Friday, January 13, 2012

Conservatives Are Socialists Too


Friday, January 13, 2012
Conservatives Are Socialists Too
by Jacob G. Hornberger

Conservatives love to accuse President Obama of being a socialist. But as the old adage goes, when they point their finger at Obama, they've got three fingers pointing back at themselves.

Consider, for example, three of the biggest socialist programs in America: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. How many conservatives want to repeal those three programs? Hardly any. Almost all of them say they want to save these programs and simply reform them.

Now, that's not to say that conservatives favor a complete government takeover of all property in the country and total control over economic activity, as, say, socialists did in Cuba and North Korea. But then again neither does Obama, and conservatives nonetheless call him a socialist.

We're talking about socialist programs ­ those in which the government takes money from one group of people in order to give it to another group of people.

That's what Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid do. They forcibly take money from one group of people through the tax system and give it to another group of people through the welfare system.

Yes, I know -- conservatives, like liberals, claim that Social Security isn't really a welfare program but instead a retirement account. But that's just a rationalization for their support of a socialist program. There isn't a Social Security fund and there never has been such a fund.

Social Security is a straight tax and spend welfare-state program. It is the crown jewel of the welfare state. Liberal icon Franklin Roosevelt brought it into existence. He got the idea from Otto von Bismarck, the so-called Iron Chancellor of Germany, whose bust is on the website of the U.S. Social Security Administration. Bismarck got the idea for Social Security from socialists in Germany.

What about the so-called Social Security fund? Suppose a parent has saved $20,000 for his child's college education. The money is in the form of cash in a home safe. One day, the parent takes the money out and spends it on a new stereo system. But he places a promissory note for $20,000 into the safe. When his kid asks how his college fund is doing, the parent responds, "Don't worry. It is fully funded." That's what the Social Security trust fund is all about.

Medicare and Medicaid are no different. They too are socialist programs. The government forcibly takes money from one group of people to pay for the health-care costs of another group of people. The program was enacted during the regime of liberal icon Lyndon Johnson, whose mentor was Franklin Roosevelt.

Do conservatives want to repeal Medicare and Medicaid? Are you kidding? They are as committed to those two socialist programs as liberals are. At best, all they want to do is repeal Obamacare and substitute their own reform plan that they're convinced will finally fix the health-care crisis produced by government intervention into health care (including medical licensure, which conservatives also endorse and which libertarians oppose).

Consider the Federal Reserve. Here we have a classic example of the concept of central planning, which is also a feature of socialism. A small group of government officials purports to have the requisite knowledge to plan the monetary affairs of hundreds of millions of people.

No wonder there are booms and busts, recessions and depressions, deflation and inflation, and all sorts of monetary crises.

But when libertarians call for the Fed be abolished and replaced by a gold standard or a free-market monetary system, conservatives go ballistic, claiming that such an idea is "loony." I suppose they'd say the same thing about Nobel Laureates Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, both of whom ( here and here) favored the abolition of the Fed, even though, ironically, conservatives often praise them in their speeches and articles.

While we're on the subject of loony, I ask you: What could be loonier than to call yourself a capitalist when you embrace big socialist programs? I mean, if a person came up to you and said, "I believe in God and I believe the atheists have it right," wouldn't you think he might be a bit loony?

And hey, let's not forget that it's not just those three big socialist programs -- Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid -- that conservatives support. They're also firmly committed to other statist programs, as reflected in the following statement that most conservatives would undoubtedly embrace:
As a conservative, I support economic liberty, free markets, and limited government, and I fervently oppose socialism and statism … well, except for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, corporate bailouts, education grants, foreign aid, SBA loans, FDIC, food stamps, public works, the Federal Reserve, immigration controls, agricultural subsidies, public (i.e., government schooling), trade restrictions, and drug laws.
With all due respect, what could be loonier than that?

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2012-01-13.asp

Gun Facts & The Second Amendment: What The Bankers Fear Will Be The End To Their New World Order Scheme Of Slavery!



New post on Political Vel Craft

Gun Facts & The Second Amendment: What The Bankers Fear Will Be The End To Their New World Order Scheme Of Slavery!

by Volubrjotr

Gun Facts is a free e-book that debunks common myths about gun control.  It is intended as a reference guide for journalists, activists, politicians, and other people interested in restoring honesty to the debate about guns, crime, and the 2nd Amendment. Gun Facts has 112 pages of information.  Divided into chapters based on gun control [...]

Read more of this post

Volubrjotr | January 13, 2012 at 02:16 | Categories: government | URL: http://wp.me/psXSG-eDE

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/01/13/gun-facts-the-second-amendment-what-the-bankers-fear-will-be-the-end-to-their-new-world-order-scheme-of-slavery/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
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.

Rothschild Bankers Must Destroy Your Family First: To Resurrect The Ancient Feudal System Called New World Order!



New post on Political Vel Craft

Rothschild Bankers Must Destroy Your Family First: To Resurrect The Ancient Feudal System Called New World Order!

by Volubrjotr

To destroy a society so you can erect a fascist, ne- feudal, new world order, you must destroy the family. To destroy the family, the children must be stolen and re-educated somewhere else. More, a new world order must be paid for and stealing children and selling them by adoption to wealthy people helps to [...]

Read more of this post

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/01/13/rothschild-bankers-must-destroy-your-family-first-to-resurrect-the-ancient-feudal-system-called-new-world-order/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
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.

New stage in human evolution



New post on Fellowship of the Minds

New stage in human evolution

by Dr. Eowyn

You've seen this striking picture depicting Darwin's "theory" of human evolution?

Here's the latest stage!

H/t our beloved Miss May.

~Eowyn

Dr. Eowyn | January 13, 2012 at 4:00 am | Tags: saggy pants | Categories: crime, Culture War, Humor, United States | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-bNd

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/new-stage-in-human-evolution/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
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.

Obama's Military Cuts



 

--
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: Someone does understand

How very true...

On Jan 12, 2:45 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  http://www.tomrush.com./video_remember.html

--
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.

Garbo on TV tonight

--
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.

**JP** New Technology

 

Re: So Misunderstood.....Ron Paul Continues Assault On The Media

Please read the word COULD>>>>>>>

Ron Paul told Iowa voters on Friday that he would not launch a
preemptive strike on Iran because "they don't threaten our national
security."
"If some other country thought they had to go to war with them, that
is their business," he said, adding there is no proof Iran is building
a nuclear weapon.
A recent IAEA report said that Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology
over several years could be consistent with the building of a bomb.
And Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta gave Iran "about a year, perhaps
a little less" before it could have a nuclear weapon.

There exists NO credible report that says a single word in the
positive that Iran is or has pursued a Nuke. If there is, please post
it.

On Jan 13, 10:17 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The point being, is that you believe those facts about CNN and Dash,
> (along with her CNN compatriot and husband,  "Jeremy"....Just as you
> believed that Newt Gingrich tried to divorce his wife while she was
> hospitalized with cancer;  just as you believed that Gingrich had a fair,
> impartial Congressional ethics hearing;  just as you believed that Paul
> opposed Iran having a nuclear weapon;  the list is endless of faulty
> beliefs that you and other Ron Paul supporters "believe" in,  which turns
> out not to be at all accurate or truthful.
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > You didn't even get your Wiki article right PlainOl,  go back and re-read
> > it.
>
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:03 AM, plainolamerican <
> > plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> More clear cut examples of Ron Paul supporters who continue to stay
> >> misinformed
> >> ---
> >> again, what I've written are facts:
> >> she is an anti-RP jew, married to a jewish supporter of an 'important'
> >> US warmonger who wants the US to police the world
>
> >> facts, keith, nothing but facts
>
> >> On Jan 13, 7:18 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > "Some don't forget"  what?
>
> >> > That ABC is purportedly a Jewish network?  That Dana Bash allegedly
> >> showed
> >> > some type of bias against Ron Paul?  That Dana Bash is married to Jeremy
> >> > Bash?
>
> >> > More clear cut examples of Ron Paul supporters who continue to stay
> >> > misinformed, continue to stay focused on misinformation, but
> >> nevertheless
> >> > continue to spread their misinformed views on others,  treating their
> >> > misinformation as somehow being gospel, and clinging to the
> >> misinformation
> >> > as the truth.
>
> >> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 12:13 PM, plainolamerican <
> >> plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > On Tuesday, Revolution PAC, a super PAC supporting Paul's candidacy,
> >> > > called
> >> > > on CNN to remove Bash from covering the campaign.
> >> > > ---
> >> > > as they should ... she's another jew who is flagrantly anti-RP.
> >> > > Bash said during a CNN report that she was worried that the Ron Paul
> >> > > campaign continuing into the summer, and that he could "hurt whomever
> >> > > the Republican nominee is." Revolution PAC alleged this showed bias
> >> > > against Paul.
>
> >> > > Bash's father is a producer for the jewish network ABC and her husband
> >> > > is Jeremy B. Bash, the Chief of Staff to Leon Panetta, the Secretary
> >> > > of Defense.
>
> >> > > some don't forget
>
> >> > > On Jan 12, 7:34 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > *Ron Paul continues assault on the media*
> >> > > > **
> >> > > > Dyland Stableford
> >> > > > 01.11.2011
>
> >>http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/ron-paul-continues-assault-media-...
>
> >> > > > Fresh off his second place finish in the New Hampshire primary, Ron
> >> Paul
> >> > > > still found reasons to criticize the media's coverage of his
> >> presidential
> >> > > > campaign.
>
> >> > > > "You know, it's pretty amazing how sometimes if you're in second
> >> place,
> >> > > > they talk about the first and the third place," Paul told
> >> supporters at a
> >> > > > campaign stop in West Columbia, S.C. on Wednesday. "But last night
> >> was a
> >> > > > little different--they had a little harder time avoiding the real
> >> > > > conversation."
>
> >> > > > And during another speech in New Hampshire late Tuesday, the
> >> 76-year-old
> >> > > > Texas Republican zinged the media even more.
>
> >> > > > "There was one other acknowledgment I wanted to make," Paul said
> >> after
> >> > > > thanking his family and assorted campaign staffers. "I wanted to
> >> thank
> >> > > the
> >> > > > Union Leader for not endorsing me."
>
> >> > > > He continued:
>
> >> > > > We don't always get the coverage or the interest shown on
> >> what--what is
> >> > > > going on, because if they did, they wouldn't--they wouldn't be
> >> ignoring
> >> > > so
> >> > > > much of what we're doing. But, you know, I find it sort of
> >> fascinating
> >> > > when
> >> > > > they finally get around--and this is different people, it could be
> >> in the
> >> > > > media, could be our opponents, or whatever--but I sort of have to
> >> chuckle
> >> > > > when they describe you and me as being "dangerous." That's one
> >> thing they
> >> > > > are telling the truth, because we are dangerous to the status quo
> >> of this
> >> > > > country.
>
> >> > > > The media hasn't exactly been ignoring Paul. On Sunday, Paul was
> >> forced
> >> > > to cut
> >> > > > a campaign visit to a New Hampshire diner short after a mob of more
> >> than
> >> > > > 100 reporters descended on the breakfast stop.
>
> >> > > > "We ask the press, at all upcoming events over the next day and a
> >> half,
> >> > > to
> >> > > > be respectful of both Dr. Paul and of New Hampshire voters, who are
> >> > > > entitled to examine their candidates in a safe and responsible
> >> > > atmosphere,"
> >> > > > Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign manager, said in a statement.
>
> >> > > > Later the same day, CNN's Dana Bash asked Paul about cutting out
> >> early
> >> > > from
> >> > > > the morning's event. Paul blamed the press, and walked off, cutting
> >> the
> >> > > > interview with CNN short. "This is junk," Benton said. "We're
> >> stopping."
>
> >> > > > On Tuesday, Revolution PAC, a super PAC supporting Paul's candidacy,
> >> > > called
> >> > > > on CNN to remove Bash from covering the campaign.
>
> >> > > >  CrazyUncleRon.1.jpg
> >> > > > 36KViewDownload
>
> >> > > --
> >> > > 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 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.

Poll: Newt surging in SC

                     
Poll: Gingrich Surging in South Carolina
Wednesday, January 11, 2012 10:45 PM

The InsiderAdvantage poll of South Carolina likely Republican primary voters shows Newt Gingrich surging, coming within a statistical tie of Mitt Romney.

The poll of 726 registered voters was completed Wednesday night and offered the following results:

Romney -- 23 percent
Gingrich -- 21 percent
Santorum -- 14 percent
Paul -- 13 percent
Huntsman -- 7 percent
Perry -- 5 percent



Dear Conservative:


In 1964, Ronald Reagan told conservatives that this was a time for choosing. Faced with a radical, progressive President who would weaken America abroad and at home, they could either fight to preserve America as the last, best hope on earth, or consign their children to a thousand years of darkness.

This year is another such time for choosing. We can either nominate a timid Massachusetts moderate Republican to take on a secular socialist who threatens to turn us into a nation like the decrepit Republics of Western Europe, or we can nominate a bold Reagan conservative who will take the fight to Barack Obama in the Fall. Will you join me?

There's no more time for talking about stopping Mitt Romney. We're going to do it next week in South Carolina or he's almost certain to be the Republican nominee, whether conservatives like us want it or not. It's up to you, right now.

I was the architect of the biggest GOP victory in 40 years in 1994. I can do it again this year and beat Barack Obama, but not if I don't defeat Mitt Romney and the Republican Establishment next week in South Carolina.

Your gift of at least $30 today will help unite conservative voters and win the South Carolina Republican Primary. As you know, South Carolina is the key to the Republican nomination. For the last 28 years, the winner of South Carolina has gone on to become the Republican nominee. This year will be no different.

As Speaker of the House, I forced Bill Clinton to accept welfare reform, four straight balanced budgets, and extensive tax cuts. Since then, Republicans have governed like moderates. My 21st Century Contract with America is the boldest, most conservative plan put forward. We will get America back on the path to job creation and economic growth with conservative principles. 

If that's the kind of President you want in the Oval Office, then I need your help today because the mainstream media and Republican establishment absolutely cannot wait to nominate Mitt Romney.

You can have a conservative nominee for President if you want one, but you have to stand up and fight for it. Not next week or next month, but right now. I hope you will stand with me today.

Sincerely,

Newt Gingrich

P.S. We must not waste this opportunity in 2012 to transform government by nominating a Massachusetts moderate. We can only do it if conservatives are united. Please donate today and take a stand with my campaign. Join the fight!

Donate today:                       https://transaxt.com/Donate/PHMBZJ/Newt2012/

Contributions to Newt 2012 are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes. The maximum an individual may contribute to Newt 2012 is $2,500 for the primary election and an additional $2,500 for the general election. Couples may contribute up to $5,000 for each election; joint contributions require the signature of both spouses. Federal multicandidate PACs may contribute up to $5,000 for each election. By submitting your contribution, you agree that the first $2,500 of a contribution will be designated for the 2012 election, and any additional amount, up to $2,500 will be designated for the 2012 general election. Contributions from corporations, foreign nationals, and federal government contractors are prohibited. Contributions must be made from personal funds and may not be reimbursed by any other person. Federal law requires us to use our best efforts to obtain and report the name, mailing address, occupation, and name of employer for each individual whose contributions aggregate in excess of $200 in an election cycle.

Paid for by Newt 2012
Make sure to add campaign@newtgingrichforpresident.org to your safe senders list to ensure delivery to your inbox.









--
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: Top Five US Defense Moves

Hey PlainOl,
 
Do you agree with Carfano's assessment?

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 4:33 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
1. Own the Skies
Rather than slowing production of the F-35—America's newest combat
aircraft, which can replace upwards of a dozen airframes that do a
variety of missions from reconnaissance to attacking targets—the
Pentagon ought to be ramping up production. It is time to reap the
benefits of the $50 billion taxpayer investment in this program.
Likewise, the Pentagon should reopen the recently canceled F-22
production, the companion stealth fighter for the F-35. The two planes
were designed to work together to give the U.S. the capacity to
maintain air supremacy in any theater for decades.
At the same time, the government should be aggressively seeking to
export both planes to any capable ally. In particular, the goal ought
to be to ring the Asia-Pacific from India to the Arctic with a robust
allied air fleet of F-35/F-22 fighters.

2. Build Ships Faster
The U.S. has the smallest Navy since before World War I. While it is
true that modern ships are much more capable than their predecessors,
the planet is the same size. When U.S. presence is absent for critical
areas, as was recently seen in the Strait of Hormuz—trouble follows.
From submarines to amphibious ships to carriers, the U.S. needs to
ramp up production.

The needs also go beyond the Defense Department. Replacing the Coast
Guard's aging fleet of ships continues to lag, undermining the
capacity of the U.S. to protect its sovereignty at sea. In particular,
replacing the Coast Guard (part of the Department of Homeland
Security) fleet of "high-endurance" cutters has to be a priority.

3. Do Not Cut Ground Forces
Human capital is the most valuable resource in the armed forces.
Shedding the most qualified, combat-experienced, volunteer ground
forces in the nation's history would be like Apple canceling the
production of iPhones to save money. It makes no sense.

The argument that "we won't need these troops because we are not going
to do any more Iraqs and Afghanistans" is just a strategy of hope.
These were the same arguments used to justify troop cuts before 9/11.
As then, the enemy gets a vote, and it always votes to fight the wars
that the U.S. is least prepared for. Rebuilding ground forces is far
more expensive—and less risky—than maintaining adequate troop strength
to defend the nation's interests and deter conflict.

4. Put Missile Defense on the Fast Track
President Obama's "phased and adaptive" missile defense program has
proven itself to be insufficient and inadequate. The nation needs
immediate and comprehensive missile defense now. That demands starting
a three-step process:
   Expand and continually improve the Navy's proven and popular sea-
based Aegis missile defense system;
   Pursue advanced integration of the various components of a layered
missile defense system, including ground-based interceptors; and
   Develop and deploy space-based missile defenses, particularly
space-based interceptors, to counter ballistic missile attacks.

5. Start with Smart Savings
There are savings to be gained from more efficient defense spending,
but they should be reinvested in defense modernization. The most
immediate source of efficiencies to be gained is in the area of
simplifying, consolidating, and contracting defense logistics.
Estimates of immediate benefits range up to $90 billion. Congress and
the Administration should focus laser-like on this area of Pentagon
spending—now.

Really curbing cost growth over time requires getting the cost of
manpower under control by establishing a more rational and practical
package of pay and benefits for service members and their families.
This can be done in a manner that honors commitments to those
currently serving and providing more flexible and desirable benefits
that would allow the service to continue to recruit and retain a
quality all-volunteer force at reasonable cost.
The Wrong Way to Balance the Budget

Gutting defense would not balance the budget. However, it would
certainly contribute to making the world less safe for America and its
allies and leave the U.S. less prepared to deal with the dangers
ahead. The smart move would be to invest in defense—rather than pay
the butcher's bill later.

SOURCE: The Heritage Foundation

Jim_CarafanoJames Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Deputy Director of the
Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies
and Director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign
Policy Studies, a division of the Davis Institute, at The Heritage
Foundation.
---
how does this sound to you, Keith?

--
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: So Misunderstood.....Ron Paul Continues Assault On The Media

The point being, is that you believe those facts about CNN and Dash,  (along with her CNN compatriot and husband,  "Jeremy"....Just as you believed that Newt Gingrich tried to divorce his wife while she was hospitalized with cancer;  just as you believed that Gingrich had a fair, impartial Congressional ethics hearing;  just as you believed that Paul opposed Iran having a nuclear weapon;  the list is endless of faulty beliefs that you and other Ron Paul supporters "believe" in,  which turns out not to be at all accurate or truthful.
 


 
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
You didn't even get your Wiki article right PlainOl,  go back and re-read it.
 


 
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:03 AM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
More clear cut examples of Ron Paul supporters who continue to stay
misinformed
---
again, what I've written are facts:
she is an anti-RP jew, married to a jewish supporter of an 'important'
US warmonger who wants the US to police the world

facts, keith, nothing but facts

On Jan 13, 7:18 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Some don't forget"  what?
>
> That ABC is purportedly a Jewish network?  That Dana Bash allegedly showed
> some type of bias against Ron Paul?  That Dana Bash is married to Jeremy
> Bash?
>
> More clear cut examples of Ron Paul supporters who continue to stay
> misinformed, continue to stay focused on misinformation, but nevertheless
> continue to spread their misinformed views on others,  treating their
> misinformation as somehow being gospel, and clinging to the misinformation
> as the truth.
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 12:13 PM, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Tuesday, Revolution PAC, a super PAC supporting Paul's candidacy,
> > called
> > on CNN to remove Bash from covering the campaign.
> > ---
> > as they should ... she's another jew who is flagrantly anti-RP.
> > Bash said during a CNN report that she was worried that the Ron Paul
> > campaign continuing into the summer, and that he could "hurt whomever
> > the Republican nominee is." Revolution PAC alleged this showed bias
> > against Paul.
>
> > Bash's father is a producer for the jewish network ABC and her husband
> > is Jeremy B. Bash, the Chief of Staff to Leon Panetta, the Secretary
> > of Defense.
>
> > some don't forget
>
> > On Jan 12, 7:34 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > *Ron Paul continues assault on the media*
> > > **
> > > Dyland Stableford
> > > 01.11.2011
>
> > >http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/ron-paul-continues-assault-media-...
>
> > > Fresh off his second place finish in the New Hampshire primary, Ron Paul
> > > still found reasons to criticize the media's coverage of his presidential
> > > campaign.
>
> > > "You know, it's pretty amazing how sometimes if you're in second place,
> > > they talk about the first and the third place," Paul told supporters at a
> > > campaign stop in West Columbia, S.C. on Wednesday. "But last night was a
> > > little different--they had a little harder time avoiding the real
> > > conversation."
>
> > > And during another speech in New Hampshire late Tuesday, the 76-year-old
> > > Texas Republican zinged the media even more.
>
> > > "There was one other acknowledgment I wanted to make," Paul said after
> > > thanking his family and assorted campaign staffers. "I wanted to thank
> > the
> > > Union Leader for not endorsing me."
>
> > > He continued:
>
> > > We don't always get the coverage or the interest shown on what--what is
> > > going on, because if they did, they wouldn't--they wouldn't be ignoring
> > so
> > > much of what we're doing. But, you know, I find it sort of fascinating
> > when
> > > they finally get around--and this is different people, it could be in the
> > > media, could be our opponents, or whatever--but I sort of have to chuckle
> > > when they describe you and me as being "dangerous." That's one thing they
> > > are telling the truth, because we are dangerous to the status quo of this
> > > country.
>
> > > The media hasn't exactly been ignoring Paul. On Sunday, Paul was forced
> > to cut
> > > a campaign visit to a New Hampshire diner short after a mob of more than
> > > 100 reporters descended on the breakfast stop.
>
> > > "We ask the press, at all upcoming events over the next day and a half,
> > to
> > > be respectful of both Dr. Paul and of New Hampshire voters, who are
> > > entitled to examine their candidates in a safe and responsible
> > atmosphere,"
> > > Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign manager, said in a statement.
>
> > > Later the same day, CNN's Dana Bash asked Paul about cutting out early
> > from
> > > the morning's event. Paul blamed the press, and walked off, cutting the
> > > interview with CNN short. "This is junk," Benton said. "We're stopping."
>
> > > On Tuesday, Revolution PAC, a super PAC supporting Paul's candidacy,
> > called
> > > on CNN to remove Bash from covering the campaign.
>
> > >  CrazyUncleRon.1.jpg
> > > 36KViewDownload
>
> > --
> > 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.


--
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: So Misunderstood.....Ron Paul Continues Assault On The Media

You didn't even get your Wiki article right PlainOl,  go back and re-read it.
 


 
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:03 AM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
More clear cut examples of Ron Paul supporters who continue to stay
misinformed
---
again, what I've written are facts:
she is an anti-RP jew, married to a jewish supporter of an 'important'
US warmonger who wants the US to police the world

facts, keith, nothing but facts

On Jan 13, 7:18 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Some don't forget"  what?
>
> That ABC is purportedly a Jewish network?  That Dana Bash allegedly showed
> some type of bias against Ron Paul?  That Dana Bash is married to Jeremy
> Bash?
>
> More clear cut examples of Ron Paul supporters who continue to stay
> misinformed, continue to stay focused on misinformation, but nevertheless
> continue to spread their misinformed views on others,  treating their
> misinformation as somehow being gospel, and clinging to the misinformation
> as the truth.
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 12:13 PM, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Tuesday, Revolution PAC, a super PAC supporting Paul's candidacy,
> > called
> > on CNN to remove Bash from covering the campaign.
> > ---
> > as they should ... she's another jew who is flagrantly anti-RP.
> > Bash said during a CNN report that she was worried that the Ron Paul
> > campaign continuing into the summer, and that he could "hurt whomever
> > the Republican nominee is." Revolution PAC alleged this showed bias
> > against Paul.
>
> > Bash's father is a producer for the jewish network ABC and her husband
> > is Jeremy B. Bash, the Chief of Staff to Leon Panetta, the Secretary
> > of Defense.
>
> > some don't forget
>
> > On Jan 12, 7:34 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > *Ron Paul continues assault on the media*
> > > **
> > > Dyland Stableford
> > > 01.11.2011
>
> > >http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/ron-paul-continues-assault-media-...
>
> > > Fresh off his second place finish in the New Hampshire primary, Ron Paul
> > > still found reasons to criticize the media's coverage of his presidential
> > > campaign.
>
> > > "You know, it's pretty amazing how sometimes if you're in second place,
> > > they talk about the first and the third place," Paul told supporters at a
> > > campaign stop in West Columbia, S.C. on Wednesday. "But last night was a
> > > little different--they had a little harder time avoiding the real
> > > conversation."
>
> > > And during another speech in New Hampshire late Tuesday, the 76-year-old
> > > Texas Republican zinged the media even more.
>
> > > "There was one other acknowledgment I wanted to make," Paul said after
> > > thanking his family and assorted campaign staffers. "I wanted to thank
> > the
> > > Union Leader for not endorsing me."
>
> > > He continued:
>
> > > We don't always get the coverage or the interest shown on what--what is
> > > going on, because if they did, they wouldn't--they wouldn't be ignoring
> > so
> > > much of what we're doing. But, you know, I find it sort of fascinating
> > when
> > > they finally get around--and this is different people, it could be in the
> > > media, could be our opponents, or whatever--but I sort of have to chuckle
> > > when they describe you and me as being "dangerous." That's one thing they
> > > are telling the truth, because we are dangerous to the status quo of this
> > > country.
>
> > > The media hasn't exactly been ignoring Paul. On Sunday, Paul was forced
> > to cut
> > > a campaign visit to a New Hampshire diner short after a mob of more than
> > > 100 reporters descended on the breakfast stop.
>
> > > "We ask the press, at all upcoming events over the next day and a half,
> > to
> > > be respectful of both Dr. Paul and of New Hampshire voters, who are
> > > entitled to examine their candidates in a safe and responsible
> > atmosphere,"
> > > Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign manager, said in a statement.
>
> > > Later the same day, CNN's Dana Bash asked Paul about cutting out early
> > from
> > > the morning's event. Paul blamed the press, and walked off, cutting the
> > > interview with CNN short. "This is junk," Benton said. "We're stopping."
>
> > > On Tuesday, Revolution PAC, a super PAC supporting Paul's candidacy,
> > called
> > > on CNN to remove Bash from covering the campaign.
>
> > >  CrazyUncleRon.1.jpg
> > > 36KViewDownload
>
> > --
> > 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.

--
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: So Misunderstood.....Ron Paul Continues Assault On The Media

More clear cut examples of Ron Paul supporters who continue to stay
misinformed
---
again, what I've written are facts:
she is an anti-RP jew, married to a jewish supporter of an 'important'
US warmonger who wants the US to police the world

facts, keith, nothing but facts

On Jan 13, 7:18 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Some don't forget"  what?
>
> That ABC is purportedly a Jewish network?  That Dana Bash allegedly showed
> some type of bias against Ron Paul?  That Dana Bash is married to Jeremy
> Bash?
>
> More clear cut examples of Ron Paul supporters who continue to stay
> misinformed, continue to stay focused on misinformation, but nevertheless
> continue to spread their misinformed views on others,  treating their
> misinformation as somehow being gospel, and clinging to the misinformation
> as the truth.
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 12:13 PM, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Tuesday, Revolution PAC, a super PAC supporting Paul's candidacy,
> > called
> > on CNN to remove Bash from covering the campaign.
> > ---
> > as they should ... she's another jew who is flagrantly anti-RP.
> > Bash said during a CNN report that she was worried that the Ron Paul
> > campaign continuing into the summer, and that he could "hurt whomever
> > the Republican nominee is." Revolution PAC alleged this showed bias
> > against Paul.
>
> > Bash's father is a producer for the jewish network ABC and her husband
> > is Jeremy B. Bash, the Chief of Staff to Leon Panetta, the Secretary
> > of Defense.
>
> > some don't forget
>
> > On Jan 12, 7:34 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > *Ron Paul continues assault on the media*
> > > **
> > > Dyland Stableford
> > > 01.11.2011
>
> > >http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/ron-paul-continues-assault-media-...
>
> > > Fresh off his second place finish in the New Hampshire primary, Ron Paul
> > > still found reasons to criticize the media's coverage of his presidential
> > > campaign.
>
> > > "You know, it's pretty amazing how sometimes if you're in second place,
> > > they talk about the first and the third place," Paul told supporters at a
> > > campaign stop in West Columbia, S.C. on Wednesday. "But last night was a
> > > little different--they had a little harder time avoiding the real
> > > conversation."
>
> > > And during another speech in New Hampshire late Tuesday, the 76-year-old
> > > Texas Republican zinged the media even more.
>
> > > "There was one other acknowledgment I wanted to make," Paul said after
> > > thanking his family and assorted campaign staffers. "I wanted to thank
> > the
> > > Union Leader for not endorsing me."
>
> > > He continued:
>
> > > We don't always get the coverage or the interest shown on what--what is
> > > going on, because if they did, they wouldn't--they wouldn't be ignoring
> > so
> > > much of what we're doing. But, you know, I find it sort of fascinating
> > when
> > > they finally get around--and this is different people, it could be in the
> > > media, could be our opponents, or whatever--but I sort of have to chuckle
> > > when they describe you and me as being "dangerous." That's one thing they
> > > are telling the truth, because we are dangerous to the status quo of this
> > > country.
>
> > > The media hasn't exactly been ignoring Paul. On Sunday, Paul was forced
> > to cut
> > > a campaign visit to a New Hampshire diner short after a mob of more than
> > > 100 reporters descended on the breakfast stop.
>
> > > "We ask the press, at all upcoming events over the next day and a half,
> > to
> > > be respectful of both Dr. Paul and of New Hampshire voters, who are
> > > entitled to examine their candidates in a safe and responsible
> > atmosphere,"
> > > Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign manager, said in a statement.
>
> > > Later the same day, CNN's Dana Bash asked Paul about cutting out early
> > from
> > > the morning's event. Paul blamed the press, and walked off, cutting the
> > > interview with CNN short. "This is junk," Benton said. "We're stopping."
>
> > > On Tuesday, Revolution PAC, a super PAC supporting Paul's candidacy,
> > called
> > > on CNN to remove Bash from covering the campaign.
>
> > >  CrazyUncleRon.1.jpg
> > > 36KViewDownload
>
> > --
> > 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: The Return of the Chickenhawks

Jonah Goldberg put it:
"Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small
crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the
world we mean business."
This was the core of the argument made by the more honest neocons,
such as Michael Ledeen
---
sure, let's listen to the warmongering zionists ... that makes sense

On Jan 13, 7:24 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> The Return of the ChickenhawksThey're baaack!byJustin Raimondo, January 09, 2012
> What a joy to see Ron Paultake downNewt "Chickenhawk" Gingrich in front of millions of Americans. Slogging through fifteen Republican presidential debates was totally worth it just to witness this defining moment. Dianne Sawyer, who sounded like she was onQuaaludes, raised her eyebrows quizzically as she asked him if he stood by his previouscharacterizationof Newt as a "chickenhawk." Her tone implied she thought this a little harsh. Paul took this opening and ran with it:"I think people who don't serve when they could and they get three or four or even five deferments – they have no right to send our kids off to war … I'm trying to stop the wars, but at least, you know, I went when they called me up."Ouch! Having drawn the first blood of this presidential gladiatorial contest, the good Doctor moved in for the kill:"We have hundreds of thousands coming back from these wars that were undeclared, they were unnecessary, they haven't been won, they're unwinnable, and we have hundreds of thousands looking for care. And we have an epidemic of suicide coming back. And so many have – I mean, if you add up all the contractors and all the wars going on, Afghanistan and in Iraq, we've lost 8,500 Americans, and severe injuries, over 40,000. And these are undeclared wars."Gingrich's response was worse than if he had said nothing at all:"The fact is, I never asked for deferment. I was married with a child. It was never a question. My father was, in fact, serving in Vietnam in the Mekong Delta at the time he's referring to. I think I have a pretty good idea of what it's like as a family to worry about your father getting killed. And I personally resent the kind of comments and aspersions he routinely makes without accurate information and then just slurs people with."
> The trap, so carefully set, was sprung: "I need one quick follow-up, said Paul with a gleam in his eye:"When I was drafted, I was married and had two kids – and I went."
> The applause was the loudest of the evening. Newt's puffed up persona seemed to visibly shrink as he stood there on the stage, reduced to squealing like a stuck pig:" I wasn't eligible for the draft! I wasn't eligible for the draft!"
> This encounter dramatizes more than just the smarminess of the Newtster: it gives voice to a populist anger directed at our warmongering elites, one little-discussed aspect of widespread resentment over the growing class divisions in American society.
> You'll recall that prominent members of Team Bush, from the President and Vice President on down, weredraft dodgerswho presided over two unnecessary wars and did their best to gin upa third. As ordinary Americans turned against this policy of perpetual war,the "chickenhawk" memecame into general circulation, with the exemplar being one of thoseoverweightbespectacledneocons explaining – in a tone of high-pitched truculence – that we needed to go to war because, as overweight, bespectacled neoconJonah Goldbergput it:
> "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business."
> This was the core of the argument made by the more honest neocons, such as Michael Ledeen, cited by Goldberg and deemed the "Ledeen Doctrine." Who cares about "weapons of mass destruction" and Condi Rice's visions of "mushroom clouds" – war is a positive good, and the military is to be venerated as a kind of priesthood.
> This elevation of the military came back to haunt them when prominent military figurespubliclydissentedfrom the War Party's let's-democratize-the-Middle-East program: the neocons then hurriedly came up withargumentsagainstthe military "interfering in politics." The anti-chickenhawk backlash continues unabated, however, as we saw in the GOP presidential arena the other night, with Gingrich's public humiliation at the hands of the libertarianSpartacus.
> Nothing offends a neocon more than being called a chickenhawk. The epithet really ruffles their feathers, and they're quick with a comeback: "It's absurd to say one needs to have military experience in order to argue for the merits – or demerits – of a particular war." It's true that anyone can make any argument they wish: however, it is also true that not all opinions are equal. Certain voices carry with them a special authority, and others less so. To cite one example: in the debate over whether we should go to war with Iran, the opinion of apencil-necked geek like Bill Kristol, the little Lenin of the neocons,who has never been anywhere near a war, carries much less weight than that of AdmiralWilliam Fallon, the former chief of the US Central Command who resigned rather than go along with the Bush administration's efforts to goad Iran into war.
> In the context of a presidential debate, this question of whose argument carries how much weight is crucial, because we are electing a commander-in-chief, a role that has taken on increasing importance as Congress ceded its war-making power to the executive branch. Today, in defiance of the Constitution, the President can take us to war without a declaration from Congress – and without even bothering to consult the people's elected representatives.We have Harry Truman to thank for that.
> In view of this history, presidential aspirants must show they have some kind of standing when it comes to the question of war and peace. Before he can be trusted with the power to unilaterally take the nation to war, a candidate must prove he has some understanding of what a grave responsibility is to be placed on their shoulders. This is what makes most of the Republican pack look and sound so brazenlyunpresidential: their blithe willingness – nay, eagerness – to go to war at the drop of a hat.
> Santorum echoes the Iranians' empty boast about closing the Strait of Hormuz and blocking access to oil even as he advocates an all-out war that would surely achieve the same result. He also indirectly criticizes the Bush administration for signing an agreement with the Iraqis setting a date for US withdrawal, citing this as a sign "America is soft so they can be pushed around."
> Newt, for his part, would not be content with limited US military strikes against sensitive targets in Iran. It won't work, he says: instead, such strikes should be undertaken "only as a first step towards replacing the regime." The second step, one assumes, is a full-scale US invasion of Iran – a step sure to be applauded by hisSecretary of State-in-waiting,John Bolton.
> Bolton has longchampionedthe Mujahideen-e-Khalq (Peoples' Mujahideen, or MEK), an Islamo-Marxist cult widely hated in Iran. Under a Gingrich administration we would witness the spectacle of the US Army installing in power a group currently on the US State Department's list ofterroristorganizations. Romney, too, hashis MEK connection: this is the only terrorist group I know of that is allowed to maintain an unofficial embassy in Washington through various front groups, and which enjoys such widespreadsupporton Capitol Hill. Could it have something to do with thelarge amounts of cashthe MEK front groups in Washington are throwing around? Where there's cash,there's Newt, which may have something to do with hisendorsementof the MEK's accelerated campaign to get the group removed from the terrorist list.
> Perry parlayed his role as the chief buffoon among the candidates by opining that he would send US troops back into Iraq:"The idea that we allow the Iranians to come back into Iraq and take over that country, with all of the treasure, both in blood and money, that we have spent in Iraq, because this president wants to kowtow to his liberal, leftist base and move out those men and women. He could have renegotiated that time frame.
> "I think it is a huge error for us. We're going to see Iran, in my opinion, move back in at literally the speed of light. They're going to move back in, and all of the work that we've done, every young man that has lost his life in that country will have been for nothing because we've got a president that does not understand what's going on in that region."
> Speaking of those who do not understand what's going on in that region, Perry is perhaps unaware the timetable for withdrawalwas negotiatedby the Bush administration, not Obama and his "liberal, leftist base." Not to be outdone by Perry, Gingrich chimed in with the suggestion that "if you're worried about the Iranians in Iraq, develop a strategy to replace the Iranian dictatorship and Iraq will be fine." Problems created by the Iraq war are to be solved by launching yet another war. The neocon "solution" is always the same.
> Asked about going back to Iraq, Romney averred that the proposition would face a "high hurdle," but wouldn't rule it out:"You'd have to have a president that explained those interests to the American people, that also indicated how we're going in. We'd go in with – with exceptional force. We would indicate what – how success would be defined, how we would define, also, when we're completed, how we'd get our troops out, and what would be left behind."Back to Iraq – can Romney be serious? He could talk until he was blue in the face and he'd still be a long way from convincing the overwhelmingmajorityof Americans who say the Iraq war wasn't worth it in the first place. Can someone so clearly out of touch with the sentiments of the American people really be elected to the highest office in the land? Romney is touted by his conservative supporters as the one most likely to beat Obama, and yet one has to question the electabiilty of a candidate so deluded as to think the American people could be talked into re-occupying Iraq.
> Ron Paul is such a star at these debates because his foreign policy views are likekryptoniteto the would-be Republican Supermen who would "save" the nation from Obama's "Kenyan anti-colonial" mentality, as Speaker Gingrich so eloquently put it. I'll continue to watch just for the sheer entertainment value, if nothing else.http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/01/08/the-return-of-the-chickenhawks/

--
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.