Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Why Government Cannot "Make Us Safe" thru Mandating Security - by Ron Paul

The terrible violence in Arizona prompted much national discussion on many issues. All Americans are united in their sympathies for the victims and their families. All wonder what could motivate such a horrible act. However, some have attempted to use this tragedy to discredit philosophical adversaries or score political points. This sort of opportunism is simply despicable. We are fortunate to live in a society where violence is universally denounced. Not one public official or commentator has attempted to justify this reprehensible act, yet the newspapers, Internet and airwaves are full of people trying to claim it was somehow motivated by someone else's political rhetoric.

Most disturbing are the calls to use government power to censor certain forms of speech and even outlaw certain types of criticism of public officials. This was the completely apolitical act of a violent and disturbed man. How sad that the attempted murder of the Congresswoman who had just read the First Amendment on the House Floor would be used in efforts to chill free speech. Perhaps some would feel safer if the Alien and Sedition Acts were reinstated. Also troubling are the renewed calls for stricter gun control laws and for government to do something to somehow prevent similar incidents in the future. This always seems to be the knee-jerk reaction to any crime committed with a gun. Nonsensical proposals to outlaw guns around federal officials and install bulletproof barriers in the Congressional galleries only reinforce the growing perception that politicians view their own lives as far more important than the lives of ordinary citizens.

Politicians and a complicit media have conditioned many citizens to view government as our protector, leading to more demands for government action whenever tragedies occur. But this impulse is at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and individualism, and it also leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. Remember, liberty only has meaning if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and more government security is demanded. Government cannot make us safe by mandating security any more than than it can make us prosperous by decreeing an end to poverty.

We need to reaffirm the core American value of individual responsibility. Consider the young man who had the courage to tackle the shooter and prevent further carnage because he himself had a concealed weapon. Without that gun he could have been yet another sitting duck. When peaceful citizens are armed they at least have a chance against armed criminals. Advocates of gun control would urge us to leave our safety to law enforcement, but eyewitness reports indicate it took police as much as 20 minutes to arrive on the scene that day.

Since police cannot be everywhere all the time, a large part of our personal safety depends on our ability to defend ourselves. Our constitutional right to bear arms does not create a society without risk or violent crime, and neither would the strictest gun control laws. Guns and violence are a fact of life. The question is whether it is preferable to be defenseless while waiting for the police, or to have the option to arm yourself. We certainly know criminals prefer the former.

--

Ron Paul is America's leading voice for limited, constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, a return to sound monetary policies, and a sensible foreign policy that puts America first.

For more information visit the following websites:

http://www.RonPaul.com
http://www.RonPaulNews.com
http://www.CampaignForLiberty.com
http://www.house.gov/paul
http://www.DailyPaul.com
http://www.RonPaulForums.com
http://www.RonPaul2012podcast.com

Sunday, June 30, 2013

Chinese officials say US government spends to much money and is the overall problem

If you listen to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the rest of Obama administration, failure to raise the debt ceiling by Aug. 2 risks “catastrophic economic and market consequences of a default crisis.”

Funny, the Chinese government — holder of $1.1 trillion in U.S. government debt — doesn’t seem to think so. I recently returned from a fact-finding mission to the Middle Kingdom. And my big takeaway is that Beijing isn’t too bothered by the Washington back-and-forth over raising the debt ceiling — provided the result is a long-term budget fix. For that, even a delayed interest payment might be acceptable. But brinkmanship in Congress that only punts the issue, and shirks from meaningful reform, would quickly turn investors in Beijing and elsewhere off.

When asked about government reaction to a temporary stoppage of debt payments on those holdings, a respected top official with an influential government advisory group reminded that investment represents “patient capital.” If a delay in Washington facilitated deep spending cuts, Beijing would grudgingly accept it.

Not that Beijing would be thrilled about it. Chinese officials are concerned about the reaction from a nationalistic public that already thinks America is too quick to blame China for its economic woes. To avoid a subsequent worsening of already fragile relations with Washington, then, Beijing would need to persuasively argue that it gained something in exchange for its forbearance. So the worst-case scenario is a delay that only results in a temporary hike in the debt limit.

But then again, I don’t believe Geithner’s deadline. As analyst Dan Clifton of Strategas notes:

Treasury is not restricted from prioritizing interest payments over other expenditures, and revenues are coming in at 10 times the rate of interest payments. Moreover, cash flow is so strong that prioritizing interest payments over other expenditures will not jeopardize Social Security payments. As such, we expect continued interest payments but a semi-government shutdown to occur which would delay long term spending projects and aid to state and local governments until an agreement could be reached. The net effect of this is that investors should be focused more on the economic implications of a semi-government shutdown than the potential for a US default.

So my advice to the spending hawks on Capitol Hill — of both parties — is to listen to China, stand firm and get something big in return for raising the debt limit. At minimum this would be getting at least $1 in spending cuts for every $1 increase in the debt ceiling, along with the spending caps found in the McCaskill-Corker bill. Even former Clinton economist Alice Rivlin thinks raising the debt ceiling should be linked to a long-term budget plan.

The debt ceiling provides an opportunity for real fiscal reform, one that shouldn’t be wasted.

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2011/06/06/china-to-us-forget-debt-ceiling-cut-spending/


The Reality Of Wealth Distribution In America


The American people are angry. They're angry that they are being forced to live through the worst recession in our lifetimes - with sky-high unemployment, with millions of people losing their homes and their life savings. They are angry that they will not have a decent retirement, that they can't afford to send their children to college, that they can't afford health insurance and that, in some cases, they can't even buy the food they need to adequately feed their families.

They are angry because they know that this recession was not caused by the middle class and working families of this country. It was not caused by the teachers, firefighters and police officers and their unions who are under attack all over the country. It was not caused by construction workers, factory workers, nurses or childcare workers. This recession was caused by the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior on Wall Street. And, what makes people furious is that Wall Street still has not learned its lessons. Instead of investing in the job-creating productive economy providing affordable loans to small and medium size businesses, the CEOs of the largest financial institutions in this country have created the largest gambling casino in the history of the world.

Four years ago, after spending billions of dollars to successfully fight for the de-regulation of Wall Street, the CEOs of the big banks - JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and the others, went on a losing streak. The enormous bets they made on worthless, complex, and exotic financial instruments went bad, and they stuck the American people with the bill.

Wall Street received the largest taxpayer bailout in the history of the world. But it was not just the $700 billion that Congress approved through the TARP program. As a result of an independent audit that I requested in the Dodd-Frank bill by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided a jaw-dropping $16 trillion in virtually zero interest loans to every major financial institution in this country, large corporations, foreign central banks throughout the world, and some of the wealthiest people in this country.

And, instead of using this money to provide affordable loans to small businesses, instead of putting this money back into the job-creating productive economy, what have they done? They have gone back to their days of running the largest gambling casino in the world. In other words, they have learned nothing.

The American people are angry because they see the great middle class of this country collapsing, poverty increasing and the gap between the very rich and everyone else grow wider. They are angry because they see this great country, which so many of our veterans fought for and died for, becoming an oligarchy - a nation where our economic and political life are controlled by a handful of billionaire families.

In the United States today, we have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income since the 1920s. Today, the wealthiest 400 individuals own more wealth than the bottom half of America - 150 million people.

Today, the six heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune own more wealth than the bottom 30 percent.

Today, the top one percent own 40 percent of all wealth, while the bottom sixty percent owns less than 2 percent. Incredibly, the bottom 40 percent of all Americans own just 3/10ths of one percent of the wealth of the country.

According to a new study from the Federal Reserve, median net worth for middle class families dropped by nearly 40 percent from 2007-2010. That's the equivalent of wiping out 18 years of savings for the average middle class family.

The distribution of income is even worse. If you can believe it, the last study on this subject showed that in 2010, 93 percent of all new income created from the previous year went to the top one percent, while the bottom 99 percent of people had the privilege of enjoying the remaining 7 percent. In other words, the rich are getting much richer while almost everyone else is falling behind.

Not only is this inequality of wealth and income morally grotesque, it is bad economic policy. If working families are deeply in debt, and have little or no income to spend on goods and services, how can we expand the economy and create the millions of jobs we desperately need? There is a limit as to how many yachts, mansions, limos and fancy jewelry the super-rich can buy. We need to put income into the hands of working families.

By Senator Bernie Sanders
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=dcc741e9-9736-403f-90de-ac673747a346

The Three Stages of Republican Denial


Whats the deal with republican talking heads? Every time they hear the truth their first response is denial and a vow of death to the socialist commies.. Even if your not talking about anything communist at all, republicans like Glenn Beck like to find this magical link to communism even though the topic of conversation is about democracy.

I'd even go so far as to say that they are addicted to this type of reaction. They get high off it. And like most addictions there are several steps to recognizing that you have a problem.

If your a republican and you experience the following symptoms, as a direct result of hearing the truth, maybe you need a little intervention in your life.

First Stage of Republican Denial: Preoccupation/Anticipation

Constant cravings for FOX News are the very first sign that republican propaganda has taken hold because of your overwhelming urge to watch FOX News.

Irritability, agitation, fatigue, depression and difficulty concentrating are the warning signs that something is out of balance.

Second Stage of Republican Denial: Binge/Intoxication

The more a republican watches FOX News, the more they need, to sustain their current levels of tolerance. And, larger amounts of Zionist laced propaganda are necessary to continue experiencing the same high. To increase that feeling, excessive indulgence of binging pushes the effects of addiction to dangerous levels.

Prolonged exposure results in desensitization through disillusion, which can result in an outburst as the user attempts to regain the initial euphoria experienced when watching FOX News for the first time.

The warning signs of the second stage include missing days of work or school, or showing up late because you are recovering from a FOX News binge.

Third Stage of Republican Denial: Withdrawal

Withdrawal symptoms occur anytime FOX News is not being watched and can cause tremendous physical suffering. Withdrawal symptoms differ according to each specific republican, but can include:

* Agitation, anxiety, panic attacks
* Insomnia, depression, paranoid thinking
* Fatigue, muscle pain, feeling shaky
* Psychotic reactions

At this stage, the only motivation in life is to avoid the agonizing symptoms of withdrawal. All other conventional media is ignored and all efforts are replaced by the continuing need for Zionist laced propaganda.

Risky behavior like stealing, sharing needles, unsafe sex, changes in eating habits, unexplained weight change, difficulty paying attention, violent or bizarre outbursts, even paranoia are all indications of the destructive propaganda cycle being playing out.

These symptoms are a normal response that your having to your addiction and with proper intervention you can take your life back. These symptoms are potential indicators of addiction, however, not every person who displays these behaviors is considered to have an addiction to Zionist propaganda.

An accurate diagnosis can only be made by a licensed professional.

Written By Michael G. Pickett, Jr

Friday, June 03, 2011

Sarah Palin Wears Demonic Pentagram in Public

Tuesday, May 03, 2011

The Love Police

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Friday, December 17, 2010

The Republican Cry of War!

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Michael Moore: Why I Posted Bail for Julian Assange

www.MichaelMoore.com | Written By Michael Moore



Yesterday I put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange out of jail. Here's why...

December 14, 2010 | Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail.

Furthermore, I am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars.

We were taken to war in Iraq on a lie. Hundreds of thousands are now dead. Just imagine if the men who planned this war crime back in 2002 had had a WikiLeaks to deal with. They might not have been able to pull it off. The only reason they thought they could get away with it was because they had a guaranteed cloak of secrecy. That guarantee has now been ripped from them, and I hope they are never able to operate in secret again.

So why is WikiLeaks, after performing such an important public service, under such vicious attack? Because they have outed and embarrassed those who have covered up the truth. The assault on them has been over the top:

- Sen. Joe Lieberman says WikiLeaks "has violated the Espionage Act."

- The New Yorker's George Packer calls Assange "super-secretive, thin-skinned, [and] megalomaniacal."

- Sarah Palin claims he's "an anti-American operative with blood on his hands" whom we should pursue "with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders."

- Democrat Bob Beckel (Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign manager) said about Assange on Fox: "A dead man can't leak stuff ... there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch."

- Republican Mary Matalin says "he's a psychopath, a sociopath ... He's a terrorist."

- Rep. Peter A. King calls WikiLeaks a "terrorist organization."

And indeed they are! They exist to terrorize the liars and warmongers who have brought ruin to our nation and to others. Perhaps the next war won't be so easy because the tables have been turned -- and now it's Big Brother who's being watched ... by us!

WikiLeaks deserves our thanks for shining a huge spotlight on all this. But some in the corporate-owned press have dismissed the importance of WikiLeaks ("they've released little that's new!") or have painted them as simple anarchists ("WikiLeaks just releases everything without any editorial control!"). WikiLeaks exists, in part, because the mainstream media has failed to live up to its responsibility. The corporate owners have decimated newsrooms, making it impossible for good journalists to do their job. There's no time or money anymore for investigative journalism. Simply put, investors don't want those stories exposed. They like their secrets kept ... as secrets.

I ask you to imagine how much different our world would be if WikiLeaks had existed 10 years ago. Take a look at this photo. That's Mr. Bush about to be handed a "secret" document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." And on those pages it said the FBI had discovered "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings." Mr. Bush decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next four weeks.

But if that document had been leaked, how would you or I have reacted? What would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there not a greater chance that someone, somewhere would have done something if all of us knew about bin Laden's impending attack using hijacked planes?

But back then only a few people had access to that document. Because the secret was kept, a flight school instructor in San Diego who noticed that two Saudi students took no interest in takeoffs or landings, did nothing. Had he read about the bin Laden threat in the paper, might he have called the FBI? (Please read this essay by former FBI Agent Coleen Rowley, Time's 2002 co-Person of the Year, about her belief that had WikiLeaks been around in 2001, 9/11 might have been prevented.)

Or what if the public in 2003 had been able to read "secret" memos from Dick Cheney as he pressured the CIA to give him the "facts" he wanted in order to build his false case for war? If a WikiLeaks had revealed at that time that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction, do you think that the war would have been launched -- or rather, wouldn't there have been calls for Cheney's arrest?

Openness, transparency -- these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt. What if within days of August 4th, 1964 -- after the Pentagon had made up the lie that our ship was attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin -- there had been a WikiLeaks to tell the American people that the whole thing was made up? I guess 58,000 of our soldiers (and 2 million Vietnamese) might be alive today.

Instead, secrets killed them.

For those of you who think it's wrong to support Julian Assange because of the sexual assault allegations he's being held for, all I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey. Please -- never, ever believe the "official story." And regardless of Assange's guilt or innocence (see the strange nature of the allegations here), this man has the right to have bail posted and to defend himself. I have joined with filmmakers Ken Loach and John Pilger and writer Jemima Khan in putting up the bail money -- and we hope the judge will accept this and grant his release today.

Might WikiLeaks cause some unintended harm to diplomatic negotiations and U.S. interests around the world? Perhaps. But that's the price you pay when you and your government take us into a war based on a lie. Your punishment for misbehaving is that someone has to turn on all the lights in the room so that we can see what you're up to. You simply can't be trusted. So every cable, every email you write is now fair game. Sorry, but you brought this upon yourself. No one can hide from the truth now. No one can plot the next Big Lie if they know that they might be exposed.

And that is the best thing that WikiLeaks has done. WikiLeaks, God bless them, will save lives as a result of their actions. And any of you who join me in supporting them are committing a true act of patriotism. Period.

I stand today in absentia with Julian Assange in London and I ask the judge to grant him his release. I am willing to guarantee his return to court with the bail money I have wired to said court. I will not allow this injustice to continue unchallenged.

P.S. You can read the statement I filed today in the London court here.

P.P.S. If you're reading this in London, please go support Julian Assange and WikiLeaks at a demonstration at 1 PM today, Tuesday the 14th, in front of the Westminster court.



Michael Moore is an Academy Award-winning filmmaker and author. He directed and produced Roger & Me, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Sicko. He has also written seven books, most recently, Mike’s Election Guide 2008

Julian Assange Granted Bail

Monday, December 13, 2010

John Boehner: Obama Disrespects Me

Saturday, December 11, 2010

I would never vote for a Boehner but I would vote for a Weiner


Once money is taxed it should not be taxed again and since the income tax is illegal, according to the constitution, Representative Weiner's argument is not valid. If you believe that the income tax is valid then Weiner has a valid point. I do believe the government needs something like the income tax, but I would rather have it based off how much you consume, like how Mike Huckabee says, 'We need a consumption tax...' The more 'limited' resources you use the more you get taxed. I consume very little 'limited' resources considering my state has a nuclear power plant (40) miles down the street called Palo Verde. I would only have to pay $20/year in taxes and it would be paid for when I buy what I consume, like a sales tax. We get rid of the IRS and we replace them all with actual accountants because IRS is nothing but big government that is not needed. Just ask Wesley Snipes how his jail cell is working out for him. We wouldn't have to worry about anybody not paying their taxes, you don't hear too many story's about a business not coughing up the sales tax it has collected. The same could be done with a consumption tax.

AlJazeera: The Information War

Friday, December 10, 2010

SEN. Bernie Sanders is Filibustering Republican Tax Cuts



A filibuster (also known as talking out a bill) is a type of parliamentary procedure. Specifically, it is a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body whereby a lone member can elect to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a proposal.