due Process*
> Here’s Paul condemning the due-process-free assassination of American citizens:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md3-LaJfUL4&feature=player_embedded
> 
> *The Drug War*
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8S8N2OG7sU&feature=player_embedded
> 
> 
> *Whistleblowers*
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8pbSCT2SE6U
> *Drone assaults*
> From Politico, yesterday:
> ​
> 
> 
> *Surveillance State: Opposing Patriot Act extension*
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAIqtwwUcBk&feature=player_embedded
> 
> *U.S. policy toward Israel*:
> http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/
> 
> *Iran:*
> _LA Times_, yesterday:
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * * * * *
> Can anyone deny that (a) those views desperately need to be heard and (b) they are not advocated or even supported by the Democratic Party and President Obama? There are, as I indicated, all sorts of legitimate reasons for progressives to oppose Ron Paul’s candidacy on the whole. But if your only posture in the 2012 election is to demand lockstep marching behind Barack Obama and unqualified scorn for every other single candidate, then you are contributing to the continuation of these policies that liberalism has long claimed to detest, and bolstering the exclusion of these questions from mainstream debate.
> 
> If you’re someone who is content with the Obama presidency and the numerous actions listed above; if you’re someone who believes that things like Endless War, the Surveillance State, the Drug War, the sprawling secrecy regime, and the vast power of the Fed are merely minor, side issues that don’t merit much concern (_sure, like a stopped clock, Paul is right about a couple things_); if you’re someone who believes that the primary need for American politics is just to have some more Democrats in power, then lock-step marching behind Barack Obama for the next full year makes sense.
> 
> But if you don’t believe those things, then you’re going to be searching for ways to change mainstream political discourse and to disrupt the bipartisan consensus which shields these policies from all debate, let alone challenge. As imperfect a vehicle as it is, Ron Paul’s candidacy — his success within a Republican primary even as he unapologetically challenges these orthodoxies — is one of the few games in town for achieving any of that (now that Johnson has left the GOP and will [likely] run as the Libertarian Party candidate, perhaps he can accomplish that as well). As Conor Friedersdorf put it in his excellent, and appropriately agonizing, analysis of the Paul candidacy and his newsletters:
> What I want Paul detractors to confront is that he alone, among viable candidates, favors reforming certain atrocious policies, including policies that explicitly target ethnic and religious minorities. And that, appalling as it is, every candidate in 2012 who has polled above 10 percent is complicit in some heinous policy or action or association. Paul’s association with racist newsletters is a serious moral failing, and even so, it doesn’t save us from making a fraught moral judgment about whether or not to support his candidacy, even if we’re judging by the single metric of protecting racial or ethnic minority groups, because when it comes to America’s most racist or racially fraught policies, Paul is arguably on the right side of all of them.​His opponents are often on the wrong side, at least if you’re someone who thinks that it’s wrong to lock people up without due process or kill them in drone strikes or destabilize their countries by forcing a war on drug cartels even as American consumers ensure the strength of those cartels. ​It’s perfectly legitimate to criticize Paul harshly and point out the horrible aspects of his belief system and past actions. But that’s worthwhile only if it’s accompanied by a similarly candid assessment of all the candidates, including the sitting President.
> 
> *UPDATE*: Also, President Obama today signed the NDAA and its indefinite detention provisions into law (a law which Paul vehemently opposed); the ACLU statement — explaining that “President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as* the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law” *and “Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was* extinguished today”* – is here.


 
I appreciated this comment submitted in response to the Naked Capitalism article referenced in the above article. "Labels divide. I don’t care if a syphilitic spider monkey runs around carrying a Ron Paul sign, I’m voting for the man because of his policies and his convictions. Yes, he would be a disaster for the environment, womens’ rights, etc. But you know what? WWIII or a deep depression will make those issues unimportant." http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/matt-stoller-why-ron-paul-challenges-liberals.html

I encourage you to read these articles in their entirety and then read the comments, keeping in mind these readers are predominantly progressives/liberals.


----------



## Doc

GREAT post CG.  Happy New Year!!!!!!!


----------



## thcri RIP

CityGirl said:


> There are those out there who believe Ron Paul is unelectable/can't beat Obama. Get your ear to the ground. Ron Paul is gaining traction even among the left leaners...progressives/liberals. The disenfranchisement is bipartisan. The left is well aware they have been let down on the promise of hope and change. There are hardliners who will vote for Obama no matter what but there are many who are looking for a stronger candidate and they find him in Ron Paul.
> 
> Take a look at this article from Salon magazine. I think you will be surprised at what is being written to the attention of the left by the left.



I think Ron Paul could take it all.  I think the people are upset with both parties right now.  At least I know I am.  I have read many places those that voted for Obama are upset as the Hope and Change didn't happen.  Young kids that voted for Obama are now upset and they are looking for a different direction.  Ron Paul is campaigning to this kids and they are listening.  The left is upset with what they have and the right is upset with what is being put on the plate.    JMO


----------



## 300 H and H

I hesitate to post this, but.....

For better than 10 years I have been aware that the so called "fight" between political parties is just a side show to keep our attention drawn away from the real fight. The wealthy elite (Central Bankers) vrs. the rest of us. And for far too long they have been kicking our collective asses....Now there are many more who are begining to become aware...This could get interesting....

Go Ron Paul!

CG outstanding post!! You too Bambi!!

Regards, Kirk


----------



## thcri RIP

Jessie the Body Ventura you know that famous governor from Minnesota that can beat up your governor once said.

Politicians are just like the WWF.  On the mat they fight like cats and dogs and when the party is all over they go back stage and party together and talk about how dumb we are.

Well not word for word but close.


And Jessie was both WWF and politician.

It is time to get rid of the existing two party system.


----------



## 300 H and H

Hear, Hear!

I'd toast a toast to that!

Kirk


----------



## pirate_girl

Nibbling at his heels.
For the cause of Liberty.
WILL NOT GO UNNOTICED.

Dr. Paul isn't just a politician, he's a teacher for those who don't represent the status quo!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJ_sLDWZdc8"]Ron Paul's Fantastic Speech After Taking 2nd In New Hampshire      - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## 300 H and H

PG,

Thanks for posting this. I really like what he had to say as well. It's done here in my state, but I wish him well for the rest. I may just have to send him a little something to help out. However if he does not get the nomination, I will vote for the winner. But I certainly hope the country wakes up in time to realize the truth he speaks, especially about our money, and the Federal Reserve system. The inflation they are causing strikes to the heart of our problem. Printing money with no authurization, making OUR money worth less each passing day. And no one else in EITHER party has anything to say about this issue. GO RON PAUL!

Regards, Kirk


----------



## JEV

Is _THAT_ all you got???


----------



## 300 H and H

WTF? Got something to say?

Maybe you should, to get it out of your system......


Regards, Kirk


----------



## thcri RIP

Yeah why would we want Ron Paul.


Tom Woods


----------



## Cowboy

Now this is priceless. 


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cILGviTOTI&feature=player_embedded"]Jon Stewart on MSNBC on New Hampshire Ron Paul 2nd      - YouTube[/ame]#!


----------



## Doc

Good find Cowboy!!!!


----------

