r3volution! News

Archive for the tag “politics”

What Now ‘Paulbots’?

So, what now?  The “election” is over. Ron Paul will retire.  If President Obama doesn’t declare himself Dictator Obama, we will get another opportunity to “elect” a President in 4 years. FOUR YEARS?!?!  Seems like a lifetime in one sense, and in another, it zips by in a flash.

Ok, where to begin? Well, let’s get the whole “who’s to blame?” thing out of the way. For months now, we have been hearing “You Paulbots are going to be responsible for Obama’s re-election!”  And more recently, “Thanks for re-electing Obama all of you who voted for Johnson!”

Let’s take a look at this. IF the GOP, the RNC,  and the “mainstream” media had not cheated, lied, and stolen through election fraud, and given Ron Paul a FAIR shot at the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney may very well have been President-Elect this morning.

Yep, you read that right. Even if everything during the Primaries up through the Convention, was played fairly, Romney may still have been the nominee. We still might not have had the numbers necessary to secure the nomination. This is purely “Monday morning quarterbacking” on my part. We MIGHT have had the numbers and taken the nomination, but it was always a long shot. At any rate, there are two things I am certain of, if we were given a level playing field.
#1).
IF Ron Paul would have gotten the nomination, he WOULD HAVE beaten President Obama. (A point I will address later)
#2). IF Romney got the nomination (fairly), the Republican Party would have brought many of the Paul supporters into the fold for the sake of unity in defeating President Obama.

Let’s begin with my second point first. The one thing that everyone from the extreme right wing religious Republicans all the way over to the socially liberal Independents, to include the core base of Libertarians agreed on through all of this, was Obama’s policies were wrong and he needed to be defeated. I don’t believe that was ever in dispute. The dispute rested in who to replace Obama with. And up until the Convention, that person SHOULD have been a negotiable point. But it never was. There was no choice. The GOP, RNC, and the media (along with the powers behind the scenes) took all choice away from ALL of us. 

Romney was SELECTED because it provided a win/win situation for Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex, the Statists, and yes, the proponents of a New World Order. They ALL wanted 4 more years with Obama, who in his second term is likely to be more aggressive in implementing policies that are beneficial to all of them. But in the event Obama lost, who better to replace him with than a man who, based on his record, would continue those same policies? Romney was perfect!

But back to my point. If Romney, and the Republican Party would have played fair, and STILL won the nomination, I have no doubt, although disappointed, many Paul supporters would have supported Romney in the common goal of defeating Obama. I’m confident of this because, IF it were a fairly won nomination, Ron Paul would have, at the very least, had a platform to address the Convention. He would have been encouraged to help shape the Romney campaign and agenda. His advice would have been sought out in shaping policy for the future of Conservatism and the Republican Party. And as we all know, where Dr. Paul goes, so goes his supporters. Now you can claim this is pure speculation and opinion on my part, and it is. I don’t deny that. But it is pretty logical, as far as speculation goes. So, I’m sticking with it…IF this had been played out in a fair and honest manner, and Romney still secured the nomination, he would have garnered upwards of MILLIONS of additional supporters.

Ok, now on to my first point. IF everything had been done fair and square and Ron Paul would have secured the nomination, he would without doubt be taking the Oath of Office in January. How can I say this obvious opinion with such force and conviction?  How can I present my opinion so matter of factly?

Well, for starters, there is an overwhelming majority of Americans, who KNOW that the policies, both domestic AND abroad of the Obama administration are just not cutting it. This President has added TRILLIONS of dollars in debt, to an already out of control debt he claims to have inherited. He has broken nearly every campaign promise he made to get the job the first time. He has not only continued the war effort of the last President, but has expanded it, and will continue to do so. And speaking of the last administration, President Obama has continued to eliminate personal liberties of Americans through the extension of the Patriot Act, and implementing NDAA.  He has increased spending and manpower, and expanded the jurisdiction of the TSA.  He has exhibited a disdain for the process of our system by circumventing Congress through the use of Executive Orders. He has a Justice Department, under the head of Eric Holder, who at the very least is incompetent, but more realistically, criminal. And on and on and on. So, there are even die hard Liberals and Democrats who recognize this Administration’s policies are simply continuations of the Bush Administration’s policies. And they aren’t exactly thrilled about it.

Did any of you watch the “debates” between President Obama and Governor Romney? Yeah, me neither. After the halfway point of the first one, it was apparent, there was no “debate”. With all of their double talk, blame game, fool hearty attempts to prove how different they are, nobody bought it. The only ones who grudgingly, painfully, subjected themselves to the “show” were the pundits, bloggers, and sadists. It is abundantly clear, those “debates” were merely entertainment. Now, a President Obama vs. Congressman Paul series of debates would have been EPIC!

The President might have actually been put in a position to defend his FAILed policies:

Senator Obama campaigning in 2007….Gonna end the wars!
Congressman Paul 2012 debate….WHEN?

Senator Obama campaigning in 2007….Gonna put Americans back to work!
Congressman Paul 2012 debate…
WHEN?

Senator Obama campaigning in 2007….Gonna turn this economy around!
Congressman Paul 2012 debate…WHEN?

And these are just the easy ones. But specifically, imagine President Obama, while feebly attempting to defend his policies, trying to make valid arguments against Dr. Paul’s proposed policies!

For example, these wars. I think it’s safe to say America is “warred out“. How can President Obama defend his policies on war expansion AND argue against Dr. Paul’s policy of “Just march them home!”? Yes, I have simplified that, but how difficult must it be to make it true? Not one of these wars we are involved in does ANYTHING to make America safer. Even if you believe that there are bad guys who want to kill us, there is no valid justification for these UNDECLARED wars, and immoral occupations. These actions create enemies. So yes, “Just march them home!” while simplistic, seems to work just fine in my mind. But of course, President Obama would no doubt have come back with It’s complicated, and your proposal will leave us weak as a nation. Actually, it wouldn’t. Because Congressman Paul’s proposal of “Just march the home” includes DOUBLING the size of the U.S. Navy AND the U.S. Coast Guard.  Hey, aren’t those the guys and gals that protect OUR borders from a DEFENSIVE standpoint? I think I read that somewhere.

Need another example? How about the Patriot Act?, corporate bailouts?, printing/borrowing/spending?, NDAA?, ObamaCare?, No Child Left Behind?, the Dream Act? My intention here is not to rehash each of their positions on every issue, but to demonstrate that they actually DO differ…on just about every issue imaginable. There is a clear and distinct difference in their policy positions. We would have had a choice. We would have witnessed real debates. We would have seen a true fiscal Conservative, not merely saying Obama’s monetary policies are wrong, but explaining why they are wrong, AND presenting a realistic, workable, alternative. Did you hear Governor/Candidate Romney present such a plan? I sure didn’t. I heard an awful lot of You’re wrong, and I have a plan, but I heard nor saw this plan.

Back to the wars. I heard Governor Romney say a lot of the You did it wrong, and I would have done it differently, but it is clear…he had no intention of scaling back when it comes to war. In fact, that is one area he might have escalated faster than President Obama.

How about those bailouts, NDAA, TSA, and other issues that at best were gleaned over during the debates? Again, I heard nothing to suggest a Romney Presidency would have changed any of that. ObamaCare? Please….he created that monstrosity! No matter how many times he said I will repeal ObamaCare, he could never not follow that up with and replace it. Replace it how? I have always maintained he would replace the name of ObamaCare with its ORIGINAL moniker, RomneyCare.

So, IF the circus we witnessed over the last several months would have been conducted fairly, and IF Dr. Paul would have secured the Republican nomination, I am confident he would have been named President-Elect this morning. All, but the far left Liberals, and the die-hard Statists (NWO) are less than satisfied with one or more of President Obama’s policy implementations thus far, and MOST Americans are less than enthusiastic in him performing any better next term. Take the Democrats who are opposed to the wars. Given a choice of sticking with the current President, who is showing no signs of ending the wars, and a candidate who has said “March them home!”, a great number of those people (who voted for Obama last time for that very reason) are going to chance it with the guy who says he will end the wars.

But given the choice we were given, they chose to stick with the devil they know. The same is true for Independents, who are not necessarily Libertarians, who oppose corporate bailouts and Quantitative Easing. Given this choice we were given, they opted for 4 more years of one tax/print/spend guy, rather than risk 8 years of another borrow/print/spend guy. Had they been offered the choice of tax/borrow/print/spend OR cutting ONE TRILLION DOLLARS in the first year, with an actual plan proving it can be done, they would have chosen the latter.

We said the Republicans could not defeat Obama without us, and that has now been proven to be true. So, we have 4 more years of Obama. Well, put the blame where it belongs. It does NOT lie with the Paulbots, or the Johnsonites, or the Steinians, or with ANY other American who stood proud in their convictions by casting their vote. The blame lies entirely with the people who gave you NO CHOICE.

Believe it or not, there is actually an upside to Obama winning. While it is true, there is no appreciable difference between Obama and Romney, had Romney won, he would get the blame for the inevitable financial meltdown we are approaching. But more importantly than him getting the blame, capitalism and free markets would get the blame. No, Romney is not a true free market capitalist, but the media will mislabel his policies as such. 

I could go on showing that if Americans had a real choice, the outcome would have been much different, but I’d like to move on to the original intent of this article. What are we Paulbots (and other 3rd Party Independents) to do now? First and foremost, we continue to spread the message. It has ALWAYS been more than the man (Ron Paul).  It has, and should remain about the message. The message of individual liberty and personal responsibility. The message of free trade with nations while remaining secure in our defense. The message of retaining the fruits of YOUR labor and investing those fruits to suit YOUR needs.

Some of you have chosen Governor Johnson as your new Liberty Leader. Some of you have latched onto Rand Paul. Some have migrated towards other Parties, such as the Green and Constitution Parties. I admit, I was saddened and disappointed that so many of you chose that route BEFORE the Convention. However, at this point in the game, I am elated at the prospect of promoting ALL 3rd Party/Independent platforms. It is long overdue! Even after all I pointed out in this article of how America is disenfranchised,disappointed, and disgusted by the lack of choice this two-Party system gives them, a lot still see no alternatives. We certainly cannot depend on the media to enlighten them. It is up to us. Become the media.

Next, for those of you who have not had State elections for the Senate, House, and Governorships, get cracking! Start looking into the folks running for those seats. Investigate and vet them all out.  Dr. Paul formally endorsed 11 candidates for the House this cycle and yesterday EIGHT of those 11 won! And that, my friends is how we continue the R3VOLUTION! that IS the message! We get people in the House, Senate, and Governors mansions from all over this country who will continue Ron Paul’s legacy.

1). Justin Amash. Michigan 3rd District.
2.)
Thomas Massie. Kentucky 4th District.
3.)
Kerry Bentivolio. Michigan 11th District.
4.) Steve Stockman. Texas 36th District.
5.)
Randy Weber. Texas 14th District. To replace Congressman Paul. He’s got some big shoes to fill!
6.)
Ted Yoho. Florida 3rd District.
7.)
David Schweikert. Arizona 6th District.
8.) Walter Jones. North Carolina 3rd District.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/13555-the-ron-paul-revolution-moves-to-congress

I personally have high hopes for Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, and Walter Jones. While these wins are indeed impressive, we have a lot more work to do. We need many more Rand Paul’s and Mike Lee’s in the Senate. Early predictions for the 2014 cycle lean toward a possible Republican takeover.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_93/Senate_2014_Field_Looks_to_Favor_GOP-212263-1.html

We need to make sure they are Constitutional Republicans, or Libertarian. We’ve lost the Executive Branch for at least the next 4 years, the Judicial Branch offers little to no hope, so we must retake the Legislative Branch.

When researching these potential candidates, be sure they oppose such atrocities as Patriot Act, NDAA, bailouts, socialized health care, etc. But also be sure they favor things like nullificaction and State’s rights.

Six States were successful yesterday in approving initiatives that nullify unconstitutional federal laws! This is paramount to our success in restoring the Constitutional authority granted to the States through the Constitution.

1).  Montana,Referendum 122
2).  Colorado, Amendment 64
3).  Alabama, Amendment 6
4).  Washington State, Initiative 502
5).  Wyoming, Amendment A
6).  Massachusetts, Question 3

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/11/07/nullification-victories/

Another thing we should concentrate on, is electing honest local Sheriffs. They are our last best defense against a tyrannical government. Take a good look at how your local police department personnel are dressed, armed. Check out their vehicles. Read the current Police Beat section of your local newspapers. You may be quite surprised at the overkill tactics used by the ones who are hired to Protect and Serve you. While the staff of the Sheriff, including the deputies are hired personnel, they answer solely to the Sheriff who is normally elected by you and I. Look into your local Sheriff’s Department and see how you can get the right people to defend you against the State. I don’t want to come off as an alarmist in this particular post, but be prepared people.

A dichotomy frequently exists today between a sheriff’s jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of a local police department. A metropolitan area may encompass an entire county or more; police departments and sheriffs will often maintain concurrent jurisdiction in the overlapping area. A sheriff may assume that a local police department will do its duty in enforcing the law, but the primary obligation rests with the sheriff and requires him to act when evidence of neglect of that duty exists.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sheriff

The Importance of One Vote…A Closer Look

Commentary provided by:Josey Wales.

With election day right around the corner, I am still torn between what decision to make. Vote Third Party or stay home? Well, I think I have made it clear what my personal choice will be. I have not swayed at all. Still going to write-in Congressman Ron Paul as well as file the affidavit with Write In Revolution! and I HIGHLY recommend everyone who is writing in OR voting Third Party do the same.

But back to the initial concern that got me to put together this document. I am hearing a lot of people choosing to just opt out completely. They know their vote is meaningless, so their only recourse to further playing their game is to just stay home. I completely understand, but disagree.  I think we all have to show our force at the polls, and show our disdain by voting, but NOT for the establishment.

Anyway, I have run across the following piece on Facebook lately, and wanted to share it with you. I had to do quite a bit of digging to find out  WHO was originally responsible for this piece, but I think I’ve found it. But once I found it, I started researching the validity of the points used to demonstrate the The Importance of One Vote. It turns out, some of these points used are false, if you believe Snopes.com to be reliable. At any rate, I have linked to sources for each of the bullet points used in the article, and as always provided the link to the original article. While some of the examples might not be true, I still found this to be interesting, and I hope you do as well.

THE IMPORTANCE OF ONE VOTE
By Mary W. Morgan, Supervisor of Elections, Collier County, Florida

The most often heard excuse for not voting in an election is “my one little vote won’t make a difference.” Yet history is full of instances proving the enormous power of one single vote. In many cases, the course of nations has been changed because one individual ballot was cast, or not cast, depending upon your point of view. Consider this:

  • In 1645, one vote gave Oliver Cromwell control of England.
    According to snopes.com, this claim is FALSE.
  • In 1649, one vote literally cost King Charles I of England his head. The vote to behead him was 67 against and 68 for—the ax fell thanks to one vote.
    According to snopes.com, this claim is FALSE.
  • In 1714, one vote placed King George I on the throne of England and restored the monarchy.
    I’m not so sure this is accurate either, at least in the case of one vote. I found this site that describes how George I ascended to the throne. It was through  The Act of Settlement, which does not look to me like a vote.
  • In 1776, one vote gave America the English language instead of German (at least according to folk lore.)
    According to snopes.com, this claim is FALSE.
  • In 1800, the Electoral College met in the respective states to cast their two votes for President. At that time, the U.S. Constitution provided the candidate receiving the most electoral votes would become President and the candidate receiving the second highest number of votes would become Vice President. When the results of the Electoral College votes were opened by both houses of Congress, there was a tie vote for President between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. That threw the election of President into the House of Representatives where Thomas Jefferson was elected our third president by a one-vote margin.
    Ok, again, I am not convinced that this was decided by one vote. It is clear that one man, Alexander Hamilton was highly influential in the eventual tie-breaker, but I have not found that his, or anyone’s one vote did it.
    A couple of interesting articles :
    Election of 1800 Was Significant and Controversial
    1800 Presidential Election
  • In 1824, none of the four Presidential candidates received an electoral majority. The election was again thrown into the House of Representatives, where John Quincy Adams defeated front runner Andrew Jackson by one vote to become the nation’s 6th president. Andrew Jackson received the majority of the nation’s popular vote.
    Here, it seems it did come down to one vote. It seems, Andrew Jackson had the most votes in the Electoral College, but not a necessary majority. So once again it came down to House of Representatives vote.  Henry Clay was not only a Presidential Candidate in this race, but was also Speaker of the House. Clay could not fathom the thought of a Jackson Presidency, so he cast his support behind John Quincy Adams. In return Adams named Clay as his secretary of state, a position that had been the stepping-stone to the presidency for the previous four executives. Can you say “corruption”?
    The 1824 Election and the “Corrupt Bargain”
    1824 Presidential Election
  • In 1844 in the backwoods area of Switzerland County, Indiana on election day, a farmer named Freeman Clark lay seriously ill in bed. He begged his sons to carry him to the county seat so he could vote for David Kelso to become a state senator. David Kelso had defended old Freeman Clark on a murder charge and obtained his acquittal. The old farmer Freeman Clark got to vote for Kelso but Clark died on his way back home. Kelso won the election by one vote. Both Freeman Clark and David Kelso were long-time Andrew Jackson supporters.
    I can’t find ANYTHING to substantiate this claim. Sure makes for a nice story though.You can choose to use this site In Indiana One Vote Counts  as a credible source if you want.
  • In 1844 when the new Indiana senate convened, Democrats had a majority of one, counting David Kelso. At that time, state senates had the task of electing the states’ United States Senator. The Indiana Senate Democrats held a caucus where it developed a majority of the party delegation favored a man who would vote against the annexation of Texas if elected to the U.S. Senate. David Kelso refused to vote for the Democratic Party choice, and a deadlock resulted between the Democratic and Whig candidates. This continued for days. Finally, Kelso made his move. He proposed a new candidate: Edward A. Hannigan. In his party caucus, Kelso notified his Democratic associates he would bolt and vote with the Whigs—thus electing a Whig to the Senate—unless the Democrats supported Hannigan. The Democrats felt constrained to accept Hannigan who was then elected as Indiana’s U.S. Senator by one vote—that of David Kelso.
    Same as above. In Indiana One Vote Counts. But, this claim directly relates to the next claim which according to snopes.com, is FALSE.
  • In 1845, Texas was admitted to the union as a state by one vote—that of Edward A. Hannigan from Indiana. The 1844 and 1845 excerpts on the series of single votes leading to Texas statehood are from the book Magnificent Destiny.
    According to snopes.com, this claim is FALSE.
  • In 1846, a one-vote margin in the U.S. Senate approved President Polk’s request for a Declaration of War against Mexico.
    Not according to what I have found. All I can find that is Senate specific is other blogs and opinions restating the claim. However, the legitimate sources I have discovered ALL say that Congress overwhelmingly voted in favor and indeed Declared War against Mexico. So was there a one vote difference in the Senate? Maybe. But did that one vote make a significant difference? Not that I can see.
    Mexican-American War
    Mexican War
    A Guide to the Mexican War
  • In 1850, California was admitted to the union by a margin of one vote.
    Not finding anything proving this to be fact. I have found lots of information surrounding the controversy in admitting California, which had to do with the slavery issue at the time. This seems to be another instance where one man, Henry Clay, introduced a Bill that was instrumental in the outcome of the vote, but nothing to suggest that it was one vote.
    California Admission Day
    Compromise of 1850
    The Compromise of 1850 and the Fugitive Slave Act
  • In 1859, Oregon was admitted to the union by a margin of one vote.
    Looks like another instance of controversy surrounding slavery, but I can’t find anything regarding one vote.
    Slavery Clouds Oregon’s Admission to the Union.
  • The Alaska Purchase of 1867 was ratified by just one vote—paving the way for the eventual annexation of America’s largest state in 1958.
    Still having difficulties finding credible sources to back these claims. On this site, Seward`s Folly, the Purchase of Alaska it is claimed the Senate ratified it by one vote, but that is not backed up by a source for that actual vote. I found another site that appears to be an official government memo, where it states that the Senate did ratify the Purchase of Alaska, but mentions NOTHING about one vote. You’d think that would be a big deal, and people would highlight that fact.
    Purchase of Alaska
  • In 1868, one vote in the U.S. Senate saved President Andrew Johnson from impeachment.
    FINALLY! Something that looks to be somewhat true. It’s not so much that one vote was the outcome one way or another. They were just one vote short of the necessary votes to have the two-thirds needed to impeach. Well, maybe we are getting closer to getting one of these claims to be true.
    The Senate Votes on a Presidential Impeachment
  • In 1875, a one-vote margin changed France from a monarchy to a republic.
    According to snopes.com, this claim is FALSE.
  • In 1875, Florida’s U.S. Senators were still elected by the state Legislature. Democrat Charles W. Jones of Pensacola was elected by the U.S. Senate by a majority of one vote.
    Well, I only found one thing on this guy and it is a Wikipediaarticle. And it doesn’t say anything about him winning this Senate Seat by one vote.
  • In 1876, no presidential contender received a majority of electoral votes so the determination of the country’s president was again thrown into the U.S. House of Representatives. By a one-vote margin, Rutherford B. Hayes became the new U.S. president. When Tilden’s party protested the tabulation and demanded a recount, Congress established a 15-member electoral commission to again count the electoral votes and declare the result. By an eight to seven margin—again, one vote—the commission affirmed the count and gave the election and presidency to Hayes.
    Again, there seems to be a misleading of facts here. From The Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives :
    Democrat Samuel Tilden had emerged from the close election leading Republican Rutherford B. Hayes of Ohio, just one vote shy of the 185 needed to win.
  • In 1885, two members of the Florida House of Representatives waged a friendly but close contest for Speaker of the House. Robert W. Davis of Green Cove Springs defeated Gen. Ernest Yonge of Pensacola by one vote.
    I cannot find one single piece of evidence to support this claim from a google search. Could it be true? Sure. But it sure seems like a one vote victory would have been big news, and it wouldn’t be too difficult to find a newspaper clipping.
  • In 1889, by a one-vote margin, Washington was admitted to statehood with the union.
  • In 1890, by a one-vote margin, Idaho became a state.
    Not even going to waste any more time looking up claims like the last two.
  • In 1916, if presidential hopeful Charles E. Hughes had received one additional vote in each of California’s precincts, he would have defeated President Woodrow Wilson’s re-election bid.
    From Wikipedia : The electoral vote was one of the closest in American history – with 266 votes needed to win, Wilson took 30 states for 277 electoral votes, while Hughes won 18 states and 254 electoral votes.
    1916 Presidential Election:

    Woodrow Wilson (I) Democratic 277 9,129,606
     Charles E. Hughes Republican 254 8,538,221

    I’m no mathematician,  but it looks like more than one vote.

  • On November 8, 1923, members of the then recently-formed revolutionary political party met to elect a leader in a Munich, Germany beer hall. By a majority of one vote, they chose an ex-soldier named Adolph Hitler to become the NAZI Party leader.
    According to snopes.com, this claim is FALSE.
  • In 1940, the vote taken by the French parliament to maintain its status as a republic failed by a margin of one vote.
    I once again googled this. I found this site, Poet Patriot.com, which makes this claim: “I believe my ‘one vote’ lists, National, by State, and Other to be the most comprehensive listing on the internet.
    So I scrolled down to 1940, and indeed saw this claim about the french Parliament vote with a link:
    1 vote failed a proposal by the French parliament to maintain its status as a republic.
    404: Page not found
    This error is generated when there was no web page with the name you specified at the web site.
  • In 1941, the Selective Service Act (the draft) was saved by a one-vote margin—just weeks before Pearl Harbor was attacked.
    According to snopes.com, this claim is FALSE.
  • In 1948, a Texas convention voted for Lyndon B. Johnson over ex-Governor Coke Stevens in a contested Senatorial election. Lyndon Johnson because U.S. Senator by a one-vote margin.
    Lyndon Johnson’s 1948 Senate Race states that Johnson won by 87 votes.  This article Lyndon Johnson’s victory in the 1948 Texas Senate race: a reappraisal. seems to back that up.
  • In 1948, if Thomas E. Dewey had gotten one vote more per precinct in Ohio and California, the presidential election would have been thrown into the U.S. House of Representatives where Dewey enjoyed more support than his rival—incumbent Harry Truman. As it was, Dewey was expected to win the general election by a landslide, so most Republicans stayed home. Only 51.5 percent of the electorate voted. Truman defeated Dewey.
    Ok, this was a crazy election. Newspapers were prematurely reporting that Dewey defeated Truman. A large percentage of voters did stay home. I think I will just post some links here, and you all can do some further digging if you want to confirm or debunk the one vote thing.
    1948 Presidential General Election Results
    1948 Presidential Election
    Results of the 1948 Election
  • In a 1955 city election in Huron, Ohio, the mayor was elected to office by one vote.
    This is actually becoming comical. All I can find is more blogs and opinion pieces repeating the this original list as proof of the accuracy of the one vote claim.  Again, I have to say, all these important instances coming down to just one vote, seems like it would be newsworthy. I wouldn’t think it would be so difficult to find sources to back the claims.
  • In a 1959 city election, mayors of both Rose Creek and Odin, Minnesota were elected to their respective offices by one vote.
    Not even going to bother looking.
  • In the 1960 presidential election, an additional one vote per precinct in Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, and Texas may have altered the course of America’s modern history by denying John F. Kennedy the presidency and placing Richard Nixon in the White House eight years earlier.
    There is no doubt, this was won of the most controversial, and closest elections in U.S. Presidential history. But I am having a difficult time believing that one vote in each of these States would have changed it all. There are far too many other factors involved, such as accusations of election fraud. So, I have provided some links to the individual State results of the election, and for those of you who have the patience and aptitude, who want to try to figure it out, please do. I look forward to seeing your pie charts and line graphs.
    Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, Texas
    Wikipedia U.S. Presidential Election 1960
    Was Nixon Robbed?
    Chicago Ties Cast Shadow on 1960 Presidential Win
    Did JFK Steal the 1960 Election?
  • In 1962, the governors of Maine, Rhode Island, and North Dakota were all elected by a margin of one vote per precinct.
  • In 1984, a Monroe County, Florida commissioner was elected by one vote.
  • In 1994, the U.S. House of Representatives enacted a law banning specific classes of assault weapons. The vote was initially tied but one member changed his vote to approve the ban.
    From Wikipedia, In 1994, Swett voted for a bill to ban assault weapons that narrowly passed by two votes in the United States House of Representatives.
  • Bills proposing amendment to the U.S. Constitution require a two-thirds vote of each House in order to be approved. When the balanced budget amendment bill came before the U.S. Senate in March, 1995, the measure failed by one vote—Mark Hatfield, Republican from Oregon, was the sole Republican failing to vote with other members of the Republican Party, which was the majority party of the U.S. Senators. When it became apparent the measure would fail, Senate Republican Whip, Bob Dole, changed his vote to enable him to bring the matter back up under parliamentary rules for a vote in the future.
    Considering a Balanced Budget Amendment: Lessons from HistoryRick Santorum says he called for resignation of a high-ranking Republican over no vote on balanced budget amendment

I realize I am not a historian or a professional researcher, but these claims, should be much easier to substantiate. I started this document with the hopes of demonstrating that our one vote can make a difference. But after trying to verify these claims that would have you believe that to be true, I’m not so sure. I think I have proven though, no matter how good information looks, and no matter how in line it is with our preconceived notions, we should never take it at face value. Research the claims made by others. Perhaps Mary W. Morgan, while producing her document did research all of these points. And perhaps, there are verifiable original sources to back these claims. I could not find such sources, and I would have liked very much if Miss Morgan would have provided these sources. But again, I am speculating. Who’s to say in her original, the sources weren’t provided? But in the original article (I doubt this was the first reproduction) I could find that reproduced Miss Morgan’s findings, and ALL subsequent re-postings of her work, no such sources are listed.


http://www.spiritlifemag.com/?p=2482

The Anatomy of the State

commentary submitted by : Mike Mooney

“If, then, the State is not “us,” if it is not “the human family” getting together to decide mutual problems, if it is not a lodge meeting or country club, what is it?

Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion.

While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of goods and services and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet.”

The Anatomy of the State

by Murray N. Rothbard

Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) was the dean of the Austrian School of economics, the founder of libertarianism, and an exemplar of the Old Right. The author of thousands of articles and 25 books, he was also Lew Rockwell’s great teacher and mentor. LewRockwell.com is dedicated to Murray’s memory, and seeks to follow his fearless example.

What the State Is Not

The State is almost universally considered an institution of social service. Some theorists venerate the State as the apotheosis of society; others regard it as an amiable, though often inefficient, organization for achieving social ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means to be ranged against the “private sector” and often winning in this competition of resources. With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, “we are the government.” The useful collective term “we” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If “we are the government,” then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also “voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that “we owe it to ourselves”; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is “doing it to himself” and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have “committed suicide,” since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.

We must, therefore, emphasize that “we” are not the government; the government is not “us.” The government does not in any accurate sense “represent” the majority of the people.[1] But, even if it did, even if 70 percent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the part of the slaughtered minority.[2] No organicist metaphor, no irrelevant bromide that “we are all part of one another,” must be permitted to obscure this basic fact.

Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market
by : Murray Rothbard

If, then, the State is not “us,” if it is not “the human family” getting together to decide mutual problems, if it is not a lodge meeting or country club, what is it? Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion. While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of goods and services and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet.[3] Having used force and violence to obtain its revenue, the State generally goes on to regulate and dictate the other actions of its individual subjects. One would think that simple observation of all States through history and over the globe would be proof enough of this assertion; but the miasma of myth has lain so long over State activity that elaboration is necessary.

What the State Is

Man is born naked into the world, and needing to use his mind to learn how to take the resources given him by nature, and to transform them (for example, by investment in “capital”) into shapes and forms and places where the resources can be used for the satisfaction of his wants and the advancement of his standard of living. The only way by which man can do this is by the use of his mind and energy to transform resources (“production”) and to exchange these products for products created by others. Man has found that, through the process of voluntary, mutual exchange, the productivity and hence the living standards of all participants in exchange may increase enormously. The only “natural” course for man to survive and to attain wealth, therefore, is by using his mind and energy to engage in the production-and-exchange process. He does this, first, by finding natural resources, and then by transforming them (by “mixing his labor” with them, as Locke puts it), to make them his individual property, and then by exchanging this property for the similarly obtained property of others. The social path dictated by the requirements of man’s nature, therefore, is the path of “property rights” and the “free market” of gift or exchange of such rights. Through this path, men have learned how to avoid the “jungle” methods of fighting over scarce resources so that A can only acquire them at the expense of B and, instead, to multiply those resources enormously in peaceful and harmonious production and exchange.

Conceived in Liberty
by: Murray Rothbard

The great German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer pointed out that there are two mutually exclusive ways of acquiring wealth; one, the above way of production and exchange, he called the “economic means.” The other way is simpler in that it does not require productivity; it is the way of seizure of another’s goods or services by the use of force and violence. This is the method of one-sided confiscation, of theft of the property of others. This is the method which Oppenheimer termed “the political means” to wealth. It should be clear that the peaceful use of reason and energy in production is the “natural” path for man: the means for his survival and prosperity on this earth. It should be equally clear that the coercive, exploitative means is contrary to natural law; it is parasitic, for instead of adding to production, it subtracts from it. The “political means” siphons production off to a parasitic and destructive individual or group; and this siphoning not only subtracts from the number producing, but also lowers the producer’s incentive to produce beyond his own subsistence. In the long run, the robber destroys his own subsistence by dwindling or eliminating the source of his own supply. But not only that; even in the short run, the predator is acting contrary to his own true nature as a man.

We are now in a position to answer more fully the question: what is the State? The State, in the words of Oppenheimer, is the “organization of the political means”; it is the systematization of the predatory process over a given territory.[4] For crime, at best, is sporadic and uncertain; the parasitism is ephemeral, and the coercive, parasitic lifeline may be cut off at any time by the resistance of the victims. The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively “peaceful” the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society.[5] Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a “social contract”; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation. The classic paradigm was a conquering tribe pausing in its time-honored method of looting and murdering a conquered tribe, to realize that the time-span of plunder would be longer and more secure, and the situation more pleasant, if the conquered tribe were allowed to live and produce, with the conquerors settling among them as rulers exacting a steady annual tribute.[6] One method of the birth of a State may be illustrated as follows: in the hills of southern “Ruritania,” a bandit group manages to obtain physical control over the territory, and finally the bandit chieftain proclaims himself “King of the sovereign and independent government of South Ruritania”; and, if he and his men have the force to maintain this rule for a while, lo and behold! a new State has joined the “family of nations,” and the former bandit leaders have been transformed into the lawful nobility of the realm.

How the State Preserves Itself

Once a State has been established, the problem of the ruling group or “caste” is how to maintain their rule.[7] While force is their modus operandi, their basic and long-run problem is ideological. For in order to continue in office, any government (not simply a “democratic” government) must have the support of the majority of its subjects. This support, it must be noted, need not be active enthusiasm; it may well be passive resignation as if to an inevitable law of nature. But support in the sense of acceptance of some sort it must be; else the minority of State rulers would eventually be outweighed by the active resistance of the majority of the public. Since predation must be supported out of the surplus of production, it is necessarily true that the class constituting the State – the full-time bureaucracy (and nobility) – must be a rather small minority in the land, although it may, of course, purchase allies among important groups in the population. Therefore, the chief task of the rulers is always to secure the active or resigned acceptance of the majority of the citizens.[8] [9]

What Has Government Done to Our Money?
by: Murray Rothbard

Of course, one method of securing support is through the creation of vested economic interests. Therefore, the King alone cannot rule; he must have a sizable group of followers who enjoy the prerequisites of rule, for example, the members of the State apparatus, such as the full-time bureaucracy or the established nobility.[10] But this still secures only a minority of eager supporters, and even the essential purchasing of support by subsidies and other grants of privilege still does not obtain the consent of the majority. For this essential acceptance, the majority must be persuaded by ideology that their government is good, wise and, at least, inevitable, and certainly better than other conceivable alternatives. Promoting this ideology among the people is the vital social task of the “intellectuals.” For the masses of men do not create their own ideas, or indeed think through these ideas independently; they follow passively the ideas adopted and disseminated by the body of intellectuals. The intellectuals are, therefore, the “opinion-molders” in society. And since it is precisely a molding of opinion that the State most desperately needs, the basis for age-old alliance between the State and the intellectuals becomes clear.

It is evident that the State needs the intellectuals; it is not so evident why intellectuals need the State. Put simply, we may state that the intellectual’s livelihood in the free market is never too secure; for the intellectual must depend on the values and choices of the masses of his fellow men, and it is precisely characteristic of the masses that they are generally uninterested in intellectual matters. The State, on the other hand, is willing to offer the intellectuals a secure and permanent berth in the State apparatus; and thus a secure income and the panoply of prestige. For the intellectuals will be handsomely rewarded for the important function they perform for the State rulers, of which group they now become a part.[11]

The alliance between the State and the intellectuals was symbolized in the eager desire of professors at the University of Berlin in the nineteenth century to form the “intellectual bodyguard of the House of Hohenzollern.” In the present day, let us note the revealing comment of an eminent Marxist scholar concerning Professor Wittfogel’s critical study of ancient Oriental despotism: “The civilization which Professor Wittfogel is so bitterly attacking was one which could make poets and scholars into officials.”[12] Of innumerable examples, we may cite the recent development of the “science” of strategy, in the service of the government’s main violence-wielding arm, the military.[13] A venerable institution, furthermore, is the official or “court” historian, dedicated to purveying the rulers’ views of their own and their predecessors’ actions.[14]

Many and varied have been the arguments by which the State and its intellectuals have induced their subjects to support their rule. Basically, the strands of argument may be summed up as follows: (a) the State rulers are great and wise men (they “rule by divine right,” they are the “aristocracy” of men, they are the “scientific experts”), much greater and wiser than the good but rather simple subjects, and (b) rule by the extent government is inevitable, absolutely necessary, and far better, than the indescribable evils that would ensue upon its downfall. The union of Church and State was one of the oldest and most successful of these ideological devices. The ruler was either anointed by God or, in the case of the absolute rule of many Oriental despotisms, was himself God; hence, any resistance to his rule would be blasphemy. The States’ priestcraft performed the basic intellectual function of obtaining popular support and even worship for the rulers.[15]

Another successful device was to instill fear of any alternative systems of rule or nonrule. The present rulers, it was maintained, supply to the citizens an essential service for which they should be most grateful: protection against sporadic criminals and marauders. For the State, to preserve its own monopoly of predation, did indeed see to it that private and unsystematic crime was kept to a minimum; the State has always been jealous of its own preserve. Especially has the State been successful in recent centuries in instilling fear of other State rulers. Since the land area of the globe has been parceled out among particular States, one of the basic doctrines of the State was to identify itself with the territory it governed. Since most men tend to love their homeland, the identification of that land and its people with the State was a means of making natural patriotism work to the State’s advantage. If “Ruritania” was being attacked by “Walldavia,” the first task of the State and its intellectuals was to convince the people of Ruritania that the attack was really upon them and not simply upon the ruling caste. In this way, a war between rulers was converted into a war between peoples, with each people coming to the defense of its rulers in the erroneous belief that the rulers were defending them. This device of “nationalism” has only been successful, in Western civilization, in recent centuries; it was not too long ago that the mass of subjects regarded wars as irrelevant battles between various sets of nobles.

Many and subtle are the ideological weapons that the State has wielded through the centuries. One excellent weapon has been tradition. The longer that the rule of a State has been able to preserve itself, the more powerful this weapon; for then, the X Dynasty or the Y State has the seeming weight of centuries of tradition behind it.[16] Worship of one’s ancestors, then, becomes a none too subtle means of worship of one’s ancient rulers. The greatest danger to the State is independent intellectual criticism; there is no better way to stifle that criticism than to attack any isolated voice, any raiser of new doubts, as a profane violator of the wisdom of his ancestors. Another potent ideological force is to deprecate the individual and exalt the collectivity of society. For since any given rule implies majority acceptance, any ideological danger to that rule can only start from one or a few independently-thinking individuals. The new idea, much less the new critical idea, must needs begin as a small minority opinion; therefore, the State must nip the view in the bud by ridiculing any view that defies the opinions of the mass. “Listen only to your brothers” or “adjust to society” thus become ideological weapons for crushing individual dissent.[17] By such measures, the masses will never learn of the nonexistence of their Emperor’s clothes.[18] It is also important for the State to make its rule seem inevitable; even if its reign is disliked, it will then be met with passive resignation, as witness the familiar coupling of “death and taxes.” One method is to induce historiographical determinism, as opposed to individual freedom of will. If the X Dynasty rules us, this is because the Inexorable Laws of History (or the Divine Will, or the Absolute, or the Material Productive Forces) have so decreed and nothing any puny individuals may do can change this inevitable decree. It is also important for the State to inculcate in its subjects an aversion to any “conspiracy theory of history”; for a search for “conspiracies” means a search for motives and an attribution of responsibility for historical misdeeds. If, however, any tyranny imposed by the State, or venality, or aggressive war, was caused not by the State rulers but by mysterious and arcane “social forces,” or by the imperfect state of the world or, if in some way, everyone was responsible (“We Are All Murderers,” proclaims one slogan), then there is no point to the people becoming indignant or rising up against such misdeeds. Furthermore, an attack on “conspiracy theories” means that the subjects will become more gullible in believing the “general welfare” reasons that are always put forth by the State for engaging in any of its despotic actions. A “conspiracy theory” can unsettle the system by causing the public to doubt the State’s ideological propaganda.

Another tried and true method for bending subjects to the State’s will is inducing guilt. Any increase in private well-being can be attacked as “unconscionable greed,” “materialism,” or “excessive affluence,” profit-making can be attacked as “exploitation” and “usury,” mutually beneficial exchanges denounced as “selfishness,” and somehow with the conclusion always being drawn that more resources should be siphoned from the private to the “public sector.” The induced guilt makes the public more ready to do just that. For while individual persons tend to indulge in “selfish greed,” the failure of the State’s rulers to engage in exchanges is supposed to signify their devotion to higher and nobler causes – parasitic predation being apparently morally and esthetically lofty as compared to peaceful and productive work.

In the present more secular age, the divine right of the State has been supplemented by the invocation of a new god, Science. State rule is now proclaimed as being ultrascientific, as constituting planning by experts. But while “reason” is invoked more than in previous centuries, this is not the true reason of the individual and his exercise of free will; it is still collectivist and determinist, still implying holistic aggregates and coercive manipulation of passive subjects by their rulers.

The increasing use of scientific jargon has permitted the State’s intellectuals to weave obscurantist apologia for State rule that would have only met with derision by the populace of a simpler age. A robber who justified his theft by saying that he really helped his victims, by his spending giving a boost to retail trade, would find few converts; but when this theory is clothed in Keynesian equations and impressive references to the “multiplier effect,” it unfortunately carries more conviction. And so the assault on common sense proceeds, each age performing the task in its own ways.

Thus, ideological support being vital to the State, it must unceasingly try to impress the public with its “legitimacy,” to distinguish its activities from those of mere brigands. The unremitting determination of its assaults on common sense is no accident, for as Mencken vividly maintained: The average man, whatever his errors otherwise, at least sees clearly that government is something lying outside him and outside the generality of his fellow men – that it is a separate, independent, and hostile power, only partly under his control, and capable of doing him great harm. Is it a fact of no significance that robbing the government is everywhere regarded as a crime of less magnitude than robbing an individual, or even a corporation? . . . What lies behind all this, I believe, is a deep sense of the fundamental antagonism between the government and the people it governs. It is apprehended, not as a committee of citizens chosen to carry on the communal business of the whole population, but as a separate and autonomous corporation, mainly devoted to exploiting the population for the benefit of its own members. . . . When a private citizen is robbed, a worthy man is deprived of the fruits of his industry and thrift; when the government is robbed, the worst that happens is that certain rogues and loafers have less money to play with than they had before. The notion that they have earned that money is never entertained; to most sensible men it would seem ludicrous.[19]

How the State Transcends Its Limits

The Case Against the Fed
by: Murray Rothbard

As Bertrand de Jouvenel has sagely pointed out, through the centuries men have formed concepts designed to check and limit the exercise of State rule; and, one after another, the State, using its intellectual allies, has been able to transform these concepts into intellectual rubber stamps of legitimacy and virtue to attach to its decrees and actions. Originally, in Western Europe, the concept of divine sovereignty held that the kings may rule only according to divine law; the kings turned the concept into a rubber stamp of divine approval for any of the kings’ actions. The concept of parliamentary democracy began as a popular check upon absolute monarchical rule; it ended with parliament being the essential part of the State and its every act totally sovereign. As de Jouvenel concludes:

Many writers on theories of sovereignty have worked out one . . . of these restrictive devices. But in the end every single such theory has, sooner or later, lost its original purpose, and come to act merely as a springboard to Power, by providing it with the powerful aid of an invisible sovereign with whom it could in time successfully identify itself.[20]

Similarly with more specific doctrines: the “natural rights” of the individual enshrined in John Locke and the Bill of Rights, became a statist “right to a job”; utilitarianism turned from arguments for liberty to arguments against resisting the State’s invasions of liberty, etc.

Certainly the most ambitious attempt to impose limits on the State has been the Bill of Rights and other restrictive parts of the American Constitution, in which written limits on government became the fundamental law to be interpreted by a judiciary supposedly independent of the other branches of government. All Americans are familiar with the process by which the construction of limits in the Constitution has been inexorably broadened over the last century. But few have been as keen as Professor Charles Black to see that the State has, in the process, largely transformed judicial review itself from a limiting device to yet another instrument for furnishing ideological legitimacy to the government’s actions. For if a judicial decree of “unconstitutional” is a mighty check to government power, an implicit or explicit verdict of “constitutional” is a mighty weapon for fostering public acceptance of ever-greater government power.

Professor Black begins his analysis by pointing out the crucial necessity of “legitimacy” for any government to endure, this legitimation signifying basic majority acceptance of the government and its actions.[21] Acceptance of legitimacy becomes a particular problem in a country such as the United States, where “substantive limitations are built into the theory on which the government rests.” What is needed, adds Black, is a means by which the government can assure the public that its increasing powers are, indeed, “constitutional.” And this, he concludes, has been the major historic function of judicial review.

Let Black illustrate the problem:

The supreme risk [to the government] is that of disaffection and a feeling of outrage widely disseminated throughout the population, and loss of moral authority by the government as such, however long it may be propped up by force or inertia or the lack of an appealing and immediately available alternative. Almost everybody living under a government of limited powers, must sooner or later be subjected to some governmental action which as a matter of private opinion he regards as outside the power of government or positively forbidden to government. A man is drafted, though he finds nothing in the Constitution about being drafted. . . . A farmer is told how much wheat he can raise; he believes, and he discovers that some respectable lawyers believe with him, that the government has no more right to tell him how much wheat he can grow than it has to tell his daughter whom she can marry. A man goes to the federal penitentiary for saying what he wants to, and he paces his cell reciting . . . “Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech.”. . . A businessman is told what he can ask, and must ask, for buttermilk.

The danger is real enough that each of these people (and who is not of their number?) will confront the concept of governmental limitation with the reality (as he sees it) of the flagrant overstepping of actual limits, and draw the obvious conclusion as to the status of his government with respect to legitimacy.[22]

This danger is averted by the State’s propounding the doctrine that one agency must have the ultimate decision on constitutionality and that this agency, in the last analysis, must be part of the federal government.[23] For while the seeming independence of the federal judiciary has played a vital part in making its actions virtual Holy Writ for the bulk of the people, it is also and ever true that the judiciary is part and parcel of the government apparatus and appointed by the executive and legislative branches. Black admits that this means that the State has set itself up as a judge in its own cause, thus violating a basic juridical principle for aiming at just decisions. He brusquely denies the possibility of any alternative.[24]

Black adds:

The problem, then, is to devise such governmental means of deciding as will [hopefully] reduce to a tolerable minimum the intensity of the objection that government is judge in its own cause. Having done this, you can only hope that this objection, though theoretically still tenable [italics mine], will practically lose enough of its force that the legitimating work of the deciding institution can win acceptance.[25]

In the last analysis, Black finds the achievement of justice and legitimacy from the State’s perpetual judging of its own cause as “something of a miracle.”[26]

Applying his thesis to the famous conflict between the Supreme Court and the New Deal, Professor Black keenly chides his fellow pro-New Deal colleagues for their shortsightedness in denouncing judicial obstruction:

[t]he standard version of the story of the New Deal and the Court, though accurate in its way, displaces the emphasis. . . . It concentrates on the difficulties; it almost forgets how the whole thing turned out. The upshot of the matter was [and this is what I like to emphasize] that after some twenty-four months of balking . . . the Supreme Court, without a single change in the law of its composition, or, indeed, in its actual manning, placed the affirmative stamp of legitimacy on the New Deal, and on the whole new conception of government in America.[27]

In this way, the Supreme Court was able to put the quietus on the large body of Americans who had had strong constitutional objections to the New Deal:

Of course, not everyone was satisfied. The Bonnie Prince Charlie of constitutionally commanded laissez-faire still stirs the hearts of a few zealots in the Highlands of choleric unreality. But there is no longer any significant or dangerous public doubt as to the constitutional power of Congress to deal as it does with the national economy. . . .

We had no means, other than the Supreme Court, for imparting legitimacy to the New Deal.[28]

The Mystery of Banking
by: Murray Rothbard

As Black recognizes, one major political theorist who recognized – and largely in advance – the glaring loophole in a constitutional limit on government of placing the ultimate interpreting power in the Supreme Court was John C. Calhoun. Calhoun was not content with the “miracle,” but instead proceeded to a profound analysis of the constitutional problem. In his Disquisition, Calhoun demonstrated the inherent tendency of the State to break through the limits of such a constitution:

A written constitution certainly has many and considerable advantages, but it is a great mistake to suppose that the mere insertion of provisions to restrict and limit the power of the government, without investing those for whose protection they are inserted with the means of enforcing their observance [my italics] will be sufficient to prevent the major and dominant party from abusing its powers. Being the party in possession of the government, they will, from the same constitution of man which makes government necessary to protect society, be in favor of the powers granted by the constitution and opposed to the restrictions intended to limit them. . . . The minor or weaker party, on the contrary, would take the opposite direction and regard them [the restrictions] as essential to their protection against the dominant party. . . . But where there are no means by which they could compel the major party to observe the restrictions, the only resort left them would be a strict construction of the constitution. . . . To this the major party would oppose a liberal construction. . . . It would be construction against construction – the one to contract and the other to enlarge the powers of the government to the utmost. But of what possible avail could the strict construction of the minor party be, against the liberal construction of the major, when the one would have all the power of the government to carry its construction into effect and the other be deprived of all means of enforcing its construction? In a contest so unequal, the result would not be doubtful. The party in favor of the restrictions would be overpowered. . . . The end of the contest would be the subversion of the constitution . . . the restrictions would ultimately be annulled and the government be converted into one of unlimited powers.[29]

One of the few political scientists who appreciated Calhoun’s analysis of the Constitution was Professor J. Allen Smith. Smith noted that the Constitution was designed with checks and balances to limit any one governmental power and yet had then developed a Supreme Court with the monopoly of ultimate interpreting power. If the Federal Government was created to check invasions of individual liberty by the separate states, who was to check the Federal power? Smith maintained that implicit in the check-and-balance idea of the Constitution was the concomitant view that no one branch of government may be conceded the ultimate power of interpretation: “It was assumed by the people that the new government could not be permitted to determine the limits of its own authority, since this would make it, and not the Constitution, supreme.”[30]

The solution advanced by Calhoun (and seconded, in this century, by such writers as Smith) was, of course, the famous doctrine of the “concurrent majority.” If any substantial minority interest in the country, specifically a state government, believed that the Federal Government was exceeding its powers and encroaching on that minority, the minority would have the right to veto this exercise of power as unconstitutional. Applied to state governments, this theory implied the right of “nullification” of a Federal law or ruling within a state’s jurisdiction.

In theory, the ensuing constitutional system would assure that the Federal Government check any state invasion of individual rights, while the states would check excessive Federal power over the individual. And yet, while limitations would undoubtedly be more effective than at present, there are many difficulties and problems in the Calhoun solution. If, indeed, a subordinate interest should rightfully have a veto over matters concerning it, then why stop with the states? Why not place veto power in counties, cities, wards? Furthermore, interests are not only sectional, they are also occupational, social, etc. What of bakers or taxi drivers or any other occupation? Should they not be permitted a veto power over their own lives? This brings us to the important point that the nullification theory confines its checks to agencies of government itself. Let us not forget that federal and state governments, and their respective branches, are still states, are still guided by their own state interests rather than by the interests of the private citizens. What is to prevent the Calhoun system from working in reverse, with states tyrannizing over their citizens and only vetoing the federal government when it tries to intervene to stop that state tyranny? Or for states to acquiesce in federal tyranny? What is to prevent federal and state governments from forming mutually profitable alliances for the joint exploitation of the citizenry? And even if the private occupational groupings were to be given some form of “functional” representation in government, what is to prevent them from using the State to gain subsidies and other special privileges for themselves or from imposing compulsory cartels on their own members?

Making Economic Sense
by: Murray Rothbard

In short, Calhoun does not push his pathbreaking theory on concurrence far enough: he does not push it down to the individual himself. If the individual, after all, is the one whose rights are to be protected, then a consistent theory of concurrence would imply veto power by every individual; that is, some form of “unanimity principle.” When Calhoun wrote that it should be “impossible to put or to keep it [the government] in action without the concurrent consent of all,” he was, perhaps unwittingly, implying just such a conclusion.[31] But such speculation begins to take us away from our subject, for down this path lie political systems which could hardly be called “States” at all.[32] For one thing, just as the right of nullification for a state logically implies its right of secession, so a right of individual nullification would imply the right of any individual to “secede” from the State under which he lives.[33]

Thus, the State has invariably shown a striking talent for the expansion of its powers beyond any limits that might be imposed upon it. Since the State necessarily lives by the compulsory confiscation of private capital, and since its expansion necessarily involves ever-greater incursions on private individuals and private enterprise, we must assert that the State is profoundly and inherently anticapitalist. In a sense, our position is the reverse of the Marxist dictum that the State is the “executive committee” of the ruling class in the present day, supposedly the capitalists. Instead, the State – the organization of the political means – constitutes, and is the source of, the “ruling class” (rather, ruling caste), and is in permanent opposition to genuinely private capital. We may, therefore, say with de Jouvenel:

Only those who know nothing of any time but their own, who are completely in the dark as to the manner of Power’s behaving through thousands of years, would regard these proceedings [nationalization, the income tax, etc.] as the fruit of a particular set of doctrines. They are in fact the normal manifestations of Power, and differ not at all in their nature from Henry VIII’s confiscation of the monasteries. The same principle is at work; the hunger for authority, the thirst for resources; and in all of these operations the same characteristics are present, including the rapid elevation of the dividers of the spoils. Whether it is Socialist or whether it is not, Power must always be at war with the capitalist authorities and despoil the capitalists of their accumulated wealth; in doing so it obeys the law of its nature.[34]

What the State Fears

What the State fears above all, of course, is any fundamental threat to its own power and its own existence. The death of a State can come about in two major ways: (a) through conquest by another State, or (b) through revolutionary overthrow by its own subjects – in short, by war or revolution. War and revolution, as the two basic threats, invariably arouse in the State rulers their maximum efforts and maximum propaganda among the people. As stated above, any way must always be used to mobilize the people to come to the State’s defense in the belief that they are defending themselves. The fallacy of the idea becomes evident when conscription is wielded against those who refuse to “defend” themselves and are, therefore, forced into joining the State’s military band: needless to add, no “defense” is permitted them against this act of “their own” State.

In war, State power is pushed to its ultimate, and, under the slogans of “defense” and “emergency,” it can impose a tyranny upon the public such as might be openly resisted in time of peace. War thus provides many benefits to a State, and indeed every modern war has brought to the warring peoples a permanent legacy of increased State burdens upon society. War, moreover, provides to a State tempting opportunities for conquest of land areas over which it may exercise its monopoly of force. Randolph Bourne was certainly correct when he wrote that “war is the health of the State,” but to any particular State a war may spell either health or grave injury.[35]

We may test the hypothesis that the State is largely interested in protecting itself rather than its subjects by asking: which category of crimes does the State pursue and punish most intensely – those against private citizens or those against itself? The gravest crimes in the State’s lexicon are almost invariably not invasions of private person or property, but dangers to its own contentment, for example, treason, desertion of a soldier to the enemy, failure to register for the draft, subversion and subversive conspiracy, assassination of rulers and such economic crimes against the State as counterfeiting its money or evasion of its income tax. Or compare the degree of zeal devoted to pursuing the man who assaults a policeman, with the attention that the State pays to the assault of an ordinary citizen. Yet, curiously, the State’s openly assigned priority to its own defense against the public strikes few people as inconsistent with its presumed raison d’être.[36]

How States Relate to One Another

 

The Origins of the Federal Reserve
by: Murray Rothbard

Since the territorial area of the earth is divided among different States, inter-State relations must occupy much of a State’s time and energy. The natural tendency of a State is to expand its power, and externally such expansion takes place by conquest of a territorial area. Unless a territory is stateless or uninhabited, any such expansion involves an inherent conflict of interest between one set of State rulers and another. Only one set of rulers can obtain a monopoly of coercion over any given territorial area at any one time: complete power over a territory by State X can only be obtained by the expulsion of State Y. War, while risky, will be an ever-present tendency of States, punctuated by periods of peace and by shifting alliances and coalitions between States.

We have seen that the “internal” or “domestic” attempt to limit the State, in the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries, reached its most notable form in constitutionalism. Its “external,” or “foreign affairs,” counterpart was the development of “international law,” especially such forms as the “laws of war” and “neutrals’ rights.”[37] Parts of international law were originally purely private, growing out of the need of merchants and traders everywhere to protect their property and adjudicate disputes. Examples are admiralty law and the law merchant. But even the governmental rules emerged voluntarily and were not imposed by any international super-State. The object of the “laws of war” was to limit inter-State destruction to the State apparatus itself, thereby preserving the innocent “civilian” public from the slaughter and devastation of war. The object of the development of neutrals’ rights was to preserve private civilian international commerce, even with “enemy” countries, from seizure by one of the warring parties. The overriding aim, then, was to limit the extent of any war, and, particularly to limit its destructive impact on the private citizens of the neutral and even the warring countries.

The jurist F.J.P. Veale charmingly describes such “civilized warfare” as it briefly flourished in fifteenth-century Italy:

the rich burghers and merchants of medieval Italy were too busy making money and enjoying life to undertake the hardships and dangers of soldiering themselves. So they adopted the practice of hiring mercenaries to do their fighting for them, and, being thrifty, businesslike folk, they dismissed their mercenaries immediately after their services could be dispensed with. Wars were, therefore, fought by armies hired for each campaign. . . . For the first time, soldiering became a reasonable and comparatively harmless profession. The generals of that period maneuvered against each other, often with consummate skill, but when one had won the advantage, his opponent generally either retreated or surrendered. It was a recognized rule that a town could only be sacked if it offered resistance: immunity could always be purchased by paying a ransom. . . . As one natural consequence, no town ever resisted, it being obvious that a government too weak to defend its citizens had forfeited their allegiance. Civilians had little to fear from the dangers of war which were the concern only of professional soldiers.[38]

The well-nigh absolute separation of the private civilian from the State’s wars in eighteenth-century Europe is highlighted by Nef:

Even postal communications were not successfully restricted for long in wartime. Letters circulated without censorship, with a freedom that astonishes the twentieth-century mind. . . . The subjects of two warring nations talked to each other if they met, and when they could not meet, corresponded, not as enemies but as friends. The modern notion hardly existed that . . . subjects of any enemy country are partly accountable for the belligerent acts of their rulers. Nor had the warring rulers any firm disposition to stop communications with subjects of the enemy. The old inquisitorial practices of espionage in connection with religious worship and belief were disappearing, and no comparable inquisition in connection with political or economic communications was even contemplated. Passports were originally created to provide safe conduct in time of war. During most of the eighteenth century it seldom occurred to Europeans to abandon their travels in a foreign country which their own was fighting.[39]

And trade being increasingly recognized as beneficial to both parties; eighteenth-century warfare also counterbalances a considerable amount of “trading with the enemy.”[40]

How far States have transcended rules of civilized warfare in this century needs no elaboration here. In the modern era of total war, combined with the technology of total destruction, the very idea of keeping war limited to the State apparati seems even more quaint and obsolete than the original Constitution of the United States.

When States are not at war, agreements are often necessary to keep frictions at a minimum. One doctrine that has gained curiously wide acceptance is the alleged “sanctity of treaties.” This concept is treated as the counterpart of the “sanctity of contract.” But a treaty and a genuine contract have nothing in common. A contract transfers, in a precise manner, titles to private property. Since a government does not, in any proper sense, “own” its territorial area, any agreements that it concludes do not confer titles to property. If, for example, Mr. Jones sells or gives his land to Mr. Smith, Jones’s heir cannot legitimately descend upon Smith’s heir and claim the land as rightfully his. The property title has already been transferred. Old Jones’s contract is automatically binding upon young Jones, because the former had already transferred the property; young Jones, therefore, has no property claim. Young Jones can only claim that which he has inherited from old Jones, and old Jones can only bequeath property which he still owns. But if, at a certain date, the government of, say, Ruritania is coerced or even bribed by the government of Waldavia into giving up some of its territory, it is absurd to claim that the governments or inhabitants of the two countries are forever barred from a claim to reunification of Ruritania on the grounds of the sanctity of a treaty. Neither the people nor the land of northwest Ruritania are owned by either of the two governments. As a corollary, one government can certainly not bind, by the dead hand of the past, a later government through treaty. A revolutionary government which overthrew the king of Ruritania could, similarly, hardly be called to account for the king’s actions or debts, for a government is not, as is a child, a true “heir” to its predecessor’s property.

History as a Race Between State Power and Social Power

Just as the two basic and mutually exclusive interrelations between men are peaceful cooperation or coercive exploitation, production or predation, so the history of mankind, particularly its economic history, may be considered as a contest between these two principles. On the one hand, there is creative productivity, peaceful exchange and cooperation; on the other, coercive dictation and predation over those social relations. Albert Jay Nock happily termed these contesting forces: “social power” and “State power.”[41] Social power is man’s power over nature, his cooperative transformation of nature’s resources and insight into nature’s laws, for the benefit of all participating individuals. Social power is the power over nature, the living standards achieved by men in mutual exchange. State power, as we have seen, is the coercive and parasitic seizure of this production – a draining of the fruits of society for the benefit of nonproductive (actually antiproductive) rulers. While social power is over nature, State power is power over man. Through history, man’s productive and creative forces have, time and again, carved out new ways of transforming nature for man’s benefit. These have been the times when social power has spurted ahead of State power, and when the degree of State encroachment over society has considerably lessened. But always, after a greater or smaller time lag, the State has moved into these new areas, to cripple and confiscate social power once more.[42] If the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries were, in many countries of the West, times of accelerating social power, and a corollary increase in freedom, peace, and material welfare, the twentieth century has been primarily an age in which State power has been catching up – with a consequent reversion to slavery, war, and destruction.[43]

In this century, the human race faces, once again, the virulent reign of the State – of the State now armed with the fruits of man’s creative powers, confiscated and perverted to its own aims. The last few centuries were times when men tried to place constitutional and other limits on the State, only to find that such limits, as with all other attempts, have failed. Of all the numerous forms that governments have taken over the centuries, of all the concepts and institutions that have been tried, none has succeeded in keeping the State in check. The problem of the State is evidently as far from solution as ever. Perhaps new paths of inquiry must be explored, if the successful, final solution of the State question is ever to be attained.[44]

Reprinted from Mises.org.

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was the author of Man, Economy, and State, Conceived in Liberty, What Has Government Done to Our Money, For a New Liberty, The Case Against the Fed, and many other books and articles. He was also the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report, and academic vice president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard62.html

UPDATE!!! Citizens’ Grand Jury Indicts Obama and Biden

Overnight I was given a lot of other information that in one way or another deals with this issue. There are questions surrounding just how feasible this indictment is as far as legalities in convicting a sitting President and such. I have not been able to read all of this information, and certainly haven’t had time to give my own perspective. What I have done, is provide all of the links I received at the bottom of this post. I would really appreciate it if some of you who have the time and interest, to PLEASE leave some detailed comments and sources. I am thinking, since my time right now is being taken up on another subject I’m working on, that I may just make a finalized posting of this as a USER created blog post and host it on my site. I do hope the information I’ve listed here is enough to get some of you interested enough to do some further digging. Thanks for all your help.

I would be very interested in seeing Judge Andrew Napolitano’s take on this if anyone can find that!

Sometimes in my blog, I take creative license in the way I form my posts and link and unlink parts within. I will ALWAYS inform you, my loyal readers when I have done so, and ALWAYS provide the link for the original story. I have altered the original article somewhat here and you will find the link at the bottom.

Citizens’ Grand Jury Indicts Obama and Biden

OCALA, Fla., Oct. 30, 2012– /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ —

Larry Klayman

Larry Klayman, founder and chairman of Freedom Watch, today announced that President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden have been criminally indicted for having willfully released classified national security information concerning the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound, U.S. and Israeli war plans concerning Iran and their cyber-attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The release of this information, among other harm to U.S. national security, resulted in the killing of members of Seal Team Six by terrorists and the arrest and imprisonment of American covert agents by Pakistan, such as the doctor who aided the CIA with regard to the bin Laden assassination. U.S.-Israeli war plans with Iran have also been compromised.

A true bill of indictment was issued by a Citizens’ Grand Jury in Ocala, Florida, who reviewed evidence and voted unanimously to indict Obama and Biden at 6:02 pm on October 29, 2012.

The authority for a Citizens’ Grand Jury 

can be found at :  www.citizensgrandjury.com.

The criminal defendants, Obama and Biden, will now be given notice of their indictment, arraigned and then tried for their alleged crimes.

Mr. Klayman, the Citizens’ Prosecutor, issued the following statement: “The Citizens’ Grand Jury, after having deliberated, yesterday issued a true bill of indictment.  It did the work that the government should have done, but does not have the integrity to do; that is hold these public officials accountable under the law. For far too long government prosecutors, who are put in place by politicians, have looked the other way as high public officials like Obama and Biden violate the law to further their political agendas. Now, as a result, the people must therefore exercise the rights given to them by the framers of the Constitution, and themselves take legitimate measures to restore the nation to some semblance of legality. This indictment of Obama and Biden is just the first step in a legal revolution to reclaim the nation from establishment politicians, government officials and judges who have represented only their own political and other interests at the expense of ‘We the People.’ Obama and Biden will now be tried in a court of law and I am confident that they will be convicted of these alleged crimes.”

The original Full Story can be read at :
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/10/30/4948682/citizens-grand-jury-indicts-obama.html

Citizens Grand Jury video evidence

Citizens’ Grand Jury Manual Grand Jury Qualifications and Selection of Grand Jury

http://www.citizensgrandjury.com/pdf/manual.pdf

A collection of videos from Freedom Watch Inc.

http://www.youtube.com/user/FreedomWatchInc?feature=watch

Editors Note:

I plan on adding information relating to this as it comes to me, and would be most grateful to readers of my blog for contacting me with any news concerning this matter.

This was submitted from a long time friend and frequent contributor to my research, Ali Myownbiz III :

Can It All Be Coincidence?

by Don Fredrick,

Don Fredrick

As I noted in the introduction to my book, The Obama Timeline, a jury at a murder trial will often find the accumulated circumstantial evidence so overwhelming that a guilty verdict is obvious—even though there may be no witness to the crime. “The jurors in the Scott Peterson trial believed the collection of evidence more than they believed Scott Peterson. Among other things, the jury thought that being arrested with $15,000 in cash, recently-dyed hair, a newly-grown goatee, four cell phones, camping equipment, a map to a new girlfriend’s house, a gun, and his brother’s driver’s license certainly did not paint a picture of a grieving husband who had nothing to do with his pregnant wife’s disappearance and murder.”

In the four years I have been gathering information about—and evidence against—Barack Hussein Obama, I have encountered hundreds of coincidences that strike me as amazing. None of those coincidences, by themselves, may mean much. But taken as a whole it is almost impossible to believe they were all the result of chance.

continue reading Full Story at :
http://www.themoralliberal.com/2012/10/03/can-it-all-be-coincidence/
 

Citizen grand jury indicts Obama

Groups in 20 more states reviewing eligibility claims

Published: 03/31/2009 at 8:35 PM by Bob Unruh

http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/93481/

In Conservative Circles, Calls for ‘Citizen Grand Juries’ Grow

By Dan Testa, 12-09-09

Earlier this year, protesters hold signs during a Tax Day Tea Party protest on north Main Street in Kalispell. – File photo by Lido Vizzutti/Flathead Beacon

The idea of changing state law, or the state Constitution, to allow citizens to convene grand juries in their counties appears to be gathering steam in some conservative circles of Western Montana. The concept would allow citizens to summon juries comprised of members of the public to investigate alleged crimes – not just judges, as is the case currently.

With a Bitterroot man crafting language for a proposed ballot initiative and a Hungry Horse man forming a group to work on draft legislation, a measure allowing for citizen grand juries, in one form or another, seems poised for broader consideration in the coming year – by either the public or, possibly, lawmakers.
Continue Reading at : http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/in_conservative_circles_calls_for_citizen_grand_juries_grow/14634

Citizens Grand Jury Validity and Legal Authority

CAN CITIZENS FORM THEIR OWN GRAND JURY AND INDICT POLITICIANS FOR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

By Jim Frazier

An organization called the “American Grand Jury.org” has convened a Grand Jury and indicted President Obama for the crime of treason. Will their indictment be acknowledged in a U.S. District court of law? Are common citizens able to indict an elected official?

“Yes,” says Hal Von Luebbert,” author of “Citizen Power Now.” “The US government has no power to bring anyone to trial. The government can NOT find any person guilty of anything. Both of those powers belong to The People through use of a jury.”

The U.S. Attorney’s office in Colorado does not agree.  “I don’t think any citizen- convened Grand Jury has power to be enforced in a court of law,” said Jeff Dorschnor, spokesperson for the U.S. Attorneys office in Denver.

Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck echoed the same idea. “I’ve never heard of a Grand Jury called by citizens,” he said.

Mike Saccone, the Colorado Department of Law’s spokesperson, said, “There are no provisions for formation of citizen grand juries in Colorado. That is the way the statues stand now.”

Continue Reading at : http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=4498

IF IT’S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT’S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY

by : ROGER ROOTS

I. INTRODUCTION

The doings of American grand juries are notoriously misunderstood and unknown by most sectors of the public.[1] Generally, the grand jury process escapes obscurity only when indictments are made public and when, for whatever reason, grand jury “leaks” are disclosed in the news media.[2] In theory, the grand jury is supposed to act as a check on the government — a people’s watchdog against arbitrary and malevolent prosecutions.[3] By and large, however, federal grand juries rarely challenge federal prosecutors.

Today, critics are nearly unanimous in describing the alleged oversight function of modern grand juries as essentially a tragic sham.[4] The Framers of the Bill of Rights would scarcely recognize a grand jury upon seeing the modern version conduct business in a federal courthouse.[5] In modern federal grand jury proceedings, the government attorney is clearly in charge and government agents may outnumber the witnesses by six-to-one.[6]

A “runaway” grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today’s “runaway” grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact “runaways,” according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself.[7]

Before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — which made independently-acting grand juries illegal for all practical purposes — grand juries were understood to have broad powers to operate at direct odds with both judges and prosecutors.[8] One recent criminal procedure treatise sums up the inherent inconsistency of the modern grand jury regime:

In theory, the grand jury is a body of independent citizens that can investigate any crime or government misdeed that comes to its attention. In practice, however, the grand jury is dependent upon the prosecutor to bring cases and gather evidence. Except in rare instances of a “runaway” grand jury investigation of issues that a prosecutor does not want investigated, the powers of the grand jury enhance the powers of the prosecutor.[9]

Thus, while the grand jury still exists as an institution — in a sterile, watered-down, and impotent form — its decisions are the mere reflection of the United States Justice Department.[10] In practice, the grand jury’s every move is controlled by the prosecution, whom the grand jury simply does not know it is supposed to be pitted against.[11]

The term “runaway grand jury” did not appear in legal literature until the mid-twentieth century.[12] The reason for this is that the term would have been inapplicable in the context of previous generations: every American grand jury known by the Constitution’s Framers would be considered a runaway grand jury under modern criminal procedure. Constitutional framers knew criminal law to be driven by private prosecution and did not contemplate the omnipresence of government prosecutors.[13] Additionally, early American common law placed far more power and investigative judgment in the hands of grand juries than does the criminal procedure of the twentieth century.

Although in 1946 the drafters of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure looked with horror at the prospect of grand juries that “could act from their own knowledge or observation,”[14] long-standing common law precedent upholds the power of grand juries to act “independently of either the prosecuting attorney or judge.”[15] At common law, a grand jury could freely “investigate merely on [the] suspicion that the law [was] being violated, or even because it want[ed] assurance that it [was] not.”[16] In light of the historic independence of the grand jury, the perfidy of the Federal Rules Advisory Committee in limiting the institution through codification can only be seen as willful subversion of well-settled law.[17] A truly independent grand jury — which pursues a course different from the prosecutor — is today so rare that it is an oddity, and a virtual impossibility at the federal level since Rule 6 was codified in 1946.

The loss of the grand jury in its traditional, authentic, or runaway form, leaves the modern federal government with few natural enemies capable of delivering any sort of damaging blows against it.[18] The importance of this loss of a once powerful check on the “runaway” federal government is a focus that has remained largely untouched in the legal literature.

This article examines the historic decrease in the powers of the American grand jury during the twentieth century. It introduces the subject of the grand jury in the context of the constitutional language which invoked it, and then compares the modern application of the institution at the federal level with its common law model.[19] Tracing the historic evolution of the grand jury as an anti-government institution in the English common law until its “capture” by the government in the mid-twentieth century, this article will demonstrate how the role of the grand jury has changed considerably over time. Finally, this article will argue that the modern loss of “runaway” or independent grand juries is unconstitutional and recommend a restoration of the grand jury’s historic powers.

Continue Reading at : http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/runaway.htm

SCOTUS on the unique power of Grand Jurors

A blog by : Natural Born Citizen

My recent post concerning the 5th Amendment right of we the people to use the “presentment” power to investigate criminal activity on our own volition to review Government activity and bring all criminality to justice was very well received.  It seems to have woken alot of people up to the possibility of reviving the Constitution.  The power of  “presentment” is not some fanciful concept but a very real provision stated unequivocally in the 5th Amendment.   There’s no legal reason why we can’t use it.

That being said, the question of how we can use it must be tackled.  But always keep this in mind when the naysayers start harassing you.  25 people sitting on Grand Juries is the way we do all criminal indictments in the US.  If somebody is facing the death penalty or life in prison, they must first be brought before a Grand Jury and if 13 of the 25 agree that the person should stand trial then that’s what happens.

Continue Reading at : http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/scotus-on-the-unique-power-of-grand-jurors/

LaRouche: Impeach Obama for Complicity in Murder of U.S. Ambassador Stevens

Sept. 15—Lyndon LaRouche today demanded that Congress remain in session to immediately convene impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives against President Barack Obama for his criminal complicity in the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in which Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other U.S. officials were killed.

LaRouche declared this afternoon:

“President Obama was complicit before the fact in the events that lead to the killing of four valuable American diplomats. There is sufficient evidence to warrant immediate impeachment proceedings. U.S. officials were repeatedly warned, in the weeks preceding the 9/11 Benghazi attacks, that there was a breakdown of security in the city. The State Department issued a travel alert to all Americans, urging them to stay out of Libya. All of the evidence was there to impose strict security measures. Yet, nothing was done. That failure is on the President’s plate.”

Continue Reading at : http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2012/3937impeach_obama_complicity.html

Obama Supporters Actually Hate Obama’s Policies

***ATTENTION: This video is NOT in support of Mitt Romney, in any way, nor is this organization.***

Follow Luke @ http://www.twitter.com/lukewearechange

Luke Rudkowski hits the streets of NYC to find out where Obama supporters really stand on his policies. Now he did this in an underhanded way where the policies where presented to be Romney’s, but this was only done to get an honest opinion. The reactions when the truth was uncovered varied but they were very telling to say the least.

Here are some of the sources that were mentioned throughout the interviews

1st question, part 1 – Obama, in Europe, signs Patriot Act extension
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43180202/ns/us_news-security/t/obama-europe-signs-patriot-act-extension/#.UIkNUcXA_fU

1st question, part 2 – Warrantless Spying Skyrockets Under Obama
http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/03/warrantless-spying-skyrockets-under-obam

2nd question – President Obama Signed the National Defense Authorization Act – Now What?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/02/president-obama-signed-the-national-defense-authorization-act-now-what/

3rd question – Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

4th question – Drone wars and state secrecy — how Barack Obama became a hardliner
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/02/drone-wars-secrecy-barack-obama

Ron Paul or Gary Johnson? Will the revolution vote for Johnson?

Will it be Gary Johnson or Ron Paul for Americans who are not willing to vote for the lesser of two evils?

That is the question after the recent Third Party debate brought out a passionate Libertarian who did a bit more than just turn a few heads; he may have changed a multitude of minds after he mentioned Ron Paul as his hero, among other things. You know, like bringing the troops home and legalizing marijuana, just to name a couple.

Today, Free and Equal announced Libertarian candidate Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein are the winners over Constitution Party candidate Virgil Goode and Justice Party candidate Rocky Anderson from the Oct. 23 bout and subsequent polling that allowed “We the People” to choose the winners. This brings the Libertarian and the Green candidates to their final destination on Oct. 30 in Washington for a late-in-the-game publicized opportunity to sway voters their way — and you can bet Ron Paul’s movement will be there in full force.

Although Johnson is certainly no Ron Paul, he may have become the next best thing in the hearts of grassroots campaigners who filled stadiums around the country each time the Texas representative made an appearance this past year as he campaigned for constitutional government, honest money and personal liberty.

Many in the revolution who chanted “President Paul” and vowed to write in the good doctor are changing their minds and aren’t shy about announcing it publicly. Needless to say, some will be marking their ballots for Johnson wearing their Ron Paul T-shirt, for symbolic purposes, of course.

A Washington state resident going by “Pawnstorm” caused a category three indeed on the Daily Paul website when he announced his decision to vote for Johnson. Some solid Ron Paul supporters weren’t too excited about the idea, while others embraced it after reading his persuasive piece and argument with himself that brought him to his final decision, which included the fact that his write-in Ron Paul vote may not even be counted in the only state named after a president.

The excitement around the Internet grows as social networking informs Americans that there are other choices besides the continued attempts at a two-party gridlock with Republican candidate Mitt Romney and our current president, the Democrat, Barack Obama. Their similarities are many, as they admitted in their final debate.

Even MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell put out an interesting Last Word the night after the first Third Party debate: “That right there was a presidential debate last night that was not covered by the major networks because it did not include any candidates who are running above 15 percent in the polls, but it did include candidates who dared to talk about important issues that never came up in the presidential debates watched by 60 billion people.”

O’Donnell used his show to educate on voting in a democracy, telling viewers to not listen to those who mislead you by telling you voting for a Third Party candidate is a wasted vote. He persuasively points out that if you vote for a Democrat who loses you are not told you wasted your vote, so why would you be wasting your vote if you voted for a Third Party candidate who loses? You would instead be sending a message.

Proving Americans are looking for another option to choose for their commander-in-chief, Tim Sarver commented beneath a Third Party video and gained 37 thumbs up for saying: “All of these guys, even Virgil, seem like better candidates for president than Obama or Romney.”

Will the Paul revolution vote for Johnson? From what I have read, it may be 50/50 due to some of the differences between Paul and Johnson. Most Paul freedom fighters are a stubborn, determined group. Like their mentor, they will not be swayed by anyone or anything if it goes against their core values, even if they are the last one standing against the crowd. Some have announced on YouTube, Twitter, Ron Paul forums, and Facebook that they have, and will still write in Ron Paul as they take Gary Johnson’s quote seriously, “Wasting your vote is voting for somebody you don’t believe in.”

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/13272320-ron-paul-or-gary-johnson-will-the-revolution-vote-for-johnson

‘Romney stressing military solutions to Middle East’

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.(AFP Photo / Jewel Samad)

While Barack Obama and Mitt Romney express agreement on most of issues regarding US foreign policy, the Republican seems far more willing to support Israeli offensive actions if elected president, analyst John Feffer told RT.

­The major difference between Obama and Romney is their “comfort level” with Netanyahu and his warmongering towards Iran, John Feffer of think tank Foreign Policy in Focus said.

And following the foreign policy debate with President Obama, the latest polls show Romney has taken a slight lead in the race for the White House.

RT: So why has Romney managed to edge ahead after the debate?

John Feffer: As we have seen, Mitt Romney demonstrated that he could talk in the debate. That was in the first debate, and he has not made any major gaps, and I stress major. Of course there have been minor gaps but nothing that has eliminated him as a potential candidate. So, I think his performance in the debates has been the major reason why he has closed the gap with the President Obama.

RT: The last debate was on foreign policy. Critics say Obama and Romney show no differences in their stance on Iran. But they both claim they do differ. What do you make of it?

JF: There are, I would say, some significant differences between the two candidates. Mitt Romney, even though he does talk about diplomacy, has put the stress on military solutions, and that there is absolutely no daylight between him and Netanyahu. The president, of course, has put more stress on diplomacy, and I think he means that when he says it – and of course, we have the possibility of bilateral negotiations with Tehran right after the election.

And although the president says there is no daylight – factually speaking – between him and Netanyahu, we know that there is and that the two leaders are uncomfortable with one another. So there, we have a major difference between the president and Mitt Romney: their comfort level with Netanyahu and their comfort level with diplomacy with Tehran.

RT: Will we see a change in policy over Syria after the election?

JF: I do not see that we’ll see a major change. As you have pointed out in earlier reports, the American public is certainly not ready for any major US commitment on the ground, or any other significant way, in Syria. So I do not think that the president or Mitt Romney, if he got elected, would execute major or significant change in American foreign policy toward Syria. Of course, if the situation substantially changes on the ground that might force the hand of anybody in Washington – and that is hard to predict.

RT: Despite the US pushing for democracy, the Arab Spring has seen some unexpected elements come to power, many seen as anti-Western and linked to terrorism. How will Washington determine who to do business with?

JF: I think the Obama administration has made a critical decision, an important decision, to work with what it perceives as the moderate Islamist elements in the region, the Muslim Brotherhood for instance in Egypt. I think this was a wise choice – I think it acknowledges that moderate Islamist positions have a great deal to do with popularity in the region, not just in Egypt but in other parts of the region. And this, I think, kind of represents a significant block in the region that prevents more extremist alternatives of whatever alternative nature.

I think this is the decision that Washington has made. There has been criticism of course from Republicans, from challengers here in the Romney camp, that the president has essentially given in to Islamists in the Middle East. But I think this is an incorrect reading. The situation shows that the Republican Party elements of this don’t understand wellsprings of popular sentiment in the Middle East, both before the Arab Spring, during the Arab Spring, and now after the major events of the Arab Spring.

http://rt.com/usa/news/romney-support-israel-iran-351/

Colin Powell endorses Obama

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell on Thursday endorsed President Barack Obama for reelection, arguing the president has improved the poor economy he inherited and sharply criticizing Mitt Romney’s foreign policy positions as a “moving target.”

“I voted for him in 2008, and I plan to stick with him in 2012,” Powell said of Obama on CBS’s “This Morning.” “I’ll be voting for he and for Vice President Joe Biden next month.”

(PHOTOS: Colin Powell over the years)

One of the most coveted endorsements remaining in the 2012 presidential race, Powell said Obama walked into a horrendous economic situation and has begun to turn it around.

“I think, generally, we’ve come out of the dive and we’re starting to gain altitude,” said Powell, who served as George W. Bush’s secretary of state. “It doesn’t mean all our problems are solved.”

While Powell, a Republican, said that he had the “utmost respect” for Romney, he charged that the former Massachusetts governor hasn’t outlined how he would pay for increased defense spending or for his proposed across-the-board tax cut.

(Also on POLITICO: Obama calls Colin Powell)

Powell had even harsher words for Romney’s foreign policy, questioning his changing stances on withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan.

“The governor who was speaking on Monday night at the debate was saying things that were quite different from what he said earlier,” Powell said.

“I’m not quite sure which Governor Romney we would be getting with respect to foreign policy,” he added. “I don’t sense he’s thought through these issues as thoroughly as he should have. He gets advice from his campaign staff that he then has to modify as he goes along.”

(Also on POLITICO: 7 takeaways from final debate)

While in the Bush administration, Powell regularly clashed with neoconservatives, some of whom are now advising Romney. Powell said he has “trouble with” some of Romney’s “very strong neoconservative views.”

While Powell has endorsed the Democratic presidential candidate in back-to-back elections, he said he remains a Republican.

“I think I’m a Republican of more moderate mold and that’s something of a dying breed, I’m sorry to say,” Powell said. “But, you know, the Republicans I worked for are President Reagan, President Bush 41, the Howard Bakers of the world, people who were conservative, people who were willing to push their conservative views, but people who recognize that at the end of the day you got to find a basis for compromise. Compromise is how this country runs.”

Powell said he had a “very good conversation” with Romney a few weeks ago, and said he regularly speaks to Obama. Neither man directly asked Powell for an endorsement, and Powell said he didn’t alert either campaign before making his announcement Thursday.

Mack: End U.S. Funding for United Nations

U.S. Sen. John McCain and U.S. Rep. Connie Mack IV, who’s running for the Senate, arrive at a campaign office in South Tampa on Tuesday.

TAMPA –U.S. Rep. Connie Mack IV, campaigning in Tampa with Sen. John McCain on Tuesday, advocated ending U.S. funding of the United Nations, saying the organization “should be kicked off of American soil.”

That’s a response to requests from groups including the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union for international monitors to check for voter suppression during the coming election.

“The only people who are going to observe American elections are Americans,” Mack told an applauding crowd gathered at a local GOP campaign office where he appeared with McCain.

In a campaign announcement, Mack said the U.N. is “dedicated to diminishing America’s role in the world,” and the idea that it would monitor U.S. elections is “disgusting.”

“Every American should be outraged by this news,” said Mack, who is challenging incumbent Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson in the election Nov. 6. “The United States must defund the United Nations. The United Nations should be kicked off of American soil once and for all.”

The elections monitors, however, aren’t coming from the U.N. but from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, a separate organization whose members, including the U.S., routinely observe other members’ elections.

Mack’s view also appeared to put him at least indirectly in opposition to presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a Mack ally.

During his debate with President Barack Obama on Monday night, Romney referred to proposals of a U.N.-organized study group in outlining his approach to combating international terrorism.

Asked whether he was disagreeing with Romney, Mack told reporters in a brief news conference after their appearance Tuesday that Romney “was saying he was going to take advantage of any and all opportunities he has.”

McCain partly demurred on the issue.

He referred to the “complete failure” of attempts by top UN officials to halt the civil war in Syria, and the pretense that dictatorial regimes could monitor human rights.

“I think there are some things the U.N. does well, humanitarian relief, refugees,” he said. “But overall, I may not be in total agreement with Connie as to doing away with the entire U.N.” In return for the U.S. contribution to the organization, though, “the taxpayers deserve one heck of a lot better,” he said.

Asked why Mack attacked the U.N. instead of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, campaign spokesman David James declined to clarify, saying, “He stated his reasons” at the news conference. Asked whether Mack also wants to defund OSCE, he didn’t respond.

According to its website, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which sometimes partners with the U.N., is an organization of 56 member nations in Europe and Central Asia focused on human rights and security. It originated in the 1970s during the Cold War.

It says its members observed U.S. elections in 2004, 2008 and 2010 and were invited by the U.S. State Department to do so again.

Democrats and others have alleged that laws passed in Florida and other states recently are aimed at “voter suppression,” or cutting turnout of minority, young and poor voters.

http://www2.tbo.com/news/news/2012/oct/24/memeto2-mack-end-us-funding-for-united-nations-ar-542343/

Texas attorney general threatens to arrest international election monitors

The Texas attorney general, Greg Abbott, has threatened to arrest international election monitors invited by liberal groups to observe the conduct of next month’s presidential vote in states accused of attempting to disenfranchise minorities.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott

Abbott has written to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe warning that its monitors have no right to monitor the vote even though they have observed previous US elections.

“The OSCE’s representatives are not authorized by Texas law to enter a polling place. It may be a criminal offence for OSCE’s representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place’s entrance,” he said. “Failure to comply with these requirements could subject the OSCE’s representatives to criminal prosecution for violating state law.”

The OSCE is sending 44 observers to voting stations across the US at the request of various groups, including the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union, because of “an unprecedented and sophisticated level of coordination to restrict voting rights in our nation”. These include attempts by several states, including Texas, to introduce voter identification laws and other measures blocked by federal courts which have ruled they were motivated by racial discrimination.

In his letter, Abbott glossed over the recent judgements striking down the Texas identification law and pointed to a supreme court ruling in a case involving another state.

“The OSCE may be entitled to its opinions about voter ID laws, but your opinion is legally irrelevant in the United States, where the supreme court has already determined that voter ID laws are constitutional,” Abbott said.

The US routinely sends poll watchers to elections in foreign countries, particularly those where there are concerns about the fairness of the vote. In television interviews, Abbott denounced the OSCE as an interfering foreign body even though the US is a founding member and it was invited by President George Bush’s administration to monitor the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections in the US.

“If OSCE members want to learn more about our election processes so they can improve their own democratic systems, we welcome the opportunity to discuss the measures Texas has implemented to protect the integrity of elections,” Abbott wrote. “However, groups and individuals from outside the United States are not allowed to influence or interfere with the election process in Texas. This state has robust election laws that were carefully crafted to protect the integrity of our election system. All persons – including persons connected with OSCE – are required to comply with these laws.”

The OSCE responded later on Wednesday in a letter to the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, calling Abbott’s threat “unacceptable” and noting that the organisation’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) has an agreement with the US permitting it to monitor elections.

“The United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite ODIHR observers to observe its elections,” it said. “The threat of criminal sanctions against OSCE/ODIHR observers is unacceptable.”

A Florida congressman running for the Senate, Connie Mack, also waded into the debate, saying that reports the United Nations wants to send election monitors was an outrage. The OSCE was founded under the UN charter.

“The very idea that the United Nations – the world body dedicated to diminishing America’s role in the world – would be allowed, if not encouraged, to install foreigners sympathetic to the likes of Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and Putin to oversee our elections is nothing short of disgusting,” he told the Orlando Sentinal.

“The United Nations should be kicked off of American soil once and for all. And the American people should demand that the United Nations be stopped from ‘monitoring’ American elections. The only ones who should ever oversee American elections are Americans.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/24/texas-attorney-general-threatens-to-arrest-international-election-monitors/

Jim Moran’s (D-Va.) Field Director Conspires to Commit Voter Fraud,

JOIN US AT http://WWW.ENDVOTERFRAUDNOW.COM

“Effective immediately, I have resigned from the Moran for Congress campaign,” Patrick Moran said in a statement to TPM sent from his campaign email address. http://bitly.com/QYwF22

Watch our Project Veritas reporter being educated on how to properly commit massive voter fraud by the son of a sitting US Congressman. Patrick Moran, son of Congressman James Moran, discusses forging utility bills and impersonating pollsters, all for the goal of circumventing voter ID laws in Virginia and casting ballots for unsuspecting inactive voters within the state for Barack Obama. Patrick Moran holds the salaried title of Field Director for his father’s congressional campaign, and assures our reporter that “committee” lawyers will defend his fraud if the forged documents “look good”.

US Third Party Presidential Debate

In response to widespread blackout from both the mainstream media and political establishment alike, RT is honored to be presenting a platform for the major third-party candidates also vying for the White House this election year to debate. We are offering the event live in cooperation with the debate’s organizers, the Free and Equal Elections Foundation.

The event is moderated by multi-award winning broadcast journalist Larry King.

Vote your conscience not the lessor of two evils

Romney: I will have Israel’s back, including militarily

In final debate, Repubican nominee attacks president for sidelining Israel to curry favor with regional players • Obama vows Iran will not get nuclear bomb on his watch and touts unprecedented U.S. aid, says visit to Yad Vashem and Sderot had great impact on him.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney squared off on Monday in their final debate, which focused on foreign affairs.|Photo credit: Reuters

U.S. President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Governor Mitt Romney sparred on Monday over who was Israel’s strongest defender but both agreed that a military strike over Iran’s nuclear program must be a “last resort.”

Tehran’s nuclear program, which the West suspects is for developing weapons and that economic sanctions have so far failed to stop, is almost certain to be among the top foreign policy challenges facing the next president.

Yet Romney and Obama, in their foreign policy debate, did not offer sharply contrasting policies to address the challenge. They agreed on the need for tough economic pressure — and for safeguarding Israel. “If Israel is attacked, we have their back, not just diplomatically, not just culturally, but militarily,” Romney said. “I will stand with Israel if they are attacked,” Obama said. Both were responding to a question on whether they would consider an attack on Israel an attack on the United States.

Obama later called Israel “a true friend and our greatest ally in the region,” and said Israel and the U.S. maintain “unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation, including dealing with the Iranian threat.” Obama went on to say that a nuclear Iran would be a national security threat to the United States. He stressed he would not let Iran obtain a nuclear bomb so long as he is president and would not let Iran “perpetually engage in negotiations that lead nowhere.”

Iran’s leaders have from time to time threatened to eradicate Israel, and Israeli leaders see an Iranian nuclear weapon as an existential threat. The question that has risen repeatedly this year is whether Israel would conduct a unilateral strike against Iran’s nuclear sites, which would put the United States in a difficult position of whether to enter another Middle East conflict.

The candidates did not say what they would do if Israel conducted a unilateral strike on Iran. Pressed by the moderator on how he would react if Israel were to launch a unilateral strike against Iran, Romney said, “Our relationship with Israel, my relationship with the prime minister of Israel [Benjamin Netanyahu] is such that we would not get a call saying our bombers are on the way or their fighters are on the way.” Romney and Netanyahu both worked for a Boston-based consulting firm in the 1970s. The two still maintain a close friendship, which was clearly on display during Romney’s visit to Israel over the summer.

Obama accused Romney of rushing to conclude that a military strike was necessary. “The disagreement I have with Governor Romney is that, during the course of this campaign, he’s often talked as if we should take premature military action,” Obama said at Monday’s debate, which was the final such encounter before the Nov. 6 election. “I think that would be a mistake, because when I send young men and women into harm’s way, I always understand that is the last resort, not the first resort,” he said.

“We need to increase pressure, time and time again, on Iran because anything other than … a solution to this … which stops this, this nuclear folly of theirs, is unacceptable to America,” Romney said. “And of course, a military action is the last resort. It is something one would only … consider if all of the other avenues had been … tried to their full extent,” he said.

Romney challenged the effectiveness of Obama’s Iran policy, saying his perceived weakness has strengthened the ayatollahs’ resolve. “They have looked at this administration and felt that the administration was not as strong as it needed to be,” Romney said. “I think they saw weakness where they had expected to find American strength.” “We’re four years closer to a nuclear Iran. We’re four years closer to a nuclear Iran,” Romney continued. “And — and we should not have wasted these four years to the extent they’ve — they continue to be able to spin these centrifuges and get that much closer.”

Obama bluntly said newspaper reports that Iran and the United States had agreed to hold bilateral talks on Tehran’s nuclear program were not true. Iran has also denied that bilateral negotiations on its nuclear program had been scheduled.

Romney went on to attack the president for sidelining the relations with Israel as part of the effort to curry favor with other Middle East players, evident by what the governor called an “apology tour.”

“You went to the Middle East and you flew to Egypt and to Saudi Arabia and to Turkey and Iraq. And by [the] way, you skipped Israel, our closest friend in the region, but you went to the other nations,” Romney said. “And by the way, they noticed that you skipped Israel. And then in those nations and on Arabic TV you said that America had been dismissive and derisive. You said that on occasion America had dictated to other nations. Mr. President, America has not dictated to other nations. We have freed other nations from dictators.”

Romney also attacked Obama for not acting to shore-up relations with Israel even after 38 members of Congress had sent him a letter urging him to do so. “They asked him, please repair the tension — Democrat senators — please repair the damage,” Romney said.

Obama said his administration and he personally consider Israel’s security paramount, in part owing to the impression left by his visit there as a candidate in 2008. “I went down to the border town of Sderot, which had experienced missiles raining down from Hamas. And I saw families there who showed me where missiles had come down near their children’s bedrooms, and I was reminded of what that would mean if those were my kids, which is why, as president, we funded an Iron Dome program to stop those missiles.” Obama also attacked Romney for using his recent trip to Israel to benefit his campaign war chest rather than to study the region. “When I went to Israel as a candidate, I didn’t take donors, I didn’t attend fundraisers, I went to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum there, to remind myself [of] the nature of evil and why our bond with Israel will be unbreakable.”

Speaking on Egypt, Obama said he would make sure Egypt’s pro-Islamic regime would uphold the country’s long-standing peace treaty with Israel. “That is a red line for us, because not only is Israel’s security at stake, but our security is at stake if that unravels,” Obama said.

On Syria, Romney tried to put Obama on the defensive by saying the administration has not led in the crisis in which thousands of Syrians have died and President Bashar al-Assad remains in power. “What I’m afraid of is, we’ve watched over the past year or so, first the president saying, well, we’ll let the U.N. deal with it,” Romney said. “We should be playing the leadership role there.”The United States should work with partners to organize the Syrian opposition and “make sure they have the arms necessary to defend themselves,” he said.

“I am confident that Assad’s days are numbered,” Obama said. “But what we can’t do is to simply suggest that, as Governor Romney at times has suggested, that giving heavy weapons, for example, to the Syrian opposition is a simple proposition that would lead us to be safer over the long term.” Obama also used Monday night’s debate to criticize Romney’s support for beginning the war in Iraq, for opposing his plans to withdraw troops from Iraq, for inconsistent stances on Afghanistan and for opposing nuclear treaties with Russia. “Every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong,” Obama said. Romney responded that “attacking me is not an agenda” for dealing with a dangerous world.

If and how the debate would affect the Nov. 6 presidential election was not clear. Foreign policy, the theme of the debate at Lynn University, in Boca Raton, Florida, has not been a major issue in a race centered on the U.S. economy. But both candidates were determined to appear to be strong leaders, rallying their supporters and winning over the remaining undecided voters.

Romney appeared more measured than Obama, agreeing with the president on a number of issues, perhaps seeking to appear more moderate to centrist voters who may determine the election’s outcome. Obama, from the opening moments, wasn’t as subdued. He said Romney would reinstate the unpopular foreign policies of President George W. Bush.

“Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s,” Obama said.

Romney said that despite early hopes, the ouster of despotic regimes in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere over the past year has resulted in a “rising tide of chaos.” He said the president has failed to come up with a coherent policy to grapple with the change sweeping the Middle East.

Foreign policy is generally seen as Obama’s strength and he highlighted two of his campaign’s main points, that he gave the order leading to the killing of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and fulfilled a promise to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. Romney, a multimillionaire businessman, has little foreign affairs experience. Romney congratulated Obama “on taking out Osama bin Laden and taking on the leadership of al-Qaida.” But he added, “we can’t kill our way out of this mess. … We must have a comprehensive and robust strategy.”

The election is a state-by-state contest and the outcome in a small number of states that are not predictably Democratic or Republican will determine the winner. With the final debate behind them, both men are embarking on a two-week whirlwind of campaigning. The president is slated to speak in six states during a two-day trip that begins Wednesday. Romney intends to visit two or three states a day. Already four million ballots have been cast in early voting in more than two dozen states. Just hours before the debate CNN published the latest “poll of polls,” showing Romney has been able to maintain his momentum. The poll, which is the average of five polls conducted over the past week, has both Obama and Romney locked in a dead heat — each garnering 47 percent support among likely voters. A Reuters/Ipsos poll from Monday night (before the debate) also had both candidates tied at 46% in a sample that included both registered and likely voters. Gallup’s daily tracking poll has Romney holding on to a 6% advantage among likely voters.

The last debate could turn out to be decisive in such a close race. One Democratic activist told Politico on Monday that the voters who had yet to make up their minds “go back and forth every day”. “One day they are for Romney, and one day they are for the president. Right now they have gone back to Obama. The last thing they hear matters. … It’s extremely fluid outside the base.”

For the first time since May, The Politico/George Washington University Battleground Tracking Poll has Romney ahead in ten competitive swing states, with the former governor commanding a 50% to 48% lead among likely voters. This marks an upset from last week, when the president was at 49% to Romney’s 48%. In all-important Ohio, with its 18 electoral votes, Obama still maintains a 50% to 45% advantage among likely voters according to a Quinnipiac University/CBS poll, although Romney has been able to narrow the gap lately.

Meanwhile, real estate magnate Donald Trump, who is a Romney supporter, announced on Monday that he will release as early as Wednesday a political bombshell the could decide the race. Speaking on Fox News, Trump described it as “something very, very big concerning the president of the United States.” “It’s going to be very big. I know one thing — you will cover it in a very big fashion,” Trump said. Trump has been one of Obama’s most vocal critics and even questioned Obama’s claim that he was born in the United States. The U.S. constitution stipulates that the president must be a “natural-born” U.S. citizen.

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=6180

Green Party Presidential Candidate Jill Stein Files Lawsuit Against the Commission on Presidential Debates

Last week the Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein was arrested for trying to gain access to presidential debate.

Stein and her running mate Cheri Honkala attempted to enter the debate hall at Hofstra University, but were refused entry by police because they lacked credentials, even though they are qualified candidates who are on the ballot in most states.

Yet despite being legitimate candidates the two women were arrested by local police when they tried to enter the grounds of Hofstra University, in Hempstead, New York, where the debate took place

According to Jill Steins website:

“This week her fight continues with a lawsuit filed today against the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), claiming that the CPD, Democratic National Committee, and Republican National Committee, together with the Federal Election Commission and Lynn University, had deprived her of her constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, and free speech, as well as her statutorily protected civil rights.

The lawsuit sought both an emergency court order enjoining tonight’s CPD presidential debate from taking place, as well monetary damages.

According to the lawsuit pleadings, “Dr. Jill Stein is not only equal under the law to the two “major party” candidates, she is better, because she became a viable contender for the Presidency while being discriminated against by the defendants at every turn.”

“Our constitution is supposed to protect us against manipulations of democracy of the kind scheduled tonight, and I hope the court will act now to stop this farce, but either way, we will keep up the fight, and one of these days American elections and our debates will be reclaimed by the American people,” said Stein.

Today, Tuesday, October 23 at the Chicago Hilton there will actually be a third party debate featuring Dr. Jill Stein, Gov. Gary Johnson and others, but it is not being aired anywhere on mainstream television in the US.

Ironically enough though, the debates are being aired on Russia Today and Aljazeera.

Over 14,000 people have signed a statement calling on CPD to change its criteria, and repeated public calls for opening the CPD debates have been ignored by the government and the CPD corporation.

The electoral process is another ruling class scam designed to keep people distracted from the violence and oppression inherent in the system.

This corruption that obviously exists in electoral politics leaves many people feeling like there is no hope, but that is only because the public education system and the mainstream media dialogue present the electoral process and the whims of our masters as the only viable solutions for change.

In reality, there are many things you can do to empower yourself and your community that are completely outside of the political system.

There are personal steps, as well as social steps that can be taken to peacefully underthrow the status quo.

The battle to bring 3rd party candidates into the spotlight is still important though, because it exposes the corrupt nature of the electoral process, and it also lets people know that there are other ideas out there that are not presented through mainstream sources.

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/10/24/green-party-presidential-candidate-jill-stein-files-lawsuit-against-the-commission-on-presidential-debates/

Michael Scheuer: Mrs Clinton Has Blood on her Hands Everywhere

U.S. Foreign Policy the Cause of Middle East Protests?
Air Date: Sep 14, 2012
Former CIA Operative Michael Scheuer on the motives behind the recent protests in the Middle East.

All credits to: Fox Business Network

FBI — WARNING — Federal law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute or exhibit portions of copyright motion pictures, video tapes, or video disks under certain circumstances without authorization of the copyright holder. This infringement of copyright is called fair use and is allowed for purposes of criticism, news reporting, teaching and parody.

Shocking Secrets and Verifiable Facts about Barack Obama the MSM Refuses to Report

Shocking Secrets and Verifiable Facts about President Barack Obama the Mainstream Media Refuses to Report
If you think you know everything there is to know about Barack Obama, think again.

What you’ll hear on this episode of Catch Kevin: No Holds Barred! will not only shock you, it will alarm you!

Why does mainstream media refuse to give us the truth about the most powerful man in the world? Yet, a man who is shrouded in secrecy and immune to any and all vetting by that same media.
What information would have turned up had Barack Obama been properly vetted? Listen to this eye-opening, jaw-droppoing episode of Catch Kevin: No Holds Barred!

Ordinary citizens play no role in US electoral process

Darnell Summers with the Berlin-based Institute for Cultural Diplomacy (ICD)

A prominent political analyst says the US political system is founded on principles of slavery and ordinary citizens play absolutely no role in the country’s electoral process.

“The average citizen has absolutely none (no role in the elections). If you just reflect on the immense amount of money that’s being spent on the campaigns, two billion dollars by each candidate, that in and of itself indicates that the common man has no place, no role in the electoral process. I mean, our guest [another guest in the show] said that we don’t have control that we have lost control, well, we never had control,” said Darnell Summers with the Berlin-based Institute for Cultural Diplomacy (ICD) in a recent Press TV interview.

Summers stressed that the United states has always been and continues to be a ‘slavocracy’ as the common American has never had the power to influence the country’s political process ever since the establishment of the state.

“We have a situation where the United States started as a ‘slavocracy’. From the very beginning a large section of the people living in the country, the European settlers and the Indians of course, they didn’t have any, the indigenous people they had no say in the workings of the political aspect of the United States government from the very beginning and that pattern has continued.”

The analyst argued that the majority of Americans are devoid of political power in today’s America as they used to be in the past when the course of US politics was dominated by the slave owners who were also the possessors of the country’s wealth and controllers of its economy.

“The slave owners they had the mass great fortunes, controlled the economy, north and south and everything was based upon that particular foundation, Slavocracy, then to what some people called democracy, however, the situation for the majority of people in the United States has remained the same – They remain politically powerless,” he said.

The comments come as according to an Associated Press report published on Oct. 19 Zionist Jews are the biggest donors that finance the US presidential election campaign of both the Democratic President Barack Obama as well as his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney.

As said by the report, the wealthy Jewish donors and others are financing this year’s US presidential election, on track to cost a whopping 2 billion USD, with funding of individual Democratic and Republican campaigns as well as independent, “super” political action committees working on the campaigns’ behalf.

The 57th US presidential election is scheduled to be held on November 6, 2012.

http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.fr/2012/10/ordinary-citizens-play-no-role-in-us.html

Mitt Romney Thinks He’s Won The Election, And Last Night He Just Played Not To Lose

The final presidential debate is over, and Mitt Romneyplayed it very safe, passing over opportunities to go on offense and generally avoiding confrontation with President Barack Obama.

The Republican candidate had a largely unremarkable debate, devoid of any major flubs, but also lacking in memorable attack lines or zingers. While the incumbent came out swinging, Romney repeatedly passed up opportunities to go after his opponent, even on key campaign flashpoints like trade with China and the White House’s handling of last month’s attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Instead, Romney once again tacked far to the center and actually embraced many of Obama’s foreign policies, offering up positions that differed only marginally from those of his Democratic opponent on issues like U.S. troop withdrawals from Afghanistan, foreign aid and intervention in the Middle East, and the use of drones.

In the immediate aftermath of the debate, several conservative pundits bemoaned the Republican nominee’s performance as a missed opportunity.

Here’s a tweet from Glenn Beck:

And here’s conservative commentator Laura Ingraham:

But in the end, most conservative pundits and Republican strategists agreed that the “play it safe” strategy may have been the smartest choice for the Republican nominee, who has so far struggled to effectively attack Obama on foreign policy issues. Moreover, in Monday’s debate, Romney faced the difficult challenge of setting himself apart from his Republican predecessor, former President George W. Bush, whose national security policies remain widely unpopular.

But with his campaign still riding the momentum from his strong performance in the first presidential debate, Romney didn’t need a big win tonight at his third and final match-up with Obama. He just needed to prevent a routing — and avoid stumbles like the botched response on Libya that he gave in last week’s town hall debate.

To that end, Romney accomplished what his campaign had set out to do during the final debate. It remains to be seen, however, whether Romney’s momentum really is strong enough to carry him through a merely passable performance.

Obama or Romney: War and Economic Collapse Regardless Who Wins the Election

CNN is making a big deal out of Romney’s “right leaning” supporters.

The corporate media branch of the Pentagon’s psyops program thinks there’s a good chance these “severely conservative” voters may push Romney over the top and get him installed in the White House as preeminent teleprompter reader for the global elite.

In August, Peter Schiff, economic adviser to Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign, said he thinks the economic implosion will occur during the next administration.

He has no faith in Obama and little in Romney to turn things around.

Despite the flaccid neo-Tea Party rhetoric of Paul Ryan, prior to the Obama administration Republicans out-spent Democrats threefold. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II racked up $6.4 trillion dollars in debt and thus put to rest the obscene fantasy of “fiscal conservatism.”

In September, according to official figures, the national debt surpassed $16 trillion. In reality, it is much higher – well over $200 trillion when unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security are thrown into the mix.

“Let’s get real. The U.S. is bankrupt,” writes Boston University economic professor Laurence Kotlikoff.

Due to the astronomical debt and profligate spending by largely unaccountable professional political careerists in Washington, “what we have to look forward to is a very bleak future,” writes Michael Snyder.

“Even if we totally scrapped our current monetary system and repudiated the debt, the transition would be ‘rocky’ at best and we would not enjoy anything close to the standard of living that we are enjoying today.”

As for war, a Romney win in November will ensure the re-installment of the Bush-era neocons and a speedy timeline for war in the Middle East, particularly against Syria and sooner before later Iran.

Because the election is a couple of weeks away, Romney’s saying there’s no need to attack Iran in response to its imaginary nuclear weapons program.

His foreign policy advisers, on the other hand, are neocons who have repeatedly called for taking out Iran.

More frightening, Romney is close friends with Israel’s ardent Likudnik, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Mitt has stated that they “almost speak in shorthand.”

Martin S. Indyk, a United States ambassador to Israel in the Clinton administration, told the New York Times that Romney would “subcontract Middle East policy to Israel,” i.e., the U.S. will attack Israel’s enemies during the reign of Mitt.

In other words, if Romney wins we can expect an attack on Iran that would certainly compound the above mentioned economic problems.

Following Obama’s lackluster performance during the last presidential debate, his administration trotted out what can be described as “Iran Attack Light,” a plan to use “surgical strikes” against the country in lieu of an all-out attack.

Foreign Policy CEO and editor at large David Rothkopf, a former Clintonite, “reported that the White House and Israeli officials ‘assert that the two sides, behind the scenes, have come closer together in their views [regarding Iran] in recent days,’” according to the Jerusalem Post.

Bizarrely, the establishment media continues to pretend there is a widening chasm of difference between Obama and Romney.

In fact, they both present the same economic and foreign policy goals, which are, of course, not their goals but those of the global elite.

The establishment media does its part by playing up minor differences in style between the two and uses a trusty false left-right paradigm to distract weary voters and excite indoctrinated loyalists.

http://theintelhub.com/2012/10/17/obama-or-romney-war-and-economic-collapse-regardless-who-wins-the-election/

Monday’s Debate Puts Focus on Foreign Policy Clashes

When President Obama and Mitt Romney sit down Monday night for the last of their three debates, two things should be immediately evident: there should be no pacing the stage or candidates’ getting into each other’s space, and there should be no veering into arguments over taxes.

This debate is about how America deals with the world — and how it should.

If the moderator, Bob Schieffer of CBS News, has his way, it will be the most substantive of the debates. He has outlined several topics: America’s role in the world, the continuing war in Afghanistan, managing the nuclear crisis with Iran and the resultant tensions with Israel, and how to deal with rise of China.

The most time, Mr. Schieffer has said, will be spent on the Arab uprisings, their aftermath and how the terrorist threat has changed since the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. No doubt the two candidates will spar again, as they did in the second debate, about whether the Obama administration was ready for the attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador, and three other Americans. Mr. Romney was widely judged to not have had his most effective critique ready, and this time, presumably, he will be out to correct that.

The early line is that this is an opportunity for Mr. Obama to shine, and to repair the damage from the first debate. (He was already telling jokes the other night, at a dinner in New York, about his frequent mention of Osama bin Laden’s demise.)

But we can hope that it is a chance for both candidates to describe, at a level of detail they have not yet done, how they perceive the future of American power in the world. They view American power differently, a subject I try to grapple with at length in a piece in this Sunday’s Review, “The Debatable World.”

But for now, here is a field guide to Monday’s debate.

LIBYA AND BENGHAZI Both candidates will come ready for a fight on this topic, but the question is whether it is the right fight. Mr. Obama already admitted mistakes on “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart” and promised to get to the bottom of them, but the White House has been less than transparent about what kind of warnings filtered up from the intelligence agencies before the attack on the consulate, and whether there was a way that American security forces could have arrived sooner, perhaps in time to save some of the American lives. No doubt the argument will focus on a narrower issue: why the administration stuck so long to its story that this was a protest against a film that turned into something worse, rather than a preplanned attack by insurgents. For Mr. Romney, the task is to show that the Benghazi attack was symptomatic of bigger failings in the Middle East, a road he started down in the last debate, but an argument he never completed.

IRAN With the revelation in The New York Times on Sunday reported by Helene Cooper and Mark Landler that the Obama administration has secretly agreed in principle to direct, bilateral talks after the election, the urgent question for the candidates is this: in a negotiation, what would you be willing to let Iran hold onto in return for a deal that gave the United States and Israel confidence that Tehran could not gain a nuclear weapons capability? It’s a hard question for both men.

Mr. Romney has said he would not allow Iran to have any enrichment capability at all — something it is allowed under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as long as it is abiding by the treaty’s rules — a position that would kill any talks. But Mr. Obama does not want to say the obvious: that he is willing to allow Iran to hold onto some face-saving enrichment capability as long as it does not retain its stockpiles of medium-enriched fuel, which can be converted to bomb-grade. Also, look for answers to the question of whether the United States would back up Israel if it decided to conduct a military strike against Iran. Mr. Romney wants to show that Mr. Obama has created “daylight” between the United States and Israel; Mr. Obama wants to demonstrate that while he has Israel’s back, he is trying to protect the country from taking an action he considers unwise, at least at this stage.

CYBERWAR Mr. Obama cannot talk about “Olympic Games,” the covert program that the United States has conducted against Iran, with Israel’s help, using a cyberweapon against another country for the first time in history. But do Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney consider cyberweapons a legitimate tool in America’s arsenal, or too risky, since the United States is the most vulnerable country in the world? We have never heard either candidate answer the question.

AFGHANISTAN There was a time when Mr. Romney declared that America should not be negotiating with the Taliban, but that it should be killing all the Taliban. He stopped saying that after his aides suggested that it sounded like a prescription for endless war. Now both Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama say they think that America should be out of Afghanistan by 2014, the internationally agreed deadline for the withdrawal of forces, though Mr. Romney has the caveat that he wants to hear from his generals first. (The generals thought that Mr. Obama’s insistence on setting a clear deadline for withdrawal was a bad idea — as did Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and many others.) So what do we want to hear from the candidates?

Lots.

For starters, if it looks as if Kabul could fall back into Taliban hands in a few years, do either of them think the United States should re-intervene? It would be nice to know if Mr. Obama agrees with his vice president, Joseph R. Biden Jr., that all American troops should be out by the end of 2014, since the White House plan calls for an “enduring presence” of 10,000 to 15,000 troops that would back up the weak Afghan security forces and keep an eye on Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. (The remaining base would also be a place to launch drone strikes into Pakistan and Afghanistan, when necessary.) And for Mr. Romney, if he believes the pullout in Iraq was too hasty, and the pullout in Afghanistan risks making the same mistake, what kind of continuing presence would he have in mind?

THE ARAB UPRISINGS Afghanistan is already in America’s rearview mirror, but the Arab uprisings are not. Mr. Romney says that the rise of Islamic governments is an Obama administration failure. The White House says that if you have free elections in Islamic nations, you cannot be surprised when the Muslim Brotherhood and the harder-line Salafists win control of the government. The question is how to deal with these governments: conditional aid, to ensure American values are respected? Trade restrictions? Gentle persuasion?

This would also be the area to understand when and why each man would advocate future interventions. Mr. Obama joined in the Libya strike, which Mr. Romney thought was a mistake. But Mr. Obama has been hesitant to do much in Syria — a very different kind of conflict — while Mr. Romney says he would arm the rebels with heavy-duty antiaircraft and antitank weapons. Since the light weapons are already going into the wrong hands, how exactly would he find a way to overthrow Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad?

CHINA Perhaps the most important long-term subject of the debate. Mr. Romney promises a hard line, saying he would declare China as a currency manipulator from Day 1 of his presidency. But he has not said much about Day 2, or Year 2. This is the moment for each candidate to describe how he would counter China’s growing claims in the South China Sea and other disputed territories, how he would handle trade tensions, and how he would manage a world in which the United States, for better or worse, is going to be reliant on Chinese investment in American debt for years to come. And it is the moment for each to give his view of the leadership change under way in China, where three-quarters of the top political posts are about to change hands.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/mondays-debate-puts-focus-on-foreign-policy-clashes/?hp

Romney family buys voting machines through Bain Capital investment

Tagg Romney, the son of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, has purchased electronic voting machines that will be used in the 2012 elections in Ohio, Texas, Oklahoma, Washington and Colorado.

“Late last month, Gerry Bello and Bob Fitrakis at FreePress.org broke the story of the Mitt Romney/Bain Capital investment team involved in H.I.G. Capital which, in July of 2011, completed a “strategic investment” to take over a fair share of the Austin-based e-voting machine company Hart Intercivic,” according to independent journalist Brad Friedman.

But Friedman is not the only one to discover the connection between the Romney family, Bain Capital, and ownership of voting machines.

Truth out reports:

“Through a closely held equity fund called Solamere, Mitt Romney and his wife, son and brother are major investors in an investment firm called H.I.G. Capital. H.I.G. in turn holds a majority share and three out of five board members in Hart Intercivic, a company that owns the notoriously faulty electronic voting machines that will count the ballots in swing state Ohio November 7. Hart machines will also be used elsewhere in the United States.

In other words, a candidate for the presidency of the United States, and his brother, wife and son, have a straight-line financial interest in the voting machines that could decide this fall’s election. These machines cannot be monitored by the public. But they will help decide who “owns” the White House.”

Both The Nation and New York Times confirm the connection between the Romney family, Solamere and the Bain Capital investment in the voting machine company, Hart Intercivic, whose board of directors serve H.I.G. Capital.

“Mitt Romney, his wife Ann Romney, and their son Tagg Romney are also invested in H.I.G. Capital, as is Mitt’s brother G. Scott Romney.

The investment comes in part through the privately held family equity firm called Solamere, which bears the name of the posh Utah ski community where the Romney family retreats to slide down the slopes.” Truth out added.

There are also political connections between Solamere and the Romney’s. “Matt Blunt, the former Missouri governor who backed Mr. Romney in 2008, is a senior adviser to Solamere, as is Mitt Romney’s brother, Scott, a lawyer,” according to the New York Times.

Voter ID and voter fraud have been top issues in the 2012 race, as have claims of Republican voter suppression. Mr. Romney’s campaign has also been the subject of controversy over misleading ads, false claims, sketchy math on his tax plan, and overall vagueness on women’s rights and other hot button issues.

Raising further questions of legitimacy in the Romney campaign is an audio recording recently made public, where Mitt Romney is heard asking independent business owners to apply pressure to their employees to influence their votes. What has also been made public are the emails those employers have sent to their employees with an implied threat that if they don’t vote for Romney they may lose their jobs.

What it all says is that Mitt Romney, with the help of his family and Bain Capital connections, is more than willing to try to take the White House through illegitimate and highly unethical, if not specifically illegal means.

With each passing day, the character and campaign methods of Mitt Romney cast an ever-darker shadow over free and fair American elections.

Yet there is an irony in the Romney campaign that cannot be ignored. For all the noise the right-wing has made in questioning the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency, there have been so many questionable efforts made to help put Romney in the White House, if he wins, there should be great dispute over whether his election could ever be called genuinely illegitimate.

The nagging question is why, if Mr. Romney truly has the qualities that American voters want in their president, does he have to go to such great and questionable lengths to try to win the election.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/13221476-romney-family-buys-voting-machines-through-bain-capital-investment

Introducing Greg Brannon the next Ron Paul

Video Caption

James Carville Says 80% Of Democrats Are Politically Clueless

RESPECTED DEMOCRAT OPERATIVE SPILLS HIS GUTS ON WHAT HE THINKS OF HIS PARTY

James Carville, Democrat political consultant extraordinaire – and former Bill Clinton campaign manager, has astonishingly come out and said what all good Republicans have known for decades: Not only are most Democrats politically clueless; they’re easily manipulated by the puppet masters of their party as well. Wow. James Freaking Carville. Of all people. Here’s an excerpt, as quoted on Amazon.com:

“Ideologies aren’t all that important. What’s important is psychology

The Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows. All you have to do is lay out enough silage and they come running. That’s why I became an operative working with Democrats. With Democrats all you have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to use the ole cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd.

Eighty percent of the people who call themselves Democrats don’t have a clue as to political reality.

What amazes me is that you could take a group of people who are hard workers and convince them that they should support social programs that were the exact opposite of their own personal convictions. Put a little fear here and there and you can get people to vote any way you want.

The voter is basically dumb and lazy. The reason I became a Democratic operative instead of a Republican was because there were more Democrats that didn’t have a clue than there were Republicans.

Truth is relative. Truth is what you can make the voter believe is the truth. If you’re smart enough, truth is what you make the voter think it is. That’s why I’m a Democrat. I can make the Democratic voters think whatever I want them to.”

Bingo. I couldn’t have written that for ol’ James any better myself. Truth be told, I’ve always had kind of a love-hate relationship with Carville. While I’ve never agreed with him on much of anything – unless he was commenting on the failures of his party, which unlike most political operatives, he’s not been afraid to do through the years – this is different. This amounts to a total confession of what I define in the right sidebar of this blog as the quintessential “political lie”:

Liberals saying things they know aren’t true for the sole purpose of exploiting the “less-than-informed” for political gain.

http://mikesright.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/james-carville-says-80-of-democrats-are-politically-clueless/

Why YOUR Vote Can Count with WriteInREVOLUTION.com

  Flash!  Ron Paul says Write In R3VOLution is “worthwhile” if it is an INDEPENDENT Effort and if Grassroots Wants to do it!

Through WriteInREVOLUTION.com you, along with millions of other Americans, will not only be voting for a candidate you can truly believe in, but you will also be sending a powerful message to those involved in secret computer vote counting that such unconstitutional elections will no longer be tolerated. Who are those involved? These powerful groups are the Republican National Committee (RNC), the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the 5 big TV networks, AP, and the four major corporations (Diebold, ES & S, Hart, Dominion) which have been hired by 99% of USA counties to conduct elections. These large corporations exclusively provide the software which instruct the computers what to do on election night. This software is off limits to the public. There is no EFFECTIVE paper trail. Moreover, there is no accountability.
MAKE SURE YOUR VOTE IS LEGALLY VERIFIED WITH THE INCLUSION OF YOUR AFFIDAVIT! Get your affidavit here on page 4 of this PDF and follow the instructions on page 3 of this PDF:
http://www.writeinron2012.com/write_in_minor_party_voter_affidavit.pdf

Here are the steps (READ THESE DETAILS):

1. Apply NOW for an Absentee ballot–time is limited (if you vote at your polling place not using an absentee ballot, follow the instructions at the bottom of page 3 of the PDF):Click on this link, then click on option 3 Get Absentee Ballot, then click on your state…
DO THIS EARLY! You will have to mail in your request for it!
http://www.longdistancevoter.org/#.UGujJq6oaSq2. Then go to this link and print all the 4 pages:
http://www.writeinron2012.com/write_in_minor_party_voter_affidavit.pdf

Please read this document carefully.

Pages 1-2 contain background info as to what we are doing and why

Page 3 of this contains very easy and direct instructions for 2 options–read carefully

Page 4 is the affidavit–read carefully

3. Finally – peruse the www.writeinrevolution.com site at your leisure once you have done the above.

ALSO WATCH THE VIDEO AT THIS PAGE AND SHARE IT WITH OTHERS:

Bev Harris – Hacking Democracy – Full Length

This is the story of Bev Harris and her organization Black Box Voting (http://www.blackboxvoting.org). She is a true American hero and a good example of what ALL Americans should be doing to ensure that our rights and liberties are protected against the elitist and special interest’s agenda!

“The fight is against the whole establishment!”-Tom Woods

Tom Woods guest hosts the Peter Schiff Show. After interviewing Sen. Rand Paul, Woods rips into compromising for the lesser of two evils and offers Ron Paul support in standing on principle.
Like- http://facebook.com/LibertyEvolution

My Vote Still Belongs To Ron Paul

“Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” Thomas Jefferson

I will write in Ron Paul on my ballot this year.

Why? That’s a question I have been asked many, many times. “Why would you waste your vote? Why not vote for Gary Johnson? At least he’s on the ballot.”

I am aware of this. There are a couple of third-party candidates running. There are also two other people on the ballot, both affiliated with major parties and mountains on money.The average American voter is an uniformed voter. Many watch TV to learn about who is running, and most just follow party over preference. I do not believe that Mitt Romney has a chance to win, but I wouldn’t vote for him, even if he did.

I definitely will not vote Democrat. No worries there.

Will Gary Johnson win? Probably not. We have to face reality here, folks. I would like to see a third-party candidate get a good percentage of the vote, just to scare the neo-cons. Unfortunately, I don’t see a third-party presidency happening any time soon. I do believe that the two-party system is a broken thing that needs to be discarded. Will it happen in 2012? Not very likely.

“Your vote won’t count for anything, even if your state counts the ballots. So, why would you write in Ron Paul?”

It’s fairly simple. He is the only person in this country that I would trust to be my president.

He is the only person who has the virtue and the decency to hold that office, and he wouldn’t have had to cheat to do it.

He is a true leader, and would work for peace and prosperity.

Ron Paul is the only person that ran who is not in favor of intervention in foreign affairs. He was the only candidate who was not afraid to speak up against the reckless spending involved in not only foreign wars, but foreign aid as well. He was the only candidate who was truly concerned about the economy. He champions bringing back a system of sound money, not based on worthless sheets of paper or inflation, but backed by gold, which is steady in value. He would end the corrupt Federal Reserve, and work to make America stronger and fiscally responsible.

He would work to cut off government funding of Planned Parenthood, who are a corporation and thus should fund their own business, not use taxpayer money. He is against abortion, but not against personal liberty. He espouses the Libertarian ideals of Mill, while holding to conservative values.

I could give you many more reasons…a list that would take a very long time to read! So, let’s get to the ones that I feel are the most important:

He was the only candidate that did not pander. He did not just tell people what they wanted to hear; and sometimes people didn’t want to hear what he did say. The truth is not always welcome. However, if we don’t face reality soon, we are headed for economic disaster.

Ron Paul knows that, and he doesn’t want us to suffer for the stupidity of Washington. He predicted the crises that we face because he understands economics. He doesn’t try to soften the truth.

There is no Band-Aid big enough to cover up the wounds that America has suffered.

He was the only one willing to be honest with the American people. He woke people up and warned us about what will happen if we don’t take control of our finances and our freedoms. He truly cares about Americans; not stereotypes or party lines.

Write-in votes count in Iowa. They will not be thrown away at the end of the day. You may think that my vote is wasted. I don’t agree.

A protest vote sends a multitude of messages in a state that counts write-ins. My ballot will say more than, “Congressman Ron Paul.”

My vote will tell the establishment within my state party that I do not accept their nominee, nor do I consent to be governed by Mitt Romney.

It will tell the majority of the Iowa Republican Party that I am still on board with them and that I will continue to work for liberty at a state and local level. It will tell my precinct that I did not waver in my choice of candidate, that I have stuck by the person I stumped for at the caucus.

It will tell my children that I am a principled person, and that I didn’t jump ship when I perceived failure.

It will tell my husband, who is a veteran, that I don’t want to send our children into foreign wars with no declaration or purpose.

It tells me that I did not give up, because giving up is giving in.

I can tell myself that I am doing the right thing, not what someone else tells me to do. I own my vote. I have the freedom to make my own decisions.

I will not turn my back on liberty, and I will stand by Ron Paul.

“Have the courage to say no. Have the courage to face the truth. Do the right thing because it is right. These are the magic keys to living your life with integrity. “

W. Clement Stone

http://theunconventionalconservative.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/my-vote-still-belongs-to-ron-paul/

FASCISM RISING; America, Mitt Romney’s ‘CREATIVE DESTRUCTION’ Is NeoCon Economic Theory With Roots In FASCISM

Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad.  We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law.  Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace.  Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.  They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence—our existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy.  They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.”

– Michael Ledeen, NeoCon Theoretician, Author Of Book Universal Fascism

The quote above tells the truth… there is a world wide war on “traditional societies”, a culture war to destroy all cultures, home and abroad, to install a single world wide universal culture.  Ledeen mentions tearing down the “old order”, and in the article below he also mentions the “New Order” and the “New World Order”… ancient themes reinvigorated by the fascists of Italy, Nazi Germany, and France… and reinvigorated once again by George Bush Sr. when he said the “New Order is struggling to be born” and spoke of “the dream of a New World Order” on September 11, 1990.

Mitt Romney spouts “CREATIVE DESTRUCTION” NeoCon economic theories while at the same time and surrounding himself with top NeoCons like Bush Sr., Dick Cheney, Eliot Cohen (Romney 2012 Foreign Policy Adviser), and John Bolton (likely choice as Romney’s Secretary Of State), just to name a few… all war mongers, and all Project For The New American Century (PNAC) members*.

*Note: Bush Jr. & Bush Sr. are not officially on the PNAC Members list for political reasons, but they were both integral in the organization.

For more information on “CREATIVE DESTRUCTION” and its roots in FASCISM see the following story…

2003.6.30 Flirting With FASCISM (NeoCon Theorist Michael Ledeen Draws More From Italian FASCISM Than From The American Right) (theamericanconservative.com):

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/flirting-with-fascism/

http://deadlinelive.info/2012/10/18/fascism-rising-america-mitt-romneys-creative-destruction-is-neocon-economic-theory-with-roots-in-fascism/

A Major Event Could Occur during the Next Administration

http://www.RonPaul.com – Please like, share, subscribe & comment!

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/ronpauldotcom

Backup YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=ronpaulcom

Email updates: http://www.RonPaul.com

Video by Bexar Liberty at http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCva_Eaed27-NpZBWJtPi-sg

10/13/2012

Ron Paul is America’s leading voice for limited, constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, sound money, and a pro-America foreign policy.

To spread the message, visit and promote the following websites:

http://www.RonPaul.com (grassroots website)
http://www.house.gov/paul (Ron Paul in Congress)
http://www.RonPaulForums.com (discussion forum)

Does Mitt Romney’s Son Tagg Have An Investment In Some Ohio Voting Machines?

Tagg Romney made headlines yesterday after he said in an interview that he wanted to punch Barack Obama during the presidential debate on Monday night. Mitt Romney’s 42-year-old son, who has already faced criticism for his dealings with Allen Stanford who was convicted of milking investors out of $8 Billion in a Ponzi scheme, may have much bigger questions to answer after shocking allegations brought forth by PolitcolNews.com.

The website claims that Romney owns an interest in Hart Intercivic voting machines which will be used to calculate votes in Hamilton County. If true, this raises serious questions as there were a number of red flags during the 2004 campaign that saw George Bush defeat John Kerry. Some politicos still call into question the 2004 election for strange calculations that Diebold voting machines, who had openly supported Bush, came up with that November.

PoliticolNews.com writes:

As Lee Fang points out in his detailed analysis of the Romney investments

“Many of these private equity–owned companies rely on federal and state contracts, from HIG Capital’s Hart Intercivic, a voting machine company, to EnviroFoam Technologies, a biological and chemical decontamination firm that does business with the US military and is owned by Peterson Partners, a private equity firm listed in the Solamere prospectus.”

Solarmere’s tangled web of investments now includes Hart Intercivic voting machines which will be used in Cincinnati Ohio says Truth Out which could guarantee Mitt Romney the White House.

The State of Ohio is Ground Zero for the White House, in particular Hamilton County a repeat of the George Bush election in 2004

The report was only released hours ago and Obama supporters already seem to be taking the news seriously. Change.org already has an online petition up and running that calls for “Attorney General Eric Holder: Investigate Tagg Romney owning voting machines in OHIO….”.

Looks like things may get very interesting in the Buckeye state in the coming weeks.

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/19137

OBAMA CUTS DEAL WITH IRAN OVER NUKES

Sanctions to vanish in exchange for ‘temporary’ halt in enrichment work

Iranian and U.S. negotiators have reached an agreement that calls for Iran to halt part of its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of many of the U.S. sanctions against the Islamic regime, according to a highly placed source.

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, expects a letter from President Obama in a few days guaranteeing the details of the agreement, arrived at recently during secret negotiations in Doha, Qatar.

The source, who remains anonymous for security reasons and is highly placed in Iran’s regime, said that once Khamenei receives Obama’s guarantees, he will authorize an announcement by Iran on a solution to the nuclear crisis before the U.S. presidential elections.

The agreement calls for Iran to announce a temporary halt to partial uranium enrichment after which the U.S. will remove many of its sanctions, including those on the Iranian central bank, no later than by the Iranian New Year in March. Iran is in the throes of massive inflation and citizen unrest because of the sanctions.

French intelligence verified today that Yukiya Amano, the current director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has been given the go-ahead by the U.S. to be ready to travel to Iran and announce the agreement, according to Hamid Reza Zakeri, a former intelligence officer in the regime who has defected to Europe.

The source in Tehran said Khamenei has made it clear that unless he receives Obama’s written guarantees, he will not begin the process, which would dramatically boost Obama’s re-election chances. If the guarantees are not given, Khamenei has warned, Iran will speed up its nuclear program.

The guarantees would ensure the regime’s right to peaceful enrichment, quickly remove many of the sanctions, accept that Iran’s nuclear program does not have a military dimension and relieve international pressure on the regime while it continues its nuclear program. Also, the U.S. would announce that the killing of Iranian nuclear scientists was the work of a foreign country, though Israel would not be named, to increase legal pressure on Israel.

According to the Iranian source, a previous Obama letter to Khamenei indicated that it’s best for the regime not to give any motive to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, a message that was re-emphasized in the Qatar negotiations.

As reported exclusively by WND Oct. 4, a three-person delegation led by a woman on behalf of the Obama administration traveled to Qatar about Oct. 1 and met with Iranian counterparts, including Ali Akbar Velayati, the former foreign minister of the Islamic regime and a close adviser to Khamenei on international matters.

In the meeting, according to the source, the U.S. delegation urged an announcement, even if only on a temporary nuclear deal, before the U.S. elections to help Obama get re-elected. A Romney presidency, the delegation said, would surely move more toward Israel, and the Iranians were reminded that Obama has stood up to Israel against any plans to attack Iran. The regime’s delegate was urged to understand that if Iran does not stand by Obama, Israel will attack Iran.

Days after the WND report, Ali Akbar Salehi, the regime’s foreign minister, in an
interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, stated, “If our right to enrichment is guaranteed, we are prepared to offer an exchange.”

The same message was relayed by several other officials of the regime.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said recently in Kazakhstan that the sanctions can be lifted immediately if Tehran worked with world powers to address questions about its nuclear program.

How Mitt Romney cheated his way to the GOP nomination

New evidence is coming out about just how tough and dirty the Mitt Romney campaign fought to block the Ron Paul takeover of the Republican Party at the State Conventions last summer.

It may offer a little sneak preview of what a Romney presidency will be like.  And make no mistake, barring war with Syria or some other dramatic October surprise, Romney will now win this election in a landslide.  At least, that is my humble opinion, as one who loves and reads history.  The economy will decide that.

It  turns out that Mitt Romney and other Republican operatives were apparently very much aware of what was going on at the precinct, county, district and state conventions.  This was not greedy state and country chairmen wanting to hang onto power so they could go to the RNC as delegates and get drunk.  The hardball tactics were apparently approved and refined from state to state from Iowa, where the state chairman got money for the GOP and promises and conveniently kept a Santorum popularity vote win and a Ron Paul delegate win, out of the news for months, all the way to Tampa, where pudgy, Romney Brownshirt  goons raced along the streets in golf cart-like vehicles, looking for demonstrators to divert into chain fence cages beyond view of the media.  Welcome to Romney’s America.

Remember Arizona?  Where there were accusations of voter fraud and physical violence against Ron Paul delegates?  Where delegates were sweated out, kept in 100 degree temperatures without air conditioning and without breaks for water or toilet, in hopes of getting them to give up?

Remember Nathan Sproul?

Remember my blog last summer, claiming fraud and miscounts and ballots taken away for the night to be recounted with numbers changed the next day?  Well,  Mr. Sproul called Ron Paul headquarters and threatened a lawsuit so I had to take down one of those blogs.  Now, what I wrote last summer, as a voice in the wilderness , is being published openly by the New York Times.  The mainstream media didn’t mind seeing Ron Paul get mauled but their precious Obama is another matter.  Now there are public reports of voter fraud at the hands of Mr. Sproul and a new revelation that he has recently been on the Republican Party payroll to the tune of millions of dollars and assigned to do his deeds in five states.

There is more.  It turns out that Nathan Sproul is now linked to Karl Rove who may have hired him as well.  Rove has a curiously malevolent streak of his own.   In Tampa, at the Romney coronation, Rove suggested – in jest we all presume – the murder of fellow Republican Senate Candidate Todd Akin, who had won the Missouri primary fair and square but now refused to resign and let Rove’s favorite candidate, who had lost, take his place.

Akin misspoke on abortion.  Rove, who misspoke on murder, is to be excused.

See: Karl Rove tied to shady GOP operative Nathan Sproul

Meanwhile, a major television network is now finally tracking the story of the Louisiana  State GOP.  Remember how Romney-Santorum people hired off duty policemen, telling them to arrest troublemakers when they pointed them out?  And then after they were voted out and new Ron Paul people were voted in to run the convention they had the hired off duty policeman arrest the new duly elected chairmen who was manhandled?  One was knocked to the ground another had his fingers broken while in police custody?  Well, that is going to court.  Yes, the Ron Paul victims will win, but the Romney people could care less, they got what they wanted and no apology has been offered.  Welcome to Romney’s America.

Remember our Ron Paul hero in Missouri, Brent Stafford, who was elected county chairman in St. Charles?  Who was arrested and hauled off to jail by off duty police hired by Romney people?  He was finally acquitted and the Romney person who ordered the arrest actually applauded the court’s decision.  Stafford, may file a lawsuit as well, but the Romney people won’t care.  They got what they wanted.

Perhaps the most damaging news of all for the Romney campaign is the emerging story of Charlie “The Cheater” Nejedly.  Charlie was caught in Maine, wearing a Ron Paul sticker, passing out fake Ron Paul slates at the Maine State Convention which the Romney people had clearly lost.  He was outed on the floor in Maine and soon afterward overheard talking to Romney’s likely nominee for Attorney General, campaign legal counsel, Ben Ginsburg.  According to the source, Ginsburg told Nejedly, “We need to get you to Boston.”

It now appears that Charlie “the Cheater” worked the Massachusetts convention too and that he was a paid staffer on the Romney payroll.  What’s worse, he is a Notre Dame graduate, which leads to all kinds of conflicts for this author.  I grew up in South Bend and I love Notre Dame.  And this week they play Brigham Young University.  And Manti Teo’s parents are in the audience.  Oh my?  What can I do?

I will still root for Notre Dame, of course, but Mitt Romney “the cheater” may have to wait for me to cool down a bit.  What was he thinking?  I know what he was thinking?  He was thinking that we would all come around and vote for him instead of Obama because of the economy.  So he could cheat and fake to his heart’s content.  But the more clearly in focus it becomes the less impressed I am of Romney’s America.  Where are we headed?

http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/how-mitt-romney-cheated-his-way-to-the-gop-nomination/

Why they had to stop Ron Paul

Yes, of course it was the Federal Reserve. Paul wanted to investigate it and audit it thoroughly, and if by some remote chance he became president, he would have had the leverage to go deep and deeper. And then the global banksters would have tumbled out of the woodwork, for all to see.

But Paul also wanted to bring all the American troops home and get them out of foreign wars. That was just as big a deal. He was stepping on some huge toes there.

So let’s explore a few pieces of America’s current military adventurism and see who’s hiding under what rocks.

Once you laugh off the ridiculous idea that the government is promoting democracy through the Arab Spring, strange questions surface.

Who’s running the real op in the Middle East, and what is their goal?

Obama’s obvious propensity for all things Islamic…how does that fit in?

According to one sensible scenario, the spreading Arab Spring is merely a front for a covert op, whose real ambition—using Libyan and other trained terrorists and NATO surrogates—is a US takeover of the Middle East and North Africa.

And then? Previous dictators in that region, overthrown, will give way to Muslim states, and new Islamic leadership will pay back under-the-table promises to US elites, who want…what?

A better oil deal?

What’s really going on here?

There are those who believe US ambitions in the Middle East have everything to do with establishing a ring of military bases close to Russia. Such moves on the planetary chessboard would signify an enduring competition between the two primary Cold War players. If true, is the only way to achieve American military hegemony through igniting the whole Muslim world? Isn’t that a bit risky? A bit crazy?

Assuming the current chaos in the Middle East and parts of Africa is all a US plan to utilize Islamic proxies, how sensible and pragmatic is the strategy, given the unpredictable range of future consequences? Is this a genius maneuver?

With countries in the Middle East coming, for example, under Muslim Brotherhood control, is the US more likely or less likely to preserve the unimpeded flow of oil? Is a “better oil deal” really in the offing?

Is there another way to look at US actions in the Middle East over the last two presidencies?

One thing is clear. George W Bush and Barack Obama are not highly rated war planners or foreign policy pros. They’re neophytes. They’re also, of course, like the whole parade of modern US presidents, instruments of higher forces. They’re front men.

This doesn’t mean Bush and Obama really comprehend who they’re actually working for. It simply means they’re dupes.

Just as it was eminently predictable that Bush, after 9/11, would want to invade Iraq (“Saddam tried to kill my dad”) and would go along with plans that were on the drawing board long before 9/11, it has been predictable that Obama would show “warm support” for and special treatment to Islam, imagining its modern destiny in terms of “a great self-determined uprising.” Hence, Obama’s key role in Arab Spring.

In other words, both Bush and Obama were carefully profiled long before they ever took office as president.

Profiled by whom?

If we draw an arc of power, extending at least as far back as Vietnam (or from the beginning of the 20th century), coming forward through the latter stages of the Cold War, and then into “the age of terrorism,” the question of who benefits has an answer.

It is the same answer you would get if you inquired into the objectives of the Rockefeller family, the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the elite bankers who breathe life into economies and take life away, according to their private timetable.

Who benefits from the last decade of manipulated US foreign policy and military wars?

The military-industrial complex? Yes.

But above and beyond that?

The great beneficiaries are the elite Globalists who are determined to establish a planetary management system, a political New World Order.

And by using tools like Obama and Bush, they have made headway toward achieving a major item on their agenda: degrade and sink and weaken, and ultimately destroy the United States by keeping it at war.

The United States, from the Globalist perspective, needs to be brought down. It needs to have its pillars crumble. It needs to go away.

There are two reasons. One, it is the primary place in the world where the idea of individual freedom is still alive. And two, its government’s persistent ambition to create unilateral Empire is a threat to international Globalist control of the planet.

American empire and Globalist empire are not exactly the same thing. In the long run, as far as the Rockefellers of this world are concerned, they are mutually exclusive.

So what better way to weaken America than to cater to its government’s empire-building obsession, and to use that obsession to propel it into high-risk military adventures that dead-end in disasters?

Disasters such as:

Huge budget expenditures on wars and ensuing debt. Demoralization of American citizens through wars, to say nothing of the injuries and deaths and debilitation of soldiers. An embrace with radical Islam, and all the blowback that brings. The eventual pinching off of oil supplies in the Middle East. International chaos. Engendering hatred of America abroad. Inculcating self-hatred of the US among Americans at home. Confusion, passivity, despair.

A classic takedown.

In his 2003 Memoirs, David Rockefeller wrote: “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Did you think David was just playing patty-cake, that his plan was only about subverting the money supply, that this was going to be a gentlemanly world domination scheme? No. This is also blood and guts and fear and terror.

The Globalists play for keeps.

US foreign policy and military aggression over the last decade makes no sense because it wasn’t supposed to. That policy was using two dupes, Bush and Obama, to achieve something these preposterous presidents were only dimly aware of.

Of the two, Obama, with his Marxist background, is more cognizant. But he, too, is caught up in his private vision. For him, it is all about some grand “liberation” scheme and imagined “payback” for past oppression.

He was chosen to be president because that is his character.

No, the Arab Spring isn’t ultimately about American hegemony and domination in the Middle East. It’s about a grand American failure there. That’s what’s on page one of the grand Globalist plan. And it’s coming true.

The American war-mongers are following their playbook, and they are being directed, unknowingly, by the Globalist princes, who are using that war-mongering to sink America.

From that perspective, what is happening in the Middle East makes sense.

If Romney wins the election, he will fit neatly into the Bush mold. He’ll join the war party. He’ll see America defeating evil everywhere by continued force. He’ll jump right into the trap.

Only Ron Paul had it right. Bring home everybody. Bring home all the soldiers and stop the madness. That’s why the Bilderberg people hate him so much. He sees a bigger picture. The whole defamation of the Tea Party makes sense, too, at a much deeper level. The Tea Party supported Ron Paul. Many of them, too, saw there was something very, very wrong about Americans For a New Military Century.

Paul and the Tea Party had to be stopped. They had to be stopped, because the Globalist elite wanted the American government-military-contractor-corporate nexus to pursue their insane goals of Middle East domination and fail

Does this sound too complicated to be real? It’s no more complicated than using a bully’s force to defeat him. Only in this case, the victor is a larger bully.

“See? These crazy American war-mongers want to invade everybody and defeat the world. Why stop them? We have to encourage them. We have to engineer what they’re doing so it makes some kind of sense to the American people, so the people don’t rebel. We’ll supply the presidents who’ll supply the rationale, and we’ll keep stoking the fire. Sooner or later, the war-mongers will run out of steam. They’ll crash on the rocks and we’ll pick up the pieces. Let’s make sure they go to the Middle East. There isn’t a better place to fail utterly. Except maybe Afghanistan. Oh, let’s make sure they go there, too, for a long time. Fantastic! Let’s support and massage and polish and push those mad goals!”

Of course, the picture I’ve drawn here becomes a little more complicated when you factor in the role of mega-corporations, who want their considerable piece of the global pie. The American War Mongers and the Globalist Princes “share” certain corporations. Yes, there are overlapping interests. But there is a strong division between those who want American Power and those who want Globalist Power.

The picture of America supporting the Arab Spring and encouraging the Muslim Brotherhood and covertly using terrorists to overthrow dictators in Egypt, Libya, and Syria looks crazy because it is crazy. It’s failure waiting to happen. Obama is presently going along with it, because he is predisposed to want “the liberation of Islam.”

The neocons stand for American empire. People like David Rockefeller stand for destruction of America.

I know there is a tendency to say, “Oh, they’re all bastards and traitors, who cares what their goals are. They’re our enemies. We don’t need to draw subtle differences.”

I suggest the differences aren’t subtle at all. In the first case, you have the government-corporate nexus of the United States directing its energies to become a Roman Caesar extending unilateral empire to far horizons. In the second case, you have Globalist agents pushing those ambitions forward because they know the failure will be huge and spectacular.

Do you think Julius Caesar was entirely alone in his tent cooking up plans to stretch the Roman Empire to the ends of the Earth? Don’t you think there were a few key people planted in his circle of advisors who wanted take Rome down? These covert agents bolstered Caesar, encouraged him, showed him why Rome could only survive by conquering more lands and people. They fed him whatever worked to egg him on toward an eventual future of ruin.

To boil it down to a stark analogy: one crazy man drives his car every day across a plateau toward a cliff. He’s convinced he can go faster and faster and still stop in time. The second man, who is his covert enemy and who is crazy like a fox, tells him, yes, driving faster is a great idea, keep going, don’t stop at 80mph, take it up to 90 and 100, you’re a fantastic driver, I bet you can go 200mph and still stop in time…

The neocons of America actually believe they can take over and transform the whole world through military force. Their remaining shreds of common sense are blasted away by Globalists, breathing down their necks telling them how great and powerful they (the neocons) are, showing them how they can extend empire right into…gigantic failure.

Ron Paul and his supporters saw pieces and sections of this whole insane situation and said, “Stop it all. Bring all our soldiers home. End the madness.”

They threatened everybody in power on all levels. They cut to the chase. That’s why they had to be scrubbed from the picture and sent to the bleachers, like embarrassing cousins from the hills.

That’s why, for example, the idiots at MSNBC pounded on the Tea Party night after night and never mentioned that many, many of these “hicks and racists and bitter clingers” wanted an end to American wars much more fervently than MSNBC’s Messiah, Barack Obama, did. That fact was never brought up. It went against the script.

FOX and CNN never brought it up in any serious way, either. The three other major networks stayed away from it like the plague, too.

Ron Paul, before he dropped out of the race, was educating millions of Americans about war. In the history of outsider “peace candidates” for president, there has never been anyone at his level.

Historically, several peace candidates have been socialists. They wanted an end to American aggression so the Soviet Union could advance its agenda more easily. Ron Paul wanted peace because the Constitution was framed to permit war only on the basis of defense of the nation—and not on the basis of empire-building.

And to media agents of Globalism, the Constitution is like a silver bullet to a vampire. The Constitution promotes life and decimates the Walking Undead.

I believe there is a lot more to this story, including the future role of multinational corporations under a Globalist New World Order. But this is a start. And it offers a reason (among several other reasons) why Ron Paul was stopped in his tracks, a reason not cited nearly enough.

Ron Paul given rock star treatment at UVU

“I, quite frankly, am convinced that we live in a great period of time. It’s a great time to be alive because I think the opportunities are different than ever before.”Ron Paul

 

OREM — Ron Paul received a robust welcome at Utah Valley University on Thursday, drawing supportive chants, cheers and standing ovations from the audience as he lambasted the federal reserve, income taxes, the war on drugs, the war in Afghanistan, medicare, welfare and foreign policy.

The longtime Texas congressman and three-time presidential candidate brought his trademark small government message to the UCCU Center to the delight of the near-capacity crowd. But while Paul’s remarks were critical of U.S. government both past and present, his message focused on the ability of individuals to band together and demand change.

“There truly is a revolution happening in the country, and people’s attitudes are changing,” he said. “There is reason to be optimistic about what is happening today.”

Paul made several references to the role technology plays in society today. He encouraged all in attendance to take advantage of the Internet and social networking to educate themselves and help other people understand the benefits of limited government.

Paul also said that personal freedom and civil liberty are not ideas embraced only by a small subset of the Republican party. They are fundamental principals that bring people together from the entire political spectrum, he said.

“Peace is better than war. Free markets are better than socialism. Balanced budgets are better than spending,” Paul said. “Why do we lose this argument? It seems like it’s so attractive.”

On policy issues, he spent a large portion of his speech discussing the welfare system and federal spending. In his lifetime, Paul said he’s watched government increase its commitment to social programs to the detriment of the middle and lower classes.

“Once you endorse the principle of welfarism, guess what? The poor get poorer, and the rich get richer,” he said. “It’s a totally failed system. And we can’t be intimidated by those that argue, ‘If you don’t support the welfare system, you’re not a humanitarian.'”

Some of the loudest applause from the audience came from the portion of Paul’s remarks focused on foreign policy, particularly comments that he was opposed to pre-emptive war and that U.S. forces should be immediately removed from Afghanistan.

Audience members also cheered during Paul’s more traditionally liberal arguments. He talked at length about individual liberty as it pertains to intellectual and religious freedom, adding that the same concepts should be applied to what people eat and drink or how they choose to live their lives.

People should be free to make their own choices, Paul said, as long as they take personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions. He said there are a number of bad habits that can hurt people, but they are no more damaging than bad intellectual ideas.

“If we allow people to make their own decisions about their eternity and what they put into their brain, why is it that we have not adapted and accepted that same principle to what people do with their personal habits and what they put into their bodies?”

Daniel Hermansen, a Sandy resident and Paul supporter, traveled to Orem to listen to the speech. Hermansen said he volunteered for the Paul campaign in Iowa and Nevada and last spring was working to organize a Paul event at the University of Utah before the candidate suspended his active campaign.

Hermansen has had the opportunity to hear Paul speak several times, but he said the remarks at UVU was a good mixed bag for people with little exposure to Paul’s ideology, as well as more researched Libertarians.

“It was an awesome speech,” he said of Paul’s address at UVU. “I always love hearing Ron Paul.”

Hermansen said he wasn’t surprised at the audience’s warm reception to Paul’s talking points, even those subjects on the typically liberal end of the spectrum, because everything the congressman said ties back to the idea of personal responsibility.

Paul doesn’t endorse certain choices, Hermansen explained, but argues that people should be free to make their choices and face the consequences.

“That’s one of the most fundamental principles behind liberty and our constitution,” he said.

Paul concluded his remarks by commenting on the state of democratic debate in the information age. He said any person who is for peace, prosperity or any other issue has access to the world around them, and he urged those in attendance to work toward causing an intellectual revolution.

“I, quite frankly, am convinced that we live in a great period of time,” Paul said. “It’s a great time to be alive because I think the opportunities are different than ever before.”

With less than a month before the election, Hermansen said it’s not likely the political paradigm shift called for by Paul could happen before the next president is decided. But he added that part of what Paul and his supporters are frustrated with is the idea that election day is the only time when individuals can influence government.

“That one day is only part of what are our decisions and what our actions are during the rest of the year,” Hermansen said. “The other 364 days are what make election day more or less important.”

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865564794/Ron-Paul-given-rock-star-treatment-at-UVU.html?pg=1

Ron Paul Sound Currency Message is Resonating With Worldwide Leaders, Including China

Ron Paul Sound Currency Message is Resonating With Worldwide Leaders Including China

 

While doing the research for this article, it appeared the leaders of China have been listening to Ron Paul while most leaders in the U.S. continue to mock him.

Though history proves fiat currencies fail, central banks, including the Federal Reserve are bound and determined to convince the world that this time history won’t repeat itself.

So, if you were China and you owned $1.2 trillion in U.S. bills, notes, and bonds, what would you do to hedge your bets and cover your fanny? Exactly what China is doing: buying gold. In fact, they are buying so much; it appears they are preparing for a world beyond the fiat dollar. A future world in which the renminbi backed by gold could become the dominant reserve currency.

State-owned China National, CEO Sun Zhaoxue commented on the acquisition of African Barrick Gold Ltd, saying, “As gold is a currency in nature, no matter if it’s for state economic security or for the acceleration of renminbi internationalization, increasing the gold reserve should be one of the key strategies of China.” So, in spite of the fact China is the world’s largest producer of gold, it appears important enough for China to still acquire interest in mines in other countries.

And Zhaoxue sounds suspiciously like Ron Paul when he says, “Gold is currency.”

But then we hear Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, telling students at George Washington University how impractical a gold backed currency is, “I mean, what you have to do to have a gold standard is you have to go to South Africa or some place and dig up tons of gold and move it to New York.”

So while Bernanke is teaching students it’s too much of a problem to mine and ship gold to the U.S. to fill our void, the Chinese are buying up the mines — in Africa.

China is mining gold, buying gold, buying gold mines and encouraging its citizens to buy gold. They are even minting gold coins in various sizes to make it easier for citizens to accumulate. Maybe we need to take another look at Zhaoxue’s statement. “…for the acceleration of renminbi internationalization…” And right now the renminbi is fiat like all other currencies, right?

Reports in the past have told us it would be years before the dollars’ place, as the world reserve currency would end. At one time economists speculated if the dollar were ever replaced, it would be by the euro. Not anymore. Following the world wide financial collapse in 2008, and the stresses by such countries as Greece, the euro continues to teeter. The world watches for the impact of more Euro zone bailouts; it’s not looking good. All eyes right now are on Spain, as a not “if” but “when” bailout.

And then there is the fiscal cliff Ron Paul has warned about in the U.S. Failure by our nation’s leaders to reign in spending on domestic social issues, tighten tax loop-holes that encourage off-shore banking and investments by the rich (Hello Romney), an out of control military industrial complex pushing U.S. imperialism all over the world, and of course the Bush era tax cuts that are getting ready to expire and the now loss of the petrodollar. Add to that, the never ending Federal Reserve’s QEs. How much more can the fiat paper dollar withstand, even if stacked a billion thick?

Many people just don’t realize how aggressive the competition against the greenback has become in just the last two years by the red renminbi of China. The remnimbi is positioning itself to be viewed as a real global reserve currency alternative. China is not one to make public most of their financial plans, but let’s look at some of the stories that have made it into the mainstream media:

Russia and China in 2010 decided to do away with debt exchanges using the U.S. dollar and instead trade directly in ruble and renminbi.

In December 2011, Japan and China announced they would be promoting trades directly with each other and sidestepping the dollar. Last year’s trades were about $340 billion. At the same time China announced a direct $11 billion currency swap with Thailand.

In January 2012, Wen Jiabao, the Chinese Premier, signed a $5.5 billion currency swap with the United Arab Emirates.

Then at the end of January there is an article from Forbes answering the question “Why is China buying so much gold?” Forbes simple answer; a substitute against capital flight. What? The Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao is the one flying all over the world setting up all these currency swaps.

In late March 2012, according to Zeebiz, “The five major emerging economies of BRICS — Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — are set to inject greater economic momentum into their grouping by signing two pacts for promoting intra-BRICS trade at the fourth summit of their leaders…” And, “The pacts are expected to scale up intra-BRICS trade which has been growing at the rate of 28% over the last few years, but at $230 billion, remains much below the potential of the five economic power houses.”

In March 2012, we learned Dubai-based Emirates NBD the largest bank is selling dim sum bonds, debt securities issued in the Chinese yuan.

Again in March 2012, China and Australia sign a $30+ billion swap agreement. According to the Reserve Bank of Australia, “The main purposes of the swap agreement are to support trade and investment between Australia and China, particularly in local-currency terms, and to strengthen bilateral financial cooperation. The agreement reflects the increasing opportunities available to settle trade between the two countries in Chinese renminbi and to make RMB-denominated investments.”

In April, we learn in a report from Forbes, that China will be avoiding U.S. financial sanctions against Iran by making oil purchases not only bartering goods, but also using gold.

So, again gold is money. And gold is as a petrocurrency as opposed to the petrodollar that may lead to more petrowars.

In late June 2012, China and Chile agreed to strengthen their ties in a strategic partnership and double their trade in three years. The leaders of the two nations, Jiabao and Pinera, also announced the completion of negotiations on investment-related supplementary deals to a bilateral free trade agreement.

Also in late June of 2012, China and Brazil agreed to a $30 billion currency swap.

Hold on a minute, what did Ron Paul say about the U.S. establishing trade around the world but keeping our noses out of other nations business? Sounds like the leader of China was listening to Ron Paul. According to Paul’s critics, what we are witnessing from Jiabao is isolationism in action. Of course, the enlightened know this isn’t so. In fact, Jiabao is a stellar example of Paul’s non-interventionist stance and is promoting trade with other countries.

Then in August 2012, Germany and China announced they are going to be doing a lot of their trade in the Euro and renminbi. The article leaves out any mention of bypassing the dollar. Maybe by now it should just be understood.

China encourages its citizens to accumulate gold. Gold coins are minted in China in varying sizes easing the way for the people to accumulate gold. China is the largest producer of gold in the world. And now as China increases trade around the world using renminbi, and it is also beginning to use gold as currency and in exchange for oil.

Ron Paul has repeatedly said the U.S. should consider gold a currency and if we are to continue printing paper dollars we need to return to a gold standard, so the dollar will have value. The Federal Reserve Bank, Obama, Romney and their supporters brush away Paul’s comments as though his warnings were gnats.

Ron Paul alerts us of a day when the dollar has no value. He warns of a day this country topples over a fiscal cliff.

On that day, don’t be surprised to look up and see the renminbi— backed by gold emerging as the world’s reserve currency.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/16690/ron-paul-sound-currency-message-is-resonating-with-worldwide-leaders-including-china

Is Canada a DeFacto Police State?

If Arthur Topham’s experience is an indication, Organized Jewry need only file a complaint and their critics will be arrested, their homes searched, computers seized and their freedoms severely restricted. All this without so much as a charge, let alone a trial. If this isn’t grounds for a law suit against the Bnai Brith and RCMP, I don’t know what is.The Illuminati bankers are enslaving humanity by destroying nation, race, religion and family (gender.) They are using Organized Jewry as one of many instruments. Anyone raising a voice in protest is harassed by duplicitous and disingenuous cries of “hate”. If you are not outraged at Topham’s treatment, you have accepted servitude.

 

In Canada, Zionist Jews, acting at the behest of the B’nai Brith International (a secret Jews-only masonic order formed by Rothschild agents ), had the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) arrest Arthur Topham  in May, 2012. The charge that was committing a “hate” crime.
As a result of a “hate crime” complaint,  laid by B’nai B’rith operatives  Richard Warman and Harry Abrams , Topham was put in jail and his home  invaded by the “BC Hate Crime Team.”  His computers and electronic files were stolen by the “Hate Crime Team” led by Det. Cst. Terry Wilson and  Cst. Normandie Levas.
Topham was never formally charged. Nevertheless, Wilson arbitrarily imposed severe restrictions on Topham before releasing him after 12 hours in a cell. He was ordered not to go on the internet or email anyone other than those few individuals who he was working with in a private business venture.
Foremost was the order not to post any more articles on the web. The reason for this? According to the police, this was to stop him from committing further offences.
In other words, he was already guilty of  the alleged “crime” and so was prohibited from committing more offenses!
 But the real reason was to keep him quiet while the police were busy going through all of his private communications with associates from around the world. He had thousands of letters stored in his machine that the police were desperate to get a hold of and snoop into. So desperate in fact that they were willing to obtain an illegal search warrant from a Judge based upon erroneous evidence in order to justify their actions.
An example of this erroneous evidence was a booklet “Israel Must Perish” which appeared on Topham’s site. Det. Cst. Wilson cited it as an example of Topham’s “hate” when in fact it was a 1941 book, “Germany Must Perish” by a Jewish author. Topham had merely inserted “Israel” where “Germany” appeared.
Eventually Topham’s lawyer Doug Christie was able to have the conditions of his Undertaking altered so that now he can send emails to friends and associates but he is still not allowed to write articles and post them anywhere on the web. 
 
To date, one hundred and fifty-five days after his arrest, he has not been charged formally with an offence. Yet the police and the state have effectively silenced him and prohibited him from publishing anything at all.
Free speech: only in Canada you say? NOT BY A LONG SHOT!
TOPHAM LEGAL DEFENSE FUND — DEFEND FREEDOM – SUE THE BASTARDS!
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Hwy
Quesnel, B.C. Canada
V2J 6T8
To donate via PayPal please go to the following website www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com and click on the PayPal button on the top right corner of the home page.
Reach Arthur at  radical@radicalpress.com

LA Times: Romney’s a drug-money launderer

Why Has Not Only Corporate Media, but also Obama’s Opposition Research Let Romney Slide on his Criminal Associations?

Mitt Romney made his fortune cleaning druglords’ cash

Back in July, the Los Angeles Times – not VT, Infowars or Truth Jihad Radio – broke the story that Mitt Romney is a drug money launderer. How did we all miss this story? (Until John Hankey and then Gordon Duff picked it up.)

Maybe it’s because the Times story never comes right out and says “drug money laundering.” It doesn’t have to.

What the Times article does say translates directly and unambiguously as DRUG MONEY LAUNDERING, in caps, exclamation point.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Romney’s company, Bain Capital, “paid out a stunning 173% in average annual returns over a decade.” “Stunning” is not the word. “Criminal” is more like it.

Bernie Madoff was arrested and went to jail because he was paying 10% annual returns. That’s how it came to light that he was running a criminal enterprise. You just cannot possibly pay 10% returns consistently, year in and year out, with legitimate investments. Never happened, never will.

Ponzi schemes sometimes pay as high as 20% – and soon collapse, and the perps go to jail. But a 173% annual return is far beyond the range of the craziest, most short-lived ponzi scheme.

Romney wasn’t running a ponzi scheme. He was running a drug money laundry. His clients, the Times explains, were shady characters from Panama. Here’s how it works:

A druglord hands Romney, a.k.a. Bain Capital, ten million dollars in cash. Romney puts it on his books as a one million dollar investment in Bain Capital.

At 173% interest, it only takes Romney a few years (officially) to return ten million laundered dollars to the druglord.

When the druglord is asked where he got his ten million dollars, he explains that he made a lucky investment with Bain Capital. And he has the papers to prove it.

Getting caught paying out an average 173% interest over ten years is like getting caught with a hundred pounds of cocaine. If you’re busted with a hundred pounds of cocaine, the presumption is that you’re dealing. If you’re caught paying 173% interest, the presumption is that you’re laundering drug money.

Romney, you are SO BUSTED.

For more information on Mitt Romney’s criminal history, check out John Hankey’s video Mitt Romney Exposed, and listen to my interview with Hankey on Truth Jihad Radio, to be archived soon here.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/17/la-times-romneys-a-drug-money-launderer/

Obama Pursuing Leakers Sends Warning to Whistle-Blowers

Eric Holder, attorney general under President Barack Obama, has prosecuted more government officials for alleged leaks under the World War I-era Espionage Act than all his predecessors combined, including law-and-order Republicans John Mitchell, Edwin Meese and John Ashcroft.

The indictments of six individuals under that spy law have drawn criticism from those who say the president’s crackdown chills dissent, curtails a free press and betrays Obama’s initial promise to “usher in a new era of open government.”

Earlier: Obama Cabinet Flunks Disclosure Test With 19 in 20 Ignoring Law.

“There’s a problem with prosecutions that don’t distinguish between bad people — people who spy for other governments, people who sell secrets for money — and people who are accused of having conversations and discussions,” said Abbe Lowell, attorney for Stephen J. Kim, an intelligence analyst charged under the Act.

Lowell, the Washington defense lawyer who has counted as his clients the likes of Jack Abramoff, the former Washington lobbyist, and political figures including former presidential candidate John Edwards, said the Obama administration is using the Espionage Act “like a club” against government employees accused of leaks.

Multimedia: Despite Transparency Promise, U.S. Denies More Than 300,000 Information Requests in One Year.

The prosecutions, which Obama and the Justice Department have defended on national security grounds, mean that government officials who speak to the media can face financial and professional ruin as they spend years fighting for their reputations, and, in some cases, their freedom.

‘Sense of Shame’

Kim’s troubles began in September 2009 when Federal Bureau of Investigation agents appeared at the State Department, where he worked as a contract analyst specializing in North Korea. He was questioned about contacts with a reporter about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. Eleven months later, Kim was indicted by a grand jury on counts of disclosing classified information and making false statements.

“To be accused of doing something against or harmful to U.S. national interest is something I can’t comprehend,” said Kim, 45, who has pleaded not guilty and faces as many as 15 years in jail if convicted. “Your reputation is shot and there is such a sense of shame brought on the family.”

Kim is one of five individuals who have been pursued by Obama’s Justice Department in connection with alleged leaks of classified information to the news media. The Defense Department is pursuing a sixth case against Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army private accused of sending documents to the WikiLeaks website.

New Directive

The Justice Department said that there are established avenues for government employees to follow if they want to report misdeeds. The agency “does not target whistle-blowers in leak cases or any other cases,” Dean Boyd, a department spokesman, said.

“An individual in authorized possession of classified information has no authority or right to unilaterally determine that it should be made public or otherwise disclose it,” he said.

Read more here: Transparency Outsourced as U.S. Hires Vendors for Disclosure Aid

On Oct. 10, Obama issued a policy directive to executive- branch agencies extending whistle-blower protections to national security and intelligence employees, who weren’t included in the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act that passed the U.S. House last month and awaits Senate approval.

While the directive seeks to protect those workers from retaliation if they report waste, fraud or abuse through official channels, it “doesn’t include media representatives within the universe of people to whom the whistle-blower can make the disclosure,” said Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center of Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program. That still gives Obama the option of pursuing prosecutions of intelligence employees who talk to the press, she said.

‘Important Step’

“The directive is definitely an important step in the right direction, but even if it’s faithfully enforced — and that’s an open question — it may not always be enough,” Goitein said. “A whistle-blower’s report could go to the very people who are responsible for the misconduct.”

Lisa O. Monaco, the top Justice Department official in its National Security Division, told lawmakers earlier this year that leaks are damaging to intelligence operations and the country’s national security as a whole.

“Virtually all elements of the intelligence community have suffered severe losses due to leaks,” Monaco said in February testimony in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Romney Criticism

Still, even as the administration pursues its unprecedented crackdown on government leaks it does not condone, the prosecutions have fallen short of the wishes of lawmakers and other national security experts, who point to books and articles that have shed new light on classified operations.

The administration stands accused of anonymously releasing sensitive information to suit its own political purposes. The disclosure of operational details of the raid that led to the death of Osama bin Laden and attempts to disrupt Iran’s nuclear weapons program triggered the announcement in June of a Justice Department probe of those leaks.

That move was criticized by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who called for an independent investigation.

“Obama appointees, who are accountable to President Obama’s attorney general, should not be responsible for investigating leaks coming from the Obama White House,” Romney said in a speech at national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in July. “Who in the White House betrayed these secrets?”

‘Chilling Message’

Administration officials are far less forgiving of those who conduct unauthorized contacts with the press.

“They want to destroy you personally,” said Thomas Drake, a senior National Security Agency employee prosecuted in 2010 by Obama’s Justice Department under the Espionage Act. The message to government workers seeking to expose waste, fraud and abuse is “see nothing, say nothing, don’t speak out — otherwise we’ll hammer you,” he said.

Drake faced 10 felony counts in connection to an allegation that he shared classified information with a reporter. He was linked to a report in the Baltimore Sun about inefficiencies and cost over-runs in an NSA surveillance program that was later abandoned.

The case against Drake collapsed last year before trial after he agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and the government dropped the more serious charges that could have sent him to jail for 35 years.

The prosecution was meant to “make me an object lesson and to send the most chilling message,” said Drake, who is adamant that he never handed over any classified information. “I was essentially bankrupted, blacklisted and blackballed. I was turned into damaged goods.”

Security Exception

Cases such as Drake’s indicate that Obama doesn’t “see the world of national security as being part of open government,” said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington-based federal watchdog group. “To me, that’s the most important part that needs an open government ethos foisted upon it.”

Monaco, who is an assistant attorney general, told lawmakers this year that advances in technology play a role in the uptick in prosecutions. Where investigators used to struggle to track down the origins of leaks, they now are able to check phone records, e-mail trails and even “employee physical access or badging records” to trace disclosures, she said.

Intelligence agencies are required to report any unauthorized disclosures to the Justice Department, Monaco said. From there, the department, along with the reporting agency, decide whether to open an investigation.

Kim’s Story

The South Korea-born Kim emigrated to the U.S. with his parents and sister in 1976. He spoke little English when he arrived and was enrolled in third grade. A naturalized citizen and graduate of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, Kim made a brief stop on Wall Street before heading to Harvard University to earn a Master’s degree in National Security. He then went to Yale, where at age 31, he earned his Ph.D in diplomatic and military history.

“I decided to forgo a lot of other career opportunities to work in the government,” Kim said.

Kim took a role as an analyst on a range of East Asian matters, with a specialty in North Korea. He briefed many high ranking officials, including then-Vice President Dick Cheney.

In June 2009, Kim is alleged to have discussed how North Korea might react to a United Nations resolution condemning its nuclear tests with reporter James Rosen of Fox News, according to a person familiar with the case. The relationship between Kim and Rosen began when the State Department’s press office arranged a briefing at the request of Kim’s superiors.

Allegations

Prosecutors say that when asked about his communications with the press by the FBI in their initial meeting in September 2009, Kim lied about a continued relationship with the reporter. That same day, he was told his State Department contract had been terminated for budget reasons, according to court filings.

The government alleges Kim’s contacts with Rosen included “efforts to conceal his relationship with the reporter and the secretive nature of their communications speaks volumes about the defendant’s knowledge of who was, and who was not, entitled to receive” information.

Kim declined to discuss specifics of his case in the interview in his lawyer’s office in Washington. His efforts to get the charges dismissed were rejected last year by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who in denying the motions to dismiss said that the alleged leak involved a report with a classification level that “could be expected to cause grave damage to the national security” if disclosed.

Costly Cases

Cases such as Kim’s, which can be drawn out for years as the prosecution and defense teams work with sensitive materials through dozens of filings and status reports can cost upwards of $1 million, according to Jesselyn Radack, a lawyer with the Government Accountability Project who has defended two individuals prosecuted under the law.

Kim said his parents sold their home in South Korea to help pay for his defense. His sister has also pitched in and a former college roommate has created a website to publicize his case and raise funds.

Radack said the Obama administration crackdown is part of an effort to shut down investigations into the workings of the national-security apparatus.

“At first I thought these Espionage Act prosecutions were to curry favor with the national security and intelligence establishments, which saw Obama as weak when he entered office,” Radack said. “It became abundantly clear the more people were indicted, when you read their indictments, that this was a way to create really terrible precedent for ultimately going after journalists.”

Subpoena Fight

The Justice Department disputes the claim that it would use the law to go after journalists. Monaco, in her testimony this year, pointed to department regulations that limit investigators’ access to reporters, even when doing so “makes these investigations more challenging.”

Still, those rules haven’t completely insulated journalists. James Risen, the Pulitzer Prize winning writer for the New York Times, was subpoenaed to testify at the trial of Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA officer indicted under the law for allegedly disclosing information about Iran’s nuclear program.

Risen and his lawyers have fought the subpoena, arguing in February that the subpoena threatens the role of journalism in serving the public interest.

Espionage Act

The Espionage Act, signed by President Woodrow Wilson in 1917, has until Obama took office been primarily deployed against some of the most damaging double agents in the U.S. history. Those include Aldrich Ames, a Central Intelligence Agency operative convicted in 1994 for spying for Russia, and Robert Hanssen, a former FBI agent convicted in 2001 of similar offenses. Both men are serving life sentences without parole in high-security federal prisons.

The law also prohibits the unlawful disclosure of national defense information to those not entitled to receive it — a provision that defense lawyers say is being abused by Obama’s prosecutors.

“I campaigned for him, contributed to him, voted for him and believed him,” said Radack of Obama. “For someone who pledged to protect and defend whistle-blowers, he certainly has not even remained neutral, he’s affirmatively set us back really, really far.”

Disclosure Provision

The Justice Department has used the disclosure provision to pursue five cases against government officials for allegedly sharing classified information with members of the news media. In 2009, former FBI linguist Shamai Leibowitz was indicted for handing over transcripts of government wiretaps of the Israeli embassy in Washington to a blogger. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 20 months in prison.

Obama also continued the George W. Bush administration’s investigation of Drake, the NSA employee.

“It’s important to understand what’s going on in this country — the government has criminalized whistle-blowing,” said Drake, 55, who lost his $155,000-a-year NSA job in 2008. He now works as a wage-grade employee at an Apple store in a Washington suburb to support his family.

The Justice Department also continues to pursue Sterling, the former CIA officer, and John Kiriakou, an intelligence official who wrote a book detailing the illegal use of waterboarding by the CIA. Kiriakou is also accused of disclosing the identity of a CIA analyst to reporters.

Two Scandals

“The two biggest scandals of the Bush administration in terms of constitutional violations was the use of torture, and renditions, and secret surveillance — and the only two people to date who have been charged in connection with those scandals are myself and John Kiriakou,” Drake said. “That should tell you something about how hard the Obama administration is going to protect those programs.”

The Espionage Act charges against Drake were dropped last year, with the defendant accepting a minor penalty for exceeding the authorized use of a computer. The Justice Department prosecutors were excoriated by U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett for the more than two-year delay between the first search of Drake’s home and the indictment, as well as the decision to drop the most serious charges days before the case was scheduled to go to trial.

Judge’s Rebuke

“I find it extraordinary in this case for an individual’s home to be searched in November of 2008, for the government to have no explanation for a two-year delay, not a two and a half year delay, for him to be indicted in April of 2010, and then over a year later, on the eve of the trial, in June of 2011, the government says, whoops, we dropped the whole case,” Bennett said at Drake’s July 2011 sentencing, according to a court transcript.

Manning, the analyst who allegedly disclosed hundreds of thousands of confidential government documents to WikiLeaks, faces court-martial under the espionage law.

The president’s openness pledge is also undermined by a recent Bloomberg News analysis, which showed that 19 of 20 cabinet-level agencies disobeyed the Freedom of Information Act requiring the disclosure of public documents. In all, just eight of the 57 federal agencies met Bloomberg’s FOIA requests for top officials’ travel costs within the 20-day window required by the Act.

The White House disputes the notion that the president hasn’t kept his promise of transparency.

“While creating a more open government requires sustained effort, our continued efforts seek to promote accountability, provide people with useful information and harness the dispersed knowledge of the American people,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said in an e-mailed statement.

Obama Meeting

In March last year, Obama met with five open-government advocates in the Oval Office. In the session, Brian of the Project on Government Oversight told Obama that the leak prosecutions were undermining his legacy.

“The president shifted in his seat and leaned forward. He said he wanted to engage on this topic because this may be where we have some differences,” Brian wrote in a March 29, 2011 POGO blog post. “He said he doesn’t want to protect the people who leak to the media war plans that could impact the troops.”

Today, Kim rarely sees his South Korean-born wife, who spends time largely in her native country with her parents. Without any security clearances, Kim is restricted to working on non-classified projects for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. He said that most of his colleagues have abandoned him, refusing to return phone calls or letting him know that for professional reasons they’d rather he not pick up the phone. The case has left him isolated personally and professionally.

‘Like a Disease’

“I’m like a disease,” Kim said.

Because of preliminary legal wrangling, Kim’s case is unlikely to make it to court before the end of the year, according to a joint status report filed on Aug. 31.

Sitting in his lawyer’s office a few blocks away from the State Department where he once worked, Kim acknowledges that while he’s had bad days in the past 16 months, he has recognized that in the wake of his personal and financial woes, he may be the only person that can keep himself afloat.

“There was one time at home, one time, when I screamed out loud, when I yelled and I cried. The resentment was so deep,” Kim said. “But ever since then I haven’t shed another tear because if I break down, everything breaks down.”

The Kim case is U.S. v. Kim, 10cr00225, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington).

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-18/obama-pursuing-leakers-sends-warning-to-whistle-blowers.html

Fact-checking the second Obama-Romney debate: Who told the biggest whoppers?

The facts and figures flew furiously in Tuesday night’s debate. Not all of them were true

The candidates offered up a wide range of facts, half-truths, and straight-up lies during the second debate on Oct. 16. Photo: Bruce Bennett/Getty Images

 

Fans of political drama got a real treat in Tuesday night’s town-hall rumble between President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney. The sparks flew as the candidates traded jabs, but the facts and figures did, too. And as in their last face-off, not all those numbers and assertions proved to be true — as the growing chorus of fact-checkers were quick to point out. Here, a survey of some of the biggest disagreements, and which candidate hewed closer to the truth:

Romney: U.S. “oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land”
The verdict: Half True
Romney’s claim is technically true — in 2011, oil production on federal land was down 13.8 percent — but cherry-picked, says Callum Borchers at The Boston Globe. “Overall, oil production on federal land under Obama is up from 566 million barrels in 2008 to 626 million barrels in 2011, a 10.6 percent increase.” And “the big story of the one-year drop-off in public production is the Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010,” says PolitiFact. After the disaster, Obama declared a six-month moratorium on deepwater oil exploration.

Obama: I immediately labeled the deadly attack on U.S. diplomats in Benghazi an “act of terror”
The verdict: Half True
As debate moderator Candy Crowley noted, Obama did use that phrase in his Rose Garden statement hours after the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other U.S. diplomatic personnel. His phrasing was somewhat ambiguous — “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation” — but given the context of the remarks, “it seems a fair conclusion that he was including the attack in the ‘acts of terror,'” says PolitiFact. A week after the attack, Obama also said on David Letterman‘s late-night show that “terrorists and extremists” were responsible for the Libya attack. “But others in his administration repeated for several days its belief that the violence stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam,” says the AP‘s Calvin Woodward. “And Romney is right in arguing that the administration has yet to explain why it took so long [to acknowledge that the protests didn’t happen] or how it came to believe that the attack evolved from an angry demonstration.”

Romney: Obama began his presidency “with an apology tour”
The verdict: Pants On Fire
Romney has used this line before, but “the notion that President Barack Obama started his presidency with an ‘apology tour’ is a persistent and false Republican talking point that we have debunked a number of times,” says PolitiFact. Early in his tenure, Obama did go abroad and “criticized past U.S. actions, such as torture practices at Guantanamo, [but] he did not offer one apology.” To characterize that as an apology tour is ridiculous.

Obama: Romney’s Bain Capital was a “pioneer of outsourcing”
The verdict: Half True
Bain, the company Romney founded and led, bought shares in companies that sent back-office, service, and other types of jobs overseas. But “to call these companies pioneers is a stretch,” says PolitiFact. That term comes from a Washington Post story from June that said: “During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain… it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components.” It is reasonable to call those companies Romney’s, but “outsourcing was well established by the time Bain began buying shares in the companies” in question.

Romney: It’s “already illegal in this country to have automatic weapons”
The verdict: False
The federal ban on manufacturing some semi-automatic assault weapons that President Clinton signed in 1994 expired in 2004, and wasn’t renewed. There are other regulations and restrictions still in place — the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Hughes Amendment in 1986, says Brian Bennett at the Los Angeles Times. But “fully automatic weapons — guns that fire continuously when the trigger is held down — are legal to possess in the United States.”

Obama: Romney called Arizona’s immigration law “a model for the nation”
The verdict: False
Romney did call Arizona’s plan to fight illegal immigration a “model” — as in, “You know, I think you see a model here in Arizona” — in a February GOP primary debate in Phoenix. “But the president took Romney’s words out of context,” says The Boston Globe‘s Borchers. Romney “was speaking specifically about the E-Verify employment screening system” in an older state law — not the controversial “show your papers” part of Arizona’s 2010 law, as Obama suggested.

Romney: As governor, “I went to a number of women’s groups and said, ‘Can you help us find folks,’ and they brought us whole binders full of women”
The verdict: False
It’s worse than just awkward phrasing — this is “not a true story,” says David Bernstein at The Boston Phoenix. In 2002, before Romney was elected, a bipartisan group of women, calling themselves MassGAP, put together a long list of women qualified to fill every cabinet position and lead each state agency, commission, and authority, then presented it to Romney after he was elected. His claim in the debate, “that he asked for such a study, is false.”

Obama: As governor, Romney “stood in front of a coal plant and pointed at it and said, ‘This plant kills'”
The verdict: True
In February 2003, Gov. Romney stood in front of the controversial, coal-burning Salem Harbor Power Station and said, “I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant — that plant kills people.” He was backed up by Harvard public health and environmental researchers who estimated that Salem Harbor, one of the “Filthy Five” plants, was responsible for 53 deaths, 570 emergency room visits, and tens of thousands of respiratory problems each year. “Where the president was mistaken,” says Caitlin Dickson at The Daily Beast, “was when he said Mitt ‘took great pride’ in closing the plant, since it’s still open.”

Romney: My plan will create 12 million jobs in four years
The verdict: Four Pinocchios
Romney’s repeated claim “that his economic plan would produce 12 million jobs” sure “sounds like a pretty bold statement,” since only two presidents — Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan — have accomplished that feat, says The Washington Post‘s Glenn Kessler. But his plan — mostly just “a collection of policy assertions, such as reducing debt, overhauling the tax code, fostering free trade, and so forth”— is “even less impressive than it sounds” when you realize that Moody’s Analytics and Macroeconomic Advisors both estimate that the U.S. economy will create at least 12 million new jobs no matter who is in the White House. In other words, says USA Today, “it is accurate that the U.S. economy is expected to gain 12 million jobs in the first term of the next president, but Romney’s job plan is not the reason.”

Obama: “What I’ve also said is, for (those earning) above $250,000, we can go back to the tax rates we had when Bill Clinton was president”
The verdict: False
Obama’s statement is true “only for federal income tax rates,” says FactCheck.org. Obama has proposed raising the income tax ceiling for the wealthiest households to the Clinton-era 39.6 percent, from George W. Bush’s 35 percent. But Obama failed to mention that he “already has enacted new taxes that also will fall on those same taxpayers” — a 0.9 percent Medicare payroll tax surcharge on wages above $250,000 per household and a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for the wealthy. “As a result many, if not most, high-income persons will pay more in federal taxes under Obama’s proposed rates than they did under Clinton.”

Final score: “Both candidates repeated false or misleading claims they have made, and we have rebutted, many times before,” says FactCheck.org. (Read the fact-check of the first Obama-Romney debate here for some of them.) So neither can really claim the high road. But Romney seems to have told the more egregious whoppers — and, in the case of his instantly fact-checked overreach on Benghazi, perhaps the only one that will make any difference.

http://theweek.com/article/index/234948/fact-checking-the-second-obama-romney-debate-who-told-the-biggest-whoppers

The World for Ron Paul

This video was made to show those that doubt Ron Paul’s foreign policy that people around the world agree with Ron Paul’s stance, The media tries to undermine Ron Paul with their biased attempts to say that his foreign policy is out of touch with the rest of the world.
Ron Paul is not a “wacko.” The CIA has coined a term called “blowback” and Dr. Paul understands this better than any candidate running for President. He understands that our actions directly affect our safety and security.

It is time for the American people to realize just how we are seen across the world: WE ARE THE BULLY OF THE WORLD!!

Just because we have power and force does not mean we can dictate what the world does and how the world should behave. We should mind our own business and defend our own borders; not the borders of other countries!

We need to promote peace through example not through force.

Please like and share this video! Subscribe for more videos.

But more importantly…
Donate during moneybombs!

Ask your loved ones to donate for you as a Christmas present for you if you don’t have the money.

Like Ron Paul on Facebook:
Help him reach 1 million Likes.

In order for me to use the music in the background, I am required to put it in my video and description. I found this guy with a quick search on Google and the music is pretty awesome. So you can get some free music from below:

Song list in order:
Childhood Memories of Winter (Piano)
Film — Beginnings
Watching the Sun Go Down 2

Ron Paul Presidential Debate Analysis: Why the American People Lost This Debate

This may seem like a cop-out, but I have to say tonight’s second presidential debate was a virtual tie.

Barack Obama came out swinging from the start, and he was much more aggressive and assertive than he was the first time around. Almost angry at times. Romney fought back hard and didn’t back down at all.

Obama portrayed Romney as some free-market capitalist deregulator, and Romney ran away from that (false) caricature every chance he could get. Even from someone like me who honestly sees virtually no difference between the two, even their rhetoric was very similar.

Both of them talked about “closing deductions,” cutting taxes for the middle class, attacked outsourcing, went after China, defended protectionism, limits on gun ownership, restrictions on immigration, and “energy independence.”

They really are struggling to keep this interesting. I can see why there are so many “undecided” voters. Predator R or Predator D?

Finally, I have to point the biggest lie that each of them told.

President Obama claimed that he ended the war in Iraq and is “winding down the war” in Afghanistan. Obama repeats this lie a lot, and it’s a shame Romney is such a warmonger himself that he can’t hit him on it. President Bush negotiated a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Iraq before he left office, and Obama simply abided by it. In fact, Obama has been slowly sneaking in as many troops as he can into the region, especially in the lower Arabian Peninsula.

As I pointed out in my pre-debate coverage, Obama is not winding down the Afghan war in 2014 like he claims, but rather negotiating to keep U.S. troops there until 2024. Do I even need to mention his wars and drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, etc?

And as for Mitt Romney, the biggest lie that stood out for me was his claim that “China is manipulating its currency” and his general belligerence and hawkishness toward China. The first thing that comes to mind is: what about the manipulation of our currency by the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve? The Fed has created over $16 trillion in money in the last few years, distributed it discreetly around the globe to foreign banks and foreign governments, and price-fixes interest rates. What about that “currency manipulation,” Mitt?

And finally, as I expected, the Fed, Obama’s wars overseas, the National Defense Authorization Act, the war on drugs, inflation, America’s growing police state, and our vanishing Bill of Rights were not mentioned at all. The ultimate winner is the status quo of the welfare-warfare state and the perpetuation of the One Party System, and the loser was the American people, liberty, peace, and sound economics.

This article was part of my debate liveblog/recap for PolicyMic.

Fighting for Peace at the Local Level

On October 9, 2012, the legislature of Albany County, New York approved a proclamationcalling upon Congress to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan, cut the U.S. military budget, and use the savings to fund vital public programs at home.

This official demand for new national priorities—by a county of 304,000 people—was not entirely novel. Within the past year or so, the U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a similar resolution, as did the governments of numerous cities, including Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, Cleveland, Hartford, and Portland. Even so, the idea of “moving the money” from war to peace had largely fallen off the political radar screen. The Albany County Peace Dividend Proclamation, as it was soon dubbed, has helped bring it back to public attention.

The Albany campaign began this past July, when—in my capacity as a national board member of Peace Action, America’s largest peace organization—I learned that the city of Philadelphia had just passed a “move the money” resolution. As Doug Bullock, a long-time friend of mine in Albany’s peace and social justice community, was a member of the Albany county legislature, I passed along this news to him, suggesting rather casually that he might want to promote a similar resolution on the Albany county level. He replied that he’d be happy to try it, but needed a public campaign to back him up. Could we put one together?

Actually, we could. I was well connected within the Albany region’s peace community, serving on the steering committee of Upper Hudson Peace Action and dealing frequently with the leaders of other local peace groups. In addition, I had strong credentials in the local labor movement, serving as executive secretary of the Albany County Central Federation of Labor (AFL-CIO), as a member of the executive committee of the Albany chapter of United University Professions, and as a long-time activist in the Solidarity Committee of the Capital District (an independent organization rooted in the local labor movement).

Moreover, in recent decades, Albany’s peace and social justice community had grown ever more intertwined, amassing a good deal of overlap in membership and a strong “movement culture” among the region’s various progressive organizations. And with national polls showing the general public fed up with the Afghanistan War and preferring military cuts to cuts in social spending, the peace movement was more in tune with popular sentiment than ever.

Yet significant factors weighed against the possibility of success. Although Albany County is heavily Democratic, much of the local Democratic Party is controlled by machine politicians who might just as well have been Republicans. Doug’s strong antiwar stance has not been the norm. Indeed, in 2008, when he tried to get the legislature to pass a resolution opposing the Iraq War, the legislators not only strongly rejected it, but banned all future resolutions!

Corralling Allies

Despite the obstacles, we decided to move forward with a Peace Dividend Proclamation campaign—one that would involve getting a majority of Albany County’s 39 legislators to sign an official statement on behalf of the county. After securing volunteers from Upper Hudson Peace Action and the Solidarity Committee, we conferred with staff members from Peace Action of New York State and national Peace Action, who helped us pull together the relevant statistics and wording for the proclamation. Once the proclamation was in final form, Doug circulated it to potentially sympathetic legislators and—to our delight—secured six additional co-sponsors.

The next step was to recruit friendly organizations to join the campaign. We divided up a list of peace, labor, religious, environmental, political, student, tenants’ rights, and other organizations among ourselves. We approached them about not only endorsing the proclamation, but also sending a speaker and turning out supporters for the September 10 meeting of the county legislature.

In Albany County, immediately preceding the official meeting of the legislature, there is a public forum during which citizens are free to speak to the assembled legislators on any issue. We used this opportunity to good effect, presenting 10 speakers from well-known labor organizations, peace groups, and constituencies. To offset possible charges that the proclamation “disrespected the troops,” we drew upon two veterans as speakers—one of whom identified himself as coming from “Vietnam – Class of 1968.” We also distributed the proclamation and a list of 19 local organizations that had endorsed it.

Even if we hadn’t secured any signatures that evening, it would have been a useful exercise, for the assembled legislators were forced to sit through 50 minutes’ worth of lectures on the costs of war—both economic and human—and the need to fund social programs.

But in fact we came away that evening with 18 signatures out of the 20 that we needed for a majority. That gave us until October 9, the next meeting of the legislature and our self-imposed deadline, to gather just two more signatures. And that wouldn’t be difficult, would it?

Unfortunately, it proved very difficult. In the following weeks, Doug brought the proclamation to legislative committee meetings for additional signatures, but no one else was willing to sign it. Among the Democratic holdouts, some said that they did not believe that issues of war and peace should be addressed by a county legislature. One Democrat angrily denounced the proclamation as “unpatriotic,” claiming that she had been told that by the county executive. Another said that it would undermine President Obama’s reelection. A few said they were thinking about it.

Among the 10 Republican legislators—none of whom had signed the proclamation—there was even stiffer resistance. Some simply dismissed the proclamation as the Democratic presidential campaign platform. Others said that they would be willing to sign it if the savings on military programs were not rechanneled to domestic social programs.

Eventually we picked up an additional Democratic signature, bringing us to 19 out of the 20 we needed, but we began to feel a bit desperate as the October 9 deadline neared. Would we ultimately fail, just one signature short of our goal?

Closing the Gap

In the final days, we mobilized some of our most powerful organizational endorsers—the AFL-CIO, the Interfaith Alliance of New York State, the Working Families Party (which, under New York law, can and does make cross-party endorsements, often of Democrats), Veterans for Peace, and United University Professions—to send letters to holdout legislators. We pored over the mailing lists of key groups, identified the constituents of targeted legislators, and called upon them to phone these legislators and urge them to sign the proclamation. We asked other groups (such as the Albany Friends Meeting and Bethlehem Neighbors for Peace) to mobilize their members for the same purpose. We drew upon other legislators and people with political connections to pressure key holdouts to sign. Finally, we scheduled a press conference and rally outside the doors of the legislature in the half hour just before the legislature was to meet.

Then, on the evening of October 8, Doug phoned to tell me that he had just spoken with a legislator who said he was going to sign on October 9. And on the afternoon of that final day, he did.

Our rally turned into a victory celebration. At the legislature’s Public Forum, we distributed a list of 29 endorsing organizations (ranging from the RFK Democratic Club to Women Against War and the Peace and Justice Commission of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany) and brought in another battery of speakers lauding the proclamation. By the end of the night, the proclamation had 22 signers (all of them Democrats), a solid majority. On October 10, in accordance with the terms of the proclamation, the Albany County Clerk mailed off copies to President Obama, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, the New York congressional delegation, the New York State Legislature, and all government departments in Albany County.

http://www.fpif.org/articles/fighting_for_peace_at_the_local_level

The 7-Eleven Presidency

In the wake of the Treasury Department’s newly released summary of federal spending for 2012, it’s now possible to detail just how profligate the Obama years have been.  Here’s the upshot:  Under Obama, for every $7 we’ve had, we’ve spent nearly $11 (or, to be more exact, $10.95).  That’s like a family that makes $70,000 a year — and is already knee-deep in debt — blowing nearly $110,000 a year.

To illustrate this a bit differently, for every Jackson ($20) we’ve had available to spend under Obama, we’ve also borrowed a Hamilton ($10) and a Washington ($1) and spent those too.  The only thing is that, under Obama, we’ve (literally) spent the equivalent of 342 billion Jacksons, 342 billion Hamiltons, and 342 billion Washingtons — borrowing all of the Hamiltons and Washingtons.

Let’s take a look at the scorecard, based on official government figures.  In fiscal year 2012 (which ended on September 30), the federal government acquired $2.449 trillion in tax revenue and other receipts.  It spent $3.538 trillion — 44 percent more than it had available to spend.  The resulting deficit was $1.089 trillion.

In fiscal year 2011 (see table S-1), the federal government acquired $2.303 trillion in tax revenues and other receipts.  It spent $3.603 trillion — 56 percent more than it had available to spend.  The resulting deficit was $1.3 trillion.

In fiscal year 2010 (see table S-1), the federal government acquired $2.163 trillion in tax revenues and other receipts.  It spent $3.456 trillion — 60 percent more than it had available to spend.  The resulting deficit was $1.293 trillion.

In fiscal year 2009 — which was, for the most part, President Bush’s fiscal year (his final one) — Obama’s economic “stimulus” added $183 billion (see table 1-2) to the deficit (it would add far more in future years), on top of the deficit that we were already running that year under Bush.

So in all, under Obama, the federal government has acquired $6.846 trillion in tax revenues and other receipts, and it has spent $10.711 trillion — 56 percent more than it has had available to spend.

Moreover, Obama has amassed this historic record of fiscal profligacy even before his centerpiece legislation has really taken effect.  If it’s not repealed first, the colossally expensive Obamacare is poised to present grave new challenges to our fiscal solvency — and to our liberty — once it would become a reality on these shores in early 2014.

With one fiscal year of this 7-Eleven presidency still to come (regardless of the outcome on Election Day, fiscal year 2013 will belong to Obama) — and with the specter of Obamacare looming — our national debt is now over $16 trillion.  That’s more than $6 trillion higher (see table S-9) than it was during the first presidential debate of 2008, when Obama bemoaned what he called the “orgy of spending and enormous deficits” under Bush.

Yet Obama — who recently showed that he apparently has no idea how big our national debt is — amazingly says of that debt, “[W]e don’t have to worry about it short-term.”  In other words, if you have $7, spend $11 — let future generations of Americans worry about it.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/7-eleven-presidency_654846.html

Jill Stein: US political system hostile to Americans

The money-ruled American political system has a pretty straight-ahead Wall Street agenda and is designed to eliminate opposition the way dictatorships do, Jill Stein, the US presidential candidate for the Green Party, shared with RT – FULL SCRIPT at http://on.rt.com/alzdzn

Obamney vs Robama Are Payed To Lie

Welcome to Capital Account. Last night the two main contenders for US President debated issues including tax policy, jobs, energy, and the national debt. During the debate President Barack Obama proposed “the way we’re going to create jobs here is not just to change our tax code but also to double our exports.” But to whom, exactly, can we export? The Eurozone, the US’s largest trading partner, is contracting, and major emerging markets are slowing down. On the other hand, Mitt Romney stated that, “On day one, I will label China a currency manipulator.” China is the largest foreign customer for US debt; do we really want to start a trade war with China? And where was the discussion of lobbying, of special interests and of the favorable treatment for connected, too-big-to-fail firms? What about a serious conversation that delves into how we may finally begin slicing into the sacred cow of military spending and the major firms that benefit from it? Perhaps when it comes to these issues, the candidates are not very different; our guest, Joel Bowman, Managing Editor for The Daily Reckoning, describes the candidates as “Obamney” and “Robama.” We talk to Joel Bowman about why he feels the two candidates are not so different after all.

Plus, we often hear about likely voters, but what about the non-voter class in the US? Non-voters include those who are disillusioned by the lack of choice of candidates. We hear from Joel Bowman of the Daily Reckoning about what non-voters can do and why he thinks more Anarcho-capitalists are coming out of the woodwork. He also takes issue with the popular expression of the anarchist as a “molotov wielding hooligan.”

And the economy ranks as the most important issue among likely US voters, while government ethics and corruption ranks third. Why was there no talk of the Federal Reserve at last night’s debate? After all, the FBI has been busy investigating terror plots against the Fed itself, so one would think that the vitriol alone would warrant a broaching of the subject in the popular press. Also, where was the discussion of the too big to fail banks? What about common sense regulation that isn’t burdensome to business or tailored for oligopolies? Lauren and Demetri examine the major economic issues that have been missing from the debates in today’s “Loose Change.”

http://xrepublic.tv/node/642

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: