Since when? Even George W. ran on a platform of international non-intervention. Wolfowitz got his wish though (for his new world order doctrine) and their was a 'catalyzing event' to use as an excuse to go to war with, basically, anyone the executive branch (read puppet masters) sees as threatening to the status quo, including American Citizens who, apparently, can be targeted for assasination, despite the constitution.
Forbes Reports that Dr. Ron Paul was the only GOP candidate with an intelligent foreign policy and national defense strategy among the entire candidate base;
" Ron Paul’s clear and compelling case against a war with Iran irritated his Fox News hosts (who have already expressed their disdain for Paul) and painted him in stark contrast to his Republican rivals."
His main rival in this particular debate, Michelle Bachman, insists that Iran is a huge threat, and are guaranteed, without a doubt, making it basically a mathematical and metaphysical certainty (based on the fact that their constitution says 'worldwide jihad'... though we doubt that Bachman knows what jihad really means) to throw nukes at everyone we like and give them to everyone we hate, if they come to possess them. Were you dropped as a baby, Michelle?
What happened to the Republican idea of nonintervention? What happened to leaving other countries to work out their own messes, ESPECIALLY when we're flat broke?
Hurrah, Dr. Paul, for standing up in the face the racism and hatred that has transformed the faces of so many of those in the government and the media, and BOO Fox News for trying to start more wars. The cliche 'two rights don't make a wrong' is a cliche for a reason, guys.
For those of us that are sick and tired of hearing about deaths overseas, both of our friends and loved ones serving, and the 'enemy' that we have invaded and declared war on, it is refreshing to hear that there is a TRUE republican among the bunch. Ron Paul understands that when you INVADE OTHER PEOPLES' NATIONS and BOMB THEIR WOMEN AND CHILDREN and DICTATE THEIR ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL POLICY, and CONDEMN THEM OVER AND OVER diplomatically, that they tend to respond with some amount of irritation.
Hopefully the rest of the nation will start to understand that people don't just hate us for no reason. They hate us because we do things that piss them off.
PrintButtonMoney.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Ron Paul: NOT just a novelty candidate.
Despite CNN's quote that:
"Paul's supporters wonder if he could win a general election, and the candidate himself doubts his stamina in what could be a long GOP primary fight. "
(which as a supporter I doubt is the case at all, cause I certainly have faith in his stamina... he's a doctor for God's sake).
It is also clear that Ron Paul is a serious threat to Gingrich's tenuous hold on the Republican Party, which is AWESOME. When even CNN has to admit (though obviously grudgingly) that Ron Paul has a good shot at things, you know we're doing well.
Go Dr. Paul!
And although NYDailyNews.com reports that :
"Though Paul has little chance to secure the Republican nomination, his campaign strategy could give him a loud voice at the GOP convention."
It seems blatant that the comment is a last ditch effort to convince those who haven't quite seen the light that Ron Paul isn't worth wasting their vote. We know now that this isn't the case, but nice try NYDN, you're gonna go on the list of propagandists now. This editorial comment is blatantly one sided, and not at all in the interest of balanced journalism. This type of 'article' should be shown in journalism classes throughout the country as an example of media's attempts to control the political sphere. The overall tone of the article seems to indicate that Dr. Paul's success is more a detriment to Gingrich than indicative of any real worthiness on Paul's part. Again, as I said before, good ideas don't die without a strong fight. Ron Paul for President, 2012. He can do it, we can do it, we need to do it.
PrintbuttonMoney.
"Paul's supporters wonder if he could win a general election, and the candidate himself doubts his stamina in what could be a long GOP primary fight. "
(which as a supporter I doubt is the case at all, cause I certainly have faith in his stamina... he's a doctor for God's sake).
It is also clear that Ron Paul is a serious threat to Gingrich's tenuous hold on the Republican Party, which is AWESOME. When even CNN has to admit (though obviously grudgingly) that Ron Paul has a good shot at things, you know we're doing well.
Go Dr. Paul!
And although NYDailyNews.com reports that :
"Though Paul has little chance to secure the Republican nomination, his campaign strategy could give him a loud voice at the GOP convention."
It seems blatant that the comment is a last ditch effort to convince those who haven't quite seen the light that Ron Paul isn't worth wasting their vote. We know now that this isn't the case, but nice try NYDN, you're gonna go on the list of propagandists now. This editorial comment is blatantly one sided, and not at all in the interest of balanced journalism. This type of 'article' should be shown in journalism classes throughout the country as an example of media's attempts to control the political sphere. The overall tone of the article seems to indicate that Dr. Paul's success is more a detriment to Gingrich than indicative of any real worthiness on Paul's part. Again, as I said before, good ideas don't die without a strong fight. Ron Paul for President, 2012. He can do it, we can do it, we need to do it.
PrintbuttonMoney.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Ron Paul might win?! and someone is reporting on it!
I never would have thought the day would come when a major news outlet would report anything remotely near this. However, The Kansas City Star, owned by the McClathy Company, says in the linked article that Ron Paul will probably take second in the Iowa vote on Jan 3rd, and has a good shot at Gingrich, even.
For all of those who say that Ron Paul isn't electable, I say ANYONE is electable, and Dr. Paul isn't just anyone. His message of personal liberty in combination with a small, constitutionally sound government is an ageless concept, and though our founding fathers were some of the first people to attempt to implement the idea on a grand scale (not democracy, but a democratic republic) the ideas of freedom and personal responsibility for ever member of a country is not a new idea, and is not a crazy idea, as so many people seem to think.
We HAVE NOT outgrown the ideals set down in our constitution. This would be like saying we have outgrown the bicycle because it's an idea over 100 years old. Good ideas don't die. However, those who's interests are disturbed by talks of a government who is no longer ruled by the few at the expense of the many will continue to try to convince us otherwise.
Be wary!
PrintButtonMoney
For all of those who say that Ron Paul isn't electable, I say ANYONE is electable, and Dr. Paul isn't just anyone. His message of personal liberty in combination with a small, constitutionally sound government is an ageless concept, and though our founding fathers were some of the first people to attempt to implement the idea on a grand scale (not democracy, but a democratic republic) the ideas of freedom and personal responsibility for ever member of a country is not a new idea, and is not a crazy idea, as so many people seem to think.
We HAVE NOT outgrown the ideals set down in our constitution. This would be like saying we have outgrown the bicycle because it's an idea over 100 years old. Good ideas don't die. However, those who's interests are disturbed by talks of a government who is no longer ruled by the few at the expense of the many will continue to try to convince us otherwise.
Be wary!
PrintButtonMoney
Sunday, December 11, 2011
'President' or 'King'?
What, at this point, are the relevant distinctions between our President (and indeed, other Presidents around the world) and the typical Monarch who is accompanied by a relatively weak parliament, and a judicial system that, basically, answers to the executive branch?
Not much, it seems. The president is held responsible for things he can't possible hold any power over, and also claims credit for things he couldn't possibly have had anything to do with. However, he often blames the opposition party/congress/a lack of good Intel for Snafus.
this is all something to be expected in a political circus like we have here in the United States, where the president is largely elected by the Media. Or at least, the individual as the popular media portrays him. Then, when in office, we find that the president is very little like the image portrayed prior to the presidency. Surprise Surprise. The fact that presidents in recent history have all come from something akin to the landed aristocracy in medieval Europe lends addition credence to the idea that the President has become an individual whom behaves and is viewed more like a king, or someone with king like powers at the very least. At this point he can, effectively, declare wars, assassinate American citizens, and engage in all sorts of King like activities.
One might argue that we have a system set up with checks and balances. However, the system as it was set up was supposed to guarantee that no one branch, executive, legislative, or judicial had any more power than the others. Legislative makes laws, executive branch enforces Law, and the Judicial branch determines whether or not there has been violation of law.
We know, however, than though we may all have equal protection under the Law, we are not all subject to the same laws. Indeed, the President routinely takes an oath in which he pledges to uphold the constitution, both in letter and in spirit. This clearly is a falsehood, as we have seen since the first Executive Order (via President Lincoln), which was basically Presidential Legislation that skipped the normal processes. Additionally, the president no longer has to get a declaration of war from congress to take military action against a country or group of people. The Judicial branch is ignored often in the decisions it makes, and the Attorney General selectively prosecutes. The Legislative branch is mostly a farce, and at the whim of Presidential Veto, a polarized (apparently, though not really) two-party system, and the Federal Reserve system.
And, really, they're all at the mercy of the world wide banking system, along with world wide media conglomerates. Let's face it. Without the Ted Turners of the world, the Bush's of the world could never get elected, and without the Rothschild's of the world, the continued boom bust cycle that makes the few rich and the many poor simply wouldn't exist as it does.
Illuminati aside, its pretty clear that the power is in the hands of one President, and like Kings of old, he is a puppet to some unseen (but perhaps well known) puppeteer.
PrintButtonMoney
Not much, it seems. The president is held responsible for things he can't possible hold any power over, and also claims credit for things he couldn't possibly have had anything to do with. However, he often blames the opposition party/congress/a lack of good Intel for Snafus.
this is all something to be expected in a political circus like we have here in the United States, where the president is largely elected by the Media. Or at least, the individual as the popular media portrays him. Then, when in office, we find that the president is very little like the image portrayed prior to the presidency. Surprise Surprise. The fact that presidents in recent history have all come from something akin to the landed aristocracy in medieval Europe lends addition credence to the idea that the President has become an individual whom behaves and is viewed more like a king, or someone with king like powers at the very least. At this point he can, effectively, declare wars, assassinate American citizens, and engage in all sorts of King like activities.
One might argue that we have a system set up with checks and balances. However, the system as it was set up was supposed to guarantee that no one branch, executive, legislative, or judicial had any more power than the others. Legislative makes laws, executive branch enforces Law, and the Judicial branch determines whether or not there has been violation of law.
We know, however, than though we may all have equal protection under the Law, we are not all subject to the same laws. Indeed, the President routinely takes an oath in which he pledges to uphold the constitution, both in letter and in spirit. This clearly is a falsehood, as we have seen since the first Executive Order (via President Lincoln), which was basically Presidential Legislation that skipped the normal processes. Additionally, the president no longer has to get a declaration of war from congress to take military action against a country or group of people. The Judicial branch is ignored often in the decisions it makes, and the Attorney General selectively prosecutes. The Legislative branch is mostly a farce, and at the whim of Presidential Veto, a polarized (apparently, though not really) two-party system, and the Federal Reserve system.
And, really, they're all at the mercy of the world wide banking system, along with world wide media conglomerates. Let's face it. Without the Ted Turners of the world, the Bush's of the world could never get elected, and without the Rothschild's of the world, the continued boom bust cycle that makes the few rich and the many poor simply wouldn't exist as it does.
Illuminati aside, its pretty clear that the power is in the hands of one President, and like Kings of old, he is a puppet to some unseen (but perhaps well known) puppeteer.
PrintButtonMoney
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)