New tag for Dennis Kucinich posts: Kucinich-Dennis J.
New tag for Ron Paul posts: Paul-Ron-MD
December 10, 2008
Ron Paul: How Much is This Really Costing!
Updated: Nov 27, 2008 added another video
On Saturday, Nov. 22, 2008, an “End the Fed” rally was held in Washington, D.C., across the street from the Federal Reserve, at 20th St. and Constitution Ave. Kevin Zeese was one of the speakers at the event. He is an attorney and the Executive Director, and co-founder of the Campaign for Fresh Air and Clean Politics, whose projects include the Prosperity Agenda, VotersforPeace, Climate Security and TrueVote. For background, please see: http://breakthebailout.com/ and http://freshaircleanpolitics.net/.
Mr. Zeese is also a leader in the Break the Bailout Coalition. He said: “The Fed is not a government agency. It’s a disguise…The Fed is not of, by and for the people. It is of, by and for the banksters…End the Fed!”
“End the Fed” rallies were also being held in 39 other cities around the country. Adam Kokesh, a former U.S. Marine and Iraq War veteran, served as the Master of Ceremonies for the lively event. For background, and more details on the sponsoring group, speakers and its endorsing parties, please go to: http://endthefed.us/.
Add DS on StopFascism.com: View my page on The Stop Fascism Action Network ~ Lo
They need your support! If you can not attend please donate to keep this movement going in the right direction.
Help, end the Federal Reserve.
For Details go to: http://www.endthefed.us
To Donate go here: http://endthefeddc.chipin.com/end-the…
The Federal Reserve Bank
is the Cause of our
Financial and Economic Crisis!
Rally to Support Sound Money for America!
Every Fed Bank. Every Fed Office.
Thirty-Nine Cities. One Purpose.
END THE FED!
This is a public service announcement provided by the Stop Fascism Action Network ( SFAN ) Please join us at http://www.StopFascism.com
Vodpod videos no longer available.
I know, I know, this election is over. The U.S. population has already lost this election. The ‘2 Party’ system reigns dominant once again. So the typical logic follows that because “I” won’t ‘vote’ for who will win, I won’t vote.
I’m really not here to rant about the lunacy of the self-defeated masses, but ranting is deserved. Yet I’ll cut it short. But it should be noted that in recent polls 60% weren’t pleased with the “2″ options. Furthermore, Congress enjoys a roughly 10% approval rating, numbers GWB hasn’t even had to face. I’m not even here to bitch about how roughly 1/3 of the eligible US population actually goes to vote, while more citizens vote for American idol (rendering these helpless types mere civilians).
But what I am here to rant about is this massively held doctrine that ‘I can only vote for who I think will win’. The ongoing attitude is that one can only vote for who will win. Once the herd is fed defeat by the Ruling Establishment’s controlled Big 5 Media they change the channel, or join the bandwagon for the puppet-men who are there to (preferably nicely & “lovingly”) dominate them.
So we lost this year. Many of us watched the Big 5 mainstream media go to desperate lengths to to smash Ron Paul’s campaign, a campaign that would have equaled a “Third” Party representation in place of the GOP. After that it was downhill. A slope that it clear to the hardest working of us that in 2008 we faced impossible odds from the Ruling Establishment. In fact there wouldn’t have existed a Ron Paul campaign had he run for “Third” party, as he only got into televised debates because he “was” Republican. But I’m not here to complain about that, and I’m done complaining altogether.
While Ron had an “easy” (in comparison to what ‘real’ “Third” party candidates face) rise until the Primary’s, his “Third” party equals began (as he once did as Libertarian party presidential candidate) a knowingly impossible battle. These people enter into the face of evil and insanity knowing they’ll be considered as a step above laughing stock. They lay the ground-work for a possible future. But that future’s possibility declines each election year as the masses go and “vote”.
Yet the only real mass that votes are those so deeply indoctrinated into the group-think mindsets known as “Republican” & “Democrat”. As I say so often, I’m not concerned with whether or not an individual falls into “Liberal” or “Conservative” ideologies. Instead I’m concerned with if they equate Liberal with Democrat (party), or Conservative with Republican (party). These prosperity and liberty eroding henchman have gotten us all where we are today, and both McCain & Obama voted for the ‘economic bailout’.
My goal here is not to chastise Liberals & Conservatives, instead I seek to encourage people to find the “Third” party candidates who actually represent not only their prosperity, but even their social (moral emotional wedge) issues. I’m not here to endorse any of these, as it IS futile to expect any of the primary 4 to win.
Instead I argue that it’s beyond imperative that these brave individuals are supported. I’m here to declare the time of only voting for who one perceives will win is absolute insanity. It’s time we all protest knowing we will lose. It’s time to declare that voting for the lesser of 2 evils is still evil, and that we wont support mutual forces of evil. It’s time to acknowledge that the “Third” party candidates wittingly sacrifice themselves in the face of defeat that even I in all of my selflessness couldn’t match. Imagine starting something (in a so-called “democracy”) that you know cannot be won during your attempts.
Vote ANYONE besides Republican or Democrat. Vote for yourself. And on the rest (local) vote out the incumbents. It’s time for a real change, but that change won’t happen under the 2 party system. The “Third” party candidates are laying the ground for a real future, but they need you to lay a groundwork for there successors. The 2012 election for the U.S. starts on November 3, 2008. Begin your efforts on November 3, 2012, by protesting against the Ruling Establishments “2 Party” system.
This video may contain images depicting the reality and horror of war/violence and should only be viewed by a mature audience.
Oct 30, 2008
Following Deadly US Attack on Syria, Questions of Bush Admin Motives in its Waning Months
The Syrian government has condemned a deadly US military raid near the Iraqi border as “terrorist aggression.” The Bush administration has remained mum, stoking fears it could be trying to provoke further conflict in its remaining months in office. We speak to Robert Dreyfuss of The Nation magazine and University of Oklahoma professor Joshua Landis. [includes rush transcript]
What next for US-Syria relations?
Inside Story – Oct 29 2008 pt 1
Syria has ordered the closure of the American School and the US cultural centre in Damascus. The closures are a response to a deadly cross-border raid carried out on Sunday, October 26, 2008. Damascus blames the US for the attack on a Syrian village near Abu Kamal, close to the border with Iraq.
Syria called the raid criminal and terrorist aggression, while Washington called it a successful operation. Eight Syrians were killed in a US raid on the village of Sukariya.
We ask: Is the Bush administration trying to make a desperate point in its final days? Is it warning Syria, or is the US foreign policy likely to change with the new administration?
Vodpod videos no longer available.
[about 5 minutes in Paul talks about Syria]
Ron Paul: Obama & McCain AGREE with Bush’s Syrian & Pakistan Border Incursions!!!
October 29, 2008 MSNBC Rachel Maddow Show
Syrians stage mass anti-US rally
30 October 2008
Thousands of people have marched through Damascus in protest at an alleged US raid on a village that Syria says killed eight people.
Many at the government-backed demonstration carried banners, shouted anti-US slogans and waved pictures of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Riot police surrounded the US embassy in Damascus, which American officials closed blaming security fears.
The Syrian government has demanded that Washington apologise for the incident.
The US state department and the White House have refused to confirm the alleged attack.
via BBC NEWS | Middle East | Syrians stage mass anti-US rally (+ short video)
h/t: After Downing Street
Defining a new framework for electoral strategy in America.
With the U.S. presidential election fast approaching, Americans are settling on their decision for who would best take their country in the right direction and serve their interests. Most view the political system with cynicism. Most see the two dominant political parties, Democratic and Republican, as serving the interests of corporations and the financial elite, but not their own. Many feel disenfranchised. Many feel that to participate in a system that merely perpetuates the status quo without offering any hope for real change is to grant it legitimacy when it deserves none. And, if past trends are any indication, most won’t vote.
Among those who will cast their ballot, most, even those who will vote along party lines, view both Barack Obama and John McCain with skepticism. They are both seen negatively, both representing the established order. But one or the other of them is viewed as the lesser evil. To keep the greater evil out of power, a vote for the lesser one becomes necessary.
This remains true even when there are alternatives to the Democratic and Republican candidates, and even when the alternative candidates are seen far more as representing American interests and far less as being corrupted. A great many voters will vote for who they see as a lesser evil rather than who they see as actually being a good candidate because they so greatly fear the possibility of the greater evil gaining power.
This voting strategy is deeply ingrained. During the 2000 election, Ralph Nader was an extraordinarily popular candidate, particularly among the left. He was seen as far more worthy than the Democratic candidate Al Gore. And yet many liberals who shared that view chastised their fellow leftists for casting their vote for Nader, particularly when it came down to the Florida election.
The reasoning is straightforward: voting for Nader meant not voting for Gore, which meant George W. Bush, the Republican candidate, had a better chance of winning. Voting for Nader helped ensure a Bush win, the argument goes, because liberals might swing their vote away from Gore, but conservatives were less likely to do so. Nader didn’t have nearly as good a chance as winning as Gore, and so the strategic goal of keeping Bush from power meant voting for Gore even if Nader was the better candidate.
While this appears to be a perfectly logical argument and pragmatic voting strategy, it is rooted upon a number of fallacies. First and foremost is the deeply ingrained belief that alternative candidates don’t have a chance of winning, and so to vote for one would mean “wasting” your vote.
This year, the most extraordinary candidate was, hands down, Ron Paul. He was extremely popular, and remains so after having withdrawn his candidacy. He made waves in America, and, despite being old enough to be their grandfather, spoke to a whole new generation of voters that are disillusioned with business as usual in Washington. His position on the issues make sense and Americans recognized that he represented real change. The fact that he was even in the running gave hope to many that the U.S. political system might actually be able to function as the founding fathers intended, that a restoration of the American Republic based upon the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land might be possible.
Still, one could turn on the TV and watch news reports where people on the street are interviewed about their preference of candidates and see people saying things like, “I really like Ron Paul. I think he’s the best candidate. I like his position on the issues, and he makes sense. But he doesn’t have much chance of winning, so I’m probably going to vote for Barack Obama.”
Therein lies another fallacy. People don’t vote for who they actually like for the presidency based upon their opinion of whether or not they think it is likely that they will win. The “we have to ensure the greater evil doesn’t gain power” mindset wins out over “we have to ensure the best candidate wins”. But, of course, strict adherence to this electoral strategy can only result in the self-perpetuation of the same political process they they are so disillusioned with in the first place.
The truth is that the only reason a candidate like Ron Paul is “unlikely” to win an election is because people won’t vote for him. And they won’t vote for him because they think he’s unlikely to win, which of course results in the self-fulfillment of that reality.
The American people need to recognize that an alternate reality exists, and that the way to bring it about requires merely a shift in paradigm. American voters should shift their electoral strategy from seeking to put the lesser of evils into power to seeking to elect the force for the greatest good.
There are, of course, those who already adhere to this alternative framework. If there were a few more among their numbers, alternative candidates like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Ralph Nader would gain more votes. They might still lose. But does voting for a losing candidate mean one’s vote has been wasted? How much more wasted is a vote that goes towards the lesser evil? You’ve still voted for the perpetuation of evil.
Far more worthy alternative candidates might still lose, but it wouldn’t mean votes were wasted. The increased percentage of the votes that went towards them would send a powerful message to Washington. It would encourage more people in the next election to do the same and vote their conscience, rather than adhering to a voting strategy that virtually guarantees nothing will ever substantially change.
Eventually, the number of votes being cast towards alternative candidates would be enough that the message from the American public could no longer be ignored. Even if still resulting in a loss for the worthiest candidate, it would remain a win for the American public, because whichever evil from whichever party did win the election would be under far greater pressure to implement real reform.
And for Americans who don’t believe their voice is heard in Washington or that public pressure has any effect, simple refresher course in history could remind them that advancements in society are not made at the behest of government or the ruling class, but only by pressure from the masses reaching a tipping point. Politicians don’t go out on a limb to promote radical change on their own accord. They have to be pushed out there under massive public pressure and under the fear that one’s constituency might very well vote one out of power if one doesn’t do precisely what they are publicly demanding.
One of the most effective means by which the American people could send a message to Washington would be by voting. There’s every reason to be cynical of the political system in the U.S. But there’s no reason for despair. There is hope. And there are individuals working within the system representing real hope and real change. More Americans need to take the time to stay informed and get engaged in the political process. And of those Americans who do vote each election, more need to recognize that the “lesser of evil” strategy only perpetuates the framework wherein it remains a choice between evils.
The only real voting strategy that can offer real hope for change is the one wherein Americans vote their conscience and cast their ballot for the candidate they think is truly the most worthy to be called by the title of President of the United States of America.
Until Americans realize this, then there will indeed remain little hope for the future.
Jeremy R. Hammond is the editor and principle writer for Foreign Policy Journal, an online publication dedicated to providing news, critical analysis, and commentary on U.S. foreign policy, particularly with regard to the “war on terrorism” and events in the Middle East, from outside of the standard framework offered by government officials and the mainstream corporate media. He has also written for numerous other online publications. You can contact him here.
October 03, 2008 C-SPAN
Vodpod videos no longer available.
Ron Paul: You’re Going To Guarantee A Depression!!!
Vodpod videos no longer available.
MARCY KAPTUR FOR PRESIDENT!
Sent to me by the author.
(Note: revised Oct. 1, 2008)
by Nikki Alexander
Sept. 29, 2008
Einstein wisely observed that you cannot solve a problem with the same consciousness that created the problem in the first place. This Wall Street financial crisis is an opportunity to correct systemic disease at its source. Being stampeded by the consciousness of the same individuals that orchestrated massive financial fraud will only exacerbate the crisis. We need to shift our attention from mushroom cloud narratives and focus on the solution: creating a stable financial structure that is grounded in public ownership of the monetary system. The constitutional authority to create money and issue credit rightfully belongs to the government ~ not to a private cartel of self-serving international financiers.
We can all agree that radical deregulation of the financial industry strategically removed the legal obstacles to premeditated wholesale fraud. Replacing the firewalls between public assets and gambling casinos is an obvious necessity. And we can all agree that speculators do not produce anything of value that contributes to a productive economy (goods or services). Their reckless gambling has collapsed a stunning array of legitimate businesses, embezzled the savings and investments of hard-working citizens, destroyed the real estate values of every homeowner in America, doubled the price of essential commodities and flooded the financial industry with trillions of dollars in worthless derivatives, a global Ponzi scheme. Strict regulation of Wall Street casinos is mandatory.
Clearly, the ringleaders of this financial assault on our nation must not be allowed to dictate the terms of our recovery. The Secretary of the Treasury and the private banking consortium known as the “Federal” Reserve have historically served the interests of international financiers and corporate hustlers, not the citizens of the United States, as Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and Goldman Sachs CEOs Henry Paulson and Robert Rubin so aptly demonstrate. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s recipe for disaster unashamedly compounds systemic financial fraud with alarming demands that would permanently cripple American taxpayers and transfer unprecedented powers to the Treasury Secretary for exclusive control over the economic and financial life of the US forever:
Sent to me by the author.
While the public is distracted by the “bailout bill” and its rejection, trillions are pumped in to keep financial balloon inflated
The media is falling all over itself to report on every minutiae of the so-called Wall Street “bailout bill” and its rejection by Congress yesterday (just a few of the thousands of examples can be seen here and here and here and here). And why not? The media’s breathless coverage of the bill has produced a furious backlash by the public and hysteria on Wall Street in a self-justifying feedback loop that makes the media attention seem merited.
http://cspanjunkie.org/ September 29, 2008 C-SPAN
Vodpod videos no longer available.
September 27, 2008 News Corp
Vodpod videos no longer available.
By Ron Paul
25/09/08 “Lew Rockwell”
Whenever a Great Bipartisan Consensus is announced, and a compliant media assures everyone that the wondrous actions of our wise leaders are being taken for our own good, you can know with absolute certainty that disaster is about to strike.
The events of the past week are no exception.
The bailout package that is about to be rammed down Congress’ throat is not just economically foolish. It is downright sinister. It makes a mockery of our Constitution, which our leaders should never again bother pretending is still in effect. It promises the American people a never-ending nightmare of ever-greater debt liabilities they will have to shoulder. Two weeks ago, financial analyst Jim Rogers said the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made America more communist than China! “This is welfare for the rich,” he said. “This is socialism for the rich. It’s bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters.”
By Rep. Ron Paul
On September 10, 2002 I asked 35 questions regarding war with Iraq. The war resolution passed on October 16, 2002. Now today, as some of my colleagues try to reestablish credentials regarding spending restraint, I want to call attention to my 18th question from six years ago:
“Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 year occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to “build democracy” there?”
Many scoffed at my “radical” predictions at the time, regarding them as hyperbole. Six years later, I am forced to admit that I was wrong. My “radical” predictions were in fact, not “radical” enough.
I warned of a draining 30-year occupation. Now, politicians glibly talk about a 100-year occupation as if it is no big deal. On cost, according to estimates from the Congressional Research Service, we have already burned through around $550 billion in Iraq, at a rate of about $2 billion per week. Economist Joseph Stiglitz’s estimates are even higher, at $12 billion a month. It is a total price tag quickly heading into the trillions, if we don’t stop bombing and rebuilding bridges in Iraq that lead us nowhere but bankruptcy! Bridges in this country are crumbling along with our economy, while some howl about earmarks. Earmarks are a drop in the bucket compared to war and occupation.
Yes, I was wrong about Iraq. I knew it would be bad. I didn’t know it would be this bad.
The American people deserve better. Being asked to endorse such a farce is beyond insulting. Clearly, the rosy predictions of the neo-Conservatives from before the war are not coming true. Far from it! With a straight face, one official estimated the TOTAL cost of reconstruction in Iraq would be just $1.7 billion. Turns out that we spend more than that in ONE WEEK. Our friends are not pitching in to cover the cost. Expenses are not being covered by oil from a grateful and liberated Iraqi people. Rather, big corporate interests are benefiting, the price of oil has more than quadrupled, and the American economy is on its knees and sinking fast.
No one predicted the exact course of this war before it started. But to continue to listen to the foreign policy advice of those that were the MOST offbase will only lead to more foreign policy disasters. We need to keep this in mind as we think about Russia, Iran, Cuba and other countries. Keep in mind – the doomsday predictions on the Iraq War from six years ago, sound like a cakewalk today. While what leaders in the administration had predicted, reads like a fairytale. Ask yourself, when listening to the same foreign policy “experts” explaining situations around the world and suggesting policy positions: In light of the facts of today, and the predictions of yesterday, how expert have they shown themselves to be?
Passing HR 2605 to sunset authorization for the use of force in Iraq is the first step to stopping this bloody war, and the consequent bleeding of our treasuries. Serious fiscal conservatives will support it, as will those who have been paying attention to foreign policy predictions and reality.
Ron Paul (born August 20, 1935) is a Republican United States Congressman from Lake Jackson, Texas, a physician, a bestselling author, and the last major Republican candidate to withdraw from the 2008 U.S. presidential election.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.