Thanks for this explanation CY.

I didn’t know this, (about the 5%) and it helps explain my earlier question.

You’re right about them making exceptions for others though, and I we know that seems to be standard in just about everything.

Pisses me off as well. What can I say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-epeXDBLXsA

Great interview.  Dennis Kucinich was on after him…

This is interesting:

Manchester – UnionLeader.com has learned that the New Hampshire Republican Party has quit as a co-sponsor of tomorrow night’s nationally televised GOP forum on FOX News.

The 8 p.m. event at Saint Anselm College—the last debate before Tuesday’s primary—had become controversial when FOX refused to include Ron Paul.

So the New Hampshire GOP dropped out in protest of Fox excluding Ron Paul.. By the way, he just polled at 14% in the latest NH poll… that is 3rd place behind McCain and Romney.

Interesting huh?

Just watched the Bill Moyers interview of Ron Paul, and must say he makes more sense than every other person except for Gravel and Kucinich.  Sure I disagree with some of his points, but his ideas promote change away from the status quo and he seems to be gathering steam, so my point is,  I will be watching his progress.

I don’t want Ron Paul to be President, but the guy speaks no lies.  If I had my way, the US would stop being so arrogant as to meddle in other countries affairs on the pretense of altruism.  We are selfish, self-serving, and, often, malicious in foreign policy, and we have been this way since “manifest destiny”.  I’m not saying it’s wrong.  I live a very comfortable life.  Morality, on the other hand, philosophical “right”, says that I earned that through others suffering.  Paul merely represents a humanitarian viewpoint, and I respect his willingness to say on Colbert that, ultimately, the government should allow children to starve because that is society’s ill, for us citizens to deal with.  I vehemently agree with that tenet of his ideology.

Missy - It is frustrating… But in my view, it is just the powerful, money establishment trying to keep a voice of REAL change out of the way.  By the way, the big change (and the only big change) that Ron Paul can actually unilaterally enact is bringing the troops home from around the world which is precisely why the big establishment are trying to stifle him.  Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Electric, Media, AIPAC, etc etc etc.  They most certainly don’t want this war to end.  John McCain just said he wants US troops permanently in the middle east! Son in reality, all other changes and philosophical concepts will/would require a CONSENSUS to come even close to achieving and there is a Democratic majority in Congress now that is only going to get bigger over the next year (lots of GOP people retiring, not running for re-election).  I point this out because there are a lot of unfounded fears about what a Ron Paul Presidency would mean, and the vast majority of them are totally irrational and have no basis in fact nor procedure.

I personally view a Ron Paul Presidency as a needed step back from the terrifying trend of ever bigger, ever more intrusive, ever more powerful government, particularly when it comes to the executive branch.  No other candidate is going to return the balance to our government the way Ron Paul will.  That is just a fact.

Good luck!

What a disingenuous argument! No way we can disassociate ourselves from Pakistan. The Taliban is refueled there. To let them roam free, defeats NATO efforts in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has strength there and is continuing to win the minds and hearts of the Pakistan people, including the nuclear scientists there. The extremely unstable government has nuclear weapons. Al Qaeda believes it is entitled to Islamic nuclear weapons.

Intelligent diplomacy has been entirely missing from Bush foreign policy. Ideology and gut instinct needs to be replaced with intelligent analysis. Get rid of Bush and Cheney and the intelligent quotient increases tremendously. That is what we need from our next leader.

By whose polls do they go by?

All polls I know of are privately owned, therefore subject to manipulation.

In many ways polls are another tentacle of a “controlled press”.  The poll results however juked justify’s the beholders course of action.

You would THINK the networks, who thrive on advertising dollars would WANT to have someone that raised $20MM in the 4Q alone sitting on their stage, advertising to the viewers.

You would think that to be the case. It defies logic which is why it is so troubling.

I agree that it is VERY strange it is not being discussed by the MSM.  In the whole sea of Bhutto’s murder coverage nothing about her comment that the whole reason we are engaged with the world this way (OBL) was murdered???

Ahh look no further than John McCain for the answers:

McCain in NH: Would Be “Fine” To Keep Troops in Iraq for “A Hundred Years”

The United States military could stay in Iraq for “maybe a hundred years” and that “would be fine with me,” John McCain told two hundred or so people at a town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire, on Thursday evening. Toward the end of this session, which was being held shortly before the Iowa caucuses were to start, McCain was confronted by Dave Tiffany, who calls himself a “full-time antiwar activist.” In a heated exchange, Tiffany told McCain that he had looked at McCain’s campaign website and had found no indication of how long McCain was willing to keep U.S. troops in Iraq. Arguing that George W. Bush’s escalation of troops has led to a decline in U.S. casualties, McCain noted that the United States still maintains troops in South Korea and Japan. He said he had no objection to U.S. soldiers staying in Iraq for decades, “as long as Americans are not being injured, harmed or killed.”

After the event ended, I asked McCain about his “hundred years” comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for “a thousand years” or “a million years,” as far as he was concerned. The key matter, he explained, was whether they were being killed or not: “It’s not American presence; it’s American casualties.” U.S. troops, he continued, are stationed in South Korea, Japan, Europe, Bosnia, and elsewhere as part of a “generally accepted policy of America’s multilateralism.” There’s nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object.

In other words, McCain does not equate victory in Iraq—which he passionately urges at campaign events—with the removal of U.S. troops from that nation. After McCain told Tiffany that he could see troops remaining in Iraq for a hundred years, a reporter sitting next to me quipped, “There’s the general election campaign ad.” He meant the Democratic ad: John McCain thinks it would be okay if U.S. troops stayed in Iraq for another hundred years…..

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6735_mccain_in_nh_wo.html

Ron Paul on Larry King 1-3-08 (UNAIRED VIDEO)

NOT WHAT CNN’S ZIONIST/AIPAC CONTROLLED MEDIA WANT THE AMERICAN LISTENERS TO HEAR.

RON PAUL IS NOT GOOD FOR ISRAEL, AIPAC, AND THE ZIONIST NEOCONS GOALS AND THEIR SCHEMES! 

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/20050

OK you guys, (PH or anybody)

I’m still inclined to agree that RP should have just as much an opportunity to participate in whatever the networks are preparing for the next political shindig, and from the Iowa polls posted here, RP did even better than Giuliani. (not sure what that means). So, it just seems like the public should be able to hear what he has to say, (or doesn’t say).

BUT, can somebody please help me understand how that connects to the fundraising? I’m still trying to figure that out, and it’s come up a couple of times at least, in the complaints about him not being included. So, I’m really trying to make that connection, between the fundraising, and the inclusion in the discussions. Is it the networks who decide this? And, what do they base it on?

10:10 PM EST
  Precincts Reporting: 76%
  Huckabee: 34%
  Romney: 25%
  Thompson: 14%
  McCain: 13%
  Paul: 10%
  Giuliani: 4%
  Hunter: 0%

http://www.truthout.org/Election2008.shtml

Missy,

It had my head spinning as well. We were hashing it over a couple of days ago, although admittedly, it didn’t seem to get a rise out of that many people.

And, amazingly enough, I haven’t seen it anywhere else, (including here) and DEFINITELY not on MSM.

Here’s my take. I’ve believed Osama bin Laden to be dead for a long time. Although Benazir doesn’t say or indicate, WHEN, she seems certain enough to me, of what she is saying.

The fact that NO OTHER MEDIA has picked-up on this, or chosen to run it, is the head spinning part.

Still, it’s been two days, so I’m going to check again, now..to see if it may have made it’s way to MSM by now.

Ron Paul excluded?                       

Why is Ron Paul being excluded from Fox and ABC debates prior to any Primary results?  Usually the primaries serve as the vetting process which will sort out the peoples choices for candidates.  I would understand if Paul or any of the other candidates were excluded after super Tuesday when all could see the writing on the wall, but to be excluded prior to any demonstrated public appeal smacks of censorship plain and simple.

Ron Paul has a right to be in those discussions based on his record breaking fund raising and his placement in GOP straw polls around the country.

If Fox and ABC deny him air time they should have their broadcasting licenses suspended for the remainder of the election process.

I’m curious and troubled about this video on youtube. I pasted the link below. I’m interested in knowing some of your opinions about B. Bhutto stating that O. Bin Laden was murdered.  This video was posted on youtube shortly after the first attempt on her life a couple of months ago. Notice what she says beginning aroun 6:10 concerning Bin Laden.  It has my head spinning….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ

Throw this video into your “due diligence” routine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaxdUPNYj2s

This describes very nicely Ron Paul’s economic viewpoint on monetary policy which is CRUCIAL to understanding his campaign particularly when compared to every other single candidate who has run in modern history.

Anyone else notice a contradiction in what is being said here?

Cyrena just wrote:

“So, that would allow him more ‘volunteers’ and maybe better supplies, so that when the ‘volunteers’ come though communities like mine, they don’t have to trash us with all of that crap, and they might even be able to request some real time, instead of sneaking in under cover of night, and plastering the place with white typing paper and duct tape, which is really hard to get off. Maybe they could even afford a ‘clean up team’ so we wouldn’t have to do it ourselves.”

Vs.

What she wrote earlier:

” BUT, I WILL say, only because I can in fact provide my own eye witness testimony to this, that the student group that was in my own community, and on OUR CAMPUS here in November, (2 days before Thanksgiving) WAS predominantly male, and they WERE scruffy looking, (I have no idea whether or not they bathed in the public restrooms) and most of all…they DID trash our campus.”

How can both be true?

•  Paul is still leading in fundraising, so why exclude him?

Robert, I’m curious about this thing with leading in fundraising. I agree that none of the candidates should be excluded, and I would note (again) that Dennis Kucinich has also been excluded (most recently from the New Hampshire caucus) but I’m not clear on what the ‘fund raising’ has to do with it.

If I understand it correctly, the ‘fundraising’ doesn’t benefit the GOP, but simply Ron Paul. It allows him to do a little bit more with his campaign, if my understanding is correct. So, that would allow him more ‘volunteers’ and maybe better supplies, so that when the ‘volunteers’ come though communities like mine, they don’t have to trash us with all of that crap, and they might even be able to request some real time, instead of sneaking in under cover of night, and plastering the place with white typing paper and duct tape, which is really hard to get off. Maybe they could even afford a ‘clean up team’ so we wouldn’t have to do it ourselves.

But, I still don’t see what that has to do with him being able to participate on ABC, (which I’ve never found to be much better than Faux Fox anyway). So, can you clue me in on how the whole ‘fundraising’ thing is connected?

I’m thinking that there could be a bit of ‘poetic justice’ in this, since despite any ‘fundraising’ Ron Paul has apparently NOT been willing or able to BUY any space or time on what we KNOW (and he has acknowledged) is a ‘private’ conglomerate. And so, while it may not seem the least bit fair, it’s also a question of how they do things, and always have. If he wants the air time, maybe he should consider paying for it. That, of course, is NOT what he wants to do, and doesn’t think he should have to. And, I see a point there, except of course, that’s how the game is played, since we’ve only ever ‘talked about’ campaign reform, and never really DONE anything about it.

So, while I have no love for the MSM, and while I certainly have problems digesting anything from Faux news, and never watch ABC either, I can’t help but think that rather than blame the corporate media, (knowing full well that’s the way they do business) why not blame the GOP, since the ‘fundraising’ should be recognized by THEM, and they should be supporting him. Since they are NOT, (and obviously WON’T) then maybe Ron Paul, (if he really DOES have a ‘different message’) should have had the guts to separate from that party that doesn’t support his bid, and run as an independent.

Surely that would be an exercise of some sort of loyalty to those who so adamantly support him. Doesn’t seem to me that he’s willing to do that. I also don’t think he’s particularly interested in restoring the same civil liberties that would be advantageous to us ALL, so that could be another reason he’s not getting the ‘play’ that you’re hoping for.

Just some thoughts, and of course I’m curious about the fund raising connection as well.

I think it is absolutely hysterical that you think that you are above any of what you just accused me of.  You have directly called me more names and thrown more insults at me than I can count.  I hate to tell you, but objectively you are not on the moral high ground here.  Anyone can go and look at the record.  I wish someone would just to bring you back to reality!

Furthermore, you haven’t done your homework and you seem to base your entire opinion of Ron Paul on the fact that folks in the JBS support him (and some lunatic white supremacy individuals who NOBODY cares about) and those horrible years you spent living in Texas. 

Meanwhile, Ron Paul is NOT even a member of the JBS! Now obviously he will speak to them and accept their support because they share common ground like following the Constitution and national sovereignty but Ron Paul will speak to anyone (Alex Jones - who you seem to like quite a bit - included). Now I am not defending the JBS because they do have a history of attracting some real freaks and back in the 60’s the KKK did use them as a front in the south, but I am also not going to PROJECT the actions and beliefs of free, independent (although misguided) individuals onto Ron Paul as you choose to do. How can you do that with any honesty???

Ron Paul has a LONG record of speeches, books, votes and stances to look at.  The sad thing is, you claim you know and understand them, but you don’t.  By the way, how is that mission you gave yourself to find where Ron Paul wants to institute “forced prayer” in schools?  Not so good huh?

You haven’t read ANY of the intellectual underpinnings of Ron Paul’s political philosophy, by your own admission.  Yet you throw out wild theories, gut feelings, intuitions, and hearsay arguments that paint him to be something he is not.  I supply his speeches. I supply third party articles. I supply books by Nobel prize winning economists.  You supply Naomi Klein!  I’m sorry, regarding The Shock Doctrine, you need to seriously rethink that thesis entirely if you want it to stick.

Explain to me how your story about Ron Paul supporters ‘invading your campus under the cover of night’ magically transformed itself into you seeing these young, white, scruffy men on campus during the day plastering stuff all over the place.  Frankly, it just looks like you are lying!  What else are we to think??

And regarding Outraged’s comments. I DID respond to it and certainly didn’t hide under a rock about it.  It is just hard to have a conversation with someone who is missing SO MUCH of the picture.  This is a case in point.

January 2, 2008 at 14:41:13

ABC Now Considering Banning Ron Paul from Debates

by Anthony Wade  

http://www.opednews.com       

January 2, 2008

“The last article I did produced some stir, as it dealt with the decision by Faux News to ban Ron Paul from the upcoming presidential debate in New Hampshire. Most of the responses were supportive as this is a travesty. That any news agency, let alone a fake one, would purposefully try and influence the outcome of a presidential election has to be unacceptable for all Americans.

But toward the end of the comments I was attacked for “sloppy reporting” by a Mr. Westmiller, who claimed that Paul was not being excluded from the debates at all! Well, all is fair in propaganda I guess. Not only is Paul being excluded, as I correctly reported, but ABC may also be blacklisting him as well. Here is a link for those who ought to check their sources before accusing anyone of sloppy reporting:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/31/debate.limits.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest

ABC seems to be applying fairer standards but why can’t the American people hear all the opinions? Paul is still leading in fundraising, so why exclude him? Fox’s lame excuse is they do not have enough room in their trailer…I kid you not. An alleged media giant can only afford a trailer that fits five candidates comfortably. They have enough room for Fred “I don’t really want to be here” Thompson, who has been in for a month and has done NOTHING, but not for the top fundraiser in the pack.

We all know why there is such bias against Dr. Paul. It is because he represents something other than the script the other guys will be reading off of. He would have been the only GOP hopeful talking about NOT blowing up the world, true fiscal discipline, and restoring civil liberties. Can’t have that on Fox where they pretend to report, but they have already decided. Instead now we will be regaled with tales from the five would be tyrants who all believe they can more efficiently bomb Iran. They will spin yarns about how we need them to protect us and how the democrats are all spineless wimps because they do not lockstep to the war drumbeats and thrashing of our civil liberties. Most important to Fox News of course, is that they get to present their view of the Republican Party unblemished. They get to present the neocon vision as the only articulated platform for the GOP. No more uncomfortable post-debate polls showing how Ron Paul handily defeated their host of war-mongering candidates. Sean Hannity will not have to exclaim how Paul backers somehow rigged a poll. Fox gets to draw the sharp delineation they have been seeking. It is either the big brave republicans or the wimpy ole democrats. Nothing in the middle folks, nope, nothing to see here. Move along and cast your vote for one of our pre-selected candidates. 

I guess some might be confused as to why ABC has hopped along the un-American express? I mean, everyone knows Fox is biased but ABC is “mainstream”, right? WRONG. The corporate media is the corporate media. The true damage Fox does is to make other corporate media appear more central, when they are in fact just as in bed with the machine as Fox. ABC might cave quicker to pressure though.”

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_anthony__080102_abc_now_considering_.htm

Thanks Nom, for pointing that out for me.  However, I read yesterday that abc and Fox will not have Ron Paul and several other candidates for televised debates.  What’s up?

Nomascerdo,

I am responding to this ONLY because it provides such an excellent example of your perfidy and consistent reliance on negative and combative ATTACK politics. In simple language, what you are selling is SO bad, that you have to consistently attempt to make anything or anyone else LOOK BAD, in order to make yourself or whatever it is that you’re trying to sell – LOOK GOOD! It’s a tactic that is older than god, and it NEVER works…at least not for long. It also requires an assumption that your audience is as petty and shallow as you are yourself, and equally willing to sign-on to negative and combative bullshit, to hide the dirt underneath. In short, if you can attack someone else, on anything at all, regardless of its significance to the real issues, then that (you assume) will distract from the fundamental weaknesses of your own petty arguments.

The most recent example of this is your comment here, about ‘somebody’ saying that they “LIKED” McCain. Well guess what? I’ve read through this entire blog –again- (knowing full well what your snide reference was to) and I couldn’t find ANY mention here or elsewhere, of ANYONE claiming to ‘like’ McCain.

In REALITY, I myself suggested him as being THE LEAST OF THE EVILS, in respect to the current repuglican candidates for the 2008 Presidential election. In saying that, my reference was CLEARLY framed and stated in terms of the least of what I’ve already said, (on numerous occasions) to be a really sorry bunch, and that’s putting it mildly, and as diplomatically as I can. I FURTHER clarified that it was a response to those who simply couldn’t see their way to voting for a democratic candidate, where there is at least a semi-decent choice.

Furthermore, I did not base my statement on any extensive review of McCain’s positions, because I don’t LIKE him better than anybody else in that gang. I said it based on what I have known of his PAST, and some of the behavior in his long ago past political life. And here again, based on that, I explained that he would probably be the least DESTRUCTIVE among the sorry choices.

Now of course doing that is not much different than attempting to prove a negative, which can’t be done. So, I could just as well haven’t bothered at all. And SINCE then, (based on an article on McCain that I DID read – yesterday) I can no longer even make a guess at who –among the repugs- who be the ‘least of the evils’ because McCain has now proven himself, (and he may have long ago, except that I haven’t kept up with him) to be as much of a whack job as Ron Paul. I was amazed to discover that he actually believes in the mythical NAFTA Superhighway. That said, he belongs in the same facility for the insane as the rest of you do.

However, my point here was to address your heinous tactics in twisting/turning and obfuscating the words of others into whatever suits your own diabolical agenda. And, it’s always only a matter of time, before you self-destruct, because at some point, intelligent people see through it.

It doesn’t go unnoted that you attempted a snide swipe at ME, on this very petty issue, while TOTALLY ignoring the very reasoned response from Outraged, to some of your previous nonsense. That’s because ultimately, you run and hide whenever you’re called out on so much of the crap that you put forth, because NONE of it stands up to any in-depth examination. You just throw shit out there, and hope some of it will stick.

It’s pathetic, and so are you.

GW=MCHammered
•  And if you’re going to call into question Ron Paul’s sincerity, please be an equal candidate-sincerity-doubter and question all others too.
McHammered,
I think this is a fair enough request. Indeed, I am highly critical of Ron Paul’s sincerity, and I think he’s lying through all sides of his mouth. (intentionally or otherwise) STILL, we should all be equally critical of the sincerity of all other candidates. And, most specifically, HOW THEY INTEND to achieve their agenda’s.

It’s one thing to post and postulate on these ‘principles’ and ideals of ‘less’ government, but what does it really mean, and how does he intend to achieve it, and to what REALISTIC end? And yes, the same should be directed to all candidates.
So, I’m going to read MORE of the Ron Paul stuff, just to satisfy myself, that he is as much at the end of that Yellow Brick Road as the OTHER FICTIOUS OZ in the story as I’ve always known, having already ‘lived’ the nightmare’ that he proposes.
So, I KNOW what he proposes, and I KNOW how easy it would be to buy into, until one looks below the surface of it, and considers the HOW, and what the repercussions would be.

To that end, I will check the site that you’ve posted. I’ve been through his campaign site, and it was not impressive. This one may be more forthcoming.

You also wrote this:
•  Frankly, I’m sick of living in this lying foreign country under dictator rule embarrassingly of the same title as our forefathers, The United States of America.

In all honesty and sincerity, don’t you suspect that MOST of us – here on this site, as well as the majority of the American population – DON’T FEEL THIS VERY SAME WAY?

I would argue that we DO! I would argue that we are nearly ALL pretty desperately fed up with what this nation has fallen to, and how ‘we the people’ have been collective tossed over the proverbial cliff, and into an abyss that has already consumed us, and threatens to destroy us entirely. I don’t believe you’ll get much of an argument on that, from the average person, who can think and/or reason, even with a mind that doesn’t operate at full capacity.
I would ALSO argue that BECAUSE of our overwhelming desperation (and the Shock Doctrine that Naomi Klein articulates so well in her work http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122807J.shtml) far too many of us have becoming willing to grasp at straws, in a very myopic sort of way, based on what we somehow perceive will be ‘the answer to it all’. In doing that, we fail to look at, or consider the damage that can (and will) occur in the process. For instance, you stick your finger in the broken –whatever- to stop or plug THAT leak, and the pressure creates ANOTHER leak, which could become even larger than the one preceding it. This is what I see happening to us, and it has been, for a long time now.

It is fine to drag out concepts such as Libertarianism, (I’ve studied it, along with the others) because…ON IT’S FACE, it may seem as acceptable as anything else, especially when we see that whatever we’ve been using, (or claiming to use) has produced such a disaster. Looking below the surface, which is critical, can and idealistically SHOULD, force us to visualize the inherent problems/drawbacks, to any ‘solutions’ that might be considered.

Sometimes, (most times) it will involve recognizing that nearly ALL ‘solutions’ have these drawbacks, and at that point, it requires some prioritization, for determining whether or not these are surmountable issues, or if they are likely to inevitably crush the entire project.

In principle, I generally agree that LESS is better. However, that can (and should be) conceived from a multiple of perspectives. The dichotomy that I personally see in the Ron Paul agenda, is that it requires BREAKING DOWN the entire system, (Constitution included) far more than it is focused on getting back to those same fundamentals.

I don’t believe that we need to re-create the wheel. We need only repair it.

By GW=MCHammered,
•  And if you’re going to call into question Ron Paul’s sincerity, please be an equal candidate-sincerity-doubter and question all others too.
McHammered,
I think this is a fair enough request. Indeed, I am highly critical of Ron Paul’s sincerity, and I think he’s lying through all sides of his mouth. (intentionally or otherwise) STILL, we should all be equally critical of the sincerity of all other candidates. And, most specifically, HOW THEY INTEND to achieve their agenda’s.

It’s one thing to post and postulate on these ‘principles’ and ideals of ‘less’ government, but what does it really mean, and how does he intend to achieve it, and to what REALISTIC end? And yes, the same should be directed to all candidates.
So, I’m going to read MORE of the Ron Paul stuff, just to satisfy myself, that he is as much at the end of that Yellow Brick Road as the OTHER FICTIOUS OZ in the story as I’ve always known, having already ‘lived’ the nightmare’ that he proposes.
So, I KNOW what he proposes, and I KNOW how easy it would be to buy into, until one looks below the surface of it, and considers the HOW, and what the repercussions would be.

To that end, I will check the site that you’ve posted. I’ve been through his campaign site, and it was not impressive. This one may be more forthcoming.

You also wrote this:
•  Frankly, I’m sick of living in this lying foreign country under dictator rule embarrassingly of the same title as our forefathers, The United States of America.

In all honesty and sincerity, don’t you suspect that MOST of us – here on this site, as well as the majority of the American population – DON’T FEEL THIS VERY SAME WAY?

I would argue that we DO! I would argue that we are nearly ALL pretty desperately fed up with what this nation has fallen to, and how ‘we the people’ have been collective tossed over the proverbial cliff, and into an abyss that has already consumed us, and threatens to destroy us entirely. I don’t believe you’ll get much of an argument on that, from the average person, who can think and/or reason, even with a mind that doesn’t operate at full capacity.
I would ALSO argue that BECAUSE of our overwhelming desperation (and the Shock Doctrine that Naomi Klein articulates so well in her work http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122807J.shtml) far too many of us have becoming willing to grasp

I agree.

The Israeli Factor: Ranking the Presidential Candidates

Rudy Giuliani
The former New York mayor returned a $10 million donation from a Saudi prince after 9/11 following his comments on Israel. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 8.75
 
Democrat
Hillary Clinton
The Senator for New York and former First Lady supports moving the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 7.375
 
Independent
Michael Bloomberg
Backed Israel in the war; said it ‘continues to defend itself from unprovoked attacks on innocent civilians.’ LAST MONTH’ S SCORE: 7.625

Republican
John McCain
The Arizona Senator believes America must give Israel whatever equipment and technology it needs for defense. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 7.5
 
Democrat
Bill Richardson
The Governor of New Mexico maintains that U.S. commitment to the security of Israel is not a negotiable issue. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 6.875
 
Republican
Fred Thompson
Condemned Hamas for children’s website of ‘hateful fanaticism’, favors aiding Iranians overthrow their government. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 6.875

Republican
Mitt Romney
Opposed Khatami’s recent U.S. trip, saying taxpayers shouldn’t fund a man ‘who supports the destruction of Israel.’ LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 6.5
 
Republican
Mike Huckabee
The Governor of Arkansas has made nine visits to Israel, including a trip to the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 6.75
 
Democrat
John Edwards
The former senator for North Carolina has said that Iran poses an enormous threat to Israel and to the Israeli people. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 6

Democrat
Joseph Biden
The Delaware Senator says cannot expect Israel to negotiate with Hamas, which calls for its destruction. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 6
 
Democrat
Christopher Dodd
The Senator for Connecticut addressed AIPAC in March 2006 on a nuclear Iran and the Hamas government. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 5.75
 
Democrat
Barack Obama
The Senator for Illinois made his first visit to Israel in January 2006, where he visited the north and toured the fence. LAST MONTH’S SCORE: 5.25

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerPage.jhtml

While all the while making up some ludicrous argument that Ron Paul is a ‘religious nut’?

What a JOKE!

This ‘somebody’ has clearly never seen McCain giving speeches to his friends over at John Hagee’s mega-church (the same one Huckabee gave a sermon at last weekend). 

Do some research on McCain and Lieberman’s support for the nice folks over at Cornerstone Church.  Pay particular attention to the “Christians United For Israel” movement that springs from that well.

Bill Moyers did a couple of stories on Hagee and CUFI and McCain and Lieberman’s involvement therein on his show on Bill Moyers’ Journal.

Watch videos of these people and listen to what they say.  Then go watch a video of Ron Paul

Then wake the F up!

I don’t disagree with what you are saying. I DO disagree with the Federal government getting involved in it.  These are local issues that can and should adequately be handled locally.

Kids tease and taunt each other, period. If it wasn’t you and prayer, it would have been someone else for some other reason.  Your teacher, principle, parents, or whomever was the authority should have dealt with the situation.  It is a shame that they didn’t or couldn’t.  That said, their having shortcomings does not mean the FEDERAL government should be getting involved where it has no authority.

Anyhow, look on the brightside… the experience made you an atheist and you seem to be very happy about it. Imagine if you were still trapped in medieval times!?

Back to the subject.   
   
RP says we should not stick our nose in Pakistans internal affairs and by the same token, get out of Iraq and Afghanistan…right away!

Who here does not agree with this theory and why?

Seriously, start by reading Hayek’s ‘Road to Serfdom’ and you will have a much more informed understanding of the history of socialism and capitalism and human achievement.  It was written in 1944 when all of these movements were more clearly understood.

How you consistently disconnect WE THE PEOPLE from business is mind-numbing.  We the people ARE the economy. We ARE business.

Small businesses account for the LARGEST source of employment in this country.

Guess who is next?  The Federal government!

Now explain to me why you would rather have more Federal government and less small business owners in this country because that is exactly what you are asking for?

By the way, I have an economics degree from a 4 year liberal university and was NEVER taught Austrian economics while in college all those years ago.  That said, I have studied most of the dominant schools of thought.  My focus was on developmental economics. 

How much have you studied / read?

Worth a read:

http://www.counterpunch.org/taylor01022008.html

Jeff Taylor is a political scientist. His book Where Did the Party Go?: William Jennings Bryan, Hubert Humphrey, and the Jeffersonian Legacy was published last year by University of Missouri Press. He contributed a chapter to the book A Dime’s Worth of Difference (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).

Outraged, if I was still Catholic, I’d say that you have the patience of a saint. Maybe I should say it anyway.

Seriously, I can’t even read the stuff any more. I just whiz right by it till I get to a new name.  But, a few things caught my eye in your response.

•  You also claim that there is “unnecessary testing and procedures”, can you give an example?

My experience, (in TX) is that it’s really the EXACT OPPOSITE. Even WITH insurance, one must literally BEG (the patient that is) for a diagnostic test or procedure, to determine why you might be bleeding from the nose or ears on a regular basis, or why you’ve become paralyzed from the hips down, or why that extra $5.00 for the blood test that can check for ovarian tumors, is such a huge problem.  (It’s a CA 125, I found that out the hard way). Would common sense dictate that these EARLY DECTION tests would save considerable money, (not to mention lives) down the road. Well yeah, common sense would. Did you see “Sicko” by the way?

Trust me…this is standard operating procedure for most TX health care facilities. Ya gotta be a doctor or know one, to know what tests to beg for. Even then, your chances are only about 50/50 of successfully begging one’s case for such a test or procedure to be administered.

Did I mention, that’s if you HAVE insurance?

•  Really….because if you look at what medicare and medicaid ACTUALLY PAY OUT for each service, you will see that it’s LESS than what the doctor’s usual fee is.

BINGO!! Matter-of-fact, it’s less, and less, and less, every single year in the past 10. If medicare paid 350$ on a colonoscopy (recommended by all…er…most physicians, for everyone over the age of 50) say 8 years ago, they now pay about $75.00 TOPS, (and that depends on what State it is). The docs absorb the rest, or leave the patient without the necessary medical care, if they don’t have another 1 or 2 payers.

I have medicare plus another one, and I still have an out of pocket balance, and that’s AFTER premiums on both. When I had NO insurance, I had NO medical care. Employers have provided less and less over the past 15 or so years. Forced retirement before age 67? SOL. At least that was the case with me. Now of course, the court has backed up that ruling recently. At 65, (right when you’re inclined to need them MORE) benefits evaporate. (if they hadn’t already).

BUT, I don’t think that’s why RP is against it, because it’s highly unlikely that he does anything more than deliver babies, and it’s probably been 20 years for that. Then again, I could be wrong. Maybe he has an office in the basement of the Capitol Bldg.

•  So there again, RP is misleading the masses with your help.  You must be proud.

Humm, I’m just wondering if this is another one of those questionable sorts of things like the masses being duped, because the messenger might be doped..er..I mean, duped.

Anyway, you definitely deserve your sainthood. I’ll try to follow your role-model. No promises though.

Nomascerdo Dec 31, part 1
Of course most people would have understood that I was not linking “the fever epidemic” to laisse-faire capitalism.  (How stupid is that?)  Did you follow the link and read any of the autobiography?  It would have been readily apparent that it was the conditions it created FOR THE PEOPLE whose rights and needs were consistently undermined by the strong arm tactics of business and police (who mainly protected business interests).

In your whole explanation of laisse-faire capitalism you conveniently disregard the citizens of America.  You seem to have this notion that if we protect business all the citizens will be fine.  There is very little logic in your argument.  A well thought out socio-economic system should benefit both business and citizens.  You never seem to address the citizen side of the argument.  It’s as if you have this supposed “enlightened” view of Austrian Economics and complete disregard for any other system.  Have you investigated many economic systems or just this one?  You claim this great enamour for the Austrian Economic of Hayek..etc. but I’ve yet to read how you’ve included the citizenry in the “benefits”.  Don’t they count as well?  The facts are that laisse-faire capitalism hurts the citizens short and long term, makes a few rich and powerful and leads to corruption in government.  That has already been PROVEN by our history as well as England’s as regards laisse-faire capitalism.

Since GW’s time in office he has, along with the his supporters in congress, consistently relaxed regulation in favor of business interests.  This has not made us stronger as a nation, in fact it has made us weaker.  In the world we are already one of the least regulated countries for business interests.  If I remember correctly we are in the top five.  Your inordinate concern for MORE deregulation of business just doesn’t hold water.

You statement concerning health care: “The third party payer system is anti-competition because it has the perverse effect of driving prices up in the marketplace.  The maximum is always charged and due to fear of litigation, unnecessary testing and procedures are always needlessly deployed to avoid liability.  Getting the government involved further will only distort the system more. If the government is paying, there is NO incentive to keep costs low and therefore they will simply go higher.”

What you are endorsing is what we already have today with exception of tax credits.  RP on health-care:
“The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone – doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies – to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html

In our current system you are ALREADY responsible for the bill, every time you go to a new clinic, doctor or hospital you are ultimately RESPONSIBLE for the bill.  Obviously this “strategy” doesn’t work.  In addition, having your own private insurance IS a third party payer system, what makes you think it’s not?

Nomascerdo Dec 31, part 2

RP’s HR3075 says: “With many families now spending close to $1000 or even more for their monthly premiums, they need real tax relief – including a dollar-for-dollar credit for every cent they spend on health care premiums – to make medical care more affordable.”

How will this help those WHO CAN’T AFFORD HEALTH CARE?  This in fact will help only those who CAN afford health-care, with a dollar for dollar REIMBURSEMENT.  The translation is, if you can’t afford it in the first place, this will do nothing to help you.

You also claim that there is “unnecessary testing and procedures”, can you give an example?

Your claim: “Getting the government involved further will only distort the system more.”  Really….because if you look at what medicare and medicaid ACTUALLY PAY OUT for each service, you will see that it’s LESS than what the doctor’s usual fee is.  Maybe that’s why RP doesn’t like it.  Your claim is inaccurate.

As far as your seriously flawed “facts” regarding education I believe we’ve already “hashed over” that point.  As it is, DISTRICTS AND STATES decide upon curricula, NOT the fed.  So there again, RP is misleading the masses with your help.  You must be proud.

Correction,

It wasn’t final exams week here, it was the week of the Thanksgiving break. It was final exams week at UCLA, (at least according to my nephew)

Somehow, I thought you might say that PH.

I was even expecting it. Thing is, I SAW THEM MYSELF, (later, as they did the ‘rally’ outside the campus, and they were NOT our students.

Our students were the ones who ended up cleaning up the mess on campus. So no, it wasn’t them.

Actually, the same thing occured at the UCLA campus, though I didn’t witness it. My nephew told me about it, and I’m extra paranoid these days, about making absolutely certain, that all of the kids are diligent in reporting ONLY what they witness themselves, WITHOUT EMBELLISHMENT. (actually, we’ve been training them to think that way for a long time).

We don’t like to hear the he said, she said stuff, and we don’t like to make ‘assumptions’ like…‘well, it was “probably” blah, blah, blah. “Probably” just doesn’t cut it on most things these days, so we require facts based on observations.

And, when we use ‘hearsay’ information, we make sure that it is designated as such.

I’ll agree that you’re correct that a considerable amount of the funds for his campaign MAY have come from California, at least the initial seed stuff, prior to his internet haul. (it’s kind of difficult to know WHERE that part came from). But of course that brings us back to that favorite group of the JBS here, that you don’t like to talk about. Now, THEY -do- have a lot of money.

But no, this particular group didn’t include our students, and these individuals didn’t even ‘look’ like the standard, ‘scuffy’ students, which is why they were so noticeable. The incident here occurred during final exam week, so that’s yet another reason why they pretty much stood out.

So on this one, we can’t really call it anything different than it was.

With the article in the Des Moines newspaper, we can try to throw it off on the journalist. (I can’t remember if that was a ‘local’ journalist or not). But, the deal here was what it was.

You said in a prior post that the Ron Paul supporters came ‘under the cover of night’ and plastered Ron Paul posters all over campus while all the decent people were sleeping.  The campus awoke in the morning to seeing Ron Paul stuff everywhere.  You even said, the Ron Paul supporters didn’t have the decency to do their activity in the daylight.

So if they came in the middle of the night, as you have said in a prior post, how do you now that they were “predominantly male, and they WERE scruffy looking”?

I mean read this line from the article and think about what it means and think about the fact that this is what Time chose to publish:

“When told about the dispute, a top strategist for a rival GOP campaign said of the scruffy Paul forces: “They probably bathe in there.”

A) When “TOLD” about the dispute - so now this is at least a second hand, but most likely a fourth or fifth hand account of this “dispute”.

B)  They asked a ‘top strategist for a RIVAL GOP campaign’ - Nice unbiased source Time.  What do we think this person would say?  “Paul supporters are nice and clean shaven. If I wasn’t working for Mitt Romney I would go bowling with them on Friday nights.”

C) “...said of the SCRUFFY Paul FORCES”  Ahh just more of the same.

Anyone that read this magazine and actually lets it influence the way that they think and look at the world, besides recognizing it for the packaged agenda that it is should step away from the voting booth.

It was likely caused by students of that same campus (besides you), as most of the money and support for the RP campaign come from California.

Ahh yes, Time magazine who for Person of the Year has had such wonderful human beings such as Hitler, Stalin (twice), and this year chose Vladimir Putin.

This article is a joke and the hypocrisy is insane. Hasn’t the “establishment” said the same petty and highly subjective things about ALL protest groups over history (anti-war, civil rights, etc)? 

The transparent attempt is to make folks who agree with his positions second guess because they don’t want to be “associated” with “those types of people”.  It is a tactic cleverly employed by the media to keep those too lazy or unable to find out for themselves (most of us) from taking the next step.  It is a fear tactic, without a doubt.

Ask yourself why doesn’t Time supply some photographs of these ‘dirty Ron Paul’ supporters (who are all volunteers and probably have nothing to do with the official campaign).  If there are so many of them and they are so repugnant it should be easy to document them no?

All of the pictures I have seen of Paul supporters online show regular looking folks to me, of all colors, shapes and sizes, styles of dress, etc.

Missy,

If you expect to agree 100% with a Presidential candidate then you are bound to be disappointed. Further, if you listen to the full answer that Ron Paul gave, instead of the edited video Truthdig supplied, the answer he gave might be more acceptable to your sensibilities.

The video below is only 20-30 seconds longer, but at least you will get to see what he actually said and not only what the folks at The Largest Minority and Truthdig decide you should see: 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=42n42J-gB_Y

I personally don’t see any conflict between the incredibly positive and unique aspects of Ron Paul’s worldview, as you put it, and his personal belief regarding evolution, especially since it will literally have nothing to do with his role as President of the United States.

Ron Paul’s desire is to pare back and LIMIT the influence of the Federal Government in all matters, religious, scientific, education, overseas etc.  He most certainly is not interested in using the power of the White House to further his religious agenda. Read his speeches on the subject and it is very clear.  Get the feds OUT of interfering with issues where it has no authority to do so.

The anti-Ron Paul people, who by the way are the very money powerful interests that you are upset about, are trying to find anything they can to discredit him.  On the neo-con side, they literally laugh at his sensible foreign policy.  On the neo-liberal side, they try to paint him as a religious nut who is a nazi racist that hates women and wants to bring back segregation and force prayer in school etc.  It is all complete b.s.

I found this site yesterday and it is filled with info you might find useful:  http://thereconstitutionrevolution.blogspot.com/2007/07/defense-of-ron-pauls-voting-record-in.html

Whether you agree with me or not, one has to know that the elections are definately rigged….and like a child, I got excited when I heard Ron Paul speaking about his worldview.  I could hardly believe my ears!  wishful thinking.  But when I recently heard his stance on evolution, I came back down to earth.  Democracy is a farce in our country.  Our presidents are put in place by the big money holders, and are political zeitgeist of “believe in god” is not going away.  How sad.

You may have a point there PH. That’s why I didn’t add anything to it. It was from Time Magazine on line.

BUT, I WILL say, only because I can in fact provide my own eye witness testimony to this, that the student group that was in my own community, and on OUR CAMPUS here in November, (2 days before Thanksgiving) WAS predominantly male, and they WERE scruffy looking, (I have no idea whether or not they bathed in the public restrooms) and most of all…they DID trash our campus.

Now, that part is just fact, and I will admit, that it left a very unfavorable impression on me. Granted, I didn’t much like him before that, (as we know) and I’m not denying that. BUT, their ‘appearance’ here, definitely put the dimmest of lights on them, not just for me, but for most anyone else, who might have been as yet undecided, or not even AWARE, (at least at the time) of who Ron Paul even was.

Here again, I’m just passing along a set of circumstances. I wasn’t in Iowa, so I can’t speak to that.

- Their article while embellishing Huckabees campaign workers ” polite young women with southern accents” and cordial, describes the Ron Paul supporters as edgy, predomintly male, scruffy who gaggle, heckle and bathe in public restrooms.

Read between the lines.

I wouldn’t call this an article as much as an anti-Ron Paul editorial by a corporate hack.  I guess the much larger campaign staff with out of state student volenteers (266, whose number they pulled out of their ass) has got the MSM and powers that be nervous, first they ignore you, then they try to discredit you…...

I’m sure we would have heard about it on TV but Huckabee was too busy smearing Mitt and vice versa, even negative press keeps your name in the spotlight.

This from Time Mag. Had to leave out a few passages to stay within the 4000 word limit. The link is included though.  Sponsored by the Religious Pages section.

The Article:

The corner of Sixth and Locust is probably the tensest spot in downtown Des Moines. And the frostiness has little to do with the subfreezing Midwestern winter and everything to do with presidential politics. For housed alongside each other on the bottom floor of a 73-year-old office building at 405 Sixth Avenue-and sharing the bathrooms in the basement— are the Iowa headquarters of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

Both Republican candidates — one the most socially conservative in the race; the other, a Libertarian — moved in around the same time last summer.

•  (* I would argue this description – vehemently, as RP is as ‘socially conservation as Huckabee – Libertarianism aside)

“…I could sense the different metabolisms of the two operations. The Huckabee headquarters,.. is populated mostly by polite young women with southern accents who rushed to greet me at the door and addressed me as “ma’am.” The Paul office is an edgier place, an all-male operation by appearances, and much bigger. Indeed, thanks to the millions that have poured in over the internet, it has expanded to quadruple its original size, practically swallowing Huckabee’s headquarters —“We’ve got them surrounded,” says Paul’s Iowa communications director, John Zambenini.

The two insurgent operations generally try to have as little to do with each other as possible. Paul’s people go in and out on Sixth; Huckabee’s, on Locust. “I don’t think we’ve exchanged many words at all,” says Huckabee’s Iowa campaign manager Eric Woolson. You might have thought the holidays would have brought some occasion for communal cheer, or at least an exchange of cookies. “You’re looking for the Silent Night 1914 story, with the Germans and the British playing soccer?” Zambenini told me when I suggested as much. “Nope.”

That much was clear on New Year’s Eve. After Huckabee was forced to abruptly end his press conference at which he announced that he would not air a negative ad attacking Mitt Romney but showed it to the assembled media, he left the room in the Des Moines Marriott to do a drop-by visit of his campaign headquarters across the street. He was met there by a gaggle of Paul supporters and peace protesters who surrounded the office and heckled the candidate for his support for the war in Iraq. MSNBC reported that three were arrested.

It hasn’t helped matters that earlier this month the Paul campaign paid for two former Republican legislators from Huckabee’s home state of Arkansas to come to Iowa and give radio interviews attacking his record on such issues as taxes and immigration…
Then again, there are times when they can’t help but run into each other. Just about everyone from both offices eats lunch at Coney Island, a second-floor diner known for its pork loin. And there’s the men’s room, of course. A Paul volunteer recently ran into Huckabee himself there, and found him to be cordial. But there is some quiet grumbling from Huckabee’s team about Paul’s people using up all the paper towels. When told about the dispute, a top strategist for a rival GOP campaign said of the scruffy Paul forces: “They probably bathe in there.”

And there was one other violation of the generally accepted protocol of peaceful if uneasy coexistence — possibly as a consequence of the recent influx of 266 student volunteers for Paul from 39 states, in what the campaign calls “Ron Paul’s Christmas Vacation.” As can happen with students on break, they sometimes go overboard in their exuberance. One of them came into the Huckabee offices the other day and started haranguing a worker there about Huckabee’s support for a national sales tax. He was asked to leave.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1699147,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

May 28, 2001 The Federal Education Morass

After more than 40 years of massive fed education spending, the inescapable conclusion is that federal control is failing. By any objective standards, our public schools are worse than ever. Policies regarding curricula and discipline, once set by local teachers and principals working closely with parents, are now established in WashDC.
  Politically correct sensitivity training substitutes for rigorous coursework in liberal arts or practical vocations. Children learn phony self-esteem, rather than the importance of productive achievement. Teachers are prohibited from maintaining discipline. As a result, our high school graduates enter adulthood less educated and less prepared for responsibility than previous generations. Obviously, ever-increasing fed control over our schools has failed the nation’s children and lowered educational standards.
  Yet while the need for new policies in Wash. has never been greater, the approach unfortunately remains the same: more fed spending and more fed control. Last week Congress passed legislation that massively increases funding for failed Education department programs. Although the bill was widely hailed as bipartisan, the truth is that it contained mostly liberal measures promoted by Dem. members of Congress. Key Repub. provisions such as school vouchers and unconditional flexibility for local school districts were not included. Regardless of the party stamp, the bill clearly represents a big-spending, big government plan that will only serve to further entrench the wasteful federal education monopoly.
  The bill increases the Education department budget by a whopping 22 percent- more than even the liberals had hoped. The $9.2 billion increase brings the total department budget to more than $50 billion. No one mentions the high tax rates we all pay to finance this spending. We must remember that every dollar parents send to Washington is a dollar they don’t have to spend directly on their children’s education. Most education tax dollars sent to Washington fund the fed bureaucracy; far less than half of each dollar is ever returned to local schools. More importantly, federal school dollars come with strings attached. The more money we give to education bureaucrats, the more power they have to dictate how local schools are run. When federal spending increases, local schools are forced to do whatever it takes to get their share, even if this means adopting one size fits all policies mandated in Washington. In other words, federal money is used as a club to force schools to surrender more and more of their decision making authority to Washington.
  I believe that parents and teachers know what is best for their schools at the local level. The key to reforming public education in America is returning local control back to our public schools. I have introduced three education tax credit bills which keep more tax dollars and more decision making power at the local level. The first provides parents with a $3,000 per child credit for educational expenses, including tuition, books, computers, and tutors. The second allows parents or individuals to claim up to $3,000 in tax credits for cash or in-kind donations to schools and scholarship programs. The third bill grants all teachers a $1,000 tax credit, effectively raising their salaries without spending tax dollars. All three of these measures share the same goal of insuring that parents, rather than fed education bureaucrats, decide how their children are educated.
  Congress never seems to learn that Washington does not know what is best for kids. While both parties claim to stand for education, their bureaucratic approach should no longer be tolerated by American education consumers. American parents will spend generously on their children’s education, but Congress must be willing to lower tax burdens and ease the federal stranglehold on education that has destroyed our public schools.

September 13, 1999
Regulating gridiron prayer
Communities, not feds, should have control

  With the start of high school football season in the 14th Congressional District, many of my constituents are upset by the fact that a long-held tradition has been taken from them by the federal courts.
  This tradition, of course, is a simple, non-proselytizing prayer said shortly before the kick-off.
  Many of the people who attend the games and who are now aghast at this federal intrusion have called my office seeking information. They are upset—and rightly so—that the utterance of a simple prayer can be prohibited, despite lip service paid to “freedom of speech.” After all, they argue, doesn’t the US Constitution’s First Amendment strictly prohibit the federal government from interfering in the “free exercise” of religious beliefs?
  Of course it does. For much of our history, we had a more proper understanding of the correct balances in regards to the Constitution. After all, the First Amendment begins with a very important phrase, “Congress shall make no laws….” This phrase was always understood to mean that while the federal government could not create federal laws restricting religion, or use federal monies to give preference to one religious order over another, it specifically does not apply to the state and local governments. In other words, under a correct reading of the Constitution, a state or local government can allow—or prohibit—religious expression in public places.
  Yet the Constitution is also very clear in prohibiting the federal government from being involved in a lot of activities, including education. Under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, any power not specifically granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and people. Oddly, education is one such power.
  And what power it is.
  The ability to influence young minds is a tremendous power and awesome responsibility. Our founding fathers correctly denied the federal government this power. They wisely recognized that the people given charge with influencing the education of children should be those who are closest to the children—parents, the community and the state.
  Yet today we have casually accepted the notion of federal involvement in education, despite plummeting test sores and increasing violence—both of which coincide with the increase in federal intrusion. As federal involvement has increased, so has the quality of education and safety declined. In fact, the Princeton Review—the organization that oversees the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)—said the current generation of high school seniors is less educated than their parents. A most disturbing trend.
  What the Princeton Review did not mention, though, is even more significant. The most striking difference in education between these two generations has been that the parents of today’s teens went through schools that had little or no federal government oversight, while their children’s are replete with it.
  Because so few have been willing to criticize the increasing reach into the classroom by Washington, DC, bureaucrats, it is in many ways disingenuous to criticize this latest move. If one is willing to let the federal government dictate education policy in the classroom, social policy in the cafeteria, then intervention at the gridiron should be unsurprising.
  Until we expel the federal government from our schools, we can only expect them to continue to bully their desires onto the students and community, despite firmly held local beliefs and traditions.
  But because Texans take their high school football—and everything associated with it—very seriously, perhaps the federal government has finally pushed too far. Hopefully, federal bureaucrats will be soon find themselves as unwelcome in Texas schools as they have attempted to make God.

September 4, 2000
Local Control is the Key to Education Reform

Education reform is of critical importance in America today. Over the past decades, we have witnessed two undeniable trends in our education system. First, the role of the Fed govt has steadily increased. Second, the quality of our nation’s public schools has steadily decreased. These unfortunate developments compel me (and millions of parents across the country) to question our approach, to ask hard questions about the obvious failure of many public schools to provide children with a quality education. Why, given 70 years of ever-increasing federal spending, has govt failed to create the wonderful public school system promised us by Great Society politicians? Why do we spend far more per student today than in the past, with far worse results? Why, despite the increases in federal spending, are public school teachers still underpaid (with the brightest young people refusing to enter the profession)? Finally, why have we allowed the Fed govt to consistently expand its control over our local school systems?
  These questions all point to an inescapable conclusion: the federal govt is not the answer. The key to fixing our education system is to reduce the role of the federal government and expand local and parental control of schools. Funding decisions increasingly have been controlled by bureaucrats in Washington, causing public and even some private schools to follow the dictates of these federal “educrats” to an ever-greater degree to preserve their funding. As a result, curricula, teacher standards, textbook selection, and discipline policies have been crafted in Washington. Rigorous classes in basics such as mathematics, grammar, science, Western civilization, and history have been reduced or eliminated, while politically favored subjects have been forced upon students. Religious observation and prayer, although widely practiced and supported by the majority of Americans, have been forbidden to students under perverse interpretations of the First amendment by federal courts. Worst of all, the values and concerns of local parents have been ignored.
  Last year I introduced legislation designed to return control of local schools to parents. The “Family Education Freedom Act” (H.R. 935) would empower millions of lower-income and middle class families to improve their local schools or choose a private school for their children. This is accomplished by allowing parents a tax credit of up to $3,000 per child for expenses incurred in sending their children to a public, private, parochial, or other religious school. The credit also is available to parents who home-school their children.
  The $3,000 tax credit will make better education affordable to parents who would choose to send their children to a private school, but cannot because of the enormous tax burden imposed by Washington. Also, parents who wish to send their children to local public schools may use their credit dollars to finance the purchase of educational tools or fund extracurricular programs.
  I also introduced the “Education Improvement Tax Cut Act” (H.R. 936) in an effort to give parents more control over improving their local schools. The Act allows individuals to claim a tax credit of up to $3,000 per year for cash or other donations to a school or scholarship program. This approach encourages parents to spend money to improve the school their child attends, rather than pay more in federal taxes to support distant education programs that reflect only the values and priorities of Congress and the federal bureaucracy.
  When it comes to education policy, one size does not fit all. I want to give parents the freedom to choose the best option for their kids, without federal oversight. American families agree with me, as polls show that over 70% of them support education tax credits! True education reform requires that we return control of schools to parents and local school districts.

Outraged..

First, Happy New Year.

Next, thanks so much for this excellent source, to help define the incongruity in the whole ‘secular’ concept, (in the minds of the radical Christian Right). And, I sure couldn’t have said it any better, because god knows I’ve tried. (pun intended).

So, at the risk of repetition, I’m going to repost this part of your post again: (from the article)

•  “….“It should be noted right at the beginning that Ron Paul consistently decries “secularism” and “secularists,” though he more often uses the label “secular Left.” This, perhaps more than many of his arguments, makes it clear where stands: squarely and unambiguously AGAINST a secular government, secular laws, and a secular America. This helps put him in the same camp as the extremist Christian Right.” (emphasis mine on the ‘against’).

It is EXACTLY to –THIS- that I have been speaking, when I’ve implored the readers of Truthdig, (and the supporters of Ron Paul) to –GO TO HIS RECORD- ; Specifically his Congressional activity record, which points to exactly this, as one of his fundamental ideologies. And, that record has actually been posted (in part) here on TD, on another thread. (by antispin I believe). When time permits, I will search it out. For now, (and just from my memory only) I would remind of his efforts to introduce forced prayer in schools, and to remove from Supreme Court authority, the power to rule or decide (constitutionally) on these matters.

Again, (I know, I know, I keep repeating this) his RECORD (NOT the rhetoric) but his Congressional RECORD, (again, NOT the rhetoric) is what CONFIRMS this, and that record is accessible to all. It requires some measure of work and thinking, as well as a fundamental understanding of what ‘secular’ is, in reference to the Constitution. But, it IS there, and it is the best testimony of all, for making those determinations.
That brings us to the 2nd part of the article:

•  The second thing to note is that there isn’t a single word in the above that’s true. Ron Paul is employing a falsehood which has been very popular with theocrats of the Christian Right who seek to deceive voters about what secularism is and what the separation of church & state is all about. Ron Paul has either been duped by those deceivers, or he knows better yet is actively participating in the deception.”

Yes, it has been SO popular with these theocrats, that we find it peppered throughout this and other forums, as well as the MSM, and in corporate entities as well. The language of the ‘accusations’ thrown at those who truly understand the Constitutional meaning of the establishment clause are tagged as ‘the secular left’ or those ‘liberal secular leftists’. “Secularism” is equated with ‘atheism’ which is a total falsehood, when we know perfectly well that it simply defines the political separation of Church & State. And if we DON’T know that, (as AMERICANS – with or without a religious identity) then we don’t have an understanding of the Constitution.

(Which is why I personally become so passionately inflamed, every time someone comes up with this identification of RP as a “Constitutionalist” He is NOT!)

I don’t know if Ron Paul is duped, or actively participating in the deception. I could make an educated guess, but I won’t. (at least not in writing on this forum) It is FAR MORE IMPORTANT for all citizens to understand these fundamentals, and decide for themselves. And that means…going to the record, and matching it with what he actually says, and what his ‘supporters’ postulate.

Thanks again for the excellent source, (and the prompt for my own work/efforts – it’s a tremendous help).

Reading Ron Paul’s speeches on the subject make it pretty clear to me that he is simply interested in upholding the Constitution.  Basically, the Federal government simply has no jurisdiction in these matters that can adequately be handled at the state and local level.  This is not religious extremism at all.  In fact, his argument is the same for protecting all forms of speech. In fact, he consistently warns the religious right about their attempts to infringe upon, regulate, and censor controversial speech that they find offensive because if they successfully censor the speech of others than they should expect to have their chosen forms of speech and expression restricted or limited as well.  It is really very simple and transparent and it is, in fact, what the Constitution outlines.

Regarding your attempt to link a fever epidemic in 1867 with “laissez-faire capitalism” is ridiculous, especially considering that it is now 2008.  You are also clearly ignoring that without a doubt, it was laissez-faire capitalism that lead to the scientific breakthroughs in the marketplace that now prevent fever epidemics from being so deadly.  If you want to address the prohibitive cost of modern health care then you should be blaming the government and not the market.  We need a system that promotes competition amongst enterprises, which naturally drives innovation and prices lower, versus the system we have now that favors powerful interest lobbies and gives them artificial market advantages via tailor made regulations.  The third party payer system is anti-competition because it has the perverse effect of driving prices up in the marketplace.  The maximum is always charged and due to fear of litigation, unnecessary testing and procedures are always needlessly deployed to avoid liability.  Getting the government involved further will only distort the system more. If the government is paying, there is NO incentive to keep costs low and therefore they will simply go higher.  In addition, innovation and quality of care will suffer.  We need more competition between insurers and providers of medical care and products, not less.

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 2, 2003

“The First Amendment Protects Religious Speech
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation’s citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…....” would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God.

In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous “separation of church and state” metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This “separation” doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs. Should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!

The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.

As James Madison said, “There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.” I sincerely hope that my colleagues will fight against the “gradual and silent encroachment” of the courts upon our nation’s religious liberties by supporting this bill.”

Ron Paul - July 1, 2002

WHAT DOES THE FIRST AMENDMENT REALLY MEAN?

“The entire nation seemed to condemn last week’s federal court ruling that the pledge of allegiance cannot be recited in schools. The notion that the phrase “one nation under God” renders the pledge unconstitutional is ridiculous to most Americans, who strongly believe that expressions of religious belief should be an integral part of public life. Yet although the public outcry against this terrible ruling is understandable, the real issue of religious freedom has not been addressed by Congress or the media.

The judges who made this unfortunate ruling simply do not understand the First amendment. It does not bar religious expression in public settings or anywhere else. In fact, it expressly prohibits federal interference in the free expression of religion. Far from mandating strict secularism in schools, it instead bars the federal government from prohibiting the pledge of allegiance, school prayer, or any other religious expression. The politicians and judges pushing the removal of religion from public life are violating the First amendment, not upholding it.

It’s important to recognize that the First amendment applies only to Congress. Remember, the first sentence starts with “Congress shall make no law…” This means that matters of religious freedom and expression should be decided by the states, with disputes settled in state courts. The First amendment acts as a simple check on federal power, ensuring that the federal government has no jurisdiction or authority whatsoever over religious issues. The phony “incorporation” doctrine, dreamed up by activist judges to pervert the plain meaning of the Constitution, was used once again by a federal court to assume jurisdiction over a case that constitutionally was none of its business.

Similarly, the mythical separation of church and state doctrine has no historical or constitutional basis. Neither the language of the Constitution itself nor the legislative history reveals any mention of such separation. In fact, the authors of the First amendment- Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry- and the rest of the founders routinely referred to “Almighty God” in their writings, including the Declaration of Independence. It is only in the last 50 years that federal courts have perverted the meaning of the amendment and sought to unlawfully restrict religious expression. We cannot continue to permit our Constitution and our rich religious institutions to be degraded by profound misinterpretations of the Bill of Rights.

I previously introduced legislation entitled “The First Amendment Restoration Act” to address this kind of judicial overreach and reassert true First amendment religious freedoms. The bill becomes especially timely now, as it clarifies that federal courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever over matters of religious freedom. It also restores real religious freedom by making it clear that the federal government cannot forbid expressions of religion, including the Ten Commandments, in either public or private life.”

I have posted this comment on the the other RP thread concerning evolution, however I found it was just as pertinent on this thread, I have copied it over.

“By Outraged, December 31 at 9:03 pm #
(427 comments total)

There are serious concerns regarding Ron Paul, an article at “atheism.about.com” brings many of them to light.  To accuse someone who doesn’t endorse RP’s extremist philosophies as a zealot is indeed comical.  An excerpt:

Paul’s words: “Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few.”

Article:  “It should be noted right at the beginning that Ron Paul consistently decries “secularism” and “secularists,” though he more often uses the label “secular Left.” This, perhaps more than many of his arguments, makes it clear where stands: squarely and unambiguously against a secular government, secular laws, and a secular America. This helps put him in the same camp as the extremist Christian Right.

The second thing to note is that there isn’t a single word in the above that’s true. Ron Paul is employing a falsehood which has been very popular with theocrats of the Christian Right who seek to deceive voters about what secularism is and what the separation of church & state is all about. Ron Paul has either been duped by those deceivers, or he knows better yet is actively participating in the deception.”

The article in its entirety:  http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/08/06/authoritarian-or -libertarian-ron-paul-on-churchstate-separation-secularism. htm

**Also the laisse-faire capitalism endorsed by RP does have its victims.  Since all of us are too young to remember the realities of the HEIGHT of laisse-faire capitalism, the best place to find it would be in words from the past.  From “The Autobiography of Mother Jones”:

“In 1867, a fever epidemic swept Memphis. Its victims were mainly among the poor and the workers. The rich and the well-to-do fled the city. Schools and churches were closed. People were not permitted to enter the house of a yellow fever victim without permits. The poor could not afford nurses. Across the street from me, ten persons lay dead from the plague. The dead surrounded us. They were buried at night quickly and without ceremony. All about my house I could hear weeping and the cries of delirium. One by one, my four little children sickened and died. I washed their little bodies and got them ready for burial. My husband caught the fever and died. I sat alone through nights of grief. No one came to me. No one could. Other homes were as stricken as was mine. All day long, all night long, I heard the grating of the wheels of the death cart.”

http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/RonMBaseman/mojones1.htm

Great read.”

BTW, Happy New Year.

IF YOU DON’T LIKE RP, HERE IS SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT AND CONSIDER…EH!
==================================

McCain-Lieberman ticket
is the buzz at Orthodox parley

By Sue Fishkoff   Published: 12/24/2007

LOS ANGELES (JTA)—“Radio host Michael Medved, a hardcore Republican, and political scientist David Luchins, former adviser to the late U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.), disagree on just about everything related to the presidential race.

In a campaign that they say is filled with adulterers, fundamentalists, crooks, bigots and wildcards, the GOP senator from Arizona is the only candidate both men say they could endorse—especially if his running mate were Senator Joe Lieberman, the Sabbath-observant Democrat-turned-Independent who crossed party lines last week to endorse the Republican war hero.

On Sunday, at the Orthodox Union’s West Coast Torah Convention in Beverly Hills, during a session titled “Should Torah Jews Vote Democratic
or Republican?”, Medved and Luchins examined the campaign lineup. With about 100 people in attendance, they ruminated on which candidates deserve the support of Orthodox voters, the majority of whom bucked the overall Jewish trend and voted for President Bush in 2004.

The two men trashed one candidate after another, until a woman in the back of the room offered the final question of the day: What about a McCain-Lieberman ticket?

Heads swiveled back to enjoy what would surely be another of Medved’s sharp witticisms, as he skewered the woman’s political naiveté.

But no. Medved paused. He’d had lunch several times with McCain, he confessed. And maybe … no, he couldn’t tell about it. It was off the record information.

“Turn off the tape!” one man shouted at the video technician recording the session.

Smiling slightly, Medved relented: “I don’t think it’s an unthinkable possibility, and it would be a very strong ticket.” Although he’s not ready to give up on the Republicans, and although Luchins is still holding out hope for a strong Democratic ticket, the two agreed that McCain-Lieberman 2008 wasn’t a bad idea at all.

The two men are close friends, Medved noted, “and people would love a unity ticket that would put America’s interests first.”

Lieberman, a four-term Connecticut senator, was an unabashed Democrat in 2000, when he was tapped by Al Gore to be his running mate. Since then, however, Lieberman’s vocal support for the Iraq war has put him at odds with many Democratic lawmakers and the party’s liberal base. Last year, in Connecticut’s Democratic senatorial primary, he lost to an anti-war challenger, businessman Ned Lamont, before winning as a third-party candidate in the general election. These days, he describes himself as an “Independent Democrat,” and caucuses with the Democrats, securing their control of the Senate.

The hope in the McCain campaign is that Lieberman’s endorsement will help give McCain a further boost among independents in New Hampshire, where they have a choice of voting in either party’s primary. Recent polls show McCain making a comeback in the Granite State, where Lieberman joined him last week to announce his endorsement.”

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/2007122420071223mccainlieberman.html

Sorry, posted to the wrong thread!  Still a good question though regarding the other RP story

They cut out part of his answer right in the middle and then they lop off the ending! The edit does change the context and nuance of his answer.

The UNEDITED video is here and is worth watching: 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=42n42J-gB_Y

Why the manipulation TruthDig?

Ron Paul was born and raised outside of Pittsburgh, PA. He ended up in Texas because he was drafted during Vietnam and was stationed out of Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio. From Wikipedia:

“He served active duty as a flight surgeon from 1963 to 1965, attending to the ear, nose, and throat problems of pilots in South Korea, Iran, Ethiopia, and Turkey, but was never sent to Vietnam. Based out of Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio, Paul achieved the rank of captain[9][29] and obtained his private pilot’s license.[15] The experience of performing physicals on helicopter pilot candidates, at a time when he saw many copters being shot down, deeply affected Paul; he later considered his indirect association with the Vietnam War as a catalyst for his rejection of interventionist foreign policy.[30]

Paul received a higher wage from the Air Force than during his initial residency, $700 per month;[31] he joked that he was “fantastically rich.”[15] While in San Antonio, Paul also moonlighted three nights a week in a local church hospital’s emergency room for $3 per hour, and became involved with Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign.[13] He then served in the Air National Guard while completing his residency (1965–1968), having switched to ob/gyn at the University of Pittsburgh.[32] His residency research into causes of pregnancy toxemia was subsequently published in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology. He moved to Surfside Beach, Texas, on July 3, 1968, and eventually delivered more than 4,000 babies.[33]

Assuming the practice of a retiring doctor in Lake Jackson, Texas, in a single day, Paul became the only ob/gyn doctor in Brazoria County,[15] reportedly delivering 40–50 babies a month and frequently busy with surgery.[34] His practice refused Medicare and Medicaid payments; he worked pro bono, arranged discounted or custom-payment plans for needy patients,[22] or otherwise “just took care of them.”[35]

So basically he was forced to move to Texas because he was drafted during Vietnam and for financial reasons he stayed there. 

Sounds like a pretty nice and decent, caring and accomplished man to me.

By the way Lefty - your understanding of history is completely misguided regarding what caused the gilded age and the great depression.  You also seem to under appreciate that it is the private sector that creates WEALTH and it is the public sector that feeds off of it.  The computer you are using, the clothes on your back, the food that you eat, the car that you drive, ALL of that is because of enterprise.  It is the free association of capital, labor, and consumers that makes the world go round, not the bureaucrats, lobbyists, and politicians. 

And lest you forget from where your socialistic concepts have their roots, I quote Benito Mussolini:

“We were the first to assert that the more complicated the forms of civilization, the more restricted the freedom of the individual must become.”

That must sound good to you…

Ahh Lefty…  you never cease to disappoint.  I really just can’t get away from this classic line:

#122698 by Lefty on 12/26 at 11:57 pm:

“When the hell did medicine become science? DUMBASS!”

Re: Your endorsement.

By your articulate endorsement, hundreds of educated undecided voters now see where they stand.

It was even worse getting from Califonia to DFW. I was ready to ditch the car and catch the next ANYTHING flying, by the time we got to MAF.

Yes, I support term limits as well. For the Supreme Court too. I don’t think ANYBODY should be in ANY office for a damn lifetime.

And, you’re right about many of the same old faces. But, I actually sort of liked Chuck Hagel. I really don’t know much at all about Bloomberg, besides the fact that he’s a billionaire several times over.

So, we’ll see I guess. What a huge, huge, horrible mess. It’s surpassed Vietnam, and I lost a whole bunch of friends and relatives in that war. Uncles, cousins, childhood friends. Not just on the battlefield, but the after effects lasted for decades. And what did the Vietnamese have to steal? Rice?

Nope. It’s only ever about Imperial Power. On that part, I actually am on the side of RP. I just can’t trust him on anything else.

Maybe I’ll get over it someday. I’m honestly not kidding when I say that my 17 years living there was like my own private “shock therapy”.

I still haven’t figured out why I didn’t LEAVE. I mean, it WAS long after that Marshall guy (or whatever his name was) sailed up on to the bay at Galveston, (oops RP’s district) and told the Texas slaves that they were free. (now ya know that was 16 or more months AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation)

See what I mean about that place? Why did it take THEM so long to find out?

I transited Kelly AFB on a C-130 from Shaw AFB in South Carolina back to El Toro.  Texas is a big place.  When I got out of the USMC I drove Rte 40 across Texas back to WashDC, it truely took all day.  Texans are a staunchly proud people, I can’t begin to tell you all the Tex’s I’ve met.

It will be interesting this following year, I do hope Kucinich gets it together.  A bipartisan conference will be interesting except it will be the same old faces which got us here…...did I tell you I support term limits?  Ron Paul would be against me on that.

Patrick Henry,
Thanks so much for this update. Especially your summary..
•  I don’t know why I tell you this except that I have a pretty good grip on what I percieve as important issues regarding this country and who I choose to represent me in the world, while I welcome your opinion and discourse don’t believe for a second that I am easily buffaloed by bullshit, yours or any other.
It tells me all that I need to know.
Meantime, I’m overwhelmingly cheered myself, by the upcoming bipartisan conference. It gives me some hope that we may in fact get an additional choice…one that might actually be electable.

So, I’ll look forward to discussing that with you, should anything come of it. I’ve really had as much as I can take on the Ron Paul front, and the JBS as well.

Oh, did you ever live in Texas during any parts of your travels? Just curious. It’s a whole other world unto itself. Some even call it a 3rd world country, though that didn’t come from me. I swear!!

Ron Paul better be careful.  That is just the kind of comment that can get you kicked out of future presidential debates.

Apparently the JBS in Orange county CA. was an anacronism to the larger focus of that organization.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=49

I am 52 years old, born in Montana and raised from England to Turkey and all points in between, I served 2-4 year enlistments in the Marines where I had the privledge to tour those portions of the American overseas empire I hadn’t growing up.  This was where I came to the conclusion we should not be over here. After several years of close friends dying and having to picking up their body parts in aircraft and helicopter accidents, I chose to get out of the Corps and use my G.I. Bill, I attended UCI and later the University of Maryland.  Later I completed a Union apprenticeship program and have been in my trade for over 25 years, currently a project manager in Washington DC.  I get to go in all those secret places, embassies, lobbies, senate and congressional spaces where few are allowed to tread unless it is to repair their aging infrastucture lest they get too hot and sweaty in their $1000 suits.

I don’t know why I tell you this except that I have a pretty good grip on what I percieve as important issues regarding this country and who I choose to represent me in the world, while I welcome your opinion and discourse don’t believe for a second that I am easily buffaloed by bullshit, yours or any other.

This just came across the wire folks. Sounds like there might be some hope.

A couple of the ‘participant’ names sort of scare me a bit, but a few of them give me some hope as well.

So, it’s certainly worth keeping an eye on.

Bipartisan Group Eyes Independent Bid
  By David S. Broder
  The Washington Post
  Sunday 30 December 2007

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/123007B.shtml

Patrick Henry,

Apparently, the JBS must have started a ‘branch’ in Orange County at or around the same time, or shortly thereafter. I’ll repeat from my earlier post. I am 54 years old. I remember them from AT LEAST 40 years ago. They were as ‘feared’ by many of us, (at least at the time) as was the KKK, even though we didn’t have any ‘visible’ KKK around here then.

Additionally, I can ASSURE you, that there were NO blacks or Jews in the JBS at that time. The fact that the Indiana chapter may or may not have them as members now, simply doesn’t impress me any more than the fact that Noma claims RP has chosen some black guy as his economic mentor. I’m sure he approved of Clarence Thomas as a Supreme Court judge as well.

So, all that tells me, is that you don’t understand at all, the larger picture. You’re still trying to prove that he isn’t a racist. So, for the sake of your argument, lets say that he isn’t. (like he’d really admit that).

That doesn’t change anything Patrick. So, we can stop discussing Ron Paul in reference to his racism, and his neocon lite status. Let’s settle for what we know.

He’s a radical regressive repuglican from the Southernmost district of Texas. He has represented that district for I believe 10 terms, which would be about 20 years, if my math is correct. His district neighbors that of the Houston District, where the neocons (and until recently, Tom DeLay) have held sway for many years, which means that ALL of big OIL grew up in his backyard. (and yes, this includes Halliburton, until about a year ago, when they tore ass and moved to Dubai) He doesn’t appear to have had a problem with ANY of that.

Now, if in fact RP were somehow ‘different’ from the neocons, he could most certainly have divorced himself from that party, run as an independent, and still managed to be elected in his district, for all 10 of those terms. Apparently, he did not, because he IS not. Rather, he has supported the same agenda that has put the current Cabal in charge. No doubt he didn’t plan on them doing the destruction that they have. I’m ready to believe that. I don’t think anybody planned on that. BUT, he STILL supports their agenda, and I don’t need to remind you –AGAIN- that he blocked the last effort to impeach Dick Cheney, when we ALL know that had that happened 6 years ago, we clearly would not be in the situation that we are now in. We also know (or at least most of us do) that impeachment of Dick Cheney is STILL a necessity, before he can escape and/or burn more of everything, and still remain totally unaccountable for anything he’s done.

As for McCain, I mentioned him ONLY as the least of the evils, for those of you who are unable to see your way to voting for any candidate aside from a repug. He couldn’t possibly treat his ‘help’ any worse than Ronnie Regan did. And, they are ALL war mongers.

Now, if somebody, ANYBODY, ever gets around to asking Ron Paul any REALLY pertinent questions, he will be exposed for what he is. To THAT end, it probably WOULD be a good idea to allow him to participate in the New Hampshire caucus. Overall, we know those are worthless, but it would still give an opportunity for (again, if the right questions were posed) for everyone to get him on record. But again, be careful what you wish for here.

For now, I rest my case on Ron Paul. I’ve done my citizen’s duty here, and you’ve been forewarned.  If you can’t see the forest, because you’re so busy looking at the trees, then I can’t help you. If you can’t look back a mere 7 years, and see how this same myopic vision (and pandering to the superficial shit) didn’t cause the greatest disaster since the Great Depression, than I can only say that I hope you are saved by the collective work of the more functional minds of your fellow citizens. I know I am certainly counting on them.

Yes, I meant my statement “this game is obviously rigged,” to be a thunderous statement of the obvious. Libertarians such as myself have been aware of the rigged nature of elections for many years.

By cyrena, December 30 at 6:04 am                                  

I used the JBS website (Ohio Chapter) to demonstrate they had what appears to be endorsements from Black members, Hasidic jew members and women members.  The history indicates they originated in Indiana in 1958.
Usually when racist claims are made that reach a certain merit regarding an organization that post would be made available, no matter how secret they supposedly are.  I have found none.

I have been active for quite some time on this website and I have failed to find any of the links you or others have claimed to have provided that prove RP’s or JBS racism or white supremacist views.  Only unsubstantiated claims.

The supposed RP supporter you claimed stated about the “build 15 bases in every state” was not a RP supporter at all like you made them out to be. Just another false claim from the few non RP supporters here.

I agree with your choice of Dennis Kucinich as the Democratic nominee, however, I don’t understand your choice of McCain, this man is a bipolar disorder of the first order, flip flop express, a true war monger whose father covered up the USS Liberty mess and is a proven AIPAC shill.  It is well known in Washington DC that he treats his staff like shit and is as petty as Dole was, remember him? 

You again incorrectly link Ron Paul with the neocons or neocon lites as you put it. He has a consistant record of voting and speaking out against all neocon agendas, so how does that make him one of them?

The reason Ronald Reagan became popular is that he borrowed trillions (which we still owe today) and made several thousand millionares in this country mostly in the military industrial complex related fields i.e. star wars.  California profited tremendously as did lobbies in Washington.  As people often quoted at the time “He was a terrible president but he would have made a great king”

Ron Paul can’t seriously believe he will be elected president; the most he can do is have an effect on the agenda or platform of those nominated and that is more than most of the candidates who are running can do. Ron Paul is not a spoiler because he will have and effect on issues if he can continue to receive support independent of the democratic and repulican agendas. Neither of the major parties like someone like Ron Paul skimming votes that could make a difference to their nominee winning the candidacy. I am glad Ron Paul is running but, short of miracle; he won’t win the nomination or be able to wage a serious campaign if he chooses to run as an independent.
Many people like Ron Paul for his outspoken directness in discussing the issues but;I think he would be slaughtered as President (much as Jimmy Carter was.) * Jimmy Carter was one of the most honest and sincere Presidents this country has ever had and those qualities are suicidal to any politician within the Washington Beltway!

Your apathy runs deep. 

Maybe this is the beginning of a movement that will bust up the MSM into a thousand pieces through use of anti trust actions.

The consolidation of media in the hands of a few corporations is the most important internal threat against freedom in our country.

RP has broken fundraising records as a Mainstream candidate of a major party and as much as I like Ralph Nader and have voted for him twice, I see a much larger groundswell of support for RP than Nader based on his foreign policy positions alone.

Patrick Henry,

I’ve posted multiple sources on this website over the months, for you and anyone else, for whom they might be useful. For you, they simply are not. This is why I never really expected you to get the connection with the JBS, and you only reposted the site, as if we hadn’t already looked at it.

So, you miss the stuff, because you are either unable or unwilling to go deeper than the surface, or outside your own tunnel vision, to make the appropriate connections. Maybe you’re too intellectually lazy, or maybe you really can’t help it. This isn’t a criticism, but an observation, because you’re not ALONE in this. If there weren’t a whole bunch of other people like you in our society, we wouldn’t have been stuck with the Cabal that has ruined us for the past 7 years. It really is that simple.

Some people simply cannot think beyond the surface. Some people really CANNOT connect the dots. The JBS is a secret society with a secret agenda. Do you really think they’re going to post that on their site? You have to read between the lines, but even that doesn’t help, if you have NO OTHER KNOWLEDGE of such an organization. I’m 54 years old, and I was born and raised in Southern California, which is pretty much the home of that organization. I KNOW what they are about. So, I will leave that at that, other than to say that the common ‘perception’ of California as a ‘liberal’ or ‘blue’ state, is not entirely accurate. Ronald Regan came from this state, and very much represented the interests of the John Birchers. To this day, many people across the country, (ordinary middle class folk) STILL perceive Ronnie to be the best thing that ever happened to America. He was NOT. And, for anyone who was really interested in studying the path to how we got to where we are, it would require putting your partisan ideologies aside, and actually looking into the stuff, with more than one channel operating in your brain. Some people are not able to do that.

As for RP being “damaged goods”, that is politically INCORRECT terminology on my part, so let’s just call it what it is, for simplicity sake. I’ll use the Village Elder’s term from some weeks ago, on this site. RP is at best, a “neocon lite.” Whatever else you all want to paint him in, that’s what he is. He’s a conservative repuglican, who has overwhelmingly advanced the same neocon agenda that we see in action, not just NOW, but in the repug agenda of the past 4 decades. He is far more radical in respect to social issues, but aside from that, he’s a neocon. And yes, he is radically REGRESSIVE, as opposed to what might be a more moderate repug such as John McCain. And NO, I don’t like the ideology that McCain has fallen to on the side of this created terrorism. But, based on the selection of candidates on the repuglican side at this point, he would be the least of the evils.

Moving along. Nomascerdo,

STOP quoting or otherwise addressing me in these forums, or I’m gonna SCALP your stupid ass! Like this:

•  Cyrena - As usual you don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to anything regarding Ron Paul.. Further, what you do know is B.S. and what you think you have decoded a secret plot of Ron Paul and white supremacists in this country planning on taking the country over and locking up minorities and women is delusional.
I have NOT claimed that RP has some secret plot aligned with the other nutjobs to lock up or otherwise wipe out women and minorities. So, STOP telling me or anyone else what I think. People can make up their own minds about what I think, based on what I write. They don’t need help from the likes of you.
At best, all you do is provide advertisement for ME, and I’m not selling anything here. So, I don’t need it.
So, just LEAVE ME out of your posts. You don’t need to reference me, for any reason at all, in any of your drivel. People can read, and form their own opinions.

By Nomascerdo, December 29 at 9:16 pm #

Thank you much Nomascredo for your timely response to my request about Paul’s stand on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. I am convinced now that Ron Paul is the candidate worthy of my vote and others. After I return from my 10-day overseas trip, I will devote time to reading all of Paul’s speeches in the link you posted.

Ok Joe, and this is actually for EVERYONE who actually is serious about these issues at hand. When you claimed that Ron Paul supporters are actually well read, I had to really bite my tongue; because of course it’s obvious that this too, is another matter of ‘relativity’. And, it’s not my intention to sound condescending, -at all-. But, the fact of the matter is that the crises we’re faced with is not, and cannot, be boiled down to simple issues of intervention v non-intervention, or immigration, or ‘civil liberties” v the opposite, or corporatism/privatization (they are the same, and most folks don’t even get that) and it’s relation to the State. (some folks don’t even get that “The State” IS the US Federal government,) or the market/economy.
All of these are connected, and none of them can be appropriately discussed in stand- alone terms. Unfortunately, that’s what much of the discourse here attempts to do, and even the most ‘well read’ among us, are not able to connect the dots in a way that is required. (if only because time and space don’t really permit that). More than anything though, we lack an historical context in most of these discussions. And, that is a common issue for MOST Americans. It’s just the way it is.
Anyway, rather than me try to address each one of these things separately, or to even deal with the issue of candidates and the upcoming election, it makes far more sense to share what I think will provide any REAL ‘thinkers” with some ‘prompts’ of things to consider, so that you all can try to connect the dots on your own, or at least get an idea of how things effect outcomes, and how it’s ALL inter-related.
Now this is an interview from what is actually my very favorite website. It’s been around a while now, as it provides a superior portal for anyone who really does wish to integrate their knowledge of the BIG PICTURE.
This is an interview with Naomi Klein, the author of several excellent works, but this is on her most recent, “The Shock Doctrine.” I read it when it first became available, and it will be included in the works for a course/seminar in my field, in the upcoming academic term. The course is on “The Authoritarian State”.
The interview is outstanding, as is the website overall. The editors frequently publish interviews and reports of enormous significance, again..to the overall picture that concerns us all, collectively and individually. If you can read Namoi’s book, all the better. But at least this will provide a bit of insight to what is FOUNDATIONAL, because the rest of this discourse is otherwise pretty useless without it.
So, here is the link. The interview is in two parts, and I noticed that I had to fiddle with the controls on the second part, because the appropriate ‘play arrow’ didn’t appear on my screen. That just may have been a fluke with my system.
Enjoy the knowledge. I hope you’ll find some value here, and make some ‘connections’ of your own.

Naomi Klein on
the Shock Doctrine

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122807J.shtml

PS, I’ll post this at a few of the other threads, just because I think it’s helpful, and it will hopefully some of you unglued from the partisan mentality, if only temporarily.

Patrick Henry,

You’re right about it being a piece of ‘dramatization’ on the trillion high wall around the US. As for the 15 bases in the US, THAT came from a Ron Paul supporter, on THIS very web site. (I didn’t claim it to have come from any of his own speeches, but I should have probably said that).

And, you’re right, I remember thinking when I read it, that we already HAVE a lot of military bases all over the country. In fact, TOO many in my own home state, for my particular tastes. OTOH, we are among the largest of the states, and we are also a coastal state, so that much makes sense, in terms of standard military defense. We should protect our boarders – most specifically those that define our CONTINENT. So, we deal with it. It’s a necessary indication of violence preparedness, when the far more preferable option of diplomacy fails. Still, I do remember thinking that we really didn’t need an EQUAL number of military bases in each state, (15 in RI?) so I’m glad you’ve confirmed that it was just more of the insanity that comes out of that group of supporters.

As for the whole argument on non-interventionist policies (RP and Bill Richards) we could go around and around, and it would be pointless. There is a HUGE difference between non-intervention, and isolation. I had not researched Bill Richards position on ‘the wall’, and since I’ve admitted that my own description involved a bit a ‘theatrics’, I would need to further look at Richards ‘opinion’ of ‘the wall’ to know what he means, and more specifically, WHERE he is talking about. The RP and minutemen position is concerned with a “wall’ between here and Mexico, and I’m opposed to that, as ideologically representing the same apartheid wall that the Israelis have built. Because, THAT’s what it is. Now, since Bill Richards is from New Mexico, he’s apparently concerned with the same. If so, than I don’t support his position on it either. Because again, that has nothing to do with non-intervention, and everything to do with isolation – the kind that results in oppression in the 21st Century, when combined with the imperialized conquers of the past – the very ones that make our history as a union.

Here again, I am not opposed to non-intervention as it stands on the face of the term. And, this is NOT a ‘new’ position for me. The US should NOT have its MILITARY in ANY OTHER COUNTRY on the GLOBE – at least not since WWII. That’s my own position now, and it has been my position for decades. The exception would ONLY be, (and Rae has covered this briefly) when we are part of a coalition, and have been requested to provide assistance to nations that have fallen under despotic leadership, or been subjected to hostile takeovers from others, and are unable to provide for their own defense. That is why the UN is as critically important as it is, and the US itself, is responsible for the corruption and downfall that the UN has undergone. In fact, the US, under the current regime, has totally undermined the original intent of the UN. The irony of course, is that WE need UN intervention, to free us from the grasp of the Cabal that has taken over our own country. And, we don’t have them to count on, since the same Cabal has basically eliminated the effectiveness of that body.

Having said that, my OWN take on the RP ‘non-intervention’ policy is that it is NOT ‘non-intervention’ as much as it is ISOLATION. Such as: We will hole ourselves up here, as separatists. We will reluctantly deal with other nations, ONLY to the extent that we need resources from them, and apparently, he’s willing to trade for those things. (that’s a big ‘if’ without any of the details provided). ASIDE from that, he wants nothing to do with any of the rest of the world, and so if the neighbor’s house catches on fire, too bad for them. That’s just his take, based on my own interpretation. Others can surely express their own interpretations as well. That’s why we’re here.

Fadel, I hope that helps! 

For me, that speech pretty much sums it all up and addresses a number of other issues that the anti-Ron Paul zealots on this site should take note of.

I will just point out one crucial one because it is very important and it is frankly disgusting how people like Cyrena and Lefty falsely portray Ron Paul.

Notice in this speech how Ron Paul cautions against framing this conflict as a ‘holy war’ and speaks of it in rational, realistic, and BALANCED terms.  These are not the words or thoughts similar to a Huckabee and his friends at CUFI like Hagee who are convinced there must be an epic apocalyptic battle in the holy land before Christ returns to earth.  This is rational thought and practical approach and honestly probably the only solution for the tragedy that has been going on there since the middle east was carved up after WWII.

So there goes that stupid, uninformed, and fabricated theory that Ron Paul is a religious nutcase working for some rapture moment. 

Next

“After the second debate, Michigan Republican party chairman Saul Anuzis said that he would he start a petition among Republican National Committee members to ban him [Ron Paul] from further debates because his antiwar views were out of tune with the party.”

http://www.reason.com/news/show/120309.html

And this was back in May.

Fadel,

Below is pasted a speech Ron Paul gave in 2002. His views on foreign policy are still the same and have been the same since 1974.

Part 1 of 2

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
May 2, 2002

Statement in Support of a Balanced Approach to the Middle East Peace Process

MR. PAUL: Mr. Speaker, this legislation could not have come at a worse time in the ongoing Middle East crisis. Just when we have seen some positive signs that the two sides may return to negotiations toward a peaceful settlement, Congress has jumped into the fray on one side of the conflict. I do not believe that this body wishes to de-rail the slight progress that seems to have come from the Administration’s more even-handed approach over the past several days. So why is it that we are here today ready to pass legislation that clearly and openly favors one side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

There are many troubling aspects to this legislation. The legislation says that “the number of Israelis killed during that time [since September 2000] by suicide terrorist attacks alone, on a basis proportional to the United States population, is approximately 9,000, three times the number killed in the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001.” This kind of numbers game with the innocent dead strikes me as terribly disrespectful and completely unhelpful.

It is, when speaking of the dead, the one-sidedness of this bill that is so unfortunate. How is it that the side that loses seven people to every one on the other side is portrayed as the sole aggressor and condemned as terrorist? This is only made worse by the fact that Palestinian deaths are seen in the Arab world as being American-inspired, as it is our weapons that are being used against them. This bill just reinforces negative perceptions of the United States in that part of the world. What might be the consequences of this? I think we need to stop and think about that for a while. We in this body have a Constitutional responsibility to protect the national security of the United States. This one-sided intervention in a far-off war has the potential to do great harm to our national security.

Perhaps this is why the Administration views this legislation as “not a very helpful approach” to the situation in the Middle East. In my view, it is bad enough that we are intervening at all in this conflict, but this legislation strips any lingering notion that the United States intends to be an honest broker. It states clearly that the leadership of one side - the Palestinians - is bad and supports terrorism just at a time when this Administration negotiates with both sides in an attempt to bring peace to the region. Talk about undermining the difficult efforts of the president and the State Department. What incentive does Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat or his organization have to return to the negotiating table if we as “honest broker” make it clear that in Congress’s eyes, the Palestinians are illegitimate terrorists? Must we become so involved in this far-off conflict that we are forced to choose between Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon? The United States Congress should not, Constitutionally, be in the business of choosing who gets to lead which foreign people.

Many people of various religious backgrounds seem determined to portray what is happening in the Middle East as some kind of historic/religious struggle, where one side is pre-ordained to triumph and destroy the other. Even some in this body have embraced this notion. Surely the religious component that some interject into the conflict rouses emotions and adds fuel to the fire. But this is dangerous thinking. Far from a great holy war, the Middle East conflict is largely about what most wars are about: a struggle for land and resources in a part of the world where both are scarce. We must think and act rationally, with this fact clearly in mind. (continued)