Thursday, December 29, 2011

**JP** DAILY QURAN AND HADITH



THE NAME OF "ALLAH" 
Assalamu'alaikum Wa Rahmatullah e Wa Barakatuhu,

 

    

 



 





-- --

Thanks & Best regards,
 
Imran Ilyas
Cell: 00971509483403

****People oppose things because they are ignorant of them****

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

Michelle Bachmann’s own political director claims she lied about Ron Paul defection


Michelle Bachmann's own political director claims she lied about Ron Paul defection
December 29th, 2011 3:10 am  |  by Marc Gallagher

Earlier tonight Michelle Bachmann lost her Iowa Campaign chairman to the Ron Paul campaign. She lashed out claiming it was financially motivated. Not true, says her current Iowa Political Director.

Here is the relevant portion of Bachmann's statement after the defection occurred:

Kent Sorenson personally told me he was offered a large sum of money to go to work for the Paul campaign. Kent campaigned with us earlier this afternoon and went immediately afterward  to a Ron Paul event and announced he is changing teams. Kent said to me yesterday that 'everyone sells out in Iowa, why shouldn't I,' then he told me he would stay with our campaign.

Here is a statement from her current Iowa political director Wes Enos regarding her statement above from a press release put out by the Ron Paul campaign:

"I won't say much about the situation or the conflicting statements beyond this; I can say unequivocally that Kent Sorenson's decision was, in no way financially motivated.  His decision had more to do with the fact that the Ron Paul supporters have been something of a family to him since he was first elected in 2008 and here in the end, as it becomes more and more apparent that the caucus cycle is coming to an end, Kent believed that he needed to be with them as they stand on the cusp of a potential caucus upset.  While I personally disagree with Kent's decision, and plan to stay with Michele Bachmann because I truly believe in her, I cannot, in good conscious watch a good man like Kent Sorenson be attacked as a 'sell-out' ….That is simply not the case, and it was not the basis of his decision," said Mr. Enos.

The full press release (received via email) is here but should soon be up on the Ron Paul 2012 site:

In Case You Missed It:
Bachmann Key Aide's Statement
on Sen. Kent Sorenson Defection
Bachmann Iowa political director Wes Enos fires
back at Mrs. Bachmann's claim that Sen. Sorenson's
desertion was financially-motivated

ANKENY, Iowa – U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann's Iowa political director Wes Enos recently made enlightening comments concerning Iowa State Sen. Kent Sorenson's defection to the Ron Paul camp from his position as Iowa Chairman for the Minnesota congresswoman's campaign for the presidency.

Hours ago, Sen. Sorenson resigned from his post with the Bachmann camp and publicly endorsed Ron Paul for the presidency, committing to get out the vote for the 12-term Congressman from Texas in the pivotal first-in-nation voting contest.

Mr. Enos made his comments in response to unfounded allegations that Sen. Sorenson's defection was made due to financial incentives made by the Ron Paul 2012 Presidential campaign.  Mr. Enos's comments on the matter follow, and are presented in full:

"I won't say much about the situation or the conflicting statements beyond this; I can say unequivocally that Kent Sorenson's decision was, in no way financially motivated.  His decision had more to do with the fact that the Ron Paul supporters have been something of a family to him since he was first elected in 2008 and here in the end, as it becomes more and more apparent that the caucus cycle is coming to an end, Kent believed that he needed to be with them as they stand on the cusp of a potential caucus upset.  While I personally disagree with Kent's decision, and plan to stay with Michele Bachmann because I truly believe in her, I cannot, in good conscious watch a good man like Kent Sorenson be attacked as a 'sell-out' ….That is simply not the case, and it was not the basis of his decision," said Mr. Enos.

http://libertymaven.com/2011/12/29/michelle-bachmanns-own-political-director-claims-she-lied-about-ron-paul-defection/12051/

Neither the U.S. Nor Israel Have Any Defense Capabilities Whatsoever . . .


Neither the U.S. Nor Israel Have Any Defense Capabilities Whatsoever . . .
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo on December 29, 2011 09:11 AM

. . . despite their large military establishments and their possession of hundreds of nuclear missiles and thousands of equally deadly bombs. The trillions spent on "national defense" have no deterrent effect at all. And everyone in Iran is insane.

This of course is the defining foreign policy idea of Mitt Romney, who has been prancing around Iowa claiming that if Iran got a nuclear weapon it would immediately "wipe Israel from the face of the earth" with a nuclear blast, and then turn around and do the exact same thing to America. Therefore, says Mitt, we must nuke Iran first (for starters). Then on to Syria! Lebanon! Saudi Arabia! Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Bachmann, and Perry make "Dr. Strangelove" look like a hippie peacenik in comparison.

If America has not yet become a society of morons, Mitt Romeny obviously believes we have.

Re: Jonah Goldberg Admits: Political Power Is All That Matters to Neocons (Shocker!!)

EVERYTHING that appears on LouRockwell.com or PrisonPlanet.com is misinformation.
 
 
 


 
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
Just about everything that Michael "MJ" posts is misinformation.
 


 
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, one that comes to mind is that post that you sent in several weeks ago, about Newt's divorce!
 


 
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:49 AM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
Nope,  I haven't heard too many folks get Crazy Uncle Ron's fiscal
policies
wrong, but I have heard a ton of the cult like followers of Crazy
Uncle Ron
spew misinformation continuously
---
cite example

On Dec 28, 1:31 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nope,  I haven't heard too many folks get Crazy Uncle Ron's fiscal policies
> wrong, but I have heard a ton of the cult like followers of Crazy Uncle Ron
> spew misinformation continuously.
>
> Most all of the conservative candidates now have similar fiscal policies as
> Crazy Uncle Ron do,  there's nothing new there.
>
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Actually his supporters just think his critics are desperate and idiots
> > since they get so many things, like what kind of monetary reform he
> > advocates, so wrong and are obviously so ignorant
>
> > On Wednesday, December 28, 2011, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > The hypocrisy of Ron Paul and his supporters By SHERRY BREWER
> > > Capitol Hill Supervising Editor
> > > A Capitol Hill Blue Editorial
> > > December 27, 2011
> > > ________________________________
>
> > > Ron Paul: Which side of his mouth is he talking out of today?
>
> > > The rabid supporters of twice unsuccessful Presidential candidate Ron
> > Paul claim their candidate is different from the others but when he comes
> > under attack for using his foundations to further his political career,
> > they chime in with a defense that claims other candidates do the same thing.
>
> > > In the end, the partisan supporters of the Texas Congressman who is
> > sometimes a Libertarian, sometimes a Republican and always a
> > conspiracy-touting extremist are no different than the die-hard backers of
> > former presidents George W. Bush or Bill Clinton.
>
> > > "It is kind of funny that the standard defense of Ron Paul using his
> > foundations for political purposes is that old excuse that 'everybody does
> > it.' Everybody doesn't do it. Most use political action committees for that
> > purpose," GOP strategist John Lawrence tells Capitol Hill Blue. "It is
> > typical of the ignorance of Ron Paul's faithful that they don't know the
> > difference between a not-for-profit foundation and a PAC."
>
> > > Another fantasy from the Paul camp is the claim that his positions have
> > never changed, that he has always been consistent. Paul's changing story
> > about his role in the racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic and
> > conspiracy-touting newsletters that bore his name in the 1980s and 1990s
> > lays that lie to rest. At first he claimed the words were his and taken out
> > of context, then his story changed to "I wrote some of the articles." Now
> > the story is "I didn't write them, I didn't read them and I disavow them."
>
> > > Ron Paul's hypocrisy on the newsletter issue is so blatant that more
> > questions are being raised about his handling of the matter.
>
> > > Writes Brett Budkowsky in The Hill:
>
> > > If Ron Paul wants others to take responsibility for their actions, he
> > should take responsibility for his. Otherwise his credo is the same serial
> > hypocrisy he correctly accuses Newt Gingrich of. If materials go out under
> > Ron Paul's name, advancing Ron Paul's interest, it is not enough to say, in
> > effect, "I did not know, I never knew, don't blame me."
>
> > > I believe if Ron Paul did take personal responsibility it would help his
> > campaign, but in any event, he should hold himself to the same standards he
> > applies to everyone else.
>
> > > Writes University of Maryland political science professor Thomas F.
> > Schaller in The Baltimore Sun:
>
> > > Nice try, congressman. There's his name in giant, bold letters at the
> > top of each issue. On some editions his face appears at the top, or his
> > signature at the bottom. The lack of bylines attached to specific articles,
> > his defenders say, means Dr. Paul can't be held accountable for the words
> > they contain. But the newsletters include first-person, biographical
> > mentions like "my wife Carol" and "my youngest son … starting his fourth
> > year of medical school." His wife's name is Carol; his youngest son,
> > Robert, is a physician.
>
> > > Even if surrogates actually wrote the material for Dr. Paul, so what?
> > When politicians authorize press secretaries and ghostwriters to pen their
> > statements, speeches and books, it is universally understood that the
> > politician whose name appears atop the stationery or on the jacket cover is
> > accountable. Once those newsletters went in the mail, Dr. Paul owned every
> > word they contained — period.
>
> > > But don't let Dr. Paul's impish, avuncular and professorial style fool
> > you. He's arguably the most megalomaniacal candidate in a 2012 Republican
> > field that includes Newt Gingrich. And he's trying to squirm out of taking
> > responsibility for his writings.
>
> > > I now brace myself for the torrent of emails from Dr. Paul's vigilant
> > supporters. When those emails arrive, I shall adopt the Ron Paul Defense:
> > Despite my name and picture at the top of this column, I'm so busy lately I
> > can't remember for sure whether I wrote all the words in this column, nor
> > did I read them before or after the column went to press. So I can't be
> > held responsible for calling their guy the racist, anti-gay conspiracist he
> > is.
>
> > > Hypocrisy, however, has long been a Ron Paul trademark but such facts
> > don't matter to Paul's cult-like followers. Their candidate — in their
> > narrow, parochial view of the world — is incapable of mistakes, of human
> > fallacies. He is the political messiah they blindly claim will save all of
> > us from themselves. In the end, American voters will save us from Ron Paul
> > by rejecting him at the polls.
>
> > > If Paul were caught screwing a nun on the steps of the Capitol, his
> > followers would probably claim it was a trap by a "liberal" Catholic church.
>
> > > Such is the nature of blind partisanship.
>
> > > Paul's followers are also well-known for spamming any web site that
> > dares question the sainthood of their candidate. An editorial last week
> > that suggested their candidate was selling America short to get rich
> > brought the usual avalanche of hate email, spam and computer generated
> > comments.
>
> > > Capitol Hill Blue's spam filters caught more than 5,000 fake emails from
> > a handful of IP addresses. More than 2500 came from phony email accounts.
> > More than 1500 contained racial, homophobic or anti-Semitic slurs. Some
> > claimed racism by other candidates or slams against their religions.
>
> > > Such comments don't make it onto this site. We verify email addresses,
> > look for spam from singular IP addresses and flag comments that contain
> > obscenities, racial slurs or threats.
>
> > > One trend we did find interesting in looking at the comments: More than
> > 500 questioned our use of a quote from an anonymous former Paul staff
> > member. All came from posters users anonymous "handles" instead of their
> > names and 83 percent from fake email addresses.
>
> > > Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot. The color for the day is black.
>
> > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 1:35 PM, plainolamerican <
> > plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> conservatives should support one of the six Republican stooges who,
> > >> unlike Ron Paul, don't actually believe in the core conservative
> > >> principle of limited constitutional government
> > >> ---
> > >> nor in the founding father's intentions to avoid entangling alliances
> > >> with other nations.
>
> > >> their hypocrisy knows no bounds
>
> > >> On Dec 28, 9:22 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > >> > Jonah Goldberg Admits: Political Power Is All That Matters to Neocons
> > (Shocker!!)Posted byThomas DiLorenzoon December 27, 2011 09:40 AM
> > >> > In his latest syndicated column Jonah Goldberg comes up with a novel
> > argument against the Ron Paul candidacy: Ron is (supposedly) not very
> > persuasive! He says he agrees with a lot of what Ron says, but if he is
> > elected president he won't be able to persuade enough members of Congress
> > to cut back on government.
> > >> > Therefore, Goldberg implies, conservatives should support one of the
> > six Republican stooges who, unlike Ron Paul, don't actually believe in the
> > core conservative principle of limited constitutional government but
> > onlytalkabout itwhenever Democrats are in power, not whentheyhold the White
> > House.
> > >> > Let's see now. Ron Paul has been persuasive enough to be reelected a
> > dozen times in his rural Texas congressional district despite the fact that
> > he is in favor of ending all farm welfare programs. He has been persuasive
> > enough to be Number One in the Iowa polls less than a week from the Iowa
> > Caucuses and near the top in national polls. He has been persuasive enough
> > to incite thousands of people to volunteer endless hours working for his
> > election. He has been persuasive enough to active-duty military personnel
> > to be the top recipient of campaign donations from them, receiving more
> > donations from active-duty military people than ALL THE OTHER REPUBLICAN
> > CANDIDATES COMBINED. He has been persuasive enough to have authored
> > severalNew York Timesbestsellers. He has been persuasive enough to have
> > become a YouTube sensation. He has been persuasive enough to shock the
> > entire Washington establishment by collecting tens of millions of dollars
> > in small, individual campaign donations in fundraising "money bombs"
> > organized by strangers. And he is clearly more persuasive than Jonah
> > Goldberg is when he argues that Ron Paul is not persuasive.
> > >> > Of course, the real reason the Jonah Goldbergs of the world busy
> > themselves with dreaming up dumb articles like his latest is that they know
> > that Ron Paul will not participate in the murder of thousands of innocent
> > Iranians and Syrians, and the death of thousands more of American soldiers,
> > with another trumped-up, phony war like the one in Iraq that has nothing
> > whatsoever to do with defending Americans against anything.
>
> > >> --
> > >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > >> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > >> * Visit our other community
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Jonah Goldberg Admits: Political Power Is All That Matters to Neocons (Shocker!!)

Just about everything that Michael "MJ" posts is misinformation.
 


 
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, one that comes to mind is that post that you sent in several weeks ago, about Newt's divorce!
 


 
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:49 AM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
Nope,  I haven't heard too many folks get Crazy Uncle Ron's fiscal
policies
wrong, but I have heard a ton of the cult like followers of Crazy
Uncle Ron
spew misinformation continuously
---
cite example

On Dec 28, 1:31 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nope,  I haven't heard too many folks get Crazy Uncle Ron's fiscal policies
> wrong, but I have heard a ton of the cult like followers of Crazy Uncle Ron
> spew misinformation continuously.
>
> Most all of the conservative candidates now have similar fiscal policies as
> Crazy Uncle Ron do,  there's nothing new there.
>
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Actually his supporters just think his critics are desperate and idiots
> > since they get so many things, like what kind of monetary reform he
> > advocates, so wrong and are obviously so ignorant
>
> > On Wednesday, December 28, 2011, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > The hypocrisy of Ron Paul and his supporters By SHERRY BREWER
> > > Capitol Hill Supervising Editor
> > > A Capitol Hill Blue Editorial
> > > December 27, 2011
> > > ________________________________
>
> > > Ron Paul: Which side of his mouth is he talking out of today?
>
> > > The rabid supporters of twice unsuccessful Presidential candidate Ron
> > Paul claim their candidate is different from the others but when he comes
> > under attack for using his foundations to further his political career,
> > they chime in with a defense that claims other candidates do the same thing.
>
> > > In the end, the partisan supporters of the Texas Congressman who is
> > sometimes a Libertarian, sometimes a Republican and always a
> > conspiracy-touting extremist are no different than the die-hard backers of
> > former presidents George W. Bush or Bill Clinton.
>
> > > "It is kind of funny that the standard defense of Ron Paul using his
> > foundations for political purposes is that old excuse that 'everybody does
> > it.' Everybody doesn't do it. Most use political action committees for that
> > purpose," GOP strategist John Lawrence tells Capitol Hill Blue. "It is
> > typical of the ignorance of Ron Paul's faithful that they don't know the
> > difference between a not-for-profit foundation and a PAC."
>
> > > Another fantasy from the Paul camp is the claim that his positions have
> > never changed, that he has always been consistent. Paul's changing story
> > about his role in the racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic and
> > conspiracy-touting newsletters that bore his name in the 1980s and 1990s
> > lays that lie to rest. At first he claimed the words were his and taken out
> > of context, then his story changed to "I wrote some of the articles." Now
> > the story is "I didn't write them, I didn't read them and I disavow them."
>
> > > Ron Paul's hypocrisy on the newsletter issue is so blatant that more
> > questions are being raised about his handling of the matter.
>
> > > Writes Brett Budkowsky in The Hill:
>
> > > If Ron Paul wants others to take responsibility for their actions, he
> > should take responsibility for his. Otherwise his credo is the same serial
> > hypocrisy he correctly accuses Newt Gingrich of. If materials go out under
> > Ron Paul's name, advancing Ron Paul's interest, it is not enough to say, in
> > effect, "I did not know, I never knew, don't blame me."
>
> > > I believe if Ron Paul did take personal responsibility it would help his
> > campaign, but in any event, he should hold himself to the same standards he
> > applies to everyone else.
>
> > > Writes University of Maryland political science professor Thomas F.
> > Schaller in The Baltimore Sun:
>
> > > Nice try, congressman. There's his name in giant, bold letters at the
> > top of each issue. On some editions his face appears at the top, or his
> > signature at the bottom. The lack of bylines attached to specific articles,
> > his defenders say, means Dr. Paul can't be held accountable for the words
> > they contain. But the newsletters include first-person, biographical
> > mentions like "my wife Carol" and "my youngest son … starting his fourth
> > year of medical school." His wife's name is Carol; his youngest son,
> > Robert, is a physician.
>
> > > Even if surrogates actually wrote the material for Dr. Paul, so what?
> > When politicians authorize press secretaries and ghostwriters to pen their
> > statements, speeches and books, it is universally understood that the
> > politician whose name appears atop the stationery or on the jacket cover is
> > accountable. Once those newsletters went in the mail, Dr. Paul owned every
> > word they contained — period.
>
> > > But don't let Dr. Paul's impish, avuncular and professorial style fool
> > you. He's arguably the most megalomaniacal candidate in a 2012 Republican
> > field that includes Newt Gingrich. And he's trying to squirm out of taking
> > responsibility for his writings.
>
> > > I now brace myself for the torrent of emails from Dr. Paul's vigilant
> > supporters. When those emails arrive, I shall adopt the Ron Paul Defense:
> > Despite my name and picture at the top of this column, I'm so busy lately I
> > can't remember for sure whether I wrote all the words in this column, nor
> > did I read them before or after the column went to press. So I can't be
> > held responsible for calling their guy the racist, anti-gay conspiracist he
> > is.
>
> > > Hypocrisy, however, has long been a Ron Paul trademark but such facts
> > don't matter to Paul's cult-like followers. Their candidate — in their
> > narrow, parochial view of the world — is incapable of mistakes, of human
> > fallacies. He is the political messiah they blindly claim will save all of
> > us from themselves. In the end, American voters will save us from Ron Paul
> > by rejecting him at the polls.
>
> > > If Paul were caught screwing a nun on the steps of the Capitol, his
> > followers would probably claim it was a trap by a "liberal" Catholic church.
>
> > > Such is the nature of blind partisanship.
>
> > > Paul's followers are also well-known for spamming any web site that
> > dares question the sainthood of their candidate. An editorial last week
> > that suggested their candidate was selling America short to get rich
> > brought the usual avalanche of hate email, spam and computer generated
> > comments.
>
> > > Capitol Hill Blue's spam filters caught more than 5,000 fake emails from
> > a handful of IP addresses. More than 2500 came from phony email accounts.
> > More than 1500 contained racial, homophobic or anti-Semitic slurs. Some
> > claimed racism by other candidates or slams against their religions.
>
> > > Such comments don't make it onto this site. We verify email addresses,
> > look for spam from singular IP addresses and flag comments that contain
> > obscenities, racial slurs or threats.
>
> > > One trend we did find interesting in looking at the comments: More than
> > 500 questioned our use of a quote from an anonymous former Paul staff
> > member. All came from posters users anonymous "handles" instead of their
> > names and 83 percent from fake email addresses.
>
> > > Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot. The color for the day is black.
>
> > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 1:35 PM, plainolamerican <
> > plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> conservatives should support one of the six Republican stooges who,
> > >> unlike Ron Paul, don't actually believe in the core conservative
> > >> principle of limited constitutional government
> > >> ---
> > >> nor in the founding father's intentions to avoid entangling alliances
> > >> with other nations.
>
> > >> their hypocrisy knows no bounds
>
> > >> On Dec 28, 9:22 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > >> > Jonah Goldberg Admits: Political Power Is All That Matters to Neocons
> > (Shocker!!)Posted byThomas DiLorenzoon December 27, 2011 09:40 AM
> > >> > In his latest syndicated column Jonah Goldberg comes up with a novel
> > argument against the Ron Paul candidacy: Ron is (supposedly) not very
> > persuasive! He says he agrees with a lot of what Ron says, but if he is
> > elected president he won't be able to persuade enough members of Congress
> > to cut back on government.
> > >> > Therefore, Goldberg implies, conservatives should support one of the
> > six Republican stooges who, unlike Ron Paul, don't actually believe in the
> > core conservative principle of limited constitutional government but
> > onlytalkabout itwhenever Democrats are in power, not whentheyhold the White
> > House.
> > >> > Let's see now. Ron Paul has been persuasive enough to be reelected a
> > dozen times in his rural Texas congressional district despite the fact that
> > he is in favor of ending all farm welfare programs. He has been persuasive
> > enough to be Number One in the Iowa polls less than a week from the Iowa
> > Caucuses and near the top in national polls. He has been persuasive enough
> > to incite thousands of people to volunteer endless hours working for his
> > election. He has been persuasive enough to active-duty military personnel
> > to be the top recipient of campaign donations from them, receiving more
> > donations from active-duty military people than ALL THE OTHER REPUBLICAN
> > CANDIDATES COMBINED. He has been persuasive enough to have authored
> > severalNew York Timesbestsellers. He has been persuasive enough to have
> > become a YouTube sensation. He has been persuasive enough to shock the
> > entire Washington establishment by collecting tens of millions of dollars
> > in small, individual campaign donations in fundraising "money bombs"
> > organized by strangers. And he is clearly more persuasive than Jonah
> > Goldberg is when he argues that Ron Paul is not persuasive.
> > >> > Of course, the real reason the Jonah Goldbergs of the world busy
> > themselves with dreaming up dumb articles like his latest is that they know
> > that Ron Paul will not participate in the murder of thousands of innocent
> > Iranians and Syrians, and the death of thousands more of American soldiers,
> > with another trumped-up, phony war like the one in Iraq that has nothing
> > whatsoever to do with defending Americans against anything.
>
> > >> --
> > >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > >> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > >> * Visit our other community
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Ron Paul is the Only Presidential Candidate Who Gets It


RON PAUL IS THE ONLY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WHO GETS IT
By Chuck Baldwin
December 29, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

The recent passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the reaction--or better, lack of reaction--by the GOP's Presidential candidates is a perfect example of how it will not matter to a Tinker's Dam which Republican candidate wins the nomination, unless that candidate is Congressman Ron Paul. This is what so many people within the so-called Religious Right and establishment GOP just do not understand: they do not understand the fact that America is in the throes of a burgeoning police state. They have buried their heads in the sand for so long that they wouldn't know what tyranny looked like if it came up and bit them on their blessed assurance! They have totally drunk the propaganda Kool Aid that purports that the biggest threat to our liberties comes from the Sand People. Our Founding Fathers were a much wiser lot, of course. They understood perfectly that the biggest threat to our liberties comes from Washington, D.C., not Baghdad, or Tehran, or any other foreign entity.

Listen to Daniel Webster: "There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence. I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men and become the instruments of their own undoing."

Yet, except for Ron Paul, not a single Republican Presidential candidate has issued the slightest warning regarding the draconian components of the NDAA that literally turns America's homeland into a war zone and, with the stroke of a pen, effectively eviscerates the Bill of Rights. Why is that? Because, except for Ron Paul, none of them get it. Bachman, Gingrich, Perry, Romney, Santorum. None of them!

The day after Christmas, TheHill.com posted this report quoting Dr. Paul. "GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul warned that the National Defense Authorization Act, which was passed by Congress this month, will accelerate the country's 'slip into tyranny' and virtually assures 'our descent into totalitarianism.'

"'The founders wanted to set a high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty,' Paul, the libertarian congressman from Texas, said Monday in a weekly phone message to supporters. 'To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured. The Patriot Act, as bad as its violations against the Fourth Amendment was, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act continues that slip into tyranny, and in fact, accelerates it significantly.'"

The Hill report continued quoting Dr. Paul, "'The Fifth Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning,' Paul continued. 'It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about the due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented and without access to legal council. The danger of the NDAA is its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the U.S. government without trial.'"

The report also quoted Congressman Paul as saying, "'The president's widely expanded view of his own authority to detain Americans indefinitely even on American soil is for the first time in this legislation codified in law,' Paul said. 'That should chill all of us to our cores.'

"'The Bill of Rights has no exceptions for really bad people or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system, it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the Bill of Rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire United States is a battlefield in the war on terror. This is a very dangerous development, indeed. Beware.'"

See TheHill report here.

Then again, not only are these pathetic Presidential pretenders not aware of this fast erosion of our liberties being orchestrated by these miserable miscreants inside the Beltway, how many of you folks who go to church every Sunday hear your pastor say a peep about the totalitarian elements contained within the NDAA? Yep! That's what I thought! They don't get it, either!

For that matter, where is the first State Governor, Lieutenant Governor, or Attorney General to say, "Not in my State!"? Where are the county sheriffs to say, "Not in my county!"? (I can promise you this, if Bob Fanning and Chuck Baldwin are elected Montana Governor and Lieutenant Governor in 2012, we will say it! And we will say it loudly enough that everyone in Washington D.C., will be able to hear it!)

And speaking of Montana, it is extremely encouraging to learn that my friend and Oathkeepers founder, attorney Stewart Rhodes, is leading a recall petition against the two US senators from Montana who both supported NDAA. Salem-News.com has the story: "Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86-14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the bill.

"Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses."

The Salem-News report continued saying, "Montana law requires grounds for recall to be stated which show conformity to the allowed grounds for recall. The draft language of the Montana petitions, 'reason for recall' reads:

"The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S. citizens:

"'a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...'

"[NDAA] permanently abolishes the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, 'for the duration of hostilities' in the War on Terror, which was defined by President George W. Bush as 'task which does not end' to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2011.

"Those who voted Aye on December 15, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for NDAA 2011 have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

"The Montana Recall Act stipulates that officials including US senators can only be recalled for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense. We the undersigned call for a recall election to be held for Senator Max S. Baucus [and Senator Jonathan Tester] and charge that he has violated his oath of office, to protect and defend the United States Constitution."

The report goes on to quote Rhodes (a Yale Law School graduate) as saying, "These politicians from both parties betrayed our trust, and violated the oath they took to defend the Constitution. It's not about the left or the right, it's about our Bill of Rights. Without the Bill of Rights, there is no America. It is the Crown Jewel of our Constitution, and the high-water mark of Western Civilization." Amen, Stewart! Amen!

See the Salem-News report here.

NDAA should be to Americans in 2011 what the Boston Massacre was to the colonists in 1770, because this Act literally massacres the Bill of Rights. (And risking the charge that I'm tooting my own horn, when Montanans elect Bob Fanning Governor and Chuck Baldwin Lieutenant Governor in 2012, it will be the second "shot heard 'round the world.") And of all the Presidential hopefuls, Ron Paul is only one who gets it!

P.S. This is the final call for THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS. To order this giant compilation of America's great historical documents, click here.

P.S.S. To see the Fanning-Baldwin campaign web site, or to donate to our campaign, click here.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin681.htm

Re: Jonah Goldberg Admits: Political Power Is All That Matters to Neocons (Shocker!!)

Well, one that comes to mind is that post that you sent in several weeks ago, about Newt's divorce!
 


 
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:49 AM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
Nope,  I haven't heard too many folks get Crazy Uncle Ron's fiscal
policies
wrong, but I have heard a ton of the cult like followers of Crazy
Uncle Ron
spew misinformation continuously
---
cite example

On Dec 28, 1:31 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nope,  I haven't heard too many folks get Crazy Uncle Ron's fiscal policies
> wrong, but I have heard a ton of the cult like followers of Crazy Uncle Ron
> spew misinformation continuously.
>
> Most all of the conservative candidates now have similar fiscal policies as
> Crazy Uncle Ron do,  there's nothing new there.
>
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Actually his supporters just think his critics are desperate and idiots
> > since they get so many things, like what kind of monetary reform he
> > advocates, so wrong and are obviously so ignorant
>
> > On Wednesday, December 28, 2011, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > The hypocrisy of Ron Paul and his supporters By SHERRY BREWER
> > > Capitol Hill Supervising Editor
> > > A Capitol Hill Blue Editorial
> > > December 27, 2011
> > > ________________________________
>
> > > Ron Paul: Which side of his mouth is he talking out of today?
>
> > > The rabid supporters of twice unsuccessful Presidential candidate Ron
> > Paul claim their candidate is different from the others but when he comes
> > under attack for using his foundations to further his political career,
> > they chime in with a defense that claims other candidates do the same thing.
>
> > > In the end, the partisan supporters of the Texas Congressman who is
> > sometimes a Libertarian, sometimes a Republican and always a
> > conspiracy-touting extremist are no different than the die-hard backers of
> > former presidents George W. Bush or Bill Clinton.
>
> > > "It is kind of funny that the standard defense of Ron Paul using his
> > foundations for political purposes is that old excuse that 'everybody does
> > it.' Everybody doesn't do it. Most use political action committees for that
> > purpose," GOP strategist John Lawrence tells Capitol Hill Blue. "It is
> > typical of the ignorance of Ron Paul's faithful that they don't know the
> > difference between a not-for-profit foundation and a PAC."
>
> > > Another fantasy from the Paul camp is the claim that his positions have
> > never changed, that he has always been consistent. Paul's changing story
> > about his role in the racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic and
> > conspiracy-touting newsletters that bore his name in the 1980s and 1990s
> > lays that lie to rest. At first he claimed the words were his and taken out
> > of context, then his story changed to "I wrote some of the articles." Now
> > the story is "I didn't write them, I didn't read them and I disavow them."
>
> > > Ron Paul's hypocrisy on the newsletter issue is so blatant that more
> > questions are being raised about his handling of the matter.
>
> > > Writes Brett Budkowsky in The Hill:
>
> > > If Ron Paul wants others to take responsibility for their actions, he
> > should take responsibility for his. Otherwise his credo is the same serial
> > hypocrisy he correctly accuses Newt Gingrich of. If materials go out under
> > Ron Paul's name, advancing Ron Paul's interest, it is not enough to say, in
> > effect, "I did not know, I never knew, don't blame me."
>
> > > I believe if Ron Paul did take personal responsibility it would help his
> > campaign, but in any event, he should hold himself to the same standards he
> > applies to everyone else.
>
> > > Writes University of Maryland political science professor Thomas F.
> > Schaller in The Baltimore Sun:
>
> > > Nice try, congressman. There's his name in giant, bold letters at the
> > top of each issue. On some editions his face appears at the top, or his
> > signature at the bottom. The lack of bylines attached to specific articles,
> > his defenders say, means Dr. Paul can't be held accountable for the words
> > they contain. But the newsletters include first-person, biographical
> > mentions like "my wife Carol" and "my youngest son … starting his fourth
> > year of medical school." His wife's name is Carol; his youngest son,
> > Robert, is a physician.
>
> > > Even if surrogates actually wrote the material for Dr. Paul, so what?
> > When politicians authorize press secretaries and ghostwriters to pen their
> > statements, speeches and books, it is universally understood that the
> > politician whose name appears atop the stationery or on the jacket cover is
> > accountable. Once those newsletters went in the mail, Dr. Paul owned every
> > word they contained — period.
>
> > > But don't let Dr. Paul's impish, avuncular and professorial style fool
> > you. He's arguably the most megalomaniacal candidate in a 2012 Republican
> > field that includes Newt Gingrich. And he's trying to squirm out of taking
> > responsibility for his writings.
>
> > > I now brace myself for the torrent of emails from Dr. Paul's vigilant
> > supporters. When those emails arrive, I shall adopt the Ron Paul Defense:
> > Despite my name and picture at the top of this column, I'm so busy lately I
> > can't remember for sure whether I wrote all the words in this column, nor
> > did I read them before or after the column went to press. So I can't be
> > held responsible for calling their guy the racist, anti-gay conspiracist he
> > is.
>
> > > Hypocrisy, however, has long been a Ron Paul trademark but such facts
> > don't matter to Paul's cult-like followers. Their candidate — in their
> > narrow, parochial view of the world — is incapable of mistakes, of human
> > fallacies. He is the political messiah they blindly claim will save all of
> > us from themselves. In the end, American voters will save us from Ron Paul
> > by rejecting him at the polls.
>
> > > If Paul were caught screwing a nun on the steps of the Capitol, his
> > followers would probably claim it was a trap by a "liberal" Catholic church.
>
> > > Such is the nature of blind partisanship.
>
> > > Paul's followers are also well-known for spamming any web site that
> > dares question the sainthood of their candidate. An editorial last week
> > that suggested their candidate was selling America short to get rich
> > brought the usual avalanche of hate email, spam and computer generated
> > comments.
>
> > > Capitol Hill Blue's spam filters caught more than 5,000 fake emails from
> > a handful of IP addresses. More than 2500 came from phony email accounts.
> > More than 1500 contained racial, homophobic or anti-Semitic slurs. Some
> > claimed racism by other candidates or slams against their religions.
>
> > > Such comments don't make it onto this site. We verify email addresses,
> > look for spam from singular IP addresses and flag comments that contain
> > obscenities, racial slurs or threats.
>
> > > One trend we did find interesting in looking at the comments: More than
> > 500 questioned our use of a quote from an anonymous former Paul staff
> > member. All came from posters users anonymous "handles" instead of their
> > names and 83 percent from fake email addresses.
>
> > > Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot. The color for the day is black.
>
> > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 1:35 PM, plainolamerican <
> > plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> conservatives should support one of the six Republican stooges who,
> > >> unlike Ron Paul, don't actually believe in the core conservative
> > >> principle of limited constitutional government
> > >> ---
> > >> nor in the founding father's intentions to avoid entangling alliances
> > >> with other nations.
>
> > >> their hypocrisy knows no bounds
>
> > >> On Dec 28, 9:22 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > >> > Jonah Goldberg Admits: Political Power Is All That Matters to Neocons
> > (Shocker!!)Posted byThomas DiLorenzoon December 27, 2011 09:40 AM
> > >> > In his latest syndicated column Jonah Goldberg comes up with a novel
> > argument against the Ron Paul candidacy: Ron is (supposedly) not very
> > persuasive! He says he agrees with a lot of what Ron says, but if he is
> > elected president he won't be able to persuade enough members of Congress
> > to cut back on government.
> > >> > Therefore, Goldberg implies, conservatives should support one of the
> > six Republican stooges who, unlike Ron Paul, don't actually believe in the
> > core conservative principle of limited constitutional government but
> > onlytalkabout itwhenever Democrats are in power, not whentheyhold the White
> > House.
> > >> > Let's see now. Ron Paul has been persuasive enough to be reelected a
> > dozen times in his rural Texas congressional district despite the fact that
> > he is in favor of ending all farm welfare programs. He has been persuasive
> > enough to be Number One in the Iowa polls less than a week from the Iowa
> > Caucuses and near the top in national polls. He has been persuasive enough
> > to incite thousands of people to volunteer endless hours working for his
> > election. He has been persuasive enough to active-duty military personnel
> > to be the top recipient of campaign donations from them, receiving more
> > donations from active-duty military people than ALL THE OTHER REPUBLICAN
> > CANDIDATES COMBINED. He has been persuasive enough to have authored
> > severalNew York Timesbestsellers. He has been persuasive enough to have
> > become a YouTube sensation. He has been persuasive enough to shock the
> > entire Washington establishment by collecting tens of millions of dollars
> > in small, individual campaign donations in fundraising "money bombs"
> > organized by strangers. And he is clearly more persuasive than Jonah
> > Goldberg is when he argues that Ron Paul is not persuasive.
> > >> > Of course, the real reason the Jonah Goldbergs of the world busy
> > themselves with dreaming up dumb articles like his latest is that they know
> > that Ron Paul will not participate in the murder of thousands of innocent
> > Iranians and Syrians, and the death of thousands more of American soldiers,
> > with another trumped-up, phony war like the one in Iraq that has nothing
> > whatsoever to do with defending Americans against anything.
>
> > >> --
> > >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > >> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > >> * Visit our other community
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Jonah Goldberg Admits: Political Power Is All That Matters to Neocons (Shocker!!)

Nope, I haven't heard too many folks get Crazy Uncle Ron's fiscal
policies
wrong, but I have heard a ton of the cult like followers of Crazy
Uncle Ron
spew misinformation continuously
---
cite example

On Dec 28, 1:31 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nope,  I haven't heard too many folks get Crazy Uncle Ron's fiscal policies
> wrong, but I have heard a ton of the cult like followers of Crazy Uncle Ron
> spew misinformation continuously.
>
> Most all of the conservative candidates now have similar fiscal policies as
> Crazy Uncle Ron do,  there's nothing new there.
>
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Actually his supporters just think his critics are desperate and idiots
> > since they get so many things, like what kind of monetary reform he
> > advocates, so wrong and are obviously so ignorant
>
> > On Wednesday, December 28, 2011, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > The hypocrisy of Ron Paul and his supporters By SHERRY BREWER
> > > Capitol Hill Supervising Editor
> > > A Capitol Hill Blue Editorial
> > > December 27, 2011
> > > ________________________________
>
> > > Ron Paul: Which side of his mouth is he talking out of today?
>
> > > The rabid supporters of twice unsuccessful Presidential candidate Ron
> > Paul claim their candidate is different from the others but when he comes
> > under attack for using his foundations to further his political career,
> > they chime in with a defense that claims other candidates do the same thing.
>
> > > In the end, the partisan supporters of the Texas Congressman who is
> > sometimes a Libertarian, sometimes a Republican and always a
> > conspiracy-touting extremist are no different than the die-hard backers of
> > former presidents George W. Bush or Bill Clinton.
>
> > > "It is kind of funny that the standard defense of Ron Paul using his
> > foundations for political purposes is that old excuse that 'everybody does
> > it.' Everybody doesn't do it. Most use political action committees for that
> > purpose," GOP strategist John Lawrence tells Capitol Hill Blue. "It is
> > typical of the ignorance of Ron Paul's faithful that they don't know the
> > difference between a not-for-profit foundation and a PAC."
>
> > > Another fantasy from the Paul camp is the claim that his positions have
> > never changed, that he has always been consistent. Paul's changing story
> > about his role in the racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic and
> > conspiracy-touting newsletters that bore his name in the 1980s and 1990s
> > lays that lie to rest. At first he claimed the words were his and taken out
> > of context, then his story changed to "I wrote some of the articles." Now
> > the story is "I didn't write them, I didn't read them and I disavow them."
>
> > > Ron Paul's hypocrisy on the newsletter issue is so blatant that more
> > questions are being raised about his handling of the matter.
>
> > > Writes Brett Budkowsky in The Hill:
>
> > > If Ron Paul wants others to take responsibility for their actions, he
> > should take responsibility for his. Otherwise his credo is the same serial
> > hypocrisy he correctly accuses Newt Gingrich of. If materials go out under
> > Ron Paul's name, advancing Ron Paul's interest, it is not enough to say, in
> > effect, "I did not know, I never knew, don't blame me."
>
> > > I believe if Ron Paul did take personal responsibility it would help his
> > campaign, but in any event, he should hold himself to the same standards he
> > applies to everyone else.
>
> > > Writes University of Maryland political science professor Thomas F.
> > Schaller in The Baltimore Sun:
>
> > > Nice try, congressman. There's his name in giant, bold letters at the
> > top of each issue. On some editions his face appears at the top, or his
> > signature at the bottom. The lack of bylines attached to specific articles,
> > his defenders say, means Dr. Paul can't be held accountable for the words
> > they contain. But the newsletters include first-person, biographical
> > mentions like "my wife Carol" and "my youngest son … starting his fourth
> > year of medical school." His wife's name is Carol; his youngest son,
> > Robert, is a physician.
>
> > > Even if surrogates actually wrote the material for Dr. Paul, so what?
> > When politicians authorize press secretaries and ghostwriters to pen their
> > statements, speeches and books, it is universally understood that the
> > politician whose name appears atop the stationery or on the jacket cover is
> > accountable. Once those newsletters went in the mail, Dr. Paul owned every
> > word they contained — period.
>
> > > But don't let Dr. Paul's impish, avuncular and professorial style fool
> > you. He's arguably the most megalomaniacal candidate in a 2012 Republican
> > field that includes Newt Gingrich. And he's trying to squirm out of taking
> > responsibility for his writings.
>
> > > I now brace myself for the torrent of emails from Dr. Paul's vigilant
> > supporters. When those emails arrive, I shall adopt the Ron Paul Defense:
> > Despite my name and picture at the top of this column, I'm so busy lately I
> > can't remember for sure whether I wrote all the words in this column, nor
> > did I read them before or after the column went to press. So I can't be
> > held responsible for calling their guy the racist, anti-gay conspiracist he
> > is.
>
> > > Hypocrisy, however, has long been a Ron Paul trademark but such facts
> > don't matter to Paul's cult-like followers. Their candidate — in their
> > narrow, parochial view of the world — is incapable of mistakes, of human
> > fallacies. He is the political messiah they blindly claim will save all of
> > us from themselves. In the end, American voters will save us from Ron Paul
> > by rejecting him at the polls.
>
> > > If Paul were caught screwing a nun on the steps of the Capitol, his
> > followers would probably claim it was a trap by a "liberal" Catholic church.
>
> > > Such is the nature of blind partisanship.
>
> > > Paul's followers are also well-known for spamming any web site that
> > dares question the sainthood of their candidate. An editorial last week
> > that suggested their candidate was selling America short to get rich
> > brought the usual avalanche of hate email, spam and computer generated
> > comments.
>
> > > Capitol Hill Blue's spam filters caught more than 5,000 fake emails from
> > a handful of IP addresses. More than 2500 came from phony email accounts.
> > More than 1500 contained racial, homophobic or anti-Semitic slurs. Some
> > claimed racism by other candidates or slams against their religions.
>
> > > Such comments don't make it onto this site. We verify email addresses,
> > look for spam from singular IP addresses and flag comments that contain
> > obscenities, racial slurs or threats.
>
> > > One trend we did find interesting in looking at the comments: More than
> > 500 questioned our use of a quote from an anonymous former Paul staff
> > member. All came from posters users anonymous "handles" instead of their
> > names and 83 percent from fake email addresses.
>
> > > Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot. The color for the day is black.
>
> > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 1:35 PM, plainolamerican <
> > plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> conservatives should support one of the six Republican stooges who,
> > >> unlike Ron Paul, don't actually believe in the core conservative
> > >> principle of limited constitutional government
> > >> ---
> > >> nor in the founding father's intentions to avoid entangling alliances
> > >> with other nations.
>
> > >> their hypocrisy knows no bounds
>
> > >> On Dec 28, 9:22 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > >> > Jonah Goldberg Admits: Political Power Is All That Matters to Neocons
> > (Shocker!!)Posted byThomas DiLorenzoon December 27, 2011 09:40 AM
> > >> > In his latest syndicated column Jonah Goldberg comes up with a novel
> > argument against the Ron Paul candidacy: Ron is (supposedly) not very
> > persuasive! He says he agrees with a lot of what Ron says, but if he is
> > elected president he won't be able to persuade enough members of Congress
> > to cut back on government.
> > >> > Therefore, Goldberg implies, conservatives should support one of the
> > six Republican stooges who, unlike Ron Paul, don't actually believe in the
> > core conservative principle of limited constitutional government but
> > onlytalkabout itwhenever Democrats are in power, not whentheyhold the White
> > House.
> > >> > Let's see now. Ron Paul has been persuasive enough to be reelected a
> > dozen times in his rural Texas congressional district despite the fact that
> > he is in favor of ending all farm welfare programs. He has been persuasive
> > enough to be Number One in the Iowa polls less than a week from the Iowa
> > Caucuses and near the top in national polls. He has been persuasive enough
> > to incite thousands of people to volunteer endless hours working for his
> > election. He has been persuasive enough to active-duty military personnel
> > to be the top recipient of campaign donations from them, receiving more
> > donations from active-duty military people than ALL THE OTHER REPUBLICAN
> > CANDIDATES COMBINED. He has been persuasive enough to have authored
> > severalNew York Timesbestsellers. He has been persuasive enough to have
> > become a YouTube sensation. He has been persuasive enough to shock the
> > entire Washington establishment by collecting tens of millions of dollars
> > in small, individual campaign donations in fundraising "money bombs"
> > organized by strangers. And he is clearly more persuasive than Jonah
> > Goldberg is when he argues that Ron Paul is not persuasive.
> > >> > Of course, the real reason the Jonah Goldbergs of the world busy
> > themselves with dreaming up dumb articles like his latest is that they know
> > that Ron Paul will not participate in the murder of thousands of innocent
> > Iranians and Syrians, and the death of thousands more of American soldiers,
> > with another trumped-up, phony war like the one in Iraq that has nothing
> > whatsoever to do with defending Americans against anything.
>
> > >> --
> > >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > >> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > >> * Visit our other community
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Where are they now? . . .

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/fanniemae.asp

On Dec 28, 8:19 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>    ****
>
> *The three who brought down Wall Street.*****
>
>  ****
>
> Here's a quick look into the *three former Fannie Mae executives* who****
>
> brought down Wall Street.****
>
>  ****
>
> *Franklin Raines* was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae.*
> ***
>
> Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when****
>
> auditing discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae's accounting****
>
> activities. Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at $240 Million in**
> **
>
> benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the****
>
> accounting scandal became clear.****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> *Tim Howard* - was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard "was a*
> ***
>
> strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure**
> **
>
> a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. Investigations by federal****
>
> regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that****
>
> management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and****
>
> Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004. Howard's Golden Parachute was**
> **
>
> estimated at $20 Million!****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> *Jim Johnson* - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later****
>
> forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. Investigators found that****
>
> Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation***
> *
>
> from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million****
>
> when it fact it was $21 million." Johnson is currently under investigation**
> **
>
> for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie****
>
> Mae.****
>
> Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.****
>
> *****************************************************************************************
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> *WHERE ARE THEY NOW?*****
>
>  ****
>
> *FRANKLIN RAINES*?****
>
> Raines works for the *Obama *Campaign as his Chief Economic Advisor.****
>
>  ****
>
> *TIM HOWARD?*****
>
> Howard is a Chief Economic Advisor to *Obama* under Franklin Raines.****
>
>  ****
>
> JIM JOHNSON?****
>
> Johnson was hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to****
>
> run *Obama's* Vice Presidential Search Committee.****
>
>  ****
>
> Kinda makes you sick to your stomach.****
>
>  ****
>
> Our government seems to be rotten to the core !****
>
>  ****
>
> Are we stupid or what? Vote in 2012..it is the most important election of
> our lives...****
>
> ****

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: ToddSeavey.com:USSR then, U.S. today, Ron Paul next week, Rothbard forever (despite those newsletters)

because of those NeoCons and Zealots being in control
---
they must be removed from our government, especially the GOP.
and let's not confuse who they are ... zionist xians and jews who
promote intervention in the middle east that has resulted in the
destruction of our liberties and privacy

On Dec 29, 8:20 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Like Seavey,  I acknowledged the "paleolibertarian"  movement back in the
> 1990s and forward,  I just had a different name for them:  The
> "Patriots/Militia/Minutemen/Tax Protest/Wacko Right Conspiratorialist
> Crackpot"  crewe.  The distinction between folks like me,  (and I consider
> myself to be a conservative libertarian,  a Registered Republican,  and
> Southern By The Grace Of God");  is that there were a number of beliefs,
> platforms and issues that these "Patriots/Militia/Minutemen/Tax
> Protest/Wacko Right Conspiratorialist Crackpot" crewe stood for and
> accepted as gospel, that I totally rejected and considered a deal breaker.
>
> Today, in the New Millennium,  there are a number of groups that make up
> the Republican Party.  I've written about this before,  when trying to make
> a point with Michael "MJ".  Some of these groups,  Rockwell and especially
> Rothbard and Buchanan were targeting in the late 1980s and early to mid
> 1990s:
>
> From March 19, 2009.  I hope that Bruce and PlainOl will take the time to
> read this:
>
> To classify "conservatives" as, "Republicans" is misplaced.  There are at
> least four or five broad classifications of voter types that usually vote
> Republican; a coalition if you will; and  some of these group's beliefs
> obviously overlap.  Just as important, again, I am stereotyping:
>
> The "Social Conservatives", or "traditionalists"; sometimes unflatteringly
> referred to as the  "fundamentalist religious zealots"; of which family,
> church and community are their most important issues;
>
> The "Economic Conservatives"; who view nature as actually benign,
> encouraging individualism, experimentation, and entrepreneurship;
>
> The "Libertarians"; or "Constitutionalists; who in general look for a
> strict adherence to the Constitution, and a very limited, restricted
> government;
>
> The "Fatalists"; or, (again for lack of a better term) the "NeoCons"; (and
> I detest that term, because by definition, all "NeoCons" are former
> Democrats) who generally believe in a strong central government, with a
> "Federalist" perspective.
>
> I will be the first to admit, that the Republican Party has lost its way.
> In general, (again, I am stereotyping!!)  President Bush was not a
> conservative, but some hybrid "moderate", or "egalitarian" with "NeoCon"
> and "social conservative" advisors and viewpoints.    With the exception of
> Jimmy Carter, the Bush Administration might very well have been one of the
> worst presidencies in yours and my lifetime, (although the Johnson
> Administration ranks up there too).
>
> Like it or not, if Repulbicans want to be in the majority, all of these
> aforementioned groups must form a coalition, (which we have done
> successfully for the most part of the latter half of the 20th Century).
> Both economic and social conservatives, as well as the Libertarians, and
> NeoCons are stuck with one other, if we want to be in the majority--or at
> least if we do not want a coalition of egalitarians, socialists and
> fatalists in control.
>
> To even protect ourselves from the governmental intrusions of the
> "egalitarian-socialist-liberal" and "fatalist-NeoCon" types on the left,
> Traditionalists and Libertarians must respect each other's bottom line
> values.  Economic conservatives must be explicit that the traditional
> values are the goal, even if they stress more that the means should be
> voluntary ones. Social conservatives must recognize a difference between
> recognizing moral ills and the temptation of translating their solution
> into national laws, even if they must insist upon public discussion of the
> ultimate value-goals and their solution by voluntary and local means. If
> both conservative factions do not accommodate their natural allies, the
> other guys will determine what the goals are and use national government
> means to enforce them.
>
> This is the reason that I chose some eight or nine months ago, to once
> again get very active in Republican politics here locally (in the State of
> Florida)  in an attempt to take my party back from those who I believe have
> hijacked the leadership of the Republican Party.  No question, the
> "fundamentalist religious zealots";  (Again, for lack of a better term) and
> "NeoCons"; and as stated, I despise the term "NeoCon", but everyone seems
> to understand to some degree, who I am referencing have been in control of
> the Republican Party for way too long, causing disarray, and party splits
> on a number of issues, that would take too long to get into, but by
> example, Terri Schiavo, the Patriot Act, The Department of Homeland
> Security, and our lack of a succinct immigration policy and securing of our
> borders are great examples of complex issues where the Republican Party has
> failed, because of those NeoCons and Zealots being in control.
>
> The Republican Party Leadership must return to and once again advocate the
> "Conservative-Libertarian-Constitutionalist" values that were so
> successful, and of which Ronald Reagan championed and advocated back in the
> 1980s.   I believe that you are going to see a house cleaning in 2010, on
> both sides of the aisle, and a return to these conservative libertarian
> principles in the next 18-24 months, which still allows for and respects
> those Traditionalist/Social Conservative values and champions fiscal
> responsibility and the principles of the Economic Conservatives.
>
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 4:26 AM, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > ---------- Forwarded
>
> > Blog: ToddSeavey.com
> > Post: USSR then, U.S. today, Ron Paul next week, Rothbard forever (despite
> > those newsletters)
> > Link:
> >http://www.toddseavey.com/2011/12/ussr-then-us-today-ron-paul-next-we...
>
> > --
> > Powered by Blogger
> >http://www.blogger.com/
>
> >  --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Weinergate - a 6 pack of weiners

BBQ them and feed them to the muzzies.
---
KILGORE
"You smell that? Do you smell that?"

FAC PILOT
What?

KILGORE
"Jews, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that.
I love the smell of jews being fed to muzzies in the morning.
You know, one time we had a big bbq for some Pakis.
The next morning we didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' body.
The smell, you know ... it smelled like - victory.
Someday this war is gonna end."

On Dec 29, 9:01 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> BBQ them and feed them to the muzzies.
>
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > <Grin>!
>
> > Both are just as hateful.....
>
> > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> I think lil Tommy is both more faggoty and more ignorant than even
> >> Anthony
>
> >> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>> I've always believed that LilMarxistMoonbatTommyTomTomForNews is really
> >>> Anthony Weiner.
>
> >>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>  Anthony Weiner comes out!
> >>>>   *If Tony is bi is Huma?  *
> >>>> *
> >>>> *
> >>>> *And does that mean HRC is?  *
> >>>> *
> >>>> *
> >>>> *And how will they raise the baby?*
>
> >>>> Anthony Weiner wanted threesome with woman and man
> >>>> POST STAFF REPORT
> >>>> *Last Updated:* 11:17 AM, December 28, 2011
> >>>> *Posted:* 10:24 AM, December 28, 2011
>
> >>>>    <http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/anthony_weiner_wanted_threesome_ls...><http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/anthony_weiner_wanted_threesome_ls...>
> >>>> More <http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&username=nypost> Print<http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/local/anthony_weiner_wanted_threes...>
> >>>>  Anthony Weiner proposed a threesome with texting pal Traci Nobles and
> >>>> a man, according to a new report.
> >>>> The Queens Democrat made the suggestion in the midst of his texting and
> >>>> tweeting adventures that eventually forced him to resign his congressional
> >>>> seat in June, RadarOnline.com reported <http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2011/12/anthony-weiner-threesom...>
> >>>> today.
> >>>> The revelation came from conversation excerpts that Radar obtained from
> >>>> Nobles' proposal for a tell-all book.
> >>>> After proposing a threesome, Weiner told Nobles, "I'm not really
> >>>> talking about other chicks... How about with another guy?"
> >>>> "Hmmmm, haven't done it before," Nobles said.
>
> >>>> AP
> >>>> Anthony Weiner in June when he admitted to "inappropriate" exchanges
> >>>> with six women before and after getting married. A new report says he
> >>>> suggested a threesome with a woman and a man.
> >>>>  "It can be hot," Weiner replies.
> >>>> "Are you turned on by other guys?" Nobles asked.
> >>>> "Well it depends on the guy, but generally yes," Weiner said.
> >>>> This isn't the first time details from Nobles' book proposal have gone
> >>>> public.
> >>>> In October, news surfaced that Weiner boasted that he masturbated in
> >>>> House restrooms and expressed frustration about his "backwards thinking"
> >>>> Muslim in-laws, according to the proposal.
> >>>> "Omg. I didn't think I could get any harder," read one Weiner message
> >>>> provided by Nobles.
> >>>> Weiner claimed to do much of his sexting from his Washington office and
> >>>> would take care of sexual urges in the bathroom.
> >>>> "It's a big office and you know that's not the only thing here that's
> >>>> big," Weiner wrote.
> >>>> Last week, Page Six broke the news <http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/anthony_we_have_weiner_dqeI...>that
> >>>> Weiner and wife Huma Abedin had a baby boy.
> >>>> Weiner's downfall began on May 27 when he tweeted a lewd crotch shot of
> >>>> himself to a 21-year-old Twitter follower.
> >>>> He later admitted to several inappropriate online relationships with
> >>>> women before giving up his seat in Congress <http://www.nypost.com/t/U.S._Congress>—
> >>>> and his dream of being New York's next mayor.
> >>>> Weiner, 47, said he never had physical contact with any of the women.
> >>>> The scandal broke before the couple's first wedding anniversary.
> >>>> Sources close to the family have said the cad dad is already in big
> >>>> debt to the baby boy.
> >>>> If it weren't for the pregnancy, Abedin, a top aide to Secretary of
> >>>> State Hillary Rodham Clinton, might have walked out on Weiner quicker than
> >>>> he could tweet an apology, the sources said.
>
> >>>>    *
> >>>> *
>
> >>>> Read more:
> >>>>http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/anthony_weiner_wanted_threesome_ls...
>
> >>>>  ShareThis
> >>>> Posted by Bruce Majors at 6:26 AM<http://bighomocon.blogspot.com/2011/12/anthony-weiner-comes-out.html>
> >>>>   <http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=6903951722523865175&postID...><http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=6903951722523865175&postID=...>
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >>>> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> >>>> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> >>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> >>> --
> >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >>> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> >>> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> >>  --
> >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> >> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.