Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 19, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


A Win for the Cuban People






Truthdig Bazaar
Citizen Stan

Citizen Stan

By Patty Sharaf with Robert Scheer
$15.00

more items

 
Report

Marginalizing Ron Paul

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Dec 29, 2011
AP / Charlie Riedel

Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul is seen in a viewfinder as he speaks during a campaign stop at the Iowa State Fairgrounds in Des Moines.

By Robert Scheer

It is official now. The Ron Paul campaign, despite surging in the Iowa polls, is not worthy of serious consideration, according to a New York Times editorial; “Ron Paul long ago disqualified himself for the presidency by peddling claptrap proposals like abolishing the Federal Reserve, returning to the gold standard, cutting a third of the federal budget and all foreign aid and opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

That last item, along with the decade-old racist comments in the newsletters Paul published, is certainly worthy of criticism. But not as an alternative to seriously engaging the substance of Paul’s current campaign—his devastating critique of crony capitalism and his equally trenchant challenge to imperial wars and the assault on our civil liberties that they engender.

Paul is being denigrated as a presidential contender even though on the vital issues of the economy, war and peace, and civil liberties, he has made the most sense of the Republican candidates. And by what standard of logic is it “claptrap” for Paul to attempt to hold the Fed accountable for its destructive policies? That’s the giveaway reference to the raw nerve that his favorable prospects in the Iowa caucuses have exposed. Too much anti-Wall Street populism in the heartland can be a truly scary thing to the intellectual parasites residing in the belly of the beast that controls American capitalism.

It is hypocritical that Paul is now depicted as the archenemy of non-white minorities when it was his nemesis, the Federal Reserve, that enabled the banking swindle that wiped out 53 percent of the median wealth of African-Americans and 66 percent for Latinos, according to the Pew Research Center.

The Fed sits at the center of the rot and bears the major responsibility for tolerating the runaway mortgage-backed securities scam that is at the core of our economic crisis. After the meltdown it was the Fed that led ultra-secret machinations to bail out the banks while ignoring the plight of their exploited customers.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
To his credit, Paul marshaled bipartisan support to pass a bill requiring the first-ever public audit of the Federal Reserve. That audit is how readers of the Times first learned of the Fed’s trillions of dollars in secret loans and aid given to the banks as a reward for screwing over the public.

As for the Times’ complaint that Paul seeks to unreasonably cut the federal budget by one-third, it should be noted that his is a rare voice in challenging irrationally high military spending. At a time when the president has signed off on a Cold War-level defense budget and his potential opponents in the Republican field want to waste even more on high-tech weapons to fight a sophisticated enemy that doesn’t exist, Paul has emerged as the only serious peace candidate. As The Wall Street Journal reported, Paul last week warned an Iowa audience, “Watch out for the military-industrial complex—they always have an enemy. Nobody is going to invade us. We don’t need any more [weapons systems].”

As another recent example of Paul’s sanity on the national security issues that have led to a flight from reason on the part of politicians since the 9/11 attacks, I offer the Texan’s criticism this week of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The act would allow the president to order indeterminate military imprisonment without trial of those accused of supporting terrorism, a policy that Obama signed into law and Paul opposes, as the congressman did George W. Bush’s Patriot Act. Paul said:

“Little by little, in the name of fighting terrorism, our Bill of Rights is being repealed. ... The Patriot Act, as bad as its violation of the 4th Amendment, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed (NDAA) continues that slip toward tyranny and in fact accelerates it significantly ... The Bill of Rights has no exemption for ‘really bad people’ or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. This is not a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system.”

That was exactly the objection raised by The New York Times in its own excellent editorial challenging the constitutionality of the NDAA. It should not be difficult for those same editorial writers to treat Ron Paul as a profound and principled contributor to a much-needed national debate on the limits of federal power instead of attempting to marginalize his views beyond recognition.

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.



Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Romney and the Art of Unpredictable Predictability

Next item: Fewer and Fewer Reasons for the West to Fixate on the Mideast



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By ardee, February 4, 2012 at 12:49 pm Link to this comment

I just began dating a psychologist. It occurs to me to show her the collected works of that “zany” Dr. who infests and infects this forum.

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 4, 2012 at 10:28 am Link to this comment

poor drb———— sadly delusional stories about how it would be possible for
people to pretend to be flying war planes disguised as Iranian…....


you want to explain why that’s possible?


Iran has maybe 150 planes that are 30 years old or more…..how would they
attack an aircraft carrier with any success and how would none of the world’s
orbital satellites not notice that they hadn’t originated from inside Iran but from a
different path?

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, February 4, 2012 at 10:11 am Link to this comment

“He’s shot his bolt and there’s nothing more for him but a couple of speeches.”  Hetero - - -

Right.  Per Goebbels repetitive scheme, the party-line from MOSSAD HQ, published by the MOSSAD / CIA-controlled, news media in the western world.

However, millions of genuine Americans have a different plan.  To include the poor Folk, especially Folk of color, whom Obama wrote off as being too stupid to perceive his deceit.  They do not take their instructions from the MOSSAD, the CIA, or the Obama mis-administration. 

Regarding the former insider who said that the statement of General Dempsey, that the U.S. would not support Israel if they attacked Iran without prior agreement with the U.S., could be just one more example of Obama´s habit of saying one thing, then doing the opposite.  I hope you are mistaken.  I genuinely hope you are mistaken. 

One wonders why the Enterprise, with its five nuclear reactors, is being sent to the Persian Gulf, only months prior to being decommissioned.
http://navaltoday.com/2012/01/30/us-navy-to-deploy-third-carrier-group-to-persian-gulf/
Former insiders have posited many questions similar to those after the deceitful Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, June 1967.  To include a possible repetition by Israeli aircraft attacking the Enterprise, but this time with Iranian markings.  A valid question, considering historical, Israeli deceit, and their current demand to be permitted control of the Middle East and the western world. 

Any such deceitful plan would be known by both eastern and western intelligence prior to enactment.  If enacted, the US would have to engage in protective action of its fleet.

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 4, 2012 at 9:50 am Link to this comment

He makes very little sense and unless you agree with him that it’s unconstitutional
for Congress to authorize funds to send AIDS medicine to Africa

.....“Congress is poised to pass the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
(PEPFAR) authorizing up to $50 million in unconstitutional foreign aid. The bill
passed out of the Foreign Affairs Committee with a bipartisan agreement to nearly
double the President’s requested amount. It is always distressing to see officials in
our government reach across the aisle to disregard Constitutional limitations.“____

march 2008

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, February 4, 2012 at 9:42 am Link to this comment

No tic, your a fruit loop and he is a Republican candidate contender.

He makes sense and well your nonsense is just that, nonsense, the kind proffered by mediocre paid shill trainees.

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 4, 2012 at 9:14 am Link to this comment

sorry pattie, but Ron Paul ain’t getting any votes for good and more than sufficient
reason….concerning how we should run THIS country.

he ‘s a fruit-loop

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 4, 2012 at 7:40 am Link to this comment

I strongly doubt that the U.S. ruling class is going to permit an anti-war, anti-imperialist, anti-police state candidate for the presidency to be nominated by either major party.  Why would they?

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, February 4, 2012 at 6:41 am Link to this comment

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”

I see Ghandi’s parable true here.  Self styled progressives poo pooing his chances to be the Republican nominee among a field of the worst that party has to offer.  Not enough for zionist ass kissers like Gingrich, Santorum or Romney not to win but Paul must lose.

I guess Paul will not get the homoerotic vote.

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 3, 2012 at 10:06 pm Link to this comment

bill—- that was Paul candidacy has tanked….. he’s not gained anything at all
and has lost ground ground . Even with all the others falling by the wayside,
Paul has fallen behind because Gingrich passed him.


In the fourth quarter, Paul took in more cash by far than he had in the previous
two quarters, spent it all, and flopped ...leaving him with far less cash on hand
than at the beginning of the quarter.


All he’s got are a bunch of his long-time supporters and a bunch of new and
mostly naive folk (excepting Ana) and he’s not going to get any more money,
any new votes, or any delegates at all at the convention…....


Nevada, where he might be expected to do OK is going Romney-Gingrich and
Paul is going to split 25% or less with Santorum…some predict that Santorum
may finish ahead of him…..

He’s shot his bolt and there’s nothing more for him but a couple of speeches.

Report this

By - bill, February 3, 2012 at 9:18 pm Link to this comment

The suggestion that ‘Ron Paul has tanked’ betrays a remarkably naive (or perhaps merely parochial) understanding of the differences among the states that have so far had the opportunity to vote or caucus.  While it’s almost certain (just as it has been for the past year) that Romney will get the Republican nomination, Paul’s support has been, by far, the most consistent (even compared with Romney’s) of the pack.

Unlike the Bible belt and Florida (where Paul didn’t even bother to campaign, given the effort Romney had made there), Nevada may be a good place for Paul’s support to be evident.  I’m looking forward to tomorrow’s results (though, of course, without claiming to be able to foretell them).

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 3, 2012 at 8:58 pm Link to this comment

Korky—-Ron Paul couldn’t pass anything but gas…..How the hell can he push
proportional representation and have the entire system changed in time for him to
win anything?


you have any idea what would be necessary to change over to pro-rep ?

Report this

By Aquifer, February 3, 2012 at 8:23 pm Link to this comment

Korky,

I think the fact that he stays a Rep and doesn’t push prop rep really does tell you all you need to know ....

Report this

By Korky Day, February 3, 2012 at 6:59 pm Link to this comment

No, Aquifer, it would have been very much in Ron Paul’s interest to push pro-rep (proportional representation, also known as prop rep and P.R.) from the start.  I don’t know why he hasn’t.  Maybe he is bad at math.  He should understand that under pro-rep he could have run as a Libertarian, which I’m sure he prefers, and won, AND he would have had a few other “out” Libertarians in the House with him, maybe 10%.  Also the Green Party would have several representatives in the House, maybe 10 or 20%.  Ron Paul then could have gotten votes from those Greens for motions to end the endless wars.  With several parties in the house voting for peace, the Democrats and Republicans would feel tremendous pressure to support peace, too.  It works that way in other countries because they don’t have the Duopoly.  I won’t ask the Greens to endorse Ron Paul until he convinces me that he really will push pro-rep, as I already said.

Report this

By Aquifer, February 3, 2012 at 5:58 pm Link to this comment

Korky,

So, how have your efforts to get the GP to endorse RP coming along? I’d be really curious ...

And have you forgotten that your own party supports this stuff, too?

See, here’s the thing, I have a sneaking suspicion that prop rep is not way up on RPs list of priorities, has he ever introduced any leg to that effect? - so before he got around to pushing that I suspect he would be pushing a whole lot of other stuff, and you would be one of those poor disenchanted souls standing in the rain outside the WH with a sign “So where is our prop rep?”

If RP got in as a Rep, why the hell would he push for prop rep, anyway? The current duopoly would have worked just fine for him ...

Report this

By Cliff Carson, February 3, 2012 at 5:24 pm Link to this comment

By Aquifer, February 3 at 3:28 pm

“Well, there you go - Bloomberg? Mr. Wall Street? Mr. Kick OWS out of the square?”

Yes.  But their tenet was that over 50% of the total money raised had to be accumulated from donations of less than $250 per individual.

That was the original ideal.

I had joined Unity 08.  And then found it had become a front for Bloomberg.

This is why I keep suggesting a “Coalition”.  A Coalition can only be as strong as its members.  In my structure of a Coalition there is a failsafe to prevent this.

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 3, 2012 at 5:19 pm Link to this comment

In the month that this thread has been running, Ron Paul’s candidacy has
tanked and the race for the Republican nomination has been won by Romney.


Paul will be retiring.

He’s toast. He might, as Korky says, never break promises, but he’s also never
accomplished anything of substance. One bill passed in hi entire tenure in the
House, and that was merely some minor thing for his home district.


In lieu of a gold watch for the old guy, a nice stack of federal reserve notes
please…......

Report this

By Korky Day, February 3, 2012 at 5:01 pm Link to this comment

Aquifer, perhaps you don’t understand how pro-rep would permanently abolish the 2-party system, which is more important than any short-term goal like winning any particular election or stopping any one of the unending US American wars of conquest.
As far as believing Ron Paul, even his critics don’t dare suggest that he breaks his political promises.  Love him or hate him, you gotta admit that doesn’t have that fault.

Report this

By Aquifer, February 3, 2012 at 4:28 pm Link to this comment

Cliff

“Unity 08 was well funded,”

Who funded them?

“Two main men left to form an Independent run for Bloomberg,”

Well, there you go - Bloomberg? Mr. Wall Street? Mr. Kick OWS out of the square?

Korky

“I have been a loyal Green Party activist and official for 16 years.  I might vote for another party if doing so would serve the Green Party.”

Korky - you boggle my mind - how would voting for someone who was running against a member of your own party serve your own party? Wouldn’t it make more sense to work like hell for your own party’s candidate?

“if Ron Paul decides to support pro-rep and if he gets the Republican nod, I’d urge my party to endorse him.  If Obama promised, I wouldn’t believe him”

Endorse RP over your own party’s chosen candidate?  Korky, if this is your idea of being a GP activist,  I think you better think again ...

So, Obama is not credible, but RP is? The former I agree with, but on what basis do you insist on the latter?

Report this

By Korky Day, February 3, 2012 at 2:01 pm Link to this comment

“Americans Elect 2012 is an organization that was formed by many of the individuals that were responsible for Unity 08, and has substantially identical goals for the 2012 presidential election cycle.”—Wikipedia.

http://www.americanselect.org

Report this

By Korky Day, February 3, 2012 at 1:43 pm Link to this comment

I have been a loyal Green Party activist and official for 16 years.  I might vote for another party if doing so would serve the Green Party.  That is, if that other party would make the elections fair for the Green Party and for all other parties in subsequent elections.  So if Ron Paul decides to support pro-rep and if he gets the Republican nod, I’d urge my party to endorse him.  If Obama promised, I wouldn’t believe him.  Under Paul, we’d have to endure 4 or 8 years of his anti-abortion nonsense, but the world would thrill to their men, women, and children being free from summary execution by USA drones, and as soon as a pro-rep congress is elected, we’ll have the beginnings of a democracy.  Otherwise it probably will take 20 or 50 or 100 years before we can abolish the 2-party system.  That’s a lot of wars and pseudo-democracy to endure.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, February 3, 2012 at 1:02 pm Link to this comment

“ - all USA political parties are independent because their existence doesn’t depend financially, legally, emotionally, structurally, or any other way, on another party or entity.”  Korky Day

L O O K   C L O S E R.

Report this

By Cliff Carson, February 3, 2012 at 12:43 pm Link to this comment

Thank You Korky for the list of Parties.  Back before the 2008 Election I got the current list and contact information for them.  I composed a letter detailing what I had in mind for a Coalition.

I found no interest in the PARTIES for a Coalition.  The problem was that the great majority of those parties are being run for the profit of the Party Leaders and absolutely nothing else.

Unity 08 was well funded, on TV, and had what I thought was an excellent plan to draw people from all parties and of course people who never participated before.  Their plan was based on using the net for fund raising, developing a core plank, and selecting a common slate.

I called Unity 08 as soon as I read your post.  There was no answer so I sent an E-mail.  It came back undeliverable.

The big problem with Unity 08 came about because of their success.  Two main men left to form an Independent run for Bloomberg, then the FEC claimed they couldn’t raise money using their Internet scheme.  But they did go through the courts and finally won their case.

I am going to get in touch with them ( or the residual of Unity 08) and see what they might have in place and see if they are interested in trying again.  That would give a starting point.

I will again contact some of the more center Parties and see if any of them might this time entertain the idea of a Coalition.

It is too late for this election cycle to expect much but it is certainly not too late to begin.

Will report back on the result.

Report this

By Aquifer, February 3, 2012 at 12:05 pm Link to this comment

Korky,

Yeah, prop rep is important but there are many folks out there, I suspect, and frankly I am one, who couldn’t ignore or gloss over a bunch of other stuff in the name of prop rep., e.g i couldn’t support RP even if he were for prop rep.

I think your coalition will need to have a wider range of issues - including a discussion of which ones are sine qua non for various groups ...

hetero,

Hmmm, Roseanne Barr - well I just guess it goes to show how open the GP is to all (smile) and all the more reason to get on board with Jill Stein lickety split! LOL

Report this

By Korky Day, February 3, 2012 at 10:03 am Link to this comment

The best name I can think of for our coalition is Coalition for Fair Elections.  It’s simple, clear, unambiguous, powerful, reasonable, broad, and important.  It accuses the establishment of fraudulent elections, which most people believe, especially after Bush vs. Gore.  It would agree on little except the urgency of electoral reform, election reform (there is a big difference between those 2!), campaign finance reform, etc.  It doesn’t imply any particular political tendency or policies, so it appeals to independents (for many of you in the USA, who have trouble with English, an independent is somebody who does not regularly support any particular party).  If our coalition includes both progressives and regressives, the Duopoly has much less ability to write us off as just a bunch of pinkos.  The best list of parties I’ve found is http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm (though they use bad English, there, too).  There are probably about 10 parties there which would join our coalition.  Let’s recruit them all except the Nazi parties.  With fair, proportional elections, all those parties would have a fair chance of electing people, and many of them would, as happens in democratic countries (not the USA, Canada, the UK, or India—the Big 4 pseudo-democracies).

Report this

By Korky Day, February 3, 2012 at 9:21 am Link to this comment

To ardee,
I had already explained in detail that the word “independent” was being misused to mean parties other than the Democratic and Republican party or maybe to mean, more generally, “out of the mainstream”.  Those are common, but not sensible (in my opinion) uses of the word independent in the USA.  The rest of the world uses better English than that.  (Similarly, the rest of the world does not use the innumerate USA partisan political term “third parties”.)  For example, if your child moves out, gets a job, and lives without your subsidy or calling you every 5 minutes for advice, they are “independent”.  The women’s auxiliary to some male organisation is not independent, even if their finances are separate, because their continued existence depends on the main organisation.  So, at the moment, all USA political parties are independent because their existence doesn’t depend financially, legally, emotionally, structurally, or any other way, on another party or entity.  If they form a coalition, as Cliff and I support, they are no longer independent.  Their efforts then depend, partially, on each other.  (By the way, I identify positively with my XY chromosomal nature.)

Report this

By Korky Day, February 3, 2012 at 8:53 am Link to this comment

We are probably boring the other readers with this talk about English usage.  And I don’t want to distract from your main point, which I wholeheartedly support.  So please, Cliff, and others interested in sensible communication, e-write to me korkyday (a with a circle round it) yahoo (period) com

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, February 3, 2012 at 8:44 am Link to this comment

My suggestion for a coalition was merely a consideration of the mechanics of assembling one for the upcoming presidential election.  Both major parties have effectively been ignoring the interests of the working class, so there is considerable raw electoral material for such a coalition to work with. 

But as I said before, it’s very late in the day.  Probably too late.  Organizing an election campaign in a large country like the U.S. takes a lot of time, money and effort.  Sitting on your butt looking at a web site that suggests Gloria Steinem as Ron Paul’s running mate is not the kind of effort I’m talking about.

Report this

By ardee, February 3, 2012 at 4:06 am Link to this comment

The Green Party is no more independent than any other party, including the Democratic and Republican parties.

Another “pronouncement ” from on high by our resident pompous ass. Perhaps she might enlighten us mere mortals as to how she comes by this assertion?

You, Korky, are nothing more than a scold. Rather boring too.

Report this

By Cliff Carson, February 2, 2012 at 10:58 pm Link to this comment

Thank you Korky for helping me with my English.  Would you please explain what is incorrect in what I have written.  Below I state why I did such and I ask you to use the correct words so that I might learn.  I did pull from Wikipedia how that site defines correct usage.

Why I use the name Independent Parties.

When in Political context:  The Cambridge Dictionary defines coalition as: the union of different political parties or groups for a particular purpose, usually for a limited time.  A coalition of parties is also known as an Electoral Fusion.
 
Electoral fusion is also known as fusion voting, cross-endorsement, multiple party nomination, multi-party nomination, plural nomination, and ballot-freedom. Electoral fusion is an arrangement where two or more political parties on a ballot list the same candidate, pooling the votes for that candidate.

Note that in this described scenario from Wikipedia the Coalition can be composed of Parties that are Independent of each other save for supporting the same candidate by agreement.

Addressing dominate.  A sic may be used as a form of ridicule or as a humorous comment, drawing attention to the original writer’s mistakes.  So please help me with - dominate (sic).  You may mean I should use dominant.

The word dominant refers to the placement of one thing above another. For example, if you have two dogs, one of them will be the more dominant one and one will be more passive.  Example:  That one is the dominant male.

I have used the word dominate usually to describe plural sense:  For example the Democrat and the Republican Party dominate United States Politics.

I must admit that I use the name Democrat Party incorrectly, it is Democratic.  I call it the Democrat Party as a form of ridicule.  There is no Democracy in that Party.

Korky, I think it much more important that you get the message of what I mean, if my simple words are not up to your standard so be it.

What I ask you to do is join me in presenting the case for a Coalition of whatever you want to call the Parties that are not the Democrat nor Republican Parties.  My point is that if enough people can get together to run, or by agreement vote, for a Coalition slate we might be able to return the Government to the people.  That is much more important than arguing the proper use of English.

Report this

By Korky Day, February 2, 2012 at 9:15 pm Link to this comment

heterochromatic is joking.
The poll is still open and those people are not ahead in the tally.

http://www.demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=PaulVP2012

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 2, 2012 at 9:04 pm Link to this comment

that poll was closed days ago,,,,,,volunteer voter picked at random won,

followed by

Louis Farrakhan

and

David and

Patty Duke

tied for third.

Report this

By Korky Day, February 2, 2012 at 8:56 pm Link to this comment

Don’t forget this fun poll and others at DemoChoice:

http://www.demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=PaulVP2012

Report this

By Korky Day, February 2, 2012 at 8:35 pm Link to this comment

Cliff, you have a wonderful sense of humour, though you still refuse to use words properly.
The Green Party is no more independent than any other party, including the Democratic and Republican parties.  I know that such ignorant use of words is common in the USA, even among educated people, but that doesn’t make it coherent language. 
Furthermore, in a coalition, a party will not be independent anymore, so your phrase “Coalition of Independent Parties” makes no sense.
“Coalition of Formerly Independent Parties” would be correct, technically, but I assume you can see the folly of that without my help.
You also incorrectly mentioned the “Democrat” Party.  Don’t you mean “Democratic”?  You don’t want people to think you’re a sloppy thinker, do you?
So no, this statement of yours makes no sense:
’ “Independent parties” when so noted, mean the sum total of those Political Parties not associated with either the Democrat or Republican Party’
You can define things any way you like, but if you want respect from others, you’ll try to make sense.
That definition makes no sense because “independent” does not signify a relationship (positive or negative) with any particular parties.
There are no examples of parties which ARE associated with your “Dominate” (sic) parties, so there is no need to make such a distinction, anyway.
When you realize that your use of the word “independent” is silly, then maybe you will start using a term which really does mean what you are trying to say, such as “anti-Duopoly party”.  Isn’t that much more meaningful and catchy, anyway?
I won’t be afraid to ally with you, even if you refuse to talk intelligently.

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 2, 2012 at 8:13 pm Link to this comment

PitH—-an an amateur only…and have only derided the Israelis since they started
settling the West Bank about four decades back.

( we’ll both pretend that you didn’t trip over your tongue back there as you
embarrass yourself sufficiently with the things that you intentionally type)

I’ve never been afraid of Ron Paul as he’s never had any influence over shit outside
of a small portion of Texas….and he never shall….. H’s never had but one bill
passed in his entire flaming time in the House ... and that one was a courtesy.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, February 2, 2012 at 8:06 pm Link to this comment

homoerotic,

No, Pro Israel detractors as yourself are deathly afraid of Ron Paul as he would drop US support of that nation financially and militarily.

The other detractors either have a good job in a defense related industry or Federal Government and its contractors who would no doubt go down the tubes with his election.

Lets see, pro Israel, pro military industry, who owns the media again?

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 2, 2012 at 7:59 pm Link to this comment

HEART ATTACK TIME

for

        St David the Sincere


    “Actress Roseanne Barr announced Thursday that she will seek the Green
Party’s nomination for president.”

———


Imagine that shit happening!!!

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 2, 2012 at 7:45 pm Link to this comment

No Pattie, what’s happened is that Paul has faded back to the role of embarrassing
crazy-assed uncle as his campaign has failed.


You might make as much sense saying that the media was clamped down on the
Gary Johnson campaign.


you so silly, sometimes.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, February 2, 2012 at 7:38 pm Link to this comment

The MSM has really put the clamp down on the Ron Paul media as of late. 

It guess the tried and true methods are the best ones for those in power wishing to retain it.

Report this

By Cliff Carson, February 2, 2012 at 6:54 pm Link to this comment

By drbhelthi, January 29 at 2:19 pm

“The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows..”

Thanks drbhelthi, I knew I had read that somewhere before.  I though I had read it in a report of the first Audit by the Fed since it has ruled the United States Money Policy.  But the total of $16 Trillion lent out by the Fed from U S printed money is what I remembered the most.

Remember when the Fed gets money printed and lent out, they get a 6% interest rate which on $16 Trillion equals $960 Billion annually (Korky that’s almost one Trillion).  So the owners of the Fed made almost a Trillion Dollars with no risk to themselves.  And the onus for repayment of that interest falls on the American Taxpayer.  Hope everyone can understand my poor English.

By Korky Day, February 2 at 12:44 pm

“He uses the typical bad English “Independent Parties”, which is silly. Independent of what?  Other parties?”

My apologies Korky.  Since I was commenting about a “Coalition of Independent Parties”, I assumed all would associate what I was writing about to the statement about Independent Parties.  Sorry that you got confused.

Just for you Korky:

The Green Party, which you shill for, is what I meant by Independent Party.  Therefore the minimum of two Independent Parties ( similar in function to the Green Party)is what I meant.  I use the Green Party as an example so you might be able to understand.  Hope that helps.

But if not, here is a more intimate explanation:

The Two Independent Parties I mentioned were to be included in a “Coalition” which is what I was writing about, and since the Green (I think you are familiar with that one) is an Independent Party, which by definition is not affiliated with any other party, including the two Dominate Parties, namely the Democrat and Republican Party,  applying the conventional differential of Independent, the use of “Independent parties” when so noted, mean the sum total of those Political Parties not associated with either the Democrat or Republican Party, while at the same time, none of these INDEPENDENT Parties are not affiliated with each other in any way except for the conventional description that the group as a whole is identified as Independent Parties.

I sure am glad that is cleared up.

The “Coalition of Independent Parties”  would be independent of the Democrat and Republican Parties but would not be independent of the “Group of Independent Parties” since those parties would comprise the body of the “Coalition”, that is except for any of the original described Independent Group that would not join the Coalition.

Are you satisfied with this explanation?

But Korky, we need to be friends, because if ever a Coalition is formed, hopefully we would be - dare I say - members of the same family?

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 2, 2012 at 2:38 pm Link to this comment

Fully two hockey sticks and most of a telephone pole most mean that you either
type while standing or you like to do your lying while on a side.

Report this

By Korky Day, February 2, 2012 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment

Diamond’s ignorant defence of the 2-party system is typical of US Americans who refuse to learn from other, superior countries and from history.  If pro-rep inevitably leads to Hitlers, then why did the USA force a pro-rep constitution onto Deutschland after World War 2?  And why have further Hitlers not arisen there?
“I have seen third parties fail over and over”, Diamond wrote.  The term “third parties” is innumerate, but we’ll overlook that.  Yes, non-Duopoly parties regularly are smashed in the USA.  Not in democratic countries.  Because the 2-party system is undemocratic and extremely biased against other parties.  The USA is not democratic and never has been.  It’s not a republic, either, for similar reasons.
Vote for candidates and parties who work for pro-rep, especially the Green Party.

Report this

By diamond, February 2, 2012 at 1:56 pm Link to this comment

“The above idea by Anarcissie is on the right track, but needs much overhaul. The main problem is that, even if successful, that plan would not abolish the 2-party system.  Without pro-rep (proportional representation) such a progressive movement would quickly become one of the 2 parties and thus deteriorate back into all the faults of a 2-party system, which is the main problem of the country.”

The 2 party system is called democracy. Before Hitler came to power he was just a political brawler in the Reichstag, with less than two per cent of the vote to his name. There were a lot of groups like this in the Reichstag but the Nazis decided to make the parliament unworkable and they did, walking out every time a vote came up that they didn’t agree with etc. until the right decided it was better to have him in the tent than outside of it. They made him Chancellor and soon there was no 2 party system because he suspended the constitution and made himself dictator. The problem in America is not a 2 party system, it’s the Congress, which has been bought, lock, stock and barrel by the corporations. Nothing will ever change until the Congress is abolished and the electoral colleges are done away with. They make no contribution to democracy whatsoever and make the 2 party system work in favor of a tiny minority of ultra rich people and not the majority. The two party system works when it functions for the majority but not when the Congress makes sure it only functions for the rich. Simply putting a third party forward does nothing. I have seen third parties fail over and over again and I have seen them bought off and corrupted by the government when they won seats. It’s the corruption, not the 2 party system that is the problem.

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 2, 2012 at 1:54 pm Link to this comment

Korky—- Cliff ‘s wording was a bit less than ideal, but if you were able to tease
out his meaning, it passes the LCD test and suffices.

Report this

By Korky Day, February 2, 2012 at 1:44 pm Link to this comment

Progressive coalition?

“people pledged themselves to support only a progressive coalition candidate.  ‘Progressive’ would depend on a list of crucial issues.  ‘Coalition’ means some sort of agreement between the candidate whereby one would be selected and the others would stand aside.”—Anarcissie, 2012 January 29.

The above idea by Anarcissie is on the right track, but needs much overhaul.
The main problem is that, even if successful, that plan would not abolish the 2-party system.  Without pro-rep (proportional representation) such a progressive movement would quickly become one of the 2 parties and thus deteriorate back into all the faults of a 2-party system, which is the main problem of the country.

The other problem of Anarcissie’s plan is that the coalition is too narrow.
There are many semi-progressives like Ron Paul and libertarians who are needed to make the coalition big enough to have any chance of success.

So how do we include Paul and libertarians and constitutionalists and others in the coalition?
By dropping the requirement of progressivity.

And what one issue appeals to progressives and semi-progressives AND would abolish the 2-party system?
Pro-rep.
Therefore the coalition could be called instead something like
the Coalition for Fair Elections.

When Anarcissie talks about other candidates standing aside,
it sounds like Anarcissie is talking only about the presidency. 
However, a coalition could include candidates for other offices from many parties and independents, so that it really appeared to the public as a real big coalition.

A quick word about accurate words:

Similarly, Cliff Carson, 2012 January 29, said
“we need a minimum of two Independent Parties”.
He uses the typical bad English “Independent Parties”, which is silly.
Independent of what?  Other parties? 
That is pointless, since almost all parties are independent of other parties, anyway, almost by definition. 
The Democratic and Republican parties are independent of other parties, at least formally. 
So all parties are independent until they form a coalition.
Perhaps Cliff meant “anti-Duopoly parties”.

Report this

By heterochromatic, January 31, 2012 at 8:18 am Link to this comment

ardee___ the guy has some problems


http://youtu.be/jSJemA-eviU

but he’s not the only one

and some days are better than others for most…. and all days likely could be
better if willing to give up the delusions and seek treatment.

Report this

By ardee, January 31, 2012 at 4:23 am Link to this comment

heterochromatic, January 30 at 1:30 pm Link to this comment

ardee——“absolutely” nuts isn’t correct…...he’s not doing all that well, but things aren’t irremediable and can improve.

I acknowledge your opinion and respectfully disagree with it. He is just too far gone, in my opinion, to ever hope for his return.

His constant chirping about “secret cabals” and such may be the stuff of humor or of chilling revelations of his inability to remain in this reality, but one continues to wonder at secrets so easily known to him and no one else.

Report this

By Aquifer, January 30, 2012 at 6:25 pm Link to this comment

Patrick,

you have to copy and paste the whole link - can’t just click on it as it bleeds over into the next line even though only the first line is highlighted - I made that “click on” mistake the first time around ...

David,

OK, for your purposes i am an “indy”, ant-war, pro single payer, pro environment, not into political parties, per se, but very much into politics, how does that fit in your dictionary? And if the Green Party doesn’t want my support if I call myself a “progressive”, please do let me know before i send any more money ....

Report this

By heterochromatic, January 30, 2012 at 6:20 pm Link to this comment

the links work just fine. copy and paste ‘em, Pat.

it’s the site that chops them when they’re past a
certain length.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, January 30, 2012 at 5:55 pm Link to this comment

tic,

Screw Ron Paul____here’s an interview with Jill Stein..

http://www.truth-out.org/party-our-discontent-interview-green-party-
candidate-jill-stein/1327346398

How come your links never work?

Save the hasbara against Ron Paul.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, January 30, 2012 at 3:20 pm Link to this comment

QUOTE, Aquifer:

“what the hell difference does it make what i call myself…?... To me, it matters not what you call yourself but the things you believe in and the folks you support”
_______________

How people politically identify themselves matters greatly. While truth in advertising can serve an organizationally useful good political purpose, false advertising far more effectively serves to sustain the status-quo.

Popularizing mislabeling for the purpose of deliberate confusion, regarding what political positions people believe in and support, has been one of the most highly effective corporate party tactics for perpetuating the permanence of corporate-state control.

A “progressive” will adamantly insist that they voted against war when they voted for the Democrat who promised them more war.

Making actual real progress toward needed systemic changes won’t happen, if those who do not want what is systemically wrong to stay wrong identify themselves — and think of themselves — as being among the “progressives” who are the people whose disingenuous politics have made the system that is wrong become so sustainably wrong.

Report this

By heterochromatic, January 30, 2012 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment

ardee——“absolutely” nuts isn’t correct…...he’s not doing all that well, but things
aren’t irremediable and can improve.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, January 30, 2012 at 1:55 pm Link to this comment

“Quite obviously intelligent people can be absolutely nuts!”  ardee

Speak for yourself.

Report this

By Aquifer, January 30, 2012 at 1:55 pm Link to this comment

David,

I think you are missing my point - what the hell difference does it make what i call myself if I promote policies and politics that benefit the people - all the people. “

I have already pointed out that i support Stein. I have contributed to her campaign and have tried to spread the word in the venues i participate in.

Must i be a card carrying Green to participate?

I have heard all this “history” before, and frankly, I am rather tired of having everyone and their grandmother inserting their historical definitions of “progressive”.

How about this, a good old dictionary definition: “modern, liberal, advanced, forward-thinking, enlightened, enterprising, innovative, pioneering, dynamic, bold, avant-garde, reforming, reformist, radical; informal go-ahead. antonym conservative, reactionary” or is that a no-no because it has the term “liberal” in it?

IMO we spend far too much time nit picking over who is a bona fide “lefty” and far too little time in figuring out how to get the lefty “troops” together and reclaim our government for all the folks. To me, it matters not what you call yourself but the things you believe in and the folks you support ...

Report this

By ardee, January 30, 2012 at 1:17 pm Link to this comment

A side note to ardee.  I am not responsible for your failure to be acquainted with pertinent information.  Quite obviously, intelligent people can also be poorly informed, mis-informed - and perhaps, even lazy in this area of endeavor.

Your “pertinent” information is generally of the wackazoid variety. Thanks ever so much for your continuing contribution to my hilarity at your never ending stream of plots, counter plots, secrets that you seem endlessly to be privy to ( negating the secret designation it might seem)and accusations of the wildest stripe.

Quite obviously intelligent people can be absolutely nuts!

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, January 30, 2012 at 12:26 pm Link to this comment

QUOTE, Aquifer:

“I style myself a ‘progressive’ (though i may drop that as well, it appears it has become a ‘4’ letter word, just as ‘liberal’ has)...”
_____________

The corporate-state and those dedicated to it were using “Newspeak” language long before Orwell coined the term. The corporate party’s Democrats do not promote democracy, and its “progressives” serve to prevent progress.

The Union victory of the more heavily industrialized northern state’s in the American Civil War resulted in the birth of America’s corporate-state.

After the Civil War, farmers revolted against the ruthless exploitation of the banks and railroads. They organized the radical Populist movement, and America’s first anti-corporate people’s party — the Populist Party.

To exterminate the Populist movement and their anti-corporate political party, the nascent corporate-state produced the “progressive” operatives.

After working effectively well together to serve the corporate-state in exterminating the Populists, the Democratic Party and political “progressives” eventually became incorporated together, as one… and have always from then to present day served to nurture, protect and preserve the corporate-state whenever it has been threatened by any people’s movement. Protecting and preserving the corporate-state is their political role, regardless of whether they refer to themselves as Democrats, liberals, or progressives.

The function of the liberal “progressive” Democrat reformer elements in America has always been to serve the corporate-state by co-opting people’s movements, and channeling justly angry people’s dissent into support of corporate-state favoring policies that result in either none, or the least people beneficial change possible.

A Green votes for all the progress they wish to see. A “progressive” deviously (D) votes against the progress they profess to be.

Jill Stein for President:

http://www.jillstein.org

The “Principles” of Liberal Voters:

http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=491&Itemid=1

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, January 30, 2012 at 2:58 am Link to this comment

@heterochromatic
“Screw Ron Paul - - “

Hardly of interest for those of us who are genuinely hetero, who do not need to use an alias similar to “heterochromatic”.  Those of us, who are not members of a clan entity that is subordinate to the international clan of pedophiles to which the Penn State group were subordinate. Which clans resort to murder to cover their tracks, and which debacle continues to enlarge. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-kenney-baden/jerry-sandusky-bail_b_1093385.html

All of which was carefully documented by John W. DeCamp in his volume, “The Franklin Cover-UP, Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder in Nebraska.”  Former Nebraska Senator DeCamp also touched on the nation-wide and international paedophile entourage, with one Headquarters in Wash D.C. w/i the U.S. Government. 

Right. Toss Jill Stein into the discussion.  Altruistic, but side-railed in the political rail-yard.  Right.  Anything to distract and fragment the discussion.

For an israeli blogger who “has the facts,” you might review who was the author of the formulation of the Federal Reserve, his family background, and the background of the GHWBushSr family - as related with the Scherff family in the early 1900s.

I find it interesting that two thousand years after the Lord God postulated in Hebrew scriptures, after having allowed this clan several thousand years to convince itself of its evil ways and become more honest, and after the clan´s Lord God tore up the holy veil of the inner temple voiding the former contract, Israel still hasn´t gotten the message.  And continues to sodomize society while fleecing its money.

I´m entertaining the idea of a book.  The title will be similar to “Israel; Seven Thousand Years of Sodomizing Society”.

A side note to ardee.  I am not responsible for your failure to be acquainted with pertinent information.  Quite obviously, intelligent people can also be poorly informed, mis-informed - and perhaps, even lazy in this area of endeavor.

Report this

By Aquifer, January 30, 2012 at 12:59 am Link to this comment

well, looks like truth-out is ahead of truth-dig, wonder if the rest of the “prog” media will catch up ...

was trying to figure out which prog media to support - now i know

Report this

By Aquifer, January 30, 2012 at 12:45 am Link to this comment

hetero,

Thanx so much for this, i hadn’t seen it, it’s great!

Report this

By heterochromatic, January 29, 2012 at 10:14 pm Link to this comment

Screw Ron Paul____here’s an interview with Jill Stein..

http://www.truth-out.org/party-our-discontent-interview-green-party-
candidate-jill-stein/1327346398

very surprising that it’s not St David of Waist’s-Consent offering it the the
congregation

Report this

By Aquifer, January 29, 2012 at 8:54 pm Link to this comment

David,

“A “progressive” is a liberal who always promises to vote for good, rather than (D) evil next time, but never this time.”

Gotta disagree, I style myself a “progressive” (though i may drop that as well, it appears it has become a “4” letter word, just as “liberal” has) but have voted for Nader 4 times and am a Stein supporter as well now.

I think we do not serve the cause well to alienate those who adhere to the same principles but may not pick the same labels to wear on our sleeves ....

IMO, it is not “parties”, per se, of whatever stripe, that will help us, but a common determination to define our principles and unite to promote those who will put them into motion ..

Report this

By heterochromatic, January 29, 2012 at 4:40 pm Link to this comment

mopo—- the Constitution prevents the STATES from issuing money. taht was the
point of it and the meaning of the constitutional provision was to reserve that
power for the federal government.

As I recall, the Federal Reserve was created by act of Congress and has not been
find to be unconstitutional by SCOTUS or found to be engaged in coinage by any
competent authority or sane person…....

I’m not sure that has anything to do with you, but maybe ....

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pdf/pf_7.pdf

Report this

By omop, January 29, 2012 at 4:26 pm Link to this comment

@ DRBHELTHI.

  YOU GOT IT RIGHT…....IN ADDITION…...

  Plain and simple, the Federal Reserve is not part of the Federal
Government.

  It is a privately held corporation owned by stockholders. That is why the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York (and all the others) is listed in the Dun
and Bradstreet Reference Book of American Business (Northeast, Region
1, Manhattan/Bronx).

According to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, only Congress
has the right to issue money and regulate its value, so it is illegal for
private interests to do so. Yet, it happened, and because of a provision in
the Act, the ‘Class A’ stockholders were to be kept a secret and not to be
revealed.

R. F. McMaster, who published a newsletter called The Reaper, through
his Swiss and Saudi Arabian contacts, was able to find out which banks
held a controlling interest in the Reserve.

These interests control the Federal Reserve through about 300
stockholders:

* Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin
* Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris
* Israel Moses Seif Bank of Italy
* Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam
* Lehman Brothers Bank of New York
* Kuhn, Loeb and Co. of New York
* Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
* Goldman, Sachs of New York

Because of the way the Reserve was organized, whoever controls the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York controls the system, About 90 of the
100 largest banks are in this district.
Of the reportedly 203,053 shares of the New York bank:

* Rockefeller’s National City Bank had 30,000 shares
* Morgan’s First National Bank had 15,000 shares
* Chase National Bank had 6,000 shares
* National Bank of Commerce (Morgan Guaranty Trust) had 21,000
shares.

A June 15, 1978 Senate Report called “Interlocking Directorates Among
the Major U.S. Corporations” revealed that five New York banks had 470
interlocking directorates with 130 major U.S. corporations:

* Citicorp (97)
* J.P. Morgan Co. (99)
* Chase Manhattan (89)
* Manufacturers Hanover (89)
* Chemical Bank (96)

According to Eustace Mullins, these banks are major stock holders in the
Fed. In his book World Order, he said that these five banks are
“controlled from London”. Mullins said:

“Besides its controlling interest in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York,
the Rothschilds had developed important financial interests in other
parts of the United States ... The entire Rockefeller empire was financed
by the Rothschilds.”

A May, 1976 report of the House Banking and Currency Committee
indicated: “The Rothschild banks are affiliated with Manufacturers
Hanover of London in which they hold 20 percent ... and Manufacturers
Hanover Trust of New York”.

The Report also revealed that Rothschild Intercontinental Bank, Ltd.,
which consisted of Rothschild banks in London, France, Belgium, New
York, and Amsterdam, had three American subsidiaries: National City
Bank of Cleveland, First City National Bank of Houston, and Seattle First
National Bank. It is believed that the Rothschilds hold 53% of the stock of
the U.S. Federal Reserve. Each year, billions of dollars are “earned” by
Class A stockholders from U.S. tax dollars which go to the Fed to pay
interest on bank loans.

Reads like the US of A is still an “english colony”!!!

Report this

By diamond, January 29, 2012 at 3:40 pm Link to this comment

“Certainly.  He is an experienced, honest physician, and knows that there is no such thing as “influenza inoculation,” and many other alleged inoculations.”

I know that influenza is a constantly mutating virus so I have my doubts on that score too. However, the vaccination is aimed at influenza A, which can kill the very young and the very old. Ron Paul must know that too, since he’s such a paragon of medical virtue. But it seems to me that you are casting doubt on all immunization. Which ones would you get rid of? Small pox? Have you ever seen images of what people with smallpox look like? What’s next? Penicillin is the work of the devil? Even though it has saved more lives than any other single discovery of the 20th century? Do you really want a president who is opposed to vaccination as well as income tax? The chilling thought is what he might be in favor of. He’s a zealot and an eccentric and they usually do terrible things once they get their hands on power. His anti- flu vaccination stand alone would set him apart within the medical profession as a dissident and an extremist.

And his taxation plans are the epitome of injustice. He wants to introduce excises and tariffs as a substitute for income tax. He probably wants to introduce a goods and services tax which is a tax that taxes a homeless man, children and pensioners at the same rate as a billionaire.

The flu shot is widely used around the world and I have never seen any evidence that mumps epidemics are connected with its use.Proving whether it is actually as useful as is said would involve an experiment of not using it, in which case many more thousands of elderly people and babies all over the world might die from influenza A. Most people would say that price is too high to pay. Ron Paul is not one of them, it seems. You don’t need to convince me of the ruthlessness of drug corporations but under Ron Paul’s free market model they would, of course, be even more unregulated than they are now.

Report this

By ardee, January 29, 2012 at 3:27 pm Link to this comment

Once again, Israeli deceit, supported
by the GHWBushSr, NAZI family.

Does anyone else note the rather unlikely proposed alliance of Jew and Nazi?

Dr. UNhealthy I presume.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, January 29, 2012 at 3:19 pm Link to this comment

The wholesale, composite attempt to undermine the candidacy of physician Dr. Ron
Paul is now readily understood.  Ron Paul´s predecent, of requesting a GAO audit of
the Israeli private bank, disguised for almost one hundred years with the title “U.S.
Federal Reserve,” was the underlying reason.  Once again, Israeli deceit, supported
by the GHWBushSr, NAZI family.
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=8252175042329977626#

The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be
found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows..

Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)
Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)
Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)
Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)
Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)
Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)
Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)
Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)
and many many more including banks in Belgium of all places

$16,000,000,000,000.00(sixteen trillion) had been secretly given out to US banks and
corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland.  The American
public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out
foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs that Obama had not
stripped from the U.S.A. and exiled to 3rd world countries.

A summary is available at
((http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/10.11/gaoaudit.html))
View the 266-page GAO audit of the Federal Reserve(July 21st, 2011) at this link:
((http://www.scribd.com/doc/60553686/GAO-Fed-Investigation))

Report this

By heterochromatic, January 29, 2012 at 2:24 pm Link to this comment

drgethealthy—- you’re right about the Israeli shills pointing out that every else is
no more moral or decent or truthful than are they,  but

that shit

has not a damn thing to do with Ron Paul being full of shit.


and it’s 1000 per cent sure that you have not the requisite health necessary to
admit that his first prediction, which you touted, was wrong.


get better, dr, you can live with this terrestrial reality without the “extras”

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, January 29, 2012 at 2:08 pm Link to this comment

Well, you could start a movement (all you need at first is a web site) in which people pledged themselves to support only a progressive coalition candidate.  ‘Progressive’ would depend on a list of crucial issues.  ‘Coalition’ means some sort of agreement between the candidate whereby one would be selected and the others would stand aside.

It’s mighty late in the day, though.

Report this

By Cliff Carson, January 29, 2012 at 10:01 am Link to this comment

By Aquifer, January 29 at 12:30 am

“What needs to happen to retake our government, IMO,  is first and foremost a belief that we can - a whole lot of folks out there don’t believe it so they don’t try. After that we need to get together and decide what we do need to do as a society. Then we have to support and elect folks who will facilitate those actions with legislation, policy and program.”

Aquifer, I couldn’t agree with you more.  We do need to develop a culture of “Yes We Can” to borrow from Obama.

I presented a simplistic overview of a plan about how we could go about coming together, what we should, and how we could, decide a common go forward agenda.  As to who would facilitate the plan, that would have to come from the members once they have decided 1) It can be done, 2)  We are the ones to do it, and 3) we need a minimum of two Independent Parties to decide it is possible to form a common body of people to achieve our dreams.

I think you and I have already settled on a couple of “common ground” items:

1)  Change is needed
2)  Organization is the key

Could you suggest a better way to get the first two actions going?  How about anyone else? Suggestions?   

By David J. Cyr, January 29 at 8:12 am

QUOTE, Cliff Carson:

“I would join in working for the Green Party - but only as a member of a Coalition.”

Your response to my statement was to turn to shilling for the Green Party.  It seems you do not believe in organizing a Coalition of Independent Parties.  I do know that many False Front Coalitions have been presented, but none have proposed to involve the people as my plan has.

David your only input seems to be shilling for the Green Party.  That is not a Government changing strategy.  Would you join a Coalition if the “common core values” of the Coalition would address most if not all of your core values?

David, not everyone in the United States holds all your or my, or the Green Party, or any other Independent party core values, as “Musts”.  In any Democracy would you think that compromise might be the unifying factor?

If not, then what you are presenting is that if the Green Party was to somehow gain control, those Green party values would overrule any other ideas.

In other words you would be advocating what we are already burdened with - suppressive Government.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, January 29, 2012 at 9:24 am Link to this comment

“He is also opposed to federal government influenza inoculation programs.””  diamond

Certainly.  He is an experienced, honest physician, and knows that there is no such thing as “influenza inoculation,” and many other alleged inoculations.  If a flu shot worked, you wouldn´t be directed to get one each year.  Research shows that in all locations where alleged inoculations have been used, mumps for example, subsequently, massive outbreaks of mumps have occurred.  The massive fraud underway by Merck with its HPV “vaccination” has already lamed hundreds around the world, and killed a number much larger than reported, due to laxity, outright dishonesty, and the iceberg principle.  There is no evidence WHATSOEVER, that the HPV from Merck has prevented anything in real life.  It is all a paper-work, advertisement, bribery endeavor.  Thus far, fleecing Americans and Europeans for billions of Israeli, Federal Reserve dollars, printed with American images.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, January 29, 2012 at 9:12 am Link to this comment

QUOTE, Cliff Carson:

“I would join in working for the Green Party - but only as a member of a Coalition.”
___________________

The “progressive” liberals are always promising that they’ll work with Greens… if the Greens will only MoveOn into the Right together with the Democrats.

We are where we are because, for too many decades, the devious liberal “coalitions” have been so successful in persuading near everyone who should have been voting Left to instead MoveOn into the Right… further and further into the Right, with every election being “too important” to not vote for the corporate party’s Democrat evil.

A “progressive” is a liberal who always promises to vote for good, rather than (D) evil next time, but never this time.

Jill Stein for President:

http://www.jillstein.org

The “Principles” of Liberal Voters:

http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=491&Itemid=1

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, January 29, 2012 at 4:54 am Link to this comment

“ - that US taxpayers would pay to rebuild Gaza and the West Bank,
hasn’t come to pass…....”  heterochromatic

Of course, the 99% cannot logically expect the Wall St. Israeli-types among the 1%  to
place value on the “stipend” that continues to be paid to Israel.  Stipend ?  Why does
this continue to be paid?  Physician Dr. Ron Paul wants to stop it, as do millions of other
Americans.
Riding the crest of the international, social-gratuity wave resulting from the “Holocaust”
is not only fun for the Zionists, its also profitable. Very profitable.

The comment of Anarcissie, “Of course, those devoted to the service of Moloch and
Mammon should pay their taxes without complaint, but curiously they usually seem to
want to offload them onto somebody else” has rather broad application, vastly
beyond the 1% richer people. 

Bats and belfrys.  Israeli types have acquired expertise in pointing to belfrys of other
people, distracting from the sordid condition of their own.

Report this

By Aquifer, January 29, 2012 at 1:30 am Link to this comment

Cliff,

Cliff,

“You should vote for what you think we really need.  So should everyone.  Where the disparity and problem appears is that there is a difference between our personal wants and needs and what needs to happen to retake our corrupt government.”

It is not so much my personal wants and needs as my belief as to what we as a society need to do. Clearly we all have our own opinions on that, bit that is where discussion comes in ...

What needs to happen to retake our government, IMO,  is first and foremost a belief that we can - a whole lot of folks out there don’t believe it so they don’t try. After that we need to get together and decide what we do need to do as a society. Then we have to support and elect folks who will facilitate those actions with legislation, policy and program.

The ideas you put forth re coordination are great - and are ones i have suggested in various forms where i have had a forum to do so. But i have been perpetually frustrated - inevitably folks get tied up in their turf wars - unions can’t even get their acts together to support each other let alone make meaningful coalitions with peace or environmental groups.

i would like to get a all of these guys in a room, lock the door, and knock some heads together - metaphorically of course - and not unlock it ‘til all agree, but i have no leverage to bring such an event about.

If you have a way to bring about the plan you propose - more power to you ....

In the meantime, I will take the time and effort to sort out for myself what i think is a basic platform - then find the candidate that a) has as close to it as i can get and b) appears to be a capable, intelligent, honest human being who has enough empathy and fire in the belly to fight the good fight. Then i will work for that candidate - that is all i can do ....

Report this

By diamond, January 29, 2012 at 12:05 am Link to this comment

“Nor was he preaching to ignorant people.  He was responding to very intelligent religious leaders who were a bit more proficient at shilling than are you, and who were trying to induce a statement that could be used against Him.  His response
clearly assisted them to recall the dichotomy between Caesar and God, of which they
were well aware but had overstepped with their entrapment attempt.  Jesus also
foresaw how they would respond, due to their own religious entrapment.

That you assign the titles of imbecile and fool flippantly to others is interesting.”

I already said all this. I know the context in which it occurred and I already described it. If you’re going to use my points at least acknowledge it. And no one has succeeded in making a case that he didn’t say they should pay their taxes, which puts Ron Paul at odds with the man he is supposed to worship as the son of God- as do most of his social policies. I said his policies were imbecilic and by and large they are, which proves that he’s a fool. The economic model he favors is a proven failure and has failed over and over again so he’s a fool to believe in it but not as big a fool as those who believe him when he says he and it will save America.

“The foundation of Paul’s political philosophy is the conviction that “the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else.” He has been nicknamed “Dr. No,” reflecting both his medical degree and his insistence that he will “never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.”
Paul is a proponent of Austrian School economics; he has authored six books on the subject, and displays pictures of Austrian School economists Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Ludwig von Mises (as well as of Grover Cleveland) on his office wall. He regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes; he cast two thirds of all the lone negative votes in the House during a 1995–1997 period.

He has pledged never to raise taxes and states he has never voted to approve a budget deficit. Paul believes that the country could abolish the individual income tax by scaling back federal spending to its fiscal year 2000 levels; financing government operations would be primarily by excise taxes and non-protectionist tariffs. He endorses eliminating most federal government agencies, terming them unnecessary bureaucracies. Citing the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, Paul advocates states’ rights to decide how to regulate social matters not cited directly by the Constitution. He opposes federal regulation of the death penalty, of education, and of marriage, and endorsed revising the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy to concern mainly disruptive sexual behavior (whether heterosexual or homosexual).

Paul says his years as an obstetrician led him to believe life begins at conception. He terms himself “strongly pro-life”, “an unshakable foe of abortion”, and believes regulation or ban on medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is “best handled at the state level”. His abortion-related legislation, like the Sanctity of Life Act, is intended to negate Roe v. Wade and to get “the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters.”

Paul has stated that “The government shouldn’t be in the medical business.” He pushes to eliminate federal involvement with and management of health care, which he argues would allow prices to decrease due to the fundamental dynamics of a free market (Huh? Without a public option, there’s no competition so how is the market free?).He is also opposed to federal government influenza inoculation programs.”

(Wikipedia)

He’s a flake.

Report this

By Cliff Carson, January 29, 2012 at 12:01 am Link to this comment

By Aquifer, January 28 at 6:13 pm

“Well that may be true for a few, but for me, voting 3rd party is not a “conscience” vote - but the way i use my vote to promote what i think we really need, instead of to pursue some “strategy” that, more likely than not, is what advances the prospects of the TPTB, like sticking with the duopoly, e.g. ...”

Aquifer I think Scott inadvertently made that mistake.  But he will have to tell you for sure.

As to your quote from you comment and applying it to my comments that Scott mentioned:
You should vote for what you think we really need.  So should everyone.  Where the disparity and problem appears is that there is a difference between our personal wants and needs and what needs to happen to retake our corrupt government.

To accomplish that requires co-operation from as many individuals and groups as possible.  It would be most difficult to form a Coalition if not impossible if everyone’s needs and wishes has to be an exact match.  That’s what the Two Headed Monster in Washington wants us to chase because they know it will never happen.

About ten years ago I gave thought to this problem and have posted it in articles and comments on several sites countless times.  Please indulge me and let me give the summary once again.

What I proposed is that the Independent parties post their position on their core beliefs so that everyone can read them.  These parties would ask all Independent minded people to contact the party that most meets their beliefs and join that party.

Concurrently that the Independent parties come together to form a coalition and present a composite of those core beliefs.  Each party would then have their membership or governing body to strike those core beliefs that conflicted with their own core principles.  From this action would result a set of core beliefs that all Independents hold personal.  These would be the “common” principles.  Those that were not common would again be presented for each party to vote on once again.

From that vote an agreed to value say 60% would be the threshold of beliefs that could be folded in as Secondary core values.  The values would be included in the Coalition Statement of Primary and Secondary Core values adopted as the representation of the Coalition Party.

Any Independent Party that couldn’t adopt that set of Values would be free to extricate itself from the Coalition.

The important thing to remember is that not all would be needed to start, the expectation would be that it could grow.  One immediate good would be that the Independent parties should expect a heavy influx of new members.

Always keep in mind that where enough good people are gathered in a goal mission what they can imagine can be accomplished.

From that point forward the Coalition Party could elect its Governing body and begin the process of becoming a force in the United States Government.

Report this

By Aquifer, January 28, 2012 at 7:13 pm Link to this comment

Scott,

If you are going to quote posts, please attribute them to the correct author!

re: scott425, January 28 at 10:57 am

“Aquifer, January 27 at 11:38 am

“I wasn’t aware that OWS was an “organization” .....”

Anything below that I did not write - it was written by “Cliff Carson”, yet nowhere does his name appear in that post. Cliff used that quote from me to begin his post. I really do resent your not making that clear ...

i would appreciate it if you would post acknowledging that apparent mis-attribution on your part. As to the substance of your post

“then this is a good indication that the movement might not be worth supporting and might actually be pro-corporate.”

Sorry, non sequitur, failure to achieve a coalition can have any number of reasons, being pro corporate is hardly related; in fact, achieving a coalition - between the Dems and Reps - has been quite pro corporate indeed.

There is strength in numbers - a good reason to get together, but failure to do so does not implicate a pro corporate stance and your suggestion that it does is just another way to slam 3rd parties

“There seems to be a strong contingent of 3rd party politics that sees the role of 3rd parties as enabling a way for people to “vote their conscience” irrespective of what the consequences of voting may be—eg whether this will accomplish anything meaningful.”

Well that may be true for a few, but for me, voting 3rd party is not a “conscience” vote - but the way i use my vote to promote what i think we really need, instead of to pursue some “strategy” that, more likely than not, is what advances the prospects of the TPTB, like sticking with the duopoly, e.g. ...

Scott, your slip keeps showing ...

Awaiting your correction ...

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, January 28, 2012 at 5:52 pm Link to this comment

diamond, January 28 at 12:36 pm:

‘“If they chose to adhere to the state (Caesar) then he advised them to follow their decision (the wrong one, of course) and pay their taxes.  Other decisions were possible.”

I don’t think that interpretation will fly. He was quite clear: ‘Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s’ doesn’t sound waffly to me. He clearly meant they should pay their taxes AND do their duty to God as well. It’s not either/or. It’s certainly not necessarily ungodly to pay your taxes and obey the law and you have to do some mighty contortions to turn what he said into a statement that means ‘don’t pay taxes’. ...’

No, ‘Render unto Caesar’ is by no means waffly unless the hearer is waffly.  It required the hearers to decide whether they belonged to Caesar or to God.  Jesus also said, ‘You cannot serve two masters’ and ‘Put up your sword” (Caesar’s instrument) ‘for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.’  I could go on but I’m sure you get the idea.

Of course, those devoted to the service of Moloch and Mammon should pay their taxes without complaint, but curiously they usually seem to want to offload them onto somebody else.

Report this

By heterochromatic, January 28, 2012 at 4:01 pm Link to this comment

considering that the very first prediction, that US
taxpayers would pay to rebuild Gaza and the West Bank,
hasn’t come to pass…....

Ron Paul sure as hell isn’t batting 1000…...unless
one means that he’s got a 1000 bats flying through his
mind.


better health and fewer delusions for you.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, January 28, 2012 at 2:19 pm Link to this comment

@diamond
” - but if Paul did what he preaches, - “

Obviously, you have not followed the link graciously provided by omop and viewed
the predictions of Dr. Ron Paul in 2002.  His predictions were remarkable, and he batted
1000.
http://youtu.be/BFLd_H3AZCA

His record reveals that he has done what he preaches for at least 40 years, with a
consistency that can be attributed to NO OTHER representative in the U.S. Congress.
Not to mention the ones who are not veterans.

As far as the alleged “quote” by Jesus, he neither recommended paying taxes nor not
paying taxes.  Nor was he preaching to ignorant people.  He was responding to very
intelligent religious leaders who were a bit more proficient at shilling than are you, and
who were trying to induce a statement that could be used against Him.  His response
clearly assisted them to recall the dichotomy between Caesar and God, of which they
were well aware but had overstepped with their entrapment attempt.  Jesus also
foresaw how they would respond, due to their own religious entrapment.

That you assign the titles of imbecile and fool flippantly to others is interesting.

Report this

By diamond, January 28, 2012 at 1:36 pm Link to this comment

“If they chose to adhere to the state (Caesar) then he advised them to follow their decision (the wrong one, of course) and pay their taxes.  Other decisions were possible.”

I don’t think that interpretation will fly. He was quite clear: ‘Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s’ doesn’t sound waffly to me. He clearly meant they should pay their taxes AND do their duty to God as well. It’s not either/or. It’s certainly not necessarily ungodly to pay your taxes and obey the law and you have to do some mighty contortions to turn what he said into a statement that means ‘don’t pay taxes’. He said quite the opposite and he was usually pretty clear cut in what he said because most of the people he preached too were uneducated and would have had no patience with obscure philosophical statements. Frankly, it amazes me that you think it is ‘wrong’ to pay your taxes. The whole idea that a nation can run on fevered patriotism, religion and guns is simply imbecilic. If Ron Paul’s precepts were followed America would descend into bankruptcy AND anarchy. The bankruptcy is already a fact of life, thanks to the Bush Gang, but if Paul did what he preaches, anarchy would soon follow and then the four horsemen of the apocalypse wouldn’t be a scary idea any more but a reality. He’s not only a fool, he’s a dangerous fool.

Report this

By scott425, January 28, 2012 at 11:57 am Link to this comment

Aquifer, January 27 at 11:38 am

“I wasn’t aware that OWS was an “organization” .....”

Actually Aquifer Jill Stein is aware since she has endorsed the OWS and has followed up with OGO.  She also sought Rocky Anderson to run on the Green Presidential Ticket instead of forming the Justice Party.

I applaud her for that.

http://www.bloomingtonalternative.com/node/10883

I am not against today’s Green Party and I am not against the Justice Party.  But they should give up their plan to go it alone.

This is a mistake of the Justice Party and all the rest of the Independents.

As to the Boxer statement, the reason I said her thinking was shallow thinking is as follows:

A failure to bring restraint to bear on a polluting Nation, especially the number 2 polluter, means that the project is futile.

What she could have said is that “the United States Government is going to sign the agreement for the good of the World and for those countries that don’t sign up, all trade with your country will stop at the time you refuse.”

But had she said that she would have been booted out of Congress.  The group above the law, the Corporate Rulers of America, would not stand for it.  It affects the bottom line.

As I said before, I am ready to support the Green Party as a member of a Coalition of Independents.  I don’t Intend to vote for any Independent Party that decides to go it alone.  It is a given surrender to do so.  But coming together as a Coalition would give a chance for success.

To give the Green Party the credit it deserves, they did ask Rocky to join them instead of forming another useless Independent Party.

But they can continue to approach the other Independent parties and try to get a viable Coalition organization formed.  The Green Party will have to get that first one to join before they can get the next one, and the next and on.

This is what I think the public should see - a strong effort to form a formidable Coalition in opposition to the Criminal Two.

This is the only way to success.  We need to realize that.  I will support the Green Party as a member of a coalition, if they will go public with that endeavor.  I think millions of others would also.

Here here.

There seems to be a strong contingent of 3rd party politics that sees the role of 3rd parties as enabling a way for people to “vote their conscience” irrespective of what the consequences of voting may be—eg whether this will accomplish anything meaningful. 

If you’re paranoid about “false fronts” as I am then it seems to me that a good way to judge whether a movement is genuine is to look into their political strategy.  If these groups think they don’t have to form coalitions to accomplish things, but rather actively encourage divisions and splits and ideological purity, then this is a good indication that the movement might not be worth supporting and might actually be pro-corporate.  Politics is the art of the possible and those who see politics as a religion might not be reactionary in intent, but the results of their efforts are very likely going to be reactionary.

Democracy and basic rights have to be re-claimed, and that will requires a broad coalition.  Currently, the people are divided and conquered.  As long as we stay divided, then we’ll stay conquered.  When it comes to marginal candidates and 3rd parties, I want to hear concrete empirical strategy as to how we’re going to fix the crisis, rather than a religious mentality that encourages hatred of the “other” that relies primarily on slogans rather than substance.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, January 28, 2012 at 9:30 am Link to this comment

diamond—It’s possible to interpret Jesus’s “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” quite differently.  There was, at the time, a considerable debate going on among the Jews as to what response they should make to the overwhelming assertion of Roman power: submission, passive resistance, active resistance, which the question reflects.  Jesus answered the question as to whether Jews should pay taxes by throwing the question back on the questioners: it was up to them to decide for themselves whether their lives were to be devoted to Caesar or to God, and how.  If they chose to adhere to the state (Caesar) then he advised them to follow their decision (the wrong one, of course) and pay their taxes.  Other decisions were possible.

Report this

By omop, January 28, 2012 at 7:06 am Link to this comment

Ron Paul Predictions in 2002.

reasons for marginilizing?

http://youtu.be/BFLd_H3AZCA

Report this

By omop, January 28, 2012 at 6:38 am Link to this comment

This is whats it all about Alfies!!!!

US Presidential Candidates’ Positions on Israel – Palestine, War, and Civil
Liberties

CNI summarizes the policy positions of President Obama and the top
Republican nominees.
by Pamela Olson

Israel/Palestine   War against Iran   Civil Liberties

Mitt Romney   Pro-Israel, against Palestinian UN bid   Increase the
military by 100,00 troops, threaten Iran with military action   Pro-Patriot
Act & related measures
Newt Gingrich   Pro-Israel, calls Palestinians an invented people  
Prefers imposing regime change through non-military methods, but
force is an option   Would strengthen Patriot Act
Rick Santorum   Pro-Israel, the West Bank is legitimate Israeli territory  
Advocates air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities   Civil laws must
comport with God’s law, pro-Patriot Act & related measures
Ron Paul   Non-interventionist, end US aid to Israel   Generally anti-war,
against pre-emptive strike on Iran   Opposed to the Patriot Act & related
measures
Barak Obama   Pro-Israel, opposes settlements, supports two-state
solution along 1967 borders, but has done little to advance these
positions   All options are open   Supported reauthorizing Patriot Act, has
maintained or increased executive power

Report this

By diamond, January 28, 2012 at 2:41 am Link to this comment

“Diamond, plz restore your brain to the “ON” position.  Again. Again and Again!”

My brain is always in the ‘on’ position - it drives my family mad. Faced with two irrefutable facts (1) that Ron Paul wants to abolish income tax and said on TV that Americans should pay ‘zero’ income tax and (2) that Jesus said people should pay their taxes, you have decided to insult my brain. Futile, of course, because my brain did not make Ron Paul say Americans should pay ‘zero’ taxes and my brain did not make Jesus say people should pay their taxes.

There is a fundamental contradiction in Ron Paul’s public stance as a Christian and his decidedly un-Christian plans for the American working class which include the scrapping of public education and the removal of any possibility of any form of public health care and the abolition of social security and pensions. He is certainly not the first politician to use God or the Bible to defend his cruelty and his deceit, but he is the flakiest and the sneakiest.  The New Testament says his entire social and economic platform is wrong, not only morally but factually. Whatever happened to ‘I was hungry and you fed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was homeless and you took me in’? Isn’t that what a Christian is supposed to do? Ron Paul is not a Christian at all: he’s a free market, zero tax, no government, Ayn Randian disciple with the morals and social policies of an Old Testament patriarch. And I can’t say worse of him than the last.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, January 28, 2012 at 2:27 am Link to this comment

@diamond
“Alas, they are not falsifications but words out of Paul’s own mouth.”

What about the words out of B.H.Obama´s mouth?  His actions are the opposite of his
oratorical words, as you observe in your blogs.  However, what does the historical,
political activity of Dr. Ron Paul demonstrate?  Consistent support of his constituency,
and support of the Constitution of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands.  The same that he is currently espousing, a continuation of what he has historically done.

A few years ago, I learned from the original indigenous of the continent, a saying that
bespeaks your presentation of “Jesus.”  It was translated many years ago into English, 
“Actions speak louder than words,” whose meaning has deteriorated into nothingness. 

The original version is more concrete, which I have used since 1965:  “What you do
speaks so loud, I cannot hear what you say.”  We are wise to apply this wisdom to the
leadership of the U.S. of America, NATO and the U.N.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, January 28, 2012 at 2:01 am Link to this comment

@diamond
” It would be like the running of the bulls on Wall Street. I can dream, can’t I?”

Certainly, as I understand the topic, we all do.  However, entertaining dreams is a bit
different than blogging them. 

As far as Doctor Ron Paul is concerned, where is your logic of six months ago ?  Your
critique is about as shallow as that of Obama´s Wall St. shills.  Criticizing Ron Paul,
when “B.H. Obama” effectively removed all your individual rights, guaranteed by the
U. S. Constitution, two weeks ago?  While repeating his deceitful blabbering of early 2008.  The poor folk, especially those of color, whom he marked off as being too stupid to comprehend his lies, have a message prepared for him in 2012.

Diamond, plz restore your brain to the “ON” position.  Again. Again and Again!

Report this

By Aquifer, January 27, 2012 at 9:21 pm Link to this comment

Cliff,

I thought OWS considered itself more a “movement” than an “organization”

Am aware that Dr. Stein has endorsed OWS - rather a natural affinity, i would guess, seeing as how i think her platform is pretty much the one OWS would write for itself if it ever got around to writing one ...

I agree that co-ordination of the left would be quite desirable - it has been fractured too long and has weakened itself in the process. So why did Anderson decline to join?

I am an indy myself - not particularly a “party” person, but i have pitched my tent in Stein’s camp this time around - think she is the real deal, and will work for her. In the end I think that is what it comes down to for us all ...

Report this

By diamond, January 27, 2012 at 7:22 pm Link to this comment

Actually Ron Paul doesn’t have a leg to stand on with his ‘no income tax’ nonsense. He’s supposedly a fundamentalist Christian. Well, Jesus was asked directly by some sneaky types who were hoping he would say something incriminating whether Jews should be paying taxes to Caesar. But Jesus was just too smart to fall into their trap (something that can’t be said about any of the Republican candidates) and simply took a coin and showed it to them. ‘Whose image is on this coin?’ he asked and they said it was Caesar’s. ‘Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s’ he told them. Not only does his answer reveal a brilliant politician (or lawyer) but in this answer is great common sense. He is actually saying: ‘We don’t live in a spiritual world. We live in the material world and in that world there are laws and regulations and taxes.’ In other words, he simply told his questioners:‘Pay your taxes’. Ron Paul should obey Jesus and not his own twisted, ‘greed is good’ ideology while claiming to be a Christian. And Mitt Romney should stop hiding income in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland. This is the kind of behavior that made Jesus so angry he took a whip and drove the money changers out of the temple. I’d like to see THAT. If only he could be let loose on Wall Street with a whip! Watch those stockbrokers break into a stumbling, sweaty-faced run under the lash. It would be like the running of the bulls on Wall Street. I can dream, can’t I?

Report this

By Cliff Carson, January 27, 2012 at 6:29 pm Link to this comment

Aquifer, January 27 at 11:38 am

“I wasn’t aware that OWS was an “organization” .....”

Actually Aquifer Jill Stein is aware since she has endorsed the OWS and has followed up with OGO.  She also sought Rocky Anderson to run on the Green Presidential Ticket instead of forming the Justice Party.

I applaud her for that.

http://www.bloomingtonalternative.com/node/10883

I am not against today’s Green Party and I am not against the Justice Party.  But they should give up their plan to go it alone.

This is a mistake of the Justice Party and all the rest of the Independents.

As to the Boxer statement, the reason I said her thinking was shallow thinking is as follows:

A failure to bring restraint to bear on a polluting Nation, especially the number 2 polluter, means that the project is futile.

What she could have said is that “the United States Government is going to sign the agreement for the good of the World and for those countries that don’t sign up, all trade with your country will stop at the time you refuse.”

But had she said that she would have been booted out of Congress.  The group above the law, the Corporate Rulers of America, would not stand for it.  It affects the bottom line.

As I said before, I am ready to support the Green Party as a member of a Coalition of Independents.  I don’t Intend to vote for any Independent Party that decides to go it alone.  It is a given surrender to do so.  But coming together as a Coalition would give a chance for success.

To give the Green Party the credit it deserves, they did ask Rocky to join them instead of forming another useless Independent Party.

But they can continue to approach the other Independent parties and try to get a viable Coalition organization formed.  The Green Party will have to get that first one to join before they can get the next one, and the next and on.

This is what I think the public should see - a strong effort to form a formidable Coalition in opposition to the Criminal Two.

This is the only way to success.  We need to realize that.  I will support the Green Party as a member of a coalition, if they will go public with that endeavor.  I think millions of others would also.

Report this

By heterochromatic, January 27, 2012 at 2:55 pm Link to this comment

Ron Paul-Supporting Former Ron Paul Secretary: He Knew
All About Those Newsletters

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/ron-paul-
supporting-former-ron-paul-secretary-he-knew-all-about-
those-newsletters.php

Report this

By diamond, January 27, 2012 at 2:22 pm Link to this comment

“He was put in the chair for pulling a pillow case over his head after his medication being withheld for about 5 days.”

He might be schizophrenic but he’s not crazy enough not to know he’s in Guantanamo Bay. Mistreatment of prisoners is endemic in the United States and what happened in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and Bagram was simply the foreign wing of the brutality and inhumanity that is every day reality in America’s prisons.

“You spin the intentions of Ron Paul into nonsense better than any other shill on Truthdig.
However. Folk who read well recognize your spins to be falsifications. Immediately.”

Alas, they are not falsifications but words out of Paul’s own mouth. Yes, I know it sounds like absolute nonsense, most of what Ronnie boy believes is so idiotic that many people would think he was joking, but Ron Paul actually believes it all makes sense. His answer is ‘zero’ and that’s how many votes he should get, if voters don’t want a continuation of the deregulated nightmare they’ve been living in since Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher conned their way into power.

Report this

By Aquifer, January 27, 2012 at 12:38 pm Link to this comment

Scott,

“Anderson is a stronger politician (comes across as polished, calm, hard to rattle, and has good experience) with a broader, more inclusive program (sounds totally reasonable and mainstream while being on the hard left of our messed-up discourse)”

Ah, just what we need, another “polished politician” to take us down the yellow brick road ..... If that is what he is, I think I will pass ..... As far as “inclusive platform” - can it be both mainstream and hard left? But i thought the critique of the Green platform was that it was too “socialist”? So which is more “left” - “hard left” or “socialist”?

Cliff,

“In Environmental Control ALL polluters must work together for the benefit of all mankind.  Ignoring the second largest polluter on earth by giving a pass, would signal the death knell on control of Earth’s pollution no matter how the rest of the world acted as individuals.  It showed how shallow in thinking Senator Boxer is.”

See the problem with this kind of thinking is that it is rather like a gang beating up on someone and nobody refusing to quit because the others won’t. There is no way for US to “force” that second biggest polluter to stop, but is that a reason for the first biggest polluter not to? THAT, Cliff, to me is “shallow in thinking”.  Not only that but the process of stopping will have to involve at least some new technology and a widespread use, at the very least, of “no net carbon” technologies. The Green New Deal proposed in Dr. Stein’s SOTU addresses those issues head on with the great “perk” that, oh, by the way, that will mean lots of jobs as well - a win, win for people and the planet ....

“The 1% has a coherent organization. Other than Occupy Wall Street, the 99% does not. ”

I wasn’t aware that OWS was an “organization” .....

“the man Rocky Anderson and his beliefs and actions.  He seems to be a principled person.”

I have no reason to doubt that he is, and a “polished politician” to boot, as Scott says. However, having watched and listened to Dr. Stein on several occasions - if you haven’t watched her SOTU, you really should - and think she has the “whole package” - principles, resolve, background, a great platform, with the plus in this case of being backed by an “organization” whose positions, ironically, have been those of OWS since before there WAS an OWS. Seems to me this could/would be a perfect match at this time ...

I agree in general about parties and party loyalty - which is why i pay attention to the candidates themselves and where they are coming from (the reason I did not support O and would not support Paul). In that respect, i really do like Stein ..

Report this

By Cliff Carson, January 27, 2012 at 10:24 am Link to this comment

As to Rocky Anderson who founded the Justice Party, here is a link to a window of his work to try and end the sadistic torture of detainees in Iraq and American Citizens in United States prisons.

The Link basically dwells on one case involving a young man, a schizophrenic, who was stripped naked then shackled and restrained with cuffs to a metal chair by guards while in prison. He was put in the chair for pulling a pillow case over his head after his medication being withheld for about 5 days.

After you read about this case do some more reading about the man Rocky Anderson and his beliefs and actions.  He seems to be a principled person.

http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking2/DemocracyNow.html

Report this

By Cliff Carson, January 27, 2012 at 8:51 am Link to this comment

Ref:  David J. Cyr, January 26 at 2:19 pm

“For our children to have a human habitable planet, we should all put Earth first… before any and all nations.”

David
While your statement is true, it doesn’t actually address the root cause of why the Unites States is not a signatory to the solution of reducing pollutants in Earth’s atmosphere.  Your incantations for the Green Party as the solution is misguided.

Your Green Party promotion is reflective of what keeps the American people in bondage to the Two Controlling Criminal Parties, Democrat and Republican.

The 99% will never throw off the yoke of bondage if the Independent Parties (all 100+ of them) keep a “My Party First” attitude.  I don’t know how many times I have stated on these pages that the root problem of enabling Criminal Governance of America is Party Loyalty.

The only solution to recovering control of our Government is to bring the Independents together into a “Coalition of Independents”  and choosing one of the two Dominate Political Parties to shun into the dust bin of history, leaving only one of those criminal parties to go against, as we over several election cycles push that survivor out.

We should support the Green Party but only as a member of a United Coalition of all the Independent parties .  My vision is a coming together of these Independent parties to select a common platform, Ideals, and Tenets.  Next getting registered in every state, then choosing a slate to run on the Coalition Platform.  The number of voting Delegates from each party should be based on the membership count of that party.  This is something that would work.  Individual Party participation in the current electoral system should have been recognized long ago by the public as an exercise in futility.

When you admonished me that instead of being Americans first we should be people of Earth first , I was reminded of what Senator Boxer said a few years ago when debating controlling the Environment through the Kyoto accords.

When confronted by fellow Senators as to how the U S would force China to obey any Treaty that America signed, her answer was that she didn’t care what China did, her only concern was what the United States did.

In Environmental Control ALL polluters must work together for the benefit of all mankind.  Ignoring the second largest polluter on earth by giving a pass, would signal the death knell on control of Earth’s pollution no matter how the rest of the world acted as individuals.  It showed how shallow in thinking Senator Boxer is.

Thinking that shilling for the Green Party is the solution to America’s Criminal Governance is thinking in an equally shallow dimension.
I believe I once said to you, that I would join in working for the Green Party - but only as a member of a Coalition.

The key to retaking our government is organization of the 99%.  They know. And so does the 1%.  The 1% has a coherent organization.  Other than Occupy Wall Street, the 99% does not.  But it can, if it desires, and works, to achieve such.

Report this

By scott425, January 27, 2012 at 8:45 am Link to this comment

David,

I’m not adverse to your concerns—I’m aware of the potential existence of false fronts and diversionary tactics.  All my adult life I’ve been baffled by the absurd multiplicity of parties on the left and their inability to get together.

But let’s be real—if you are going to make the insinuation, go all the way.  If the Justice party is a diversion or a false front, make the case as to why.

We need trustworthy independent journalism on the left to expose who works for who, and we need it now.  These parties and candidates need to be throughly vetted.

Segwaying back to Paul….I think that’s a big part of his appeal.  The notion that he’s been saying and doing the same shit for years and by all appearances genuinely believes it.  And the notion that the establishment utterly hates him and wants him to go away.  In a nation where people hate the disfunctionality of their government, this kind of outsiderdum has its charm.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, January 27, 2012 at 7:24 am Link to this comment

Polished?

There’s nothing new about the (D) faction of the corporate party producing polished “progressive” politician “dissident” Democrats, whenever conditions provide an opportunity for a good Green candidate to get votes for an actual political alternative to the corporate party.

When Howie Hawkins stood for U.S. Senate election in 2006, challenging the re-installation of the corporate war party’s Hillary Clinton, the (D) faction of the war party quickly produced a dissident “progressive” candidate, Jonathan Tasini, so the “antiwar” element within the (D) faction of the war party could vote for a war party Democrat candidate while appearing to oppose war… instead of voting for an actual antiwar candidate.

It’s the job of “progressive” Democrats to ensure that real non-corporate alternatives don’t get votes.

Whenever (D) fooled people start to get sensible and decide to leave the Democrat faction of the corporate party, (D) “progressives” seek to pull them back in, with tricks like creating the Working Families Party, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the (D) faction of corporate party.

Jill Stein for President:

http://www.jillstein.org

Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:

http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=498&Itemid=1

Report this

By scott425, January 27, 2012 at 6:40 am Link to this comment

Aquifer,

Actually those words were poorly chosen.  I guess I’d say that my impression is that Anderson is a stronger politician (comes across as polished, calm, hard to rattle, and has good experience) with a broader, more inclusive program (sounds totally reasonable and mainstream while being on the hard left of our messed-up discourse).  But I haven’t had a chance to take a really detailed comparison at what policy stands they’ve released.

It’s still early days though, I want to learn more about all of these candidates before deciding who to back.

Report this

By Aquifer, January 26, 2012 at 5:26 pm Link to this comment

Scott,

“Judged on pure merits alone Anderson and his Justice party seem a little stronger at first glance.”

Care to elaborate? A bit more specific?

Report this

By omop, January 26, 2012 at 3:51 pm Link to this comment

@CLIFF CARSON.

US Presidential Candidates’ Positions on Israel – Palestine, War, and Civil
Liberties

CNI summarizes the policy positions of President Obama and the top
Republican nominees.

by Pamela Olson

Click on the links below or scroll down to see the candidates’ statements
on Israel-Palestine, the wars, and Civil Liberties.

Israel/Palestine   War against Iran   Civil Liberties

Mitt Romney   Pro-Israel, against Palestinian UN bid   Increase the
military by 100,00 troops, threaten Iran with military action   Pro-Patriot
Act & related measures
Newt Gingrich   Pro-Israel, calls Palestinians an invented people  
Prefers imposing regime change through non-military methods, but
force is an option   Would strengthen Patriot Act
Rick Santorum   Pro-Israel, the West Bank is legitimate Israeli territory  
Advocates air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities   Civil laws must
comport with God’s law, pro-Patriot Act & related measures
Ron Paul   Non-interventionist, end US aid to Israel   Generally anti-war,
against pre-emptive strike on Iran   Opposed to the Patriot Act & related
measures
Barak Obama   Pro-Israel, opposes settlements, supports two-state
solution along 1967 borders, but has done little to advance these
positions   All options are open   Supported reauthorizing Patriot Act, has
maintained or increased executive power

Report this

By heterochromatic, January 26, 2012 at 3:43 pm Link to this comment

ya got me….without the reflection from shining pyrites I’m just a dull boy.

Report this

Page 4 of 14 pages « First  <  2 3 4 5 6 >  Last »

 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook