In an exclusive report, Jerusalem-based DEBKAfile reports that both Israel and the United States are on the same page in regard to launching an attack on Iran.
“American and Israeli intelligence evaluations of the state of Iran’s program are in accord – contrary to the impression gained from Obama administration officials,” DEBKA-Net-Weekly reported on March 22. “Both are of one mind on the imperative to paralyze that program even by force if Iran refuses to give up its pursuit of a nuclear weapon.”
On Friday, it was reported that the United States, European allies and Israel agree that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. “Tehran does not have a bomb, has not decided to build one, and is probably years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead,” the National Post reported. Despite this evidence, the Israeli government has decided to attack Iran.
According to DEBKAfile, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in a radio interview on Thursday that if Israel is resolved to attack Iran, it will have to do so within three months. In February, it was reported that Israel would carry out an attack in June and would use Saudi Arabia as its base.
DEBKAfile claims Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has convinced a majority of his Security and Diplomatic Cabinet of the urgency of an attack. “He is now backed by the two deputy prime ministers, the defense, foreign affairs, interior and finance ministers, while Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor and Minister without Portfolio Benny Begin are unconvinced. Netanyahu can therefore go ahead and safely put the military option to the vote in the cabinet for the first time,” DEBKAfile reports.
With this consensus, Barak sent IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz to Washington to meet Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin E. Dempsey. Gantz told Dempsey Israel would “be happy if the US halts Iran’s nuclear program in its tracks, no matter whether this is done by economic sanctions, an oil embargo, negotiations between Tehran and the world powers, or secret US-Iranian diplomacy.” The effort, however, would need to fit within the three month timeline.
Israeli officials then met “discretely” with leading members of Congress and told them about the three month timeline.
DEBKAfile states, however, that Israel “may have to part ways with the United States on the Iranian issue the first time in its short history” and attack Iran “before it is too late.”
Israel is now committed to an attack on Iran that will occur during the height of campaigning for the 2012 U.S. presidential election. The Republican national convention will be held on August 27-30 in Tampa, Florida, and the Democrat convention will be held on September 3-6 in Charlotte, North Carolina. If Israel attacks Iran in June, it will undoubtedly be the dominant issue during the convention and the election in November.
Following the media orchestrated circus earlier today in New Hampshire, Ron Paul terminated an interview with CNN correspondent Dana Bash after she said a voter was “turned off” by his decision to leave the diner in Manchester.
Before terminating the interview, Paul said the chaotic situation at a New Hampshire eatery was created by the media. “It says something about the media,” Paul responded. “Because you, the media, did that,” he said, pointing at Bash.
Following the interview, the New York Times tried to make it appear Paul’s patience with the establishment media has run out.
“This is the second time that Mr. Paul has walked out of an interview with CNN. He did it in December, albeit politely, when the political analyst Gloria Borger asked about his involvement with inflammatory newsletters,” writes Michael Barbaro for the Times.
It was later discovered that CNN edited the video to make it appear Paul had abruptly ended the interview. In fact, the interview had concluded, but Borger continued to ask Paul questions. CNN and the establishment media then said Paul had stormed off in order to make him appear angry and petulant.
Paul’s exchange with Bash begins at one minute fourteen seconds in the video above.
Earlier this month, Federal Reserve boss Ben Bernanke told senators the cartel has no intention of bailing out European banks. Bernanke told lawmakers that “he doesn’t have the intention or the authority” to bail out countries or banks.
Former Fed official Gerald O’Driscoll says Federal Reserve is covertly bailing out Europe.
“The Fed’s latest actions in cooperating with foreign central banks to undertake liquidity swaps of dollars for foreign currencies is another reason why Congress needs enhanced power to oversee and audit the Fed,” writes Ron Paul. “Under current law Congress cannot examine these types of agreements. Those who would argue that auditing the Fed or these agreements with central banks harms the Fed’s independence should reevaluate the Fed’s supposed independence when the Fed bails out Europe so soon after President Obama promised US assistance in resolving the Euro crisis.”
The Fed has a reputation for secrecy. Bloomberg News sued the cartel to obtain information on its emergency programs during the 2007 to 2009 financial crisis. Bloomberg, however, excluded foreign-currency liquidity swaps because names of commercial banks that borrowed under the program were disclosed to the public.
The latest action by the Fed reveals that fiat money created out of thin air is the problem. “Fiat money caused this European crisis and the financial crisis before it. More fiat money is not the cure. The global fiat currency system has proven itself a failure, we need real monetary reform. We need sound money,” Ron Paul concludes.
Bernanke refuses to tell the American people where the money went:
The Palestinian Authority’s recent announcement that it would seek UN recognition as an independent state dominated the news and the political debate in the United States last week, though in truth it should mean very little to us. Only a political class harboring the illusion it can run the world obsesses over the aspirations of a tiny population on a tiny piece of land thousands of miles away. Remember, the UN initiated this persistent conflict with its 1947 Partition Plan.
Unfortunately the debate is dominated by those who either support the Israeli side in the conflict, or those who support the Palestinian desire for statehood. We rarely seem to hear the view of those who support the US side and US interests. I am on that side. I believe that we can no longer police the world. We can no longer bribe the Israelis and Palestinians to continue an endless “peace process” that goes nowhere. It is not in our interest to hector the Palestinians or the Israelis, or to “export” democracy to the region but reject it when people vote the “wrong” way.
I have reservations about the Palestinian drive for UN recognition. Personally I wish the United States would de-recognize the United Nations. As most readers already know, in every Congress I introduce legislation to end our membership in that organization. The UN is a threat to our sovereignty– and as we are the main source of its income, it is a threat to our economic well-being. Increasingly over the past several years, we see the United Nations providing political and legal cover for the military aspirations of interventionists rather than serving as an international forum to preserve peace. Neoconservatives in the US have grown to love the United Nations as they co-opt the organization under the guise of endless “reform.” Under the sovereignty-destroying doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect,” adopted at the 2005 World Summit, the UN takes it upon itself to intervene in internal conflicts of its member states whenever it believes that human rights are being violated. Thus under “Responsibility to Protect,” the UN provides the green light for a kind of global no-knock raid on any sovereign country.
If asked, I would personally counsel the Palestinians to avoid the United Nations. UN membership and participation is no guarantee that sovereignty will be respected. We see what happens to UN members such as Iraq and Libya when those countries’ leaders fall out of favor with US administrations: under US and allied pressure a fig leaf resolution is adopted in the UN to facilitate devastating military intervention. When the UN gave NATO the green light to bomb Libya there was no genocide taking place. It was a purely preventative war. The result? Thousands dead, a destroyed country, and extremely dubious new leaders.
While I do not see UN membership as a particularly productive move for the Palestinian leadership, I do not believe the US should use its position in the UN Security Council to block their membership. I believe in self-determination of peoples and I recognize that peoples may wish to pursue statehood by different means. As we saw after the Cold War, numerous new states were born out of the ruins of the USSR as the various old Soviet Republics decided that smaller states were preferable to an enormous and oppressive multi-national conglomerate.
The real, pro-US solution to the problems in the Middle East is for us to end all foreign aid, stop arming foreign countries, encourage peaceful diplomatic resolutions to conflicts, and disengage militarily. In others words, follow Jefferson’s admonition: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”
Fox News has either removed or shuffled off to a distant web page the results of an online GOP presidential candidate poll.
Like most other polls, Ron Paul won this one hands-down, and that’s why Fox News got rid of it.
The establishment is seriously irked that Paul keeps winning these polls, especially the online polls that are difficult to skew in favor of Romney or Perry.
It will be interesting to see what happens next year during the primaries.
Fox News will have a difficult time ignoring millions of Ron Paul supporters who will cry foul if the Bilderberg insider Perry or the Democrat in Republican clothing Romney are selected over Paul to run against Obama or maybe even Hillary Clinton.
Above is a screen capture of the poll sent by an Infowars.com reader before it disappeared completely.
In France, on May Day, more than three million people attended 300 rallies against President Nicolas Sarkozy’s economic recovery plan. The demonstrations followed Sarkozy’s announcement that the French government plans to implement austerity measures, including spending cuts and tax increases.
“There’s going to be an inflation tax to hit us and I am just afraid there will be people in the streets when they don’t get what they want,” Paul told the Fox Business Network.
Paul made his comment as Federal Reserve boss Bernanke travels to Jackson Hole, Wyoming, amid rumors that the privately held banker outfit that passes for a federal agency will engage in more quantitative easing, banker-speak for money printing.
Economists predict Bernanke will not announce QE3 at the bankster Economic Symposium in Wyoming, but will be obliged to crank up the printing presses in the near future.
On Friday, Martin Weale, a member of the Bank of England monetary policy committee, signaled that the central bank stands ready to do the same in response to reports of flat GDP growth.
Ron Paul told Infowars.com journalist Robert Wanek at the Iowa State University during the recent Ames straw poll that the federal government is preparing for civil unrest and martial law in the United States.
In a response to a question asked by Infowars correspondent Robert Wanek at Iowa State University during the recent Ames straw poll, Ron Paul said that the federal government was preparing for civil unrest and martial law in the United States.
Paul was asked for his opinion on whether H.R. 645 (The National Emergency Centers Establishment Act) could lead to Americans being incarcerated in detention camps during a time of martial law.
“Yeah, that’s their goal, they’re setting up the stage for violence in this country, no doubt about it,” responded Paul.
The legislation also states that the camps will be used to “provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations”.
Ominously, the bill also states that the camps can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse.
The legislation was referred to Committee and did not proceed any further, but it was not rejected in a vote and can be re-introduced at any time in a new session of Congress.
As we reported yesterday, in the aftermath of the UK riots, police departments in the United States are being trained to deal with rioting and civil unrest.
In December 2008, the Washington Post reported on plans to station 20,000 more U.S. troops inside America for purposes of “domestic security” from September 2011 onwards, an expansion of Northcom’s militarization of the country in preparation for potential civil unrest following a total economic collapse or a mass terror attack.
The United States has continuity of government plans in place should martial law be declared by the President. However, the details of those plans have been so tightly guarded that even Congressman and Homeland Security Committee member Peter DeFazio (D – OR), who has the necessary security clearance, was denied access to view the material when he requested to do so back in July 2007.
“I just can’t believe they’re going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack,” DeFazio told the Oregonian at the time, adding, “Maybe the people who think there’s a conspiracy out there are right.”
Congressman Paul has warned about preparations for martial law before, telling the Alex Jones Show, “They’re putting their back up against the wall and saying, if need be we’re going to have martial law.”
Watch Alex Jones’ special comment on this issue below.
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is being called the “Queen of the Straw Poll” after her victory at the Iowa straw poll yesterday for the GOP presidential nomination.
Bachmann, who finished with 4823 votes, narrowly beat second-place finisher Congressman Ron Paul who collected 4671 votes.
The Ames poll, although important because of the early significance of Iowa in the primaries, is nonbinding and unscientific.
AFP reported that “It has been criticized as playing too heavily in favor of candidates that are well financed, since their campaigns can buy the $30 tickets for their supporters to attend and presumably vote in their favor.”
The Ames event was considered to be a Republican fundraiser, yet Bachmann’s campaign bought and “handed out at least 4,000 free tickets to supporters.”
Therefore, Bachmann appears to have rigged the vote at a minimum direct cost of $120,000 to her campaign. It’s unclear whether any of the other candidates engaged in this same behavior.
Another anomaly with the vote surfaced this morning when it was discovered that 218 votes went unaccounted for. In other words, these votes were in the overall tally but not registered to any of the candidates.
One would think the media would attempt to uncover the discrepancy given the razor thin 152-vote margin between Bachmann and Paul. However, so far, they’ve been content to call her the “queen” of the event.
Despite Ron Paul’s overwhelming success in Saturday’s Ames straw poll, finishing second to Michele Bachmann by less than two hundred votes, in an astounding video establishment media talking heads admit what we’ve been highlighting from the very start – that there is a deliberate policy to sideline, ignore and discredit Paul’s campaign.
After pointing out that Ron Paul only lost to Michele Bachmann by a tiny percentage (and that after accusations that Bachmann’s campaign attempted to rig the result by buying 4,000 votes), and that the Ames result was virtually a “tie for first,” Politico’s Roger Simon said the reason for him being ignored was that “the media doesn’t believe he has a hoot in hells chance of winning the Iowa caucuses, the Republican nomination or winning the presidency, so we’re gonna ignore him.”
CNN host Howard Kurtz even admits that, “We are in the business of kicking candidates out of the race”.
The bizarre aspect of this clip is that Simon admits the Ames straw poll is a key indicator of the race and was “as good as a win” for Ron Paul, then completely contradicts himself by saying Paul has no chance of winning. This dichotomy illustrates how the media-generated perception of Paul’s campaig as futile has no basis in reality – it is nothing more than a hoax designed to manipulate the American people.
Indeed, it is the establishment’s fear that Ron Paul could build the kind of momentum for a win that drives the deliberate policy to ignore his campaign. By manufacturing the hoax that Ron Paul has no chance of winning, the establishment hopes their rhetoric will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Look at it another way. It’s almost a given that former Federal Reserve insider Herman Cain has no chance of winning the Republican candidacy, and the polls prove it, but you won’t hear the mainstream media endlessly obsessing about the futility of his campaign as they do with Ron Paul, even as Paul’s poll results illustrate how he is a strong front runner.
The establishment denigrates Paul’s campaign not because they think he can’t win, but because they’re scared hemight win. That’s why they’ve made it their job to try and derail his momentum at every turn. It’s their job to manipulate the American public into thinking they’re wasting their vote if they support Paul because he has no chance of winning, when the opposite is true, he has every chance of winning, if only he was given an equal platform with the other candidates.
Politico’s efforts to pretend Ron Paul doesn’t exist were brazenly apparent in the first incarnation of their headline regarding the Ames straw poll result, which was entitled, Michele Bachmann wins Ames Straw Poll, Tim Pawlenty gets third (the headline was later changed).
Despite the fact that Ron Paul beat Pawlenty, who subsequently announced he was dropping out of the racealtogether, by over 2,300 votes, and Paul trailed Bachmann by a mere 152 votes, it was Pawlenty and not Paul who made the headline of the article.
No wonder the headline was later amended, as the You Tuber in the video below documents. This was a transparent and embarrasing effort to ignore Ron Paul’s existence altogether, a tactic we’ll be seeing plenty more of over the next 12 months.
According to the corporate media, the establishment Republican “debate” at Iowa State University in Ames last night was a toss up between Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachman and the phantom candidate Rick Perry (who will announce tomorrow).
Average folks in Iowa, however, have chosen the candidate predictably given short shrift by the establishment media – Ron Paul.
1st – Ron Paul with 44% of the unique online votes
2nd – Herman Cain 16%
3rd – Michele Bachmann 10%
4th – Rick Perry 8%
5th – (TIE) Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney 5%
7th – Sarah Palin 4%
8th – “Someone Else” 3%
9th – Rick Santorum 2%
10th – (Tie) Jon Huntsman and Newt Gingrich with 1% of the unique online votes
Perry and Palin have yet to officially announce they are running for the GOP nomination for president, so they will not be included on the Ames Straw Poll tomorrow.
Four decades of the so-called “War on Drugs” has led only to the suffering of millions of innocents, the crowding of our prisons with non-violent citizens, the utter waste of billions of dollars on law enforcement and the (in)justice system, and the enriching of underground drug gangs who thrive on violence. The outlawing of marijuana in America has been a disastrous political policy and an insane medical policy. It has labeled biochemical addicts “criminals” and thrown them in prisons to be treated like dogs.
The War on Drugs, through interdicting street supplies of drugs, has only made the drug gangs wealthier by driving up the value of the drugs that remain readily available. And it is now admitted that the ATF actually placed tens of thousands of weapons directly into the hands of Mexican drug gangs, giving rise to the very gang violence the agency claims to be preventing (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011…).
The U.S. government, it turns out, is actually contributing to the drug war violence!
Ron Paul, Barney Frank join forces to end the insanity
In an effort to end the insanity, Rep. Ron Paul has joined forces with Rep. Barney Frank to introduce legislation legalizing marijuana in America. President Obama, you may recall, promised voters on the campaign trail that he would do this, too, but it seems he’s been too busy bombing Libya and using the U.S. Constitution as a floor mat to bother keeping any actual promises. (GITMO is still open for business, too, in case you haven’t noticed…)
Of course, the War on Drugs is a very effective tool of tyranny to be used against the American people. It empowers the DEA and the federal government to conduct surprise searches of any home or business for any reason whatsoever (even without a warrant), it keeps the prison industry overflowing with endless cheap human labor, and it grants the big drug companies a monopoly over all those recreational drugs that are now sold as pharmaceuticals.
“Speed,” for example, is now sold as an ADHD treatment for children. Big Pharma is also going after THC chemicals in marijuana and hopes to sell them as prescription drugs. By keeping the War on Drugs in place, Big Pharma is assured a monopoly that even the drug lords haven’t been able to accomplish.
An issue that crosses political boundaries
One thing that’s especially interesting about the so-called War on Drugs is how the best-informed people on both the left and the right now see it all as a complete fraud. Perhaps that’s why Rep. Ron Paul (Republican) and Rep. Barney Frank (Democrat) are the perfect sponsors of this bill. Each has staked out positions on the opposite ends of the political spectrum for some issues, yet they both agree that it’s time to end the failed Nixon-era policies that have only brought this nation suffering and injustice.
Ending the failed War on Drugs is not a conservative idea nor a liberal idea; it’s a principle of liberty whose time has come in America.
Because in observing the War on Drugs, the prison crowding, the drug underground economy and all the other unintended consequence of marijuana prohibition, we must ask the question: Is society served in any way by criminalizing marijuana smokers? How does taking a medical addict and throwing them behind bars accomplish anything at all?
The prohibition against marijuana accomplishes nothing for society
For starters, it halts the contributions of a tax paying citizen. Most pot smokers actually have jobs and pay taxes. They are functioning citizens — lawyers, accountants, musicians, administrators and more. By throwing them in prison, you’re destroying their own ability to participate in the economy while actually placing a new cost burden on the rest of society.
Secondly, from a moral perspective, pot smokers need medical support, not criminal indictment. If someone is suffering from a substance addiction, how does throwing them in prison and surrounding them with other addicts and hardened criminals serve any positive purpose whatsoever? Today, U.S. prisons actually function more like criminal training camps where people come out as far more violent criminals than when they went in. So the justice system actually ends up capturing people who are relatively peaceful, tax-paying citizens and then turning them into hardened criminals who are eventually released onto the streets.
How insane is that?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to allow them to continue to function in society but help them with their drug addiction through a medical / health perspective? Addicts need support, not incarceration. And today’s justice system does absolutely nothing to rehabilitate prisoners. It only makes them far worse criminals.
And finally, from an economic perspective alone, can any U.S. state really afford to continue incarcerating people for non-violent crimes that have no victims? Who is harmed with a guy down the street lights up a joint? No one. There are no victims. There is no crime, either, other than the fictional crime the State fabricates to incarcerate people.
A “real” crime is a crime that has a victim: A rape, a burglary, a mugging, or a murder. Those crimes deserve proper consideration by the justice system, and people who commit such crimes are precisely the kind of people society can justifiably put behind bars. But carrying a few ounces of marijuana in your pocket — or even lighting up a smoke — violates no person or property. Nor does it violate any moral or ethical principle. It is, in every way, an act that is improperly and unjustifiably criminalized through legal fictions engineered by the state.
The solution to marijuana prohibition is finally at hand
It is time to end those legal fictions and end the War on Drugs in America. The solution is to:
#1) LEGALIZE marijuana across the country.
#2) REGULATE marijuana and allow it to be sold through licensed retailers.
#3) TAX marijuana sales and use the tax proceeds to fund addiction support programs for those small percentage of users who end up addicted.
The results of these actions will be:
#1) A COLLAPSE of the drug gangs. If marijuana is suddenly legal, who would bother buying it from a street dealer?
#2) A COLLAPSE of drug profits. If it’s legal, the price goes down. Suddenly there’s no more money in trafficking the drug, either, so the drug gangs are instantly out of business.
#3) A HUGE INCREASE in revenues to the states from collecting taxes on the legal sale of marijuana.
#4) A REDUCTION in young people trying the drug. What teenager wants to try something if it’s LEGAL? Legalizing pot takes all the “fun” out of it for many young people. It’s no longer cool. Kinda boring, actually. And it makes you cough.
#5) A SAVINGS of billions of dollars off all the money states are right now spending arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating people for possessing marijuana. This money could be used to build schools, roads, job re-education programs and more. And don’t court judges have better things to do than sentence pot smokers?
#6) AN END to prison overcrowding. End the sentences for those incarcerated merely for marijuana possession. Set them free and end the prison crowding. Save the prisons for the real criminals such as murderers, child molesters and Wall Street bankers.
#7) A FREER, more just society that respects human dignity. If you treat addicts like criminals, you take away their dignity, and your entire society suffers a net loss. By recognizing the humanity behind the addiction, we can restore human dignity to the entire process of how we deal with drug addicts in society today.
Action item: Call your Congressman to support this bill!
Here’s what you can do right now to help support this bill: Call your Congressman in Washington D.C. and tell them you want to support the bill to end the federal ban on marijuana.
The switchboard number is 202-224-3121.
If you live in the U.S. or are a U.S. citizen, call this number now, ask to be connected to your Congressperson, and verbally express your support for the bill to legalize marijuana across America.
It is time to end the failed War on Drugs, stop the useless incarceration of millions of innocent people, and halt the tyranny of the DEA and other federal agencies that waste billions of dollars every year stalking and assaulting people who merely want to smoke a weed.
I don’t smoke weed, by the way, but as a person who believes in the principles of freedom and liberty, I fully support the rights of others to smoke marijuana if they so choose. Similarly, I don’t drink alcohol, but I support the rights of other to drink alcohol if that’s their decision. As a nation, we tried prohibition with alcohol and it was a disaster. Now we’re living through the era of marijuana prohibition, and it is a disastrous failure as well. Isn’t it time we grew up as a nation and allowed people to take responsibility for their own actions as long as they aren’t harming anyone else in the process?
Smoke all you want, folks! I’m gonna have a superfood smoothie instead.
It’s official. Mitt Romney has thrown his hat in the arena.
Mitt is usually described as a conservative Republican by the corporate media, although he ruled Massachusetts like a liberal.
Romney was a big government statist by any measure. He promoted government mandates for citizen expenditures and levies and fines, pushed Romneycare, proudly boasted a pro-abortion stance, advocated governmental recognition of homosexual adoption rights like any other far left Democrat pandering to the preferential treatment by the state of selected so-called minorities.
Romney kicked off his campaign in New Hampshire today by accusing “Mr. Obama of failing to live up to the promise of economic recovery he made in his 2008 campaign.” Mitt went on to blame Barry Obama “for high unemployment, rising gasoline prices, falling home values and a soaring national debt,” according to the New York Times.
Does anybody actually believe the president – the chief teleprompter reader – controls the rate of inflation, unemployment, or the rise in gas prices?
Unfortunately, millions of Americans apparently still believe after decades of continual let downs and broken promises that the president is a magician. Recall dizzy voters who actually thought Obama would perform economic miracles. “I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know, if I help he is going to help,” said Peggy Joseph at an Obama speech in Florida during his campaign in 2008.
“At the time, we didn’t know what sort of a president he would make,” Mr. Romney said as he made his announcement from a family farm in New Hampshire. “Now, in the third year of his four-year term, we have more than promises and slogans to go by. Barack Obama has failed America.”
The New York Times says Romney will make attacks on Obama the centerpiece of his campaign “as he seeks to present himself as the inevitable choice for Republicans eager to reclaim the White House.”
“We will return responsibility and authority to the states for dozens of government programs – and that begins with a complete repeal of Obamacare,” he said in his speech. “From my first day in office my No. 1 job will be to see that America once again is No. 1 in job creation.”
This from the man who on April 12, 2006, signed a law requiring every citizen in Massachusetts to buy health insurance under penalty of law.
“If it were not for Romney, with crucial assistance from the Heritage Foundation and George W. Bush, it’s extremely unlikely that Obama would have passed his universal health-care law last year,” writes Ryan Lizza for The New Yorker. “Romney’s real problem is not just that he supported a mandate, but that he showed Democrats the political and procedural path to passing a universal-health-care bill in America.”
Now Mitt swears he will dismantle Obamacare. He claims to be a sworn conservative opposed to abortion. Like any other establishment politician, he will say whatever is required to trick largely somnolent voters.
It will certainly be an interesting campaign season now that Republicans have borrowed heavily from the libertarian playbook. Sarah Palin is the diva of the establishment Tea Party and her bandwagon is currently ambling down the road, even though she has yet to officially declare to be in the running.
Ron Paul, the only true constitutionalists and libertarian, announced his candidacy weeks ago, but as usual he is mostly ignored by the corporate media as it fawns over the hand-picked candidates vying for the job of head teleprompter reader.
Ron Paul is set to officially launch his presidential campaign Friday morning, a Paul source told POLITICO.
The Texas congressman will make his announcement from New Hampshire during the 7:00 a.m. hour of ABC’s “Good Morning America.” Paul is then scheduled to speak at 10:00 a.m. in Exeter, part of a two-day swing through New Hampshire following a stop in Iowa. Paul will also be keynoting the Grafton County Republican Memorial dinner on Friday night.
Paul has already taken several incremental steps toward a full-fledged campaign, most recently opening an Iowa campaign office north of Des Moines earlier this week. He also recently raked in more than $1 million during a one-day online “money bomb” ahead of the first GOP presidential debate, demonstrating the continued strength of the grassroots fundraising machine that turned heads during his 2008 campaign.
“Tomorrow I’ll be on Good Morning America around 7AM. I’ll also be making an important announcement at the historic Exeter town hall in New Hampshire at 10AM. If you are in the area, please stop by, or tune into the live stream of the announcement at http://www.ronpaul2012.com”
Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura has an important message for Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul – ditch the Republican Party and run for President as an independent.
On the day that Obama officially announced his 2012 Presidential campaign underway, the spotlight will now turn on those who are expected to set the wheels in motion to run against the president.
One name mentioned over and over again for the past few months has been Republican Congressman Ron Paul. However, Ventura, who was victorious as an Independent himself in 1998, believes that Paul can mount a more powerful challenge by distancing himself from the GOP establishment.
And Ventura even offered to throw his own name into the hat as a possible running mate.
“If Ron Paul would quit the Republican Party, and he asked me, then I would give serious consideration to running with him.” Ventura told syndicated radio host Alex Jonestoday.
“I will not run as a Democrat or Republican. I want nothing to do with these parties. They are the problem, they are not the solution.” the former Governor added.
“They’re the ones that have been in control of this country, as Ralph Nadar calls them, the two party dictatorship. They are the ones that have us in this mess. They are the ones who have caused all the debt problems… it’s time to throw them out. The people of this country can do a major thing and its so easy. The next election, don’t vote for ANY Republicans or Democrats. That would be the greatest thing that could happen in this country, to bring down and destroy these two political parties.” Ventura urged.
Congressman Paul has recently been victorious in several Republican straw polls of potential presidential nominees, and he has raised a staggering $3 million already this first quarter via his various grass roots organizations. That is more than any other potential Republican nominee thus far.
Ventura believes Paul should fully capitalize on his political popularity and make the break from the GOP.
“He won’t get the Republican Party nomination, he has to understand that.” Ventura said.
“The Republicans are not going to put Ron Paul up as their Presidential nominee. He is too much of a rogue, he is not bought and sold by multinational corporations. Plus the biggest thing of all, he calls for an audit of the Federal Reserve.” he added.
Though many Paul supporters would agree with Ventura, others will point to a shift in GOP attitude toward a more Libertarian outlook in over the past year as one reason for Paul to stick with the party and continue to use the apparatus to reach more people.
Paul previously ran on a Libertarian Party ticket in 1988, but struggled to make inroads against the establishment parties.
During his 2008 campaign for the Republican nomination, the corporate media and mainline conservatives attacked the Congressman over his outspoken opposition to big government and US interventionist foreign policy.
Senator Rand Paul, the Congressman’s son believes that it will be different this time around, however.
“I don’t think there would be any chance they’d exclude my dad now,” said the U.S. senator from Kentucky. “I think everyone in politics, whether it’s explicit or not, has their own agenda and if they can exclude you, they will. I don’t think that will happen again.”
Ventura is currently promoting his new book, 63 documents The Government Doesn’t Want You To Read. The former Governor explained that he had dedicated the book to Congressman Paul as a thank you for his tireless efforts to bring more transparency to Washington.
“He was the only Congressman we have that had the courage to go out on the floor of the Congress and support Wikileaks,” Ventura noted, alluding to the whistle blowing website.
“Like Ron Paul said, no one has died from Wikileaks. How many people have died from the trumped up intelligence and the lying that got us into the Iraq war. And then he said something even more profound. He talked about in a free country like ours, when the truth equals treason we are in big trouble.”
While Ron Paul has yet to announce whether he will mount another presidential run, he may want to take Ventura up on his offer before the former pro-wrestler turned political powerhouse looks toward an even more ambitious role.
“I never said who would be President and who would be Vice President.” Ventura quipped.
Congressman Ron Paul made a sweep of television appearances yesterday to voice his strong opposition to the attack on Libya, and making it clear that the president is subverting US national sovereignty by bypassing Congress to engage in illegal acts of aggression.
Appearing on Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano, the Congressman pulled no punches when explaining why he believes Obama went to the UN for authority to drop bombs on Libya, rather than congress.
“I think he philosophically believes in one world government,” Paul stated.
“He wants to keep nudging us in that direction. I don’t believe he has a conviction that national sovereignty has any value. So therefore if they can diminish the Congress.” he continued.
“If he diminishes the Congress and he can get his authority from the United Nations then this enhances what he believes in. But he is not alone, the leadership in both parties has been nudging in that direction for a long time.” the Congressman added.
“To think of all the effort that the founders went to to make the Congress the most important body, that they are now the most willing to give up their prerogatives and give it to the executive branch and the judicial branch, and onward and onward. Our leaderships in the House as long as I’ve been there have always deferred to the executive branch.” he said.
Paul once again urged the American people to recognize the military incursion into Libya as a war of opportunity.
“It is unnecessary, it is wrong, it has nothing to do with national security, it has nothing to do with the defence of this country.” he said.
“I think there is more to do with it than just that. That may be their cover. It may be that oil is an important issue here. We didn’t go to Rwanda for humanitarian reasons, so I’m not to sure that oil might not be the real clincher here.”
Watch the video:
The Congressman also appeared on Cavuto on Fox and both Anderson Cooper and In The Arena on CNN, during which he made several salient points.
“I don’t think they are up front with this.” Paul told Elliot Spitzer.
“It is said we are going there for humanitarian reasons, but have you ever noticed around the world there are a lot of humanitarian problems. There is abuse of protesters all through the middle east right now but it’s being done by governments that we endorse – they are our “friendly” dictators.”
Watch the interview:
Paul posed the following question to Anderson Cooper concerning Colonel Gaddafi:
“Why was it that four or five years ago we decided that he was a reformed person and we would start trading with him again, after we knew he was a thug and he’s been a thug for forty something years?”
Watch the interview:
On Cavuto Paul again struck out at the continuous revolving door of dictators that the US military industrial complex is involved with, as well as highlighting the financial fallout of endless war.
“The American people are sick and tired of this. We are in trouble here. We’re spending money overseas, we blow up countries and then we have to rebuild them at the same time we can’t even build our own infrastructure.”
Before the US House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services Monetary Policy and Rising Prices, March 17, 2011
There is perhaps no topic as important to the average American today as rising prices. Whether we consider food, gasoline, or clothing, the cost of living is increasing significantly. At a time of high unemployment, rising prices trap American families between a rock and a hard place. While rising prices colloquially are referred to as “inflation,” true inflation is defined as an increase in the money supply, and all other things being equal, an increase in the money supply leads to a rise in prices. Inflation is and always has been throughout history a monetary phenomenon, and its destructive effects have ruined societies from the Roman Empire to Weimar Germany to modern-day Zimbabwe.
Blame for the most recent round of price increases has been laid at the feet of the Federal Reserve’s program of quantitative easing, and rightly so in my opinion. This program, known as QE2, sought to purchase a total of $900 billion in US Treasury debt over a period of 8 months. Roughly $110 billion of newly created money is flooding into markets each month, markets which still have not fully recovered from the financial crisis of the last few years. Banks still hold billions of dollars in underperforming mortgage-backed securities on their books, securities which would render numerous major banks insolvent if they were “marked to market.” These nervous banks are hesitant to loan out further money, instead holding well over a trillion dollars on reserve with the Fed. Is it any wonder, then, that the Fed’s new hot money is flowing into commodity markets?
The price of cotton is up more than 170% over the past year, oil is up over 40%, and many categories of food staples are seeing double-digit price growth. This means that food, clothing, and gasoline will become increasingly expensive over the coming year. American families, many of whom already live paycheck to paycheck, increasingly will be forced by these rising prices into unwilling tradeoffs. Rising prices lead to consumers purchasing ground beef rather than steak, drinking water rather than milk, and choosing canned vegetables over fresh. Clothes are worn until they are threadbare, in order to conserve money that keeps food on the table and pays the heating bill. While some might argue that this new frugality is a good thing, frugality is virtuous only when it results from free choice, not when it is forced upon the citizenry by the Fed’s ruinous monetary policy.
While the Fed takes credit for the increase in the stock markets, it claims no responsibility for the increases in food and commodity prices. Even most economists fail to understand that inflation is at root a monetary phenomenon. As the supply of money increases, more money chases the same amount of goods, and prices rise. There may be other factors that contribute to price rises, such as famine, flooding, or global unrest, but these effects on prices are always short-term, not long-term. Consistently citing rising demand, bad weather, or energy supply uncertainty while never acknowledging the effects of monetary policy is a cop-out. Governments throughout history have sought to blame price increases on bad weather, speculators, and a whole host of other factors, rather than acknowledging the effects of their inflationary monetary policies. Indeed, tyrants of many stripes have debased their nations’ currencies while denying responsibility for the suffering that results.
The unelected policymakers at the Fed are also the last to feel the effects of inflation, in fact, they benefit from it, as does the government as a whole. Inflation results in a rise in prices, but those who receive this new money first, such as government employees, contractors, and bankers are able to use it before prices begin to increase, while those further down the totem pole suffer price increases before they see any of this new money. By reducing the purchasing power of the dollar, the Fed’s monetary policy also harms savers, encouraging reckless indebtedness and a more present-oriented pattern of consumption. Hard work and thrift are punished, so economic actors naturally respond by spending more, borrowing more, and saving less. After all, why save rapidly depreciating dollars?
We must also remember that those policymakers who exercise the most power over the economy are also the least likely to understand the effects of their policies. Chairman Bernanke and other members of the Federal Open Market Committee were convinced in mid-2008 that the economy would rebound and continue to grow through 2009, even though it was clear to many observers that we were in the midst of a severe economic crisis. Chairman Greenspan before him was known for downplaying the importance of the growing housing bubble, even while it was reaching its zenith. It remains impossible for even the brilliant minds at the Fed to achieve both the depth and breadth of knowledge necessary to enable centralized economic planning. As Friedrich von Hayek stated in his Nobel Prize address:
“The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society – a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals.”
The United States declared yet another unconstitutional war in the Middle East today when it launched a bevy of deadly Tomahawk cruise missiles at the sovereign state of Libya.
Corporate media begins inevitable propaganda spin to rationalize murder.
Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution reads: “Congress shall have power to … declare War.” Congress did not declare war on Libya. The globalist sock puppet Obama did.
Speaking from Brasilia, Obama said that he had authorized “limited military action in Libya.”
He does not have the authority to call for military action against other countries. The executive branch of the United States government, however, has engaged in this sort of unlawful and flagrant violation of the Constitution since the end of the Second World War.
Congress recognizes no claimed power of the president to wage war outside of the War Powers Resolution. Congress passed the the War Powers Resolution in 1973 after Nixon illegally invaded Cambodia.
The War Powers Resolution became totally irrelevant when Congress passed the Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution in 2002 following the false flag attack of September 11, 2011.
Obama and his globalist puppet masters have deep and undivided contempt for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the American people. Obama placed his “authority” to kill Libyans on a flimsy framework earlier established by warmongers in France, Britain, Canada and Italy.
The despicable French president Nicolas Sarkozy led the charge. His call for mass murder was described as “theatrical gravitas” by the corporate media. British Prime Minister David Cameron and Sarkozy met briefly Saturday to compare notes before an “international” (globalist) summit on Libya. Sarkozy also met with Madame Clinton.
Cameron reportedly wants NATO to take a lead role in the act of war, while Sarkozy is said to want an “international leadership structure” independent of NATO – that is to say he wants handpicked globalist minions to run the show, probably from Brussels.
Secretary of State Clinton said Arab efforts to “stop violence” – by initiating more deadly and well-organized violence – played a key role in mobilizing the international coalition.
In fact, the Arabs took their marching orders from the Europeans and the United Nations and will be at best junior partners in the wanton slaughter. The globalists do not turn to third-rate Arab dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the corrupt Gulf emirates for advice.
In the days ahead, we can expect Arab ground troops to be sent into Libya to kill their Arab brothers. It is unlikely American soldiers will serve as bullet-stoppers in this engineered conflict, at least in the short term.
During an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Congressman Ron Paul dropped perhaps the biggest hint yet that he is preparing to announce his campaign for the presidency, affirming he has the ability to unite Republicans, independents and progressive to defeat the “warmongering” Barack Obama.
Asked if he could beat Obama, Paul responded, “The reality is it would be very, very difficult, but if you look at the polls, and there aren’t that many, my appeal is to a lot of independents and a lot of progressive Democrats who are sick and tired of Obama for opting out of cutting back on some of this militarism,” adding that his numbers would be even bigger when stacked up against Obama than they would be in a Republican primary.
“He’s a war monger,” Rep. Paul added. “He’s expanding the war. My numbers would be much bigger running against Obama than they will be running against some conservative in the Republican primary.”
Indeed, an April 2010 Rasmussen poll showed that Paul was almost level with Obama if the two were to go head to head for the presidency. Following a 15 point bounce in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings, Obama has pulled away from all potential Republican candidates, but given the momentum Paul could build with his energetic grass roots base, beating Obama would be a distinct possibility.
Exemplifying again how the establishment consistently tries to derail Paul’s momentum by ignoring his very existence, obscure names like John Thune and Jon Huntsman were included in the Fox poll and yet Paul was omitted entirely.
During the MSNBC segment, the Congressman pointed out that the debate over military spending was a matter of semantics, arguing that the issue had little to do with “defense” and more to do with propping up the US military-industrial complex and occupying foreign countries.
“I think the problem we have is with the semantics,” said Paul. “They have conditioned us all to use the word defense spending. Who wants to cut defense? I don’t want to cut defense. I want a stronger defense.”
“I want to cut the militarism, the interventionism, the stuff that hurts us, that makes us more vulnerable,” he added. “If we separate defense from militarism, maybe more people would be willing to accept it. Who wants to be on record who says I just voted against the defense budget.”
“I think it’s a perception and a semantics problem that we have to try to reeducate the people to understand what we’re talking about.”
“It is a sad day in American history when a one-time conservative-libertarian stalwart has fallen more out of touch with America’s needs for national security than the current feeble and appeasing administration,” YAF’s Senior National Director Jordan Marks said in a statement.
By lumping Ron Paul in with the “feeble and appeasing” Obama administration, Marks attempts to make a distinction between Obama and his predecessor George W. Bush, by portraying Obama as weak on “defense,” when in reality, the Obama war chest has been bigger than anything ever passed under Bush year upon year. Obama’s 2011 war chest swelled to more than 700 billion dollars – that’s more than Bush ever got.
Indeed, as soon as Obama took office his first action was to send 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan and to expand the Bush-era bombings in Pakistan, as well as opening up a new front in Yemen. There are more US troops deployed globally under Obama than there ever were under Bush.
Bush and Obama have both followed identical interventionist foreign policies that mainly revolve around carpet bombing goat herders in broken-backed third world countries, something that Paul rightly points out has nothing to do with the “defense” of the United States.
The fact that Obama has a bigger military budget than Bush ever did gives a pretty clear indication that occupying and invading foreign countries has nothing to do with true conservatism – it comes from the foundational beliefs of those whom the Young Americans for Freedom organization would undoubtedly champion – neo-cons who are nothing more than Trotskyites – they believe wholeheartedly in the welfare-warfare state.
Ron Paul should be honored to be kicked out of this pitiful little group – because it only crystallizes his character as a real conservative, while the Young Americans for Freedom are nothing more than a mouthpiece for neo-cons who have more in common with historical Marxists than they do the founding fathers of America.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.
David Andolfatto, Vice President in the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, makes one of the most ludicrous arguments against Ron Paul’s attack on the Fed that one could make. I mean even for a Fed apologist, it is off the wall.
He attacks this paragraph in Ron Paul’s book End the Fed:
One only needs to reflect on the dramatic decline in the value of the dollar that has taken place since the Fed was established in 1913. The goods and services you could buy for $1.00 in 1913 now cost nearly $21.00. Another way to look at this is from the perspective of the purchasing power of the dollar itself. It has fallen to less than $0.05 of its 1913 value. We might say that the government and its banking cartel have together stolen $0.95 of every dollar as they have pursued a relentlessly inflationary policy.
What are the details of the attack?
He starts out this way:
The guy can be a real pinhead at times. And this is never so evident as in his persistent “attacks” against the Fed…Now, of course, I work at the Fed, so maybe you think I’m just complaining for the sake of defending my employer. If you think that, I can understand why you do. It is because you do not know me.
There are legitimate arguments one could make against the Fed as an institution and/or about the conduct of Fed policy. And then there are the stupid arguments, for example, the one contained on pg. 25 of his book End the Fed
So what is at the heart of Andolfatto’s defense of the Fed destroying 95% of the value of the dollar and calling Ron Paul’s argument stupid? Here it is:
There is this old idea in monetary theory called money neutrality. Money neutrality means that larger quantities of money ultimately manifest themselves in the form of higher nominal prices (and wages), and not on real quantities. No serious economist disputes the idea of long-run money neutrality.
Yes, what cost $1 in 1913 now costs $20. But so what? Money neutrality states that if you were earning $1 per hour in 1913, you are now earning $20 per hour (and even more, if labor productivity is higher).
That’s it, the beginning and end of Andolfatto’s Fed defense of destroying 95% of the value of the dollar. It all works out in the end, says Andolfatto. But, please, Mr. Andolfatto explain to me how this works out for someone who has been a careful saver of his money and now sees the purchasing power of that money destroyed? Please explain to me how this works out for a retired person on a fixed income who sees the declining purchasing power of that income? Please explain to me how this works out for the rest of the country when Wall Street bankers are the first to get their hands on newly printed Fed money, so that they can bid up all kinds of prices, including rents on apartments, which makes it difficult for anyone but a Wall Streeter to afford to live in Manhattan?
These damages, Mr. Andolfatto, you somehow don’t see and even think Ron Paul is stupid and a pinhead for raising questions about them. I would say you are suffering from what I have seen a lot in those working for the government: delusion. Phil Swagel, who was the chief economic advisor to Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, told me that he didn’t even know there was any major decline in money supply growth during the summer of 2008. To not watch money supply growth when you are the Deputy Treasury Secretary for economic affairs is simply bizzare to me.
That you can’t see how a destruction of 95% of the value of the dollar might hurt some people, falls right into that category. You guys really suffer from what Brad DeLong has admitted he has suffered from. It is what he calls, Greenspanism, the absurd belief that whatever the Fed does is right, even if logic suggests the exact opposite.
But, hey, if you think the destruction of a currency is no biggie, here’s a job tip for you, call Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. He really thinks the same way you do.
Establishment Republicans exploited a gullible Tea Party movement in order to get the neocon agenda of forever war against manufactured Muslim enemies back on track. Now they must purge Congress and the mainstream political landscape of those who would resist this agenda.
The primary target of the effort is Rep. Ron Paul.
Paul has stood tall against the neocon version of U.S. foreign policy. He is an ardent opponent of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan.
Once again, Ron Paul has won the CPAC presidential straw poll. Millions of Americans support Paul’s call for a return to a constitutional government and a non-interventionist foreign policy. If Paul throws his hat in the ring for the 2012 election, there is a good chance he will win.
On Saturday, Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) announced that Paul would be expelled from the organization’s National Advisory Board because of his “delusional and disturbing alliance with the fringe Anti-War movement,” in other words his opposition to the neocon plan in the Middle East and Central Asia.
“It is a sad day in American history when a one-time conservative-libertarian stalwart has fallen more out of touch with America’s needs for national security than the current feeble and appeasing administration,” YAF’s Senior National Director Jordan Marks said in a statement.
“Rep. Paul’s refusal to support our nation’s military and national security interests border on treason, aside from his failure to uphold his oath to the United States Constitution and defend our country and citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” Marks added.
“Freedom and prosperity cannot peacefully exist alongside radical Islam. It is unfortunate that Ron Paul – a member of the U.S. Congress – does not understand this. Surely, our enemies do.”
According to YAF, Ron Paul is somewhere to the left of Obama. Not mentioned by YAF is the fact the Obama administration has continued the so-called war on terror and has embraced and expanded the neocon agenda abroad and at home.
Paul served on YAF’s board of advisors for more than two decades. He has made positive comments about the organization on the floor of the House. YAF even gave him its top honor, the Guardian of Freedom award.
Now YAF has decided to expel him and embrace the neocon agenda.
YAF describes itself as “the nation’s oldest, largest, and most active conservative-libertarian youth organization. YAF was started at the estate of William F. Buckley, Jr. in 1960 to uphold the principles of the Sharon Statement.”
Buckley was a CIA operative, a fact documented by his son, Christopher Buckley.
As an Ivy League student at Yale, Buckley was recruited by the CIA and served for two years including one year in Mexico City working as a political action specialist in the elite Special Activities Division – the division responsible for covert operations, black operations and other “special activities” including covert political action — and worked directly under E. Howard Hunt, the notorious CIA operative who admitted before his death that he was intimately involved in the John F. Kennedy assassination.
Neocon Republicans are sick and tired of Ron Paul and the Constitution of the United States that specifically requires Congress to declare war. They are determined to take him down prior to the election season that begins later this year.
Warner Todd Huston, a neocon op-ed writer and one-time shill and sycophant for presidential candidate and television actor Fred Thompson, encapsulates the establishment contempt for Paul. Following Paul’s CPAC straw poll win, Huston wrote that Paul’s supporters
are rabid, grossly over amped, childish, petulant, stick any negative description here and they are it. CPAC is a conservative event. But it is one for adults. Not the loud, unruly children that Ron Paul has repeatedly sent to the event. CPAC should be a place where all versions of Republicans and conservatives (which are assuredly not synonymous, of course) can come to hear speeches and learn what all sides of the conservative movement are thinking. We should sit and listen attentively like grown ups and not constantly boo people with whom we disagree.
According to Huston, we should sit attentively as the neocon leadership – and the Obama administration and a Democrat Congress – violate the Constitution and invade small countries. Adults of Huston’s ilk cheered as the neocon tool Bush ordered the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis under the false pretense of aluminum tubes (the death toll is now around 1.5 million men, women, and children – a war crime approaching that of the Nazis).