Tag: war of terror

Ron Paul’s Veterans Day Money Bomb – 11/11/11!

Ron Paul’s Veterans Day Money Bomb – 11/11/11!

He served. As an Air Force veteran, Ron Paul not only understands what it means to serve his country, but he also understands the costs of an adventurous foreign policy. Both the blood and treasure of a nation is exhausted in a time of war, and Ron Paul is the only one who has been consistent in his support of a non-interventionist foreign policy for decades.

That is why on November 11, 2011, thousands of average Americans, as well as Veterans, all across the country, will donate to the “Veterans Day Money Bomb” to honor Ron Paul for his service to this nation, as well as his admirable principles that have earned him the title as the “Champion of the Constitution.” It’s time to bring the troops home.

This is your chance to make a difference. Please pledge to support the “Veterans Day Money Bomb” by signing up to the right, and donating on November 11, 2011 at RonPaul2012.com.

RON PAUL: The Military’s Choice

Why are the top three contributors to Ron Paul’s campaign the US Army, US Navy and the US Air Force? Ron Paul receives more military donations than all the other GOP presidential candidates, and President Obama combined. As an Air Force veteran, Ron Paul not only understands what it means to serve his country, but he also understands the costs of an adventurous foreign policy. Both the blood and treasure of a nation are exhausted in a time of war, and Ron Paul is the only one who has been consistent in his support of a non-interventionist foreign policy for decades.

On November 11, 2011, thousands of average Americans, Veterans and military all across the country, will donate to the “Support Them Now” Veterans Day Money Bomb to honor Ron Paul for his service to this nation, as well as his admirable principles that have earned him the title of the “Champion of the Constitution.” It’s time to bring the troops home.

This is your chance to make a difference. Please pledge to donate at least $100 to the Veterans Day “Support Them Now” Money Bomb by signing up to the left. Our goal is to collect 17,000 pledges, the same amount of pledges we collected on the $4.3 million November 5th Money Bomb in 2007. On November 11, please only donate at RonPaul2012.com.

Please invite your friends, and tell them that it is essential that Americans all across the country donate to Ron Paul at RonPaul2012.com on November 11, 2011.

Pledge here:
http://www.supportthemnow.com/
https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=163195827101460&ref=ts

Join the conversation at:
https://www.facebook.com/RonPaulNYCLibertyHQ 
https://www.facebook.com/RP2012NY

Advertisements

If You Love Security, Become a “Romney Democrat” (Just for a Year)

If You Love Security, Become a “Romney Democrat” (Just for a Year)
By Dan O’Malley

The United States began its decline when Americans voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

After two years, we now see that Obama 1) phases out operations  against countries that have Muslims (Yemen, Pakistan and Iraq) 2) oversees class warfare against businesses that have promoted American exceptionalism throughout the world (e.g. Goldman Sachs), 3) supports the legal framework for undermining security from terrorists, drug dealers and pedophiles (e.g. Patriot Act), and 4) is growing a deficit by pushing useless stimulus packages that are unpopular with the American people.

Put another way, when it comes to such things as the killing of evil terrorists, preventing class warfare, and increasing security to make our lives worth living, we had the hope, but we haven’t had the change.

Just as in 2000, Bush hadn’t shown his true colors, in 2008, Obama had not either. A vote for either in those years was fair enough. But in 2012, if you vote for the Democratic nominee for president, you better have a moral justification that is SO good that it is not worth a) having collateral damage to kill terrorists who threaten you, b) protecting the free markets, and c) tolerating your child from being touched by a government official with the full force of the law behind him as he just follows his orders to protect him or her from terrorism.

Do I labor the point?  Good.

I believe that such a justification exists.  I’m having difficulty seeing how a Democrat who voted for Obama (whom I supported) for the right reasons in 2008 can in good conscience do so again given that there is another candidate who has been more consistent in his support to these things — not just in words but in deeds.

If you’ve read my other pieces, you already know who he is.  But if not, you should also know that Mitt Romney has opposed abortion, gay marriage etc. and to promote accepted social values on the country — even when he is unsure with them (as he has shown uncertainty on some of these issues). In other words, he is consistent in his beliefs in a strong, secure, and exceptional America.

If you are a Democrat, and you sit tight and vote Democrat again “because you’ve always been a Democrat” or because you think that some group with which you identity will benefit more from Democrat programs than a Republican one, then that is up to you, and I wish you well. However, don’t you dare pretend that you are motivated primarily by security, American values, or a government that knows how to fight.

That Mitt Romney who has stood up for these principles quietly during his lifetime, happens to be a member of the Republican party is a lot less important than the principles that we should be voting on. The fact that he is not just a party guy should be obvious from his extensive differences in policy from his peers and the fact that many think, given his views, he should not run as a Republican at all.

As Romney often points out, however, we live in a country that is exceptional… and the history that is rich and stacked against anyone who would dare oppose it.  Therefore, he is doing what he has to do.  Moreover, so should we as Americans who love security and freedom.  It really is not complicated.

Now, I know that the Republican party stinks to many Democrats and Independents who care about security and freedom, but we all need to be smart and play the system to get the political outcomes we seek: you don’t have to like a party or even identify with it to sign up as a Republican for a year to help make sure that the Republican primaries are won by the one governor who has always been for security, has always voted against socialism, and has always opposed the reach of government into your business, your taxes and your person.

In addition, if you are a Democrat or a socially progressive Independent, you cannot tell me you were not hoping for all that from Obama.

Perhaps you see too much small-mindedness, or mean spirit or religious craziness in the Republican party.  Sure you do.  You can find all of them in spades. But since you can’t change the Democrat ticket for 2012, why not act where you can make a positive change — by telling the Republican party where you really want it to go… in the direction of security and freedom (both of which, if you go back just a little way, can be found in the traditions of republicanism).

Just in case you need to make it absolutely clear for your friends at work that you have not gone to the dark side, I offer you a special moniker to set yourselves apart and give yourself a way back once you’ve done what needs to be done — the “Romney Democrat” — to signify, of course, your American sensibilities and perhaps even your history as a Democratic voter.  (On the other hand, why not just tell your friends that Cindy Crawford and Scott Brown seem to have already gotten the message?)

I am aware that the main objection to Mitt Romney from the left concerns his belief that private corporations are more effective in maintaining social welfare than the government.  To this I ask one question.  Do you believe so much in the effectiveness of our current centralized delivery of social welfare that it is worth the bailouts and the feel-good speeches supported by both Bush and Obama’s administrations?  Moreover, while Mitt Romney would look to privatize the huge federally run welfare programs in the end, which is not where he wants to start: his immediate fight would be to bring more forces to the terror-infested Middle East and to make laws to treat corporations with greater dignity.

Mitt Romney’s electoral weakness is not a difficulty in winning a Republican Primary.  It is in winning a presidential election in a country with a constituency that includes the far-left and Independents. An influx of security-loving and Muslim-hating independents and Democrats would change the math on the Republican side and potentially the future of America by setting up a presidential contest with a security-minded, pro-business candidate (who could outflank Obama on those issues).

Again, this is not an endorsement of the Republican Party or a claim that the Republican record is better than the Democrat on any of the issues discussed in this article.  (It is not.)  It is not even a statement that Governor Romney is a panacea of American politics.  Rather, it is to recognize simply that the one potential Presidential candidate who wishes to stop terrorists from killing innocent Americans and stop transferring the wealth Americans earned to the undeserving poor happens to be — this time around — a Republican.

It is also to recognize that any other political choice is for things as they are in which all the issues that really matter (terrorism, free markets) are settled for the socialists and the interests of the foreigners over Americans.

Therefore, what will it be — same old team allegiance or new, Romney Democrats?

Why I support Ron Paul

Last night I attended the Ron Paul Webster Hall grassroots rally as both an attendee and as a volunteer for the NYC Liberty HQ grassroots organisation. There was some issues leading the event, such as Pras being delayed and the last-minute additions of speakers, but overall it went will with a final count is over 1800+ in the audience and reasonable coverage from the national media outlets.

It was not always like this. Back in college, I was passionately against George W. Bush, his collaborators and his War of Terror. The people I met who mindlessly supported Bush did so with the assumption that he could do the following: protect Americans from a terrorist attack, get revenge on so-called “dirty Jesus-hating Muslims” for 9/11, stop Sharia Law from subverting Western Civilisation or because the liberals were pro-Al-Qaeda. The war to supposedly liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein and give the Iraqis peace of mind resulted in that country being divided among religious sects, and culture along with reducing the country into a pro-Iranian proxy state.

In 2004, I supported John Kerry with the hope that he would put a stop to all the excesses of the Bush administration that took hold after 9/11 and went to new heights during the invasion of Iraq. Sadly, the majority of Americans backed Bush because they supported his new war against gay marriage, and were still out for revenge over 9/11 despite the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attack. It was after the elections I lost faith in Americans, believing them to have a hard-on for simple answers to complicated issues and will simply throw away their vote to anyone who says what they want to hear whether it is a lie or fabrication. It did not even help when many Republicans tolerated voter fraud simply for the sake of keeping their “Patriot” as President.

Bush’s 2004 election by the people was simply depressing. It was as if the entire country had decided to stop thinking and voted out of misguided fears and faith in a backwards and corrupt administration. I once said to a group of my classmates that Bush’s election was going to “Bring the country down to hell” and I even mentioned voting for Hilary in 2008 since I had lost that much faith in America at that time. This questionable election by questionable voters in an already rough period of my college life just made matters worse.

2007 came and I was glad that the bastard George W. Bush was going to leave power after seeding America’s decline during his years in power. I didn’t watch any of the early debates but I kept hearing on the news that the frontrunners for both the GOP and Democrats was going to be Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton months before the primary campaigns started. I did not expect much from Republicans at the time so I automatically assumed Giuliani was going to be their nominee while the Democrats would just pick Hillary out of recognition. There was some guy named Barack Obama that seemed intelligent and progressive yet he lacked the influence a Clinton had. In addition, my boss at the time felt that Obama had no chance despite being well spoken and intelligent and implied it was because Americans were incapable of having a “Black President”. Ironically, I had similar thoughts since my expectation for Americans was so low that I did not think they were capable of having an ethnic minority for a President.

Then at one of the debates, a Congressman named Ron Paul got into a heated exchange with “frontrunner” Rudy Giuliani over the root causes of 9/11 and foreign policy. I was shocked to see someone in the Republican Party who actually used reason, persuasion, and logic to explain his views and make a sincere effort to educate the audience and viewers. This was something that was out of the ordinary in an American Presidential debate that usually consists of oversimplified talking points or rants about Islamofascism and 9/11. Many others felt the same way and started their own Ron Paul grassroots campaigns despite having little to no experience in the political process. I was able to find my way to a few of these events in New York City and even voted for the first time in Super Tuesday.

Ron Paul would eventually dropout after the frontrunner Rudy Giuliani, resulting in the nominee being John McCain who won because he was unscathed by his rivals. It was over for the GOP Primary but at the same time, Barack Obama somehow beat Hillary Clinton to secure the nomination as the Democratic Presidential Candidate. To be honest, I really did not follow the Democratic Primaries since I was under the assumption it was going to be Hillary like most Americans and the big media. Because Ron Paul was knocked out, I wanted to punish the GOP for being idiots and for allowing someone like Bush to reduce the country into a cesspool. This was why I voted for Barack Obama like most people who wanted something radically different, make history, and punish the GOP for being stupid.

With a leap of faith, Barack Obama because our next President and a symbol of change that so many needed after nearly 8 years of misrule by George W. Bush. Obama was so popular with the world that the Nobel Prize Committee decided to pass Liu Xiaobo over to prematurely give Obama a Nobel Peace Prize despite being just less than a month on the job. The first 100 days were exciting seeing Obama declare closing the prisons at Guantanamo Bay, getting a stimulus package passed to insulate the American-engineered Global Recession, and wind down the War of Terror.

After those 100 days, I realised nothing was getting better in my life and that very little was actually done despite all the nice speeches Obama made. Some of his fans were rabid fanboys claiming Obama is our generation’s Franklin Delano Roosevelt and that he is the culmination of years of progressive development. I became increasingly disillusioned, realising he was slow to withdraw from Iraq while at the same time escalating the conflict in Afghanistan. I was angry when Obama decided to expand Bush’s TARP bailout programme to mismanaged car companies such as GM and Chrysler. Most of all, what really lost my support was Obama’s need to keep making feel good speeches and allowing his advisers and Congressional counterparts to regularly undermine him instead of asserting himself.

Obama is a very weak President who is so afraid to take bold steps that he prefers to do next to nothing instead of offending anyone. He handpicked advisers that either defied his orders or undermined him, which resulted in administrative deadlock while the entire country continued to suffer. He decided to delegate his defining healthcare reform to Congress instead of leading its development as leader of his party and when he had a majority in Congress. This lack of leadership brought Americans a healthcare reform package resembling Romney’s Massachusetts healthcare reform with its flawed individual mandates and more regulations that increased healthcare costs.

When I keep bringing up all these problems that happened under Obama’s watch, his fans either downplay it or make personal attacks on me. In one instance when I criticised the GM/Chrysler bailout as a plan that rewarded bad management and as a loss for taxpayers, one fan kept making personal attacks claiming that I make a meager income and that I am a disgrace to my university instead of explaining why the bailout was a good plan other than because it was “Obama’s idea”, when that’s not even true. Another fan told me that economics was not a big deal since Obama still has the support of other world leaders and “isn’t Bush” despite ongoing criticisms that the stimulus was misspent or was adding to an already bloated national debt.

Other issues I had with Obama involved his need to keep Guantanamo Bay’s prisons in service, his decision to persecute Wikileaks despite their efforts to expose America’s questionable past and present actions, Obama’s move to renew the PATRIOT ACT, waging war in Libya with NATO assets despite not getting approval from Congress, and his inability to work with Congress on fiscal policy, which resulted in America’s credit downgrade. Although Obama did make some progress in appointing two female minorities into the Supreme Court, improving foreign relations, and “getting” Bin Laden, he failed in translating these achievements into tangible benefits for Americans. In addition, it seemed like despite these missteps, Obama and his fans did not seem to care because they expect everyone to reelect him with the impression that the GOP is incapable of nominating someone who would take him on.

This was true until Gary Johnson first announced his 2012 campaign and later when Ron Paul announced he was also running. I once told a friend that I felt I did not do enough in the 2008 election and that I would be actively engaged in the 2012 election if Ron Paul decided to run again since I was disillusioned with Obama’s lip service to “Hope & Change”. In addition, I told him that I would regret it if I just sat around and allowed the primary elections to result with a lying, shifty personality running against an already disappointing President. With Paul’s official announcement, I began working with the local grassroots movement and taking a role contributing in social media outreach in the NY state and NYC metro area.

I know there are many out there who think the other Republicans candidates are better than Ron Paul is and this is because they believe either the other candidates are a guarantee in helping Obama be reelected or they have serious misconceptions about Dr. Ron Paul. This is something I plan to discuss in a later post.

14 reasons why Rick Perry would be a bad President


The following are 14 reasons why Rick Perry would be a really, really bad president….

#1 Rick Perry is a “big government” politician.  When Rick Perry became the governor of Texas in 2000, the total spending by the Texas state government was about $49 billion.  Ten years later it was about $90 billion.  That is not exactly reducing the size of government.

#2 The debt of the state of Texas is out of control.  According to usdebtclock.org, the debt to GDP ratio in Texas is 22.9% and the debt per citizen is $10,645.  In California (a total financial basket case), the debt to GDP ratio is just 18.7% and the debt per citizen is only $9932.  If Rick Perry runs for president these are numbers he will want to keep well hidden.

#3 The total debt of the Texas government has more than doubled since Rick Perry became governor.  So what would the U.S. national debt look like after four (or eight) years of Rick Perry?

#4 Rick Perry has spearheaded the effort to lease roads in Texas to foreign companies, to turn roads that are already free to drive on into toll roads, and to develop the Trans-Texas Corridor which would be part of the planned NAFTA superhighway system.  If you really do deep research on this whole Trans-Texas Corridor nonsense you will see why no American should ever cast a single vote for Rick Perry.

#5 Rick Perry claims that he has a “track record” of not raising taxes.  That is a false claim.  Rick Perry has repeatedly raised taxes and fees while he has been governor.  Today, Texans are faced with much higher taxes and fees than they were before Rick Perry was elected.

#6 Even with the oil boom in Texas, 23 states have a lower unemployment rate than Texas does.

#7 Back in 1988, Rick Perry supported Al Gore for president.  In fact, Rick Perry actually served as Al Gore’s campaign chairman in the state of Texas that year.

#8 Between December 2007 and April 2011, weekly wages in the U.S. increased by about 5 percent.  In the state of Texas they increased by just 0.6% over that same time period.

#9 Texas now has one of the worst education systems in the nation.  The following is from an opinion piece that was actually authored by Barbara Bush earlier this year….

•  We rank 36th in the nation in high school graduation rates. An estimated 3.8 million Texans do not have a high school diploma.

•  We rank 49th in verbal SAT scores, 47th in literacy and 46th in average math SAT scores.

•  We rank 33rd in the nation on teacher salaries.

 

#10 Rick Perry attended the Bilderberg Group meetings in 2007.  Associating himself with that organization should be a red flag for all American voters.

#11 Texas has the highest percentage of workers making minimum wage out of all 50 states.

#12 Rick Perry often gives speeches about illegal immigration, but when you look at the facts, he has been incredibly soft on the issue.  If Rick Perry does not plan to secure the border, then he should not be president because illegal immigration is absolutely devastating many areas of the southwest United States.

#13 In 2007, 221,000 residents of Texas were making minimum wage or less.  By 2010, that number had risen to 550,000.

#14 Rick Perry actually issued an executive order in 2007 that would have forced almost every single girl in the state of Texas to receive the Gardasil vaccine before entering the sixth grade.  Perry would have put parents in a position where they would have had to fill out an application and beg the government not to inject their child with an untested and unproven vaccine. Since then, very serious safety issues regarding this vaccine have come to light.  Fortunately, lawmakers in Texas blocked what Perry was trying to do.  According to Wikipedia, many were troubled when “apparent financial connections between Merck and Perry were reported by news outlets, such as a $6,000 campaign contribution and Merck’s hiring of former Perry Chief of Staff Mike Toomey to handle its Texas lobbying work.”

Rick Perry has a record that should make all Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and Independents cringe.

He is not the “conservative Republican” that he is trying to claim that he is.  He is simply another in a long line of “RINOs” (Republicans in name only).

If Rick Perry becomes president, he will probably be very similar to George W. Bush.  He will explode the size of the U.S. government and U.S. government debt, he will find sneaky ways to raise taxes, he will do nothing about the Federal Reserve or corruption in our financial system and he will push the agenda of the globalists at every turn.

Look, the truth is that another four years of Barack Obama would be a complete and total nightmare.

But so would four years of Rick Perry.

America deserves better than the “lesser of two evils”.

Unfortunately, the American people have been dead asleep and have sent incompetents, con men and charlatans to Washington D.C. for decades.

Hopefully things will be different in 2012.

Why 9/11 Truth-Seekers Will Never Go Away, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love America

CORY

Cory Chu-Keenan is a father and a proponent of getting Civics back into American schools. He is an activist for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Media Reform, and Restoration of Civil Rights. He will be debuting a Politically Conscious Hip-Hop Album in 2012 entitled Technofetishistic Psychodrama under the emcee name, Cory the Keen One.

We don’t teach Civics in America anymore. We teach Literature, Mathematics, and, ahem, History, but we don’t teach our youth how to keep a Democratic Republic. We’ve gotten to the point where we no longer understand what it means to do civic duty.

America was designed as an experiment. It was the first time in human history where the People, the citizenry, were called upon to govern themselves. And this system, designed by the framers of the Constitution, became a beacon of freedom for the rest of the world.

What freedom meant to our founding fathers was chiefly freedom from tyranny. But they couldn’t just say, “Okay, from now on, no more tyranny.” They had to replace monarchical rule with a different form of rule: Rule by the People, for the People.

Oh, by the way, when’s the last time you read the Constitution? Or the Declaration of Independence? Or how about the Bill of Rights?

Middle School? Or maybe you heard all about it in a Schoolhouse Rock song one Saturday morning after The Smurfs.

I’m not going to challenge you to read these documents or anything, simply because I know you wouldn’t do it anyway. Hell, have I ever read any of these? But I do hope you contemplate the power that these words hold for our nation and realize that you are here, with the rights that you hold, and the freedoms you enjoy, because of this ink. Period.

It’s good to be you.

Why is it good to be you?

Because the freedom that you have provides you with many choices. Our inalienable rights allow us to vote, assemble, lobby, and even run for public office. As a citizen of the USA, you are allowed to participate in your own government.

Or not! :D

You can choose to kick back and enjoy all the bread and circus this land of milk and honey provides for your leisure and entertainment, and let all the experts figure out the boring foreign policy stuff. God bless you, citizen!

But, ahhh, therein lies the paradox of success: material gain has an inverted relationship to happiness and feelings of satisfaction. Being the lone superpower standing after the Cold War ended in 1991 was fun for a minute, until skyscrapers started exploding one beautiful morning in Manhattan.

Let’s pause here for a sec before I get ahead of myself. I’m going to make a deal with you: I promise not to talk about World Trade Center Building 7, what the features of controlled demolition look like, the fact that Osama Bin Laden was never placed on the FBI’s most wanted list after 9/11 because they said they had no evidence linking him to it, or that the Secret Service failed to evacuate Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida where President Bush sat at a highly publicized location (read: target for terror) but instead decided to stay put in order to read a book about a goat and then afterwards hold a press conference at the same location!

I’m not going to talk about any of these things or the hundreds of other holes, discrepancies, fabrications, and omissions in the official story of 9/11, the majority of which the Kean Commission innocently overlooked. I’m not going to talk about any of these things!

I’m going to leave it up to you to do your own due diligence. Because that’s what civic duty and being an American is all about. Deal?

What I am going to talk about here is how America grows weaker and weaker the more and more we see ourselves as a nation divided.

We’ve come to an unfortunate, and illusory, political climate in America where we believe that we only have two choices: Red or Blue.

Not the Crips or the Bloods. Not Snoop or Weezy. I’m talking about Red States and Blue States. Left or Right. Liberal or Conservative. Blanket Pacifism or Reactionary War-Making.

We’re told that, as Americans, we must choose a team and play for it. And anyone who questions this dialectic is a nut-job, crackpot, or worse, a terrorist. -Thanks there, Patriot Act, recently grandfathered through the congressional backdoor! :D

And speaking of patriotism, there are two kinds, you know. There’s Patriotism, and then there’s “patriotism.” The former, with the capital “P” is the kind where you actually take action on performing your civic duty (there’s that phrase again) of thinking critically about your government by questioning the direction the American Experiment is taking. The latter, lowercase-in-air-quotes, form happens to be the emotional variety that’s spoon-fed to you on a nightly basis via the established corporate media. Thanks, Media Saturation, made up of five corporations that own 85% of all media! :/

Anyhoo, I’m not trying to get all college professor on you or anything. We don’t live in the University of Wisconsin or anything weird like that. We live in the real world. And in the real world, the Law of Attraction will someday give me a Lamborghini if I paste together a vision board and think only positive thoughts.

I mean, take for example The Project for a New American Century, a manifesto-ish document penned by the Neo-Conservative think-tank consisting of Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and other students of the late Machiavellian Professor Leo Strauss. PNAC is the Law of Attraction in action!

These guys literally wished into existence a New Pearl Harbor in the form of 9/11, which resulted in “rapid transformation” of our military and foreign policy.

“It’s just what I wanted! Yay!!!” shrieked Richard Perle. Clap clap clap clap.

Regardless of what I think of the official story of 9/11, and regardless of what you think about it, ten years later I think we can all agree that we’re in bad shape as a result of our actions taken as a nation in reaction to the event.

I’m not going to mention the loss of life of American soldiers, the use of exotic weaponry the likes of depleted uranium, the torture photos, or gas prices. You can form your own opinions on those topics.

What I am going to mention is that 2012 is fast approaching, and seeing as how I’m considered a “conspiracy theorist” and all (a term originating within a CIA declassified document designed to discredit and ridicule dissenters during the COINTELPRO era), it would be irresponsible of me to pass up the opportunity to tell you my take on the end of the world. So here it goes:

Much like 9/11, the end of the Mayan calendar long count is going to result in a psychological shift. But instead of fear and insecurity, we’re going to finally discover the true meaning of self-governance and personal freedom. Not only in America, but on a global scale.

The true New World Order is the revolution that takes place in your own mind. All you have to do is turn off the TV and let it happen.

That being said, I’m going to end on a high note here just so that you don’t turn off your computer and go blow your brains out.

Here it goes:

Back in the 1960’s there was a guy named Huey Newton and a guy named Bobby Seale. They would go on to found The Black Panther Party right here in Oakland, CA, Bay Area.

Well it just so happens that there were six Asian guys in the Black Panther Party who were known as the Yellow Panthers.

Inspired yet?

Peace and Love,

God Bless America, forreal, forreal

0

Ron Paul Campaign Presses Perry on Big Government Record and Fake Rhetoric

Issues open letter knocking Perry’s liberal record

LAKE JACKSON, Texas– 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul’s campaign continues to challenge Rick Perry in the lead up to tonight’s Republican presidential debate. Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton released an open letter to Gov. Perry focusing on his record as Texas head of state, pointing out inconsistencies with his new Tea Party rhetoric. See text of letter below.

Subject: Rick Perry Can’t Handle the Truth

An open letter from Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton

Dear Governor Perry,

After our campaign’s first ad highlighting your Big Government record and support for liberal Al Gore, your campaign is attacking Dr. Paul – missing the point of why your past is important.

We don’t think the fact that you used to be a Democrat is the big problem here. The real problem is that, too often, you still act like one. Even you yourself, Governor Perry, said of your party switch, “I will still vote the same principles, only with an R after my name.”

That’s the kind of thinking that has our country teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. We cannot afford to nominate someone who thinks the letter next to their name is more important than what they believe.

Governor Perry, let me be clear: It is not that you supported Al Gore that worries us.

It is that you supported Hillary Clinton’s health care plan.

You pushed for federal bailout and stimulus funds.

You support welfare for illegal immigrants.

You tried to forcibly vaccinate12-year-old girls against sexually transmitted diseases by executive order.

You raised taxes twice.

And, state debt has more than doubled in your tenure as governor, pushing Texas to the brink of our constitutional debt limit.

It’s that you supported ALL of these bad ideas that are inconsistent with how most Republicans understand conservatism, yet you now try to swagger your way into the Tea Party.

Governor Perry, with all due respect, you have used great rhetoric. But you will have to answer to the voters of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and across the country as to why that rhetoric does not match your record.

For Liberty,

Jesse Benton
Campaign Chairman
Ron Paul 2012

Why I refuse to be apathetic in America

“First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the liberals,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a liberal.

Then they came for the Muslims,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Muslim.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Obama Finally has a Primary Challenger: Ron Paul

From Obama Finally has a Primary Challenger: Ron Paul.

Obama Finally has a Primary Challenger: Ron Paul

by freetexas

Well, not exactly. But disaffected Democrats can take heart.  There is a candidate who supports many of their same views and has a history of being a thoughtful, smart, and honest individual.  I’m speaking, of course, of Congressman Ron Paul.

While it’s true that Dr. Paul is running as a Republican, that shouldn’t scare Democrats away, and I’ll tell you why.

  1. Iraq
  2. Afghanistan
  3. Libya
  4. Pakistan
  5. Yemen
  6. Somalia

Dr. Paul’s views on this subject are well addressed in the YouTube video: The War On Drugs: Ron Paul versus Barack Obama.

  • If you believe that Americans who don’t pay income tax are not being taxed, think again.  The policies of the Federal Reserve since its inception in 1913 have devalued the dollar by 95% via the Fed’s massive issuance of money and credit.  The resulting inflation is a direct tax on the poor and middle class, when their money becomes worth less as prices rise.  The rich can afford the higher prices, but the rest of the citizenry are profoundly affected.

So what is a Democrat, who finds these issues important, to do?  First of all, don’t take my word for it, do your own research and compare Dr. Paul’s words to his actions, and then do the same for President Obama.  I’m confident you will be surprised at what you find.  You can find out more about Ron Paul’s views on the issues by visiting his campaign web site. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/

If you are convinced that Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party who can “walk the talk”, then you will need to vote for Dr. Paul in the GOP Primary in your state in 2012 as a “crossover voter”.  This web site describes crossover voting, and lists the states with open and closed primary elections.  In the closed primary states, you would need to register as a Republican in order to vote in their primary.  Be sure to check your state’s voter registration deadlines and rules.

Ron Paul stacks up well in recent polls against President Obama; however, his biggest challenge will be in winning the Republican Primary nomination.  That’s why it is imperative that you vote in the GOP Primary in order to see a Ron Paul vs. Barack Obama matchup in the general election.  It’s historically proven that third-party candidates do not perform well in general elections, so anticipating a Ron Paul third party run isn’t the answer to putting him into the White House.

Finally, if you like what you find out about Congressman Paul, but you are frightened of being seen standing in line to vote at the GOP Primary, just remember this: if your fellow Democrat neighbor sees you in line, they are likely to be standing in the same line.

“Blue Republicans”: an Idea Whose Time Has Come

Publisher, WatchingAmerica.com

 

My article of a few days ago — If You Love Peace, Become a “Blue Republican” (Just for a Year) — seems to have caused a stir.

Many people of independent, liberal or Democratic sensibilities voted for Obama in 2008 in the hope of jolting America toward civil liberties and away from war, only to find themselves in 2011 disappointed that we are still starting wars and doing nothing to re-instate some of our most basic civil and economic freedoms.

My article suggested “Blue Republicans” as a moniker for those people who, still wanting peace and their basic Constitutional rights, will register Republican to help ensure that Ron Paul gets his party’s nomination.

Within a few hours of the article’s being published, a Blue Republican Facebook group was born, and faster than anyone could say “liberty,” a designer had donated a rather wonderful logo. By the end of the weekend, the group had about 2000 members, and the original article had been shared more than 11,000 times on Facebook.

Why?

Simply, Americans are at the beginning of a gestalt switch, which allows them to see something Noam Chomsky pointed out some time ago:

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.

And what are “the presuppositions of the system” — those political realities ushered in and maintained by both Left and Right over the last few years? Here are a few.

  1. Wealth is systematically transferred from productive citizens to those who create money as debt and then charge interest on that debt.
  2. Individuals have no fundamental right to privacy: without legal process, a government employee may sign his own warrant and intrude upon any aspect of your life — the books you have taken out from the library; the things you’ve looked at online, the calls you’ve made, the goods you’ve bought etc. He can even come into your house. (This is somewhat akin to the Stamp Act, which allowed British officials to enter American homes — one of the triggers of the War of Independence.) The government may store arbitrary amounts of the data they collect.
  3. Individuals no longer have a right to contract with a private party to transport them to another part of the country without a government officer’s permission, which will be granted only after an act that would otherwise be deemed an assault, and possibly a sexual assault, or after the provision of visual information about her body that she would not voluntarily show anyone with whom she was not intimately involved. A traveler will be separated from her property and members of her family when this act is conducted. (This could be likened to the situation in a Soviet country before the Iron Curtain came down.)
  4. Government officials direct significant fractions of the country’s wealth to selected groups with whom they have been or are associated. (This is similar in effect, if not in intent, to the actions of many corrupt African regimes.)
  5. The government has the right to assassinate its own citizens. (This is akin to the old communist police states.)
  6. The government may mobilize American sons and daughters to attack those who do not threaten us — now without authorization by our supposed representatives.
  7. The government has the right to know where you keep your wealth and what you do with it, even beyond the declaration of income for taxation purposes and even if you are not suspected of committing any crime.
  8. Most terrifying, telling the truth is sometimes a crime: if you are served a warrant under the Patriot Act, and you tell someone about it, you have committed a crime. (This is akin to nothing on earth, and is reminiscent only of George Orwell’s novel, 1984.)
  9. Since many of the above are obviously unconstitutional, the ultimate legal protection of Americans’ human rights is void when the government deems it so.

All of the above points concern basic civil rights, and the very identity of the nation.

In the light of these, many Americans are feeling that the country has gone too far down a slippery slope toward tyranny and have decided that urgent action must be taken.

Critically, they realize that our current two-party political paradigm is seriously bankrupt as it has brought us to this point. It’s not that we got politically lazy; we did not: in fact, we’ve been as energetic as ever in opposing our political foes on our favorite political issues… Rather, we got too involved in the issues that defined our old political identities, and missed how the fundamentals were being changed around us.

As we were all having our “I’m right, you’re wrong” Democratic and Republican arguments, the powers that be made themselves more powerful, and while we were arguing, we have lost most of the rights that we weren’t arguing about because we took them for granted.

It is as if we have suddenly looked up from an argument at the kitchen table over which sofa we should buy for the living room, only to find out that the house has been foreclosed on and we’re homeless. Sure, the issues we were arguing over were important — but they were not the most important, nor are they now the most urgent.

As I have written elsewhere, America has been brought to its knees by a Left that has empowered the state and a Right that has subsidized big business. The nation has been disempowered by an axis between the apparatchiks of State that pass laws that concentrate wealth in the hands of the financial elite that funds them. Over the last century, the Left have tended to harp on about the corruption of corporate and financial interests, while the Right have tended to harp on about the corruption of State interests.

Meanwhile, corporate interests have made the State corrupt by financing it, and the State has made corporations corrupt through corporatist law-making. The net effect is that the State has concentrated power, and the corporations — and in particular banks — have concentrated wealth. The rest of us have paid for it in liberty and wealth, respectively.

In the face of what has already been lost, those Blue Republicans who are becoming Republicans to ensure a Ron Paul presidency are not abandoning their personal disagreements with Dr. Paul on particular issues, such as abortion (which is the one on which this writer most profoundly disagrees with him). Rather, they are trying to make sure that we still have a recognizable country in which you get to have an argument over abortion without having already given up your own personal liberty, property or knowledge that your country will only send your family members in uniform into battle out of necessity, and nothing but necessity.

Perhaps, then, the cause of the excitement about the “Blue Republican” idea is two-fold. First, the term has caught people’s imaginations because it subverts the paradigm that brought us here. Second, the stakes are high. In fact, they are the very highest stakes of all.

Follow Robin Koerner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rkoerner

If You Love Peace, Become a “Blue Republican” (Just for a Year)

If You Love Peace, Become a “Blue Republican” (Just for a Year)

Publisher, WatchingAmerica.com

Posted: 7/7/11 12:00 PM ET

The world lost its goodwill toward the USA when Americans voted for George W. Bush the second time around.

I don’t endorse the idea that American politics should be dictated by foreign opinions but a reading of the foreign press over the last six years reveals that the first election of President Bush Jr. was largely excused around the world since no one could have known what this new president was going to do.
Moreover, America arguably didn’t vote for him anyway in 2000.

However, the second election President Bush was not excused, because by 2004, the modus operandi of the Bush administration was clear. He wanted to 1) conduct wars against countries that did not threaten us (e.g. Iraq), 2) oversee large financial benefits to companies with which those in his administration were close (e.g. Halliburton), 3) establish a legal framework for riding roughshod over the liberties of private individuals who are not suspected of crime (e.g. Patriot Act), and 4) establish a massive federal apparatus to carry out such intrusions on innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state (e.g. domestic wiretapping, TSA etc… )

The more-or-less global delight upon Obama’s election in 2008 followed largely from the hope that Americans had realized what a mistake they had made with Bush’s second term and were therefore voting against the egregious actions of the then Republican establishment.

When most Americans voted for “Hope” and “Change,” the above four objectives were at the top of their list of what they “hoped” would be “changed.”

After two years, however, we now see that Obama 1) conducts wars against countries that do not threaten us (e.g. Libya, Yemen etc.), 2) oversees large financial benefits to companies with which those in his administration were close (e.g. Goldman Sachs), 3) supports the legal framework for riding roughshod over the liberties of private individuals who are not suspected of crime (e.g. Patriot Act), and 4) is growing a massive federal apparatus to carry out such intrusions on innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state (e.g. domestic wiretapping, TSA etc.. )

Put another way, when it comes to such things as the killing of innocent people, taking from the common man to support cronies, and the elimination of the basic values that make our lives worth living, we had the hope, but we haven’t had the change.

Just as in 2000, Bush hadn’t shown his true colors, in 2008, Obama had not either. A vote for either in those years was fair enough. But in 2012, if you vote for the Democratic nominee for president, you better have a moral justification that is SO good that it is a) worth killing innocent people who don’t threaten you, b) transferring wealth to the rich and well connected, and c) the complete suspension of your right to privacy and such basic rights as protecting your child from being touched by a government official with the full force of the law behind him as he just follows his orders.

Do I labor the point? Good.

I don’t believe that such a justification exists. I’m having difficulty seeing how a Democrat who voted for Obama (whom I supported) for the right reasons in 2008 can in good conscience do so again given that there is another candidate who has been consistent in his opposition to all of these things — not just in words but in deeds.

If you’ve read my other pieces, you already know who he is. But if not, you should also know that Ron Paul has voted to let states make their own laws on abortion, gay marriage etc. and to let individuals follow their own social conscience — even when he disagrees with them (as I disagree with him on some of these issues). In other words, he is consistent in his beliefs in civil liberty.

If you are a Democrat, and you sit tight and vote Democrat again “because you’ve always been a Democrat” or because you think that some group with which you identity will benefit more from Democrat programs than a Republican one, then that is up to you, and I wish you well. But don’t you dare pretend that you are motivated primarily by peace, civil rights or a government that treats people equally.

That Ron Paul, who has been standing up for these principles quietly for half a lifetime, happens to be a member of the Republican party is a lot less important than the principles that we should be voting on. The fact that he is not a party guy should be obvious from his extensive differences in policy from his party and the fact that many think, given his views, he should not run as a Republican at all.

As Dr. Paul often points out, however, we live in a country with a corrupt political party duopoly… and the system is stacked against anyone who would run outside the two party system. So he’s doing what he has to do. And so should we as Americans who love peace and freedom. It really isn’t complicated.

Now, I know that the Republican party stinks to many Democrats and Independents who care about social justice and civil rights, but we all need to be smart and play the system to get the political outcomes we seek: you don’t have to like a party or even identify with it to sign up as a Republican for a year to help make sure that the Republican primaries are won by the one representative who has always been for peace, has always voted against bailouts, and has always opposed the reach of government into your bedroom, your relationships and your person.

And if you are a Democrat or socially progressive Independent, you can’t tell me you weren’t hoping for all that from Obama.

Perhaps you see too much small-mindedness, or mean spirit or religious craziness in the Republican party. Sure you do. You can find all of them in spades. But since you can’t change the Democrat ticket for 2012, why not act where you can make a positive change — by telling the Republican party where you really want it to go… in the direction of peace and civil liberty (both of which, if you go back just a little way, can be found in the traditions of republicanism).

Just in case you need to make it absolutely clear for your friends at work that you have not gone to the dark side, I offer you a special moniker to set yourselves apart and give yourself a way back once you’ve done what needs to be done — the “Blue Republican” — to signify, of course, your liberal sensibilities and perhaps even your history as a Democratic voter. (Or why not just tell your friends that Bill Maher and Jon Stewart seem to have already gotten the message?)

I am aware that the main objection to Ron Paul from the left concerns his belief that private charities and individuals are more effective in maintaining social welfare than the government. To this I ask one question. Do you believe so much in the effectiveness of our current centralized delivery of social welfare that it is worth the war making and the abrogation of civil rights supported by both Bush and Obama’s administrations? Moreover, while Ron Paul would look to transition out of the huge federally run welfare programs in the long-run, that’s not where he wants to start: his immediate fight would be to bring our forces back to the USA and to re-implement the Bill of Rights.

Ron Paul’s electoral weakness is not a difficulty in winning a presidential election. It is in winning a primary in a party with a Conservative constituency that includes the religious right and neo-cons. An influx of peace and freedom-loving independents and Democrats would change the math on the Republican side and potentially the future of America by setting up a presidential contest with a pro peace, pro-civil rights candidate (who could outflank Obama on those issues, at least, from the left).

Again, this isn’t an endorsement of the Republican party or a claim that the Republican record is better than the Democrat on any of the issues discussed in this article. (It isn’t.) It is not even a statement that Dr. Paul is some kind of panacea of American politics. Rather, it is to recognize simply that the one potential Presidential candidate who wishes to stop killing innocent people in foreign wars and stop transferring the wealth of poor and working Americans to the corporate elites happens to be — this time around — a Republican.

It is also to recognize that any other political choice is for a status quo in which all the issues that really matter (war and peace, civil rights) are settled for the military industrial complex and the interests of the State over the individual.

So what’ll it be — same old team allegiance or new, Blue Republicans?